Support NeoGAF

[jamesinclair]

I hate it. I dont get sick, so why should I pay for it?

The last time I stepped into a doctors office was in August, to get some wisdom teeth extracted.

The last piece of medicine I used was a Tums I took 2 months ago. Before that? The local anaesthesia given during the wisdom tooth thing.

 

[onion_pixy]

then you have people who are genticly prone to cancer and other chronic dieseases.


Sure smoking and obesity increases diesease, but there are other factors.

What about the skinny guy who eats crap all day long but never gains weight. He then develops high cholestorl and heart diseaase. But becasue he never become obese he would still get treatment? How do you prove someone wasn't genetically prone to heart diesease or ate them selves into it?


Breat cancer is almost entirely genetic. You can get a test to see if you carry a gene. Do you force those people to become sterilized so they don't pass along the gene?


It's not like you can just say "fat people and smokers don't get care" it just won't work that way.


That said I am strongly against any sort of universal care.

 

[teh_pwn]

then you have people who are genticly prone to cancer and other chronic dieseases.


Sure smoking and obesity increases diesease, but there are other factors.

What about the skinny guy who eats crap all day long but never gains weight. He then develops high cholestorl and heart diseaase. But becasue he never become obese he would still get treatment? How do you prove someone wasn't genetically prone to heart diesease or ate them selves into it?


Breat cancer is almost entirely genetic. You can get a test to see if you carry a gene. Do you force those people to become sterilized so they don't pass along the gene?


It's not like you can just say "fat people and smokers don't get care" it just won't work that way.


That said I am strongly against any sort of universal care.

That's a good point. Either everyone's allowed or their would be insanely complex rules. Both would drive up costs a lot.

The government just isn't good at managing money. You would think that people would realize that by now because the current form of SS is a prime example. The government has ownership of the money and likes to "borrow" the surpluses, which will be needed later, and spend it elsewhere.

If we had ownership of it in a different SS system, people could invest balanced portfolios with 25% of our assets in:

Large Cap US stocks
Small Cap US stocks
International stocks
10 year bonds

and we automatically rebalanced it each year everyone would make 10-18% interest annualized over the course of 45 years (age 20-65) with very low risk. If poor people needed more money, then a certain percentage of the highest income would have their money used to fund some sort of price matching for the poor.

Everyone would retire wealthy. Risk would be very low.

But because some ignorant people put all of their money into growth tech stocks after they had already gone up for a long time and lost 80% of their money a few years ago, the stock market is scary and risky. Meanwhile what you don't hear about is all the people investing with portfolio theory making lots of money.

Everyone seemed to make fun of Gore's lockbox, but that's exactly what we need.

 

[onion_pixy]

er....what? I just don't see modern portfolio theory working for the entire SS system. Uh, no, just no. It won't work on that large of a scale. tho what you just described is Wall Street's greatest fantasy :lol Imagine the fees, and loads they'd come up with.

so musch of that is entry nd exit points. I mean if you had invested your money in OCt 87 it would have taken you years to get it back.


Social Security needs to pay out funds on a montly basis. It can't just say "oh, we had a bad year (i.e. 87) no SS payments this month. It can't weather a drawdown like individuals can.

 

[AntoneM]

I currently have no healthcare, none what-so-ever. You know what scares the shit out of me? That I'll somehow get injured (broken bones, cuts, general injuries) when I'm out mountainbiking. Why does this scare the shit out of me? because if this happens I have to drop out of college in order to pay my medical bills. You know what happens then? I get a shit-ass job making $30,000/yr and end up being one of the poor masses all because I can't afford any sort of health insurance. It would be nice if some health insurance provider would offer really cheap insurance to students attending college (you know to build brand loyalty), something like $50/month and not just for an HMO, for the good stuff.

On the flip side, the US cannot afford any major social healthcare until it drastically cuts back it's military budget. We already pay about 30% of income in taxes which isn't very low. Add to that a national healthcare plan and most people would be in as bad or worse shape than they are now. Ease the tax burden by cutting military spending and we may be able to do something.

Pro: max_cool stops having nightmares about injuring himself
Con: max_cool has negative money comming in and starves to death, but at least the doctors can make my death comfortable for no charge.

