I support Ron Paul's billFollow

Which would be fine if we were discussing some purely arbitrary concept. In this case though, we place great value on the principle of liberty because of its original meaning to the founders of this country. That value is not arbitrary, and arguing for an interpretation of liberty which does not match that original meaning becomes fallacious. It's like you and I agreeing that we should eat "healthy foods", but later you decide that cookies and cakes are "healthy". When you change the definition of the word you're using, you also change its importance and relevance to the issue at hand.


When I say that failing health is not a violation of liberty, I'm using liberty as it was understood at the founding of this nation. When Belkira says that she disagrees, that's because she's using a definition of liberty that is just some made up thing after the fact. Her use of the word is meaningless IMO.

Edited, Apr 19th 2010 5:03pm by gbaji

No, we don't. That was easy.

Because the math on the "provide health coverage instead of paying at the ER" is horribly flawed. It works if you only look at the people who show up in emergency rooms. That person would have cost us less if he'd had health care. Maybe.

But since we don't know which people will end up in the ER for health care, we'd have to cover many times that number of people, which makes the total cost much higher, not lower as is advertised.


It really is cheaper to provide full care only for those who pay (with the amount of care based on the amount they pay) and provide basic emergency care to those who don't, then to provide full care for everyone. There are some really really obvious economic factors which explain why. If you can't figure them out, then maybe there's just not much hope for you?

I find it odd that you would argue this point considering that just a few days ago you argued that the people calling Obama a "socialist" were valid despite using the word as a placeholder for something completely different.

















Haha, nah I'm just kidding, I don't find it odd at all.



Edited, Apr 19th 2010 8:25pm by bsphil

Why? In both cases, I'm pointing out that the meaning behind the word is more important than the label that is used. Conservatives are not confused about what is meant by words like liberty and socialism. Liberals, on the other hand, spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to come up with new definitions of those words, and new applications of them, so as to support whatever they happen to be trying to do at the moment.

I've been pretty darn consistent with this position.

Of course it does. I responded directly to a statement that it makes no sense to oppose paying for this stuff via public funding since we're already paying for it via subsidized costs in the ER room. This is incorrect because the costs go up if you replace that with public funded care.


Even assuming we don't provide them with "full care", it'll still go up. Want to know why? Because when you shift from the private industry absorbing the cost of folks who can't pay showing up at the ER, but which otherwise is profit driven, to a publicly funded system which is not only not profit driven, but driven by political agendas which desire to provide health care as a right/benefit for all citizens, you're going to see the amount which will be provided go up. And that will drive the costs up.


The private industry will absorb the cost, but will do everything it can to reduce that cost. A public system not only wont, but will actually have a vested interest in making it more expensive. This is the same argument raised in opposition to the "public option". Once government steps in like that, it can mandate service in such a way that private industry cannot afford it. Given that one of the major arguments for single-payer (ie: government funded) health care is that it would be cheaper because you take all the private industries out of the way it benefits the government to make costs in the private system as high as possible. But of course, it's only cheaper if you first create an incredibly inefficient system. Which is precisely what we've been doing for the last 30+ years.

This is obviously just a step to the next step, with full socialized medicine as the ultimate goal. For a whole lot of reasons, I oppose this, so I oppose that step. I'd rather we look at how poorly we manage health care and go in the other direction instead. But this health care bill had nothing to do with fixing any of the problems, and a whole lot to do with making the system (and the problems) bigger, so that in 15-20 years, when the subject comes up again, single payer will look even more attractive.




I reject the premise that we should be talking about "distributing costs" at all though. If the government wants to tell hospitals that they must provide emergency care, then that's their choice. If that means that the private industry has to absorb that cost, then that sucks, but that's what has to happen. This is no different than the government mandating any of a zillion other requirements into other industries which increase the cost of their products.

If said private industries can convince people to buy that more expensive product then that's great for them. If it can't, then that's no so great, but let's not lose sight of what placed that increased cost there (government). It is absurd to say that you're going to "help" the private industries out by having the government mandate that people buy their product in order to spread out the costs, and then fine them if they don't. Not only is that certainly a violation of the Constitution, it's also just a dumb idea.



Yup. And as the guy paying for it, I can legitimately call you a lazy bum who needs to get a job.



No. It's not fine. I'm still paying for your care. The government is collecting a fine from you. However, there is no indication in this system that my health insurance, which is paying the bulk of the extra costs for you to go to the ER will ever be paid back by the government. It's going to collect that fine and spend it on it's own programs. So someone on medicare will be funded (to a tiny degree) by your fines. I wont see a cent.

All it serves to do is get the government yet more involved financially in the industry. Needlessly. Let's also not forget that at the same time they are doing this, they're placing requirements for the insurers to insure even people with pre-existing conditions. What that means is that not only am I not going to see your fine money, but once you get sick, you can then sign up for health insurance, can't be denied, and the costs will go up even more for me since now I'm not just paying a relatively small amount to pay for the hospitals cost (which they'll keep to a minimum since it's straight loss for everyone right now), but I'll have to pay for the loss to the insurance company for having to cover you.

You get that if the hospital has to sneak the extra costs into their bills structure to subsidize a cost, it will always cost less than if that extra cost is realized and passed on directly to the insurance companies, right? Or do you need me to explain this to you?


You are making a classic mistake. You assume you can change the rules of the game, and the players will not change the way they play. That's simply not true. Right now, the extra cost born is a loss for everyone involved, so they work hard to keep that loss to a minimum. But if those costs are covered by the insurance system in some way, they are no longer a loss, but a potential source of profit. The cost per person in that situation will go up.

Edited, Apr 19th 2010 7:50pm by gbaji

Sure, but just use one sentence and move on. You're using an established definition of liberty so just say that and address what people are actually saying, which is that there are things that are as important as the things you define as liberty.

Ok, so I've highlighted an American ideal to the right to Life. I contend that all the little niggling illnesses and injuries are a detriment to the Right to Life, too.

Secondly, as someone who has lived a long time with an extremely debilitating chronic illness: Sickness in ALL PRACTICAL MEASURES infringes on personal liberty. An injury to a knee, foot, or hip, and suddenly you can't walk well, or without great pain? Suddenly you can't walk around a shop/office floor, around an art museum, get up stadium steps, play a sport, cook, look after your kids properly by moving around the house, or helping them dress, you can't make it to the corner store when before you could walk all over town all day? Let me tell you: that's an infringement of Liberty right there. An INCREDIBLE infringement on Liberty.

Agonising tooth so you can only eat soup, and you are debilitated by pain all day, circumscribing the activities you are up to? Infringement of liberty.

For a liberty to be a liberty, you have to not only have the right to do it, but also the ability to do it.

What's sad is how some people hold on to such an antiquated definition of the word liberty.

That is what I was getting at, as well. I am not surprised that gbaji discounts this as meaningless and disagrees with me.

Let's be honest about it, though. It's not just that we should want people to be healthy because that's the humanitarian way to be. We should also want people to be healthy so they can be good productive members of society. It makes no sense to encourage insurance companies to deny services and keep our citizens sick and dying.

To protect the possibility that gbaji and knoxsouthy might someday be rich, duh.

Because if we don't, the USSR will move right on in.

Tulip,



And if someone doesn't want to be healthy and live what you think is a healthy lifestyle what then? Do you make laws requiring them to attend a gym at least 4 times a week? It's our right to be as fat and disgustingly lazy as we want to be. What you're promoting is that those of us who have chosen to live a healthy lifestyle should in fact be responsible and pay for the care of those who do not. When the govn controls this much of our life we cease to be free. Then again most liberals don't want freedom. What they really want is security. They want to be released from having to deal with the consequences of their choices.




This is about as stupid a statement as you've come up with a while. Every time you say something like this it just makes me sad that people like you have the privilege of voting. Go spend another 4yrs at college and learn something about assumed risk.


Samy,



You mean besides the fact that it's been proven to be, by far, the most effective economic system in the history of the world?