Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Replies
-
seekingdaintiness wrote: »I love these wild west lone wolf people. lol
Me too. They will be the first to scream "shock my heart" and "give me chemo" so they won't die. They don't understand that you can wake up feeling fine and go to bed with cancer. It happens to people every day.1 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »The solution is obvious, we should kill all the fat and sick people so we don't have to spend money on useless eaters who are costing us money, duh. Kill all the old people too, they are expensive. After that kill all the disabled people, they are not going to be productive and just cost a lot in health care dollars and raise everyone's taxes. We have too many people on the planet anyhow. The earth will be a lot better off without all these rotten weak people on it ruining everything for everyone else. A good society is a strong healthy society!
We don't need to kill anyone. Evolution has a great filtration system. We just keep poking holes in it.
But yes, way to take a point entirely to the extreme. I've never advocating directly harming anyone, nor will I. However, if they are indirectly harmed by an inaction on my part (that isn't actual negligence) then that's not exactly my problem. If one were so inclined, we could make a completely ridiculous cause and effect chain that makes us all indirectly guilty of killing someone at some point.0 -
When I ponder the libertarian point of view, @Gallowmere1984 , I consider a much more mundane activity. Road maintenance. The libertarian point of view, correct me if I am wrong, is that every man takes care of his own section of road. Hopefully, if enough like-minded people do so, we have a road well-travelled.
Under such a system, how could a consistent network of roads be built and maintained?
Wouldn't people have to collaborate, pool their resources, and agree on the standards of road building and maintenance? Isn't it more efficient to hire a contractor to do it, and when roads get complex enough, an engineer and a supervisor? Isn't that in essence, the beginnings of a civil service?
Some times as a society we decide to pool our resources to support a collaborative activity for the common good. Sorry you weren't consulted back when.3 -
There are some diseases that don't kill; they disable if not treated. Poor intervention leads to sometimes permanent disability and a greater burden on the health care system. Diabetes, heart attacks, and poor dental hygiene are three examples.
I've read that the great concern is not the longevity of our seniors, but the quality of the health of our seniors. Can prevention help these people remain productive and vital?
It is in the group's common interest to catch early, treat early, and encourage prevention of these diseases.0 -
When I ponder the libertarian point of view, @Gallowmere1984 , I consider a much more mundane activity. Road maintenance. The libertarian point of view, correct me if I am wrong, is that every man takes care of his own section of road. Hopefully, if enough like-minded people do so, we have a road well-travelled.
Under such a system, how could a consistent network of roads be built and maintained?
Wouldn't people have to collaborate, pool their resources, and agree on the standards of road building and maintenance? Isn't it more efficient to hire a contractor to do it, and when roads get complex enough, an engineer and a supervisor? Isn't that in essence, the beginnings of a civil service?
Some times as a society we decide to pool our resources to support a collaborative activity for the common good. Sorry you weren't consulted back when.
As a person who works in the paving industry, let me assure you, it's not the concern you believe it to be. First, state and federal transportation workers are now little more than glorified bookies and bean counters. Everything from actual construction to inspection is primarily handled by contractors now. This has occurred because it's cheaper this way, and the end product is always better. State workers often get pensions and the like, which means that they will continue to cost revenue, long after they are no longer providing a service. The end product is better, because in the private sector, the individual employees are usually pretty easy to fire, so less likely to take a "meh, whatever, not my job" approach. However, that last part doesn't apply in union states.
Now, as to who would pay for it: the same people who do now. Business owners and corporation shareholders want people to purchase their goods. Now, how will they get to a place to purchase said goods, if all infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate? How will they even acquire their raw materials for production, if that's allowed to happen. These businesses have a vested interest in making sure that people can move freely.
Now, considering that, look at how much middleman would be cut out. Seriously, I want you to, for yourself, pull the numbers on what state employees make, see if you can pull up the estimated number of employees by state and agency, and come up with a rough guesstimate for how much money is wasted on personnel who are in no way crucial to the process. Let's just say, a whole lot of lane miles could be covered with even half of their salaries.
