Support NeoGAF

[Monroeski]

Wealthy?

Finance is not golf. Negative numbers are not good.

A negative number with fourteen digits is really not good.

I don't think you know how wealth works.

Spoiler

Why am I falling for the troll?

 

[fortified_concept]

f_c, you'll find in most threads I'm willing to give you at least one serious reply before laying into you for saying things that are really dumb.

Or maybe it's because I forced you into a corner and managed to make you admit that you don't really believe in a country but only in your rights the way you interpret them.

So following your logic and since the military only exists to protect rights and not a group of people working together and helping each other to build a society, the military should attack the federal government that is violating your rights. Right?

My posts might look repetitive but I'm just summing up your "logic" to show how much you contradict yourself.

 

[Jonm1010]

A deficit is one year. What we have a debt. To the tune of $11.5 T and counting.

Wealth is not measured solely by deficits and surpluses. I mean, unless you want to tell me that Libya, Algeria, Chile, Oman and Russia are wealthier than we are.

 

[JayDubya]

So following your logic and since the military only exists to protect rights and not a group of people working together and helping each other to build a society, the military should attack the federal government that is violating your rights. Right?

Things can get to that point, yes. It's called a revolution.

 

[fortified_concept]

Things can get to that point, yes. It's called a revolution.

A revolution starts from the people. What you're talking about is a military coup. Looks like your tag is pretty accurate...

 

[dave is ok]

Can you elaborate with a little bit of logic and facts?

The aim of an insurance provider is to provide as little care as possible. The whole business model is based around denying coverage, avoiding any risk whatsoever, not paying for needed medicines and procedures, but collecting monthly payments from the same customers in times of health that they will screw over in times of sickness.

I'm sure you'll post a chart or something and try to refute this - but insurance companies do not care for the well being of their customers and should not be in charge of this nations healthcare.

 

[JayDubya]

A revolution starts from the people. What you're talking about is a military coup. Looks like your tag is pretty accurate...

Yeah, because revolutions with no military aid work real well.

I guess the Revolutionary War was an immoral Pinochet-esque military coup for using folks like General Washington. :lol

Because that's the level of logical leap you're making here. That's the sort of equivocation you're practicing.

 

[besada]

"You don't agree with me, so you're stupid / irrational. *insert ad homs here*"

Nope, sorry, I was gladly and politely disagreeing with you until you abrogated reality. When you refuse to discuss the actual situation, and instead insist on discussing a fantasy situation (the non-existance of the 1986 patient dumping laws) I have no choice to conclude that you've retreated to the fantasy land from which so many of your arguments flow.

Look, you don't believe the law is going to be overturned anytime soon, so how is it honest to proceed in a discussion as if it didn't exist. I'm simply looking at the facts on the ground and discussing the best solutions.

Every argument you have requires dissolving the Supreme Court, wildly altering the law of the land, and putting into effect your dream state. How can I think of you as anything but a joke when you argue every subject that way, as if it had any bearing on the world the rest of us live in?

 

[JayDubya]

Nope, sorry, I was gladly and politely disagreeing with you until you abrogated reality.

I'm identifying the root cause of the problem you're describing, and advocating its removal.

I'm simply looking at the facts on the ground and discussing the best solutions.

I've pointed out why I feel that its removal is the best and most direct resolution for the problem you're describing.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I would like to point out that the 40+ Million uninsured figure that keeps getting tossed about in this thread includes both illegal immigrants as well as individuals who can afford insurance but opt out of paying insurance. Census data shows that about 17 million people who make over $50,000 a year don't have insurance. $50,000 is higher than the median household income of the country. Figures have also shown that up to 45% of those 40+ Million uninsured are people between jobs who usually begin receiving insurance within three to four months when they take a new job position.

I'd really love it if people stopped using this bullshit Michael Moore figure when talking about the health insurance "problem".

Edit:
A more accurate figure for the "chronically uninsured" is 8-14 million people. That means they both make under $50,000 a year and cannot qualify for government assistance.

 

[freethought]

Compared to pseudo-anarchosocialist logic? :lol

"A cop hurt someone - quick, smash a bank! That'll show those fat cats we mean business! Rawr!"

