Don'tcha love their 'logic'?
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, October 30, 2009 03:04
VIEWED: 11384
PAGE 5 of 19
Quote:Oh, thank... I was gonna say god, but... Social Security!
It looks like things already shifted in the conversation, so I hope you don't mind if I post an update. Turns out I was behind the curve, my friend was already talking to Social Security today, and they told him the same thing about Federal disability and he meets the requirements, plus with the atrophied lung... He's probably going to get it this time, so yeah. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah. You'll never hear me say one bad word about safety nets for life-and-death situations; I think that is one of the most important functions any government or community should have.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Free Market society had better be a charitable one, or every newspaper will be filled with woeful tales.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I see. In other words... the average person has to dig out out their pocket to save insurance company profits, and profits in general? "We" have to make up for their greed by being nice???"
Hello Signy,
You don't seem to see at all. The average person does not 'have' to do anything in a free market society. Free is an operative word, and it deals with your freedom of action, not the presence of free products and services.
However, in any truly free market (capitalist) environment, people will only be able to provide for themselves what they can afford to provide. People who can't afford what they need must rely on charity to obtain it. Those who cannot afford what they need, and who cannot obtain charity, will hence be a woeful tale in the newspaper.
The alternative is a system where medicine is provided for by the government. If this medicine is supported by taxes, then it is a very similar situation. Charity, in this case, becomes universally mandatory. No one can choose not to give. Those who cannot afford what they need are provided for by the state (charity) and since charity is mandatory, everyone who needs it gets it.
In either case, you are providing charity to make up for shortfalls in the system. In one case, the charity is at gunpoint.
You must decide what form of charity you are most comfortable with. Voluntary, or Involuntary.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You must decide what form of charity you are most comfortable with. Voluntary, or Involuntary."
Damn, dude. That was perfect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer can be quite vocal about corruption in Darfur, but here at home the corruption inherent in the BUSINESS of insurance seems to elude him.
He can be quite vocally against a lot, until those convictions become inconvenient.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, you "must" not. That's a false dilemma.
You must decide what form of charity you are most comfortable with. Voluntary, or Involuntary.
I don't look to charity to ameliorate a situation that shouldn't exist in the first place. We should be wringing corporations.. or better yet, abolishing their current charters... so that people are not MADE poor by their practices.
Do you recall the story of the washerwomen at the river bank, seeing a drowning baby drift past?? They rescue the one, and then another, but soon there are dozens of babies struggling and drifting downriver. So the women form a line, snatching as many babies as they can, handing them over to the next and the next and so on to the river bank, doing their best to save as many as they can and weeping for the ones who're lost.
That's charity.
And then, to the horror of the women in-line one woman gets out of line and starts running upriver.
"Where are you going????" the others cry, aghast. "We need your help!'
"I'm going to find the bastard who's throwing them in!"
That's what I want.
It took me years to figure out the following quote. I hope it doesn't take you as long:
PITY WOULD BE NO MORE IF WE DID NOT MAKE MEN POOR.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We don't need money. All we need is love. We will all love when millions of current and new illegal border-crossers with illnesses line up to get the best care our tax dollars can provide. Oh that's wrong the Dems say!...no non-citizens allowed in plan they say! You can see it in the bill they say! I see, most impressive... but is there ANY ID or Verification of US citizenship going to be required to enforce that law to help prevent identity fraud in Govt. healthcare? Nah. The Dems struck down that little section. Just come on in, everybody one and all! It's all about the love, baby! Saving everyone on the planet from death from illness is our loving responsibilty. Just work harder and longer. You won't miss what they take.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Imma hafta side with Siggy on this one.
Why the hell should I have to deal with some middleman to get healthcare when they're the bastards who drove the costs up in order to justify their existence in the first fuckin place ?
And frankly, we ALREADY paid for Medicare.
You look at how much money we blow EVERY day on a pair of stupid, ridiculous and pointless wars, an arsenal so destructive we can't even use it, and a bunch of politicians howling and wailing about legislation so convoluted even the lawyers can barely comprehend it - all of which costs a gargantuan sum of money, mind you...
If we rolled back the clock, took the money ALREADY WASTED ON THIS "DEBATE" ALONE, and sunk it into reinforcing and expanding the Medicare infrastructure - this problem WOULD ALREADY BE SOLVED, and for a comparative pittance.
Fuck the insurance companies, they have no place here - we paid for it, pay for it some more with every check, and cutting those pricks out of the picture would save enough money to pay the entire bloody cost of it for fifty and more years if you could keep the Congressional pork barrel pigs off it, which is a dubious prospect at best - but that problem arises with any other solution as well.
Common sense has not prevailed here.
I want what I already paid for, instead of paying to pay for it again via insurance, and then pay AGAIN via co-pay, fuck that bullshit, admin costs ALONE chew up more than it'd cost to do this right.
And to hell if I think mandatory insurance would ever be a good idea since I have to keep a reserve to cover an accident and damage because I cannot TRUST them to even obey the law, much less keep to the agreement, and nor can I trust those who enforce that law - a lesson that cost me most of a leg and a good bit of my health besides.
You MIGHT do well to remember that my condition was caused more directly by the fucking insurance companies, both automotive and medical, than the accident or medical incompetence - and that I would not be sitting here in a wheelchair, in pain, and dreading the inevitable suffering imma have to face trying to do my job, if not for a dynamic they created to profit only themselves at our cost.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jongsstraw, we're already paying for illegals' health care. And we're paying for it the expensive way: emergency room medicine. Just like we're paying for indigent health care. In one three-hospital area, five patients... FIVE... accounted for 80% of emergency-room services!
That won't change if we cut out the insurance companies. Illegals and the indigents will STILL show up at county hospital ERs. But what cutting insurances out WILL do is save approximately 30% on the health care we DO provide. You got a problem with that? Do you hate saving money or something? Solving the illegal/ indigent healthcare problems though is a whole 'nother ballgame, not to be confused with the role of insurance companies in health care.
Don't conflate the two issues.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jongsstraw, we're already paying for illegals' health care. And we're paying for it the expensive way: emergency room medicine. Just like we're paying for indigent health care. In one three-hospital area, five patients... FIVE... accounted for 80% of emergency-room services!
That won't change if we cut out the insurance companies. Illegals and the indigents will STILL show up at county hospital ERs. But what cutting insurances out WILL do is save approximately 30% on the health care we DO provide. You got a problem with that? Do you hate saving money or something? Solving the illegal/ indigent healthcare problems though is a whole 'nother ballgame, not to be confused with the role of insurance companies in health care.
I know that. It will only get worse in terms of general access and costs when you add in millions more seeking regular everyday care. There will always be emergency care. Why can't there be citizenship verification for tax-funded services in the plan? Why did the Dem majority on the panel kill it? I could believe Govt Care if that reasonable control was in place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME