This is something that I prepared several years ago- before Obamacare was passed, so it may not fully reflect today?s situation.
The Republican proposal to give tax credits for people that buy their own health insurance won?t work for the simple fact that working class (and not a small number of middle class) people that cannot afford health insurance now likely aren?t making enough to have any taxable income in the first place. Giving people who don?t pay taxes tax credits so they can buy health insurance is just socialized medicine under another name.
But what the Democrats have implemented is just as bad as anything the Republicans have proposed. Medicare and Medicaid are monumental boondoggles. They are both are an inefficient use of money and healthcare resources and an ineffective mode of delivery for healthcare products and services.
Any proposal involving medical savings accounts won?t work due to market forces. Several years ago a local credit union offered medical savings accounts, but the accounts paid less than 4% in interest (likely less than 2% now). Putting money in one of these accounts means that you are not even breaking even with the government?s official inflation rate (which does not take food and energy costs into consideration) while the yearly inflation rate for the healthcare industry is in double digits.
So what can we do?
The current healthcare industry is based on competition and profit. Healthcare providers compete with each other to sell insurance policies, healthcare products and healthcare services. And the profit motive funds R&D of new medical products.
But competition and the profit motive are the prime reasons why the healthcare industry is so expensive and in such a mess. They have contributed (at least in part) to the problem that millions of American cannot afford adequate healthcare.
The best option would be to create a healthcare industry that is not profit-driven by allowing private charities and non-profit cooperatives to provide medical services and products- something that the religious liberty amendment I proposed in another thread is designed to do. These private efforts would be vital for providing benchmarks for any government program that may be devised- people would not have to be dependent on the government by having alternatives to the government program.
But what form should a government plan take?
Requirements:
Impose price limitations on all medical products that are otherwise sold over-the-counter (adhesive bandages that Wal-Mart can sell for a penny a piece shouldn?t cost $5 just because it is sold by a hospital or doctor)
End all subsidies, insurance programs and disaster aid to tobacco farmers
Create a nutrition education program for grades 1-8
Fund daily PE programs for grades 1-8
Revamp the school lunch program to avoid high-calorie/low nutrition meals
Ban advertising of prescription medications
Prohibit the sale of soft drinks at all public schools
Restrict the products that can be purchased by food stamps to insure that recipients maintain a nutritious diet
Basic plan:
The plan will provide 3 levels of coverage.
Basic coverage will be offered everyone and will include a yearly health assessment examination and routine vaccinations as well as coverage for minor incidental medical needs (illness and injury).
Anyone who is enrolled in the basic coverage plan will be required to enroll in the chronic and catastrophic plans as well.
The chronic coverage plan will include things like pregnancy, diabetes and hypertension.
The catastrophic coverage plan will cover things like cancer, heart disease and paralysis.
How the plan works:
Doctors and insurance companies will create a standardized set of health assessment criteria that will determine a person?s overall health and the likelihood that they will need certain types and amounts of medical care during the next year based on the person?s age, gender, family history, lifestyle et cetera. A person?s health assessment will be expressed as a numerical score.
Each year all interested insurance companies will submit bids for premiums to cover each possible health assessment score for each level of coverage (routine, chronic and catastrophic). The bids for each health assessment score will be averaged to determine the national average.
Persons who are enrolled in the plan will receive a voucher equal to the average premium for an insurance policy to provide routine health care. Each enrolled person will use the voucher to purchase a routine health care insurance policy from one of the participating insurance companies. If the person purchases a policy that costs more than the national average, he must pay the difference. If he purchases a policy that cost less than the national average, he may apply the difference towards his purchase price for the chronic health care insurance policy that he must also buy.
Each year?s health assessment score will be converted to a percent chance that he will need chronic medical care during the next year. Each enrolled person will receive a voucher equal to: [100% of the average premium] ? [(percent chance of need) x (100% of average premium)]. This way the more a person puts a burden on the healthcare system the more he pays in insurance premium. Each enrolled person must use the voucher to purchase a chronic health care insurance policy from one of the participating insurance companies. If the person purchases a policy that cost more than the national average, he must pay the difference. If he purchases a policy that cost less than the national average, he may apply the difference towards his purchase price for the catastrophic health care insurance policy that he must buy.
