riddler 0 #76 September 20, 2009 QuoteSome believe personal responsibility doesn't stop with themselves. If that is a justification for the continued privatization of healthcare, I'm curious if you think the people in nearly every other industrialized nation are irresponsible? Not to play the bandwagon, but the US is among the very few "wealthy" country that doesn't provide publicly-funded healthcare, and many of those other countries did so by the consent of the population (voting or political pressure). So does that mean all the other countries have people that don't want to take responsibility for themselves?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #77 September 20, 2009 Quote Quote What % of emplyers buy a kickass policy like that? 10% maybe. In my experience, I could get this sort of coverage by working for either a very large corporation that had tens of thousands of employees and could negotiate a great rate OR a small, well-funded VC company that had kick-ass product and was competing for the best talent. Both scenarios happened in the "good" economies, not the "bad" economies, where the company paid for the insurance. I still work as a contractor for some of the smaller companies. Now that the economy is bad, they offer insurance to their employees for sale. If I were still an employee, it would cost me about $1,000/month to insure my wife and two children - the same cost as my home mortgage. Kinda my point Most people don't make that kind of money to toss 12k off per year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #78 September 20, 2009 QuoteKinda my point Most people don't make that kind of money to toss 12k off per year. Your point was taken - I was confirming this with my own account. Most people don't have the option to work for large telecoms and defense contractors, or small financial and Internet companies like I do. Drew also has very good education and specialized skills that make him an asset. The tens of thousands of out-of-work auto employees don't necessarily have the options we do, and those are the people that I am discussing.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #79 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteSome believe personal responsibility doesn't stop with themselves. So does that mean all the other countries have people that don't want to take responsibility for themselves? Actually, yes. It infers that the people are willing to allow the government to provide it and accept the government control in exchange for a "free" service. I would rather pay and control my own services. Others feel that way as well. BUT I realize that others do NOT feel that way or are incapable of paying for what they want/need and are willing to accept (and some demand) that someone else provide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #80 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteKinda my point Most people don't make that kind of money to toss 12k off per year. Your point was taken - I was confirming this with my own account. Most people don't have the option to work for large telecoms and defense contractors, or small financial and Internet companies like I do. Drew also has very good education and specialized skills that make him an asset. The tens of thousands of out-of-work auto employees don't necessarily have the options we do, and those are the people that I am discussing. Right and I am all for being rewarded if you put yourself somewhere that you can get such great coverage, I don;t like that Canada restricting private health providers. I don't think a citizen should be denied coverage or required to go bankrupt if their appendix bursts. I know you're kinda on the same page. I just wonder what beats at the heart of someone who so objects to a poor family getting medical attention from checkups to surgeries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #81 September 20, 2009 QuoteIt infers that the people are willing to allow the government to provide it and accept the government control in exchange for a "free" service. Oh, like the military? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #82 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt infers that the people are willing to allow the government to provide it and accept the government control in exchange for a "free" service. Oh, like the military? If the American population is willing to give up that control that military member have given up to get that service, then sure. HAVING BEEN A MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER, it was fair enough health care (but Tricare SUCKED). In exchange, I was on mobility, did TDY away from my husband and accepted a risk of death for the sake of my country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #83 September 20, 2009 the military is also a 'free' government service...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #84 September 20, 2009 Quotethe military is also a 'free' government service... Or It's a service that is provided as protection for the people of a country by a smaller portion of the populous. Those volunteers are willing to sacrifice even their life if necessary for that cause. In return, those members are given minimal compensation for that willing sacrifice... and still people complain about what they do and demonize them for that service. And you desire the medical providers sacrifice as the soldiers have? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #85 September 20, 2009 Quote[The military is] a service that is provided as protection for the people of a country by a smaller portion of the populous. Those volunteers are willing to sacrifice even their life if necessary for that cause. In return, those members are given minimal compensation for that willing sacrifice. Do you believe that each individual taxpayer should have the right to choose whether or not to contribute funding for the military? Why or why not?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #86 September 20, 2009 maybe,, but many of them made THEIR OWN CHOICE !!!! ( which is what jumpers do when they select their hobby of choice). That's the key to our way of life, which I enjoy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #87 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuote[The military is] a service that is provided as protection for the people of a country by a smaller portion of the populous. Those volunteers are willing to sacrifice even their life if necessary for that cause. In return, those members are given minimal compensation for that willing sacrifice. Do you believe that each individual taxpayer should have the right to choose whether or not to contribute funding for the military? Why or why not? To contribute - probably should NOT be a choice. BUT I do feel that we, as the contributing source should have more control over the "services" that the military does provide. But, we don't. We, the people, seem to have minimal control over where the forces are sent. So, one could parallel that if the medical field were converted to such a "service"... the concern is that We, the people would have minimal control over those services as well. - but back to the military, I feel that it should be significantly down sized. (knowing that if that were to happen, it could significantly impact my husbands business) But "we" spend too much money and manpower on "protecting our way of life" by interfering with others ways of life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #88 September 20, 2009 QuoteIf the American population is willing to give up that control that military member have given up to get that service, then sure. The American people don't have a say in either. QuoteHAVING BEEN A MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER, it was fair