ETA: essentially, the state and federal job was dnoe about twenty-five years ago. That's the last time a major revision was made that didn't involve the private non-profit NAPA (and in Virginia VAA) having the bulk of the say so. Hell, starting this year, Virginia won't even be handling asphalt certifications anymore. That's being handed off to community colleges.1 -
Um, the contractor is a middleman. People still have to pool their resources and agree on what needs to be done. The scenario you describe is not libertarian.
I have spent my entire career as "overhead", where I do not directly contribute to the bottom line. It's administrative, it's important, and if neglected, nasty things happen. Not right away. It takes a while for administration to fall apart. I have worked for government and in private industry, in mining, utilities, and road survey work. I've worked darned hard to make sure what I do has value to the organization. But I'd have a hard time justifying my existence to a libertarian.
One of the best papers I ever read on administrative overhead used the example of overseas charities, where every penny is accounted to the donors. These organizations naturally want to keep their overhead as low as possible. In doing so, however, you can end up with situations where nurses spend half their shift completing and filing paperwork, instead of nursing. Pretty darned expensive. Pretty poor use of resources. What I read suggested there's an ideal balance of overhead, but it's not to easy to figure out. It's a different proportion depending on industry.
Using the road example, I am pretty sure you depend on preliminary drawings, approved drawings, and as-built. These drawings, their versions and iterations, will be touched by someone in document control. Document control is "overhead", not contributing directly to building the road. I am sure roads could be built without them. You wanna try first?1 -
Um, the contractor is a middleman. People still have to pool their resources and agree on what needs to be done. The scenario you describe is not libertarian.
I have spent my entire career as "overhead", where I do not directly contribute to the bottom line. It's administrative, it's important, and if neglected, nasty things happen. Not right away. It takes a while for administration to fall apart. I have worked for government and in private industry, in mining, utilities, and road survey work. I've worked darned hard to make sure what I do has value to the organization. But I'd have a hard time justifying my existence to a libertarian.
One of the best papers I ever read on administrative overhead used the example of overseas charities, where every penny is accounted to the donors. These organizations naturally want to keep their overhead as low as possible. In doing so, however, you can end up with situations where nurses spend half their shift completing and filing paperwork, instead of nursing. Pretty darned expensive. Pretty poor use of resources. What I read suggested there's an ideal balance of overhead, but it's not to easy to figure out. It's a different proportion depending on industry.
Using the road example, I am pretty sure you depend on preliminary drawings, approved drawings, and as-built. These drawings, their versions and iterations, will be touched by someone in document control. Document control is "overhead", not contributing directly to building the road. I am sure roads could be built without them. You wanna try first?
I didn't say overhead is the problem. In fact, you're right, it's 100% necessary. The problem lies in the typical government inefficiencies, and difficulties in getting rid of people who actually are quite useless. They generally just get shuffled to another department, to be a leech on some other beancounter's budget.
The pensions are another problem. I've already stated my point against those though, but I can understand governments needing to complete previously agreed upon contracts. Just stop making new ones, for the love of god. People are living entirely too long for that crap these days.
The fact that most infrastructure divisions are handled by appointed bureaucrats, and not elected officials just tends to make it all a bit worse.0 -
So you understand the value of collaborative work, and even some necessary overhead. Your protest is with the degree.
So what's wrong with as a society, agreeing that our seniors be taken care of in their later years? When this safety net is NOT in place, parents have large families in the hopes that their children will care for them in old age. Large families come with their own problems (*cof *cof India).0 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »The solution is obvious, we should kill all the fat and sick people so we don't have to spend money on useless eaters who are costing us money, duh. Kill all the old people too, they are expensive. After that kill all the disabled people, they are not going to be productive and just cost a lot in health care dollars and raise everyone's taxes. We have too many people on the planet anyhow. The earth will be a lot better off without all these rotten weak people on it ruining everything for everyone else. A good society is a strong healthy society!
