Profile
Search
Register
Log in
The case for Ron Paul possibly winning the nomination!!
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

I'm not at ALL saying that 50k isn't a lot of money.

Compared to the people I know, I own Dubai.

What I was saying there is that because I've taken people in when they went broke, cut checks to far too many causes and offered amnesty on rent owed to me on many, many, many an occasion in addition to taking care of my mother who is old and ailing, I have nothing left to pay my bills. Isn't these services what my tax money is going to?

My point was that 50k should be PLENTY to live on. It's my house that does me in. But that's my personal finances, which is not the point here. My roomate doesn't make 20k, and that's who I was talking about.

I understand that the idea that health care being necessary will save money in the end on emergency servies. I just don't see it.

Like I said - I am taking a narrow, pissed off citizen's view of this. I'm not looking past the people I know who work hard and are unable to meet the requirements of this new law without serious implications to themselves (and in the event of my roomate, me).

I understand, obviously, that if everyone had health care there would be less money spent on emergency services. If that money is, instead, paid out to those people because they are part of a welfare program - what is the net gain?


Last edited by MessiahCarey on Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:44 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
is the penalty a flat fee or is it adjusted depending on your total income?


I don't know the answer to that for sure.

I'm lucky enough that my company pays for 75% of my health care so I only have to pay $100/month or so.

And since each month I'm $200-400 short on my bills - I could really use that money back. But fuggit...who needs food when you have HEALTH CARE!?!?!?!

We were joking the other day about Eric going in to the Dr. and asking for a sandwich. Heh.


If paying for health care means your roommate can't eat and would be homeless otherwise, he probably qualifies for the state to pay for his medical care anyways. You should probably look into it and save you both money.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:44 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
he probably qualifies for the state to pay for his medical care anyways. You should probably look into it and save you both money.


You'd think, wouldn't ya?

He was denied because too many people are filing right now.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lusid
http://youtube.com/watch?v=skCV2L0c6K0


Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 5081
Location: Dr. Pepperland
 Reply with quote  

Gambling has destroyed my state in about a 5 year time frame.
Well not the state government and it's wealthy elite, but the residents.
There are like 500 "hotspots" in my little town. People blowing retirement money, people getting divorces, people becoming homeless.
Our state motto changed from 'wild wonderful West Virginia' to 'West Virginia, open for business' until they changed it back recently.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

Health care costs way too much. I don't think any of us are arguing that point. But it's gotta get paid for, and if your friend doesn't pay for it in pieces, the much bigger tab is going to get spread around among all of us who are buying in already. If you won't acknowledge that, it's your perogative, but I don't know your friend and I'd rather help him have preventive insurance with my tax money than pay for his emergency care via my insurance premiums.

And yes, I believe it is better for your friend to be on welfare than to not have health care. If health care is a hidden cost of living, which it is, better that it is acknowledged and then welfare is given in consideration of that burden than that welfare rolls are determined in a way that is oblivious to the cost of health care. Whether your friend knows it or not, he should be seeing health professionals regularly, for the good of everyone, whether he is sick or well.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Lusid wrote:
Gambling has destroyed my state in about a 5 year time frame.
Well not the state government and it's wealthy elite, but the residents.
There are like 500 "hotspots" in my little town. People blowing retirement money, people getting divorces, people becoming homeless.
Our state motto changed from 'wild wonderful West Virginia' to 'West Virginia, open for business' until they changed it back recently.


Interesting...since our Governor is pushing for Casinos in MA to pay for the social services that are getting more and more taxed by stupid policies that rich people enact on the poor and middle class people.

I can't really do this anymore. Ha. I'm just getting mad, looking at the $200 I can spend this year on Christmas and forgetting that I'm lucky I've even got that much.

I'm going to stick my fucking face in the toilet.

What of those who do not believe in modern medicine? What of those who do NOT WANT to see dr's, do not take medication and are not willing to undergo treatment even in the event that they ARE sick?

I believe those people's wishes should be respected. Even if, somehow, that is not "liberty" to your ideological bent - it most certainly is to mine.

Talking about a line where one person's actions deprives another of their liberty - does passing a law like this not deprive someone of the liberty of choosing how, when, and if they receive health care?

