This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

N.J. Woman Declared Dead By Mistake, Twice

Two months after the Summit, N.J., resident's husband died, the SSA not only stopped her disability and her widow's benefit payments, but also dipped into her bank account in July to reclaim $7,000.

The Social Security Administration has the ability and right to take money from your bank account!


This is what people want to make their health-care decisions?

Why are people so afraid to care for themselves?

 

[Wolfman]

N.J. Woman Declared Dead By Mistake, Twice



The Social Security Administration has the ability and right to take money from your bank account!


This is what people want to make their health-care decisions?

Why are people so afraid to care for themselves?

By the same kind of distorted logic you are using here, could I not simply post one of the thousands of stories about people who don't bother to buy adequate health insurance, or choose a provider that turns out to be dishonest, and then when they face a major medical crisis, are unable to get adequate care?

Or how about children who don't get adequate health care because of bad decisions by their parents?

I could then make an OP just like yours, citing those individual instances, and use that as "proof" that we should not entrust such decisions to individuals, but rather should leave it in the hands of the government.

Such an argument is less than worthless. It is an appeal to emotion, and to ignorance, rather than a logical and rational look at the whole picture.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

By the same kind of distorted logic you are using here, could I not simply post one of the thousands of stories about people who don't bother to buy adequate health insurance, or choose a provider that turns out to be dishonest, and then when they face a major medical crisis, are unable to get adequate care?

Or how about children who don't get adequate health care because of bad decisions by their parents?

I could then make an OP just like yours, citing those individual instances, and use that as "proof" that we should not entrust such decisions to individuals, but rather should leave it in the hands of the government.

Such an argument is less than worthless. It is an appeal to emotion, and to ignorance, rather than a logical and rational look at the whole picture.

I see, you want the government to make your choices for you and just hope that they do not declare you dead and raid your bank account.



Let us examine your argument. Should the government also control and distribute the food for the nation as some parents will make bad choices for their children?

 

[quixotecoyote]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...te&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the system you want to run health-care?

Elderly people forced to choose which vital prescriptions they need!

Why are people so afraid to work together through their government for a real solution?

 

[skeptical]

The Social Security Administration has the ability and right to take money from your bank account!

The government always has the ability and right to take money away it has given you if you are dead. Of course, in this case it was a mistake, but what is the problem with the government taking back money it gave you for retirement if you are no longer alive?

This is what people want to make their health-care decisions?

Have you had to deal with an HMO lately? I have, its just as bureaucratic as any govt organization I have ever had to deal with.

But I don't want either one of them to make health decisions, that's what single payer systems are for.

Why are people so afraid to care for themselves?

What do you mean by this, exactly. That people should pay every dollar for their care directly out of their own pocket? That an HMO should pay a portion? What system do you envision is the "best"?

 

[Wolfman]

I see, you want the government to make your choices for you and just hope that they do not declare you dead and raid your bank account.

Let us examine your argument. Should the government also control and distribute the food for the nation as some parents will make bad choices for their children?

ROTFLMAO -- Dude, great job at ignoring the entire point that I raised!

"Hey, let's ignore the fact that my OP was entirely lacking in any logic whatsoever, and instead use fear tactics to raise the spectre of the government controlling every aspect of my life, and trying to create the illusion that this is the only alternative!"

There is a thing called balance. Judging from this post, and others that I've seen you make, it is a concept that I doubt you have much understanding of.

In regards to health care, I come from a country where health care is largely run by the government (Canada), and despite the fact it certainly has problems, and needs improvement, it still beats the majority of health care systems in the world hands down.

In regards to parents caring for their children, the government absolutely should mandate and enforce basic standards of care, and if parents fail to meet those standards, should step in to A) make the parents comply, or B) failing that, to remove those children and put them in a better situation.

I'm not in favor of absolute government control of our lives. I am equally not in favor of the chaos of a system where it is essentially every man for himself. I'm in favor of balance between government and individual. The medical system you propose -- that every person is responsible for their own health care -- is perhaps okay for those who have the financial means to afford decent health care. But there are tons of people who lack such means, and personally I'd rather see the government stepping in and taking action, rather than see those families -- especially the children -- suffering because ignorant idiots say, "Oh, the government shouldn't get involved."

Rather than the incredibly stupid argument that you make here, arguing from one individual case, how about examining the system as a whole? Try comparing countries like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, etc., (all of whom have fairly centralize medical systems with strong government control) to countries where the government has little or no involvement in medical issues?

And then compare the relative standards of health care between the two.

That would make for a valid argument.