How about we enslave them instead. Let's enslave everyone by monopolizing their healthcare, then we will be able to justify strong legislation to control their behavior based on the "greater good". This will be a self perpetuating system as we will be setting the standard for healthcare, and if they ever wanted to raise the standard, they would have to keep voting is in office. All we have to do is take away their carbs every now and then to keep them in line.
Any attempt to break up our monopoly will be perceived as a denial of health services rather than an increase in freedom. This is pure genius.2 -
So you understand the value of collaborative work, and even some necessary overhead. Your protest is with the degree.
So what's wrong with as a society, agreeing that our seniors be taken care of in their later years? When this safety net is NOT in place, parents have large families in the hopes that their children will care for them in old age. Large families come with their own problems (*cof *cof India).
Anyone who believes themselves an island should go live on one and see how they do. I am a realist who understands that nothing that I have was acquired by me alone. People who believe otherwise are...well...special.
What is wrong with that, is that they have outlived their usefulness, and the further they age, the larger that burden becomes. We have developed some kind of ridiculous obsession with life extension, even into the years where people's bodies clearly want to give up. We're so terrified of our own mortality, that we feel justified in strapping those who are trying to start their life, with the burdens of those who already completed theirs. We are transient, and trying to fight that is just making things harder on everyone.
Do the best you can, and be willing to admit when your run is over, basically.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
Within this quote is embedded a lot of life wisdom and common sense logic. People these days think money and benefits grows on trees. It doesn't, it comes from other peoples labor. Why should anyone be forced to work for someone else's negative life choices? On the same token, people should be free to make their own bad life choices if they want to. That is what freedom is about.
This is different however to emergency care. If someone is in a life threatening condition we have taxes to pay for it. But for non-accident related surgeries and the like, these should not be paid for by other people.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
If you can't pay they send you to collections or offer a "payment plan" that is basically high payments in a short amount of months.
Long gone are the days of hospitals eating costs.
If anyone had a hospital do that consider yourself lucky bc hospital payment plans are my experience. (2 times I didn't have insurance)
0 -
lenoresdream wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
If you can't pay they send you to collections or offer a "payment plan" that is basically high payments in a short amount of months.
Long gone are the days of hospitals eating costs.
If anyone had a hospital do that consider yourself lucky bc hospital payment plans are my experience. (2 times I didn't have insurance)
In all fairness, some cases are just flat out "blood from a turnip". I am sure that homeless guy, or battered woman bouncing around shelters, are all kinds of concerned about their collection calls and payment plans. There are those who do not now, and will never have the money; not in a format where it could be of any use to (if even collected by) the hospital.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lenoresdream wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
If you can't pay they send you to collections or offer a "payment plan" that is basically high payments in a short amount of months.
Long gone are the days of hospitals eating costs.
If anyone had a hospital do that consider yourself lucky bc hospital payment plans are my experience. (2 times I didn't have insurance)
In all fairness, some cases are just flat out "blood from a turnip". I am sure that homeless guy, or battered woman bouncing around shelters, are all kinds of concerned about their collection calls and payment plans. There are those who do not now, and will never have the money; not in a format where it could be of any use to (if even collected by) the hospital.
So should society pick up the tab or should we let them die?0 -
When I ponder the libertarian point of view, @Gallowmere1984 , I consider a much more mundane activity. Road maintenance. The libertarian point of view, correct me if I am wrong, is that every man takes care of his own section of road. Hopefully, if enough like-minded people do so, we have a road well-travelled.
Under such a system, how could a consistent network of roads be built and maintained?
Wouldn't people have to collaborate, pool their resources, and agree on the standards of road building and maintenance? Isn't it more efficient to hire a contractor to do it, and when roads get complex enough, an engineer and a supervisor? Isn't that in essence, the beginnings of a civil service?
