Fruitcake MIDI Forum Treasury

Ricky · is doing a barrel roll! Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 443

So I have mixed feelings about the effect of this health insurance bill in the United States, but I feel from a moral perspective that it's wrong. But I don't know a terrible lot about it, and I don't know why people are so for it.

I grew up in the suburbs of San Jose, and me and all my friends, while not rich, were rather well-to-do in contrast with most Americans. All of our families had health insurance from our employers, and I was unaware that some people got by without health insurance.

I then moved to Sutherlin, Oregon, a small town of 7,000 people. Very few people have health insurance there. It simply isn't a priority. Many people there could afford it if they wished to, but instead they have nice cars, nice TVs, and fast internet. It feels odd to me that someone who provides for their family by working as a cashier would decide that a big screen TV or a new car is more important than health insurance. If they could have health insurance without the detriment of another, of course I would like them to have it. But that simply isn't possible.

That being said, I know plenty of students who have no health insurance, and have very little money. Had they more money, they would sooner spend it on health insurance than televisions. I wish they had health insurance, but not to the point that I would like someone else to pay it for them.

So I think I understand both perspectives at least a little with regards to whether or not it's nice to have universal health coverage. I understand the staunch Republican view of, "You didn't earn it, you don't deserve, sell your sixty inch television on eBay and then we'll talk" attitude, as well of the more liberal "Let's help the poor among us," although I think that many tend to think there are much more "poor" than there actually are. If your TV is longer in at least one direction than I am tall, or weighs more than I do, you aren't very poor.

So this is my gripe with the thing. The money is going to come from higher taxes for people who make more than a quarter million dollars a year-although to my understanding business owners are exempt from this tax-and from higher taxes on interest. So the people who will be paying for what feels like a free lunch for many Americans are non-business owners from rather rich on up to filthy rich, and those who make large sums of money from investing, which probably includes much of the former group.

Why? I currently have no health insurance, so one would think I would be ecstatic over this, right? Taking government grants for education is one thing, as I understand that society helps me out a bit by giving me a bit of their money, but I'll get a nice job some day because of it and pay larger taxes than I would otherwise, and it all makes sense. But health insurance? That's something I've always felt I should provide for myself, like food. And like food, having someone else give it to me feels like getting food stamps.

I don't know whether or not those "poor" who get health insurance must pay extra in taxes or whatever to get that benefit, but if they do, it's going to piss off a lot of students if they are mandated to get health care when they're already so close to broke.

=\

Thoughts, feelings, anyone want to enlighten me?
_________________
Compassion is the radicalism of our time.
- The Dalai Lama

Lester Square · Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:24 pm Post subject:

Poor people deserve to die because they're poor.
_________________
~Lester Square

The Midnight Thunderboy · Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:08 am Post subject:

Cheese Monkey · Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:10 pm Post subject:

*pats Lester on the head* Razz

But anyway... Ricky? I know you're a regular here, and probably changed your name... but I haven't been around a lot lately, so I can't tell who you used to be... ugh. It'll come to me later, I bet. -_-

Anyway, back to health insurance.

It's not so much an arrangement for "the poor." Yeah, if some people want to buy those giant TVs and never get health insurance, that's their decision. The bill is more along the lines of "calling the insurance companies on their BS."

Pre-existing conditions, for example. I was denied health care recently (in fact, mere weeks before the bill was passed) because of a pre-existing condition. Which one isn't important... though there are hundreds, and the one I got turned down for has no impact on my health and never will. Yet, I'm "uninsurable" for some reason. Okay... what?

I understand why they do the whole pre-existing conditions thing... they don't want to take money from someone who will almost guarantee them a net loss due to constant and costly medical bills. Now, the number of healthy customers should in theory override that. But what if it doesn't? Oh dear, the company takes a loss. So they deny everyone with such a condition. What if some people are without insurance? Oh well... not the company's problem.

And that's why there's an inherent problem with our old system... because health care is a human right, and human rights are not commodities. Assuming you want health care, you should be able to get health care, end of story.

