By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - If medical coverage is not a necessity, what is it?

thranx said:
I have lived with out healthcare for 15 years now and i haven't had any issues. Never been turned away by a doctor, i am still in good health, I have had all my dental work done. Doesn't seem to be a neccessity for me. I know I can't live with out food, shelter, and water for that long.


I don't mind paying for dental and vision but healthcare is a rip off in USA.  I'd rather see the tax bill sent to me and then judge if it is worth it.  I still believe it wouldn't be worth it so I'd rather pay any bullshit tax associated with healthcare than sign up for some expensive high deductible plan.



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.



you mean you were using sarcasm? i don't think your post is legible.

In response to the coersion comment, I wrote this:

If you are willing to give the money to help others, then it isn't forceably taken.  So, one can argue the problem isn't the fact the money exchanges hands, but you lack of willingness to give it up.  In this, it isn't theft either.  So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

One could go onto other aspects of what is really your stuff anyhow, but that is a different issue.

 

It wasn't sarcasm, but pointing out that the coersion (cousin to the "it is theft") argument goes away if a person willfully gives money.  So, I then asked, why the person wouldn't want to willfully give to help others?


Except you know... it sort of depends WHAT Your willing to give money to.  That's like saying "Your willing to spend money, so if i rob you and give you a candy bar, it's not robbery.

I'd rather give money to "Feeding America" then I would donate to the govermnet for food stamps. 

Why?  They get 10 meals for every dollar, while food stamps is lucky to get 1 meal for 5.



snyps said:
Cubedramirez said:
I received a letter stating the policy I was currently enrolled in which was a low deductible family coverage plan is no longer an option. However they stated I can pick a new plan modeled after the affordable care act which cost more and offered a higher deductible and less coverage. I was comfortable playing 495 a month, it covered everything and for my entire family I had a 8k deductible with zero out of pocket once it was met for a family of four as well as zero charges for preemptive care, speciality visits, 5-10 dollar prescriptions, etc.

Now I can't even get the same coverage without paying much more out of pocket for my wife and sons medications and speciality doctor visits. I loath government and their phoney altruism.



that's so messed up. $6000 a year is already outrageous.


The medical treatment for sickle cell is extremely expresive, however they covered it; treatments and medication which without insurance would have ran over two thousuand a month. The insurance gave me discounts on service even before the deductable was met, never had issue with the insurance company and 've been extremely happy with them for ages. 

And yeah, 6 grand a year plus the 8 might seem like a lot, however if the information on the government boards about the affordable care act price and coverage are right, I am paying more than that for inferior coverage!

This whole thing feels like it's a bad Tim and Eric Awesome Show skit that no one but the guys doing the skit get; maybe they don't even understand it either. 



richardhutnik said:
SlayerRondo said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richar



 

 

I.  So, I am more than willing to ask exactly how charitable the person in question is, if they don't give enough to reduce their taxes to nothing.  And, with such said said individuals, if you didn't have social programs there, and gave the money back to them in lower taxes, exactly how much help would those in need get?

Because nobody wants to live off of $8,700 for a entire year.

I'm guessing you don't know how tax deductions work... if you give $100 to charity in taxes, you don't get $100 off your tax bill.  You get $100 off your tax base.  Meaning that if you pay say, 25% in taxes at your highest level, you get a "tax break" of $25.

So it's a net "loss" of $75.

So to wipe out your tax debt you'd have to pay all of your income until you were out of taxable income.  Or $8,700 (For a full salary individual)


Nobody actually gives money for tax deductions, you can only lose money that way, all a lack of tax deductions do is make it so you get to the point of where your not comfortable giving sooner.  The whole concept is just a myth that exists soley to discount rich people giving to charity.

 

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=31#.UkFXusaUSLs

for sourcing if required.



nuckles87 said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
thranx said:
I have lived with out healthcare for 15 years now and i haven't had any issues. Never been turned away by a doctor, i am still in good health, I have had all my dental work done. Doesn't seem to be a neccessity for me. I know I can't live with out food, shelter, and water for that long.