Some times as a society we decide to pool our resources to support a collaborative activity for the common good. Sorry you weren't consulted back when.
That is closer to the anarchist POV in my opinion. The libertarian POV is that government itself is woefully inefficient at most things and that they would be better off paying a properly motivated third party to complete the work. It is an argument for practicality and effeciency.
The anarchists say that the government, through threat of force, essentially extorts money from some (taxes) in order to pay for things which go for the greater good. Theirs is an argument for morality. The concept of everyone taking care of their own section of the road is their idea of how it could work without a threat of force by the government.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I would be fine with that, assuming that there is an opt-out, and that in case of such opt-outs, hospitals are allowed under Federal law to turn said opt-outs away.
I'm assuming you are leaning towards opting out.
Question: Would you still opt out if a significant portion of the funds could be used once in a lifetime for something non-medical, like real-estate or some other life stabilizing expense?
0 -
CipherZero wrote: »On health care costs and "everyone should pay their own way"...
I have an autoimmune disease that, after many years of treatment, responds only to one class of medications at this point. There is no routing around it, there are no lifestyle changes that will make a significant difference in my medication requirements.
Medication costs run USD 48,000 annually.
The "pay your own way" crowd by not taking people with issues like this into account - and there are quite literally millions in this situation - are in essence telling me "You're inconvenient and should just die."
Nobody thinks you should just die. However, I would like to point out that the rise in autoimmune diseases over recent century is also likely a result of regulations/lobbyist activity which has impacted everything: vaccinations, food safety, big pharma, gmos, etc. And, thanks to more government regulated programs, gone are the days when your family, church, and/or community would step in to help you with medical costs and other financially devastating tragedies. Now everyone knows there's a program for that. They are much like Walmart which keeps most of its workers low wage/part-time and lets gov assistance take up the slack. Am I any better? Nope. I pay for that stuff out of my substantial tax burden, so I'll be *kittened* if I am going to hand out more money to my family member that decided to have a bunch of kids she can't take care of or pay the medical bills of my aging relatives. Point is, these things are dominoes. The more the government intervenes and forces people to pay for others who can't (in some cases) or won't (in far too many cases), the more people are going to jump in the wagon and let others pull them around. It's a downward spiral.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I would be fine with that, assuming that there is an opt-out, and that in case of such opt-outs, hospitals are allowed under Federal law to turn said opt-outs away.
I'm assuming you are leaning towards opting out.
Question: Would you still opt out if a significant portion of the funds could be used once in a lifetime for something non-medical, like real-estate or some other life stabilizing expense?
That depends upon the return on investment. Is it just flat dollar for dollar? No chance in hell. Is it handled more like 401ks and other investment accounts, where the money is invested on my behalf, and the returns given to me? Nope. As I said before, I'm not the gambling type. I'd be much better off tying up liquid in a regular savings account. Even if the yield is currently total crap, at least it's something, and loss is negated (other than that caused by inflation). Long term CDs would be an even better option.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I would be fine with that, assuming that there is an opt-out, and that in case of such opt-outs, hospitals are allowed under Federal law to turn said opt-outs away.
I'm assuming you are leaning towards opting out.
Question: Would you still opt out if a significant portion of the funds could be used once in a lifetime for something non-medical, like real-estate or some other life stabilizing expense?
That depends upon the return on investment. Is it just flat dollar for dollar? No chance in hell. Is it handled more like 401ks and other investment accounts, where the money is invested on my behalf, and the returns given to me? Nope. As I said before, I'm not the gambling type. I'd be much better off tying up liquid in a regular savings account. Even if the yield is currently total crap, at least it's something, and loss is negated (other than that caused by inflation). Long term CDs would be an even better option.
