Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who desire mandated health care are asking for an entitlement. That mandate can very easily offset many of the benefits, especially financial ones. One's personal desire for health care or most other things should not affect others nor should an unassociated party have to pay for another's personal desire. Existing actual taxes are bad enough.
Also on the health CARE issue alone gets conflated with the financial end as shown with health "care" legislation which focuses on the insurance/payment form rather than actual physical care.
I am not so selfish as to be unwilling to help others in paying for health care. Dismissing health care (so that a person doesn't die) as a 'personal desire' is one of the colder things I've read on this forum.
No one should go into debt due to health issues. You are so selfish you'd rather see someone else lose their house because of the debt from an unavoidable health problem than help that person. I can't respect that.
I am not so selfish as to be unwilling to help others in paying for health care. Dismissing health care (so that a person doesn't die) as a 'personal desire' is one of the colder things I've read on this forum.
No one should go into debt due to health issues. You are so selfish you'd rather see someone else lose their house because of the debt from an unavoidable health problem than help that person. I can't respect that.
Many if not most states require life saving treatment be offered in ER regardless of financial status. My problems are not the worlds nor are the world's problem mine. There is no one stopping a person from donating to medical charities or applying for free or subsidized care. Putting people into financial stress could very well shorten their life.
There is a problem with medical debt partly because the focus over the decades has been the form of payment ie insurance or a third party. If someone else is paying for it almost guaranteed the providers won't be thinking about what they charge but rather how much they can get. And that's part of the entitlement, mandating how actual medical care will be for. They put the cart before the horse with the ACA because it focused on subsidizing a form of payment. Yet 10 years later they are just passing legislation requiring providers to disclosing pricing on many services, procedures etc-how much is the real issue not form of payment or who is going to pay for it.
Many if not most states require life saving treatment be offered in ER regardless of financial status. My problems are not the worlds nor are the world's problem mine. There is no one stopping a person from donating to medical charities or applying for free or subsidized care. Putting people into financial stress could very well shorten their life.
There is a problem with medical debt partly because the focus over the decades has been the form of payment ie insurance or a third party. If someone else is paying for it almost guaranteed the providers won't be thinking about what they charge but rather how much they can get. And that's part of the entitlement, mandating how actual medical care will be for. They put the cart before the horse with the ACA because it focused on subsidizing a form of payment. Yet 10 years later they are just passing legislation requiring providers to disclosing pricing on many services, procedures etc-how much is the real issue not form of payment or who is going to pay for it.
Claiming the medical system is fine because ERs won't turn people away is nothing short of absurd. I have to assume you are young, and have never seen the reality of medical debt on a family. It's ironic you called other people selfish in the title, when your attitude is one of the most selfish and self-centered things I've heard.
At least they are whining to help others. Unlike politicians who have rallies that are nothing but big whine fests about how victimized they are and how unfair everyone is to them.
The incentives are all wrong.
For example, take the "War on Poverty." The War on Poverty was launched in January of 1964 in President Lyndon B. Johnson's State of the Union Speech, outlining a vision and supporting legislation to address the root causes of poverty. President Johnson famously proclaimed, "Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it".
Has the War on Poverty been a success or a failure?
Clearly, as measured by LBJ's stated objective to cure and prevent poverty, it has been a failure.
However, when you measure it by how many public sector bureaucratic jobs have been created, it is a success, creating untold public sector jobs for the middle-class government employees in Washington DC. Because the war has never been one, each of those employees continues to have a job fighting the war. Each puts food on the table, sends their kids to college, and is given Cadillac health-care and gold-plated government pensions.
Imagine if those employees actually won the War on Poverty. Their employment would then no longer be needed. Each would then be out of a job. Thus, they have an incentive to make sure they never win this War.
The same is true for the War on Drugs.
The same incentives are true for politicians: they promise to fix a problem to gain your contributions & votes, never intending to actually fix the problem - just promise to fix it. That is how they are rewarded: promising to fix something gains contributions and votes. Actually fixing something gets them nothing.
Remember the trickle down economic theory, about how the money that the wealthy had would somehow trickle down to those that had less?
There is no such thing as "trickle down economic theory." It does not exist.
"Trickle Down" was created as part of a stand-up comedy act by humorist Will Rodgers back in the 1930s, and was picked up by the the Democratic party as a rallying cry.
It is NOT an economic theory and it never has been. Go to every research university in the nation and look at its course catalogue. You will NOT find a course labeled, for example, "Econ 157: Trickle Down Economics." You will NOT find an economist with the title "The Goldman Sachs Distinguished Service Professor of Trickle Down Economics."
