inGame footage of various games. In the future I hope to add reviews. ^_^

While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I hesitate to accept that as Obamas sole reason for pushing the health care reform.

From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.

But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed.

So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?

(Note that I don't ask you what you think is the better solution.)

 

Pro (Motives of the health care reform advocates):

  • The Believe that health care is a right, not a privilege (file under altruism).
  • Desire for more government control.
  • An excuse to raise taxes (no one wants to pay more taxes without a good reason).
  • Desperation (they can't get private insurance and hope for the public option).

Con (Motives of the health care reform opponents):

  • Greed / seeking profits (Insurance companies will lose money if forced to provide care to sick)
  • Selfishness ("Why should I pay for your surgery?").
  • Government shouldn't do health care because they are incompetent ().
  • Poor people should die sooner than later.
  • It is not clear how the reform can be financed.
  • A deal with drug companies prohibiting the government to negotiate drug prices can't lower costs.

 

Two key issues that make the health care reform necessary in the eyes of the proponents are quailty and cost.

Quality has been discussed to death and information (and misinformation) is freely available.

Cost is harder to estimate - one simply can't understand what estimated costs of trillions of dollars over decades means for your paycheck. So I started a different thread where I want to compare the personal average cost of health care in different countries.

The personal Cost of Health Care - An international comparison

For example: German average gross income is about €2,500. After deductions (including health insurance) a single person without kids gets to keep about €1,500.

And what can germans do with that money in germany? Why, buy beer, of course. €1,500 get you 1,200 litre of high quality Pilsener beer - twice as much if you don't care about quality and go for the cheap labels.

Health care costs: €185 per month (currently $264)

 

Cheers!


Comments (Page 13)
37 PagesFirst 11 12 13 14 15  Last
on Aug 21, 2009

In the end all americans would pay for everyone's health care.

Willing to sacrifice a part of your income to ensure that every fellow citizen gets insurance may not be altruism but it's the opposite of a selfish "Why should I pay for your health care?" attitude.

By altruism as motive I mean that the pro faction sees it as a selfless act, a desire to do what is right, untainted by hidden nefarious agendas.

on Aug 21, 2009

For those that think the government can't run a good health care system, watch this.

Full version here.

on Aug 21, 2009



In the end all americans would pay for everyone's health care.



How so? Half of them don't pay federal income taxes. How would "all Americans" pay?

I thought this system was supposed to work via taxes? Maybe I'm wrong.




Willing to sacrifice a part of your income to ensure that every fellow citizen gets insurance may not be altruism but it's the opposite of a selfish "Why should I pay for your health care?" attitude.



You didn't listen. Willingness to sacrifice a part of your income is altruism. But that's not what is happening here. People who are altruistic like that can already do it and sacrifice a part of their income.

But what isn't altruism is a willingness to sacrifice a part of somebody else's income, regardless of whether it is for one's own needs or for the needs of a third party.




By altruism as motive I mean that the pro faction sees it as a selfless act, a desire to do what is right, untainted by hidden nefarious agendas.



The pro faction see it as a selfless act to take other people's money.

And the con faction see it as a selfless act to let people keep their money.

It all comes down to whether the people in favour or against the act would actually sacrifice their own money for it. And it seems to me like Obama had a majority among voters who don't actually pay taxes but seem to find it an act of caring to spend other people's money.

Tax money should be used for things that cannot be done by private industry, either because it's impractical or because it contradicts the government monopoly on force (i.e. streets and police and such). Anything else is just using the state as a mechanism to transfer wealth from some people to others. And that has nothing to do with charity or caring unless you willingly give yourself, which, again, most of Obama's voters are NOT considering.


on Aug 21, 2009

So you say Obama is a dirty populist who only got backed up by nontax paying (black) people?  

 

Is Obama an elitist or an populist, coz he cant be both...

on Aug 21, 2009

So you are just saying that one pro motive is the personal inability (due to preexisting conditions or lack of money) to afford health care? Sounds convincing. I'll put that in the list as desperation.

on Aug 21, 2009



So you say Obama is a dirty populist who only got backed up by nontax paying (black) people?



I didn't say anything about "black" people or "dirty" populists.