But, ahh, dillemma... for how are we to take care of the people who would be a drain on our "wonderful free market" and (allegedly) drive private insurance companies to ruin? If only there was a fallback... something that could guarantee anyone decent coverage without a serious, direct impact on private companies... hmm, maybe the government could take care of them instead?

Oh wait... we had that idea. A "public option," we called it Then it got squashed. Oops?

Okay wait, my bad again... that was "socialism." I forgot. Roll Eyes Lune

You see where I'm going with this? In the end, we didn't get a public option. So we have to shift responsibility for ensuring everyone - yes, everyone, including those "uninsurables" - onto the private companies. Personally, I don't think they're allowed to complain at this point.

And that's just one thing the bill does. For example, it also prevents you from losing coverage if you get sick. Honestly, I didn't even know the companies did that. Makes me wonder what you would pay them for at all. Can you imagine how that would work with other businesses? I'd love to walk into a Burger King, pay $6 for a combo meal, then wait patiently for fifteen minutes, eliciting only a blank stare from the cashier, until his eyes suddenly bug out and he says, "wait, you expected us to give you food? Yellow Shocked

"

...I'll shut up in a minute. But I have to say - and this is where my biased opinion comes in - that all of the above assumes that people with pre-existing conditions really would wreak havoc on the private ensurance system. I seriously doubt it.

There was just too much stupid spin picked up by too many stupid people, translated into too many mind-numbingly stupid rumors. My personal favorite was the "death tribunal" one - "oh noes, the gummint's gonna decide whether grandma lives or dies!" Seriously? There were people who seriously believed that?

And they - the insurance companies, part of our glorious free market - had to rely on that kind of spin to generate opposition to the public option. Makes me wonder how feeble they'd have looked if they tried to rely on facts. Razz

_________________
This post has been brought to you by
Cheese Monkey - The Funky Cheddar Monkey
(This post made no sense! Tell the people!)

PSO crap (Bestows +1 geekiness)!
[quote="Xenofan"]You wouldn't be here without sex, the internet wouldn't be here without sex, and heck, the Gamecube wouldn't be here without sex.[/quote][quote="Yoshgunn"]At first, don't overthink things. It's OK to become a small African village and injure yourself.[/quote]

Izzhov

Ricky · is doing a barrel roll! Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 443

The Midnight Thunderboy

dPaladin · Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:02 am Post subject:

I haven't read a single post in this thread because seriously, but the health care bill was essentially passed by democrats and republicans alike because it helps insurance companies. It gives insurance companies 30 million more customers, with a partial subsidy, and adds some fixed costs to drive the small insurance companies out of business.

It helps poor people and children get medical care but it does it in the most backwards and expensive way proposed. Much better (cheaper, broader coverage, more competitive pressure on the health care markets) health care bills that took business away from large insurance companies were ignored in favor of this. And it was the best we could do with a democratic president and democratic majorities in the house and senate because both parties serve corporate interests.
_________________
dude look at this signature

Ricky · is doing a barrel roll! Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 443

Izzhov

The Midnight Thunderboy

Izzhov

The Midnight Thunderboy

Ricky · is doing a barrel roll! Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 443

@ Thunderboi
Humorously put.

@ Izzhov,
Yeah, pretty much.

The parts of the bill that regard preexisting conditions I agree with completely. I simply don't understand why one person should pay for another's health insurance.

I would support a welfare system that worked well. Ours doesn't, and I don't support it. I do believe that sometimes people are down on their luck and need assistance, but a very large portion are poor because they want to be so! They don't want the lack of money, of course, but they're not willing to work or get an education because they're too damned lazy. I say this from my experiences living in Sutherlin where most everybody is "poor," and from working minimum wage jobs with lots of people who worked 80 hours a week.

Let me tell you about Juan. Juan gets a new car every six months or so. Why? Because he gets bored of his old one. He works two jobs, one at Sonic, one at Arby's. He has worked at Arby's for twelve years and has never gotten a promotion or a raise. He doesn't try. He doesn't want to get promoted because he doesn't want the responsibility. He told me flat out he knew he could afford to go to school and quit one of his jobs if he stopped buying so many nice things. But that's part of his culture, too, so it would be harder for him than it would for someone not in Latin culture.

