3 ms·

I've yet to see a "proper healthcare system" that doesn't require private insurance. Take Australia for instance, where the healthcare system seems to work pret

by jexah 8y ago

I've yet to see a "proper healthcare system" that doesn't require private insurance. Take Australia for instance, where the healthcare system seems to work pretty well, but only because private insurance options are available. Without private insurance, the public system that is already slow would basically come to a stop, and those that can comfortably afford regular payments for private insurance (most people) that all of a sudden get sick and have to pony up 100k, couldn't do so. Those who don't get sick would be living the dream. I drew the Obamacare conclusion from the reason in my above response. Nobody is adverse to discussing healthcare solutions, so what are you talking about when you say there is a movement of hate to the degree such that people are actively rejecting the idea of others having access to healthcare?

mnm1 8y ago
Every single healthcare bill proposed in Congress last year that was voted on was a bill to remove healthcare options from people. There wasn't a single bill proposing a government controlled healthcare system that would end the insane mess of profiting off other people's misery and death. There was even disagreement on extending healthcare funding for children through CHIP. Even the measly Medicaid expansion was fought against a few years back. I can only conclude that the people who elect these politicians are so hateful, they'd rather children and others die than spend money on their healthcare. That's some incredible fucking hate.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  You might try a little empathy. You have it for those with poor health and bad or nor insurance; you might try having some for those who disagree with you. You might try to see how some of them might (reasonably) feel that the individual mandate was removing choice from them, rather than adding it. You might try to see how some of them felt that the cost of the mandated insurance was breaking them financially. Then you might not be so quick to ascribe their motives to nothing but hate. You could have that level of empathy and still disagree with them.
  - jexah 8y ago
    It takes self-awareness to not get too carried away, and courage to say what you think is right. I know you didn't explicitly agree with me (or anybody for that matter), but the mindset that you conveyed is what we need more of on both sides of the spectrum -- all over the world. Just because somebody has an opinion on something that one disagrees with, does not mean that the opinion comes from a position of hate, bigotry, or intolerance. Kudos to you, sir.
  - mnm1 8y ago
    How do you justify opposing Medicaid expansion or the children's health program (CHIP)? Cuts to Medicare? It seems to me that people who vote and sue against such things think that children, the elderly, and the poor don't deserve healthcare because not only do they vote against these programs and sue to stop them, they have no alternate proposals. Just let people suffer and die is their only proposal. You want me to empathise with people whose decisions will lead to the unnecessary suffering and death of millions? When they bring something, anything, to the table that doesn't increase suffering and death so more money can go to the rich, then we can talk. If they don't like the individual mandate, they should propose a different system that's does more than just leave people uninsured to suffer and die. Maybe then they might deserve some empathy but as long as they are actively fighting to prevent others from receiving healthcare, they deserve none.
- jexah 8y ago
  If I came from a family that had generated a significant amount of wealth (my family was low-middle class), and I had never used the public health, education, transportation, or welfare systems, I would be pissed if the government started robbing me at gunpoint, to provide a service that, in all likelyhood, neither my family nor descendants would ever use. You need to remember that healthcare and education taxes are literal robbery on the rich, who never have, and never will use those services. I'm going to say something that is controversial, and I myself haven't decided is fact, so please don't interpret it that way. Most people who work hard and are smart, can get themselves out of the lower class, regardless of their start in life (assuming they are in a first world Western country). For reference, I live in Australia and I pay a Medicare levy (public healthcare tax). I do not have private insurance and regularly use public healthcare services. Additionally, I have been on welfare in the past. I do not believe that public health care is a Bad Thing (c), but I believe that robbing from those that have never used the services is deeply immoral. I am not arguing for or against public healthcare. This is a difficult problem to solve. Im just trying to tell you that the decisions and opinions are not necessarily hate fuelled. If you went outside and spoke to those who disagree with you, and listened, you would see that there are reasons besides hate, that people vote the way they do. If you can see my perspective and agree with what I've written in this comment (it's a hard problem, and I'm not arguing whether healthcare is bad or not), perhaps you would consider mailing your state rep about considering a healthcare plan that is only available to the lowest earning in society, and is funded by those who required the services in the past and have "made it". Perhaps something similar to an education loan in Australia (government pays for your education, you owe them the fee plus 30% (fixed, not annual interest), paid out of a fixed % of your salary whenever you earn more than a certain amount). While this went through my head, I just thought about the idea of bank loans for medical expenses. Why is this not a thing? The person gets their healthcare (human life value) and then they pay the bank back over time, and don't have to rob other people (anti-theft value). I am absolutely sure that I'm not the first to come up with this idea, what down-sides does this have, such that it hasn't been considered as a viable solution?
  - mnm1 8y ago
    Rich people don't use roads? What do they teleport nowadays? Rich people can't get sick? Serially? So when a rich person comes into the emergency room and the treatment costs ten million dollars but they only have coverage for five is it ok to let them die? By your reasoning it seems to be a dilemma. Rich people don't go to schools either? A ton of public school enrollment records beg to disagree. Anyway, rich people are generally not the majority that's voting against healthcare. People who are literally one job loss, accident, or injury away from homelessness outnumber them greatly (aka pretty much everyone in the lower and middle classes in America). The perspective of the rich is clear: profit off of and exploit everyone else. The perspective of the non rich who are anti healthcare is not.

by jexah 8y ago

mnm1 8y ago

Every single healthcare bill proposed in Congress last year that was voted on was a bill to remove healthcare options from people. There wasn't a single bill proposing a government controlled healthcare system that would end the insane mess of profiting off other people's misery and death. There was even disagreement on extending healthcare funding for children through CHIP. Even the measly Medicaid expansion was fought against a few years back. I can only conclude that the people who elect these politicians are so hateful, they'd rather children and others die than spend money on their healthcare. That's some incredible fucking hate.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
You might try a little empathy. You have it for those with poor health and bad or nor insurance; you might try having some for those who disagree with you. You might try to see how some of them might (reasonably) feel that the individual mandate was removing choice from them, rather than adding it. You might try to see how some of them felt that the cost of the mandated insurance was breaking them financially. Then you might not be so quick to ascribe their motives to nothing but hate. You could have that level of empathy and still disagree with them.
- jexah 8y ago
  It takes self-awareness to not get too carried away, and courage to say what you think is right. I know you didn't explicitly agree with me (or anybody for that matter), but the mindset that you conveyed is what we need more of on both sides of the spectrum -- all over the world. Just because somebody has an opinion on something that one disagrees with, does not mean that the opinion comes from a position of hate, bigotry, or intolerance. Kudos to you, sir.
- mnm1 8y ago
  How do you justify opposing Medicaid expansion or the children's health program (CHIP)? Cuts to Medicare? It seems to me that people who vote and sue against such things think that children, the elderly, and the poor don't deserve healthcare because not only do they vote against these programs and sue to stop them, they have no alternate proposals. Just let people suffer and die is their only proposal. You want me to empathise with people whose decisions will lead to the unnecessary suffering and death of millions? When they bring something, anything, to the table that doesn't increase suffering and death so more money can go to the rich, then we can talk. If they don't like the individual mandate, they should propose a different system that's does more than just leave people uninsured to suffer and die. Maybe then they might deserve some empathy but as long as they are actively fighting to prevent others from receiving healthcare, they deserve none.
jexah 8y ago
If I came from a family that had generated a significant amount of wealth (my family was low-middle class), and I had never used the public health, education, transportation, or welfare systems, I would be pissed if the government started robbing me at gunpoint, to provide a service that, in all likelyhood, neither my family nor descendants would ever use. You need to remember that healthcare and education taxes are literal robbery on the rich, who never have, and never will use those services. I'm going to say something that is controversial, and I myself haven't decided is fact, so please don't interpret it that way. Most people who work hard and are smart, can get themselves out of the lower class, regardless of their start in life (assuming they are in a first world Western country). For reference, I live in Australia and I pay a Medicare levy (public healthcare tax). I do not have private insurance and regularly use public healthcare services. Additionally, I have been on welfare in the past. I do not believe that public health care is a Bad Thing (c), but I believe that robbing from those that have never used the services is deeply immoral. I am not arguing for or against public healthcare. This is a difficult problem to solve. Im just trying to tell you that the decisions and opinions are not necessarily hate fuelled. If you went outside and spoke to those who disagree with you, and listened, you would see that there are reasons besides hate, that people vote the way they do. If you can see my perspective and agree with what I've written in this comment (it's a hard problem, and I'm not arguing whether healthcare is bad or not), perhaps you would consider mailing your state rep about considering a healthcare plan that is only available to the lowest earning in society, and is funded by those who required the services in the past and have "made it". Perhaps something similar to an education loan in Australia (government pays for your education, you owe them the fee plus 30% (fixed, not annual interest), paid out of a fixed % of your salary whenever you earn more than a certain amount). While this went through my head, I just thought about the idea of bank loans for medical expenses. Why is this not a thing? The person gets their healthcare (human life value) and then they pay the bank back over time, and don't have to rob other people (anti-theft value). I am absolutely sure that I'm not the first to come up with this idea, what down-sides does this have, such that it hasn't been considered as a viable solution?
- mnm1 8y ago
  Rich people don't use roads? What do they teleport nowadays? Rich people can't get sick? Serially? So when a rich person comes into the emergency room and the treatment costs ten million dollars but they only have coverage for five is it ok to let them die? By your reasoning it seems to be a dilemma. Rich people don't go to schools either? A ton of public school enrollment records beg to disagree. Anyway, rich people are generally not the majority that's voting against healthcare. People who are literally one job loss, accident, or injury away from homelessness outnumber them greatly (aka pretty much everyone in the lower and middle classes in America). The perspective of the rich is clear: profit off of and exploit everyone else. The perspective of the non rich who are anti healthcare is not.