I am sure there is little difference between non-tax paying whites and non-tax paying blacks, just like there is little difference between non-tax paying people with blue eyes and non-tax paying people with green eyes.

I guess the point was about paying taxes, not skin colour.

Is that a problem for you?




Is Obama an elitist or an populist, coz he cant be both...



I didn't say he was either but don't understand why he could not be both. An "elitist" is a member of the elite who behaves like a member of the "elite". A "populist" is someone who favours the "normal people" over the "elite". I don't see who a member of the elite cannot favour normal people over the elite, especially when there is more than one elite (and more than one group of "normal people").

I think you have a problem with differentiating between what people do (like paying taxes or not) and what they are (white or black or blue-eyed or green-eyed) and between how people live (elite) and what they stand for (populism).

It's possible, I guess, that a member of the elite who tries to be a populist is a hypocrite. I don't know.


on Aug 21, 2009

So you are just saying that one pro motive is the personal inability (due to preexisting conditions or lack of money) to afford health care? Sounds convincing. I'll put that in the list as desperation.

You can call it "desperation" or "spending money on other things".

It's a reason.

Whether you want to give it a positive or negative spin depends on what you want the result of the list to be like.

Many people's "personal inability to afford healthcare" is due to the "preexisting condition" of having spent money on something else. If you find an American who owns a car and a big-screen TV but doesn't have health insurance, you likely found an idiot. But there seem to be quite many of those.

 

on Aug 21, 2009

If you find an American who owns a car and a big-screen TV but doesn't have health insurance, you likely found an idiot.

Or someone who lost his job.

But there seem to be quite many of those.

on Aug 21, 2009

Aroddo


Or someone who lost his job.

Again, not what this system is trying to solve.

Uncoupling health insurance from employment could be done quite effectively without making the entire system public.

 

on Aug 21, 2009

Forget all of what you have heard for a mintue and ponder this:

The main reason we are told we need health care reform is because of rising costs.  Two of the MAJOR factors that contribute to these costs are the expenses due to litigation and the costs of taking care of illegal immigrants who can't and/or don't pay for their services. 

These are facts.

Now, ask yourself this question. If rising costs are the stated reason for health care reform why is it that our current group of "leaders" is not addressing first these two MAJOR issues that are plaging the system?

Then ask yourself how much you can truly trust your government Republican and Democrat alike. 

on Aug 21, 2009

Loqucious

Forget all of what you have heard for a mintue and ponder this:

The main reason we are told we need health care reform is because of rising costs.  Two of the MAJOR factors that contribute to these costs are the expenses due to litigation and the costs of taking care of illegal immigrants who can't and/or don't pay for their services. 

These are facts.

That's a very good point.

 

Now, ask yourself this question. If rising costs are the stated reason for health care reform why is it that our current group of "leaders" is not addressing first these two MAJOR issues that are plaging the system?

Then ask yourself how much you can truly trust your government Republican and Democrat alike. 

A public healthcare system will lower costs, but not by addressing the two points you brought up. It will just lower prices because the state has monopsony power.

However, the basis for the lower price will be worse quality when good doctors will leave the US for other markets and/or be less willing to work very hard for less pay than they could otherwise get on a free market.

 

 

on Aug 21, 2009

Aroddo
This is not about arguments pro/con health care reform.

It's about the possible motives the pro/con factions might have to either support or fight it.

Duh - com'on. To even think about starting or continuing arguments, anyone needs motive. Both of which ride on a two-way street, heading for collision.

Picky, are you?

Motive=Money. Simple enough?

on Aug 21, 2009

Loqucious
Forget all of what you have heard for a mintue and ponder this:

The main reason we are told we need health care reform is because of rising costs.  Two of the MAJOR factors that contribute to these costs are the expenses due to litigation and the costs of taking care of illegal immigrants who can't and/or don't pay for their services. 

These are facts.

Now, ask yourself this question. If rising costs are the stated reason for health care reform why is it that our current group of "leaders" is not addressing first these two MAJOR issues that are plaging the system?

Then ask yourself how much you can truly trust your government Republican and Democrat alike. 
Tort reform has been discussed and illegal immigrants are not the root of all American problems. 100 years from now when all us are dead people will look back on their demonization the same way we currently view past hatreds of Irish immigrants and all the other people who have been integrated into our society.