You would also have to take the tax savings into account. It would be your money under your control with the exception of liquification requirements. As such, you could handle the investment as you see fit and reap the consequences of your choices. You just wouldn't be able to spend the money for anything but the allowed expenses (without tax penalties equal to the amount you would have paid plus interest).0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I would be fine with that, assuming that there is an opt-out, and that in case of such opt-outs, hospitals are allowed under Federal law to turn said opt-outs away.
I'm assuming you are leaning towards opting out.
Question: Would you still opt out if a significant portion of the funds could be used once in a lifetime for something non-medical, like real-estate or some other life stabilizing expense?
That depends upon the return on investment. Is it just flat dollar for dollar? No chance in hell. Is it handled more like 401ks and other investment accounts, where the money is invested on my behalf, and the returns given to me? Nope. As I said before, I'm not the gambling type. I'd be much better off tying up liquid in a regular savings account. Even if the yield is currently total crap, at least it's something, and loss is negated (other than that caused by inflation). Long term CDs would be an even better option.
You would also have to take the tax savings into account. It would be your money under your control with the exception of liquification requirements. As such, you could handle the investment as you see fit and reap the consequences of your choices. You just wouldn't be able to spend the money for anything but the allowed expenses (without tax penalties equal to the amount you would have paid plus interest).
Still not likely, but possible. I would need a precise list of qualifying expenses and limits, before being willing to invest in it.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I would be fine with that, assuming that there is an opt-out, and that in case of such opt-outs, hospitals are allowed under Federal law to turn said opt-outs away.
I'm assuming you are leaning towards opting out.
Question: Would you still opt out if a significant portion of the funds could be used once in a lifetime for something non-medical, like real-estate or some other life stabilizing expense?
That depends upon the return on investment. Is it just flat dollar for dollar? No chance in hell. Is it handled more like 401ks and other investment accounts, where the money is invested on my behalf, and the returns given to me? Nope. As I said before, I'm not the gambling type. I'd be much better off tying up liquid in a regular savings account. Even if the yield is currently total crap, at least it's something, and loss is negated (other than that caused by inflation). Long term CDs would be an even better option.
You would also have to take the tax savings into account. It would be your money under your control with the exception of liquification requirements. As such, you could handle the investment as you see fit and reap the consequences of your choices. You just wouldn't be able to spend the money for anything but the allowed expenses (without tax penalties equal to the amount you would have paid plus interest).
Still not likely, but possible. I would need a precise list of qualifying expenses and limits, before being willing to invest in it.
Basically, if it makes financial sense, you would do it...right?0 -
Absolutely, but it has to make concrete financial sense. Not "but what if X happens" financial "sense".1
-
When I ponder the libertarian point of view, @Gallowmere1984 , I consider a much more mundane activity. Road maintenance. The libertarian point of view, correct me if I am wrong, is that every man takes care of his own section of road. Hopefully, if enough like-minded people do so, we have a road well-travelled.
Under such a system, how could a consistent network of roads be built and maintained?
Wouldn't people have to collaborate, pool their resources, and agree on the standards of road building and maintenance? Isn't it more efficient to hire a contractor to do it, and when roads get complex enough, an engineer and a supervisor? Isn't that in essence, the beginnings of a civil service?
Some times as a society we decide to pool our resources to support a collaborative activity for the common good. Sorry you weren't consulted back when.
That is closer to the anarchist POV in my opinion. The libertarian POV is that government itself is woefully inefficient at most things and that they would be better off paying a properly motivated third party to complete the work. It is an argument for practicality and effeciency.
The anarchists say that the government, through threat of force, essentially extorts money from some (taxes) in order to pay for things which go for the greater good. Theirs is an argument for morality. The concept of everyone taking care of their own section of the road is their idea of how it could work without a threat of force by the government.
I agree with this assessment. Also, I didn't think that most libertarians have the beef so much with state and local governments, as long as they are not overstepping their constitutionally defined bounds and infringing on the natural rights outlined in the constitution and bill of rights. The big problem is with the federal government which has become leviathan.1 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »When I ponder the libertarian point of view, @Gallowmere1984 , I consider a much more mundane activity. Road maintenance. The libertarian point of view, correct me if I am wrong, is that every man takes care of his own section of road. Hopefully, if enough like-minded people do so, we have a road well-travelled.