Eh, such acts are irrational by their definition. They result from a large section of society feeling completely powerless to effect any meaningful social change. Nobody tries to pretend it's logical

 

[Jonm1010]

I'm identifying the root cause of the problem you're describing, and advocating its removal.



I've pointed out why I feel that its removal is the best and most direct resolution for the problem you're describing.

Its not the root cause of cost concerns nor coverage concerns. You seem to be identifying the problem differently than others and considering they identified there own and have been arguing from there, your interjection in that instance is deflecting and changing the argument completely.

 

[JayDubya]

Its not the root cause of cost concerns

And yet it was used as a point of leverage in discussions regarding cost concerns twice.

 

[Instigator]

Would JD have supported the alledged coup plot by General Gerald Macguire against Roosevelt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

 

[Jonm1010]

I would like to point out that the 40+ Million uninsured figure that keeps getting tossed about in this thread includes both illegal immigrants as well as individuals who can afford insurance but opt out of paying insurance. Census data shows that about 17 million people who make over $50,000 a year don't have insurance. $50,000 is higher than the median household income of the country. Figures have also shown that up to 45% of those 40+ Million uninsured are people between jobs who usually begin receiving insurance within three to four months when they take a new job position.

I'd really love it if people stopped using this bullshit Michael Moore figure when talking about the health insurance "problem".

Under insurance is just as large a problem. Did you miss the thread about healthcare bankruptcies? I could care less about the exactness of the figures, the fact remains the system is overpriced, doesnt cover everyone and the quality of care is suspect unless you have great insurance which is harder and harder to afford every year.

 

[fortified_concept]

Yeah, because revolutions without military aid work real well. I guess the Revolutionary War was an immortal military coup for using folks like General Washington. :lol

Any way you spin it, it's still a military coup.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Under insurance is just as large a problem. Did you miss the thread about healthcare bankruptcies? I could care less about the exactness of the figures, the fact remains the system is overpriced, doesnt cover everyone and the quality of care is suspect unless you have great insurance which is harder and harder to afford every year.

And you're touching on the real problem, finally. The problem is not who pays for healthcare, it's that healthcare costs are obscenely high due to the healthcare system being inefficient. The inefficiency has nothing to do with who pays the bills and everything to do with the care system itself.

 

[JayDubya]

Any way you spin it, it's still a military coup.

Revolutions and coups can be desirable in some circumstances.

 

[msv]

And you're also implying that everyone without routine care is a ravaging incubator of pestilence and doom.

What's your position on vaccines? Do people get them for free, or don't you care who gets vaccinated?

It truly is a terrible law. Some Supreme Court or another really should strike it for being unconstitutional.

Wat? You are for letting people without insurance die on the spot? Is that correct?

There's no crime in being poor; there is crime in stealing from others for goods and services for yourself. Except where there isn't, when the majority decides to vote themselves a raise, which is where a democracy truly fails.

:lol It doesn't fail there imo, depending on what you're talking about, it might be a good thing or a bad thing. All you need is proper education for every single voter, so that you can be assured no idiots are voting.

"We're going to waste your money, but by gum, we're going to do it efficiently!"

The US spends more on healthcare per person than the Netherlands (where everything is free). $7,421pp US 2007, e4,512.5 NL 2006(page 91) (which amounts to $5,640.63 with an avg rate of 1.25 for 2006).

So, the US paid in 2007 $7,421 per person for 84% of it's population (not counting people with crappy insurance, that will bite them in the ass), against $5,640.63 per person for 100% of NL's population. It's a rough comparison, but it works.

Now you can do, as you suggested, try and fix the rules and regulations, letting people in life-threatening conditions without insurance die, for example, which probably won't make it much cheaper (since the asking price for those who can pay, has been set). But hey, you can always try. Or, you can try the sure fire way of forcing each and every person to have insurance coupled with regulation of the government.

In my opinion, any sane person would choose the latter. I don't see how one could ignore their compassion and let people without insurance die like that, just because of some misguided principle.

