Would you rather be astoundingly wealthy, a gazillion or have your health? You can live in a mansion and die fairly young or you can sit on your patio in all your middle-class stature on a fine autumn afternoon and enjoy feeding your cats or your dogs or if you don't have them just reading a book. Though I'm a strong capitalist by nature I don't envy the superrich, that societal trend has always irritated me. While I don't want to punish them like Obama I am philosophically balanced, they don't bother me but I don't want to be one of them. Personally I'd rather have my health.
Steve Jobs, Apple Founder and Tech Genius -- 1955-2011, RIP
It's very true that if you don't have your health, nothing else really matters. Also true that wealth does not mean happiness, and we have seen time and time again that it does not guarantee good health.
ReplyDeletePancreatic cancer is the worst one I believe, hardly anyone survives that one. I'm with you, Z-man, I would take health over wealth anyday.
"Personally I'd rather have my health."
ReplyDeleteIt is true that one cannot pursue life, liberty, and happiness if one does not have good health. That's why it is important that affordable health care be available to every citizen, not just wealthy ones.
Steve Jobs was able to add some years to his tragic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer because of his extreme wealth. The average person, and certainly not a poor person, could not have afforded the sort of health care that allowed Jobs to be ready to fly anywhere in the US for his liver transplant or to receive the very best, cutting edge medicine, which extended his life over the average pancreatic cancer victim's. Mr. Jobs' wealth didn't save his life, but it sure as hell gave him a few more years to live it.
Having faced 3 life threatening diseases, I know something about this. I was lucky to be living in Massachusetts and to have been able to receive health care under Gov. Mitt Romney's universal coverage at the time I was diagnosed; and because of his universal coverage, I was able to get insurance, even though I had a pre-existing condition. Another plus for the average, non-wealthy health insurance consumer.
President Obama used Gov. Romney's health care plan as a model for the ACA. And now millions of Americans do not have to live in fear of being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Because I was able to receive health care at that time in my life, thanks to Massachusetts' health care law under Romney, I was able to recover and sit on my roof deck and enjoy an autumn sunset.
If you have your health, you truly are rich.
The wealth is merely a biproduct. I'd take Steve Job's life over 90 years of mediocrity any day.
ReplyDeleteWhat u got Shaw wasn't insurance. It was a subsidy.
ReplyDeleteA subsidy, yes, like the subsidy the US government pays to US farmers and energy companies.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what it's called, government subsidized health care made it possible for me to receive medical attention from one of the world's finest hospital, and I survived.
Americans have accepted the US government subsidizing private farms and energy companies, but balk at doing so for America's health.
I for one do not agree with the government subsidizing private farms and energy, it is not their Constitutional duty to run any part of the economy.
ReplyDeleteYours an immoral argument Shaw.
ReplyDelete"So and so got their government largesse and now I'm gonna get mine."
I've never been an advocate for government subsidies for anyone.
"I've never been an advocate for government subsidies for anyone."
ReplyDeleteWell, you and Beth are definitely soul mates.
We wouldn't need the government to step in and subsidize health care if insurance providers were ethical and fair. They're not. They are the true "death panel" deciders. They're in business to make money for their shareholders, not to provide coverage for people when catestrophic illness or accidents occur and they have to pay out millions of dollars in coverage.
When a society is faced with this problem, the government has a role in ensuring that its citizens are treated equally vis-a-vis their medical needs.
Blanket statements such as "I've never been an advocate...etc. etc." don't solve these issues of rank health care inequality--the rich, like Jobs, receiving the finest health care, while those who have little to nothing are left to die or seek medical help at hospital emergency rooms, which is a far costlier solution than a government subsidy.
Meanwhile many advanced western societies manage to provide health care to their citizens and not turn into a Communist country. Japan, Singapore, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France, to name a few.
It's nice to claim to be a purist in these matters, but you're not facing the problem with real solutions.
"It's nice to claim to be a purist in these matters, but you're not facing the problem with real solutions."
ReplyDeleteAm I to presume a "real" solution is for citizen A, B, and C to have X percentage of their income confiscated so that citizen D may have a reduced healthcare expense?
A real solution in my view is to have a truly free-market system in health insurance whereby one is able to shop across state lines and finely tune a plan that covers the items they wish to have covered as opposed to having the state dictate, from on high, what items will be required to be covered whether the individual wishes to pay for them or not.
Now, if one has pre-existing conditions one ought to expect that they're premiums will be higher given that insurance prices risk.
Are you willing to accept that?
soapster, if citizens A,B, and C AND D pay into a system, they would receive medical care when they need it. Medicare isn't perfect, but that's how it operates. The billionaire can receive the same benefits from Medicare (if s/he paid into the system) as can a person who has no savings account.
ReplyDeleteIs is confiscatory for tax payers who pay property taxes that support their fire and police and public schools and who never use those services?
Would you suggest that in a country of over 300 million people every village, town, and city set up its own private police, fire, and school and the citizens in those communities?
We've had "free-market" health insurance. It is the "free market" insurers that prohibited, through lobbying the Congress, buying insurance across state lines (which BTW, would barely make a miniscule dent in health care costs).
And based on past behavior, what makes you think the insurance companies and their lobbyists wouldn't line the pockets of politicians to make more laws that favor their bottom lines?
Your example of pre-existing condition is invalid, since insurance companies can be arbitrary in what they label "pre-existing." Pre-existing is what their adjusters tell you it is, even if it is not specified in a policy. It is the insurance companies' way of not having to pay out for catastrophic illnesses.
How would an insurance company determine if breast cancer, for example, is a pre-existing condition? Even if a woman [or man, a small percentage of men get it, too] were to take a DNA test to determine if she has the markers for breast cancer, it does not follow that she will get breast cancer. And the reverse is true, even if there are the markers in her DNA test for breast cancer, she will not necessarily get it.
If I had not had MassHealth, which you believe was an immoral subsidy from the government, I would have lost my home and everything I have worked all my life for, just because I had 3 life-threatening (and unconnected) medical problems.
I hope you or anyone you care for never have to face anything like that.
BTW, I was a runner for 25 years (I'm a walker now, since the knees aren't up to the pounding anymore), never ever was overweight, ate a healthy Mediterranean diet, stopped smoking in my 20s, not a drinker--except wine with meals, IOW, I lived a healthy life and did not cause my illnesses because of poor choices.
When I say free-market Shaw I mean free-market. Free-market in my view doesn't entail lobbying congress for special perks.
ReplyDeleteIf citizens A-D want to pool their funds together for health insurance purposes then by all means have at it (Voluntaryism FTW!). However, force is immoral. Forcing people to pay for something they may not want is immoral.
"Is it confiscatory for tax payers who pay property taxes that support their fire and police and public schools and who never use those services?"
Yes it is. And as for the public schools, this is more evidence of immorality. I have no children of my own. And yet, I pay into the system thereby subsidizing my neighbor's children.
"Would you suggest that in a country of over 300 million people every village, town, and city set up its own private police, fire, and school and the citizens in those communities?"
Yes I would. And, in this scenario, some cities and towns will do a far better job than will others. Thus, the citizens will have freedom to choose and can exercise their freedom of mobility to gravitate towards the cities/towns that do a better job of it. The alternative is one big mess that, when it fails, fails miserably and affects everyone (see current "global economic meltdown").
"How would an insurance company determine if breast cancer, for example, is a pre-existing condition? Even if a woman [or man, a small percentage of men get it, too] were to take a DNA test to determine if she has the markers for breast cancer, it does not follow that she will get breast cancer."
Doesn't matter if you end up getting breast cancer or not. As I stated, insurance prices risk. If a test shows that the likelihood of getting it is higher than normal then it ought to be taken into account. Just because I might own a Mazzerati doesn't mean I'm going to fly down the interstate at 180 miles an hour. Regardless, the potential is there and the provider of insurance has to bear that risk.
"If I had not had MassHealth, which you believe was an immoral subsidy from the government, I would have lost my home and everything I have worked all my life for, just because I had 3 life-threatening (and unconnected) medical problems."
Under the current nonsense we have you're probably right about that.
But you see Shaw, you rectify this problem with a futile attempt to justify your own subsidy.
Hence why I called your actions immoral.
The moral and just cause of action is to scrap the entire system and replace it with a truly free-market approach (sans government perks, etc.) wherein patients and providers can negotiate the terms of their contracts (what will be covered vs. what will not, catostrophic plan vs. general healthcare needs, etc.)
The moral and just cause of action is to scrap the entire system and replace it with a truly free-market approach (sans government perks, etc.) wherein patients and providers can negotiate the terms of their contracts (what will be covered vs. what will not, catostrophic plan vs. general healthcare needs, etc.)
ReplyDeleteAnd that can't be done overnight. What do you propose we do with all the people who are going to die in the meantime while all this dismantling and negotiation goes on?
Al Davis died this weekend and I'm in mourning.
I'd have expected a bit more from you Saty than hyperbole ("people going to die in the meantime...").
ReplyDeleteIt begins with ending ALL foreign aid and foreign intervention/militarism and bringing our troops home which will save us hundreds of billions of dollars.
That money will assist in providing healthcare and retirement services to our elderly and those in need. At the same time, we can raise the Social Security eligibility age slightly while allowing younger individuals to completely opt out of both Medicare and Social Security.
No hyperbole there. People die every single day in this country because they don't have healthcare. Do you think you could revamp the system overnight? Meanwhile, what's happening to people? And what's going to happen to all those young individuals who choose to 'opt out' when they get a hot appendix or land in critical care after a car accident? Who's going to pay for that if they have no insurance? Where are those millions of dollars to pay those ICU bills (and no hyperbole there either) going to come from?
ReplyDeleteI see Michael Jackson paid his
ReplyDeletedoctor $150,000 a month....
This is what got us into this mess in the first place... people who don't have health insurance who get sick and can't pay their bills.. that cost gets passed along to other people, raising the overall cost of healthcare. And so who's freeloading? These people who claim that because they're generally healthy or young or whatever they don't 'need' insurance. Of course, a couple times a month lately you read about young, healthy athletes dropping dead on basketball courts or football fields, which if you'd like to rationalize it saves a whole lot of money over them just getting sick... but young, healthy, athletic or not, it doesn't mean you can't wake up one day with a gangrenous gallbladder or meningitis or be in a catastrophic car accident or a house fire. And then what happens? You're basically dropping the ball in everyone else's lap-because you were arrogant enough to think you didn't 'need' insurance, you're gambling with everyone else's money, because believe me, that bill is going to be paid one way or another.
ReplyDeleteSo how do you fix that problem? Do the people who choose to not have insurance also choose to not receive healthcare when they need it? Do they tattoo on their foreheads 'I HAVE NO INSURANCE LET ME DIE'? Seriously here. This is the root cause of all the problems we've got now with healthcare costs.
soapster, your solutions are extreme and will never happen. That you propose every village, town and city in this country to hire its own police, fire, and school system is absurd in a coutry as large as this. Small municipalities with a small tax base will not be able to pay its public protectors the same monies that large wealthy towns do, so again, the wealthy will do fine and the poor will not. I don't agree with financing school systems that way either.
ReplyDeleteYou apparently don't live in the real world, therefore, you think we can solve our problems with fantasy solutions that have no chance of becoming reality.
Meanwhile real people are facing real trouble and have real financial difficulties, and theoretical libertarian ideas are not helping to solve any of them.
Truly, I think the problem started whenever health insurance became the means where all health costs were taken care of, because insurance is truly meant for catastrophic events, not regular check-ups. It's like using your auto insurance for an oil change, that is not the purpose of insurance.
ReplyDeleteIf general medical expenses were something that free market principles were used, then costs would come down because there could be competition and the necessity of the medical attention would be given greater consideration. Then truly big costs would be covered by insurance, although hospitals can never turn anyone away already. They just wouldn't have to take every sore throat, which they never should be used for but are.
P.S. People with insurance die all the time, isn't this posting about Steve Jobs, who I am pretty sure had insurance?
ReplyDeleteSure people with insurance die. But the amount of the medical bills they leave behind will be substantially less than those who don't have any to start with.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, Beth, only public hospitals have to take you. Private hospitals are only required to stabilize you long enough to get you out the door, if you have no insurance. And that is exactly what they do. 'Discharge planners' go around and tell the doctors on a daily basis how many days of insurance a patient has left, therefore how many days the doctor has left to get them well before they go out the door. And in the event they don't get them well? In many cases they send them out the door to another facility.
It's only the public, tax-supported hospitals that are required to take you regardless of ability to pay.
And another thing: people with insurance die all the time, but generally they've gotten medical care first.
ReplyDeletePeople without insurance in many cases die because they can't get the healthcare to start with.
I personally went three months on a broken ankle/96% ligament tear because we had no insurance and couldn't afford to get me to the doctor. The $15K that surgery cost would have ended up foreclosing our house. Three months of limping and three in a cast seemed like a small price to pay; although I did a horrific amount of further damage by putting off having it addressed.
Responding to Saty: Let preface my comment by asserting that I do not accept the doctrine of shared sacrifice. I am not my brother's keeper. I am not a collectivist. This is not to suggest that I cannot or will not work collectively with other individuals. I have and I do. However, I do so voluntarily for my own rational self-interest. I am biased towards liberty; specifically individual liberty. Individuals should make decisions that comport with their ideals and their morality. Such decisions cannot infringe upon the rights of another. Further, humans are mortal creatures. We will all die. We may take precautions to extend our time on this planet. Despite these precautions, we may at any given time fall prey to the death which surrounds us. It is the conscious recognition of our own mortality which breathes and energy into our quest to live. An individual may go through life haphazzardly taking no pleasure or giving any attention to the measures by which he/she might sustain their life. It is a decision which is wholly theirs to make. If they so chose to not acquire health insurance for themselves then they assume those risks. That is the way I view this situation. Now, you may find that to immoral of me but I would counter that like this. I would remind you that it is immoral for another to adhere to some belief that I am his/her's keeper without my consent; that I am a means towards their end.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if you believe that you have a moral obligation to serve others then you are free to work with others who voluntarily accept that doctrine. I will not prohibit you from doing so. When you resort to force to implore me to accept your creed I will resist vehemently and with equal force.
I am not an immoral individual. I will help my immediate friends and family to the best of my ability. I will not use force or coercion to achieve my ends. I am accountable to myself for my own actions. I owe no-one any obligations nor do they owe me any. We make committments to one another which are mutually beneficial and voluntary. I assume all risks for my actions.
Thus, if my action leads me to ignore the importance or significance of obtaining even a catastrophic insurance policy and I should fall victim to some unseen incident, then, as a mortal human, I shall expire much earlier than I might otherwise have expired I had not voluntarily contracted with other individuals to collectively pool and share said burden.
Responding to Shaw: I get a good chuckle out of the notion that my views are "extreme" or "absurd" since it is the antithesis of my views which have been the prevailing norm in American culture and we can witness with magnificent clarity the degree with which they have and continue to fail.
ReplyDeleteI chuckle further by your insistence that smaller municipalities with smaller tax bases will not be able to pay their public protectors the same monies. Why should they? Ever heard the phrase "it's all relative"? How many grocery stores are in a small municipality vs. a large one?
They say laughter is the best medicine and surely I am over medicated at this point by your suggestion that I am not living in the real world. My dear...I insist that I most certainly am. You see, the real world contains concretes and absolutes. The real world contains the reality of the unsustainabilty of your government largesse and the reality of human action. It is only in the land of rainbows and unicorns that all you desire can be paid for and centrally planned by a handful of bureaucrats.
"The real world contains the reality of the unsustainabilty of your government largesse and the reality of human action.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. Look at Germany, it has the strongest economy in Europe, and it is a socialistic country. Their bureaucrats certainly are doing a good job for their economy. What we lack is smart government.
"It is only in the land of rainbows and unicorns that all you desire can be paid for and centrally planned by a handful of bureaucrats."
No. Germany, Japan, Scandinavia, France, Singapore, Australia, Canada,(which didn't suffer the catastrophe of banksters and Wall Street crooks as we did) are hardly in the realm of unicorns and rainbows. Those countries are real, socialistic, and doing comparatively well.
First of all, it's YOUR government, too. Second, I've never advocated for a government that is a complete nanny state.
And third, the world does not contain concretes and absolutes, otherwise, as an example, there would be no such thing as manslaughter when someone is killed. If there were absolutes in the world, even people who kill other people accidentally would all--if they lived in Texas anyway--be given capital punishment.
If there were truly concretes and absolutes a person who stole bread to feed his family would suffer the same fate as a person, like Bernie Maddoff, who stole people's retirement funds.
Those are just two examples. The law understands that most of human failings are due to extenuating circumstances, and it, therefore, makes allowances for those non-absolute gray areas.
Maybe in your world there are concretes and absolutes, but in reality that is not true.
Germany is on the verge of a contraction. I'll bet you on that. Regardless, you missed my point entirely which isn't surprising. The reason Germany has faired better speaks directly to what I was saying Shaw in that the country did not resort to the degree of government largesse that the United States and other countries did.
ReplyDeleteGreat comments everyone!!!
ReplyDeleteBeth: "Insurance is truly meant for catastrophic events, not regular checkups."