Under such a system, how could a consistent network of roads be built and maintained?
Wouldn't people have to collaborate, pool their resources, and agree on the standards of road building and maintenance? Isn't it more efficient to hire a contractor to do it, and when roads get complex enough, an engineer and a supervisor? Isn't that in essence, the beginnings of a civil service?
Some times as a society we decide to pool our resources to support a collaborative activity for the common good. Sorry you weren't consulted back when.
That is closer to the anarchist POV in my opinion. The libertarian POV is that government itself is woefully inefficient at most things and that they would be better off paying a properly motivated third party to complete the work. It is an argument for practicality and effeciency.
The anarchists say that the government, through threat of force, essentially extorts money from some (taxes) in order to pay for things which go for the greater good. Theirs is an argument for morality. The concept of everyone taking care of their own section of the road is their idea of how it could work without a threat of force by the government.
I agree with this assessment. Also, I didn't think that most libertarians have the beef so much with state and local governments, as long as they are not overstepping their constitutionally defined bounds and infringing on the natural rights outlined in the constitution and bill of rights. The big problem is with the federal government which has become leviathan.
Very much this. I have always been a "take your business elsewhere" kind of person. If a state or locality operates in a way that isn't to your liking, moving isn't particularly difficult. Hell, that's a big part of the reason that gerrymandering has gotten so out of hand. People don't sit still like they used to, and chasing votes has made borders look ridiculous.
However, when the entire nation, led by the Federal government takes a lean in the wrong direction, it can be much more time and resource consuming to leave, and even impossible for some, if acquiring citizenship in another country and renouncing this one's are on the agenda.0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »It's funny how many "I'm not paying for insurance because I don't need it" folks wind up with a chronic disease or serious injury and immediately run to the ER and collect their welfare. And then they whine about having to declare bankruptcy, which the rest of us also pay for.
A statistic I read a while ago: 65% of bankruptcies have a root cause of a health crises. 85% of those bankruptcies had health insurance.
Something is fundamentally broken.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »So you understand the value of collaborative work, and even some necessary overhead. Your protest is with the degree.
So what's wrong with as a society, agreeing that our seniors be taken care of in their later years? When this safety net is NOT in place, parents have large families in the hopes that their children will care for them in old age. Large families come with their own problems (*cof *cof India).
Anyone who believes themselves an island should go live on one and see how they do. I am a realist who understands that nothing that I have was acquired by me alone. People who believe otherwise are...well...special.
What is wrong with that, is that they have outlived their usefulness, and the further they age, the larger that burden becomes. We have developed some kind of ridiculous obsession with life extension, even into the years where people's bodies clearly want to give up. We're so terrified of our own mortality, that we feel justified in strapping those who are trying to start their life, with the burdens of those who already completed theirs. We are transient, and trying to fight that is just making things harder on everyone.
Do the best you can, and be willing to admit when your run is over, basically.
Here's the value I see in seniors; experience.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/what-other-cultures-can-teach_n_4834228.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_National_Treasure_(Japan)
Now that I'm getting closer to that magical age, I've been giving this some thought. I believe the retirement age has to be raised. Sixty-five was made the cutoff when most people died before they were seventy. The pension was designed to give the frail aged a few years of comfort.
It's no longer just a few years.
What I want is the freedom to semi-retire. Take longer vacations. Go to a shortened work week. Flexible work hours. And I'll grab any opportunity to instruct the next generation. That's what I can keep on giving, even as my body fails. But I'm not failing of course. I'm healthier now than I've been in decades.
I tell you, my dad is getting close to the end and he can't travel far from home any more. When I visit I stay as long as I can to get him to tell me more stories. He has put life in to context. I gain so much every time I visit him.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lenoresdream wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
If you can't pay they send you to collections or offer a "payment plan" that is basically high payments in a short amount of months.