 

[Jonm1010]

And yet it was used as a point of leverage in discussions regarding cost concerns twice.

It is one cause, but to claim it the root cause is missing the mark. If the argument is built around cost AND coverage, just repealing that law is worthless as it covers less people while only affecting the cost side of the problem. You are misrepresenting their argument and ignoring the other part, which no doubt will have you falling back on a ideological cushion to side step it.

If the argument is cost AND coverage, it only makes sense to rework the laws so that paying for those uninsured people isnt done in the most expensive and cost draining way. Meaning a proper form of UHC.

 

[JayDubya]

If the argument is cost AND coverage, it only makes sense to rework the laws so that paying for those uninsured people isnt done in the most expensive and cost draining way.

Your cost is only my concern to the extent that it has been made my concern. The removal of whatever forces that issue is the best solution.

Your coverage, or lack thereof, is not my concern. That is between you and your provider.

 

[Jonm1010]

Your cost is only my concern to the extent that it has been made my concern. The removal of whatever forces that issue is the best solution.

Your coverage, or lack thereof, is not my concern. That is between you and your provider.

Again, like i said. You are ignoring the argument people were making and falling back on ideology to side step the other half of their argument. You can believe that all you want. No one is going to stop you. but when you say you are solving the problem they are talking about by just arguing one aspect of cost control that actually works counter to their other argument you are moving the goal posts or are failing to understand what the "problem" they were talking about was.

We get it you dont believe in UHC, you believe in ideological purity, thats cool. But when the debate is centered around people talking about cost control AND coverage why butt in and try and devolve the conversation into something more to your liking? Its seems like you just like to argue to argue.

 

[JayDubya]

Its seems like you just like to argue to argue.

Well clearly I like to argue politics with you people or I wouldn't be here. :lol

It's a fast-paced, target-rich environment. The only downside is that there's an unfortunate dearth of conservatives.

 

[Zaptruder]

It's ridiculous arguing with JD. On most issues of concern he frames it as a:

Government action > Taxes, taxes, taxes > IMMORAL THEFT FROM THE INDIVIDUAL.

Which overrides nearly all other concerns for him.

We get it JD. You don't believe in big government, high taxes. We don't care.

More interesting arguments are to be had without you constantly derailing these topics in this fashion.

 

[JayDubya]

More interesting arguments are to be had without you constantly derailing these topics in this fashion.

a) There isn't much of an argument if everyone agrees.

b) The dearth of conservatives leads to an unfortunate side-effect when one actually posts.

 

[FoneBone]

Because 40+ million sick people with no treatment damages society as a whole, including your slice of it. Hey, if you want every fast food worker spreading disease through the country, you're welcome to that vision of utopia.

Illness, particularly infectious illness, is a problem for everyone. Even without the threat of infection, you're now dealing with an underclass of sick people who, because of their injuries and illnesses, stop being taxpayers and start being either a drag on social systems or dead bodies in the streets.

No it doesn't.

And you're also implying that everyone without routine care is a ravaging incubator of pestilence and doom.

Truly the argument of an intellectual giant, there; you're not even going to address the possibility that reality might not conform to libertarian dogma.

 

[JayDubya]

Truly the argument of an intellectual giant, there; you're not even going to address the possibility that reality might not conform to libertarian dogma.

Does reality conform to 40 million plague bearers roaming the streets?

 

[eznark]

More interesting arguments are to be had without you constantly derailing these topics in this fashion.

What would that argument be? On a scale of 1-10, 1 being awesome and 10 being awesome, how awesome is ObamaCare?

 

[JayDubya]

-10

 

[FoneBone]

Does reality conform to 40 million plague bearers roaming the streets?

Retreat to the comfort of strawmen instead of actually addressing the point if it makes you feel better.

 

[JimmyV]

yeah, my socialist friend let me borrow it, and it really aggravated me. I mean, that woman who got denied because she had a yeast infection...dont ALL women get those? And the one at the beginning where the husband dies made me turn it off for a while because t was so sad :'(

That being said, he makes it sound like ALL health care is free. He fails to state that they still need to pay for expensive and long term treatments.

