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.
Honestly, I value the life of a stranger to where I'm willing to part with a small percentage of my money if it means they don't have to worry about getting financially ruined when cells in their body start splitting uncontrollably through no fault of their own.
Your post below indicates you don't, which is your prerogative, but please don't assume that because you believe it's theft that everyone else does. You don't control societal mores, you have your own opinion, just like I do. So here's my counter-offer:
There are literally thousands of uninhabited islands in the Pacific: I'll setup a gofundme and make an initial payment of a few hundred bucks to have you sent to one of those so you can live totally free and independently, and never have to worry about paying for anyone else's anything. No questions asked. You go, and take your fascist definitions with you. I'll even throw in an ebook reader loaded with Ayn Rand and other far right wing works to keep you occupied. Until the batteries die at least. Then you'll have to build your own solar cells or electric grid. Good luck with that btw
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Lets keep it simple Mr. Wizard.
Taking peoples money they did not approve of being taken is theft.
Forcing theft is slavery.
Next?
Yes... Medicare, SSI, Medicade, etc... ALL SHOULD BE ENDED!
but... remember... people were taxed for this, stolen from... so the government should pay back what it took from the people to those people as it did not have a legal right to take it. All these programs are outside of the authority of the federal government and are illegal.
Now... that we have gotten back to a liberty based government in our example and people have a lot more of their money to keep because government is no longer stealing it, these people are then responsible for their own health. Yes.. Yes... but what of the safety nets? Sorry, but being free means being responsible, you can't claim liberty and freedom and then subjugate your neighbor to pay for you can you? (hint: answer is NO).
So what about that poor person who can't afford that hip replacement? Well, there are donation charities, friends, family, neighbors, and well.. insurance often works (which would be a heck of a lot cheaper when the system isn't bubbled by government influence). Past that, well... again.. welcome to freedom and liberty, it comes with some conditions.
See, either you believe in liberty and freedom, or you don't. You don't get to say you support people to be free, you support liberty.. but then put in a bunch of conditions. That is hypocritical.
So... here were are...
You arguing to be in another country. Me arguing for the retention of this one.
How about... if you like hand outs, collective slavery and subjugation, etc...
You move off to some other socialist/communist Utopia and live in the bliss of slavery to pay for others?
This way, you have a choice of several other countries out there that meet such needs, and we can start turning this country back to the only country that actually supported individual liberty?
Good deal or do you have to kill all liberty in the world because you need a hand out and your morality deems that it is justifiable to subjugate and even kill those who resist your demand for justice?
In states with Tort reform, the cost to insure did not decrease while people were left without remedy for negligence.
Here is a tragic example in Texas where a family didn't realize just how much Texas has allowed tort reform to favor doctors and give them little to no remedy for negligence.
What about the claim that tort reform would bring down health costs once doctors cut down on all those unnecessary tests and insurers lowered their malpractice premiums? Well, in the years following tort reform’s passage, malpractice premiums did decrease around 46 percent, but those savings have not been passed on to patients, according to a 2011 study by the consumer group Public Citizen. And as for the claim that Prop 12 would usher in an era of lower healthcare costs, well, even tort reform’s biggest backers are distancing themselves from that one.
Is It Time to Reform Tort Reform?
Tort reform made sense to lots of people at the time, Stephen DiLeo included—that is, until a doctor removed his son’s brain tumor.
Who knows what Trump's plan would do with regard to tort reform but Texas wanting to vote away their rights with regard to medical malpractice does not mean other states necessarily want to do that.
Again, I have to wonder, didn't people think about their future early on or did they think they were going to live the American dream just because they exist and without effort?
You cannot plan for cancer. That is the whole point of insurance, is to spread around the risk.
Quote:
Why is it that people who had common sense, planned, invested and worked hard toward a better future have to foot everyone else's bill?
That is how insurance works. Your premiums end up paying someone else's bills when that person has to use his insurance.
There are two things going on with ACA that you are conflating: sharing risk as all insurance does, and subsidizing the premiums for those who are poor and cannot afford the premiums. The latter is paid for with taxes which fund the subsidies. Most of the expense of ACA that everyone complains about is due to the risk-sharing. But that has nothing to do with people who do not plan or work hard (as you said). Anyone can get sick.
People will be more proactive about their careers. They won't be effectively chained to their current job just because they're afraid of losing health insurance. They can switch fields and start from the ground up. They can get into fields and trades that truly suit them (whereas now, most people all compete for the increasingly small pool of jobs that offer health insurance).
If health insurance isn't tied to private employers, there will be greater freedom of mobility among professionals, and more jobs available as it relieves the financial burden on many would-be employers.
It's nice to agree with you folks from time to time! It's very difficult to convince my conservative friends. I think bales and bales of cash can be saved simply by controlling the greed in the business as well.
There are thousands of ways to make a million dollars in America. Health Care should not be one of them.
It's nice to agree with you folks from time to time! It's very difficult to convince my conservative friends. I think bales and bales of cash can be saved simply by controlling the greed in the business as well.
There are thousands of ways to make a million dollars in America. Health Care should not be one of them.
On this point, I can definitely agree with a Republican that says this. I have a friend in another state that asked me why I was a Democrat and I said my number one issue is and always has been health coverage. When President Obama made this his number one issue, I was beyond thrilled. I have never ever faulted him because I know what he wanted and the obstacles that have been put before him. It was further reinforced when he said of Trump "if he makes it better, I applaud it". That is someone that sees the bigger picture and truly wants health care for everyone. Can Trump do it? We'll see. Republicans absolutely hate health care discussions and the image of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell passing such a vote would be great medicine.
Here is a tragic example in Texas where a family didn't realize just how much Texas has allowed tort reform to favor doctors and give them little to no remedy for negligence.
What about the claim that tort reform would bring down health costs once doctors cut down on all those unnecessary tests and insurers lowered their malpractice premiums? Well, in the years following tort reform’s passage, malpractice premiums did decrease around 46 percent, but those savings have not been passed on to patients, according to a 2011 study by the consumer group Public Citizen. And as for the claim that Prop 12 would usher in an era of lower healthcare costs, well, even tort reform’s biggest backers are distancing themselves from that one.
Is It Time to Reform Tort Reform?
Tort reform made sense to lots of people at the time, Stephen DiLeo included—that is, until a doctor removed his son’s brain tumor.
Who knows what Trump's plan would do with regard to tort reform but Texas wanting to vote away their rights with regard to medical malpractice does not mean other states necessarily want to do that.
We can not have affordable health care unless we address EVERYTHING. And that is going to include this.
If health insurance isn't tied to private employers, there will be greater freedom of mobility among professionals, and more jobs available as it relieves the financial burden on many would-be employers.
Health insurance originated as a competitive perk for employers to lure, and retain, employees. It grew out of control from that.
I highly recommend reading the following paper if you are interested in healthcare costs and how we got to where we are in the insurance mess. This paper is from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
He IS a wildcard. He is both growing and not on me. I am very much liking his art of the deal re manufacturing. OTOTH that mouth...
What art of the deal?
The millions in tax breaks given to one company for 700 jobs or the auto manufacturers that haven't changed any plans that were announced before Trump was elected?
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.