Obamacare Going Down?

[rvg]

Honestly, I'm tired of your replies. "Stop being poor" and "So, don't drive." are just really bad answers.

I wanna drive a Lamborghini, but the prices for that car are absolutely ridiculous. Are those blasted Italians waging class warfare against me?

[rvg]

Not even close.

No? You don't understand the pain I go through every time I see a Lamborghini pass me by.

[Greyblades]

Please tell me that was a joke.

[rvg]

We're not talking about giving cars away. We're talking about a purely man-made and contrived system that forces you to partake in what amounts to a protection racket in order to drive something you already own on roads that your tax dollars already pay for. Think about it.

The system is there to protect the public from you. It's as simple as that. If you choose to buy more insurance it'll protect you as well as it protects the public. If you drive a good car, if you have a good driving record, if your job isn't more than 25 miles away from your home, all of that earns you a discount. Insurance companies rip off those whom they consider a risk. I see nothing wrong with that.

[rvg]

...Miss a couple payments and tell me how fair those rates are...

There's your problem.

[ajaxfetish]

The Native Americans were mostly nomadic or semi-nomadic and they seemed to do a good job of not making a mess of things. But the modern government very much desires stability in it's populace. They're easier to watch and control that way.

The idea that the native tribes were in some kind of mystical harmony with nature is a recent myth, perhaps part of a sort of cultural atonement for the centuries of ridicule and persecution that preceded it. Natives were responsible for extensive and regular burning of forests, and the standard means of hunting bison before the introduction of the horse was very wasteful. The primary reason Native Americans didn't make more of a mess of things was numbers. Try to pack over 300 million Indians into the U.S., and their lifestyle wouldn't be any more sustainable than ours.

Ajax

[Papewaio]

Modern cities are far more efficient per capita and combined with dedicated farming tracts has a much smaller land area footprint per person than nomadic lifestyles.

The carrying capacity of Earth is far larger due to modern inventions. Nitrogen fixing for instance uses around 6% of the worlds energy and helps provide 2/3s of the worlds food that wouldn't be possible without it.

=][=

As for health insurance.

"Give us your destitute, your weak, your sick, your poor."

And then what? Leave them like that?

End result in the US is a very lopsided expensive medical system whose results don't look any better than Universal Health Care in other societies and is more expensive too.

Modern societies made health care universal to increase carrying capacities of their societies. UHA is in the same basket as progressive tax based on income level, police, firemen, army and other services.

UHA is part of a social contract. It doesn't mean you can't top it up with your own resources, it just means everyone will be treated at a minimum level.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The idea that the native tribes were in some kind of mystical harmony with nature is a recent myth, perhaps part of a sort of cultural atonement for the centuries of ridicule and persecution that preceded it. Natives were responsible for extensive and regular burning of forests, and the standard means of hunting bison before the introduction of the horse was very wasteful. The primary reason Native Americans didn't make more of a mess of things was numbers. Try to pack over 300 million Indians into the U.S., and their lifestyle wouldn't be any more sustainable than ours.

Ajax

I think you re-evaluation of the recent myth is a recent myth.

They did burn forests, yes. So did all of our ancestors who started agriculture in their societies. Slash and burn agriculture was the beginning of agriculture. I live in Michigan where the local natives made a large clearing in the great woods here. It was pretty sizable. But a small dent compared to the stress and strain of a small American city.

[rvg]

So in order to drive you should be able to commit to a long-term plan, and be penalized to the point of exclusion for not being able to make the payments? What does that have to do with your driving risk?

Its a poor-trap.

To the insurance company you're a non-paying customer, i.e. a risk. Furthermore, not paying bills usually wrecks your credit rating which might also factor into additional price hikes and such. It's not a matter of being poor really, as anyone who misses payments and has bad credit will have to pay through the nose for insurance.

[Greyblades]

Maybe but in an ideal society compensation should only cost more if the risk of accident is higher not if you are too poor to pay a monthly fee.

[rvg]

Maybe but in an ideal society compensation should only cost more if the risk of accident is higher not if you are too poor to pay a monthly fee.

We do not live in an ideal society. In the real world businesses reward good customers and punish bad customers.

[Greyblades]

Indeed, but an ideal society is one we should aspire to seeing this society is not ideal. It is rather unfair that people aren't allowed to drive vehicals they themselves own, not from risk to themselves or others but because they cant afford a fee and that should change. Saying blanket statements like "that's life" and "stop being poor" to avoid proper discussion is niether considerate nor helpful.

[rvg]

Indeed, but an ideal society is one we should aspire to seeing this society is not ideal. It is rather unfair that people aren't allowed to drive vehicals they themselves own, not from risk to themselves or others but because they cant afford a fee and that should change.

The system works as it is. Millions of poor people have cars and car insurance.

Saying blanket statements like "that's life" and "stop being poor" to avoid proper discussion is niether considerate nor helpful.

Facts of life aren't always warm and fuzzy.

[Greyblades]

The system works as it is. Millions of poor people have cars and car insurance.

Just because it works does not mean that it is right or even the most effective way.

Facts of life aren't always warm and fuzzy.

Thank you for making my point I don't believe I have to say more.

[rvg]

Just because it works does not mean that it is right or even the most effective way.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Thank you for making my point I don't believe I have to say more.

No problem.

[drone]

@Gelatinous Cube : Not to take this off-topic, but don't you qualify for USAA?