Many years back I had to drive my Dad to the hospital because he was having a prostate problem. Anyway when we got there we were waiting in the ER waiting room, all of us and I thought the folks sitting there were waiting for other people. NO, they were the patients, this was about 11 at night and everyone was watching "Seinfeld". They didn't seem in any great pain or agony but my Dad was waiting awhile in quite a state until I started raising a ruckus and he got a doc. Shortly after this US News and World Report did a story on problems with ERs, how they're overcrowded all the time with people who have far less pressing concerns than my Dad had. PART OF THE PROBLEM IS SOCIETY. Again great great comments and I mean that, much food for thought.
So, basically, soap, let's look at what you're saying in practicum:
ReplyDeleteA person is laying on the street having just been hit by a car. EMS shows up. First thing they do is search said person's pockets, and find no proof of insurance. They turn around and go home, leaving the person on the street.
What I asked you was a simple yes or no question. Without coming out and saying it, you're basically advocating letting people die if they have no insurance.
Of course, there's always extenuating circumstances. You mentioned that you'd help family or friends. Let's assume that like you, they consider themselves young and healthy and in no need of insurance. They're in a car accident and are in the ICU on a vent, paralyzed from the neck down, with tubes coming out of many places that human anatomy never intended tubes to be put in or out of. It looks as though they'll be in critical care for weeks, and following that, rehab, and for the long term, intensive home health, home ventilator, specialized equipment, tube feedings, round the clock nursing care. The medical bills, which are solely the person's responsibility since they decided they were young and healthy and had no need of health insurance, are going to run into multiple millions of dollars (no hyperbole) and furthermore, will continue to accrue for the rest of the person's life, as their situation has been catastrophically and irretrievably changed. So you're going to help them. What do you do when their house has been sold, their car has been sold, their checking account has been drained, their piggy bank's been broken and you (and everyone else who's willing) has given every dime you can afford to the cause? Is it at that point that we tell them that the money's all gone and it's time for them to die? 'You know we all gotta go sometime, bud, and we got no more money, so it's your time.'
I mean, in reality, that's what you're talking about. What if this was your child, who was born with a serious birth defect, and required multiple surgeries, and long term care? Are you going to let the child die when the money runs out? Do we determine that since the child had a birth defect it's no big deal for them to die anyway?
If you can seriously look at these situations and tell me that it's their tough shit that they're going to have to die because they haven't got the money.. well then, there's really bigger issues here than I care to address.
I will continue to advocate for private solutions (many of which are working at present). But you know, life isn't always fair Saty. We do what we can. Sometimes it isn't enough. Resources are finite Saty.
ReplyDeleteBut hey, if you want to have the banksters fire up the printing presses and share the sacrifice then we can certainly go that route. As you ought to know, it too comes with its own perils.
My girlfriend is a surgical tech for the VA. She'll even tell you quite matter of factly, understanding full well that resources are indeed finite, that resources are unecessarily alocated towards individuals all the time for the sake of prolonging their life for what?...another few years at best.
Even those countries where the utopian dream of single payer one size fits all healthcare systems understand this and implement policies in accordance with this reality.
Call me unsympathetic. Call me what you will but reality is reality.
You just can't come out and say 'yeah, let's let them die'... can you? You're going around with lots and lots of words here, but you haven't just flat out said, 'Yeah, I think we should just let them die.'
ReplyDeleteWould you let your girlfriend just die?
"Would you let your girlfriend just die?"
ReplyDeleteWe both have living wills. We both understand that resources, financial or otherwise, are finite. We both understand that our time on this earth is too finite. When the resources which are at our disposal have been exhausted in such a scenario we both accept that it is our time to go.
Now perhaps, in the land of rainbows and unicorns there may very well exist a fountain whereby money and youthfulness and longevity can be had for nothing.
I don't live in the land of fairy tales.
So basically you're going to wait til the money runs out and then let her die.
ReplyDeleteThat'll take about a week or so.
Two more things:
ReplyDeleteOne. You still can't come out and say that people without insurance should just be left to die since they can't pay their medical bills. Of course, this is the reality of the situation. It's just like people who want to eat meat but can't admit the reality of the suffering and misery of the animals involved.
Two. I have yet to see a living will that says 'when the money runs out, let me die'. Not to mention that you can go just as bankrupt having a simple and potentially recoverable illness or incident. For example, if you had a heart attack, and needed a bypass, that would add years onto your life.. or if you had a a cancerous tumor in your colon, which, with a colon resection, could be completely eliminated. So I imagine that you'd just carry on and not make attempts to intervene for a cure?
Let me ask you something: have you ever had to make this decision in real technicolor life? Have you ever had to say to a loved one, 'no, sorry, no money, no insurance, time to die'?
Depends on what the medical needs are. Might make it two weeks. If you've got a better alternative then let me know.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated a couple of times now, resources are finite. Once you accept this fact then things will be alot easier for you to deal with. Instead, what I am hearing from you and Shaw is something that suggests this is not the case.
And so, I'm waiting.....
"Of course, this is the reality of the situation."
ReplyDeleteIndeed it is and as soon as you accept this fact of reality the better off you will be. Instead you are trying to deny the facts of reality. So how are you going to do that?
"Let me ask you something: have you ever had to make this decision in real technicolor life? Have you ever had to say to a loved one, 'no, sorry, no money, no insurance, time to die'?"
No and I won't have to. You know why? Because it's not my decision to make. People are ends in themselves Saty. They don't live forever. It's a fact. It is an absolute. Simply because they are afraid to die or not ready to die doesn't negate the reality that is their mortality.
Or simply because you and one's family members aren't ready to let go of a dying loved one doesn't negate the facts of reality.
ReplyDeleteI deal in reality Saty. The facts are the facts. A is A. It doesn't always feel good but it is what it is. You can want to change it but you won't.
I'm glad I don't live in your world, soapster, and that this country never will. It's a bit too Hobbesian for my tastes.
ReplyDeleteMy world doesn't bear any culpability for this mess. I sleep well at night knowing that.