Not the crap you've posted here.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...te&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the system you want to run health-care?

Elderly people forced to choose which vital prescriptions they need!

Why are people so afraid to work together through their government for a real solution?

That is a made-up story. See if you can tell why.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The government always has the ability and right to take money away it has given you if you are dead. Of course, in this case it was a mistake, but what is the problem with the government taking back money it gave you for retirement if you are no longer alive?

A government agency does not have the right to arbitrarily take money from live or dead peoples bank accounts.

Where in the world did you get this idea?

Have you had to deal with an HMO lately? I have, its just as bureaucratic as any govt organization I have ever had to deal with.

Yep, I have never had a problem and neither has anyone one I work with or any one I know.

But I don't want either one of them to make health decisions, that's what single payer systems are for.

A single payer system is making your choices based on what is deemed best for the system not best for you.

What do you mean by this, exactly. That people should pay every dollar for their care directly out of their own pocket? That an HMO should pay a portion? What system do you envision is the "best"?

If everyone payed for their care out of their own pocket; with catastrophic insurance of course, then the cost would dramatically decrease. Don't forget it is government regulation that created the system we currently have.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In regards to health care, I come from a country where health care is largely run by the government (Canada), and despite the fact it certainly has problems, and needs improvement, it still beats the majority of health care systems in the world hands down.

Then why do Canadians come to America and pay out of pocket if the "free" Canadian system works better?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In regards to parents caring for their children, the government absolutely should mandate and enforce basic standards of care, and if parents fail to meet those standards, should step in to A) make the parents comply, or B) failing that, to remove those children and put them in a better situation.

But thats not what we are taking about is it?

We are talking about EVERYBODY being forced into a government system based on exceptions.

How can you logically claim that everybody needs a government system for health-care but not food distribution?

 

[quixotecoyote]

TAXATION IS THEFT.

To the barricades!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

TAXATION IS THEFT.

To the barricades!

Who said or implied that in this thread?

Building straw-men to blow so early in the thread is bad form.

 

[Wolfman]

But thats not what we are taking about is it?

We are talking about EVERYBODY being forced into a government system based on exceptions.

How can you logically claim that everybody needs a government system for health-care but not food distribution?

Ummmm...dude...remember back when I talked about that whole concept called "balance"?

Get a dictionary. Check it out. Its a concept that could change your whole life.

I am not talking about "everybody being forced into a government system based on exceptions." I am talking about a system which has a balance between government control, and individual choice.

Your entire argument is based on fear-mongering and arguments from extreme. None of which reflects reality.

Here's a challenge for you. Try this one out.

1) Make a list of all the people in the United States who have suffered because the government declared them dead, when they were still alive.

2) Make a list of all the people in the United States who do not have enough money to purchase health insurance, or to pay for adequate health care when they get sick.

3) Compare those two lists, and see which one has the greater adverse impact on society.

 

[shadron]

Jerome, I have come to wonder just how much you realize how self-defeating your tirades against government are. Every time you get a fire under you for something, you come out and make fantastic leaps of logic to twist some small mistake, some past event or some tiny slight into an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, government paranoia scenario, and the people here (I think) just laugh. "Here comes the wolf-shrieker, again." Have you noticed that people make up stories and push viewpoints that they would never hold in a serious discussion, just to bait you? All I can think about your motivation is that it must be attention at any cost.

Look at this: you've extrapolated from a simple mistake by some bureaucrat, which will make him the butt of jokes for years to come, into a full fledged argument against health care reform. Can't you see the disproportion of what you do?

PS: You might want to take a close look at your agreement with your bank. Your account is maintained at your risk, and anyone who can convince an officer of the bank that a mistake or fraud has happened can be allowed to charge-back on your account (in the same way as you can charge-back on a credit card purchase), as long as they indemnify the bank against suits for the action. The bank won't be held liable for anything, even up to and including fraud on an employee's part. In reality, the only thing that keeps the system honest is personal liability and the fear of loosing business. If you want safe, use your sock.

About health insurance: the reason for forcing everyone to get it is to spread out the risk. In our past not enough was known about genetics and disease processes to be able to predict who would get sick and who would not, so relatively small groups of people could be reasonably expected to contain a good assortment of risks, so a company wouldn't get swamped by claims. Today you can be scanned for a number of disease genes (with many more to come), and that can be used by you to tip the assumption of risk in your favor, or, on the other hand, the insurance company can do the same thing. The only way to get a balance now is to force everyone into it. That's one argument; there are others.