[Greyblades]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That's just... Ugh that statement is so dumb, its like the person who made it hadn't come across the term "neccissary matenance to avoid failure". Besides, when a construct fails to do what it's supposed to it is by definition broken and when a system dedicated to keeping drivers licenses out of the hands of unsafe drivers is operating in a world with a mulitude of car accidents caused by drunk driving and criminal negligence, yet punishes and keeps licenses out of the hands of those who's only issue is being too poor to pay fees, it is broken.

[rvg]

Besides, when a construct fails to do what it's supposed to it is by definition broken and when a system dedicated to keeping drivers licenses out of the hands of unsafe drivers is operating in a world with a mulitude of car accidents caused by drunk driving and criminal negligence, yet punishes and keeps licenses out of the hands of those who's only issue is being too poor to pay fees, it is broken.

It's not broken, it's operating as a business, which is how it was meant to operate. If it were a charity, you could call it broken. It is not a charity.

[Greyblades]

Yeah but thats not a valid excuse, they are a service who's main point is to keep dangerous drivers away from the steering wheel, but they are keeping people who are most likely fine drivers on public transport because they cant pay fees while the future committers of vehicular homocide get by because they have extra spending money. It's patently ridiculous for a safety based service to base any of decisions on how deep your wallet is. It's like having a monthly fee to not take away your seatbelt.

[rvg]

Yeah but thats not the point, they are a service who's main point is to keep dangerous drivers away from the steering wheel, but they are keeping people who are most likely excellent drivers on public transport because they cant pay fees while the future committers of vehicular homocide who arent poor get by. It's patently ridiculous for a safety based service to base any of decisions on how deep your wallet is. It's like a car delalership charging extra for seatbelts.

No, they are a business whose main purpose is to make money. Car insurance isn't there to prevent accidents, it's there as a financial safety net for when the accidents occur. That costs money. Thus they charge whatever they charge based on the risks they are taking as a business. A deadbeat customer is a business risk. End of story.

[Greyblades]

End of story but not end of problem, its unfair. Personally I think it should be a government based service to avoid this money grubbing but whatever.

[rvg]

its unfair. Personally I think it should be a government based service.

Yes, life is unfair. Governments make rather terrible businessmen, very wasteful and inefficient. A government based service means that those who can afford to pay for insurance will be paying for themselves and for those who can't afford to pay. That's something that is highly unlikely to pass in America.

[Greyblades]

And... What, we're supposed to stop talking because lifes unfair? To stop complaining when someone says thats how it is? This is the backroom!

[rvg]

And... What, we're supposed to stop talking because lifes unfair? This is the backroom!

That's what we've been doing so far.

[Strike For The South]

Everyone already pays, way to much

[Papewaio]

Yes, life is unfair. Governments make rather terrible businessmen, very wasteful and inefficient. A government based service means that those who can afford to pay for insurance will be paying for themselves and for those who can't afford to pay. That's something that is highly unlikely to pass in America.

So please explain how government run UHA in first world countries do it much cheaper than the US with a better end outcome ie longer lifetimes, longer independent lifespan, etc

So somehow other western nations which have a universal health care system run by government. Per capita cost is factors (x2, x3, x 4) less in cost ... So many different governments somehow do it more efficiently than purely private sector.

Australia has UHA and private health funds. We have poor lifespans for some immigrant groups, a lot of Aboroginal groups also do poorly. Obesity is on par or in excess to the US. Yet we still have lifespans on average three years longer than the US.

Invention and improvement helped make US great. Why not incorporate lessons learned in other countries?

[rvg]

So please explain how government run UHA in first world countries do it much cheaper than the US with a better end outcome ie longer lifetimes, longer independent lifespan, etc

I'm not talking about UHA, I'm talking about car insurance.

[Papewaio]

Considering how cheap cars and gas are in the US I suspect that the insurance is relatively low.

Driving a car is not a right, it is just a tool. Third party should be compulsory but regulated strongly to make sure it is not being rorted... Flip side is any non compulsory insurance should be at the buyer and sellers discretion of what value it is

The general thrust of this thread has been health and access to health care. Ones life and liberty are intertwined with ones health. Just look at how well we function when sick. Health system and it's basics should be provided by a government as part of its mandate. Optional extras should be down to the user pays system.

What is the basic level of health care? Well that is going to be determined by balancing other items such as education, military, tax rate, age demographics of the population. End of the day we live in a society so we should be able as individuals do as we please and please as we do.

What we shouldn't setup though is systems that are inefficient, and that isn't always the big is bad as assumed. Cities are large but per capita they are cheaper to setup electricity, fibre, hospitals and police for. Also companies become just as inefficient as government at large scales... Anyone who has worked with privately run telcos, software companies or hardware manufacturers will have seen meeting after meeting for little or no gain.

There is an assumption that a corporation is always more efficient. This is only true when they are made to compete and when failure is a loss in funding or worse collapse of the company. Health sector either private or public should be held accountable and be transparent on where the costs are going.

[Lemur]

Yeah, I don't understand the car analogy as dismissal of healthcare. Roads are heavily subsidized. Oil production is subsidized. We bail out automakers every now and then. Clearly we see roads and cars as a national asset, and treat them as such. But health? Pshaw.

[Papewaio]

Why not Neo-libertarian?

The best set of ideas often come when we look at combining end goals from opposite points of view.