Is that fair? Maybe not, I mean at least the Irish went through immigration, but they went through a much, much, much easier immigration process and with our rising latino population it's probably not someone like you who's going to be writing the text books. In the end those people's children are legitimate citizens and they'll remember their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents as family, not interlopers or leeches and you'll be remembered as part of a xenophobic crowd that couldn't stop the inevitable.

What's your solution anyway? Do you want to sweep through the country hunting down illegals and splitting up families? That's ballot office poison and it won't happen on a large enough scale to really make a dent in health care costs. Would you rather illegal aliens just no longer be accepted into emergency rooms? Try winning an election on that platform once the first wave of preventable deaths occurs.

A law that's on the books that isn't enforced weakens the strength of all laws, but it's not so black and white and illegal aliens aren't a realistic scapegoat here. The last figure I saw was that they're costing about 11 billion dollars annually. That's a lot of waste that needs to be addressed, but it's not easy to do and it's not a large percentage of our total health care costs.

on Aug 21, 2009

Obscenitor



Quoting Loqucious,
reply 190
Forget all of what you have heard for a mintue and ponder this:

The main reason we are told we need health care reform is because of rising costs.  Two of the MAJOR factors that contribute to these costs are the expenses due to litigation and the costs of taking care of illegal immigrants who can't and/or don't pay for their services. 

These are facts.

Now, ask yourself this question. If rising costs are the stated reason for health care reform why is it that our current group of "leaders" is not addressing first these two MAJOR issues that are plaging the system?

Then ask yourself how much you can truly trust your government Republican and Democrat alike. Tort reform has been discussed and illegal immigrants are not the root of all American problems. 100 years from now when all us are dead people will look back on their demonization the same way we currently view past hatreds of Irish immigrants and all the other people who have been integrated into our society.


Is that fair? Maybe not, I mean at least the Irish went through immigration, but they went through a much, much, much easier immigration process and with our rising latino population it's probably not someone like you who's going to be writing the text books. In the end those people's children are legitimate citizens and they'll remember their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents as family, not interlopers or leeches and you'll be remembered as part of a xenophobic crowd that couldn't stop the inevitable.

What's your solution anyway? Do you want to sweep through the country hunting down illegals and splitting up families? That's ballot office poison and it won't happen on a large enough scale to really make a dent in health care costs. Would you rather illegal aliens just no longer be accepted into emergency rooms? Try winning an election on that platform once the first wave of preventable deaths occurs.

A law that's on the books that isn't enforced weakens the strength of all laws, but it's not so black and white and illegal aliens aren't a realistic scapegoat here. The last figure I saw was that they're costing about 11 billion dollars annually. That's a lot of waste that needs to be addressed, but it's not easy to do and it's not a large percentage of our total health care costs.

Ah, sympathizers such as you have no idea how much illegals contribute to the rising cost of healthcare, education, and law enforcement.

on Aug 21, 2009

I probably should clarify something regarding my above post. I was simpy stating facts regarding the costs of illegal aliens use of our health care system. I NO WAY am I suggesting that they themselves are bad or evil. In fact, I just happen to be a musician is a latin band whose members are predominantly Latino and have relatives who are here illegally. My group actually advocates for Latino's quite often at our shows. 

I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy of our government and hopefully enlighten people to the idea that if we do not educate ourselves to the truth behind the issues that our government claims to want to "fix", and is greedily ready to take our hard earned money in the process in order to empower themselves, we are doomed to be abused by our very same "leaders".  

 

As for fixes there has been discussion on Tort reform for decades now. The problem is that advocates for lawyers have a TON of money and political influence. Our elected "leaders" never seem to have the guts to take on these groups when it means these groups could mobilize and threaten the politicians re-election which, make no mistake, is the number one goal of all these creeps.

Regarding illegal immigration it seems to me we have a couple choices: 1) Help improve the economies of the Latin American countries so their people will not have a need to come here for a better way of life, 2) Impose harsh penalties on companies that hire illegals. This would probably require fingerprinting with each hire (a very difficult political stance). 

37 PagesFirst 11 12 13 14 15  Last