A Mild Pitting of The Tao's Revenge

[Fuji]

@curlcoat

So, you are going to focus on the numbers (and the typo) and ignore everything else?

What “everything else”? Look, you were the one who, when asked way back in post 20 by The Tao’s Revenge, “I’d still like a cite for why the US is different from say, Canada, Sweden, the UK, and virtually every other first world country in regards to health care”, responded with “It would seem obvious. Size of population, size of land mass, the huge number of people we have who cannot be bothered to make a legal living”.

Any “focus on the numbers” is entirely yours to blame, so don’t try disingenuously weaseling out of it now.

Not a strawman. Most of the people that I would have to support on a UHC would be the same people who don’t pay or pay full rate for their food, shelter, clothing, education, and/or child care and don’t tend to have luxuries. Because they are already getting those things from the government.

You seem to be under the illusion that you don’t pay costs right now for the uninsured under the current system. Rather than pointlessly ask you for a cite for these bald assertions, I’d instead like to simply point that out to you.

Look at it logically. Right now there are a bunch (I forget the number) of people in the US without insurance and for the most part they fall into two catagories - not working and so not eligible for group insurance or able to pay for anything else, or working but their employer doesn’t provide group and they cannot afford private. You want to take these people and essentially add them to my group policy, even tho they can’t afford the premiums. Who pays for that?

There’s also a significant third group - those who work and have health coverage available through their employers, but who, through their own cost/benefit analysis, decide it too expensive and not practical to pay for that coverage. As noted above, you will still end up paying the costs for them.

Shrug. Our economy is seriously bad, we owe how much? in the national debt and you think it’s a good idea to add a highly expensive program to that?

Other countries also carry significant debt levels, and still afford UHC.

I will hesitatingly agree with you that right now, March 2009, is not the time to be implementing UHC in the US. First, stave off economic collapse. Second, let the economy recover. Then we can talk about implementing UHC.

Oh please. You really believe that one thing, no matter how wonderful and perfect it is, can be the only reason for life expectancies, good or bad?

Again with the disingenuous bullshit. Back in the same post in which you assert there’s too many people in the US for UHC, you say: “All of which assumes that the UHCs in all of those countries are actually the wonderful thing folks think they are. For every rosy painting, we get a story of long waits for treatment, denial of treatment, high cost, etc. Or fun things like this. Gosh, I so look forward to paying for something like that!”

Here you are arguing that UHC is a bad idea because it doesn’t work well. I replied that if UHC was such a bad setup, then surely there would be some evidence of it in shorter lifespans. Since you acknowledge in post 31 that, “Life expectancies are affected by genetics, smoking, diet, work, accidents and probably another score of things that have nothing to do with socialized medicine,” and since you did not refute the evidence I presented that most countries with UHC in fact have higher life expectancies than the US, then it logically follows that the level of care received in countries with UHC is in fact not significantly different than in the US. Thank you for taking the time to undermine your own position.

OK, so you are saying that a German leader who lived decades ago is a good example as to why a UHC is the best thing every for the US?

No, I’m asserting that a demonstrably brilliant man (smarter than I, you, and probably anyone else on this board) whose own political prejudices would disincline him to favor UHC in fact did so for pragmatic reasons. This is the third, and last, time I will attempt to make that same point clear to you.

True that. Problem is, you want us to gamble that you are right. A gamble that wouldn’t affect you in the slightest so it does make it easier for you to insist that you are right.

You are failing to see the “gamble” inherent in following the present course of action.

And you know nothing about me. I’ll let you in on a little secret. My location field is listed as “In exile” because I’m not planning on staying permanently in Ireland, but rather planning to move back to the US in the next couple years. So this debate about UHC will certainly affect me directly, you presumptuous twat.

[Fuji]

@curlcoat

Ah. So you believe that anyone that works, no matter at what, should be getting perks from either their employer or their government?

No. Of course, I don’t see access to medical care as a mere “perk”.

That a teenager working 20 hours a week at McDs should have health insurance?

One way or another, yes.

How about their pay - you’d have to raise it at least 3x in order for them to be able to afford that insurance.

Or provide UHC coverage.

Oh wait, no, you want me to pay for it, that’s right.

Yes, I do. Of course, I also want them to pay for you when you’re old and/or decrepit.

There will always be jobs available that require almost zero education and skills, such as flipping burgers and mowing lawns. Why in the world do you think those jobs should pay enough that someone could make a living at it?

Do you even listen to yourself? You are saying that unskilled laborers don’t deserve to make a living. Apparently, you are fine with the idea of them of not making enough to support themselves through such work. Since you didn’t answer the first time, I’ll repeat my question: Then why should they (or anyone) do these jobs in the first place?

Tell me, do people make a living picking up dog poo in Ireland?

Actually, yes. They do, surprisingly enough. Everyone in this country who works earns enough to make a living.