Edit: We should at least have free ER in the US, instead of those 8 hour wait clinics. At the moment though, we have no money at all to even have this on our plate.

 

[Giganticus]

It's a fast-paced, target-rich environment. The only downside is that there's an unfortunate dearth of conservatives.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

 

[JayDubya]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

A cross section of NeoGAF does not remotely represent the political environment outside my door. :lol

 

[Zaptruder]

a) There isn't much of an argument if everyone agrees.

b) The dearth of conservatives leads to an unfortunate side-effect when one actually posts.

Well the thread could've been about what facets of UHC are best and which ones could be implemented reasonably instead of it been derailed into: Hello, I'm JD and I'M A CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!

Even if *you* don't find that particularly interesting.

 

[_RT_]

We're already waiting. I had to wait 3 hours to be seen in the emergency room after a motorcycle accident. Our emergency rooms are packed with non-emergency cases because they can't afford health care and have nowhere else to go.

I would rather wait weeks, or even months, in line than face a debt that would take a lifetime to pay off. Do you realize how much that cancer treatment would have cost your grandmother? Many insurance policies have a cap at a million dollars and I can all but guarantee you that her treatment likely would have been a multiple of that in our country.

Aside from that, your scenario isn't the standard. That's the boogie-man story that always gets cited with Universal Health Care but most people in those countries don't have to go through shit like that at all.

Wasn't claiming my aunt's experience in Ireland to be the norm.
But at the same time, I can say that I have been to the emergency room many times and I've never waited three hours and have always had great care. So I'd argue that maybe your experience isn't the norm either.

I'm a proponent of change. I think our insurance system needs a serious overhaul. But I would hate to see things swing in the complete opposite direction.

How long ago was this, out of interest?

Late 2007 early 2008.

 

[JayDubya]

Fine Zap, I'll play the way you want me to.

Well the thread could've been about what facets of UHC are best

None.

and which ones could be implemented reasonably

In this country? None.

 

[Giganticus]

A cross section of NeoGAF does not remotely represent the political environment outside my door. :lol

Hey btw I have a new political ideology. I based it off Harry Potter books. Would you like me to shit up every single political thread there is and espouse the superiority of wizardry, or do you think a work of fiction is not exactly a good basis for economic understanding?

 

[msv]

Fine Zap, I'll play the way you want me to.

None.

In this country? None.

No, you're wrong. The end.

 

[WickedAngel]

Wasn't claiming my aunt's experience in Ireland to be the norm.
But at the same time, I can say that I have been to the emergency room many times and I've never waited three hours and have always had great care. So I'd argue that maybe your experience isn't the norm either.

I'm a proponent of change. I think our insurance system needs a serious overhaul. But I would hate to see things swing in the complete opposite direction.



Late 2007 early 2008.

The stories of over-crowded ERs are pretty much standard throughout the nation. It's not a rare piece of news.

 

[JayDubya]

Hey btw I have a new political ideology. I based it off Harry Potter books. Would you like me to shit up every single political thread there is and espouse the superiority of wizardry, or do you think a work of fiction is not exactly a good basis for economic understanding?

 

[Giganticus]

Late 2007 early 2008.

Ireland's UHC system has only been around 4 or 5 years and remains largely underfunded, and requires a lot of infrastructure improvement. There are large waiting lists as the private system that existed before that only catered to small number of Irish people now has to accommodate all of them, including the elderly who previously couldn't afford healthcare and make up the majority of the system.

Give it a while and some more political will and it'll iron out.

 

[eznark]

Well the thread could've been about what facets of UHC are best and which ones could be implemented reasonably instead of it been derailed into: Hello, I'm JD and I'M A CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!

Hey btw I have a new political ideology. I based it off Harry Potter books. Would you like me to shit up every single political thread there is and espouse the superiority of wizardry, or do you think a work of fiction is not exactly a good basis for economic understanding?

Who gets to decide which opinions and ideologies are ok? Will there be a board? A blue ribbon panel on acceptable GAF political leanings? Will dissenters be tagged and banned? A GAF ghetto board perhaps, where those who don't think like you can discuss their forbidden ideas in hushed tones?

