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.
I think the constitution or will of the people established a set of parameters to which our government should operate by. I do not believe in absolutes which seems to put me in a contradictory place at face value however, you dig a little deeper and you can understand its not.
Take for example:
What kind of morality only applies to US citizens? But it gets better....
If its immoral for us to not provide care to sick poor people then we must provide care to any sick and poor people irrelevant of their citizenship. However, this has nothing to do with all the sick and poor people in the rest of the world, so it would be reasonable to for me, if i'm using his logic and reasoning to call him unsympathetic and immoral. I think this guy proves my point with ease.
You're correct that his logic is inconsistent. You made a good point there, and I agree. Arbitrary borders don't change anything about the people inside them. We're all human, so if it's wrong for one person to do, it should be applied equally to anyone else. That's why I'm against politicians (and their agents...police and military) getting a free pass to do things that would be considered wrong if anyone else did it (war, taxation, etc.). We can call it morality, or whatever, but I think there is certain behavior that shouldn't be acceptable in a society (most things we consider "evil" fall under initiations of force against non-violent people, or violating property rights...murder, rape, theft, etc.). It's a complicated subject, definitely.
Do you have principles? Those are absolutes...otherwise everything is just arbitrary. The non-aggression principle is one I follow.
I also don't think "the will of the people" is valid unless every person agrees to it. Otherwise it's just the majority trying to control anyone who disagrees with them.
How many people here understand that insurance is a net loss for the consumer? Its a mathematical fact most people will pay more in insurance premiums than for health care services. Not only does the consumer pay for the operating cost of the insurance company, they pay the profit as well and guess what, when you get sick, you still have to come out of pocket. If you want UHC, remove insurance from the equation and you can free up some money.
I also don't think "the will of the people" is valid unless every person agrees to it.
It's valid based on our set of rules. Ideologically, I dont know if its correct or not but it does seem like the most pragmatic way to do it because their is no "fair" way to do it.
If our country was facing imminent annihilation, our ability to create USD to fund whatever response we could muster to defend ourselves is not the limiting factor. Our limits are, and have always been in overall productivity. WW2 proved that both in terms of money creation and productivity.
So if we the people want to cover all our people, or allow HC access for all our people, we will need to spend more money directed toward creating the necessary medical infrastructure. The money does not all have to come directly from taxes.
There is no solid reason why it cannot be done aside from the will of the people, as this forum demonstrates. In very broad terms it would be less an overall GDP effort than WW2, where our GDP needed to essentially doubled over a few short years to accommodate all our war effort, Allied supports and civilian infrastructure up and running at the same time.
HC is less than 20% of our GDP. To have a profound enough impact above where we are now might only be a few percent more.
You hit it exactly. Economics also deals with allocation of resources. Today, the lower two quartiles live a higher standard of living than they would if it were not for government intervention. Physicians are paid more than they are worth based on a market economy. If the bankers were not involved via insurancs and derivatives and long-term borrowing, the average heart transplant might cost $6,000 according to the think tanks.
The problem with UHC is that the liberals want a huge insurance pool but they only want a small percentage of people to pay the premiums. Passing the premiums to the taxpayer artificially inflates prices. It's basic math and finance.
Getting rid of fraud, waste and duplicity to give the middle and lower classes UHC would be a huge boost to them.
I agree with you about trying our best to eliminate waste. But HC won't be perceptibly cheaper as a result. Most fraud and waste is due is due to stupidity, and UHC won't be changing that.
You hit it exactly. Economics also deals with allocation of resources. Today, the lower two quartiles live a higher standard of living than they would if it were not for government intervention. Physicians are paid more than they are worth based on a market economy. If the bankers were not involved via insurancs and derivatives and long-term borrowing, the average heart transplant might cost $6,000 according to the think tanks.
The problem with UHC is that the liberals want a huge insurance pool but they only want a small percentage of people to pay the premiums. Passing the premiums to the taxpayer artificially inflates prices. It's basic math and finance.
You might mean $60,000 for the surgery itself, but with a transplant there are many other concurrent and long term costs. The largest chunk goes to the acute care hospital.
This physician wasn't been paid his worth between 1988 and 2012. I got fair compensation from 1976 up until 1988, and since 2012. IMO of course!
How many people here understand that insurance is a net loss for the consumer? Its a mathematical fact most people will pay more in insurance premiums than for health care services. Not only does the consumer pay for the operating cost of the insurance company, they pay the profit as well and guess what, when you get sick, you still have to come out of pocket. If you want UHC, remove insurance from the equation and you can free up some money.
I agree with you about trying our best to eliminate waste. But HC won't be perceptibly cheaper as a result. Most fraud and waste is due is due to stupidity, and UHC won't be changing that.
I'm talking about paying for it. The government wastes who knows how many billions a year. Rather than pay Halliburton to rip the country off, I would rather use that for the waitress at your favorite diner to be able to go get the lump in her breast checked.
You might mean $60,000 for the surgery itself, but with a transplant there are many other concurrent and long term costs. The largest chunk goes to the acute care hospital.
This physician wasn't been paid his worth between 1988 and 2012. I got fair compensation from 1976 up until 1988, and since 2012. IMO of course!
$6,000
The median household income is less than $60k. Take out the bankers and the docs are just another service provider.
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.