Long gone are the days of hospitals eating costs.
If anyone had a hospital do that consider yourself lucky bc hospital payment plans are my experience. (2 times I didn't have insurance)
In all fairness, some cases are just flat out "blood from a turnip". I am sure that homeless guy, or battered woman bouncing around shelters, are all kinds of concerned about their collection calls and payment plans. There are those who do not now, and will never have the money; not in a format where it could be of any use to (if even collected by) the hospital.
Of course homeless people are prettyuch going to get a free pass. But usually there are programs that budget to Allow for this (last I heard anyhow).
What I'm talking about are every day Joe schmoe and broke college kids. You get no free pass, you do not pass go, you pay up or get sent to collections.
Very rarely they have a payments program but as of late they're cracking down on this too. The lady I spoke with said "yeah we don't really do that anymore. If you want a payment plan you have to pay at least $300/month or get sent to collections."
If ever a medical provider of any kind allows a discount or a free pass consider yourself lucky. You probably are damn near destitute for that to be allowed or it's a small business provider trying to keep patients (paying customers basically) any way they can.
Like I said, long gone are the days of a free pass from a hospital for an every day person like me.
It's not just my experiences either, I hear about this from friends and from my experiences of working in the medical industry for the past 15 years.
It sucks but times they are a-changin'.
0 -
Interesting topic! Especially since I am a tax accountant! However, I think the problem is more deeply rooted. Taxing junk food is likely to be a harder tax hit on the poor. Unfortunately, junk food is way more bang for your buck from a calorie perspective than what the produce department can provide. Plus, we live in such a fast paced society, that's the american, faster quicker better.....It kills me. I wish we could live a little slower paced life, grow some of our own food, take time to cook from scratch, etc....it's just not that simple anymore.... So, no I don't agree with taxing the junk food. Promoting and educating consumers about what they should be eating to stay healthy and providing families with more flexibility at work to live healthy lives, that topic should be up for discussion.2
-
How many of these leading causes of death can be laid on the victim's lap? I think people's fears shift as they age. One starts to worry more about cancer and heart disease as one gets older. Out come the bran flakes and the daily constitutional.
Hubby often says he won't die in a car accident because he is a safe driver. I remind him he has no control over the OTHER guy.2 -
CipherZero wrote: »On health care costs and "everyone should pay their own way"...
I have an autoimmune disease that, after many years of treatment, responds only to one class of medications at this point. There is no routing around it, there are no lifestyle changes that will make a significant difference in my medication requirements.
Medication costs run USD 48,000 annually.
The "pay your own way" crowd by not taking people with issues like this into account - and there are quite literally millions in this situation - are in essence telling me "You're inconvenient and should just die."
Nobody thinks you should just die. However, I would like to point out that the rise in autoimmune diseases over recent century is also likely a result of regulations/lobbyist activity which has impacted everything: vaccinations, food safety, big pharma, gmos, etc. And, thanks to more government regulated programs, gone are the days when your family, church, and/or community would step in to help you with medical costs and other financially devastating tragedies. Now everyone knows there's a program for that. They are much like Walmart which keeps most of its workers low wage/part-time and lets gov assistance take up the slack. Am I any better? Nope. I pay for that stuff out of my substantial tax burden, so I'll be *kittened* if I am going to hand out more money to my family member that decided to have a bunch of kids she can't take care of or pay the medical bills of my aging relatives. Point is, these things are dominoes. The more the government intervenes and forces people to pay for others who can't (in some cases) or won't (in far too many cases), the more people are going to jump in the wagon and let others pull them around. It's a downward spiral.
Precisely, and that's the cause and effect stuff that most are either too shortsighted to see, or too caught up in the programs to be able to have an objective view. Of course someone who couldn't make it, or was saved by the program would support it. That doesn't mean it's good on the whole.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions