We are the enemy. - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Bind

sr. member

Activity: 385

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 06:06:02 PM

We live in rich societies where the cost of universal health care is trivial.

It is not trivial, ergo the debate and my almost doubled health care insurance rates.

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 06:06:02 PM

The expensive part is selling insurance and advertising. Every penny spent on them is taken from you when you are sick. Its entirely legitimate for society to say it is a right and skip the adverts. Why should poor people pay for marketing when all they really want is the medicine?

No, the expensive part is the administrative costs. You have that in both public and private system. Due to the inefficiency of government, public systems would be more costly, especially so In the United States where the Internal Revenue Service is charged with Administration and Enforcement issues on top of the existing administration costs incurred by the insurers actually doing the insuring. Thats why my insurance rates have almost doubled since ObamaCare was signed into law, requiring all citizens to be insured under penalty of fines and imprisonment.

I am not an unkind nor unfeeling person. I think everyone should have access to health care, but they need to pay for it, which is why my work camp idea would work great. It simply isnt right to steal off people at the point of a gun and call it legal because some have been put down and disenfranchised to the point they are unable to care for themselves. I believe its all part of a plan to steal our state sovereignty, freedom, liberty, land, and wealth.

The system needs reset, but the utopian throw all your shit in a pile and share isnt the way to go about it.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 05:41:12 PM

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 05, 2012, 05:31:34 PM

Yes. The US system, before the involvement of government in health care, accounting for technological differences between the times. The UK's own system back then would probably work too, but I know less about it.

Thought experiment: take the current UK system. Keep it basically the same. Slash everyone's taxes in proportion to how much goes toward national health care. Charge people for services up to that amount. Let people pay any extra they wish, or keep any unspent portion. Finally, take the money, manpower and time spent propping up the system from the political and bureaucratic angles (including the proper portion spent on tax enforcement) and refund all that as well. Of course, it's a given that charity should be encouraged, and allowed without restriction.

Do you not see any advantages to that adjustment in terms of health services per £, in the short-term also but especially in the long-term?

The problem is that medicine costs the same in the UK and the US. It all comes from the same companies. But delivery of medicine is far more expensive in the US because you have to pay for insurance advertising, drug advertising and because very often Americans are gouged by the system "Pay this stupid bill or you die screaming in pain."

If it helps, thats how it used to work here. The NHS was introduced because WW2 destroyed the economy and there was not enough money for the marketing side of the health industry. Given that it works, I can't see how you can make a case for transferring the delivery staff from the state payroll to a company payroll - all you have done is create an entity that will demand a return on capital and this raised your running costs.

The UK has private hospitals and charities - thats sort of a side issue.

That's kind of what I'm pointing out. You correctly assess that there will be a profit motive once health care is privatized, but you're not assessing the extra costs of having something public as opposed to private.

Perhaps an example might work better for me:

1) Tinytown has a tiny population. Health care costs are, let's say, "average." One day there's a town meeting, and the mayor brings Joe to the podium. Joe has no clue what's going on. The mayor suddenly announces that Joe, being poor, and struggling to pay each health care bill he incurs, is now going to be guaranteed health care by the town. He states that everyone, including Joe, will pay a small tax for the service, which will be available to all. A big grin crosses Joe's face. Now, considering the months and years after this, do you think there is any reason to suspect that the actual costs of Joe's health care might wind up being dramatically greater than average, even if the cost of each individual service remains average?

2) Do you think that the long-term cost of each individual health care service in Tinytown might be impacted by this announcement?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Bind on February 05, 2012, 05:41:54 PM

...snip...

Health insurance should not be a right. Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal. I bust my fucking ass to prepare and save because I am a responsible person. Last thing I need is someone stealing my ability to provide for my family at the point of a gun because they have failed to prepare. Every penny they steal off me lessens my ability to provide for my own responsibilities.

...snip...

We live in rich societies where the cost of universal health care is trivial. The expensive part is selling insurance and advertising. Every penny spent on them is taken from you when you are sick. Its entirely legitimate for society to say it is a right and skip the adverts. Why should poor people pay for marketing when all they really want is the medicine?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cbeast on February 05, 2012, 05:46:12 PM

In a country with NHS, nothing stops you from going to a private hospital with gourmet menus and personal physicians. Pay as much as you like.

Correct. I had a small tumour a few years back and the NHS said "Tuesday 10am - that's when you will be done." As it happened, I was busy so had it removed privately at a time that suited me.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

In a country with NHS, nothing stops you from going to a private hospital with gourmet menus and personal physicians. Pay as much as you like.

Bind

sr. member

Activity: 385

Merit: 250

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 05, 2012, 05:31:34 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:30:57 PM

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 05, 2012, 04:25:54 PM

...snip...

I would absolutely want and expect the state to opt out. In many cases, it opts out of providing services it is "supposed to" anyway, while still forcing folks to pay.

There is nothing the state does that cannot be done more efficiently and more morally by NOT initiating force against innocents.

Lets stick to facts shall we. The NHS in the UK provides health care nationally and efficeintly to all. Its free at the point of delivery. Its run by the state. Can you point to a private system that is more efficient?

Yes. The US system, before the involvement of government in health care, accounting for technological differences between the times. The UK's own system back then would probably work too, but I know less about it.

Thought experiment: take the current UK system. Keep it basically the same. Slash everyone's taxes in proportion to how much goes toward national health care. Charge people for services up to that amount. Let people pay any extra they wish, or keep any unspent portion. Finally, take the money, manpower and time spent propping up the system from the political and bureaucratic angles (including the proper portion spent on tax enforcement) and refund all that as well. Of course, it's a given that charity should be encouraged, and allowed without restriction.

Do you not see any advantages to that adjustment in terms of health services per £, in the short-term also but especially in the long-term?

The problem is that medicine costs the same in the UK and the US. It all comes from the same companies. But delivery of medicine is far more expensive in the US because you have to pay for insurance advertising, drug advertising and because very often Americans are gouged by the system "Pay this stupid bill or you die screaming in pain."

If it helps, thats how it used to work here. The NHS was introduced because WW2 destroyed the economy and there was not enough money for the marketing side of the health industry. Given that it works, I can't see how you can make a case for transferring the delivery staff from the state payroll to a company payroll - all you have done is create an entity that will demand a return on capital and this raised your running costs.

The UK has private hospitals and charities - thats sort of a side issue.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:30:57 PM

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 05, 2012, 04:25:54 PM

...snip...

I would absolutely want and expect the state to opt out. In many cases, it opts out of providing services it is "supposed to" anyway, while still forcing folks to pay.

There is nothing the state does that cannot be done more efficiently and more morally by NOT initiating force against innocents.

Lets stick to facts shall we. The NHS in the UK provides health care nationally and efficeintly to all. Its free at the point of delivery. Its run by the state. Can you point to a private system that is more efficient?

Yes. The US system, before the involvement of government in health care, accounting for technological differences between the times. The UK's own system back then would probably work too, but I know less about it.

Thought experiment: take the current UK system. Keep it basically the same. Slash everyone's taxes in proportion to how much goes toward national health care. Charge people for services up to that amount. Let people pay any extra they wish, or keep any unspent portion. Finally, take the money, manpower and time spent propping up the system from the political and bureaucratic angles (including the proper portion spent on tax enforcement) and refund all that as well. Of course, it's a given that charity should be encouraged, and allowed without restriction.

Do you not see any advantages to that adjustment in terms of health services per £, in the short-term also but especially in the long-term?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 05, 2012, 04:25:54 PM

...snip...

I would absolutely want and expect the state to opt out. In many cases, it opts out of providing services it is "supposed to" anyway, while still forcing folks to pay.

There is nothing the state does that cannot be done more efficiently and more morally by NOT initiating force against innocents.

Lets stick to facts shall we. The NHS in the UK provides health care nationally and efficeintly to all. Its free at the point of delivery. Its run by the state. Can you point to a private system that is more efficient?

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:05:13 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 03:57:13 PM

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 05, 2012, 03:10:26 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: ineededausername on February 04, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

+1

And note that this opting out doesn't have to be a total thing, or all at once, or even illegal.

Find your greatest point of disagreement with the system, and figure out a way to reduce or eliminate your monetary and/or social contributions to it, in proportion to your priorities; the legality of the chosen method is up to you.

In due time, continue for each next-greater point of disagreement until you reach a balance between your conscience, your safety, your desired standard of living, etc.

Simply doing this would be enough for most people.

"Opt out" is a 1 way street. You can stand outside the hospital with a placard saying you opt out. But if your woman is inside with your sick baby, the taxpayer doesn't opt out. So all that has happened is that you have freeloaded.

How can that be a good thing?

Who said anything about freeloading? If you get a woman pregnant, I would hope you and her have the ability to pay for medical care and raise the child, otherwise you are simply irresponsible.

To opt out is to vote with something more powerful than your voice.

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab. You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

I would absolutely want and expect the state to opt out. In many cases, it opts out of providing services it is "supposed to" anyway, while still forcing folks to pay.

There is nothing the state does that cannot be done more efficiently and more morally by NOT initiating force against innocents.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:16:20 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:09:42 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:05:13 PM

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab. You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

Umm, if my child is sick I pick up the tab. Yes, I would prefer the state not pay for medical care. We have families, friends, organizations, churches, etc. for times of desperate need.

You say that now. But if your child's life were on the line, you would not sit at home saying "let her die" if the hospital up the road could save her, would you ?

I told you what I would do, I would reach out to my non-immediate circle of support. The generousness of human beings is overwhelming. I would never force anyone to treat her.

That is still freeloading. Just not a very reliable way of going about it.

Which is why I wouldn't have children without being prepared for the responsibility. And there is nothing wrong with accepting voluntary assistance. It's only when people are forced to pay for it that it becomes a problem.

That's nonsense and you know it. A taxpayer funded system costs less to run so its actually easier for people to be prepared for the responsibility. The alternative is a more expensive system where the irresponsible and the unfortunate get free care but everyone else gets hammered like in the US.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:09:42 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:05:13 PM

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab. You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

Umm, if my child is sick I pick up the tab. Yes, I would prefer the state not pay for medical care. We have families, friends, organizations, churches, etc. for times of desperate need.

You say that now. But if your child's life were on the line, you would not sit at home saying "let her die" if the hospital up the road could save her, would you ?

I told you what I would do, I would reach out to my non-immediate circle of support. The generousness of human beings is overwhelming. I would never force anyone to treat her.

That is still freeloading. Just not a very reliable way of going about it.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 04:05:13 PM

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab. You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

Umm, if my child is sick I pick up the tab. Yes, I would prefer the state not pay for medical care. We have families, friends, organizations, churches, etc. for times of desperate need.

You say that now. But if your child's life were on the line, you would not sit at home saying "let her die" if the hospital up the road could save her, would you ?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 03:57:13 PM

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 05, 2012, 03:10:26 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: ineededausername on February 04, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

+1

And note that this opting out doesn't have to be a total thing, or all at once, or even illegal.

Find your greatest point of disagreement with the system, and figure out a way to reduce or eliminate your monetary and/or social contributions to it, in proportion to your priorities; the legality of the chosen method is up to you.

In due time, continue for each next-greater point of disagreement until you reach a balance between your conscience, your safety, your desired standard of living, etc.

Simply doing this would be enough for most people.

"Opt out" is a 1 way street. You can stand outside the hospital with a placard saying you opt out. But if your woman is inside with your sick baby, the taxpayer doesn't opt out. So all that has happened is that you have freeloaded.

How can that be a good thing?

Who said anything about freeloading? If you get a woman pregnant, I would hope you and her have the ability to pay for medical care and raise the child, otherwise you are simply irresponsible.

To opt out is to vote with something more powerful than your voice.

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab. You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 05, 2012, 03:10:26 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: ineededausername on February 04, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

+1

And note that this opting out doesn't have to be a total thing, or all at once, or even illegal.

Find your greatest point of disagreement with the system, and figure out a way to reduce or eliminate your monetary and/or social contributions to it, in proportion to your priorities; the legality of the chosen method is up to you.

In due time, continue for each next-greater point of disagreement until you reach a balance between your conscience, your safety, your desired standard of living, etc.

Simply doing this would be enough for most people.

"Opt out" is a 1 way street. You can stand outside the hospital with a placard saying you opt out. But if your woman is inside with your sick baby, the taxpayer doesn't opt out. So all that has happened is that you have freeloaded.

How can that be a good thing?

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: ineededausername on February 04, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

+1

And note that this opting out doesn't have to be a total thing, or all at once, or even illegal.

Find your greatest point of disagreement with the system, and figure out a way to reduce or eliminate your monetary and/or social contributions to it, in proportion to your priorities; the legality of the chosen method is up to you.

In due time, continue for each next-greater point of disagreement until you reach a balance between your conscience, your safety, your desired standard of living, etc.

Simply doing this would be enough for most people.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: ineededausername on February 05, 2012, 10:55:13 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

That will never pass (especially in a socialistic country I live in).

I stated what I would like to see happen, not what I am going to make happen. In reality I will do nothing and pay my taxes as a good law abiding citizen. I just do not agree with the law that I do follow.

Yet the only thing that truly matters is reality, not the ideal world in your mind.

This isn't entirely true.

Ignoring reality as if it isn't real is clearly bad, but our perceptions of how things ought to be is how the world changes, whether small ("Maybe I shouldn't drop this litter here, even if everyone else is going to") or large ("Hey, wouldn't it be cool if a *machine* could copy books?") Spread your ideal to others, and the changes become significant.

Given enough time, societal acceptance, and enthusiasm, our perceptions and imaginations become reality (within physical limits, of course.)

That said, I agree with you--I think the idea of modern Western societies shunning taxes and government control is an ideal that's not going to be embraced anytime soon. Not that it means we should cheerfully accept and advocate for such things....

Bind

sr. member

Activity: 385

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 01:18:30 PM

Quote from: Bind on February 05, 2012, 12:47:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 12:15:01 PM

Everyone pays taxes.

Everyone gets sick and all level of society get much the same illnesses.

Paying for healthcare through the tax system stops price gouging of the sick, it stops money being wasted on marketing and it stops insurance companies dumping hard cases through rescission.

If you look at the numbers, systems like the NHS in the UK are cheap to run yet offer better results.

I can't see why anyone would want to pay more and get worse results, so I assume that people who advocate against state provision have either a vested interested in high drug prices or are freeloaders who will present themselves for treatment when their luck runs out.

...or they simply demand their freedom and rights, no threats of force or prinson at the point of a gun for simply breathing, are ready, willing, and able to take care of themselves and their families, teach their families the importance of self reliance, hard work, and saving and preparation, unwilling to bow to anyone who makes the presumption of authority over them, and refuses to reliquish said because a couple fellow human beings decided to steal from them to help somone else, then called it some arbitrary thing like a "law", to benefit others who think this world owes them a free ride because they parents decided to have sex and not teach the product thereof the important things in life.

That's just verbiage. The fact is that everyone gets sick, it has to be paid for and taxation is the most efficient way to pay for it. "Liberty" does not mean refusing to pay your share and then showing up at the hospital with a sick baby asking for health care. That's freeloading.

My share is already paid for privately, by me and my family.

Your share, wanting to steal my money, is not my share. You just want to rename or rebrand it as "my share" to make you feel better about basic robbery/theft.

The one freeloading is you or anyone else asking for free health care, expecting anyone other than themselves to pay for it.

My share does not include you or anyone else unless I voluntarily donate it of my own free will.

Sure you can take it by force, but that just makes it simple theft/robbery that's been legalised.

It would be a different story if I chose to use those services I am paying for as in community infrastructure we pay for - electric, water, sewage, roads, by engaging in contracts to use those services I pay the bills monthly for, but also paying more than my share by funding those using them for free.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Bind on February 05, 2012, 12:47:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 12:15:01 PM

Everyone pays taxes.

Everyone gets sick and all level of society get much the same illnesses.

Paying for healthcare through the tax system stops price gouging of the sick, it stops money being wasted on marketing and it stops insurance companies dumping hard cases through rescission.

If you look at the numbers, systems like the NHS in the UK are cheap to run yet offer better results.

I can't see why anyone would want to pay more and get worse results, so I assume that people who advocate against state provision have either a vested interested in high drug prices or are freeloaders who will present themselves for treatment when their luck runs out.

...or they simply demand their freedom and rights, no threats of force or prinson at the point of a gun for simply breathing, are ready, willing, and able to take care of themselves and their families, teach their families the importance of self reliance, hard work, and saving and preparation, unwilling to bow to anyone who makes the presumption of authority over them, and refuses to reliquish said because a couple fellow human beings decided to steal from them to help somone else, then called it some arbitrary thing like a "law", to benefit others who think this world owes them a free ride because they parents decided to have sex and not teach the product thereof the important things in life.

That's just verbiage. The fact is that everyone gets sick, it has to be paid for and taxation is the most efficient way to pay for it. "Liberty" does not mean refusing to pay your share and then showing up at the hospital with a sick baby asking for health care. That's freeloading.

Bind

sr. member

Activity: 385

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on February 05, 2012, 12:15:01 PM

Everyone pays taxes.

Everyone gets sick and all level of society get much the same illnesses.

Paying for healthcare through the tax system stops price gouging of the sick, it stops money being wasted on marketing and it stops insurance companies dumping hard cases through rescission.

If you look at the numbers, systems like the NHS in the UK are cheap to run yet offer better results.

I can't see why anyone would want to pay more and get worse results, so I assume that people who advocate against state provision have either a vested interested in high drug prices or are freeloaders who will present themselves for treatment when their luck runs out.

...or they simply demand their freedom and rights, no threats of force or prinson at the point of a gun for simply breathing, are ready, willing, and able to take care of themselves and their families, teach their families the importance of self reliance, hard work, and saving and preparation, unwilling to bow to anyone who makes the presumption of authority over them, and refuses to reliquish said because a couple fellow human beings decided to steal from them to help somone else, then called it some arbitrary thing like a "law", to benefit others who think this world owes them a free ride because they parents decided to have sex and not teach the product thereof the important things in life.

Topic: We are the enemy. - page 2. (Read 6038 times)