Title.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comm...e_coauthor_of/
Printable View
Interesting on some of it. I felt he didn't say everything he wanted to on some of the questions. Promoted the positives while minimalizing the negatives i.e. the massive cost.
I recently had a rough stretch of health. First time in my adult life (been paying health insurance since age 20, now 30) where I truly needed health care. I couldnt imagine not being able to go to the doctor. Ended up having a bilateral kidney infection which could have turned real bad. That being said, I have a few thoughts on it.
If you are receiving any tax payer funded healthcare assistance, you should be on a health program requiring exercise, a proper diet, etc. if we're paying for your health, you must be trying to stay healthy. If you fail to do so, no more freebies. Pretty simple. Everyone needs skin in the game. I hate this idea because the government telling me how to live my life sucks. We all know it wouldnt stop at just the unhealthy. NY already tries to ban big gulps. But I guess I justify it because I'm tired of people not taking care of themselves and putting the burden onto us and then demanding it's not fair. might as well piss them off too. After all, I exercise already anyways.
The system is broken but the government never increases efficiency. It's laughable that people think this is the answer. See the VA.
I really see this as a case of "selling the sizzle". No one wants to be the guy that lets someone die because they couldn't see a doctor. Once again, pulling on the heart strings of the population while ignoring the logistics.
Why don't people question the massive complexity to all of this? If its so great, why can't we put it in simple terms and eliminate all the debate? I know the answer already...because they can't let us know what it's real goal is.
Lastly, if you like your doctor...;) Nothin like blatant lies up front to instill confidence in a program.
The next few years will tell the tale of the tape. Guess I'll just buckle in for the ride.
The whole healthcare insurance requirement is such a scam perpetrated on us by a corrupt congress in league with insurance companies. I'm old enough to remember when you did not need health insurance except for major needs, you did not use it for getting a physical or a check up or you had a cold or flu. Broken arm, yeah that was when you used it.
The corruption continues and will not end until we get the right people into government. I don't know how but some legislator reform is needed.
Hell even now, I'd be paying for the broken arm all myself before insurance even dreamed of kicking in post-deductible.Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
The government shouldn't be involved. Their mandate for the few things they are supposed to be doing is in the Constitution.
If you want Canadian health care, migrate to Canada. This would be a much better country if everyone who wanted universal health care lived in Toronto or Nova Scotia or Victoria (or, hell, Stockholm!) and had to get a visa to come down south. I love Canadians but they can take their assed-up socialism and other left-wing crap and stick it someplace guaranteed to be warm in the Yukon Territory in January.
Someone posted this in the AMA when "socialism" was brought up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
"Get them to adequately explain why they have a problem with the word "socialism". Then provide/explain to them all the things about modern societies that fit that bill, to show them the error of their thinking (that socialism is "bad").
1. Socialism is based on an "economic" model that doesn't work and isn't economic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
2. Modern societies are in a state of decay rather than dynamic growth precisely because of uneconomic models that encourage theft of resources by the unproductive. I have yet to see one thing in modern societies that fits the bill of "socialism" that I actually agree is good. (Note: I draw a distinction between voluntary donations to private organizations to help the unfortunate in accordance with my Christian values and involuntary theft for government programs that provide for the self-styled indigent.)
3. Your "right" to something ends when your fingers (physical or virtual) enter my pocket or wallet.
Kinda all depends on how you look at it at and define "socialism". A typical European Socialist society like Switzerland seems to work well for them. I read a recent article that claimed the majority of their residents were happy with the way their society worked. So stating that it's a failed model to me, is flawed. We have a different set of values and "wants" in this country. It's all based on what you...as a society desire. In Switzerland, the gap between what a doctor makes and what a teacher makes is much smaller and they have a huge tax rate. The upside is they pay almost nothing for healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
There are huge parts of our society that are partially socialist, especially since FDR. If you work for the state or goverment....you pay far less for health insurance and most likely get a pension and a fixed retirement date. These benifits aren't based on the the "profits" of the state as they would a company who provides them for their employees ( if there are any left ), but tax payer dollars even when the state is broke. Using tax payer dollars to fund this is socialist in nature. I don't mean any of this as good or bad, just an observation.