Curse

Inde · Oct 09, 2009, 05:12 AM // 05:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Non sequitur. The entire category of arguments beginning with "you can't understand what it's like ..." (to be ill/poor/disabled/etc.) is worse than useless; it clouds reasoned thought about issues with appeals to emotion. Pity and guilt make poor foundations for rational policy-making.

I would agree with that ironically. Until you consider that those MAKING these policies don't even have to worry about Health Insurance as they have it subsidized by the taxpayers for about 75%... for life. They also get to chose from over 60 health plans they can customize. That's who should be making our policies instead? It's hard to really advocate for something that doesn't effect you and is a non-issue for yourself.

You attributed my quote to meaning that it was an emotional appeal when in fact it was a statement that many of the issues, unless you've been through it, you probably aren't even aware of. Ask some people around you, commenting on health insurance, if they know what their out of pocket maximum is on their health insurance. Ask them their lifetime cap. Ask them what their insurance covers. Ask them what an overnight stay in a hospital might cost. Most can't answer any of those questions yet certainly have an opinion on what should and shouldn't be done and how much is should cost. How can you comment on an issue you aren't informed of? That was my only point with that quote.

I would have to agree, even though I'm guilty of it myself, that pity and guilt in this argument are indeed just as bad as naivety and ignorance. It only leads to misinformation and misplaced priorities. Yet we are all flawed and there is not one solution that can cover everyone. We all argue and fight for what benefits us.

Burst Cancel · Oct 09, 2009, 07:04 AM // 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

I would agree with that ironically. Until you consider that those MAKING these policies don't even have to worry about Health Insurance as they have it subsidized by the taxpayers for about 75%... for life. They also get to chose from over 60 health plans they can customize. That's who should be making our policies instead? It's hard to really advocate for something that doesn't effect you and is a non-issue for yourself.

It's actually not that hard; it's what academics and lawyers do for a living, in fact. I would actually argue that it's much easier to make good decisions when you aren't in the thick of things, which is one of the reasons why asking other people for advice is often helpful. If nothing else, your judgment won't be affected by self interest considerations.

Quote:

You attributed my quote to meaning that it was an emotional appeal when in fact it was a statement that many of the issues, unless you've been through it, you probably aren't even aware of. Ask some people around you, commenting on health insurance, if they know what their out of pocket maximum is on their health insurance. Ask them their lifetime cap. Ask them what their insurance covers. Ask them what an overnight stay in a hospital might cost. Most can't answer any of those questions yet certainly have an opinion on what should and shouldn't be done and how much is should cost. How can you comment on an issue you aren't informed of? That was my only point with that quote.

Most people won't know because they don't have to. This isn't a problem that will be solved by socializing health care - if anything, it may actually get worse. If you read my earlier posts where I cited the Washington Post article discussing Japan's health care system, this was exactly my point. Furthermore, it does not at all follow that someone must be stricken with debilitating illness to know about their health care costs. In the first place, it is in the best interests of anyone buying health insurance to actually understand their health care plan, and in the second place, anyone who intends to seriously discuss policy has a responsibility to look at the relevant data rather than relying on anecdotes and gut feelings. To be frank, people who point to their own health care costs as examples are just as guilty of ignorance as people who have never incurred such costs - how does one know that their particular situation is representative?

Quote:

I would have to agree, even though I'm guilty of it myself, that pity and guilt in this argument are indeed just as bad as naivety and ignorance. It only leads to misinformation and misplaced priorities. Yet we are all flawed and there is not one solution that can cover everyone. We all argue and fight for what benefits us.

I don't believe that people must necessarily be self-interested; in fact, it is the hope of democracy that this is not so. Self-interested democracy is nothing more than a tyranny by the majority.

