4 ms·

Just because the system is broken, doesn't mean we need socialism, and it doesn't mean that a software developer should support anything in particular. I person

Just because the system is broken, doesn't mean we need socialism, and it doesn't mean that a software developer should support anything in particular. I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance. I pay plenty for mine, I have no desire to pay for yours. We can work to fix the broken system, but keeping everything the same and then taxing us more to have the government foot the bill WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. The government getting involved isn't the solution. Just think, emergency rooms that function with the efficiency of the DMV. Woo Hoo

Niten 14y ago
It's hard to take comments like this seriously when the private American health care system has worse outcomes and more than double the cost of numerous socialized systems. You can blindly chant "government isn't the solution" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it undeniably is the solution in a large number of countries with functional health systems.
- clarky07 14y ago
  Functional does not in any way mean better. I do not want to wait on a list for my health care. As I noted in another comment - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466161 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466161 - this doesn't just have to be "current shitty system" versus "socialism". I never said that the current system is great. All I said is that I'd rather have it than socialism. So many things we can fix easily about our system without going to socialism. And Obamacare is the worst of all worlds. Halfway socialism while still keeping insurance companies. Please tell me how that makes sense.
TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
Then please, for the sake of the public good, do the following: Don't drive on the roads. Do put out your own fires if you house catches fire. Do hire private police for your security. Don't use public transportation. Don't use the Internet (including HN). Don't use, or have your children use public schooling. Do pay completely, without subsidy or federal grant, for all your higher education. Pay for a septic tank if available, or do not use public sewers. Don't drink water from city water. Better yet, don't drink water at all: EPA endorses cleaner environmental health. Don't eat food unless you grew it: All food is inspected by FDA. Better yet, just go buy a boat and live in the ocean. And don't come back. Then you can be free from "EVIL SOCIALISM".
- clarky07 14y ago
  You're right. Clearly because I don't want socialism it means I want 100% anarchy and no government whatsoever. That doesn't follow at all. You also added several things in there that the government doesn't provide, so I'm just really confused by this comment. (side note I could probably get by without almost everything on this list except for food and roads. I'm disregarding internet, as the gov't doesn't provide that). Don't drive on the roads. -do want roads, those the gov't should provide Do put out your own fires if you house catches fire. - i have a sprinkler system installed so it's unlikely I'll need them. I suspect I could get private insurance to cover this though in a free-market. pay small money into pool (just like taxes) and we can all have firemen without your government. Also, if you don't live in a city, it is very possible that there are no firefighters who will come to your house. Do hire private police for your security. - Police are nice for keeping things relatively civil, but most of the time they are minutes away when you have a few seconds of need. They come and do paperwork about the thing that happened to you that they couldn't stop. Don't use public transportation. - i don't Don't use the Internet (including HN). - since when did the gov't start providing me internet? I should really stop paying charter to provide it for me. Don't use, or have your children use public schooling. - i think our public schools are pathetic, and I'm seriously considering home schooling. Do pay completely, without subsidy or federal grant, for all your higher education. - i did. I probably helped pay for yours though with my taxes too. Pay for a septic tank if available, or do not use public sewers. - no problem. will do. Don't drink water from city water. - city water mostly sucks. I have to filter it anyways, I might as well filter water from a well. Better yet, don't drink water at all: EPA endorses cleaner environmental health. - I could do with less from the EPA. Don't eat food unless you grew it: All food is inspected by FDA. - I could also do with less FDA. Turns out Kroger has a vested interest in not poisoning me. It's likely I'll start going to Publix if they do.
  - rdtsc 14y ago
    > Turns out Kroger has a vested interest in not poisoning me. Are you sue? Last time I checked, Kroger had a vested interest in getting your money. If you get cancer in 10 years and your children get born with deformities it doesn't matter for them. They've already got your money and good luck proving it was them doing it and not WalMart. > I suspect I could get private insurance to cover this though in a free-market. Make sure to also buy "bring you back from the dead" insurance you might need that too. > Don't drive on the roads. -do want roads, those the gov't should provide Why? What's your justification? There are actually private highways and roads in this country and make good money off of people driving on them. They are expensive but usually well maintained. Why roads and not say a rescue squad? > I could do with less from the EPA. You make your own lead and pesticide testing kits? Are you going around to every grocery store and test every single product for bio , chemical and radiological safety? > Police are nice for keeping things relatively civil? So no police then. Alright. So when you abolish them let me know so my local militia friends can come and raid your house.
clarky07 14y ago
Again, why the downvote? The problems in our system are far bigger than Obamacare can solve. Read these anecdotal comments lower in the thread - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4465802 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4465802 - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466161 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466161 note that obamacare isn't socialism by any stretch of the imagination, and that isn't good for those that want socialism. it also isn't good for people who want free-market. it's the worst of both worlds. that being said... I never remotely suggested that our current system is good, or working as it should. I think it sucks. I also take note of how bad a job our government does at running...pretty much anything they try to run (possible exception to NASA). I also note the stories from countries that have socialism. Everyone loves it because it pays for the doctor when they have a something minor or chronic. Then I see the stories of the people dying on waiting lists because they can't get the procedure done in time when it would have been done in America. Due to this, I've come to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that I don't want either our system or socialism. There is another option, and that is to actually fix some of the major problems in our system.
brazzy 14y ago
"I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance." Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > "I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance." > Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance. No, the point of insurance is not to buy into or share the risk of others, but to amortize one's own risk over time. An insurance policy can have a single applicant and still function as it should -- the issuer is betting that the applicant won't suffer a loss, the applicant is betting that he will. An actuary sets the rate based on his best guess about the possibility of a claim. This thesis is proven by the classic alternative to buying insurance -- self-insurance, a scheme in which an individual sets aside his own cushion against loss, or "self-insures" -- accepts risk using his own resources. Many states will accept an alternative to otherwise mandatory car insurance -- a personal bond against claims. The advantage to the individual is that the bond can earn money as an investment while it stands as proof of personal responsibility. So the idea that insurance means joining a pool of insured individuals may be true in many cases, but it isn't a requirement for insurance to function. And it certainly isn't "the point".
  - Confusion 14y ago
    the issuer is betting that the applicant won't suffer a loss, the applicant is betting that he will. An actuary sets the rate based on his best guess about the possibility of a claim. Emphatically: no! The issuer is betting that in the entire group of clients the total loss will be smaller than the rates they set. Almost nobody can ever financially deal with the greatest risk health insurance insures against. Health insurance is almost never about amortizing your own risk. It is about insuring against risks you couldn't possibly deal with otherwise. Almost nobody can pay for a long stay on the IC after an accident, with months of rehabilitation afterwards. When you need the insurance, it's the money of the other clients, that with hindsight never needed the insurance, that pays for your costs. Of course obligatory health insurance is pure socialism (not in the pure 'political movement' sense of the word, but in the 'common usage' sense of the word, meaning forced sharing of a population's resources for a specific greater good) and thank God for it. I'll take my Western European social democracy over your government any day. I gladly pay taxes to have it this way.