 

[ronito]

Now hold on a minute. This "can't someone else do it" is bullshit. I don't know a single conservative (personally) that does not donate to charity as well as take personal responsibility. America is the most charitable country in the world. Now my conservative friends argue "if we were taxed less then we would have more money in our pockets to give to charities to put to real use, instead of the government taking it forcefully and turning the whole thing into one big inefficient clusterfuck." I'm a little skeptical (to say the least) about the private sector's abilities to meet all the needs, but you're arguing against a different point than I was proposing above. I was not saying that a single not-for-profit should be responsible for all the country's needs, right?

The point is that people donate their money however they see fit to whichever charitable organization they see fit. At least that's the idea. In a better world where people are more aware of ethical causes and concerns, this model would work and you would not have to strong-arm people into taking on some clumsy government beaurocratic solution. People would help each other because it is the right thing to do, not because a politician makes them do it. But again, I'm skeptical that this is even feasible at this point. People's values seem so out of whack most of the time. If we could get the country to donate to these kind of causes like it donated to New Orleans then we would be fine. But as you know, it took Katrina to get us together enough to do that.

You make some good points there, however to set it straight american government is the perhaps the most charitable, the american people however, are not in the first place position. For the tsunami and other non-american disasters american people gave less than other countries.

You must not know very many conservatives. If proded more than 3/4 of the conservative people I know will eventually get to the " I dont get sick, so why should I pay for it?." or "Why should I pay for an obese ghetto mama, she created her own problems." So to me the whole idea that this will float on private donations or the private sector is just silly, and eventually it will come down to a "Can't someone else do it?"

You say in a better world, but then what is the aim of government other than to make it a better world? I know that it is popular to think that government should provide roads and kill the bad guys and that's it, but that's an erroneous conclusion. The aim of government is, and always has been to make the world a better place. Enforce laws, so there is no lawlessness, provide the tools for good trade, to put stops in place to protect the consumer, ensure security and peace. Then why not this? I pay around 6k a year in medical costs easily. If you told me, "Hey if you pay 6.5 (or less) a year we could ensure everyone." I'd say sure why not.

And lastly, everyone gets up and says, "oh the government will screw it up." That's a valid argument. However, we can't be defeatists. There must be a way that this can be done.

 

[onion_pixy]

To max_cool

you know, you can get catastorphic coverage for less than 50 bucks a month. Say a plan with a high co pay and a 5k deductable. If you're a healty you ng person that should be all you need.

Most people who cry about not having benefits just don't want to spend the $ on them. I can hear it now "OMG fifty bux thats SO MUCH for a poor college student like me"

I bet you spend 50 bux on cable, internet, cell phone ect. People in theUS have fucked up priorities and are in gerneral lazy and entitled.

 

[teh_pwn]

er....what? I just don't see modern portfolio theory working for the entire SS system. Uh, no, just no. It won't work on that large of a scale. tho what you just described is Wall Street's greatest fantasy :lol Imagine the fees, and loads they'd come up with.

so musch of that is entry nd exit points. I mean if you had invested your money in OCt 87 it would have taken you years to get it back.


Social Security needs to pay out funds on a montly basis. It can't just say "oh, we had a bad year (i.e. 87) no SS payments this month. It can't weather a drawdown like individuals can.

Not the entire SS fund. Everyone's money would be seperate, so by the time someone gets to retirement they'd have millions in today's money. If there's one hell of a global bear market that somehow destroys all of their assets, that's when a temporary social program kicks in.

As for fees, invest in Vanguard. There's almost no fees. If they start charging ridiculous fees, then have the government have regulations to stop that.

Better than, "oops, we spent your SS money. Here's some beans. Magical beans."

 

[maharg]

On the flip side, the US cannot afford any major social healthcare until it drastically cuts back it's military budget. We already pay about 30% of income in taxes which isn't very low. Add to that a national healthcare plan and most people would be in as bad or worse shape than they are now. Ease the tax burden by cutting military spending and we may be able to do something.

Seriously, I'm amazed this doesn't come up more often. The drain on American government cashflow isn't socialist stuff, it's military stuff.

 

[onion_pixy]

what do you think would happen to the stock market if say 100 trillion was dumped into it?

Have any idea? yeah, it's not too pretty.