A11Eur0 · Oct 11, 2009, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Stuff

Your situations are specialized and rare. My single situation is much more widespread. One executive having a severely ill child is supposed to make it mandatory for EVERYONE IN THE US who makes more than 35k/year to pay a fixed sum so that 50% of Americans, who DON'T pay ANYTHING, get everything they need? Sorry...no. If you need something, work for it. PERIOD. If you can't...well this world is overpopulated as it is. I'm done being PC about it. Darwinism at its finest. People who can afford to keep their weak loved ones alive, have at it! Otherwise...oh well. Don't tax me 50-60% when I'm never going to use these programs. Those people should have obtained better insurance policies if they run out. If a person is so physically screwed up that it's going to take millions of dollars of medical care to keep him alive, he's highly unlikely going to be able to pay society back what they pay to keep him alive. Therefore, he doesn't deserve my money. I understand that this includes you. Are you trying to get pity from me? Sorry, none here. Let people who CARE take the initiative and make the CHOICE to help. Don't FORCE people who DON'T CARE to help, because it's just ridiculous to think it's "only fair". This country was founded on Freedoms, Hard work and self-sacrifice to achieve ones' goals. This country was not in any way founded on Socialist ideals where the rich have to take care of the poor. If that's what you want/need, leave. Don't change what has worked spectacularly for 300 years and has only collapsed due to too much government intervention. The private sector can police itself and solve problems much faster and more efficiently than the public sector. With proper communication, businesses who conduct unsafe practices or disproportionately damage the environment will lose business until fixing their problems.

Since you decided not to really pay attention to what I said, I'll elaborate:
Said average person with 500k in the bank can pay for normal medical care, broken bones, non-chronic illnesses just fine right now. But if the government starts taxing everyone at the grossly inflated rate that this health care reform bill will REQUIRE, that person very likely will not be able to save any more money, and may eventually start into a negative income situation, burning away HIS savings by merely keeping himself and his family healthy. Once this money is gone, he's going to be just another person using this public option health care. Now multiply this by the few million people who would be placed into this situation. Essentially the entire middle class of America will be forced into the lower class, and the upper class all of a sudden becomes the Ruling class, with the vast majority of the country's population making up the "common mob."

As I hypothesized, the only thing this country needs to do to overhaul health care is to allow insurance companies to broaden their customer base. I love how this very simple solution goes unnoticed by people like you who would much rather just throw taxpayer dollars at the problem.(actually, you wouldn't be throwing the money, you'd be catching it. I'd be throwing it. I'd rather burn it.)

I actually believe this to be the plan. More and more medical issues are popping up in this country, and it's theorized that they're caused by unregulated chemicals in the food supply and poor preparation of it. Is it possible that these increased chronic illnesses were the pre-emptive strike which would put this nationalized health care at the forefront of American attention, setting this country up for the final blow into Totalitarianism? It sure looks like it to me.

Arcole · Oct 11, 2009, 01:02 AM // 01:02

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

12 chars

A11Eur0 · Oct 11, 2009, 03:49 AM // 03:49

That's simple numbers. Quite a few people in the United States don't have health insurance because they don't feel that they need it, because the hospitals treat them in the emergency rooms anyway. The WHO's survey merely compares the numbers of those who have access to health care (read: actually those who have insurance...EVERYONE has access to health care) to the number of people living here.

Some people just choose not to go to the hospital for anything less than a broken bone or a knife/gunshot wound, and tough out their "lesser ailments" at home with momma's old remedies.

I don't mind the latter...it's just cleansing of the gene pool IMO.

The US has the best health care available to those who can afford it. It's expensive because it's readily available, highly specialized, and the doctors who perform it are at high risk as this is the most litigious nation on the face of the earth. Like I said: solve the problems, don't just throw money at it and hope they solve themselves.

Inde · Oct 11, 2009, 07:28 PM // 19:28

A11Eur0 the irony of you thinking it's somehow me with the medical problems and that I am all for socialized medicine (when I have never indicated such) brings a chuckle to my face.

I believe I've stated several times that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. But that I firmly believe we should try something, anything, else as the current system is overtaxed and at the edge of a precipice. Whether that's to socialize medicine, broaden insurance companies customer base, bring health care to the state level or any other number of suggestions that have been brought up. I may have indeed missed your point in my posts but you seem to have skipped several of mine as well when I have specifically said that requiring everyone to have health insurance (falls into the same idea as insurance companies broadening their customer base that you have stated) is something I am for. My posts are to point out how broken the system is for those who believe there's nothing wrong with it.

Burst Cancel, you are assuming that those congressman have thoroughly explored and know the issues surrounding health care. When it's been proven time and time again that they don't even read or understand most of the literature before them. (The internet is a series of tubes...) At least someone who has experienced the system on both sides knows at the base level if it works or not. What's on paper versus applying something in real life is quite different. Which would be my point that most congressman have no reason to advocate for it. It works for them. After all, if you assume that I view my particular situation as representative they certainly do as well. We only have our own experiences to draw from.

I appreciate your almost idealistic version of how government is supposed to work. You are speaking of ideals that I fear just don't stack up in the real world. Waxing poetic on "hope of democracy" and your optimistic "responsibility to look at the relevant data" is something I hope they do as well when considering health care. (I acknowledge though that your lyrical phrasing could just be a writing style versus a hard and fast opinion.) So I'll just sign off this post saying that your portrayed optimism and faith in our congress is certainly something I hope to have some day as well.

Yang Whirlwind · Oct 11, 2009, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Look at Sweden/Denmark. They're completely socialist, but it's nigh-impossible to own a car there (100% tax on goods over a certain price). Denmark works because most of Denmark's populations are Danes - they share common cultural ties, a strong Scandanavian work ethic, and everyone who takes out of the system puts in.

I have been called many insulting thing on these boards,- but never before have anybody had the nerve to claim I was a socialist! *Goes away angry*

Eskimoz · Oct 11, 2009, 08:15 PM // 20:15

I can't help but think that if this thread goes on it's going to be as long as the actual health-care bill itself....

Burst Cancel · Oct 11, 2009, 08:26 PM // 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Burst Cancel, you are assuming that those congressman have thoroughly explored and know the issues surrounding health care. When it's been proven time and time again that they don't even read or understand most of the literature before them. (The internet is a series of tubes...) At least someone who has experienced the system on both sides knows at the base level if it works or not. What's on paper versus applying something in real life is quite different. Which would be my point that most congressman have no reason to advocate for it. It works for them. After all, if you assume that I view my particular situation as representative they certainly do as well. We only have our own experiences to draw from.

I appreciate your almost idealistic version of how government is supposed to work. You are speaking of ideals that I fear just don't stack up in the real world. Waxing poetic on "hope of democracy" and your optimistic "responsibility to look at the relevant data" is something I hope they do as well when considering health care. (I acknowledge though that your lyrical phrasing could just be a writing style versus a hard and fast opinion.) So I'll just sign off this post saying that your portrayed optimism and faith in our congress is certainly something I hope to have some day as well.

This is pretty amusing, as I have a reputation for being an incurable cynic.

I don't assume that congressmen know what they're on about; if anything, it's safer to assume that they know nothing and go from there. That's one of the primary reasons for my skepticism of any health care "reform": both the theory and implementation are complicated, and there's no indication that anyone in power fully appreciates this.

My problem, again, is with your implicit assertion that somebody has to have experiences like yours in order to understand the system. Anybody who cares to study the system can understand it, regardless of whether they've faced any personal hardship. As I suggest above, somebody who is looking at a problem from the outside is more likely to get a better picture, because they're able to divorce themselves from the issue rather than seeing the issue only from the standpoint of how it affects them.

I also think you're misinterpreting some of my supposed "optimism". It isn't so much my hope that people study the data and consider something beyond self-interest, it is that functional democracy requires those things. Just as it is irresponsible and counterproductive for voters to cast their ballots without studying the candidates and their positions, it is irresponsible for citizens to advocate issues purely out of self-interest and without studying the relevant data and theory. Functional democracy assumes an active, informed populace.

John Crow summed it up best, I think: "Do not think what you want to think until you know what you ought to know."

Inde · Oct 11, 2009, 10:33 PM // 22:33

I think your quote is superb, and would say with a degree of confidence the majority of people indeed don't know.

It is few and very far between those who can look at this system from an outside and neutral position. Even fewer who will take the time to inform themselves of the issue when they have no self-interest in it. I don't believe there are enough people who can look at this from a position of no self-benefit or interest and make a decision accordingly.

Leaves us at an impasse, yet inaction is not an option in my eyes.

A11Eur0 · Oct 12, 2009, 09:47 PM // 21:47

Inde: "...we should try something, anything else..." is a piss-poor way of looking at it. It says that you'd prefer someone throwing money at the problem NOW than taking a little more time to make sure it gets done right? You would ignore the possible drastic side-effects it would have on the country, our society, our political system, and the world overall, just because you want something done "right now"?

I'm done...sure you've never said "I support socialized medicine" in those words but your choice of words and the way you make your arguments tells the tale quite succinctly. You would prefer an instant short-term solution so you can get your issues taken care of...damn the country for the next decade. Sure. I'm glad you're not in Congress...at least the fact that it's taking so long shows me that they DO understand the possible future problems that a socialized health care system would create. That's why it's never happened since Ted Kennedy lobbied for it in the 70's...the dangers are just too great.

Requiring people to have health insurance, without levying restrictions on insurance companies, only leads people to REQUIRE a public option, and having the choice of this public option which will undoubtedly cost less than a private option (whether it provides the same coverage:dollar ratio or not) will invariably draw people to buy the public option. This will put private insurance companies out of business. I believe this is the plan all along, and it's the most unAmerican legislation ever to be considered by the United States Congress since the New Deal. All I'm trying to do is wake people up and let them see the future consequences of this short-term "solution" that's being lauded and praised with such liberal ferocity that the facts are being drowned out. You're arguing with me implying, and in your last response to me STATING that just because I don't support the current Health Care bill, I believe that the current system is flawless. This is after referring to my mention of possible solutions. Thus, even after being presented with more long-term, more American solutions to the problem, you still argue that this Health Care Reform bill is the way to go. Sorry, that's ridiculous.

Master Fuhon · Oct 12, 2009, 10:28 PM // 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

My problem, again, is with your implicit assertion that somebody has to have experiences like yours in order to understand the system. Anybody who cares to study the system can understand it, regardless of whether they've faced any personal hardship. As I suggest above, somebody who is looking at a problem from the outside is more likely to get a better picture, because they're able to divorce themselves from the issue rather than seeing the issue only from the standpoint of how it affects them.

It's not the same thing to watch someone else getting warmed by the fire, nor is it the same thing to watch someone else get burnt. In the second case, you will find out that a burn causes screaming, and you will be assuming that it caused pain. But you will associate that pain with experiences you have had. You would analyze the screams of the person getting burnt according to if those screams were coming from yourself, was that getting shot painful or getting a stomach cramp painful? It was neither. It was getting-burned-painful, something that can only truly be known by getting burned.

Experiences are similar, but they are not the same. Each person is a being made up of memory. All of your previous memories combine to form your analysis of your current experiences. If you've been burned several times before, then the next time you get burned probably isn't so bad. If you've never experienced pain before, a burn will probably be the worst thing that's ever happened to you. If you scream when you experience pleasure, you might think getting burned is enjoyable; maybe that guy who is on fire is experiencing the wonderful feeling of being very warm.

You don't know the dangers of fire until you have been burned or had something destroyed by it. You don't know the benefits of fire until you have used it to cook or stay warm. Wherever there is one side, there is also an observer's side. The observer can make the same mistake of identifying with his own side of detached observing. The more balanced point of view is never on one of the polarizing endpoints, but on a midpoint between the endpoints.

There's irony in the situation: the best way to not identify with any one side is to identify with all sides. Being too detached from any side creates it's own polarity.

Inde · Oct 13, 2009, 01:54 AM // 01:54

Ummm, A11Eur0. I wasn't referring to you in that last sentence about "My posts are to point out how broken the system is for those who believe there's nothing wrong with it." But to others who can't see the flaws in the system. Sorry that wasn't clear, I've certainly never gotten the impression from your posts that you believe the current system is flawless.

Burst Cancel · Oct 13, 2009, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Your analogy to burning is ill-conceived. You can understand how a bank works without ever interacting with one. Furthermore, being a banking customer doesn't qualify you to suggest improvements to any financial system, but having formal economic training might.

Health care discussions are particularly vulnerable to (unavoidable?) personal bias, because there's a lot of emotion and self-interest involved. Nobody wants to be the patient that requires an expensive life-saving treatment they can't afford, just as nobody wants to be the homeless guy on the street in the dead of winter, or the single parent of four that just got laid off from their minimum-wage job. We recognize and understand that these are unfortunate situations, but the strong emotions that these misfortunes evoke can only be distractions when attempting to craft efficient and effective systems.

All else being equal, I would prefer policy makers think like engineers rather than humanitarians.

Master Fuhon · Oct 13, 2009, 04:15 AM // 04:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Your analogy to burning is ill-conceived. You can understand how a bank works without ever interacting with one. Furthermore, being a banking customer doesn't qualify you to suggest improvements to any financial system, but having formal economic training might.

The whole talk about burning was that people would have different perspectives based on limitations created by previous experiences. People would have different perspectives about fire based on being harmed by it, or using it as a tool. An observer would miss out on various experiences related to fire that cannot be replicated any other way. Human memory would try to create something similar, but it wouldn't be the same.

The analogy was the lead in to these statements: The more balanced point of view is never on one of the polarizing endpoints, but on a midpoint between the endpoints ... The best way to not identify with any one side is to identify with all sides. I should have considered separate viewpoints to be like a Venn Diagram. The complete view is gained by identifying one's view as being inside all viewpoints. The observer's view of the Venn Diagram is an illusion; his observation view would indicate that he is the paper that the diagram is printed on, not a being outside of the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Health care discussions are particularly vulnerable to (unavoidable?) personal bias, because there's a lot of emotion and self-interest involved. Nobody wants to be the patient that requires an expensive life-saving treatment they can't afford, just as nobody wants to be the homeless guy on the street in the dead of winter, or the single parent of four that just got laid off from their minimum-wage job. We recognize and understand that these are unfortunate situations, but the strong emotions that these misfortunes evoke can only be distractions when attempting to craft efficient and effective systems.

The partial substitute for personally living experiences is being 'empathic' and taking in all information possible from people who have experiences (I'm not using empathetic, that word is commonly used with the 'show of empathy' and not the 'capacity for empathy'). Emotional empathy is the difference between re-attaching a non-functioning body part and making sure it works again. Emotions are actually the cause for developing the technology to replace the body part in the first place, instead of saying "Too bad, I wasn't programmed to execute that task". There's a good reason why machines can't learn; any system void of emotion lacks motivation to grow. Citizens cannot reach self-sufficiency without some type of positive emotion coming from governing figures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

All else being equal, I would prefer policy makers think like engineers rather than humanitarians.

http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
An engineer is a humanitarian by definition. Ethics are a mandatory part of the title. An 'engineer' is one who solves practical problems with ingenuity (cleverness). A person who doesn't identify as a humanitarian is in the business of only creating problems for other people. I could also critique whether a problem that isn't a human problem would even be considered practical in the first place.

Inde · Oct 13, 2009, 02:26 PM // 14:26

Good article maybe for some whom might still believe that a crush of medical bills, while having insurance, is rare. Though I'm sure there are those who will continue to find flaws to believe that they are protected and 'it could never happen to them'. Seen a lot of that lately. Had one woman in a forum declare that 95% of people have health insurance and that the system was fine if you had insurance... I would hope that anyone could use a shred of common sense and think about that statement for 5 seconds and realize it's not true:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/13...ces/index.html

Clarance sent · Oct 13, 2009, 05:36 PM // 17:36

I personally dont want nationalized healthcare because some day you might find out u have something serious and you need some type of medical care and then you show up and say i need this to live and there gonna go "ok sir take a number" and suddenly u look at the number and its 1,649,893 or something and theyre only just now serving number 450. YOU'LL BE DEAD BEFORE THEY GET TO YOU

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 13, 2009, 05:38 PM // 17:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarance sent

I personally dont want nationalized healthcare because some day you might find out u have something serious and you need some type of medical care and then you show up and say i need this to live and there gonna go "ok sir take a number" and suddenly u look at the number and its 1,649,893 or something and theyre only just now serving number 450. YOU'LL BE DEAD BEFORE THEY GET TO YOU

Not to different from the current system.

A11Eur0 · Oct 13, 2009, 07:26 PM // 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

Not to different from the current system.

actually that's quite different from the current system. If you can afford the treatment, you get it within a few weeks. Unless of course you need an organ, but that's not the fault of the system. If you want instant-organs, ok then maybe we should implement organ farms. take all of the country's undesireables and harvest their organs for people who really deserve them. Awesome idea.

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 13, 2009, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

actually that's quite different from the current system. If you can afford the treatment, you get it within a few weeks. Unless of course you need an organ, but that's not the fault of the system. If you want instant-organs, ok then maybe we should implement organ farms. take all of the country's undesireables and harvest their organs for people who really deserve them. Awesome idea.

I bolded a very key statement on your part.