Niten 14y ago

It's hard to take comments like this seriously when the private American health care system has worse outcomes and more than double the cost of numerous socialized systems. You can blindly chant "government isn't the solution" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it undeniably is the solution in a large number of countries with functional health systems.

clarky07 14y ago
Functional does not in any way mean better. I do not want to wait on a list for my health care. As I noted in another comment - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466161 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466161 - this doesn't just have to be "current shitty system" versus "socialism". I never said that the current system is great. All I said is that I'd rather have it than socialism. So many things we can fix easily about our system without going to socialism. And Obamacare is the worst of all worlds. Halfway socialism while still keeping insurance companies. Please tell me how that makes sense.

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago

Then please, for the sake of the public good, do the following: Don't drive on the roads. Do put out your own fires if you house catches fire. Do hire private police for your security. Don't use public transportation. Don't use the Internet (including HN). Don't use, or have your children use public schooling. Do pay completely, without subsidy or federal grant, for all your higher education. Pay for a septic tank if available, or do not use public sewers. Don't drink water from city water. Better yet, don't drink water at all: EPA endorses cleaner environmental health. Don't eat food unless you grew it: All food is inspected by FDA. Better yet, just go buy a boat and live in the ocean. And don't come back. Then you can be free from "EVIL SOCIALISM".