Why is Juan poor? Why does he work 80 hour weeks at two fast food jobs? Fundamentally, because he wants to. Juan is on welfare. Why? Because he can. And in fact, at that Arby's, you want to know how many of the employees were currently in school? Two. Two! Myself and one other employee. Everyone should have been in school! So there are similar stories for every employee, with the possible exemption of the manager, but she makes less than a first year firefighter, so if you ask me, she should be in school as well. (So if you want to hear similar stories about Petra, Ada, Maibeline, Jamie, Norma, and four others whose names I don't recall, just ask. Poor because they want to be, but they sure have some nice cars.)

Our current welfare system permits people to not have to work and to be totally uneducated. It encourages laziness and not contributing to society. Many of the poor have no purpose and have given up on life. Even the youth, which is extremely depressing.

No one owes me anything because I am an American. I do not deserve health insurance because I live in the country. That being said, people who want health insurance should be able to get it. But why should it be the law that I must have health insurance, and since I make less than $7,000 a year, have someone else pay for it? I don't want someone else to pay for my insurance! I don't want anyone to pay for my clothes, my food, my rent, my school (albeit I don't have much of a choice on that one), and I don't want anyone paying for my health insurance. Has this country no pride remaining? No sense of providing for one's self?
_________________
Compassion is the radicalism of our time.
- The Dalai Lama

dPaladin · Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:37 pm Post subject:

I'm going to be blunt. Don't read if you don't want some blunt trauma.

Sammich Ultima · Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:06 pm Post subject:

dPaladin · Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:47 pm Post subject:

Anecdotal evidence is worthless because it's too vague and I can't tell if you're making any of it up or not.

What welfare program is Juan on exactly? (or programs)

What's his family life like? Is he a despicable little weasel mooching off his parents, like you, or is he living alone, or does he have a wife and/or kids?

Does he sell the old car when he buys the new one every six months, or does he have a big pile of cars like in Freaknik the Musical?

Qualify "lazy" for me. You exemplified laziness as someone who works 80 hours a week at two jobs. How is that lazy? It's inefficient, maybe, but it's not lazy, unless you think they should be working more than 80 hours at more than two jobs. Do you work that much? If not, why do you subscribe to a moral system that makes you a hypocrite?

If he's such a lousy worker that he can't get a single promotion in 12 years (which smacks of discrimination), then why has Arby's scheduled him for (I assume he's not working overtime in either job) 40 hours a week consistently for 12 years?

If he's working 80 hours on minimum wage, that's like $35k a year pre-tax (since Oregon's minimum wage is pretty high). That's, if memory serves, below the national median, but it's not catastrophic. I don't think he's getting food stamps or anything like that. He's probably making enough money to justify his lifestyle.

And then you say all this shit about school like it has anything to do with anything. Maybe Juan can't afford school, or maybe he thinks he'll fail. Maybe he was a lousy student and got rejected from a bunch of schools. But if he's making what you say he makes, he can't afford two cars a year. If you're convinced that he actually does buy new cars all the time, then he's clearly not as poor as you think he is, and is probably not eligible for much, if anything, in the way of welfare. But if he has an employer that won't give him raises and he's working two full-time jobs, then he's certainly not lazy and he's not choosing to be poor. He's working harder than you've ever worked on anything and he's not rich because the free market has failed.

And even if this ridiculous story is true, nothing indicates that it's widespread. Here's Sutherlin's demographic info, per wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherlin,_Oregon

dPaladin · Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:06 pm Post subject:

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
_________________
dude look at this signature

Ricky · is doing a barrel roll! Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 443

Cheese Monkey · Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:43 am Post subject:

Be careful treading the ground of libertarian arguments... most of them are fatally flawed, because they're grounded in the whole belief that the free market is perfect.

We haven't had a free market in decades... centuries, maybe. When you have ginormous near-monopolies with the power to knock small businesses off the map without almost any fight, there's a problem. And the problem is that the early capitalists never imagined the kind of big, bloated corporations we have today.

But anyway... I made a whole huge post up there. It was like the third or fourth one... did nobody read it? ._.

