Originally posted by shavixmirWahoo, got me an L1 visa, with a green card application well under way, I hope to make it there one day too Shav.
Sweet Jesus. I so wish I was an American.
As to the hypothetical, he refuses to buy insurance he takes the chance, same as the guy that rides his bike with no helmet or abuses his health with no exercise and bad food, it is definitely not anyones obligation to help him, he can appeal to charity. He cannot demand help.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat kind of twisted person would be committed to dying? Surely any normal person would at least attempt to find some kind of cure instead of saying: "well, I never got insurance, I never paid for emergency health care so I won't go there, I'll just roll up in a corner and die." In other words, why adopt a policy expecting people to behave in a certain way you're certain they are not going to do?
When I said he ought to die as freely as he sought to live, I meant that he was wedded to reaping what he had sown. If he felt that his health was such a non-issue as to eschew insurance otherwise, he undertook the obvious risks, ipso facto, he played without a net.
In football (American style) if the safety opts to blitz, this necessarily leave ...[text shortened]... he was committed to his ideals, he would die a free man... not linger as a ward of the state.
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaIt is the obligation of people like firefighters and EMTs to save him. They do not check for your insurance before they pull you from the wreckage of your car and take you to the hospital for emergency treatment.
Wahoo, got me an L1 visa, with a green card application well under way, I hope to make it there one day too Shav.
As to the hypothetical, he refuses to buy insurance he takes the chance, same as the guy that rides his bike with no helmet or abuses his health with no exercise and bad food, it is definitely not anyones obligation to help him, he can appeal to charity. He cannot demand help.
EDIT: I don't understand why people don't understand this. It is pretty simple. Unless you are willing to placard a sign to your vehicle, and maybe stamp it to your forehead, saying "In case of emergency, leave me to die." then he has an obligation to carry insurance in the system that we have now. If he does not carry insurance and is injured and receives emergency care, it can run into the tens of thousands of dollars pretty quickly. Chances are he won't be able to, or simply won't, pay for it, passing the cost on to the people that do pay for their insurance.
Originally posted by SoothfastBy 2016, this Tea Partier had opted not to purchase health insurance since under President Friedman (Tea Party; first elected 2012) health care was deregulated and massive competition drove costs down. As a result, and thanks to low tax rates, the $8200 the Tea Partier had saved up the bank was exactly enough to pay for the 6-hour operation ($4000) and subsequent hospital stay (7 days at $600/day).
A 42-year-old Tea Party activist with a "Don't Tread on Me!" flag hanging from his house refuses to buy health insurance of any kind. The next day he has a heart attack and needs lengthy hospitalization and a triple by-pass surgery. Total cost: $250,000. Assuming the value of the house is only $60,000 and the Tea Partier only makes $30,000 a year as a ...[text shortened]... $2000 per year in heart medications as well? How should the "free market" work this out?
He also could have financed the operation but chose to pay cash since he had saved up. Being a Tea Partier, he was both frugal and prudent.
Originally posted by spruce112358LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By 2016, this Tea Partier had opted not to purchase health insurance since under President Friedman (Tea Party; first elected 2012) health care was deregulated and massive competition drove costs down. As a result, and thanks to low tax rates, the $8200 the Tea Partier had saved up the bank was exactly enough to pay for the 6-hour operation ($4000) and ...[text shortened]... ut chose to pay cash since he had saved up. Being a Tea Partier, he was both frugal and prudent.
The sad part is that you are really deranged enough to believe this.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe truly sad part is that there are so many who have been buffaloed for so long that 'health care is different' and 'free markets won't work'. They only don't work if we don't let them work, obviously. And the people who have the largest vested interest in not letting them work are the people making the most money right now -- those in the medical profession. You know -- the people the government asks for technical advice on how to set up the regulations. Yes, those people.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The sad part is that you are really deranged enough to believe this.
It's all very cozy. And costly as hell.
Originally posted by spruce112358What reason do you have to believe competition in the health care market will drive down costs? Is there not more competition in the US currently than in e.g. the UK?
By 2016, this Tea Partier had opted not to purchase health insurance since under President Friedman (Tea Party; first elected 2012) health care was deregulated and massive competition drove costs down. As a result, and thanks to low tax rates, the $8200 the Tea Partier had saved up the bank was exactly enough to pay for the 6-hour operation ($4000) and ...[text shortened]... ut chose to pay cash since he had saved up. Being a Tea Partier, he was both frugal and prudent.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExaggerated flattery is the sincerest form of imitation. My heartfelt thanks.
[b]never have I heard anything more ridiculous or morally repugnant as this.
Exaggerated flattery is the sincerest form of imitation. My heartfelt thanks.
It is truly a mystery to me why in the US, still the most prosperous country on the face of the earth, people are allowed to be swindled by greedy corporations in such a disgraceful manner.[/ ...[text shortened]... and shame on all those who espouse similar views.
Let's leave our spouses out of this.[/b]
Meaningless drivel devised to serve as a smokescreen, as to divert attention away from your disgraceful remark about how one "ought to die free", I understand why you'd want to avoid addressing that embarrassing comment.
Fools. Money. Fill in the blank
Indeed. The Fools are those who continue parroting the same old cliches about liberty and the free market, while the Money remains in the pockets of those who exploit the disadvantaged and buy off law-makers to protect their interests. Its the same old story, and the sad thing is that you're only another pawn in their game.