Each year?s health assessment score will be converted to a percent chance that he will need catastrophic medical care during the next year. Each enrolled person will receive a voucher equal to: [100% of the average premium] ? [(percent chance of need) x (100% of average premium)]. Each enrolled person must use the voucher to purchase a catastrophic health care insurance policy from one of the participating insurance companies. If the person purchases a policy that costs more than the national average, he must pay the difference. If he purchases a policy that cost less than the national average, he may apply the difference towards alternative treatments or lifestyle modification programs.
Each year a national average cost will be calculated for medical products and services (doctors? visits, lab work, hospitalization, prescription medications, diagnostic tests and procedures and medical supplies). These averages must be published and provided to each person who is enrolled in the program. Persons who are enrolled in the program may obtain medical services and products from any participating provider. Insurance companies will pay the average cost. If the person uses a provider whose price is greater than the average, the person must pay the difference. If the person uses a provider whose price is lower than the average, he will receive a voucher for the difference that he may apply to his out-of-pocket costs for medical products and services or apply them to alternative treatments or lifestyle modification programs or apply towards the next year?s insurance premiums.
not too bad, but you have to have a good method to want health insurers to cover everyone, I agree people need to be held responsible for their actions but there are many cases where geneitc disease or a disability would be uncoverable at any price for an insurer (profit or non profit)
plus demand based healthcare is a problem, It sickens me that in a society where 1/6 of the people don't have healthcare we allow parents to choose an unnecessary amputation solely for the parent's benefit, This does nothing to improve health overall but absolutely sickens me that I am paying for somebody else to mutilate their child's genitals without any need or benefit to the victim. (sorry, this grinds my gears....)
plus you need to have everyone join the system, otherwise only those who benefit from the system will apply which goes against the idea of insurance.
I would vote for more of a subsidized system where critical care is always covered at 80% with a deductible of $5,000 (possibly higher deductible/lower percentage for wealthy people) and everyone from a just born infant to senior citizen is always covered
beyond that private insurance may exist for extras or luxuries, like private hospital rooms, lost pay/wages or coverage of other items not deemed critical to health and well being
this would dramatically simplify our medical system and not leave any gaps.
we of course also need to have straight forward billing, we are in the information technology and our healthcare services should be, I can get a price for anything except healthcare online and the number of pricing games that exist currently is amazing, if you charge person "A" $200 then charge person "B" 200 even if they don't have insurance instead of gouging them for $800 because they obviously don't have money to hire a lawyer
not too bad, but you have to have a good method to want health insurers to cover everyone,
The profit motive makes universal coverage by the insurance industry impossible. But take away the profit motive and you shut down R&D of new drugs, medical equipment et cetera. Both liberals and libertarians need to recognize these facts.
Quote:
I agree people need to be held responsible for their actions but there are many cases where geneitc disease or a disability would be uncoverable at any price for an insurer (profit or non profit)
My mother is pretty much in this situation already. She is on SSI because of lupus and is thus already on Medicare when she is not old enough. Until January 2011 she never had more than 1 insurance company that would write her a supplemental policy. And even with 2 to choose from she cannot afford a supplemental policy.
I went 23 years without any medical problem other than a cold or sinus infection. But in 2008 I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure because of a leaky aortic valve that I didn?t know I had. I don?t smoke or drink. I am not particularly overweight and my diet is better than the American average because I keep a garden. Cholesterol is not a problem. So I am not a typical heart patient. I had to go on a city healthcare plan when I got sick because I was uninsured and unemployed for the sake of being my mother?s only caregiver. But even without any lifestyle issues, I doubt that I could buy health insurance on the open market.
Quote:
It sickens me that in a society where 1/6 of the people don't have healthcare we allow parents to choose an unnecessary amputation solely for the parent's benefit,
There likely are medical benefits from circumcision. Women with Jewish husbands have a lower rate of cervical cancer than women with uncircumcised husbands have.
And what would you do about the psychological effects on the sons of men who are already circumcised?
Quote:
plus you need to have everyone join the system,
That seems to be the biggest beef Republicans have with Obamacare. Making everyone joint the system could too easily become making everyone accept and submit to whatever treatment that system says they need. My personal experience with the medical profession and what I have seen that profession do to members of my family means I will not give up my right to refuse treatment and thus my right to not join the system.
Quote:
(possibly higher deductible/lower percentage for wealthy people)
Why? Why are wealthy people so special?
Quote:
beyond that private insurance may exist for extras or luxuries, like private hospital rooms,
How is a private hospital room always a luxury? If you are sick with diarrhea or vomiting your guts out, would you want to be in the same room with someone who has a couple of bratty kids visiting them?
Quote:
lost pay/wages or coverage of other items not deemed critical to health and well being
I would make this a separate program- providing you take precautions to keep it from being abused.
The profit motive makes universal coverage by the insurance industry impossible. But take away the profit motive and you shut down R&D of new drugs, medical equipment et cetera. Both liberals and libertarians need to recognize these facts.
what new cures have we had recently? research is put into treatment, not cures, keeping insurers around does nothing to improve r+d
Quote:
There likely are medical benefits from circumcision. Women with Jewish husbands have a lower rate of cervical cancer than women with uncircumcised husbands have.
genetics likely play a more significant role, whenever these small scale "case study" style claims have been tested against larger populations they don't hold up. In the aids case instead of comparing the population as a whole and comparing genitally intact men to the genitally cut men they instead cut intact men and measured hiv rates a year later, the infection rate had a small difference and only proved if left intact and were cut there was a one year drop after being cut, meanwhile out of larger populations that were either intact from birth or cut shortly after birth no significant difference exists.....
not too mention all the downsides from missing a very important part of the functionaility of the penis as well as the most sensitive part, basically changing it from a more complex part of the body with various parts that work together to a rudimentary "stick" as the foreskin performs a lot of functions when it comes to sex
Quote:
And what would you do about the psychological effects on the sons of men who are already circumcised?
how so? Is not a parents intent to give a better life to their children? why would mutilating them just because the dad had been mutilated do any good? kids look significantly different then parents, and letting them be better off is not an issue. I've heard people say that before and I honestly couldn't see a worse excuse for genital mutilation, If a women came from kenya and had her clitoris and labia excised, would you accept your argument as rational to have it done?
What about kids that find out they are damaged and see the scar and don't like it, you don't think that is psychologically bad? to know they were complete and can never experience the full sensation meant to be experienced? that they can never have normal male genitals?
that is psychologically painful, and something very little can be done about to repair it.
Quote:
That seems to be the biggest beef Republicans have with Obamacare. Making everyone joint the system could too easily become making everyone accept and submit to whatever treatment that system says they need. My personal experience with the medical profession and what I have seen that profession do to members of my family means I will not give up my right to refuse treatment and thus my right to not join the system.
Why? Why are wealthy people so special?
well programs are expensive, if people have plenty of money they got benefiting from america it's only fair to pay a slightly larger share, the goal of my argument was so that the majority of people wouldn't be drowned in medical debt, someone with millions of dollars isn't going to be drowned by paying 40%, but an average citizen could easily be
Quote:
How is a private hospital room always a luxury? If you are sick with diarrhea or vomiting your guts out, would you want to be in the same room with someone who has a couple of bratty kids visiting them?
wants verse needs, no I wouldn't, but I wouldn't expect the government to pay for it, I would expect the government to pay for medical care to get me healthy, not providing luxuries, If I want a private room I can pay $x a month for a private insurance extension that covers it.
what new cures have we had recently? research is put into treatment, not cures, keeping insurers around does nothing to improve r+d
Without the profit motive we wouldn?t have R&D. No drug company is going to spend years of time and millions in money to R%D a new treatment if they couldn?t make a profit off of the end result.
Insurance companies do have an incentive to contribute money to R&D (I don?t know whether or not they actually do so in the healthcare industry) since R&D could possibly lead to cheaper treatments- which would increase the insurance companies? profit margin.
Quote:
genetics likely play a more significant role, whenever these small scale "case study" style claims have been tested against larger populations they don't hold up.
Documentation? I?m not aware of any large scale studies.