I know it was different from the whole "plight of the poor" argument, but... well, the "poor" argument really isn't so much what the bill is about...
_________________
This post has been brought to you by
Cheese Monkey - The Funky Cheddar Monkey
(This post made no sense! Tell the people!)

PSO crap (Bestows +1 geekiness)!
[quote="Xenofan"]You wouldn't be here without sex, the internet wouldn't be here without sex, and heck, the Gamecube wouldn't be here without sex.[/quote][quote="Yoshgunn"]At first, don't overthink things. It's OK to become a small African village and injure yourself.[/quote]

dPaladin · Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject:

CM I have read your post and much like it.

But honestly I mostly object to things instead of validating them so I didn't reply to you.

Cheese Monkey · Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:24 pm Post subject:

I think conservatives would like to think so. But then vets kinda got shafted under Bush, so... oops, again? Roll Eyes Lune

But yeah, the whole conservative "it's your own fault" argument is pretty fail. There are tons of circumstances beyond one's control that can leave you bankrupt or in near-inescapable poverty. One such circumstance is... oops... not having health care (let's say because of a lovely pre-existing condition) and having to go into the hospital and get saddled with bills you'll never be able to pay off, just for you or your loved ones to survive?

Of course, most conservatives will never have such a problem because most of them can afford (and have access to) good health insurance. So it rings very, very hollow when they tell us "oops, it's your fault."
_________________
This post has been brought to you by
Cheese Monkey - The Funky Cheddar Monkey
(This post made no sense! Tell the people!)

PSO crap (Bestows +1 geekiness)!
[quote="Xenofan"]You wouldn't be here without sex, the internet wouldn't be here without sex, and heck, the Gamecube wouldn't be here without sex.[/quote][quote="Yoshgunn"]At first, don't overthink things. It's OK to become a small African village and injure yourself.[/quote]

Ricky · is doing a barrel roll! Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 443

@ Cheese Monkey
I made a short recognition of your post, but I think most of the discussion wasn't on that some parts of the bill are great, which is what your post was on.

@dPal
Then my analogy is bad. I hate the idea of getting money out of someone because I'm incapable of earning it myself. However, earning it myself doesn't bother me. The US has an Air Force, it just so happens they pay a butt load, so I'm going to take advantage of that.

Also:
I used to hold many political and ethical views that spawned from my religious beliefs. I don't hold those religious beliefs, so I don't really know what my ethical and political beliefs are any more.

Why do you disagree with the James Allen idea that people are where they are mostly because they want to be there? It's certainly true of many people back in Sutherlin. They don't want to go to school, whether it's University or a trade school, so they don't. So they don't make much money. Why? They don't want to. To me, this affirms Allen's idea. Yes, as Cheese Monkey pointed out, someone could be swamped in debt because he or she can't get health insurance. This is extremely unfortunate, and we should do everything in our power to remedy it. But I still see how educated you are, for example, as having to do with how hard you want to be educated, not with your circumstances.
_________________
Compassion is the radicalism of our time.
- The Dalai Lama

dPaladin · Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:38 am Post subject:

The air force pays a lot because the government chooses to pay them a lot of rich people tax dollars, and the same goes for welfare. If you have a problem with rich people having their hard earned money stolen by Uncle Sam and used in ways that the rich would disagree with (I'm thinking of your earlier post where you said that you'd be okay with providing government health care if it didn't involve taking money from other people, which would imply that deserving the aid isn't the problem, but the act of stealing the hard earned dollars of our most productive Americans), then you should have a problem with any taxation.

I've never heard of James Allen before but I've been given no reason thus far in my life to believe that people are anything but a product of their environment.
_________________
dude look at this signature

Ricky · is doing a barrel roll! Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 443

As it happens, I do have a problem with the income tax. I heard that if we abolished it, we could still have the same size government we had in the mid nineties. I don't think I'm much for big government, but then again, my ideas are getting all flip flopped around.

James Allen wrote As A Man Thinketh. It's very short. If you want an hour's reading, click here. You should read at least the chapter on thought circumstance.
_________________
Compassion is the radicalism of our time.
- The Dalai Lama