ReplyDeleteThis whole discussion reminds me of what my chef friend said once. In Eskimo culture when someone, even a loved one gets old and frail and is deemed a burden they send that person off to die. I believe they go off to kill themselves. Picture an old Eskimo uncle, grizzled and fat and frail and in poor health through the years getting in his canoe or better yet an old wooden raft, shoving off from shore and heading off into the ocean God knows where with no food or water or medical supplies and he has a big banner on his raft flowing in the bitter Arctic wind that reads READY TO ROCK.
ReplyDeleteThis is supposed to be a free country, and if you or I or anyone wishes to help those without insurance, we can, right? Forcing it goes against the principles of our freedom.
ReplyDeleteI think that sums up what the Soapster has been saying.
ReplyDeleteAnd conversely, if nobody wants to help, then we simply let them die for lack of money to pay for medical care, regardless of whether or not their condition is recoverable or any other circumstance.
ReplyDeleteRight?
Well I know you and I wouldn't Saty, so why do you assume no one else would? Why are you so negative and assume the worst in people?
ReplyDeleteSomebody wouldn't help. Some people couldn't help. But not everybody wouldn't help.
ReplyDeleteBecause I'm a realist, Beth. Let's say ONE person's medical bill amounts to $50K. This was my medical bill after my surgery. I was in the hospital a total of five days, on an ordinary floor, with zero complications, so you can say that bill is conservative. How many people have to donate to cover even half of that amount? And how many times can they do that? And what if the bill was $500K and not $50K? How many people need to chip in for that, and how many times can they do it? And what happens to the rest of that bill?
ReplyDeleteAnd then you have to ask, are people willing to donate for ANYONE, or just for people they know, or like, or deem worthy? What happens to the homeless people, the people with no friends or family, the people with mental illnesses, drug addiction, alcoholism and other issues that people tend to think, 'oh, it's their own fault'? Who's going to donate money to cover the bill of the person with alcoholic encephalopathy, or with HIV?
Who's going to donate money for chronic ongoing issues like dialysis?
You?
I had my first dance class tonight. It rocked.
Wow, you really don't think well of people. Are all liberals as pessimistic as you are? Guess that would explain a lot if they are.
ReplyDeleteAnd then you take that one person's $500K bill, and multiply it by 250K people (conservative estimate), because that's how many will rack up a bill that high in a year.
ReplyDeletePessimistic? I think that's a red herring to distract from the fact that you don't want to deal with the problem in hard numbers, just in pretty thoughts of how all your conservative friends will surely, without a doubt, use the money they're not paying in taxes to support these folks. I know it feels really good to think of yourself and your friends that way, but when you boil it down, Beth, it's not going to happen. And are you really willing to take a chance with someone's life like that?
I can see that the left has warped you Saty into believing that people will not help one another unless its through the government. The left HAS to have you believe that so that they'll keep control over us, the elitists that they are. Why don't you put faith in yourself and your fellow man instead of the leftists?
ReplyDelete"How many people have to donate to cover even half of that amount? And how many times can they do that? And what if the bill was $500K and not $50K? How many people need to chip in for that, and how many times can they do it? And what happens to the rest of that bill?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am missunderstanding you but it is as if there is some suggestion on your part that this somehow ceases to be the case with government facilitating this process.
Having said you deal in reality, the reality is that the money to pay these costs, the tools, instruments, time, hospital staff and rooms and resources, etc. are not limitless.
Surely government can facilitate all of this Saty but the underlying reality is that all of the things that I just mentioned are not limitless. They are, as I've already stated numerous times herein, finite.
That being the case and the reality, you alone or a group of individuals or yes EVEN A GOVERNMENT will not be able to care for everyone at the precise moment they need it.
If you believe that a government can better facilitate this process than could individuals working voluntarily I won't begrudge you for taking that position.
What I will take issue with is any suggestion that a government can A) care for everyone; and B) do so without exhausting resources similarly.
Equally I can see that you're unwilling to address the cold hard numbers, Beth.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, Americans are the most charitable, whenever disaster strikes, people in this country give, which is why I have faith in us as individuals where you lack it. Maybe because you can only see people as a reflection of yourself? Just a theory.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can definitively say that Americans are any more charitable than any other people.
ReplyDeleteI think it's merely a part of human nature; human action.
Oh yea, when Katrina hit, tons of other nations were sending aid to the USA.
ReplyDeleteSimply because the government of America confiscates the wealth of its citizens for the purposes of sending aid to parts yonder does not infer that Americans (citizens, individuals that is) are any more caring/compassionate/giving or any more inclined to assist in times of crisis anymore so than any citizens (individuals that is) of any other country.
ReplyDeleteThis is my point.
What's more, I'd be very careful treading that water there.
ReplyDeleteYou're likely to leave yourself open to critique on the subject of government "compassion".
That would of course run counter to statements you've previously made to the contrary.
Key word: disaster.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that this what I'm talking about is on a daily basis, never ending, forever. There will always be another sick person to provide for; there will always be someone who needs dialysis, there will always be someone who requires ongoing care, sometimes for life.
It's easy to make a one time contribution to disaster relief. Ongoing, nonstop, forever support is a completely different thing.
OK, let me rephrase Soapie, when Katrina, citizens from other countries sent loads of help (and of course I am being sarcastic) whereas when Japan needed help (or any other country or part of the world) citizens of the USA just give and give a lot.
ReplyDeleteWhatever, Saty, you see the worst in people, I see the best in them. I guess I cannot convince you otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI'm an analytical sorta guy. I'm going to need to see some data to support your thesis.
ReplyDeleteBeth,
ReplyDeleteAnswer me this simple yes or no question:
would you personally be willing to donate money, on an ongoing basis, forever, every single week, to contribute towards the cost of stranger's healthcare?
Cause that's the sort of financial commitment we're talking about.
I think it's real sweet and all how you keep saying how you and all of your conservative buddies are going to be willing to take this on, but let's think about it; if you and all your conservative buddies are willing to donate personally, on an ongoing, forever kind of commitment basis towards the healthcare of others, then how come the Shriners were going to have to close a hospital this year? The only thing that kept them afloat was employees voting to take pay cuts. If you and your friends are so willing to donate, places like St. Jude's ought to be rolling in money. Have you seen their commercial? That hospital costs $1.6 million to run EVERY DAY. How many conservative donors does it take to come up with that kind of money every day? Let's see what that is in a year. That works out to $584 MILLION dollars a year.
I don't think the worst of people, Beth, but I do think two things: I don't think people will be willing to take on this kind of commitment on a financial level, and also, I think people will want to direct 'who' gets the healthcare 'they' pay for. Which means that the homeless, the friendless, the mentally ill, the drug addicts, and the other undesirables in society will be just as short shafted as they are now and end up dying misproportionately as they do now. Of course, soap's good with that. I suspect many others are too. Malthus is alive and well and he votes Tea Party.
"...soap's good with that."
ReplyDeleteSoap just has the sense to accept the things he cannot change. Even if you could tax the people at 100% Saty, you would still not have enough funds to cover everyone who needed it in perpetuity. And so...we, as humans do what we can for as long as we can which isn't forever.
Of course I would be willing to help people who are in need, I already do.
ReplyDeleteBeth,
ReplyDeleteSo I'm to understand that you, personally, will be willing to take on the daily commitment to contribute substantially to the ongoing, lifetime healthcare costs of a homeless man who's HIV positive, has burned up his kidneys doing drugs and who requires dialysis three times a week for the rest of his life?
Cause that's where the rubber meets the road, right there.
Where the rubber met the road is at the point where this man fried his kidneys doing drugs. We are ends in ourselves Saty.
ReplyDeleteI said I would help people in need, did I not? I don't think that requires me to address every scenario you want to dream up, Saty.
ReplyDeleteActually let me strike that.
ReplyDeleteThe rubber met the road the day this individual came into the world.
We are mortal creatures. Our death is imminent. Each and every individual can take measures to prolong their life. Or, similarly they may take measures which shorten it.
Either decision is one that is wholly theirs to make.
I don't live for others. I don't expect that others live for me.
We are mortal creatures. Our death is imminent.
ReplyDeleteGee, with that thought in mind, why not do away with medical care altogether?
And Beth:
ReplyDeleteIt's not just a situation I 'dreamed up'. The homeless, the drug addicted, the mentally ill, the people with chronic illnesses like sickle cell or HIV have always gotten the short end of the healthcare continuum. I could not tell you how many times I've heard that drug addicts 'don't deserve' treatment, or that dialysis patients shouldn't be treated longer than a certain period of time, or that the mentally ill are 'faking it' and should just be told to grow up/suck it up/stop trying to get out of things. A lot of people believe this bullshit.
Everyone feels bad for little kids with cancer (except soap, who thinks they just ought to realize their mortality and give it up) and premature babies and things like that. People want to help them because they're helpless and so on. But when it comes to other issues, like homeless people, or people with schizophrenia or something like bipolar especially, where there are relatively 'normal' periods between episodes (leading to the 'you're faking it' myth), or something like substance abuse, people find it much easier to simply blame the person, or find reasons those people aren't 'worthy' of help.
You may be the one noble soul out there who's willing to take on those drug addicted dialysis HIV positive people and their overwhelming medical bills, but I promise you, 'charity' is not going to cover the cost of it.
And this is for you, soap: I took care of a girl who had been hit by a car at age 11. She was paralyzed from the chin down, ventilator dependent and tube fed. She required hands on care for everything except watching tv. Now, perhaps according to your perspective, her parents should have just let her go at 11. Instead, she was given appropriate care. As a result, she graduated highschool, went on to college and became a therapist. She died at age 37, having helped countless numbers of people during her career.
"Gee, with that thought in mind, why not do away with medical care altogether?"
ReplyDeleteSome people do. That's a personal choice they'll have to make.
I'm not one for demagoguery Saty so you'll need to find a willing participant if you're into that sort of thing.
As I've stated (now countless) times, I am not a means to the ends of others. If you feel as though you have a moral obligation to help, either with your time or money or otherwise, every individual whom you encounter that may require such care then you are free to do so. Being against the intitiation of force, I will not preclude you from doing so.
You are free to do as you choose and desire as am I.
If you wish to demagogue the issue by resorting to the suggestion that I will just "let people die", again, I've no interest in playing your game. I've responded to that previously anyhow.
"Everyone feels bad for little kids with cancer (except soap, who thinks they just ought to realize their mortality and give it up)"
ReplyDeleteNow you've fucking pissed me off [deep breath]. LOOK, what I've said for, probably the 5th time is this:
You can do whatever you want to try and help every Tom, Dick, and Harry that might need it Saty.
Go for it. Have at it.
The reality is that not you, not a group, not a fucking government has access to enough fucking resources to do this 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in perpetuity.
It ain't going to happen.
People are going to die. It sucks. It is a painful thing to have to accept that not everyone is going to live a long and prosperous healthy life. It's even worse that the little ones have to suffer it.
If you have a problem with that then don't fucking demagogue the shit out of and make me out to be some uncaring asshole.
Take that shit up with God.
Love the demagoguery on the example you listed.
ReplyDeleteGreat. I'm glad this woman lived a wonderful life. I'm glad that people were there to care for her.
If we could do that for everyone it'd be fanfuckingtastic.
You can't. You can try. But you can't. Are you getting this yet?
Of course Saty will never "get it" Soapie, because she thinks that only the Almighty Government can take care of everyone (they can't and they shouldn't), so there is no use in debating her any longer. Nothing less than full servitude to the Almighty Government will satisfy her.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Beth.
ReplyDeleteI hope neither you nor any person you care for ever runs out of healthcare dollars (from any source). Because, you know, at that point, you just need to face your mortality and go on and die.
A is A.
ReplyDeleteSaty: "We are mortal creatures. Our death is imminent. Gee, with that thought in mind why not do away with medical care altogether?"
ReplyDeleteWhich is basically the Scientology position eh? See the tragic case of Lisa McPherson.
Not Scientology... Christian Scientists.
ReplyDeleteThey're probably Libertarians.
No I meant Scientologists. Read somewhere L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy re hospitals was that we're all mortal anyway but it's been awhile and I'd have to look that up:)
ReplyDeleteIndeed we are mortal but that ought not negate the necessity of hospitals.
ReplyDeleteIf you bought a brand new car and drove it until the oil exhausted it and fried the engine that'd be absurd.
However, if you maintain the vehicle you will get a lot more use out of it. Still, the car won't last forever under normal conditions.
Humans are little different.
You see, the problem really lies here in that when you're counting on individual persons to take care of healthcare costs of those who don't have the ability to pay, on a charity basis, you have to take into consideration that these donors are going to want to direct where their money goes.
ReplyDeleteFine. And so the money goes to people who look/believe/act/live/think/vote like they do. They're not going to want to donate money to the healthcare costs of criminals, drug addicts, homeless folks, immigrants, persons of religions they disagree with... perhaps they won't want to donate to people who are profoundly disabled, or people who aren't the same race as they are, or have one brown eye and one blue eye.
And that's fine too. But then what happens to those people? Who takes care of them?
The issue is parity. There has to be some sort of impartial regulation to ensure that EVERYONE gets help, not just those deemed 'worthy'. Because that carries with it the risk of the 'unworthy' being eliminated. And if you think that's hyperbolic or whatever, it's not. There are already people saying we shouldn't be giving emergency care to illegal immigrants.
Your comment Saty is perhaps one of the better ones to preface libertarian philosophy. You see, governments pick winners and losers all the time. Ours is no different. They do so in all three branches. Why does this occur? Simple. It is an inconvient truth; an ugly blemish some might say on human nature. Humans discriminate all the time. We may not think of it in such terms but that is exactly what is occuring when you choose one restaurant over another, one hairstylist over another, one cell phone provider over another, one make of car over another, etc.
ReplyDeleteKnowing this as a part of human nature, the libertarian is thus resistent towards the idea of empowering the state and thereby entrusting a group of individuals with monopolistic power. The realities and complexities of human nature and human action are inherit in the individual and thus they materialize in the body of government since government is comprised of individuals.
In countries where socialized healthcare is in practice, this pick and choose reality is alive and well. It doesn't simply dissolve because we have now entrusted and empowered the state with individual responsibilities and/or obligations. It occurs because the reality of finite resources exists.
Saty cannot comprehend what you say, Soapie, because to her, the government is the be all and end all, it is all knowing and all powerful and nothing could be greater than the Almighty government!
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, someone like Sarah Palin became president, well then she would want to revoke her beloved socialistic policies, because the government that she wants to run everyone and everything might not do what she wants them to do anymore.
So, in conclusion, as long as a progressive is in control of us all, then all glory be to them, in Saty's mind. Anyone else in charge? Forgetaboutit.
Beth,
ReplyDeleteI often wonder exactly what it is you're reading when you're reading something I write.
You probably haven't noticed, but at no time during any of this have I ever said 'the government was the only way to go'.
What I have consistently reiterated is that what I'm concerned about with doing this all through personally directed charity is what happens to those people that no one wants to help? That's what I'm asking. Who helps them? Do they just get abandoned or what?
Of course, you've sidestepped, dodged, red-herringed and finally just decided to get delusional like you did today, but with all of that, I still haven't got a concrete answer on it. Who's going to help the people no one wants to help? Who's going to make sure they get some help?
That's what I want to know. And you know, I really think that you spend far too much time trying to figure out what I think, and even more time than that on the whole liberal/conservative/progressive thing. Stop putting people into boxes. Get rid of the labels and get into the actual issues. All I've been asking is, who helps the people no one wants to help? And somehow you manage to spin this into some kind of hysterical Sarah Palin (??) shit like you did above.
Well who do you think should help people who need help? And if those who should don't, then who do you think should?
ReplyDeleteYou are a self proclaimed socialist, so that means you think the government should own all and thus direct all, that is what I am basing my assessment of you on. If you think otherwise, I would love to hear your thoughts.
I also noticed that you dodged, sidestepped, etc. Soapie's comments on the fact of limited resources, do you think there are limitless resources?
ReplyDeleteI have been asking YOU, Beth, since before soap even got in on the conversation, what YOU think we should do with the people that charity won't help. Limited resources is his argument, not yours. Your argument is that charity should be the thing. You don't know a thing about resources and whether they're limited; and that was never part of your argument; you just read what soap wrote and think you can use his intelligence to make up for yours. Let's stick with one argument at a time.
ReplyDeleteWhat do YOU think we need to do to take care of the people who don't get helped by charity? And don't make up answers for me saying I'm a socialist (I am) and so therefore I must think 'government must take care of them'. Stop assuming what I think. Yes, I'm a socialist. But that doesn't mean you can extrapolate my life out of those three words.
Does everything in your world conform absolutely to narrow little labels?
that means you think the government should own all and thus direct all, that is what I am basing my assessment of you on. If you think otherwise, I would love to hear your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on this is that I think you should study up on Socialist theory before you make such sweeping, general, inaccurate blanket statements. What, did you get that from a Conservapedia entry?
Socialism, like all economic/sociopolitical theories, comes in a spectrum of flavors and amazingly enough, not one of them is what you wrote above. I realize you wrote it and so that means it's written according to your worldview; it's simple and appears to be threatening. But it's wrong.
So please, before you make general statements about these things, do a little research on them; and use resources that deal in fact, not fiction.
Thanks and have a nice day.
So I take it you have no answers then.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting to hear yours. Been waiting.
ReplyDeleteAnd once you pony up, we can begin a dialogue.
But this is par for our course, Beth. This is typically how these discussions go; you don't want to answer a direct question, so you turn it on me, and as I am ALWAYS the person who asks first, I insist on getting an answer before I proceed; and since you generally don't have the answer, it ends there. At that point you comfort yourself with the belief that you somehow 'won' because I refused to buy into your hedging, and I wonder again about why I bother to engage at all.