Not fair? Sorry, Charlie. Neither, in essence, is Social Security, Medicare, and no-fault car insurance. Health insurance as it has been known in this country for the last 100 years is a dead man walking. Perhaps they will allow people to opt out, but if they do it will be permanently - no remorse later, when your arteries start to harden.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Hey JEROME DA GNOME,
how old are you?



ETA: And what the hell?

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,289



I assume your standard to be quantity, not quality?

 

[Wolfman]

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,289



I assume your standard to be quantity, not quality?

I think that he works on the principle that if he posts enough claims, at least one or two of them will turn out to actually be correct, just by random chance. Although, from what I've seen of his posts thus far, he seems to be beating the odds.

 

[UserGoogol]

But thats not what we are taking about is it?

We are talking about EVERYBODY being forced into a government system based on exceptions.

Who do you mean by we? It should be pointed out that Hillary Clinton's health care plan consists of providing various tax subsidized health care plans that people can choose to take if they want and an obligation for people to buy health care from some insurer although it doesn't have to be the government. Obama's plan is similar but doesn't even require people to have any insurance at all. Although, of course, many people do endorse single payer health care anyway, and it is the norm in many countries, so it is not unreasonable to focus on that. But one should not conflate one with the other.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Who said or implied that in this thread?

Building straw-men to blow so early in the thread is bad form.

Explain to me how i can be forced to support a government program without my money being stolen from me!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am not talking about "everybody being forced into a government system based on exceptions." I am talking about a system which has a balance between government control, and individual choice.

No, that is exactly what you are advocating. Just read what you have written. You are arguing that because a few people lack health-care that all should be placed into a government system.

Here's a challenge for you. Try this one out.

1) Make a list of all the people in the United States who have suffered because the government declared them dead, when they were still alive.

2) Make a list of all the people in the United States who do not have enough money to purchase health insurance, or to pay for adequate health care when they get sick.

3) Compare those two lists, and see which one has the greater adverse impact on society.

Do you not see that you are attempting to excoriate my argument because it is using an exception whilst you are using and exception to make your argument?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, I have come to wonder just how much you realize how self-defeating your tirades against government are. Every time you get a fire under you for something, you come out and make fantastic leaps of logic to twist some small mistake, some past event or some tiny slight into an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, government paranoia scenario, and the people here (I think) just laugh. "Here comes the wolf-shrieker, again." Have you noticed that people make up stories and push viewpoints that they would never hold in a serious discussion, just to bait you? All I can think about your motivation is that it must be attention at any cost.

Is that so, people make false arguments because they have the inability to dispute facts and logical thought. Interesting.

Look at this: you've extrapolated from a simple mistake by some bureaucrat, which will make him the butt of jokes for years to come, into a full fledged argument against health care reform. Can't you see the disproportion of what you do?

You consider it a simple bureaucratic mistake to declare a live woman dead TWICE and literal theft of her property?

PS: You might want to take a close look at your agreement with your bank. Your account is maintained at your risk, and anyone who can convince an officer of the bank that a mistake or fraud has happened can be allowed to charge-back on your account (in the same way as you can charge-back on a credit card purchase), as long as they indemnify the bank against suits for the action. The bank won't be held liable for anything, even up to and including fraud on an employee's part. In reality, the only thing that keeps the system honest is personal liability and the fear of loosing business. If you want safe, use your sock.

A bank checking or savings account is not the same as a credit card account. Besides, if one disputes a credit card transaction the credit card company contacts the retailer for evidence before the funds are transfered. Monies are not transfered without evidence.

Was this and example of just making stuff up as you suggested in the beginning of your post?

About health insurance: the reason for forcing everyone to get it is to spread out the risk. In our past not enough was known about genetics and disease processes to be able to predict who would get sick and who would not, so relatively small groups of people could be reasonably expected to contain a good assortment of risks, so a company wouldn't get swamped by claims. Today you can be scanned for a number of disease genes (with many more to come), and that can be used by you to tip the assumption of risk in your favor, or, on the other hand, the insurance company can do the same thing. The only way to get a balance now is to force everyone into it. That's one argument; there are others.

Without competition in an industry the cost will increase and the quality will decrease.

Are you aware that current health insurance is regulated today in such a way that people are forced to pay for coverage that they will never use?

Not fair? Sorry, Charlie. Neither, in essence, is Social Security, Medicare, and no-fault car insurance. Health insurance as it has been known in this country for the last 100 years is a dead man walking. Perhaps they will allow people to opt out, but if they do it will be permanently - no remorse later, when your arteries start to harden.

Health funding and insurance has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. You are displaying your ignorance of the subject here.