The idea of the gov in VFINX is hysterical at best. It wont work on that large a scale. You can't make people save, and you can't have everyone's money divvied up like that. For the way the gov needs to run it simply won't work. If I had some time...I'd put together a simple model as to why, but I'm busy eating lunch and thisw is way off topic for even the OT:lol

 

[bob_arctor]

Seriously, I'm amazed this doesn't come up more often. The drain on American government cashflow isn't socialist stuff, it's military stuff.

Well, why do you think it doesn't come up more often? Cutting back on the military is pretty taboo in high government as a general rule, no? Hell, isn't the military the only avenue we have left to claim total "Super Power"-dom? That shit ain't ever being cut, at least not in any real way to effect massive overhaul of healthcare.

 

[teh_pwn]

what do you think would happen to the stock market if say 100 trillion was dumped into it?

Have any idea? yeah, it's not too pretty.


The idea of the gov in VFINX is hysterical at best. It wont work on that large a scale. You can't make people save, and you can't have everyone's money divvied up like that. For the way the gov needs to run it simply won't work. If I had some time...I'd put together a simple model as to why, but I'm busy eating lunch and thisw is way off topic for even the OT:lol

So you're afraid of people selling when SS money is invested. That's a valid point.

But to say you can't force people to invest? How can you not? They're already forcing people to pay SS now. Keep doing that, but force people to select from certain funds to make a balanced portfolio. Automate annual rebalancing. Or if people don't want to select, randomly select from certain funds. Then lock that money from them until they're 65.

Sure there's obstacles, but impossible I don't see.

 

[maynerd]

I'm generalizing a bit here but the people who seem to be most against national health care would be conservatives/republicans. I really don't get how most of them are all about right to life (pro-life, Shaivo, etc) yet they are more than happy to say hey if you can't afford health care, well that's tough...don't bother me or cost me money I've got better things to worry about.

 

[teh_pwn]

I'm generalizing a bit here but the people who seem to be most against national health care would be conservatives/republicans. I really don't get how most of them are all about right to life (pro-life, Shaivo, etc) yet they are more than happy to say hey if you can't afford health care, well that's tough...don't bother me or cost me money I've got better things to worry about.

I'm pro-choice, wanted Shaivo's autonomy to be respected (let her die), and I'm against socialized health care for adults.

 

[onion_pixy]

I am about as pro choice as you can get. I also thought Schiavo should have had the plug pulled on her. No socialized health care either

I would probably fall into the libertarian camp.

 

[jamesinclair]

I'm generalizing a bit here but the people who seem to be most against national health care would be conservatives/republicans. I really don't get how most of them are all about right to life (pro-life, Shaivo, etc) yet they are more than happy to say hey if you can't afford health care, well that's tough...don't bother me or cost me money I've got better things to worry about.

Im undecided on Shiavo (leaning towards pulling the plug) but dont think I should be forced to pay for diseases I dont have

 

[bob_arctor]

I'm generalizing a bit here but the people who seem to be most against national health care would be conservatives/republicans. I really don't get how most of them are all about right to life (pro-life, Shaivo, etc) yet they are more than happy to say hey if you can't afford health care, well that's tough...don't bother me or cost me money I've got better things to worry about.

I think many, many, many people are all about "don't bother or cost me money". It's related to, maybe even a first cousin of, the automatic "HELL NO" whenever the subject of raising taxes is mentioned, no matter the political stripe or economic range.

Edit: See post before mine for example.

 

[maynerd]

Im undecided on Shiavo (leaning towards pulling the plug) but dont think I should be forced to pay for diseases I dont have

A. You're gonna pay for them anyways when someone uninsured needs health care.
B. Why do most assume that national healthcare will cost people MORE money?

 

[siamesedreamer]

I keep hearing the year "2042" IIRC. Anyway, my point still stands, as you affirmed it in your post. There is no "impending doom" when it comes to SS, which is more or less the platform Bush was selling. Good thing nobody was buying.

Yes, ~2042 is the best estimate. But, I never said "impending doom". I said impending demographic crunch. Its a FACT. The "doom" scenario won't ever happen because the government will always raise the tax rate and slash the benefits. The crux of the argument is whether or not that is fair to people like you and me who are under the age of forty. But, that's a whole different thread.

I'll answer your question with a question of my own:
A smoker walks into your medical office with lung cancer. Is your response to them that it's too bad, tough luck, should've stopped smoking a long time ago, and because of that you're just going to let them die instead of treating it?

If there is a moral obligation to bear the costs of treating this person's lung cancer, shouldn't there then be a moral obligation of said person to lead as healthy of a life as possible?

Guns kill a saddening amount of innocent people per year, yet gun owners have the right to stand up and say "well I'M NOT KILLING ANYONE, so DON'T TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO OWN A GUN!"

If we can get away with THAT, what's so insane about socialized healthcare? Think about it.

There's nothing to think about as that's a ridiculous analogy.

Sure smoking and obesity increases diesease, but there are other factors.

I never said there wasn't. I'm living proof of that. But, on the average, those two things are enormous contributors to disease.

I'm generalizing a bit here but the people who seem to be most against national health care would be conservatives/republicans. I really don't get how most of them are all about right to life (pro-life, Shaivo, etc) yet they are more than happy to say hey if you can't afford health care, well that's tough...don't bother me or cost me money I've got better things to worry about.

Yes, you are generalizing. I'm also pro-choice (although I would never personally do it).


I think most people who are against socialized medicine are smart enough to know that its something that will never be practical in the United States. Its quite ironic though - the same people who are quick to criticize Bush for deficit spending are the first to propose astronomically expensive government programs like national healthcare.

 

[maynerd]

I think most people who are against socialized medicine are smart enough to know that its something that will never be practical in the United States. Its quite ironic though - the same people who are quick to criticize Bush for deficit spending are the first to propose astronomically expensive government programs like national healthcare.

Yeah because most anyone for national health care is dumb. Why can't this be practical in the US? Other countries have it, are we not competent enough to? Why do you assume that this would cost you MORE money?

 

[Diablos]

There's nothing to think about as that's a ridiculous analogy.

What about everything else I said? Are you just going to pick the one thing you didn't like to read?

 

[siamesedreamer]

Yeah because most anyone for national health care is dumb. Why can't this be practical in the US? Other countries have it, are we not competent enough to? Why do you assume that this would cost you MORE money?

Its not practical because its too big of a program and its way too costly.

Look, we have ~75 million Americans who started becoming eligible for SS and Medicare benefits this year. Projections put those two programs at taking up around 60% of the total government budget by 2025. The 2007 budget is $2.7 trillion. Let's extrapolate that out for 20 years and for argument's sake (and the benefit of creating a round number) say that the 2025 US budget is $3.0 trillion. So, 60% of $3.0 trillion is $1.8 trillion. That's an enormous sum of money.

Now you want to throw another government entitlement program on top of those two that could easily, EASILY surpass $500 billion a year in cost? IMO, that's not being fiscally responsible - that's being fiscally braindead.

 

[maynerd]

Its not practical because its too big of a program and its way too costly.

Look, we have ~75 million Americans who started becoming eligible for SS and Medicare benefits this year. Projections put those two programs at taking up around 60% of the total government budget by 2025. The 2007 budget is $2.7 trillion. Let's extrapolate that out for 20 years and for argument's sake (and the benefit of creating a round number) say that the 2025 US budget is $3.0 trillion. So, 60% of $3.0 trillion is $1.8 trillion. That's an enormous sum of money.

Now you want to throw another government entitlement program on top of those two that could easily, EASILY surpass $500 billion a year in cost? IMO, that's not being fiscally responsible - that's being fiscally braindead.

Are other countries that offer national health care crumbling financially under the burden of the costs? I don't know the answer so if you can provide some insight to this I'd be interested to know.

How much as the national debt gone up since bush took office btw?

 

[siamesedreamer]

OK Diablos, since you seem to value my opinion [ ], I'll bite.

Hmm, but that may be an even bigger problem the more I think about it, because then kids would go from being fully dependent on their free healthcare for their entire lives up to that point, and then all of the sudden, it's gone and never coming back. Unless they shell out a lot of money they likely don't have. I don't think many people would support that idea.

Obviously, there would have to be some sort of transition allowance. And, as has already been pointed out, catastrophic coverage for those under 25 is pretty cheap (~$50/month).

Whoa, back up. For every Joe Schmoe and Jim Boe that disrespects their body, there's a Joe Schmoe and Jim Boe that don't (like you, obviously). You should not have to miss out on free healthcare if you want it just because some other people are messing their own lives up. To me, you can't look at it as just supporting a bunch of people who were too lazy to improve their health situation, you have to look at the bigger picture -- everyone. Not EVERYONE is neglecting their body. Are some of them? Yeah a LOT are, no doubt. But a LOT are not. But that's life. That's anything. You can't let that stuff get to you. As far as I'm concerned, we're getting our asses kicked a lot more by paying ridiculous monthly costs for health care.

