Young, Ill and Uninsured

farfromglorified wrote:

Can you be more specific? Are you asking if I support a system where the poor get nationalized coverage, but I am still able to participate in whatever I choose (except of course, not subsidizing the nationalized system)?

Yes.

baraka wrote:

Yeah, basically. This is a complex issue, but Americans have always been innovative in their approach to solutions. I'm not sure I see the possibility of dissolving private insurance outright in the US at this time. I will add that your taxes will go to fund the nationalized system. I realize you are not fond of this 'social contract', but you know the solution to that. The only gun to your head is your own.

It isn't that complex, at least not financially/tax-wise. A healthy country works harder, lives longer, puts in more than it takes.

gue_barium wrote:

It isn't that complex, at least not financially/tax-wise. A healthy country works harder, lives longer, puts in more than it takes.

Hehe...this is the logic that will destroy this world. The idea that a "healthy country" just magically "puts in more than it takes" is a hilarious concept inside a topic that is precisely proposing to allow people to consume more than they produce. Good luck with this.

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...this is the logic that will destroy this world. The idea that a "healthy country" just magically "puts in more than it takes" is a hilarious concept inside a topic that is precisely proposing to allow people to consume more than they produce. Good luck with this.

Where does 'consume' come into this, for you?

I work hard. I just worked 72 hours this week. 60 the week before. I'm putting 'in' my good health, and my ability to produce. Sure, I benefit with a nice paycheck, but I don't mind that my extra energies benefit others. I might be the person who needs that Medicaid one day.

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...this is the logic that will destroy this world. The idea that a "healthy country" just magically "puts in more than it takes" is a hilarious concept inside a topic that is precisely proposing to allow people to consume more than they produce. Good luck with this.

This is about your paranoia, and your belief that corruption is the rule.

gue_barium wrote:

Where does 'consume' come into this, for you?

Um...the medicine, labor, and services you and others will consume from a nationalized health care plan.

I work hard. I just worked 72 hours this week. 60 the week before. I'm putting 'in' my good health, and my ability to produce. Sure, I benefit with a nice paycheck, but I don't mind that my extra energies benefit others. I might be the person who needs that Medicaid one day.

Awesome. Lots of "I"s in there.

baraka wrote:

What means am I proposing?

Laws backed by violence of course.

Have you seen me commit to one 'idea' to solve this problem?

No. You have, however, indicated that you have no problem with the general idea of considering one person's healthcare another person's obligation.

You are projecting your paranoia on to me. I do know that our current system is very complex and I'm not sure out right elimination of the private industry would be wise at this point. I do not know enough to propose that we completely throw out our current system. But I do know that our system is broken and reform is needed.

Sure. Regardless of whether or not you are going to "eliminate private industry" (as if you have any other right to do this outside of violence) or just impose additional obligations of some individuals, you're still violating what I see as correct ethics. It's not as if I consider you allowing private industry to exist as some kind of favor.

Wow, I'll use that logic on my landlord.

If you have no lease with your landlord, that logic will work quite well.

Yeah, if you break the law and squat there will be consequences.

"Squat" implies ownership. You're showing, in your attitudes towards people's labor and property that ownership is nothing to more to you than possession. So you're invalidating any claim you have to "owning" something.

You can terminate the contact at any time, just like I can terminate my contract with my landlord. You are not a victim, ffg, so stop pretending to be one.

I can't terminate a contract I never signed. All I can do is leave.

farfromglorified wrote:

Laws backed by violence of course.



No. You have, however, indicated that you have no problem with the general idea of considering one person's healthcare another person's obligation.



Sure. Regardless of whether or not you are going to "eliminate private industry" (as if you have any other right to do this outside of violence) or just impose additional obligations of some individuals, you're still violating what I see as correct ethics. It's not as if I consider you allowing private industry to exist as some kind of favor.



If you have no lease with your landlord, that logic will work quite well.



"Squat" implies ownership. You're showing, in your attitudes towards people's labor and property that ownership is nothing to more to you than possession. So you're invalidating any claim you have to "owning" something.



I can't terminate a contract I never signed. All I can do is leave.

You are either American or you are not.

All we can do is try to make a better life in this country. That's all. Any immigrant would say the same thing.

gue_barium wrote:

You are either American or you are not.

Then I am not, if being "American" means holding your values. I don't hold your values.

farfromglorified wrote:

Then I am not, if being "American" means holding your values. I don't hold your values.

Whoa.

Ok.

Alright.

I'm good with that.