Bottom line is: until you can explain to me who YOU believe should take care of those private charity does not wish to help (which is the question I have been asking YOU from the beginning and you have consistently dodged), I'm not going further.
This entire discussion about who would care for those that the charities didn't want to care for is completely hilarious to me. Namely it is because your position Saty is such that you are sayin in a free market there would cease to exist enough people to supply or fulfill that need. If that be the case, the surely there are not enough people nor is there enough interest amongst the electorate to implore government to facilitate it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is that privately directed charity will direct said charity to those it deems worthy, which often translates into those who look/think/believe/do as I do. This opens the door for whoever's deemed 'undesirable' to be conveniently eliminated.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm asking is how does this system of privately directed charity address those who no one wishes to direct their charity to? Are they simply left in the cold?
You're missing my point. At this precise moment YOU are concerned with the (to categorize) "undesirables". Even if we are to expect that you and you alone are the ONLY individual who cares for these "undesirables", there is evidence clear as ever that a market exists for providing services and/or goods to this target group. And, because you are not the lone individual with concern for these "undesirables", we can compound that concern to where an entity or organization becomes the provider exclusively for that group.
ReplyDeleteSoap, wtf? I'm looking at exactly how easy it would be to virtually deny healthcare funding (since it's being done all through private charity in this discussion) to folks like Muslims (or other religious 'undesirables'), the homeless, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, the violently (and nonviolently for that matter) mentally ill. It'd be a snap. It's just a matter of defining who needs to be got rid of.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with these kinds of things is that there's no impartiality. And I realize that you're all about partiality.
"Soap, wtf? I'm looking at exactly how easy it would be to virtually deny healthcare funding (since it's being done all through private charity in this discussion) to folks like Muslims (or other religious 'undesirables'), the homeless, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, the violently (and nonviolently for that matter) mentally ill. It'd be a snap. It's just a matter of defining who needs to be got rid of. The problem with these kinds of things is that there's no impartiality. And I realize that you're all about partiality.
ReplyDelete"
What the fuck indeed. Maybe we should ask the Susan G. Komen foundation why they don't allocate any of their funds or resources towards testicular cancer.
Seems kind of discriminatory doesn't it? While we're at it, let's ask the Lance Armstrong foundation why they don't give any of their funds or resources towards breast cancer.
Are you seeing the obvious picture here? This is an example of how a free-market works Saty. Yeah, you might have one charitable organization/institution discriminate towards one group of individuals (just as you have in the examples I listed or just as you have with AA who discriminates against people with an addiction to porn). So long as there is a need for a good or service there will be individuals who are looking for opportunities in the market and will step up and provide those goods or services (provided the undertaking is not cost prohibitive).
And so you get one hospital or clinic or insurance entity or whatever that doesn't want to provide services to citizen X,Y,Z. Okay...then you get another who only wants to provide services to these particular individuals.
EXACTLY like the examples that I have just illustrated for you.
Next lesson.
And actually now that you mention it you may or may not recall my recent FB rant about pink for the cure and how it pisses me off that the entire country seems to have forgotten that there's a whole rest of the body that ALSO gets cancer. And how sick it makes me to find pink hunting knives being sold 'for the cure'.
ReplyDeleteMy issue is this: when you have a huge majority aligned against particular groups it's very easy for those groups to simply vanish. This isn't a free market we're talking about, soap, it's charity, it's people giving money out of their pockets. You're right, Komen is never going to give a shit about anyone who gets cancer anywhere other than a breast, and they aren't concerned with whether anyone with non-breast cancer lives or dies.
Basically what we're saying here is that all those homeless drug addicted illegal Mexican Muslims who need dialysis are going to have to fund their own charity, is that it? And fuck em if nobody wants to donate.
I don't think of people as undesirables, do you, Saty?
ReplyDeleteI think there will always be people to help those in need, to answer your question. Why don't you think people will? Is it because you discriminate, Saty? I don't.
btw, you don't want a pink hunting knife for the cure, don't buy one, it's a free country, why do you care if it's out there for someone else to buy?
ReplyDeleteThe problem that I think you are having Saty is that virtually all of your posts, this last one especially, are so charged with emotion that is affecting your ability to think. Not everyone who is themselves afflicted with disease establishes a foundation and so your suggestion that the have to set up their own charity is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be pretty concerned about the issue of care for illegal Mexican Muslims. Are you yourself an illegal Mexican Muslim? Of course not. And yet, you seem adamant in your statement that only illegal Mexican Muslims or what fucking ever are the only people that are going to care about illegal Mexican Muslims.
I am not going to be able to help you resolve the irrationality and the absurdity of that belief. Best of luck resolving and working through that. Really in all sincerity best of luck.
It may very well have to do with the fact that the people I work with every day are considered undesirable by a large segment of the population, even down to their own families, who often refuse to acknowledge their existence. A great many of our folks have DSS as their legal guardians.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I've just seen what happens to folks that are considered 'undesirable' by the greater population, and how easy it is for those undesirables to be cast aside with no one to speak for them.
I got ya Saty. My girlfriend is a surgical tech at the Mpls VA medical center. She is going to school for nursing and taking clinicals at present. These are not easy things to find answers to. My whole purpose is in discussing these and other simar issues with my liberty brethren and seeking voluntary non-coercive solutions to them. We don't claim to have all the answers but we do have far more faith in the free-market and individuals as a whole than we have in a centralized bureaucratic government.
ReplyDelete"illegal Mexican Muslims"
ReplyDeleteWasn't even aware of this particular demographic group. What are they gonna do, blow up a Taco Bell?
Well this is timely!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/chalupa-customer-firebombs-taco-bell-876519
Congrats on 100.
Yeah man all I did was wish RIP to Steve Jobs. Hell let's make it 101.
ReplyDelete