It exists only in the minds of the progressive left. It is a straw man. It is a shibboleth.
There is no such thing as "trickle down economic theory." It does not exist.
"Trickle Down" was created as part of a stand-up comedy act by humorist Will Rodgers back in the 1930s, and was picked up by the the Democratic party as a rallying cry.
It is NOT an economic theory and it never has been. Go to every research university in the nation and look at its course catalogue. You will NOT find a course labeled, for example, "Econ 157: Trickle Down Economics." You will NOT find an economist with the title "The Goldman Sachs Distinguished Service Professor of Trickle Down Economics."
It exists only in the minds of the progressive left. It is a straw man. It is a shibboleth.
For me (and others) it's the best way to summarize an idea concerning policy, I wasn't trying to show anybody an actual published-academic-peer-reviewed study with such a name. Is anybody? I apologize to anyone (you) if I've misled anyone.
I don't myself view the phrase as a "straw man" (I don't know what a shibboleth is), because it wasn't used to misdirect from a real argument but only to convey or encapsulate how I (and others) view some economic policies and attitudes. The phrase is intended to explain something. Did it not do it's job? Just because an idea originated through one mind in a particular intent, does that mean it cannot ever be used by any other mind at another time to mean something else?
If the intent behind the phrase doesn't make sense to you, if you don't see where and what I'm pointing at (whether you agree or not is irrelevant), that doesn't mean I used it incorrectly, or that it doesn't exist, only that it's not a good pointer for you. It clearly does exist as an idea that means something, and in your mind as well as mine, because otherwise why would you spend time and energy on something nonexistent?
I'll include a Wiki link just to clear up any further confusion for other posters!
Claiming the medical system is fine because ERs won't turn people away is nothing short of absurd. I have to assume you are young, and have never seen the reality of medical debt on a family. It's ironic you called other people selfish in the title, when your attitude is one of the most selfish and self-centered things I've heard.
Definitely not young and have seen pre and post ACA. And have paid for things with and without insurance. You still wind up paying. Having life saving urgent treatment available is exactly that, it's meant to save a life or treat a catastrophic injury or illness. There is little middle ground it what it is. But it's not letting people die.
As far as being 'selfish' I'm not the one mandating someone else being able to get a piece of my pie. What's mine is not yours and what's your's is not mine. I've given time and money to numerous charities over the years. I have no expectation of charity or free care. I've had to work out payments and negotiate rates without insurance down to medicare/medicaid rates only. The medical industry needs work, changes, alternatives, oversight etc but it does not need mandates.
There is no such thing as "trickle down economic theory." It does not exist.
"Trickle Down" was created as part of a stand-up comedy act by humorist Will Rodgers back in the 1930s, and was picked up by the the Democratic party as a rallying cry.
It is NOT an economic theory and it never has been. Go to every research university in the nation and look at its course catalogue. You will NOT find a course labeled, for example, "Econ 157: Trickle Down Economics." You will NOT find an economist with the title "The Goldman Sachs Distinguished Service Professor of Trickle Down Economics."
It exists only in the minds of the progressive left. It is a straw man. It is a shibboleth.
Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, introduced what became known as Reaganomics. His economic plan relied heavily on that trickle-down theory you claim to be non-existent. Reaganomics succeeded in a few narrow ways, but by and large, it was a failure that continues to affect the nation today.
Definitely not young and have seen pre and post ACA. And have paid for things with and without insurance. You still wind up paying. Having life saving urgent treatment available is exactly that, it's meant to save a life or treat a catastrophic injury or illness. There is little middle ground it what it is. But it's not letting people die.
As far as being 'selfish' I'm not the one mandating someone else being able to get a piece of my pie. What's mine is not yours and what's your's is not mine. I've given time and money to numerous charities over the years. I have no expectation of charity or free care. I've had to work out payments and negotiate rates without insurance down to medicare/medicaid rates only. The medical industry needs work, changes, alternatives, oversight etc but it does not need mandates.
I hope you never have to experience having no medical insurance, combined with a medical condition that will kill you slowly and require ongoing long-term 24/7 care, while you are still 100% lucid and able to communicate.
Such as ALS, kidney failure, the need for a matching organ for a transplant and subsequent life-long monitoring and medications, or any of a myriad of cancers.
Urgent emergency care is an "of the moment" kind of thing. There are millions of people in this country who have to have ongoing medical care in order to keep them alive, but don't need to go to the emergency room for urgent treatment. SOMEONE has to pay the bill. Or are you suggesting those people should just go ahead and die?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