[curlcoat]

@Fuji

What “everything else”? Look, you were the one who, when asked way back in post 20 by The Tao’s Revenge, “I’d still like a cite for why the US is different from say, Canada, Sweden, the UK, and virtually every other first world country in regards to health care”, responded with “It would seem obvious. Size of population, size of land mass, the huge number of people we have who cannot be bothered to make a legal living”.

Any “focus on the numbers” is entirely yours to blame, so don’t try disingenuously weaseling out of it now.

You seem to be under the illusion that you don’t pay costs right now for the uninsured under the current system. Rather than pointlessly ask you for a cite for these bald assertions, I’d instead like to simply point that out to you.

Question - have you even looked into the subject, or do you just rely on what newscasters and the internet tell you?

There’s also a significant third group - those who work and have health coverage available through their employers, but who, through their own cost/benefit analysis, decide it too expensive and not practical to pay for that coverage. As noted above, you will still end up paying the costs for them.

Only if they qualify for MediCal, which I kinda doubt if they are working. Who in the world decides it isn’t practical to have health insurance?

I will hesitatingly agree with you that right now, March 2009, is not the time to be implementing UHC in the US. First, stave off economic collapse. Second, let the economy recover. Then we can talk about implementing UHC.

Hopefully, that time will never come. Or maybe people will realize that one of the major reasons the economy is so bad is due to the idea that somehow taxpayers are a bottomless asset, and maybe, just maybe TPTB will quit handing things to people that don’t deserve them.

Again with the disingenuous bullshit. Back in the same post in which you assert there’s too many people in the US for UHC, you say: “All of which assumes that the UHCs in all of those countries are actually the wonderful thing folks think they are. For every rosy painting, we get a story of long waits for treatment, denial of treatment, high cost, etc. Or fun things like this. Gosh, I so look forward to paying for something like that!”

Here you are arguing that UHC is a bad idea because it doesn’t work well. I replied that if UHC was such a bad setup, then surely there would be some evidence of it in shorter lifespans. Since you acknowledge in post 31 that, “Life expectancies are affected by genetics, smoking, diet, work, accidents and probably another score of things that have nothing to do with socialized medicine,” and since you did not refute the evidence I presented that most countries with UHC in fact have higher life expectancies than the US, then it logically follows that the level of care received in countries with UHC is in fact not significantly different than in the US. Thank you for taking the time to undermine your own position.

Wow. I read that twice and I still only see you supporting my position. Lets just take that last one - what makes you think that “it logically follows that the level of care received in countries with UHC is in fact not significantly different than in the US”? Just because their life expectancies may or may not be higher? (I don’t know because I don’t take time to research things that have nothing to do with a subject). You just wave away all of the other things that affect life expectancy?

This is the third, and last, time I will attempt to make that same point clear to you.

Good, it was getting boring watching you used something decades old to try to support your argument.

You are failing to see the “gamble” inherent in following the present course of action.

Apparently there isn’t one or you would be eager to try to shove it down my throat.

And you know nothing about me. I’ll let you in on a little secret. My location field is listed as “In exile” because I’m not planning on staying permanently in Ireland, but rather planning to move back to the US in the next couple years. So this debate about UHC will certainly affect me directly, you presumptuous twat.

Snort. So, on one hand you use your living in Ireland as an advantage and then when it suits your purposes you say you are in exile. Okaaay. So, taking it back to the subject - you will be uninsured/uninsurable when you return to the US?

Look, I don’t care either way if I am insured thru a private company or thru the government (tho I have no faith in the government’s ability to run anything well), I am only against having to pay even more taxes in order to cover all those folks that think it isn’t practical to have health insurance. And no one, in this thread or the GD one, has been able to prove that wouldn’t happen.

[curlcoat]

@Fuji

No. Of course, I don’t see access to medical care as a mere “perk”.

Everyone has access to medical care. You want everyone to have access to lower copays and deductibles and premiums based on their income.

One way or another, yes.

Then, you are an idiot and shouldn’t be involved in deciding what happens to my tax dollars.

Or provide UHC coverage.

So instead of having the teenager pay for their own health insurance, you rather I do it? Why? Why is that teenager more entitled to my hard earned dollars than I am?

Yes, I do. Of course, I also want them to pay for you when you’re old and/or decrepit.

Say what? Who do you think is going to “pay for” me?

Do you even listen to yourself? You are saying that unskilled laborers don’t deserve to make a living. Apparently, you are fine with the idea of them of not making enough to support themselves through such work.

Well, for one thing, I didn’t say unskilled laborers, I said jobs that don’t require skills. Do you think that it is even approaching good for any economy to be paying people who work part time flipping burgers at McDonalds $15 an hour? Or babysitters (not childcare workers)? Or people who mow lawns? Newpaper carriers? Why do you think that just because a job exists, it should pay enough to support someone?

Since you didn’t answer the first time, I’ll repeat my question: Then why should they (or anyone) do these jobs in the first place?

As a second, or third, job. As part time while going to school. To suppliment retirement income. Teenagers trying to earn gas money. You must really be young if you don’t remember a time when these sorts of jobs were not considered capable of making a living off of.

Actually, yes. They do, surprisingly enough. Everyone in this country who works earns enough to make a living.

Gonna need a cite on that one. Actually both - that anyone can make a living picking up dog poo, and that there are no working poor in Ireland.

[tumbleddown]

@curlcoat

Only if they qualify for MediCal, which I kinda doubt if they are working. Who in the world decides it isn’t practical to have health insurance?

You keep asserting this, that the only people whose healthcare you pay for are people on some form of medical assistance. This is not true. When people without health insurance end up in ERs and cannot pay their entire bills, or cannot pay them in a timely fashion, the hospitals are reimbursed (in part) by the federal government and private insurers to the tune of some $40 billion a year.

As to who decides it isn’t practical, try, as just one example, someone who looks at a $600 a month premium and realizes that $300 more in every paycheck is enough to enable them and their kids to live in a safe neighborhood with a decent school, rather than a ghetto, and has to take that chance temporarily until they have the experience or education or simple opportunity to get a higher paying job to offset that difference. It is honestly so difficult for you to imagine even one scenario?

But I have to note two prior posts. You said that you never said that poor people shouldn’t have the temerity to get sick. And that’s true, you never said it, but you imply it over and over again, when you state that people doing menial work shouldn’t earn enough money from that work to make a living, and when you ask “why should a teenager working at McDonald’s have health insurance?”

Given what health insurance represents – access to health care – why shouldn’t a teenager working at McDonald’s have it? Because he’s a teenager? Teenagers get sick and injured, so that doesn’t represent a legitimate reason. Because he works at McDonald’s? Well, no, like it or not, McDonald’s is a profitable business (especially right now) and people go there by the millions every day, which means that the work has value, someone has to be there to flip the burgers and ring up the orders. So the only answer can be because he’s poor, or rather, he’s too poor – because he’s not paid a living wage – to purchase insurance at the overinflated rates that he would be forced to pay because he would have to buy an individual policy.

So you have essentially said that poor people should not have health care access because they are poor. If they want to have health care access, they just have to not be poor any more. Even people who are working and putting in an honest day’s labor in exchange for (very little) pay.

It seems that some of us are operating from some erroneous assumption that should there be a switch to UHC in this country, that it would come without massive reform to how healthcare is administered, meaning that all of the multiple layers of people with no direct patient contact, no medical knowledge and no job but administering plans, billing, coding and processing claims – all of which are a cost, not a benefit in our current medical system – would still be needed and incorporated into the system. They can’t be, and I don’t know of any UHC proponent who has ever suggested that they should be.

The only difference between the current system and UHC cannot be that the bill goes to a bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services rather than United Healthcare or one of the dozens of Blue Crosses, or yes, the cost will be too great to bear. The first move must be streamlining and simplifying particularly on the administrative level. Then we proceed from there.

[Fuji]

@curlcoat

Question - have you even looked into the subject, or do you just rely on what newscasters and the internet tell you?

Question - why do you attempt to change the subject and abandon arguments for your position that you yourself have raised?

Who in the world decides it isn’t practical to have health insurance?

Well, in my 20’s, I decided that I’d rather have that extra $300/month in my pocket than pay out-of-pocket for health insurance. I am not an exceptional person by any meaning of the word.

Wow. I read that twice and I still only see you supporting my position. Lets just take that last one - what makes you think that “it logically follows that the level of care received in countries with UHC is in fact not significantly different than in the US”? Just because their life expectancies may or may not be higher? (I don’t know because I don’t take time to research things that have nothing to do with a subject). You just wave away all of the other things that affect life expectancy?

Yes or no, is the average level of medical care in a nation a significant determinant of that nation’s average life expectancy?

Good, it was getting boring watching you used something decades old to try to support your argument.

Wow. So now something is irrelevant to discussion if it is more than a few decades old? Well, there goes philosophy, law, engineering, medicine, literature, mathematics, music, architecture, et al., the vast bulk of whose contributions predate the 20th century. Good to know.

Apparently there isn’t one or you would be eager to try to shove it down my throat.

I don’t even know what the hell this is supposed to mean.

Snort. So, on one hand you use your living in Ireland as an advantage and then when it suits your purposes you say you are in exile. Okaaay. So, taking it back to the subject - you will be uninsured/uninsurable when you return to the US?

No, you fucking halfwit, I talk about living in Ireland because that’s where I currently live. And as my location field has remained the same since Day One, I’ve changed nothing to “suit my purposes”.

On subject - my insurance status will depend upon my financial and employment status at that time. Unless UHC is implemented in the meantime, of course.

Look, I don’t care either way if I am insured thru a private company or thru the government (tho I have no faith in the government’s ability to run anything well), I am only against having to pay even more taxes in order to cover all those folks that think it isn’t practical to have health insurance. And no one, in this thread or the GD one, has been able to prove that wouldn’t happen.