Why shouldn't I let it get to me? Those people who do not take care of themselves would account for most (read >75%) of the cost of the program. Again, if its a moral obligation to take care of those people, then is it not a moral obligation for those same people to take care of themselves?

What I don't understand is why even the poorest of Americans are so damn uptight about higher taxes WHEN they're used in scenarios that would ultimately BENEFIT them. Let's look at this example. A couple with two kids is paying, we'll say, ~$400/mo for healthcare. That's a lot. What would be so wrong with making every American who works pay another $30 per month (deducted from their paycheck)? OH NO, you say! That's ridiculous! But listen, if EVERYONE is paying that, and is REQUIRED TO, and is put towards lowering healthcare costs, who knows, that family's $400/mo may be able to get cut down to $200/mo. Does that extra $30 in taxes per month seem so bad now? It shouldn't, because you're only giving up $30 instead of the extra $200 you were paying for your family's health care every month. But noooooo, we don't want taxes to go up. Americans who complain about high taxes should go live in Europe for a couple years. We have it made here. We should be GLAD we can propose plans like these, which are dependent on tax hikes that really aren't that much of a hike at all.

I would venture a guess that every American would be taxed a heck of a lot more than an extra $30 a month. Let's be real here. Also, remember that the $400/month healthcare cost is tax deductable.

Let's look at this scenario just to compare costs (and I'm gonna keep the numbers simple). Right now there are about 5 payers for every recipiant of SS. In ~20 years, that number falls to 2:1. Now, let's say that every recipiant recieves $10,000 a year in SS benefits (I actually believe the average number is higher). So right now, every payer must pay on average $2000 a year in SS tax. But, look what that number jumps to in 20 years - $5000. An increase of 150%.

Now, do a similar cost comparison based on a population of 300 million Americans for healthcare costs. I'm just one guy and my cancer treatments totaled ~$300K. There are about 1.2 million people diagnosed with cancer every year. And that's just one disease.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Are other countries that offer national health care crumbling financially under the burden of the costs? I don't know the answer so if you can provide some insight to this I'd be interested to know.

How much as the national debt gone up since bush took office btw?

I'm watching the Braves game and trying to mix in a little NSMB, so you'll have to wait for some links. But, as far as I know, one must look no further than Japan to see horrible, horrible impending demographic problems associated with entitlement programs. Supposedly, they are in worse shape than any other country in the world. Others in the same boat are France and Germany.

Now, I'm not sure if any of those countries have a full blown socialized healthcare system. But, I imagine they have some form of it.


Bush has an atrocious fiscal record. The tax cuts implemented in 2001 need to be adjusted and not made permanent.

 

[Azih]

NZ has a private/public combo system. You don't need health insurance and the government will fix you when sick, but the wealthier people have private insurance so when they need a new hip, they get it next week. My step father had a hip replacement and he sat on the waiting list for over 1 year with a shitty hip, but then he got a new one, for free.

Good system IMO, it caters for all.

Difference in Canada is that rich or poor everyone gets a new hip in six months. Plus we're bringing the waits down.

The whole idea of rich people getting better care for medically necessary services is pretty abhorrent to us still. Thank God.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

The only solution I see with obesity and smoking relating problems is taxing the fuck out of the goods. 5 cents per gram of High Fructose Corn Syrup and Trans Fat. Maybe a penny a gram of enriched wheat flour. Increase the cigarette tax. Then use the tax proceeds to pay for the socialized health care. Make the fat fucks and death stick puffers pay for their own shit.

 

[jamesinclair]

The only solution I see with obesity and smoking relating problems is taxing the fuck out of the goods. 5 cents per gram of High Fructose Corn Syrup and Trans Fat. Maybe a penny a gram of enriched wheat flour. Increase the cigarette tax. Then use the tax proceeds to pay for the socialized health care. Make the fat fucks and death stick puffers pay for their own shit.

And then those of us who dont get fat also get to pay?

Sounds fair.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

You don't need to drink and eat that shit frankly. Bill Clinton ate shitty food all his life and was never really fat. Yet he needed heart surgery because of his clogged arteries from that food. So yes, it affects more than the obese.