My story is, before I was on Medicaid, I was getting free healthcare at a clinic.  I needed surgery on my back.  They were unable to pay for the anastesia. I was about to get Medicaid and then get the surgery paid for.  Without the surgery, I would of been laid up like a cripple for life, unable to work and in pain.  But, because of the delays in getting the surgery done, I likely have permanent nerve damage to my foot (I have numb spot there).  So, I can see you getting basics, but not sure how you would go about getting surgery, if you needed it, following what you follow.


Not sure how that'd be different in universal healthcare.  With delays being one of the big negatives of it.

Difference is that I got the surgery.  My being on Medicaid is like universal healthcare, and it means I get regular visits to doctors and so on.


My point was, chances are your surgery would of been delayed anyway.


I think his point is that without medicaid, he would NEVER have gotten the surgery at all, and would have been crippled for life. So I think he's still grateful for the socialized medicine, given the alternative.

RIght... the system worked... as is.

So I don't see his arguement.  There were delays, but with a unniversal system delays happen as well.



Around the Network

As for Obamacare. It is worth noting that if you in a HIGHLY regulated state it will actually make it cheaper for you... due to the low end subsidies.  



Healthcare is a catch-22. Insurance companies make money by aggregating healthy people along with sick ones so everything evens out. The problem? Healthy 20-somethings can't afford healthcare because they aren't paid enough, so they skip it. I know I can't. They wait until they're old enough to have health problems and have a salary job they can afford healthcare with.

Solution? Make it illegal to not have healthcare.

Thanks. Now I can't move out of my parent's house until I'm 29 and on salary.

Look, there are two rights at issue here. Do sick people have the right to healthcare? I don't think so. I think they shouldn't die of flu or tetanus or other things we can resolve for pennies, but basically, their right is to make their own decisions with their own resources.

But what about healthy people? In my mind someone who is healthy, takes care of themselves, and doesn't need healthcare has the right to be rewarded for that. They are, after all, the ones who are out there being productive members of society.

There are more uncovered 20-somethings in the healthy and don't need it demographic than in the unhealthy and can't afford it bracket.



Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.



you mean you were using sarcasm? i don't think your post is legible.

In response to the coersion comment, I wrote this:

If you are willing to give the money to help others, then it isn't forceably taken.  So, one can argue the problem isn't the fact the money exchanges hands, but you lack of willingness to give it up.  In this, it isn't theft either.  So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

One could go onto other aspects of what is really your stuff anyhow, but that is a different issue.

 

It wasn't sarcasm, but pointing out that the coersion (cousin to the "it is theft") argument goes away if a person willfully gives money.  So, I then asked, why the person wouldn't want to willfully give to help others?


Except you know... it sort of depends WHAT Your willing to give money to.  That's like saying "Your willing to spend money, so if i rob you and give you a candy bar, it's not robbery.

I'd rather give money to "Feeding America" then I would donate to the govermnet for food stamps. 

Why?  They get 10 meals for every dollar, while food stamps is lucky to get 1 meal for 5.

Let me jump in here with this bit, regarding the entire "no coersion" or "no theft" argument.  

As I have written in this thread here, it is entirely possible for a person to end up not giving the government a cent for taxes for welfare programs, if they manage to give away enough of their money, to take sufficient deductions, so they don't pay a cent.  They are more than capable of picking where the money goes.  The tax code permits this.  If an individual who complains about the money going to welfare, via taxes, isn't choosing to give to charity and do the issue as they choose to, then the person flat out doesn't want to do anything to help anyone.  They have the ability to do so, but they choose not to.  

In this argument, choosing is elevated above everything else and treated so sacred that going against this principle for ANY reason, is seen as an end to an argument.  "You can't make people do what they don't want!"  People in life have to do things they don't want.  People don't want to pay more for gas when the price goes up.  People don't want to have to do long commutes.  People don't want to have to put up with toxic environments.  Life is full of things that people don't want to do, but are compelled to do.  Heck I have to listen to an elderly father verbally abuse my mother and so on, and disrupt sleep.  Do you think I want to?  No.  It isn't what I want, but it is what I have to put up with.  Want to has nothing to do with this.

Another issue with the whole, "but I was coerced" and "it wasn't my will" is that people want a lot of bad things.  Stupidity, in and of itself, is not something to be enshrined, neither is culturally bad behaviors which are harmful to everyone in the big picture.  There is the libertarian argument of "So long as it doesn't hurt other people, it is ok! Go kill yourself for all I care".  Well, an individual does the said suicide, and say things could of turned around.  Let's say there is a future self out there, who could of had it better.  Does this said future version of self approve of suicide and robbing them of the future?  So, no it isn't an acceptable answer, eventhough it is a person's will.  And one didn't even get to the impact it would have on other people by taking one own's life.  

I can also go with the whole "sins of omission" argument in regards to this "but it is coersion" also.  In this, people NOT doing something can be more harmful than what they do.  So, we are to go and enshrine individual's will over everything else, including them not choosing to help someone for whom it would make a bigger difference?  So, in no time ever, failing to act is NEVER a wrong thing to do.  The bystandard effect is not really relevant, and people standing around watching have no more responsibility to do something to act, because that would violate their will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

The reality is, the whole theft and coersion argument is a weak one, and at best, secondary for determining policy and whatnot.  It is a useful guide to provide ideals to strive for in society on how it organize itself, but fails to provide any positive guidance on what to do.  Merely not punching someone in the nose is not sufficient guidance for society, when one's apathy and ignorance could cause someone to cause much harm.  LIke, mind your own business and someone falls into a pit, because you didn't tell them.  What if you didn't want to tell them?  Why should you suffer any copability in regards to not warning someone of a problem? After all, all that matters is what one wants, so long as you don't negatively impact things.

 

As far as how this relates to the original topic, if one wants to argue the "no coersion or theft", you need to show that a society of people without government intervention is going to suddenly cause the people being helped now to not get hurt, and that EVERY SINGLE person who will get impacted deserves to be impact by the removal of government help.  Otherwise, you will and what you want IS harming others, causing people even to die.



kitler53 said:

as you can clearly see from this picture health and body are very unimportant to people.  you can tell by how they put it at the bottom of the list.  what we really need is more religous involvment in our government to bring morality to our people..

I think you misinterpret the chart. The importance INcreases from top to bottom - the needs on the higher levels of the pyramide are more or less irrelevant as long as the lower needs are not satisfied. So for example a starving homeless person (who thus has deficits even on the lowest, physiological level) will not care about creatitivy etc., for he has much deeper and more important problems.

So the chart actually proves just how important health and body are.



richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.



you mean you were using sarcasm? i don't think your post is legible.

In response to the coersion comment, I wrote this:

If you are willing to give the money to help others, then it isn't forceably taken.  So, one can argue the problem isn't the fact the money exchanges hands, but you lack of willingness to give it up.  In this, it isn't theft either.  So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

One could go onto other aspects of what is really your stuff anyhow, but that is a different issue.

 

It wasn't sarcasm, but pointing out that the coersion (cousin to the "it is theft") argument goes away if a person willfully gives money.  So, I then asked, why the person wouldn't want to willfully give to help others?


Except you know... it sort of depends WHAT Your willing to give money to.  That's like saying "Your willing to spend money, so if i rob you and give you a candy bar, it's not robbery.

I'd rather give money to "Feeding America" then I would donate to the govermnet for food stamps. 

Why?  They get 10 meals for every dollar, while food stamps is lucky to get 1 meal for 5.

Let me jump in here with this bit, regarding the entire "no coersion" or "no theft" argument. 

and everything you said is wrong, because you don't understand how the tax code works.

See above where I explained it to you.  If you donate $100 to charity you don't get $100 off your taxes.  You get somewhere between 10-$15 off your taxes.  So there is no way to pay zero taxes and donate exactly how much you would pay in taxes.