That’s probably because noone is disputing the assertion that UHC would be funded by tax revenue. What you seemingly refuse to acknowledge is that the uninsured are already costing you dearly.

[Fuji]

@curlcoat

Everyone has access to medical care. You want everyone to have access to lower copays and deductibles and premiums based on their income.

Yeah, everyone has access to medical care just like they have access to Beluga and Moët & Chandon.

And don’t fucking tell me what I want. You are starting to piss me off. I have only been interacting with you based on what you have written here. Even though we are in obvious disagreement, I’d appreciate if you’d show me the same courtesy.

Then, you are an idiot and shouldn’t be involved in deciding what happens to my tax dollars.

Too bad you live in a representative democracy, then. Ha ha!

So instead of having the teenager pay for their own health insurance, you rather I do it? Why? Why is that teenager more entitled to my hard earned dollars than I am?

Because it’s both A) practical, and B) ethical, for all of a wealthy nation’s citizens to have health care coverage. You live in a society, not a cave.

Say what? Who do you think is going to “pay for” me?

Society. Or the taxpayer. Whichever terminology you prefer.

Well, for one thing, I didn’t say unskilled laborers, I said jobs that don’t require skills.

You’re slipping into self-parody here.

Why do you think that just because a job exists, it should pay enough to support someone?

For the last time: If I can’t make a living doing a job, then why should I do it?

As a second, or third, job. As part time while going to school. To suppliment retirement income. Teenagers trying to earn gas money. You must really be young if you don’t remember a time when these sorts of jobs were not considered capable of making a living off of.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. I don’t think that, in an advanced industrial nation, anyone should have to work 2 or 3 jobs (implying 60-70 hour workweeks) to get by. You apparently think that is fine.

Gonna need a cite on that one. Actually both - that anyone can make a living picking up dog poo, and that there are no working poor in Ireland.

Here you go. The current minimum wage is €8.65/hour, which translates to $11.74/hour at current exchange rates. At this rate of pay, there are NO TAXES withheld, meaning that if you work a typical 39 hour week, you’d take home the entire $457.86, or $23,808.72/year. As previously mentioned, there is UHC. There is also almost-free college education, heavily-subsidized public transportation, and VAT-exemptions for food and children’s clothing. As such, I feel quite comfortable asserting that anyone with full-time employment here can make an adequate living.

I never said there were no working poor here. Basically, if you have too many kids and/or you can find only part-time employment, then you will be poor. That doesn’t essentially detract from my assertion that, “Everyone in this country who works earns enough to make a living.”

[tomndebb]

@Fuji

Good, it was getting boring watching you used something decades old to try to support your argument.

Wow. So now something is irrelevant to discussion if it is more than a few decades old? Well, there goes philosophy, law, engineering, medicine, literature, mathematics, music, architecture, et al., the vast bulk of whose contributions predate the 20th century. Good to know.

No. No. No.

The correct response is that rumors of signs saying “No Irish Need Apply” are obviously false, since they are based on undocumented things that are decades old.

[Fuji]

@tomndebb

No. No. No.

The correct response is that rumors of signs saying “No Irish Need Apply” are obviously false, since they are based on undocumented things that are decades old.

Oops - I forgot language, too.

[Fuji]

@ Lynn Bodoni, tumbleddown, DMC - You’ve also echoed many of my own thoughts here. Thanks for your contributions. I feel like we’re banging our collective heads against a wall, though…

[DMC]

Ferchrissakes, hurlchoad, you’re making iridium jealous.

Are you ready? Follow the bouncing ball and you might not get lost. Luckily, the text will stay on the screen for this one, so you can go back and read it again, if you don’t understand it the sixth time.

@curlcoat

…the huge number of people we have who cannot be bothered to make a legal living…

@DMC

Can you define the bolded portion above, so we know what you are referring to, please?

Now stick with me here. You’ll notice I asked you to define what making a legal, that’s legal, not illegal, not illegible, but legal living consists of.

@curlcoat

Drug dealers, welfare cheats, thieves, etc. You know, illegal ways to make a living.

Thanks. Now, back to the legal variety of making a living, you know, the one I actually asked about? If I asked you to define “red”, would you answer with “Indigo, Cerulean, Ultramarine. You know, blue”, or might you actually answer the question asked?

Now, to be fair, you could have slipped up, and just misunderstood, even though it was your own text I was quoting. So, I decide to give you the benefit of the doubt, but let you know that the question remained unanswered.

@DMC

Well, you didn’t really answer my question, but until you do, I’ll run with the non-answer that you did give.

@curlcoat

So I read it backwards - you couldn’t figure it out?

Wow, an admission of error, sort of. The problem was that due to you “reading it backwards” (you should probably take up Hebrew or Arabic, you’d be a whiz), and including the “etc.”, it’s still impossible to figure out your definition of “making a legal living”, as I noted in my next post.

@DMC

When you list a group of people that don’t meet the criteria I was asking about, and also include the word “etc.”, how am I supposed to discern who did meet the criteria?

And your follow up?

@curlcoat

Shrug. If you want to nitpick, I guess I’m bored enough for it. Now, when I originally said “a legal living”, I was talking about those that make any of their living thru illegal means, such as dealing drugs, robbery, etc. Yes, there is that etc again, but I am certainly not going to list every illegal act one might use to make a buck.

WTF? Now “a legal living” is someone that makes “any of their living thru illegal means”? I’m not sure “backwards” suffices anymore. Anyway, giving up on trying to get you to define it, I did at least get you to acknowledge that you thought that people who stay at home while their spouses work aren’t making a living, which is what I was expecting and waiting for anyway.

@curlcoat

I don’t know why you include folks who are at home while their spouses work, since they obviously aren’t making a living if they are unemployed and (I assume?) you didn’t mean they were doing anything illegal.

Since you also stay at home, I thought I might toss this out for you to ponder.

@DMC

From your definition then, you’re not making a “living”, legal or otherwise. Wouldn’t that make you one of the people you are bitching about, the “…the huge number of people we have who cannot be bothered to make a legal living…”, as you said?

Your response?

@curlcoat

What is illegal about the way I am making my living?

@DMC

Who said there was anything illegal about it? I said you weren’t making a “living” at all, by your own definition.

And finally, the point where you gave comprehension a whole new meaning, one that looks nothing like the original definition of the word.

@curlcoat

The only definition you asked from me was illegal ways of making a living.

I repeat, not one fucking time in this entire thread did I ever ask you to define illegal ways of making a living.

You’ve gone so far past iridium that it can’t even see you anymore and now osmium is in your rear-view mirror. It isn’t very happy at all that you’re trying to steal the title.

[curlcoat]

@tumbleddown

You keep asserting this, that the only people whose healthcare you pay for are people on some form of medical assistance. This is not true. When people without health insurance end up in ERs and cannot pay their entire bills, or cannot pay them in a timely fashion, the hospitals are reimbursed (in part) by the federal government and private insurers to the tune of some $40 billion a year.

I tend to lump that in with MediCal, since MediCal does end up paying quite a bit of that due to the way it is set up here. You are still talking about people who cannot afford to pay a premium now, so why would they be able to pay one under a UHC?

As to who decides it isn’t practical, try, as just one example, someone who looks at a $600 a month premium and realizes that $300 more in every paycheck is enough to enable them and their kids to live in a safe neighborhood with a decent school, rather than a ghetto, and has to take that chance temporarily until they have the experience or education or simple opportunity to get a higher paying job to offset that difference. It is honestly so difficult for you to imagine even one scenario?

Of course not, because in this country it has not only become OK but common for people to have children they cannot afford by any stretch of the imagination. And don’t even start in on those “what about people who had children when they could afford them then something totally not their fault happened” because those situations are very rare. Anyone who can get out of a ghetto based on $600 more per month should not have children, period. And if they didn’t have children, that $600 a month wouldn’t be an issue would it?

And all you do is whine at me about how we can’t “punish the innocent children” as if it is me that chose to have them in that ghetto. Why don’t you all quit rewarding people for doing that to those innocent children you are so concerned about?

But I have to note two prior posts. You said that you never said that poor people shouldn’t have the temerity to get sick. And that’s true, you never said it, but you imply it over and over again, when you state that people doing menial work shouldn’t earn enough money from that work to make a living, and when you ask “why should a teenager working at McDonald’s have health insurance?”

OK, you are going to have to explain how not allowing a teenager, who should still be on their parents policy, health insurance is the same thing as saying the poor shouldn’t get sick. Or how the belief that noone should expect to make a living on mowing lawns translates into the poor shouldn’t get sick. Are you so dense that you can’t see that the market would never be able to bear paying a living wage and providing cheap insurance for jobs like that? No one is going to pay $20 for a Big Mac.

Given what health insurance represents – access to health care – why shouldn’t a teenager working at McDonald’s have it? Because he’s a teenager?

Yes! That teenager is still his parents’ responsibility. Not mine, not McDonald’s, not the US government’s.

It seems that some of us are operating from some erroneous assumption that should there be a switch to UHC in this country, that it would come without massive reform to how healthcare is administered, meaning that all of the multiple layers of people with no direct patient contact, no medical knowledge and no job but administering plans, billing, coding and processing claims – all of which are a cost, not a benefit in our current medical system – would still be needed and incorporated into the system. They can’t be, and I don’t know of any UHC proponent who has ever suggested that they should be.

Uh, OK, how do you suggest your doctor get paid by the UHC then?

The first move must be streamlining and simplifying particularly on the administrative level. Then we proceed from there.

Good luck with that, given that no part of the government is streamlined or simplified. :rolleyes:

[curlcoat]

@Fuji

Question - why do you attempt to change the subject and abandon arguments for your position that you yourself have raised?

Because your responses are so odd that I am beginning to wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about. Hence the question.

Well, in my 20’s, I decided that I’d rather have that extra $300/month in my pocket than pay out-of-pocket for health insurance. I am not an exceptional person by any meaning of the word.

That is pathetic. You are telling me that there are a lot of people like that, who selfishly decide they would rather blow $300 a month rather than be responsible for themselves, after telling me that I should not resist being required to pay money to cover them? You are supporting a UHC in part so that people in their 20’s don’t have to pay full freight for their own insurance? Jesus.

Yes or no, is the average level of medical care in a nation a significant determinant of that nation’s average life expectancy?

It would depend on your definition of significant. If you mean a major determinant, between first world countries I say no.

Wow. So now something is irrelevant to discussion if it is more than a few decades old? Well, there goes philosophy, law, engineering, medicine, literature, mathematics, music, architecture, et al., the vast bulk of whose contributions predate the 20th century. Good to know.

Decades old engineering or medicine? No thanks. Can’t imagine you would want them either.

I don’t even know what the hell this is supposed to mean.

You claimed that staying in the current healthcare situation is a gamble, but you failed to explain why it is.

No, you fucking halfwit, I talk about living in Ireland because that’s where I currently live. And as my location field has remained the same since Day One, I’ve changed nothing to “suit my purposes”.

Speaking of halfwits, I said nothing about changing your location field.

That’s probably because noone is disputing the assertion that UHC would be funded by tax revenue. What you seemingly refuse to acknowledge is that the uninsured are already costing you dearly.

And what you totally refuse to acknowledge is if you add even more people to my tax burden, it will have to go up. At this point in time, I am not paying for the healthcare of every person in the US, and not every uninsured one is using the ER for a doctors office, not even close. Yes, I am already paying dearly for very poor people who cannot or will not be responsible for themselves, what I don’t get is why you think it wouldn’t cost me even more to cover the merely poor people, the irresponsible 20’s who forego insurance, the people who have children they can’t afford, who cannot or will not be responsible for themselves.

[curlcoat]

@Fuji

Yeah, everyone has access to medical care just like they have access to Beluga and Moët & Chandon.

And don’t fucking tell me what I want. You are starting to piss me off. I have only been interacting with you based on what you have written here. Even though we are in obvious disagreement, I’d appreciate if you’d show me the same courtesy.

Okaaay. You calling me a fucking halfwit was courtesy? :rolleyes:

Anyway, if you don’t want everyone to have access to lower copays and deductibles and premiums based on their income, what do you want out of a UHC?

Too bad you live in a representative democracy, then. Ha ha!

I don’t know how representative it is any more, but it is too bad that I live in a country where so many people vote the way they are told to.

Because it’s both A) practical, and B) ethical, for all of a wealthy nation’s citizens to have health care coverage. You live in a society, not a cave.

Oh brother. Talk about sidestepping the question. Try again - why does the teenager have more right to my money than I do? I live in a society, not a commune.

Society. Or the taxpayer. Whichever terminology you prefer.

What makes you think that society and/or taxpayers will have to “pay for” me? Have you totally missed my point here?

For the last time: If I can’t make a living doing a job, then why should I do it?

For the last time - as a second job, as a temporary thing while you go to school, as a teenager trying to support a car.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. I don’t think that, in an advanced industrial nation, anyone should have to work 2 or 3 jobs (implying 60-70 hour workweeks) to get by. You apparently think that is fine.

Why the hell not? I did it, some others I knew in the same poor situation did it - it was how we got ahead. Not by sitting around on our backsides whining about how we were entitled to anything we wanted when we wanted it, and by God, the government had better give it to us. Jesus, some salaried people work 60 hrs a week at one job when they are trying to climb the corporate ladder.

I think your problem is you view everyone as equal, which might be fine in theory, but not in practice. The fact that people are not equal is why some people make a bigger paycheck for the same job as their coworkers - you want to make them equal, you remove the incentive to excell at their jobs. You know, like government employees.

Here you go. The current minimum wage is €8.65/hour, which translates to $11.74/hour at current exchange rates. At this rate of pay, there are NO TAXES withheld, meaning that if you work a typical 39 hour week, you’d take home the entire $457.86, or $23,808.72/year. As previously mentioned, there is UHC. There is also almost-free college education, heavily-subsidized public transportation, and VAT-exemptions for food and children’s clothing. As such, I feel quite comfortable asserting that anyone with full-time employment here can make an adequate living.

How many of the people who pass food thru a drive thru window, mow lawns or pick up dog poop over there work a full 40 hour week (or 39 as you say, dunno why).

Of course, it helps that Ireland doesn’t have a - ahem - representative democracy that likes to get into multi-billion dollar fights with other countries, so you have all of that extra money lying around to hand out.

I never said there were no working poor here. Basically, if you have too many kids and/or you can find only part-time employment, then you will be poor. That doesn’t essentially detract from my assertion that, “Everyone in this country who works earns enough to make a living.”

You just contradicted yourself - if they can only find part time employment, then they cannot earn enough to make a living. From what I understand (from several years ago), food and gas cost much more over there than here, tho housing seemed to be cheaper. So if someone is only working 20 hours a week, can they actually live on $12,000 a year? OTOH, since the people who did bother to get ahead and are making a better living are paying taxes to give those living on $12,000 no taxes, a UHC, subsidized transportation and educations maybe you can live on that. I hear that in the UK they give houses to women who have children they can’t afford - do they do that in Ireland too?

[DMC]

@curlcoat

Okaaay. You calling me a fucking halfwit was courtesy?

Normally, no, but in this case, I’m thinking that it was a courtesy. Fuji did say “half”, which is awfully generous, in my opinion.

[curlcoat]

@DMC

WTF? Now “a legal living” is someone that makes “any of their living thru illegal means”?

Are you really that stupid? “People who cannot be bothered to make a legal living” is so alien to you that you cannot figure out what that means?

The reason I haven’t answered the question the way you wanted is that I just could not believe you were actually asking something that obvious, but OK here ya go -

A legal living is earning enough money to live on in any way that isn’t illegal.

Now, before you go off on some other rant that is so stupid I cannot follow it, please note the word “earning” in there.

[tumbleddown]

@curlcoat

I tend to lump that in with MediCal, since MediCal does end up paying quite a bit of that due to the way it is set up here. You are still talking about people who cannot afford to pay a premium now, so why would they be able to pay one under a UHC?

You tend to lump it in. But it isn’t. We’re not talking about anything paid for by the state of California, we’re talking about money paid by the federal government and by insurance companies.

And the reasons why these people would be able to pay a premium under UHC is rather self-evident, isn’t it? Because a.) it would be keyed to their income level and b.) the cost of healthcare, and therefore the cost to the consumer, will by any standard have to be lowered if a UHC plan is brought into play.

@curlcoat

Of course not, because in this country it has not only become OK but common for people to have children they cannot afford by any stretch of the imagination.

Then take the children out of the equation. Young, healthy single person. The option is to live in a bad neighborhood and have insurance, or live in a nicer and safer neighborhood because they have $300 more a month they can use toward rent. It’s the exact same scenario, where choosing not to pay the premium for health insurance enables someone to have a better daily living experience.

Anyone who can get out of a ghetto based on $600 more per month should not have children, period.

That’s perhaps the most illogical thing you’ve said yet.

OK, you are going to have to explain how not allowing a teenager, who should still be on their parents policy, health insurance is the same thing as saying the poor shouldn’t get sick.

A.) Not all teenagers HAVE parents.
B.) Not all teenagers have parents with insurance that will cover them.
C.) It doesn’t even have to be a teenager. There are people over the age of 18 who work at McDonalds and gas stations and grocery stores and restaurants and for pizza places and in call centers and for tutoring programs and accountants and realtors and in bakeries and butcher shops and repair centers and auto repairs and hardware stores and coffee shops and hair salons and in daycare centers and eldercare centers and nursing homes and pet kennels and houses of worship and landscaping companies and farms and in fields ready for harvest across this country who are earning less than $10 an hour and are not offered insurance by their employers and cannot, under our current system, begin to afford to purchase it on their own.

They may have spouses or they may not. They may have children or they may not. They are doing honest work that powers this country, that enables people to have the goods and services that they need every day, that enables people to work knowing that their children or their elderly parents are being cared for, that enables people to eat, because there isn’t one single piece of domestic produce that gets to your grocery store or lands on your table that is picked by someone with healthcare coverage or the financial means to procure it.

And I am no longer inclined to argue with you or anyone who says that these people are just not responsible enough to deserve to access something as simple as someone giving them antibiotics when they get strep throat, or stitches when they drop a glass and cut their foot. Or that they just have to wait until they have the opportunity or experience or language skills or whatever other subjective criteria someone wants to throw out, and get a “real” job, and then they can have a seat at the table. If you can’t understand why that doesn’t work, why that destroys people and threatens the security of families, if you can’t understand why this particular unlevel playing field isn’t just unacceptable because it’s “unfair” but because it kills people then I’m not sure what else there is to argue, especially when you have no better solutions, just a lot of bullshit whining about your own self-interest.

[curlcoat]

@tumbleddown

And the reasons why these people would be able to pay a premium under UHC is rather self-evident, isn’t it? Because a.) it would be keyed to their income level and b.) the cost of healthcare, and therefore the cost to the consumer, will by any standard have to be lowered if a UHC plan is brought into play.

“Have to be lowered?” Why don’t you pretend for a minute that we live in a capitalistic country and realize that no doctor, nurse, EMT, orderly, intern, hospital, medical supply company, pharmacy, drug company and on and on - none of them are going to want to lower their prices. Now pretend we live in the US and the federal and state governments have layers upon layers of bureaucracy, run by people in no fear of losing their jobs for not being productive. Now, where is it the costs are going to be lowered?

Yes, if we got a UHC, a) would happen, but b) wouldn’t, so the lack of full premiums from a) would be covered by…?

Then take the children out of the equation. Young, healthy single person. The option is to live in a bad neighborhood and have insurance, or live in a nicer and safer neighborhood because they have $300 more a month they can use toward rent. It’s the exact same scenario, where choosing not to pay the premium for health insurance enables someone to have a better daily living experience.

I take it then you feel it is more responsible for them to gamble on their health than to live in a “bad” neighborhood. And really, how often is it that a young single employed full time person is stuck in a “bad” neighborhood? Such people can rent with roommates and are far less likely to need to be in a certain place because they want better schools or a shorter commute. If they weren’t born and raised in that “bad” neighborhood, then it isn’t very likely that they are going to have to choose between living there and having insurance.

That’s perhaps the most illogical thing you’ve said yet.

A.) Not all teenagers HAVE parents.

If not, then they have the state - I am assuming that all states require that people be taken care of by either their parents or some sort of legal guardian until they are 18?

B.) Not all teenagers have parents with insurance that will cover them.

Which goes back to society encouraging people to have children they simply cannot afford. Which has turned into society telling me that I am more responsible for those children than the very people that chose to have them. Work on people being responsible for themselves and their personal choices, and there will be far fewer uninsured teenagers.

C.) It doesn’t even have to be a teenager. There are people over the age of 18 who work at McDonalds and gas stations and grocery stores and restaurants and for pizza places and in call centers and for tutoring programs and accountants and realtors and in bakeries and butcher shops and repair centers and auto repairs and hardware stores and coffee shops and hair salons and in daycare centers and eldercare centers and nursing homes and pet kennels and houses of worship and landscaping companies and farms and in fields ready for harvest across this country who are earning less than $10 an hour and are not offered insurance by their employers and cannot, under our current system, begin to afford to purchase it on their own.

Well, ignoring the fact that not all of those make only $10 an hour, do you really want to encourage people to settle down in a job making that little? Because if you do, the next step is them demanding a true living wage, one that they can have their 2.5 kids, McMansion and SUVs on. For pushing food thru a hole.

They are doing honest work that powers this country, that enables people to have the goods and services that they need every day, that enables people to work knowing that their children or their elderly parents are being cared for, that enables people to eat, because there isn’t one single piece of domestic produce that gets to your grocery store or lands on your table that is picked by someone with healthcare coverage or the financial means to procure it.

So? This idea that every job in the world is equal just baffles me. Or maybe it’s just the entitlement attitude that the boomers have swept the country with - when I was picking raspberries in Washington I would have been happy to have made an hourly wage, nevermind something like health insurance.

And I am no longer inclined to argue with you or anyone who says that these people are just not responsible enough to deserve to access something

And yet, you go on to do so.

If you can’t understand why that doesn’t work, why that destroys people and threatens the security of families,

Because they shouldn’t blinking be having a family when they are only making $10 an hour! Jesus, when I was a teenager, those sorts of jobs paid $2.50 - $2.75 and nobody even got close to thinking that anyone should be living on that, much less raising a family. Now they are making $10? That is almost 2/3 of what I made at my last job, a year and a half ago, and I could have lived on that and paid for my group insurance. Even here in expensive ole southern California. The entitlement is just amazing.

[DMC]

@curlcoat

Are you really that stupid? “People who cannot be bothered to make a legal living” is so alien to you that you cannot figure out what that means?

I can certainly come up with my own definition, but by it, you’re not doing so. Since you’re bitching about people who aren’t making a legal living, perhaps you need a bit of self-reflection, agonizing as you might find it.

A legal living is earning enough money to live on in any way that isn’t illegal.

Excellent. Now you definitely ruled yourself out of the group of money earners. Do you bitch at yourself as much as you bitch about the other people who aren’t earning a living?

By the way, did you enjoy getting shown to be full of shit? I’m starting to think you might actually like being spanked around verbally, in which case I’ll gladly let someone else take over the “honors” of keeping you happy.

[curlcoat]

@DMC

I can certainly come up with my own definition, but by it, you’re not doing so. Since you’re bitching about people who aren’t making a legal living, perhaps you need a bit of self-reflection, agonizing as you might find it.
Excellent. Now you definitely ruled yourself out of the group of money earners. Do you bitch at yourself as much as you bitch about the other people who aren’t earning a living?

By the way, did you enjoy getting shown to be full of shit? I’m starting to think you might actually like being spanked around verbally, in which case I’ll gladly let someone else take over the “honors” of keeping you happy.

Well, either you are that stupid or you are just ignoring everything possible in a vain attempt to prove yourself - what? Right? Superior? Whatever it is, you failed. How you get from me saying “a legal living is earning enough money to live on in any way that isn’t illegal” to me needing to be bitched at for not making a living is beyond me. Whether or not I’m out making money is immaterial because I’m not taking money from the taxpayers. But of course, you ignore that major fact because you just cannot wait to try to show me to be “full of shit”. Uh huh. :rolleyes:

You have a long way to go before you can get close to spanking anyone around.