Cancer is very much a genetic disease. But having a gene that could cause cancer does not automatically mean you will get cancer. Cancer genes can have environmental switches that activate them, meaning they may never cause cancer as long as a person with the gene is never exposed to the necessary environmental switch.
Quote:
In the aids case instead of comparing the population as a whole and comparing genitally intact men to the genitally cut men they instead cut intact men and measured hiv rates a year later, the infection rate had a small difference and only proved if left intact and were cut there was a one year drop after being cut, meanwhile out of larger populations that were either intact from birth or cut shortly after birth no significant difference exists.....
Legitimate science would not compare HIV rates in circumcised men with rates in uncircumcised men in the entire population because too many other variables would influence the population as a whole. You wouldn?t be able to isolate the effect of circumcision on HIV rates from all of the other factors that could affect HIV rates. You couldn?t compare HIV rates in polygamous Africans with HIV rates in monogamous Jews and get accurate results. Monogamy in the Jewish group would have a controlling input that would be absent in the polygamous African group. The only thing you could do would be compare the HIV rate among circumcised polygamous Africans with the HIV rate among uncircumcised polygamous Africans. If you don?t have enough circumcised polygamous Africans to have a statistically significant test population, you?d have to make some.
Quote:
as the foreskin performs a lot of functions when it comes to sex
Which are?
I?ve heard it said that a foreskin reduces sensation in men who have it, so a man is better off without it.
Quote:
how so?
Daddy, are they going to cut off my wee-wee off like they did yours? I?ll be a good boy, daddy, don?t cut my wee-wee off.
Quote:
well programs are expensive,
And this entitles the poor to live off the largesse of the rich how?
Quote:
wants verse needs, no I wouldn't, but I wouldn't expect the government to pay for it,
This is exactly what you?d be doing if you taxed the rich in order to give anything at all to the poor.
If someone is hell-bent on being lazy, anything someone else gives them is a luxury. I used to have a neighbor- an unmarried woman with 3 children by 3 different men- all being raised on welfare. I lived next to this woman for almost 5 years and she didn?t have a job for more than 2 weeks during the whole time. Her baby once had a 24-hour flu bug and the woman took the kid to the ER at one of the best hospitals in town because Medicaid said she could and she wasn?t paying for it. My mother, who worked 50-60 hours a week as a bookkeeper for 30 years is on Medicare due to her disability. She can only go to the county hospital. So don?t preach to me about how bad off the ?poor? are in this country. If it weren?t for bleeding hearts like you, we could possibly have had a decent government health care program by now.
Without the profit motive we wouldn?t have R&D. No drug company is going to spend years of time and millions in money to R%D a new treatment if they couldn?t make a profit off of the end result.
you already said that, but pure profit encourages very little investment in cures, all the investment money goes to treatment as that generates a lot more money
Quote:
Insurance companies do have an incentive to contribute money to R&D (I don?t know whether or not they actually do so in the healthcare industry) since R&D could possibly lead to cheaper treatments- which would increase the insurance companies? profit margin.
yeah......, they aren't going to support r+d unless they can profit off it and generally health care companies do not also develop drugs
Quote:
Documentation? I?m not aware of any large scale studies.
that is kind of the point, there are many small studies but the small studies rarely correspond with general population numbers
Quote:
Legitimate science would not compare HIV rates in circumcised men with rates in uncircumcised men in the entire population because too many other variables would influence the population as a whole. You wouldn?t be able to isolate the effect of circumcision on HIV rates from all of the other factors that could affect HIV rates.
actually you can far better then you can taking a very small population and doing the same thing, for the time and money spent selecting a small population in the middle of africa where there are far more variables a study could have been done in america with fewer variables on people who are intact or genitally cut and the results would be far more significant and meaningful, however most of these studies don't account for cultural differences, meanwhile studies from the military where they do have similar conditions have determined there to be no std protection
Quote:
Which are?
The gliding sensation
the nerves that are far more sensitive
the foreskin retains moisture/lube during sex
the foreskin protects the glans
the foreskin creates a gliding sheath that aids in insertion with less effort
not too mention other issues harder to verify such as a more natural rhythm, after all the penis and vagina were developed to work together
Quote:
I?ve heard it said that a foreskin reduces sensation in men who have it, so a man is better off without it.
think you have that backwards.... google "sorrell fine touch", the parts removed from circumcision are FOUR times more sensitive then what is left afterwards, FOUR TIMES!!!!!
Quote:
Daddy, are they going to cut off my wee-wee off like they did yours? I?ll be a good boy, daddy, don?t cut my wee-wee off.
wow, it can be explained far better then that, just simply saying it was something that used to be done in the past but we now know better
Quote:
And this entitles the poor to live off the largesse of the rich how?
no one said that, this was never about income redistribution so don't go crazy about that point, it's about keeping people from being buried in debt
Quote:
This is exactly what you?d be doing if you taxed the rich in order to give anything at all to the poor.
wants vs needs? what?
the rich need healthcare, the poor just want it?
Quote:
If someone is hell-bent on being lazy, anything someone else gives them is a luxury. I used to have a neighbor- an unmarried woman with 3 children by 3 different men- all being raised on welfare. I lived next to this woman for almost 5 years and she didn?t have a job for more than 2 weeks during the whole time. Her baby once had a 24-hour flu bug and the woman took the kid to the ER at one of the best hospitals in town because Medicaid said she could and she wasn?t paying for it. My mother, who worked 50-60 hours a week as a bookkeeper for 30 years is on Medicare due to her disability. She can only go to the county hospital. So don?t preach to me about how bad off the ?poor? are in this country. If it weren?t for bleeding hearts like you, we could possibly have had a decent government health care program by now.
whoa what? because I want a a program that everyone has the same access to that is why we don't have a system that everyone has equal access to? what are you talking about? I never went off about the poor, you did.
that is kind of the point, there are many small studies but the small studies rarely correspond with general population numbers
If there haven?t been large scale studies, how do you know that small scale studies have no implication for the whole population?
Quote:
actually you can far better then you can taking a very small population and doing the same thing,
This depends entirely on what you are testing. Some studies require large population samples in their experimental and control groups. If there is such a thing as a genetic predisposition to HIV infection (I am not saying there is or isn?t) you would want your test populations to have a great amount of genetic diversity.
Quote:
for the time and money spent selecting a small population in the middle of africa where there are far more variables a study could have been done in america with fewer variables on people who are intact or genitally cut and the results would be far more significant and meaningful,
Maybe, maybe not. I seriously doubt that something like circumcision rates could greatly influence the HIV rate because so many other variables would be in play.
Quote:
meanwhile studies from the military where they do have similar conditions have determined there to be no std protection
AIDS is not always an STD, and some STDs are not AIDS so now you are changing the subject.
Quote:
The gliding sensation
Never heard of it. But then worthwhile sex is as much psychological as it is physical so whether or not you are circumcised is not an issue.
Quote:
the nerves that are far more sensitive
Ask most men and they will likely tell you their glans is more sensitive to the touch when it is not covered up. Some men use this as an excuse for not wearing a condom when they want to sleep around.
Quote:
the foreskin retains moisture/lube during sex
Which can harbor pathogens.
Quote:
the foreskin protects the glans
Underwear does the same thing. I find it difficult to believe that something that protects the glans can be the same thing that supposedly makes the glans more sensitive.
Quote:
the foreskin creates a gliding sheath that aids in insertion with less effort
Documentation? Clinical evidence?
Quote:
not too mention other issues harder to verify
You haven?t verified any of the issues you?ve already raised. You have more-or-less given your opinion while making claims that cannot possibly be objectively verified.
Quote:
think you have that backwards.... google "sorrell fine touch", the parts removed from circumcision are FOUR times more sensitive then what is left afterwards, FOUR TIMES!!!!!
Just how was this sensitivity measured?
Quote:
wow, it can be explained far better then that, just simply saying it was something that used to be done in the past but we now know better
A 5 year old is going to understand this?
Quote:
no one said that,
This is exactly what you said.
Post #2:
I would vote for more of a subsidized system where critical care is always covered at 80% with a deductible of $5,000 (possibly higher deductible/lower percentage for wealthy people)
You want the rich to pay higher deductibles so they would have to subsidize the poor.