In other words, yes. Please enlighten us on your new Potterism. It can't be any worse than what we have now.

 

[Giganticus]

Well basically, wizards are the best and should rule over us all, and should be free of the petty restrictions of laws and legal systems. They should be given divine unquestionable rights to do as they please, unfettered by muggle concerns. Magic is mostly hereditary but sometimes a lucky muggle can come across magic, but if you don't get those two then as long as you hold the Hogwartian Dream and pull yourself up by your broomstick, then you will be a wizard and can rule over the muggles!

Now, this would suck for those who aren't wizards. But you see, I think I'm a wizard. So I'll be ok! The reason my life sucks right now is those damn muggles are holding me down! If we had a new system that shut those muggles up so I could live my wizard potential, then everything would be ok!

EDIT: welp, I see a thread about Hockey, time to shit it up and go "BUT QUIDDITCH IS BETTER"

EDIT2: another thread about books. Time to tell everyone that reading books is immoral because their state funded education was paid for by taxes!

 

[Zaptruder]

Who gets to decide which opinions and ideologies are ok? Will there be a board? A blue ribbon panel on acceptable GAF political leanings? Will dissenters be tagged and banned? A GAF ghetto board perhaps, where those who don't think like you can discuss their forbidden ideas in hushed tones?

In other words, yes. Please enlighten us on your new Potterism. It can't be any worse than what we have now.

When discussions across multiple topics, over an extended period of time devolve into the same basic stumbling blocks when certain members join the discussion, it's obvious there's a problem.

 

[dave is ok]

I can magically fix my wounds so I don't need healthcare. Muggles shouldn't be whining about the cost of doctors and stuff - they can learn magic and fix their wounds too, I shouldn't be expected to pay for muggles sicknesses.

 

[eznark]

When discussions across multiple topics, over an extended period of time devolve into the same basic stumbling blocks when certain members join the discussion, it's obvious there's a problem.

People disagreeing on important issues of the day is a problem? Strange way to look at it.

As far as the Wizardcrats, I don't think it will be much of an issue. Those vampire novels are the rage with the kids these days, so if imaginary beings start getting votes, I imagine Dracula will beat out Dumbledore.

 

[WickedAngel]

People disagreeing on important issues of the day is a problem? Strange way to look at it.

As far as the Wizardcrats, I don't think it will be much of an issue. Those vampire novels are the rage with the kids these days, so if imaginary beings start getting votes, I imagine Dracula will beat out Dumbledore.

It isn't a disagreement; it's a repetitious circle-jerk that devolves into the same ideological buffoonery and thinly veiled ad homs. There isn't anything to discuss; his entire worldview is so far out of sync that it isn't even worth acknowledging.

 

[eznark]

There isn't anything to discuss; his entire worldview is so far out of sync that it isn't even worth acknowledging.

You see no problem with that statement?

 

[ChoklitReign]

I see that JayDubya and fortified_concept are in another flamewar with each other, so I'll just add my two cents. The current healthcare system in America is good if you are insured. The majority of Americans want a public healthcare option for the uninsured, not a total reform Ed Shultz,Olby and the Canadians want. Contrary to what liberals and conservatives want you to believe, America's core values have always been a balance between collectivism and individualism. A mixed public/private healthcare system makes the best sense. Sicko makes a few good points but the movie as a whole is total propaganda. He wants you to leave the theater desiring for UHC; documentaries don't do that.

 

[Giganticus]

I see that JayDubya and fortified_concept are in another flamewar with each other, so I'll just add my two cents. The current healthcare system in America is good if you are insured. The majority of Americans want a public healthcare option for the uninsured, not a total reform Ed Shultz,Olby and the Canadians want. Contrary to what liberals and conservatives want you to believe, America's core values have always been a balance between collectivism and individualism. A mixed public/private healthcare system makes the best sense. Sicko makes a few good points but the movie as a whole is total propaganda. He wants you to leave the theater desiring for UHC; documentaries don't do that.

The entire point of Sicko is that it shows the healthcare system of the US isn't sufficient, even if insured, and spends most of it's time discussing healthcare denial from insurance companies.