enough health care (but Tricare SUCKED). In exchange, I was on mobility, did TDY away from my husband and accepted a risk of death for the sake of my country. That's honestly great and I've served too, but that doesn't address government control over the military and healthcare and any say the people might have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #89 September 20, 2009 Quotethe military is also a 'free' government service... Yep, that was my point. The same people shooting down HC are teh same ones pumping up more $$$ for the military, or at least they're not denoucing what we have, so their cries of spending money so everyone can have HC has more to do with 'everyone having HC' than it does the money aspect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #90 September 20, 2009 QuoteIt's a service that is provided as protection for the people of a country by a smaller portion of the populous. TRANSLATION TO HC: It's a service that is provided as health and quality of life protection for the people of a country by a smaller portion of the populous. Why can't that translate? QuoteThose volunteers are willing to sacrifice even their life if necessary for that cause. Were off the point of 'free gov svs.' QuoteIn return, those members are given minimal compensation for that willing sacrifice... and still people complain about what they do and demonize them for that service. Who demonizes the troops? PLease. QuoteAnd you desire the medical providers sacrifice as the soldiers have? We were at the government level, the gov providing 'free' military protection versus the gov providing 'free' HC protections; let's not reconnect the gov to the troops, the troops have no place in this argument, they are part of the populace. Do you think the gov verspends on the military? I seee you think the gov would be overspending on medical if it passes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #91 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuote[The military is] a service that is provided as protection for the people of a country by a smaller portion of the populous. Those volunteers are willing to sacrifice even their life if necessary for that cause. In return, those members are given minimal compensation for that willing sacrifice. Do you believe that each individual taxpayer should have the right to choose whether or not to contribute funding for the military? Why or why not? And that was my piont, kbordsen must have missed it and directed to the brave troops no one claims are part of any fault here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #92 September 20, 2009 QuoteWe, the people, seem to have minimal control over where the forces are sent. Even before that, what money is expended on the military. Are you getting where everyone is goijng with this? We don't choose the 600B + 200B Iraq funding every year, but we should be able to shoot down a 1-time 850B HC proposal as too expensive? Quotebut back to the military, I feel that it should be significantly down sized. Exactly, GHWB and Clinton did just that, as well as they increased taxes, this created a 12-year recovery that was blown to hell by GWB. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #93 September 20, 2009 QuoteI don't think a citizen should be denied coverage or required to go bankrupt if their appendix bursts. Interestingly enough, I was in this situation about a decade ago. I quit a job with a large space contractor on Friday, and started with a large telecom the following Monday. But with health insurance companies being the way they are, there was a 30-day lag before I started receiving HC at the new job (the HC at the old job expired the day I left). 20 day into "the gap", my appendix went bad. Doctors said I would have been dead within another 12 hours. In most countries, they would yank my appendix out, and taxes would pay the bill. In 1985, Reagan and a Democratic Congress passed COBRA, which allowed me to retroactively pay for the insurance, which then covered the expense. Otherwise my choice would be death, or a $15,000 medical bill. Because I lived, I have since generated about $300,000 in taxes for the good ol' US government. And if I live to retirement, I'll probably generate another $1 million, just in taxes. Just from an economic standpoint, it makes sense for the government to do everything they can to keep me alive - even if they had to pay the $15K for that operation themselves. When right-wingers complain about the cost of healthcare, they're not looking at the long-term tax revenue from the citizens that survive. How much money would an additional 45,000 Americans each year generate in tax revenue?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #94 September 20, 2009 To answer my own question, the independent group Tax Foundation, estimates that the average American pays about $25,000 per year in taxes. If 45,000 average Americans die every year, this represents $1.125 billion dollars in lost taxes for one year. If we can keep those Average American taxpayers alive for another 10 years, it becomes $11 billion. And adding an additional 45,000 Average Americans each year, the additional 10-year tax revenue would be more than enough to foot the bill for all government medicine.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #95 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote[The military is] a service that is provided as protection for the people of a country by a smaller portion of the populous. Those volunteers are willing to sacrifice even their life if necessary for that cause. In return, those members are given minimal compensation for that willing sacrifice. Do you believe that each individual taxpayer should have the right to choose whether or not to contribute funding for the military? Why or why not? And that was my piont, kbordsen must have missed it and directed to the brave troops no one claims are part of any fault here. you've quoted me enough, so get it right... it's Bordson And as far as you refusing to see the analogy, let me make that easier. Once things are controlled by the government (whether it's the military or health care), you, as a person, LOSE control Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #96 September 20, 2009 Quote you've quoted me enough, so get it right... it's Bordson Is the o in bolface like that on your birth certificate certificate of live birth, also? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #97 September 20, 2009 Quote Quote you've quoted me enough, so get it right... it's Bordson Is the o in bolface like that on your birth certificate certificate of live birth, also? what is a bolface? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #98 September 20, 2009 >Is the o in bolface like that on your birth certificate certificate of live birth, also? She could resolve it very easily if she would just post the original of her birth certificate. You have to wonder why she hasn't . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #99 September 20, 2009 Quote>Is the o in bolface like that on your birth certificate certificate of live birth, also? She could resolve it very easily if she would just post the original of her birth certificate. You have to wonder why she hasn't . . . Because it's NOT required by my occupation, nor do I wish that my profession be taken over by government control. And... for the record, my birth certificate (or certificate of live birth) would not give an "o" in bold face or plain type. As the name given to me at birth had no "o" in it at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #100 September 20, 2009 >Because it's NOT required by my occupation . . . It was a joke! I don't really think you need to produce a birth certificate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