It also normalizes "health care" around Westernized medicine. If someone wants to be treated in a homeopathic or holistic way do you think for a SECOND that's going to count? Should it? Shouldn't it?
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Scottie



Joined: 18 Jul 2003
Posts: 2829
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:


What of those who do not believe in modern medicine? What of those who do NOT WANT to see dr's, do not take medication and are not willing to undergo treatment even in the event that they ARE sick?





I am strong into individual liberties and I can get close to you with this but only to a point. What if a giant tree falls onto the head of one of these people breaking their spine. Are we going to leave this person to die a slow painful death? I just can not find a way to completely wrap my head around a health care system that lets someone opt-out.

As much as I would like to say I would rather not have the police force serving for me they are still going to arrest me if I hold up a bank, the army is still going to be in Iraq as much as I would wish otherwise. At least healthcare serves a much greater human need than the police and army
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

On that point we can clearly agree.

But we're crossing over here. If I could get rid of cops and pay for everyone's health care I would do it in a fucking second. Less than a second.

As for opt-out...I know it seems odd - but yes...I can envision a world where someone opts out of the health care system and dies as a result.

It's a bad decision. It's why I opted to pay for health care (with my employer's gracious assistence) even when I really could have used the $100/mo I spend on it.

But I don't go to the Dr. for regular checkups, because I believe that 90% of western medicine is done for profit and not health.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cakes



Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 2586
 Reply with quote  

if you're paying for the heathcare, you may as well use it to see the doctor regularly. i'd guess and say that majority of the cases of cancer (among many other ailments) which were found early enough to treat well were found at routine check-ups. not going doesn't really make a difference to them. they'll have patients either way.

i can see both sides of this argument, and though i agree there are a lot of greedy, money hungry people in the healthcare industry (which you'll find in most all industries), many are there because they honeslty want to do what they think is best for you. it's up to you to take what they say and decide if you agree. a good reason why second opinions are so popular and patient education so important.

but i suppose i'm getting off track...
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11242
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

I really don't understand how libertarians plan on battling the tragedy of the commons or robber barons.

From what I gather most people publishing libertarian material are would be robber barons.

They brought you the savings and loan scandals of the 80s, the junk bonds scandal of the 90s, enron/anderson of the 2000, and I don't even want to consider what they're in on right now. Contracters in Iraq were hot last year.

Some of them are likely defrauding the goverment for infrastructure money in the Gulf post Katrina neo-carpet bagging steez.

At some point the liberty of a few infringes on those of the whole.

Paleoconservatives get the gas face.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

You know what, now that you mention that - my dad died of cancer.

He didn't ask anyone to help financially - he got the news, told the Dr. he didn't have health insurance and that was that. He died 3 months later, give or take.

So my perspective is likely skewed on this matter. It's not that unreasonable for me to think that someone would choose their own fate in such a fashion because I watched it with my own eyes.

I don't view him as foolish, nor do I rever him for his integrity. And I miss him. G-d fuck shit ass cunt do I fucking miss him.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MorallyBass
The Hippie Terminator


Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 2907
Location: Boston
 Reply with quote  

Shane - I know you said your friend was denied coverage under MassHealth, but some quick googling with the info provided:

$20k annual income = 2x Federal Poverty Line for Individual (roughly)

That person should be eligible for MassHealth, I have friends in this position who've gotten free coverage under the current system. You should definitely fight through the bureaucracy if at all possible.

We shouldn't argue too much on the anecdotes. Your friend should be covered under the system and the particulars of their case shouldn't be used to draw the general expectation.

The new system is a real benefit for the vest majority of people, libertarian principles aside.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
It also normalizes "health care" around Westernized medicine. If someone wants to be treated in a homeopathic or holistic way do you think for a SECOND that's going to count? Should it? Shouldn't it?


It absolutely should, but there's got to be some kind of understanding about what is or isn't effective. Effective alternative medicines usually become accepted. Acupuncture, for example.

I share your distrust for our medical regime, but only to a point. At some point I do fear death, personally, and sometimes I want reassurance that I'm well.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
cakes



Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 2586
 Reply with quote  

it's nice to be able to make the choice on whether or not to go ahead with treatment. it's unfortunate, to say the least, that that may not have been the case with your dad. :(
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:

Talking about a line where one person's actions deprives another of their liberty - does passing a law like this not deprive someone of the liberty of choosing how, when, and if they receive health care?



No, it doesn't. It simply limits their liberty to not be -insured- against the costs of health care, if and when they choose to receive it. Care itself is and should be, IMO, up to the receiver of that care.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:37 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon