ernstk
Retro Renaissance
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
This thread isn't shown under 'Active threads from the forums', yet you can see it and post to it.
What does that mean?
Ernst
What does that mean?
Ernst
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Health insurance isn't the only kind of insurance I'm forced to buy. I'm required by law in Texas (and I believe most other U.S. states) to buy automobile liability insurance. That's OUTRAGEOUS! What if I'm the world's saafest driver? Why should I have to subsidize all the others? Or what if I'm a Billionaire? Why am I required to buy insurance when I can self-insure?
Mandatory auto liability insurance is an egregious abridgement to my freedom! And for that matter, why should I be required to wear a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet? This is TYRANNY! I would join the Tea Bag Party, but they only seem motivated to oppose health care reform, not any of the other abridgements of my freedom. Hmmmm, I wonder if that's because the Tea Bag Party is funded by Aetna and Wellpoint?
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Thank you, Olsen. I accept your congratulations.
I hear the Republicans plan on repealing this law. I'm looking forward to that. Going back to a system where pre-existing medical conditions disqualify us from coverage. Republicans will get lots of votes with that strategy.
Spoks
Well-known
This thread is listed under the Off Topic section. Click Forums and roll down to 'Off Topic'. Which is OK. Sure, this is 'off topic'. I find it revolting that many political threads here are removed altogether here on RFF. This is a sort of American moderating that is inspired by political extremists in USA that wants to deny ordinary people to 'discuss' political issues among each other. Which I find dagerous.
Here in Europe we often discuss political issues on photo sites. Sometimes, but not often they get nasty. As some photo discussions also do. but only in extreme instances such (photo or political) are stopped. But never removed.
I think that the RFF moderators should observe that political - and other off topic issues, makes this forum more readable and interesting. And in pace with a modern democracy. To list such discussions as 'Off Topic' is OK, but to delete them smells too much of 'Iran' and 'China' to me.
Otherwise, I fully agree with Olsen's congratulation - to all Americans. I feel certain that this bill will benefit you all.
Spoks
Well-known
Good point.
I have been unemployed for the last well three months. Regardless if I am employed or not, from cradle to grave, I have practically all my health care costs covered here in Norway. Health care is something I never think about, even. I just go to the doctor when needed. The relation we have, the doctor and me, has nothing to do with business.
jarski
Veteran
thumbs up for Obama for bold move, and pulling it through despite hard resistance and difficult subject.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dan,
Superbly put!
I read your post in its entirety to my wife: born in NY state, moved to California at 17, lived there 17-35 and 42-47.
She did not disagree with you.
Cheers,
R.
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Thank you, Roger. You and Frances are truly citizens of the world!
The debate over Health Care Reform has been extremely divisive in the U.S. Time will tell if this is a step forward, or a misstep. It's certainly not a step backward, since we've never gone here before. But it's really the next step after Medicare, which we've had for 50 years. And critics back then, including Ronald Reagan, said Medicare and other social welfare programs would be the downfall of our nation.
kully
Happy Snapper
Not at all chap - I was referring to the medical system.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Many of those who are on the opposing side of this are behaving like spoiled children, I hate to say! 
This business of expectorating on an elected official and using racial and sexual slurs has no business in our society!
For the conservatives and "patriots" who oppose this measure, I think some not so gentle peer-pressure is in order. Make it very clear to those of "like minds" that it's un-cool to resort to tactics such as that to get the point across.
Sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but the behavior by some exhibited last Sunday is an embarrassment to all Americans.
This business of expectorating on an elected official and using racial and sexual slurs has no business in our society! For the conservatives and "patriots" who oppose this measure, I think some not so gentle peer-pressure is in order. Make it very clear to those of "like minds" that it's un-cool to resort to tactics such as that to get the point across.
Sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but the behavior by some exhibited last Sunday is an embarrassment to all Americans.
rpj
Grumpy
DMR, I have to agree with you on this, even if , I suspect, we view the legislative actions of the past 12 months in different ways. This is neither the end of the world as we know it, nor will it be Heaven on Earth. If we remain as we are it becomes even more likely that in 100 years the only inhabitants of Earth will be cockroaches.
Unfortunately comparing to car insurance is not valid. Car insurance is not a requirement for those people who do not drive, or do not own cars. Whereas this bill forces everyone to purchase something just because they exist. This violates at least two parts of the Constitution. There are many more violations as well. Whether these will be fairly addressed by the courts remains to be seen, but the lawsuits have already been filed.
Ultimately, this was not about health care. Everyone in the US is in favor of reforming our health care system, which is second to none in quality. The problem was price, which is solved by competition, not by removing competition, which has the absolute opposite effect. It's also unfortunate that this will serve to push the country further down the road to bankruptcy.
Ultimately, this was not about health care. Everyone in the US is in favor of reforming our health care system, which is second to none in quality. The problem was price, which is solved by competition, not by removing competition, which has the absolute opposite effect. It's also unfortunate that this will serve to push the country further down the road to bankruptcy.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
To The World's Safest Driver.
To The World's Safest Driver.
Well, not really. You're not really free to dispense with a seat belt and become a quadraplegic in an accident and a burden on society just because you want to be "free". You're not free to leave your helmet off and suffer a brain injury that leaves your family and others to pick up the cost of looking after you for the rest of your life. You're not free to opt out of the auto insurance and go out, get plastered, smash into someone else and injure them so badly they need care for a long time.
That's not freedom. That's totally selfish and irresponsible.
Being part of society involves some mutuality of action to ensure that society functions and does not break down under the effects of individuals acting solely for their own benefit. You want the benefits of a civilised society you join in. You don't want it - go find a desert cave and stay there as a hermit.
To The World's Safest Driver.
Well, not really. You're not really free to dispense with a seat belt and become a quadraplegic in an accident and a burden on society just because you want to be "free". You're not free to leave your helmet off and suffer a brain injury that leaves your family and others to pick up the cost of looking after you for the rest of your life. You're not free to opt out of the auto insurance and go out, get plastered, smash into someone else and injure them so badly they need care for a long time.
That's not freedom. That's totally selfish and irresponsible.
Being part of society involves some mutuality of action to ensure that society functions and does not break down under the effects of individuals acting solely for their own benefit. You want the benefits of a civilised society you join in. You don't want it - go find a desert cave and stay there as a hermit.
Is it therefore similarly selfish and irresponsible for someone to be a smoker, or a diabetic overeater, or a drug addict, and expect the government to take money out of the pockets of others in order to cover the costs of effects of their poor health choices? Especially out of the pockets of those who do everything in their power to live healthy lives?
To those that are forced to pay: is this freedom?
To those that are forced to pay: is this freedom?
Last edited by a moderator:
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Well, yes, it seems selfish and irresponsible and I feel some resentment that they do not do enough to improve their own situation and reduce the burden on society. But some of them are in that state today through no real choice - each of those conditions is addictive and has psychological aspects. Some of them (an example - not all, of course) could well be veterans of the Vietnam war.
But at the same time, 'some resentment' is not sufficient to overcome basic humanitarian principles which, if discarded, would have such people thrown on the scrapheap to rot, euthanised or - at another time, sent to the gas chambers.
Are we civilised or are we not? And is not a civilised society a better place to live than one where individual "freedom" allows people to do whatever pleases them without regard to the effect on others?
Whatever the problems of government, and the USA has a few, I think that too much is made by some of certain aspects of the Constitution.
A few things have changed in 234 years and, like scripture, I sense that some people cherry pick and use some of the wording selectively to suit their case rather than take the broader view.
Spoks
Well-known
Which shows that the US Constitution is all too old and increasingly insignificant. Ours (Norwegian), from 1814, is too. Get yourself a modern Constitution. Like that of Russia (1994) or Spain (1978) etc. Our next Constitution will have a 50 year expire date.
The people of USA must have the liberty (freedom) to chose, to solve problems by forming coops or let the government solve social issues. I think it shows clearly that it is not to the advantage of the US people to have health care 'privatised'. - That the private industry thinks this is just fine, that we understand.