No, here we are talking about a man's most precious possession: his choice. Do you understand nothing of freedom's importance?
Freedom isn't an absolute right, it is restrained for the sake of greater purposes and the welfare of society as a whole.
I defy your summation of my comments as an overture related to economics, as opposed to what my intentions clearly intoned; namely, those who wish so, ought to be, free
Im well aware of the intentions of your words, Im just opposed to their message given its implications.
Originally posted by CliffLandinYou'd like to assign obligation willy nilly like so many here on this board, but why is their obligation any greater than yours? There are ample opportunities in this world to 'save lives' and while you'd like others to be obliged I wonder exactly how close you live to that philosophy. You could easily feed a family in the Philippines for the cost of your internet connection, I sure hope the money you're saving on the RHP subcription fee is going towards a fire station in Indonesia or where ever.
It is the obligation of people like firefighters and EMTs to save him. They do not check for your insurance before they pull you from the wreckage of your car and take you to the hospital for emergency treatment.
EDIT: I don't understand why people don't understand this. It is pretty simple. Unless you are willing to placard a sign to your vehicle, an ...[text shortened]... mply won't, pay for it, passing the cost on to the people that do pay for their insurance.
Pretty soon with all these obligations flying at you you're going to say "that's enough, I have my life to live." Where you draw that line is up to you, it's not to be set by No.1, Kmax, KN or any one of the other control freaks that hang out here, when they should actually be sacrificing themselves to the 'greater good'.
Originally posted by generalissimoMeaningless drivel devised to serve as a smokescreen...
Exaggerated flattery is the sincerest form of imitation. My heartfelt thanks.
Meaningless drivel devised to serve as a smokescreen, as to divert attention away from your disgraceful remark about how one "ought to die free", I understand why you'd want to avoid addressing that embarrassing comment.
Fools. Money. Fill in the blank
Inde ...[text shortened]... of the intentions of your words, Im just opposed to their message given its implications.[/b]
With just a half ounce more measure of pomposity, your prose would be elevated from painfully juvenile to sublime sarcasm. Give it a bit more effort, will you?
... as to divert attention away from your disgraceful remark about how one "ought to die free"...
So intent am I to "divert" from the thought, I go headlong back into it. What a charlatan I am!
The Fools are those who continue parroting the same old cliches about liberty and the free market...
Gosh, I missed that obvious one. I was thinking more along the lines of the Fools being those who simply accept the status quo with respect to what constitutes a life worth living. Fools, in my book, so devalue life as to place security and safety ahead of freedom.
Fools allow others to dictate their paths on the basis of power. I won't go off on the tangent afforded by a discussion on the state of the American medical complex. Suffice to note that it preys upon fools.
Freedom isn't an absolute right, it is restrained for the sake of greater purposes and the welfare of society as a whole.
Here, I will quote myself. Blow it out your donkey. What a bunch of crap. Freedom isn't a right, it is an absolute responsibility.
Im well aware of the intentions of your words, Im just opposed to their message given its implications.
The only thing you could possibly be aware of is that your belly hurts, so it must be snack time. Go back to your finger-painting.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaHa! I work for an NGO that works all around the world helping others.
You'd like to assign obligation willy nilly like so many here on this board, but why is their obligation any greater than yours? There are ample opportunities in this world to 'save lives' and while you'd like others to be obliged I wonder exactly how close you live to that philosophy. You could easily feed a family in the Philippines for the cost of your i out here, when they should actually be sacrificing themselves to the 'greater good'.
I say obligation because those people are obliged to save your life. It is their job. They don't decide based on whether or not you have insurance. The obligation comes with the job.
Originally posted by CliffLandinIn a free society they would not be obliged anymore than you would be obliged to cycle your salary back into the (Not for profit?) NGO.
Ha! I work for an NGO that works all around the world helping others.
I say obligation because those people are obliged to save your life. It is their job. They don't decide based on whether or not you have insurance. The obligation comes with the job.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wajomanot for profit NGO
In a free society they would not be obliged anymore than you would be obliged to cycle your salary back into the (Not for profit?) NGO.
And you are saying that firefighters and emts would not be obliged to save lives in a "free society"? Are you just being argumentative (poorly) or are you just an idiot?
EDIT: You aren't speaking of a "free society" you are speak of anarchy, where people entrusted with public safety get to decide whether they will or they will not do their job. In your "free society" are police obliged to fight crime?
Originally posted by WajomaOk, I'm going to go with your idea of a "free society" where firefighters and emergency personnel aren't obliged to do their job. Am I obliged to pay for food or can I just steal it? If there are no repercussions to someone entrusted with public safety doing their job, are there repercussions for my stealing? Can the store owner call the police or will they have to handle it on their own? I'm just guessing that the police are no longer obliged to do their jobs either. And what about the guy at the water treatment plant or the trash guy? Are they obliged to do their jobs? Sure, right now they do have the choice to not do their jobs, but they will get fired and the guy that replaces them will be oblige to do it. That is what having a job is; it is an obligation.
In a free society they would not be obliged anymore than you would be obliged to cycle your salary back into the (Not for profit?) NGO.
You know there are obligations that come with that green card application. Maybe you should just draw a line in the sand and stand up to the man.
Originally posted by WajomaEvery time I read this it gets funnier and funnier. Please explain more about how your "free society" is going to function if no one is obliged to do anything.
In a free society they would not be obliged anymore than you would be obliged to cycle your salary back into the (Not for profit?) NGO.