An interesting statistic in the health care debate

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

What you say, Mike, may be true. Then again, it may not.

And Cali, why is it discouraging? Because you aren't willing to pay even more to have it happen? As for my situation, something could happen that would cost more than I have. But to think that I would want someone else to take care of my problem is 100% pure speculation on your part and 100% wrong.

I'm just tired of people putting my money where there mouth is. If it's such a damn terrific idea, nothing will convince me that those who want it shouldn't pay even more to make it happen. After all, it's for the common good, right?

We have gone these rounds before, and, as I noted then, you don't seem to complain when the common good helps you out on items you can't otherwise afford on your own. If you want to be truly self-sufficient, you will never call 911, never listen to a radio station on government regulated airwaves, never fly on an airplane through government regulated skies, never rely on the military to protect your rights, never expect the government to insure your bank deposits, never expect a remedy when you are defrauded in the marketplace, etc. Conservatives love to toot their own horn and talk about all the ways they are self-sufficient, despite the fact that there isn't a single one of them who is.

And I find it discouraging because once again it is a statement from someone I believe to be a member of the church in good standing who places capitalism above compassion.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

We have gone these rounds before, and, as I noted then, you don't seem to complain when the common good helps you out on items you can't otherwise afford on your own. If you want to be truly self-sufficient, you will never call 911, never listen to a radio station on government regulated airwaves, never fly on an airplane through government regulated skies, never rely on the military to protect your rights, never expect the government to insure your bank deposits, never expect a remedy when you are defrauded in the marketplace, etc. Conservatives love to toot their own horn and talk about all the ways they are self-sufficient, despite the fact that there isn't a single one of them who is.

And I find it discouraging because once again it is a statement from someone I believe to be a member of the church in good standing who places capitalism above compassion.

No, I pay the taxes I do to get the services that I would use. But I don't want to pay for things that I would not use. But if given the option, I would much rather pay for private everything. I'd rather get a bill from a private fire fighting company if I needed their service. I'd rather get a bill from a private police force if I needed their service.

Liberals love to think people are incapable of doing things for themselves. There is nothing compassionate about not allowing people to take care of themselves.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

No, I pay the taxes I do to get the services that I would use. But I don't want to pay for things that I would not use. But if given the option, I would much rather pay for private everything. I'd rather get a bill from a private fire fighting company if I needed their service. I'd rather get a bill from a private police force if I needed their service.

Liberals love to think people are incapable of doing things for themselves. There is nothing compassionate about not allowing people to take care of themselves.

Read Mosiah 4 and tell me what you think it means. I am being serious.

Allowing people to take care of themselves isn't the same thing as refusing to help when they fall short.

Here is a helpful link.

http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/4/17-23

[MikeWaters]

IPU, when I was 16, these kinds of ideas held a lot of appeal for me.

But as I have gotten older, I have come to believe that true happiness is to be found in serving your fellow men, women, and children.

The problem I have with your viewpoint is that it seems you actually don't care what happens to other people, as long as your interests are predicted.

You aren't arguing that the private insurance system is actually better for everyone (which is the conservative argument I normally hear about conservative policies), you are arguing that it is better for you, and who cares about anything else.

Your selfishness is actually, in a way, refreshing. Most people would lie and try to hide their selfishness and cloak it in something noble.

That's why I can't get too upset. Even if you are wrong and unloving (on this issue IMO), at least it is without guile.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

IPU, when I was 16, these kinds of ideas held a lot of appeal for me.

But as I have gotten older, I have come to believe that true happiness is to be found in serving your fellow men, women, and children.

The problem I have with your viewpoint is that it seems you actually don't care what happens to other people, as long as your interests are predicted.

You aren't arguing that the private insurance system is actually better for everyone (which is the conservative argument I normally hear about conservative policies), you are arguing that it is better for you, and who cares about anything else.

Your selfishness is actually, in a way, refreshing. Most people would lie and try to hide their selfishness and cloak it in something noble.

That's why I can't get too upset. Even if you are wrong and unloving (on this issue IMO), at least it is without guile.

The question to me is not whether it is desirable to provide health care for everyone. Of course it is. As Cali says, there are lots of things that only the collective can provide. The question, rather, is can we afford them all. It is desirable for everyone to have a job, for example, but the government doesn't guarantee jobs, or housing.

We are already within a stones throw of not being able to fund the entitlements we have and this would be the granddaddy of them all. The truth is, the poor already have insurance through medicare and medicaid. If what we are talking about is expanding that to reach a larger more affluent group then maybe I can get on board with that. What we have to be VERY careful not to do is disincentivize the system.

I will also say this, I believe that most people can in fact afford insurance. Here me out on this. Part of my practice is debt collection. Most of the time I have no problem getting the judgment. The challenge, rather, is to collect. About 5% of the time the person really and truly does not have the means to pay. The other 95% of the time they have just prioritized other things as being more important. Having a new TV, a better car, a nicer house, eat out all the time. Once they find out that I can take the new TV, the car and the house they mostly reprioritize, and fast. The come up with the money by sacrificing something they don't really need.

My point is, I think that a huge percentage of folks without insurance are just choosing that gamble. A modest health insurance policy is not that expensive. I insure my wife and daughter that way. It is definitely not a monthly payment that would put anyone under. That is why I am a fan of the forced insurance. Make those who work buy it and let them reorder their finances to accordingly and then, of course, provide the safety net for those who are not income producing.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Read Mosiah 4 and tell me what you think it means. I am being serious.

Allowing people to take care of themselves isn't the same thing as refusing to help when they fall short.

Here is a helpful link.

http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/4/17-23

Snipe wouldn't approve of your likely interpretation of Mosiah 4.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=3615777

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Read Mosiah 4 and tell me what you think it means. I am being serious.

Allowing people to take care of themselves isn't the same thing as refusing to help when they fall short.

Here is a helpful link.

http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/4/17-23

"And also, ye yourselves will asuccor those that stand in need of your succor"

This was sort of my point. I think we already succor a ton of people who don't really need it and we are now discussing radically expanding that group. No question you succor those who need it, those who are truly beggars. Not people who have it within their grasp to take care of themselves, however.

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

The question to me is not whether it is desirable to provide health care for everyone. Of course it is. As Cali says, there are lots of things that only the collective can provide. The question, rather, is can we afford them all. It is desirable for everyone to have a job, for example, but the government doesn't guarantee jobs, or housing.

We are already within a stones throw of not being able to fund the entitlements we have and this would be the granddaddy of them all. The truth is, the poor already have insurance through medicare and medicaid. If what we are talking about is expanding that to reach a larger more affluent group then maybe I can get on board with that. What we have to be VERY careful not to do is disincentivize the system.

I will also say this, I believe that most people can in fact afford insurance. Here me out on this. Part of my practice is debt collection. Most of the time I have no problem getting the judgment. The challenge, rather, is to collect. About 5% of the time the person really and truly does not have the means to pay. The other 95% of the time they have just prioritized other things as being more important. Having a new TV, a better car, a nicer house, eat out all the time. Once they find out that I can take the new TV, the car and the house they mostly reprioritize, and fast. The come up with the money by sacrificing something they don't really need.

My point is, I think that a huge percentage of folks without insurance are just choosing that gamble. A modest health insurance policy is not that expensive. I insure my wife and daughter that way. It is definitely not a monthly payment that would put anyone under. That is why I am a fan of the forced insurance. Make those who work buy it and let them reorder their finances to accordingly and then, of course, provide the safety need for those who are not income producing.

What about people with pre-existing conditions? A modest insurance policy is expensive

Originally Posted by YOhio

Snipe wouldn't approve of your likely interpretation of Mosiah 4.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=3615777

I saw that the other day and laughed.

He probably thinks leftists have hijacked the Sermon on the Mount as well

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Frank Ryan

What about people with pre-existing conditions? A modest insurance policy is expensive.

Thats true, and I do believe in having a good safety net for those who truly need it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...rpc=22&sp=true

I hate the media. You take an Indiana survey and extrapolate it to the entire nation?

What a bunch of f...ing liars.

and Mike may be a good physician but he doesn't know shizz about health care finance but he appears to buy whatever crap is being sold at the local level.

Physicians will not see their incomes increase through socialized medicine, except perhaps primary care. Specialists will be screwed, but in terms of political and financial acumen, despite otherwise high IQs, physicians are generally dumb.