Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Yes.
If that means taking a second part time job or doing without wasting hours posting to forums on the internet or other fun things so you can afford the necessities, tough smurf.
If you can't take care of yourself I'm here to help.
If you won't take care of yourself and could, smurf off and die.
I can't make it any clearer I don't think.

Well okay then. Took awhile but you spoke your mind.

It's of course morally bankrupt but at least it's honest. And emblematic of where your country's moral compass is pointed.

My moral bankruptcy or your inherent weakness?
I find nothing nobel about doing for others what they can do for themselves.
It's exactly what leads to the self-centered uncaring weak people we're plagued with.

Social Darwinism?

FarmerKev wrote:

My moral bankruptcy or your inherent weakness?
I find nothing nobel about doing for others what they can do for themselves.
It's exactly what leads to the self-centered uncaring weak people we're plagued with.

sturner wrote:

Social Darwinism?

Seriously?

Look, I can understand why you might get suspicious that "let people take care of themselves" is a code word for "cut off all welfare programs."  But Kev's very specifically said that's not what he's for, just that he's against putting people who can take care of themselves on the dole.

You certainly don't have to be a Social Darwinist--i.e., want the "unfit people" to die off--to believe in that.  It's just individual responsibility.  If you can, you should take care of yourself and it's more likely you will do so, if that's what you have to do to survive.

Is this proposition really so controversial?

Last edited by charon (2007-07-21 2:11 am)

charon wrote:

FarmerKev wrote:

My moral bankruptcy or your inherent weakness?
I find nothing nobel about doing for others what they can do for themselves.
It's exactly what leads to the self-centered uncaring weak people we're plagued with.

sturner wrote:

Social Darwinism?

Seriously?

Look, I can understand why you might get suspicious that "let people take care of themselves" is a code word for "cut off all welfare programs."  But Kev's very specifically said that's not what he's for, just that he's against putting people who can take care of themselves on the dole.

You certainly don't have to be a Social Darwinist--i.e., want the "unfit people" to die off--to believe in that.  It's just individual responsibility.  If you can, you should take care of yourself and it's more likely you will do so, if that's what you have to do to survive.

Is this proposition really so controversial?

I would assert it is the "every man for himself" "smurf everyone but me" ethos that has dominated socio-political trends since Reagan is the reason why we have so many utterly self centered smurfs around.
The "I got mine, go screw yourself" philosophy is far more in keeping with the right than the left.

That is true.  More hospitals are opening urgent care clinics to deal with those people.  However, a lot of patients seeking care in the ER for non-emergent conditions are also uninsured.

Take asthma.  You can treat it with medications and provide fast-acting inhalers to prevent severe attacks.  If you have insurance and can afford it.  If you're uninsured and a severe attack occurs, you wind up in the ER.  If the condition worsens, you wind up being admitted and possibly shipped off to the ICU.  Care in the ICU is very expensive.  So we have people going to the ER and into acute care when the condition most likely could have been prevented if they had access to medication and routine clinic visits.

The system is very much broken.  And not just for people who are uninsured.  More and more people with coverage are having problems because their coverage is becoming much more costly and their co-insurance and copays are rising.  You can't seriously believe that the current system isn't broken.  Everyone agrees that is a problem.  Fortunately, the players in the industry have finally started to work together to find a solution, but likely nothing will happen until 2009.

There's always non emergency emergencies. You know things that present as emergencies but end up being minor. (Things like when I accidently gave myself a minor concussion and everyone insisted I go to the ER to eliminate the possibility of having caused myself greater injury or when mom got bells palsy.)

There also the situation where where you cannot see your doctor because their office cannot get you in for a couple day to weeks, during which time you will have an emergency. (My mother has had this situation with kidney related issues a few times.)

Personally, I've been somewhat careful and pretty fortunate. My 4 ER visits were the minor concussion, when I busted my foot and it swelled up to the size of a football before I could see a doctor, when I damn near electrocuted myself, and an infected brown recluse bite (my only hospital stay). Mom is careful but far less fortunate. In the last few year alone she's been in the ER for an Attack of Bells palsy, several bouts with kidney stones, catheter complications, prescription side effect related angina, and twisting her knee (ironically on her way home from her job at the hospital).

I don't think that was an answer to my post...

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Actually I'd say the aftermath of the war is going to force severe budget restraints, which actually might make health care reform more likely. The current system is just too damn expensive.

See right there is the rub and the real problem with these debates. People often assume that UHC costs more when in practice it actually costs less, and not just a little less but as much as 50% less.
The question is often asked: Where will the money come from?
The answer is we are already spending it and would realize a savings with UHC dome the way other countries do.

user wrote:

I don't think that was an answer to my post...

AND?

I just though you might have accidently quoted me.

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Actually I'd say the aftermath of the war is going to force severe budget restraints, which actually might make health care reform more likely. The current system is just too damn expensive.

See right there is the rub and the real problem with these debates. People often assume that UHC costs more when in practice it actually costs less, and not just a little less but as much as 50% less.
The question is often asked: Where will the money come from?
The answer is we are already spending it and would realize a savings with UHC dome the way other countries do.

That savings has a severe downside.
I would rather have to buy my own steak than have the government give me cans of spam for free.

That's such crap. You've got it exactly backwards -- as much as you'd like to deny it, health coverage in a country like Canada is MUCH better than yours. I can never be dropped, I can never be denied coverage, preexisting conditions are irrelevant, prescription drugs are kept affordable, my premiums never go up because I don't pay any.

You're confusing consumption with delivery. It's not about hospitals and doctors, it's about how it gets paid for.

Like it or not, very few countries have the quality of health care that one can get in the United States.

Uh yeah, prove it.

Government taking over as health care provider is not a reasonable option. It leaves the health care consumer without choice.

Ah yes, choice. The fetishized obsession of our age. Lord knows it's crucial to have a choice of health care insurers.

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

If anyone here lives in Colorado - please correct me if I'm wrong.

health insurance for children is required by law.
You can lose your children if they do not have it.
Affordable health insurance is available through the state for children who don't have coverage from parents work.

That way - parents are forced to make sure they do the right thing as far as having their children covered, the penalty for being lazy means you lose your kids - and if you don't make enough money, you apply for the state program.

Adults - it's up to them, but children do not suffer the consequences of foolish parents or the parents can lose the kids.

That makes sense to me. I think it should be up to the state and not the federal government, but that is a solution that makes sure those too young to help themselves have what they need.

I am sooo smurfing glad people like you are on the loosing side of the trajectory of society.

Please explain.

You said you think it's a positive thing for the government to take people's children away because they can't afford health insurance. That's just sick.

Not having thousands of dollars laying around to buy health insurance = child neglect?

after-life wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I am sooo smurfing glad people like you are on the loosing side of the trajectory of society.

Please explain.

You said you think it's a positive thing for the government to take people's children away because they can't afford health insurance. That's just sick.

Not having thousands of dollars laying around to buy health insurance = child neglect?

Being opposed to UHC yet being in favor of the government taking more children away.
Beautiful.