Can you document that the US health care system holds a quality 'second to none'? My impression is that it levels with the US car industry that makes cars that are expensive and of mediocre quality (with overpaid executives etc). The US health care system in present form, shows clearly that 'there is no competition'. Despite privatisation. Which is natural. You don't haggle with your doctor about price when you suffer cancer.
Can a governmental institution run 'a business' just as good as a private? Sure, it can. Take Deutche Bahn, the legendary German railway system. Or London Underground. - I could go on....
A government institution would also be public with the right to insight. That do wonders to quality. That's why I don't believe for a minute that the US 'private' health care system is anywhere close to Western Europe equals regarding quality.
,Our Constitution has done quite well for us for some time. America is the envy of the world. For it to continue to be, I suggest we continue to follow it; it is after all what enabled America to become what it is today. Americans do not want to be Norwegians (no offense) -- we want to be Americans.
There is no such thing as too much competition. The reason health care is expensive, is that we do not have enough of it... Buyers are not making the decisions for their care as it is; when they make decisions as to what they buy and who they go to, because of cost and other factors, that's when prices go down. The legislation only makes the buyer that much more removed from the equation...prices will inevitably rise under this program, along with taxes.
If the US health system were so poor, you would not see Canadian politicians coming here for their procedures, instead of waiting for Canadian government care. Google Danny Williams’ Heart Surgery.
There is no such thing as too much competition. The reason health care is expensive, is that we do not have enough of it... Buyers are not making the decisions for their care as it is; when they make decisions as to what they buy and who they go to, because of cost and other factors, that's when prices go down. The legislation only makes the buyer that much more removed from the equation...prices will inevitably rise under this program, along with taxes.
If the US health system were so poor, you would not see Canadian politicians coming here for their procedures, instead of waiting for Canadian government care. Google Danny Williams’ Heart Surgery.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
1 Indeed, but the Founding Fathers seem to have envisioned a constitutional convention about once per generation, and certain parts of the constitution have been tactfully ignored, e.g. the creation of the State of West Virginia (Article IV Section 3) and the right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment), which, if the purpose is indeed a well regulated militia, must necessarily extend to automatic military weapons.
2 No. It simply isn't. Many people from poor countries want to go to to the United States but throughout American history one immigrant in three has decided to return to his or her own country (US INS statistics), and there are plenty in Europe and indeed in affluent and not-so-affluent countries elsewhere who vastly prefer to live outside the United States. Not least for the medical care.
3 Cost-no-object medical care for the rich (including politicians) is undoubtedly excellent in the United States, but for the poor and even the middle class, it is unquestionably better in most European countries. According to all Canadians I have ever spoken to, it is better in Canada too. All surveys of which I am aware point to France as having the best overall health service, for all its citizens, not just the rich or the poor, and having tried both the UK and the USA my wife (a US citizen) and I are in no doubt as to which we find better.
Cheers,
R.
1. You are correct, the Constitution has been trampled on with regards to the 2nd Amendment.
2. Where people live is but one aspect of 'envy.' One can envy what America has and offers, yet not live here.
3. I'll take free enterprise solutions every time. I do not trust government, they cannot do things efficiently, and without competition quality goes down, costs go up, and the only way to contain costs is rationing.
I for one do not want to pay for the health care costs of those who mis-manage on their own health. How long will it be before I'm paying for someone else's nose job because the government has deemed it pre-existing?
The bottom line: Americans reject this by landslide margins. We do not want to turn into a Euro nanny state. The vast majority of Americans want to stay with what made America what it is today. In fact, many of them would just as soon get rid of the other bankrupt entitlements while we are at it.
2. Where people live is but one aspect of 'envy.' One can envy what America has and offers, yet not live here.
3. I'll take free enterprise solutions every time. I do not trust government, they cannot do things efficiently, and without competition quality goes down, costs go up, and the only way to contain costs is rationing.
I for one do not want to pay for the health care costs of those who mis-manage on their own health. How long will it be before I'm paying for someone else's nose job because the government has deemed it pre-existing?
The bottom line: Americans reject this by landslide margins. We do not want to turn into a Euro nanny state. The vast majority of Americans want to stay with what made America what it is today. In fact, many of them would just as soon get rid of the other bankrupt entitlements while we are at it.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.