Then post #4:
well programs are expensive, if people have plenty of money they got benefiting from america it's only fair to pay a slightly larger share,
Again, you want the rich to subsidize the poor simply because the rich have more money than the poor.
Quote:
this was never about income redistribution
Making person A pay more for something so person B can pay less is income redistribution. You remind me of Joe Biden- who doesn?t know what communism is.
Quote:
wants vs needs? what?
Who the hell are you or any other liberal to decide what my needs are? Your thinking is precisely why Obamacare is such a disaster.
Quote:
whoa what? because I want a a program that everyone has the same access to that is why we don't have a system that everyone has equal access to?
Paying different amounts for the exact same product or service is not equal access.
If there haven’t been large scale studies, how do you know that small scale studies have no implication for the whole population?
the difference is between population numbers and statistics verse small studieswhere they go to africa and cu the genitals of a couple hundred men and measure the hiv infection, the small studies get the news even though when you look at the HIV rate per country compared to circumcision rate there is no correlation at all, and studies where they determined the rate of STDs for men have been done, but it's only the pro-circumcision ones that hit the news as the observational studies show no difference but the one where the researcher intervened show a reduction that they set out to get.....
how do I know, because they are just influencing the population for a short period of time, and the countries that have the highest incidence of aids rates are actually the countries WITH the highest circumcision rates, if getting cut really gave a protective benefit we would expect the opposite of what the population numbers say is true
Quote:
This depends entirely on what you are testing. Some studies require large population samples in their experimental and control groups. If there is such a thing as a genetic predisposition to HIV infection (I am not saying there is or isn’t) you would want your test populations to have a great amount of genetic diversity.
and not a small group of people in africa studied for one year, especially when you have a world of similar test subjects and data existing
Quote:
AIDS is not always an STD, and some STDs are not AIDS so now you are changing the subject.
not changing the subject, I realize they are different, but the arguments for them for pro-circ purposes is used the same
Quote:
Never heard of it. But then worthwhile sex is as much psychological as it is physical so whether or not you are circumcised is not an issue.
but then it is by your statement
Quote:
Ask most men and they will likely tell you their glans is more sensitive to the touch when it is not covered up. Some men use this as an excuse for not wearing a condom when they want to sleep around.
ummmm? you do realize how a foreskin works right? where the foreskin retracts upon insertion and recovers the glans on the outstroke, the foreskin covers the glans for the rest of the time preventing it from being dried out and numb from constant exposure
Quote:
Which can harbor pathogens.
and maintains a risk of infection that is at worst 1/3 that of the female anatomy, would that justify cutting a female?
Quote:
Underwear does the same thing. I find it difficult to believe that something that protects the glans can be the same thing that supposedly makes the glans more sensitive.
again, I don't think you understand how a foreskin works, underwear dries out the foreskin, cotton absorbs moisture, a foreskin is meant to be against the glans keeping the glans from drying out
Quote:
Documentation? Clinical evidence?
again, this is basic anatomy and function of a penis, I didn't think it didn't more explaination
You haven’t verified any of the issues you’ve already raised. You have more-or-less given your opinion while making claims that cannot possibly be objectively verified.
the result is the first in google, unlike most studies that are pro-circumcision they measured over 18 points of the penis, where as the often quoted pro-circumcision somewhat similar study measured 3 points that exist on both, as in they didn't even measure the foreskin, just assumed it wasn't sensitive.
Quote:
A 5 year old is going to understand this?
If they are smart enough to notice a difference and not satisfied with just a typical ask later type answer then yes, they are gonna find out eventually, we don't live in a closed society anymore. would they rather find out theywere harmed or unharmed, Kids are more understanding then you think, It sounds to me like you are more worried about protecting the parent from having to explain he was harmed
Quote:
This is exactly what you said.
Post #2:
I would vote for more of a subsidized system where critical care is always covered at 80% with a deductible of $5,000 (possibly higher deductible/lower percentage for wealthy people)
You want the rich to pay higher deductibles so they would have to subsidize the poor.
Then post #4:
well programs are expensive, if people have plenty of money they got benefiting from america it's only fair to pay a slightly larger share,
Again, you want the rich to subsidize the poor simply because the rich have more money than the poor.
call it that if you want, we can either have everyone pay in a little and have a very expensive system we all pay equally for or have the well-off pay a little bit more (as most successful governments do have them do) either way someone has to pay, if we keep the working poor to where they can't get ahead then we destroy any stability we have, so yeah argue about redistribution all you want, we can't have the working poor paying 25% of their wages without an uprising and we can't have the rich pay 10% and keep the government running, there is a reason that practically every successful form of government does this
Quote:
Making person A pay more for something so person B can pay less is income redistribution. You remind me of Joe Biden- who doesn’t know what communism is.
It's getting late and I would like to tell you why this is so wrong, we aren't taking one persons income and saying go buy a house and luxuries with it, we are saying this person has a right to live, are you also going to argue that the police should better protect the rich after all they pay more in taxes, right? so why is this different, why should we let healthcare be like that.
what about all those externalized costs companies have? who pays those? the company doesn't pay those, somebody pays those......and who benefits from those externalized costs? you don't think the rich do?
Quote:
Who the hell are you or any other liberal to decide what my needs are? Your thinking is precisely why Obamacare is such a disaster.
as opposed to the republicans plan which would have basically removed any say in my needs?
Quote:
Paying different amounts for the exact same product or service is not equal access.
that was a small detail, but you must really want to pay more for your services, either that or you are very wealthy and want the peasentry class to suffer more, we have long had a shrinking middle class and throwing more burden on them is NOT going to help this country move towards a brighter future.
I agree it's not "fair" but it works, and until someone comes forth a healthcare solution that is somehow magical any solution is going to do this. If you have solution that would actually solve the healthcare problems in a real way (get everyone affordable access that is dependable) then I would like to hear it, otherwise you are just wasting time ranting about income redistribution. Fine it's income redistribution, america is setup to be a society that demands companies pay for healthcare since that form of healthcare is the only truly dependable one, but companies aren't providing healthcare, so the rich are having to give out services the government is designed around them giving that they often are not....
what do you want? a peasant class that is refused healthcare because it is too expensive? ok, no redistribution, tax everyone at 25%, **** the poor, let's have tons of poverty since work just doesn't pay (again realistically welfare isn't going to dissapear), what is your vision of america (be realistic, we do need tax money to run, cutting s.s. and medicaid and such isn't going to support a 10% tax rate, and is going to put a major drain on society for those costs and needs. please try to be realistic, how would you actually do it and fund it while reducing taxes on the rich while raising taxes on the working poor? and make healthcare fair, affordable and accessible while not doing anything to reduce the cost for the working poor (as that would be income redistribution)?
you would have riots on your hands if you actually attempted to make things fair and reduce the various tax rates into one high tax rate in order to end your idea of income redistribnution/false communism)
communism isn't the same thing as income redistribution by the way, nor is it socialism.
the difference is between population numbers and statistics verse small studieswhere they go to africa and cu the genitals of a couple hundred men and measure the hiv infection, the small studies get the news even though when you look at the HIV rate per country compared to circumcision rate there is no correlation at all, and studies where they determined the rate of STDs for men have been done, but it's only the pro-circumcision ones that hit the news as the observational studies show no difference but the one where the researcher intervened show a reduction that they set out to get.....
how do I know, because they are just influencing the population for a short period of time, and the countries that have the highest incidence of aids rates are actually the countries WITH the highest circumcision rates, if getting cut really gave a protective benefit we would expect the opposite of what the population numbers say is trueand not a small group of people in africa studied for one year, especially when you have a world of similar test subjects and data existingnot changing the subject, I realize they are different, but the arguments for them for pro-circ purposes is used the samebut then it is by your statementummmm? you do realize how a foreskin works right? where the foreskin retracts upon insertion and recovers the glans on the outstroke, the foreskin covers the glans for the rest of the time preventing it from being dried out and numb from constant exposureand maintains a risk of infection that is at worst 1/3 that of the female anatomy, would that justify cutting a female?again, I don't think you understand how a foreskin works, underwear dries out the foreskin, cotton absorbs moisture, a foreskin is meant to be against the glans keeping the glans from drying outagain, this is basic anatomy and function of a penis, I didn't think it didn't more explaination
Medical Studies on Circumcision
the result is the first in google, unlike most studies that are pro-circumcision they measured over 18 points of the penis, where as the often quoted pro-circumcision somewhat similar study measured 3 points that exist on both, as in they didn't even measure the foreskin, just assumed it wasn't sensitive. If they are smart enough to notice a difference and not satisfied with just a typical ask later type answer then yes, they are gonna find out eventually, we don't live in a closed society anymore. would they rather find out theywere harmed or unharmed, Kids are more understanding then you think, It sounds to me like you are more worried about protecting the parent from having to explain he was harmedcall it that if you want, we can either have everyone pay in a little and have a very expensive system we all pay equally for or have the well-off pay a little bit more (as most successful governments do have them do) either way someone has to pay, if we keep the working poor to where they can't get ahead then we destroy any stability we have, so yeah argue about redistribution all you want, we can't have the working poor paying 25% of their wages without an uprising and we can't have the rich pay 10% and keep the government running, there is a reason that practically every successful form of government does thisIt's getting late and I would like to tell you why this is so wrong, we aren't taking one persons income and saying go buy a house and luxuries with it, we are saying this person has a right to live, are you also going to argue that the police should better protect the rich after all they pay more in taxes, right? so why is this different, why should we let healthcare be like that.
what about all those externalized costs companies have? who pays those? the company doesn't pay those, somebody pays those......and who benefits from those externalized costs? you don't think the rich do?as opposed to the republicans plan which would have basically removed any say in my needs?
that was a small detail, but you must really want to pay more for your services, either that or you are very wealthy and want the peasentry class to suffer more, we have long had a shrinking middle class and throwing more burden on them is NOT going to help this country move towards a brighter future.
I agree it's not "fair" but it works, and until someone comes forth a healthcare solution that is somehow magical any solution is going to do this. If you have solution that would actually solve the healthcare problems in a real way (get everyone affordable access that is dependable) then I would like to hear it, otherwise you are just wasting time ranting about income redistribution. Fine it's income redistribution, america is setup to be a society that demands companies pay for healthcare since that form of healthcare is the only truly dependable one, but companies aren't providing healthcare, so the rich are having to give out services the government is designed around them giving that they often are not....
what do you want? a peasant class that is refused healthcare because it is too expensive? ok, no redistribution, tax everyone at 25%, **** the poor, let's have tons of poverty since work just doesn't pay (again realistically welfare isn't going to dissapear), what is your vision of america (be realistic, we do need tax money to run, cutting s.s. and medicaid and such isn't going to support a 10% tax rate, and is going to put a major drain on society for those costs and needs. please try to be realistic, how would you actually do it and fund it while reducing taxes on the rich while raising taxes on the working poor? and make healthcare fair, affordable and accessible while not doing anything to reduce the cost for the working poor (as that would be income redistribution)?
you would have riots on your hands if you actually attempted to make things fair and reduce the various tax rates into one high tax rate in order to end your idea of income redistribnution/false communism)
communism isn't the same thing as income redistribution by the way, nor is it socialism.
You obviously have no comprehension of how science works and you are obviously a socialist. You have an ideological axe to grind and thus won?t acknowledge reality. It isn?t worth the wear and tear it would cause my arthritic arms and shoulders to continue this discussion with you.
I just would like to comment on one part of the following statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
I would like to tell you why this is so wrong, we aren't taking one persons income and saying go buy a house and luxuries with it, we are saying this person has a right to live, are you also going to argue that the police should better protect the rich after all they pay more in taxes, right? so why is this different, why should we let healthcare be like that.
communism isn't the same thing as income redistribution by the way, nor is it socialism.
If ones existence is being subsidized (which it is, if someone else covers their costs, healthcare or otherwise) then they should not have the luxuries of new car payments, fancy cellphones, cable, or internet at home. These ARE luxuries and if someone else is paying for their food or healthcare, then essentially they are paying for these luxuries. If one can afford these things, then they do not need financial assistance.
I know some people actually do need help. Until we can determine who truly needs what, then some will paint most with the same brush.
Linear Mode