clarky07 14y ago
You're right. Clearly because I don't want socialism it means I want 100% anarchy and no government whatsoever. That doesn't follow at all. You also added several things in there that the government doesn't provide, so I'm just really confused by this comment. (side note I could probably get by without almost everything on this list except for food and roads. I'm disregarding internet, as the gov't doesn't provide that). Don't drive on the roads. -do want roads, those the gov't should provide Do put out your own fires if you house catches fire. - i have a sprinkler system installed so it's unlikely I'll need them. I suspect I could get private insurance to cover this though in a free-market. pay small money into pool (just like taxes) and we can all have firemen without your government. Also, if you don't live in a city, it is very possible that there are no firefighters who will come to your house. Do hire private police for your security. - Police are nice for keeping things relatively civil, but most of the time they are minutes away when you have a few seconds of need. They come and do paperwork about the thing that happened to you that they couldn't stop. Don't use public transportation. - i don't Don't use the Internet (including HN). - since when did the gov't start providing me internet? I should really stop paying charter to provide it for me. Don't use, or have your children use public schooling. - i think our public schools are pathetic, and I'm seriously considering home schooling. Do pay completely, without subsidy or federal grant, for all your higher education. - i did. I probably helped pay for yours though with my taxes too. Pay for a septic tank if available, or do not use public sewers. - no problem. will do. Don't drink water from city water. - city water mostly sucks. I have to filter it anyways, I might as well filter water from a well. Better yet, don't drink water at all: EPA endorses cleaner environmental health. - I could do with less from the EPA. Don't eat food unless you grew it: All food is inspected by FDA. - I could also do with less FDA. Turns out Kroger has a vested interest in not poisoning me. It's likely I'll start going to Publix if they do.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  > Turns out Kroger has a vested interest in not poisoning me. Are you sue? Last time I checked, Kroger had a vested interest in getting your money. If you get cancer in 10 years and your children get born with deformities it doesn't matter for them. They've already got your money and good luck proving it was them doing it and not WalMart. > I suspect I could get private insurance to cover this though in a free-market. Make sure to also buy "bring you back from the dead" insurance you might need that too. > Don't drive on the roads. -do want roads, those the gov't should provide Why? What's your justification? There are actually private highways and roads in this country and make good money off of people driving on them. They are expensive but usually well maintained. Why roads and not say a rescue squad? > I could do with less from the EPA. You make your own lead and pesticide testing kits? Are you going around to every grocery store and test every single product for bio , chemical and radiological safety? > Police are nice for keeping things relatively civil? So no police then. Alright. So when you abolish them let me know so my local militia friends can come and raid your house.

clarky07 14y ago

Again, why the downvote? The problems in our system are far bigger than Obamacare can solve. Read these anecdotal comments lower in the thread - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4465802 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4465802 - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466161 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466161 note that obamacare isn't socialism by any stretch of the imagination, and that isn't good for those that want socialism. it also isn't good for people who want free-market. it's the worst of both worlds. that being said... I never remotely suggested that our current system is good, or working as it should. I think it sucks. I also take note of how bad a job our government does at running...pretty much anything they try to run (possible exception to NASA). I also note the stories from countries that have socialism. Everyone loves it because it pays for the doctor when they have a something minor or chronic. Then I see the stories of the people dying on waiting lists because they can't get the procedure done in time when it would have been done in America. Due to this, I've come to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that I don't want either our system or socialism. There is another option, and that is to actually fix some of the major problems in our system.

brazzy 14y ago

"I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance." Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance.

lutusp 14y ago
> "I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance." > Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance. No, the point of insurance is not to buy into or share the risk of others, but to amortize one's own risk over time. An insurance policy can have a single applicant and still function as it should -- the issuer is betting that the applicant won't suffer a loss, the applicant is betting that he will. An actuary sets the rate based on his best guess about the possibility of a claim. This thesis is proven by the classic alternative to buying insurance -- self-insurance, a scheme in which an individual sets aside his own cushion against loss, or "self-insures" -- accepts risk using his own resources. Many states will accept an alternative to otherwise mandatory car insurance -- a personal bond against claims. The advantage to the individual is that the bond can earn money as an investment while it stands as proof of personal responsibility. So the idea that insurance means joining a pool of insured individuals may be true in many cases, but it isn't a requirement for insurance to function. And it certainly isn't "the point".
- Confusion 14y ago
  the issuer is betting that the applicant won't suffer a loss, the applicant is betting that he will. An actuary sets the rate based on his best guess about the possibility of a claim. Emphatically: no! The issuer is betting that in the entire group of clients the total loss will be smaller than the rates they set. Almost nobody can ever financially deal with the greatest risk health insurance insures against. Health insurance is almost never about amortizing your own risk. It is about insuring against risks you couldn't possibly deal with otherwise. Almost nobody can pay for a long stay on the IC after an accident, with months of rehabilitation afterwards. When you need the insurance, it's the money of the other clients, that with hindsight never needed the insurance, that pays for your costs. Of course obligatory health insurance is pure socialism (not in the pure 'political movement' sense of the word, but in the 'common usage' sense of the word, meaning forced sharing of a population's resources for a specific greater good) and thank God for it. I'll take my Western European social democracy over your government any day. I gladly pay taxes to have it this way.