The Song Fight Bulletin Board

adrift in a draft wrote:

Pinky Ray wrote: ...responsibility ....... immorality ..... not reasonable.......

Mr Green has a good income, but he hates his boss. he works 40+ hours a week at a job that quit being interesting years ago. He sits in his cube fantasizing about his abandoned aspirations of being a rich and famous nose flute soloist. His boring job pays enough that he can save money for a rainy day. He had a tetanus shot in the '80s other then that hasn't been to the doctor as an adult.

Mr Gimme is a nice guy but he dropped out of school to pursue his ill fated dream of becoming a rich and famous theremin player. He has issues with authority figures, so he hasn't ever been able hold a job. He spends any spare money on lottery tickets and theremin batteries.

the wind blows some pages off of a wall calendar....

Mr Gimme gets a painful chronic skin disease, very expensive interferon treatments and lots of doctor visits - for the rest of his life. It is a very sad thing and no one wants to see it happen.

What percentage of Mr Greens income is it moral to takeaway from him to pay for Mr Gimmes treatments? 0.1%,10% 50% ? Would that amount still be moral if you had to threaten Mr Green with prison before he gives it to you?

Love the "the wind blows some pages off of a wall calendar...." part. I actually heard wind and added a sound like a baseball card in a bikes spokes for added clicking. Sweet.

...by the way, let's get it straight. I spend my money on lottery tickets, theremin batteries AND booze.

.....and yes, I would hope Mr Green is more than happy to equal things out, because I'm there to clean his pool, make the art on his wall, fight in his war and come back mentally fucked, washing his Benz, baby sitting his kids, buying his batteries, buying his booze, giving even more to Uncle Sam's mob by buying lottery tickets and driving his taxi. We're all brothers, we all love each other, we're all Americans, it take a village to raise a child, it takes a "real" American to make America.

The emergency room as a safety net is the dumbest idea ever. Uninsured ER visits end up at the taxpayer's doorstep, so your anti-socialism knee-jerk is dead, because you're explicitly advocating it ("pinky?" really? he's Australian, for christ's sake). Also, we could drastically reduce the overall cost by providing basic preventative and continuing care to these people. A $20,000 ER visit from a heart attack might be prevented by a $100 visit to a doctor for early diagnosis. $100 now, or $20,000 later? Ah, that's the Republican dilemma.

Again: No preventative care, just let them wait til the brink of death, then rush to an ER so they can be in debt for eternity? That's the best we can come up with?

My aunt Pat was in a head-on collision with a drunk driver when she was 14. Her sister and both of their boyfriends were killed, and she survived because her dad had insurance and was able to get the best care the US had to offer in the late 60's, all at virtually no cost. Steel rods in her arm, complete facial reconstruction, the works.

Since then, the steel rods placed in her jaw and artificial teeth have degraded and even migrated. She is experiencing pain and eventually she will need adjustments or replacements. Problem is, now all of these things are a preexisting condition, and therefore not covered. She's facing a $50k bill just so she can continue to sleep, eat, and speak normally. So unless she can pony up $50k, she has no way to deal with these problems unless they become life-threatening (and thus much more expensive), and then she can go to an ER and be in debt for the rest of her life.

If anyone can tell me why our system is better than universal healthcare for my aunt, I'll shut up.

File a follow-up claim with the auto insurance company? Sue the drunk driver (or his estate) for the money? Get better insurance? Anticipate crisis and plan better?

I don't think anyone here is advocating our system. I was just saying...we don't refuse treatment to anyone. What's money worth when your life is at stake? That was my only point, and it wasn't used as an end to prove any other point. Though now that I think about it, they do refuse treatment in Canada...even for life-threatening conditions.

Sober, Your aunts situation is horrible, it's probably worse then the chronic pain of skin disese. but I think your knee is a bit jerky too.

My point is that taxation can get very unfair and immoral. There are some amazing medical advances that can prolong life and decrease suffering. but no amount of money will end all suffering. no amount of taxation will end all suffering.

Your aunt needs money for health care. So how much money can you demand from me, a strangers, without calling it robbery? -LITERALLY- think about it and pick a number! It's question I have trouble answering- that's why I asked it.

I dont think the formula is .. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sober wrote:If anyone can tell me why our system is better than universal healthcare for my aunt, I'll shut up.

Well, if your aunt had put away $50/month since 1968 and earned a 7% return, she'd have $131,240.66 in the bank right now. I'm sure her insurance premiums have been at least $50/month, right? I can tell you, were she an average Canadian taxpayer, the health care portion of her income taxes would have been much more than $50/month all these years. In fact, we just had a separate "health premium" added to our regular tax bill a few years ago, and my personal additional premium has been $600 a year. Coincidence?!

PS. The American system still sucks for reasons I mentioned earlier. In a truly private system, that $50,000 jaw would almost surely cost a lot less. I mean, even if the doctor makes $500/hour and the jaw hardware is worth $20,000, that still gives the doc 60 hours for installation. When there's no market price, the math goes haywire. In the long run, it hurts everyone. It's a fact.

PPS. I guess I can't stay away from this debate after all.

PPPS. Adrift asks an excellent question. I'm focusing on why freedom is good. He's doing a good job of showing why forced collectivism is a no man's land of immoral, random extortion in pursuit of a mythical utopia.

Lord of Oats wrote:Though now that I think about it, they do refuse treatment in Canada...even for life-threatening conditions.

Not exactly. It's just that you have to wait in line for "rationed" care. Even if you have money and a doctor wants to take it in exchange for treating you sooner or better, it's illegal.

off topic: Oh damn, Micheal, are you a broker? What should I do with my 401K. I don't know who to trust. Let it ride out? It is accumulating a lot of low priced stuff at the moment.

I thought that if your chance of survival wasn't good enough for their standards, you'd be blacklisted, and no doctor in Canada would be allowed to treat you. But I suppose this is hearsay, isn't it?

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

Generic wrote:I've got a friend who barely makes enough to get by, and her company just switched health insurance plans. Now her bi-polar medication is off the plan, and she's on the hook for close to an extra $1000 a month. If she doesn't take these pills, she gets highly unstable, and, when it comes down to it, unemployable. Vicious cycle. Do you think that this person belongs in the gutter just because she can't afford the medications that keep her functioning?

I've read both yours and Melvin's posts with great interest. But I need to comment on the above because this is where the problem exists with our health care.
1. She's at the mercy of her company changing health plans that don't work for her.
2. $1000 a month for medication. This goes back to what Melvin posted.
3. Doctors prescribing these drugs and in turn making her depentant on them.
4. Knowing that there are natural alternative to these drugs, but the professionals that we trust, helps her to live with her problem with drugs that will never fix her problem, but will make her depend on them for the rest of her life. There's no profit in the cure.

My friend has a chemical imbalance in her brain. The proper medication, taken as directed, corrects this imbalance. Yet, you seem to imply that she's become "dependent" on them specifically because they've been prescribed to her.

I'm sorry, Chris, but this makes it sound a lot like you don't think mental illnesses "count." And they do. If she didn't have her clonazepam, she simply wouldn't be able to function. And it's not because she's developed a dependence on the drug; it's simply that her brain doesn't work properly.

Currently, there are no "natural alternatives." Either she takes the drugs and continues to do her job, or she stops taking them and winds up god-knows-where. Honestly, I've been at a loss about what to tell her, because with the government and current health-care system set up the way it is right now, basically, if she can't pony up $1000 a month, she's fucked.

Lord of Oats wrote:I thought that if your chance of survival wasn't good enough for their standards, you'd be blacklisted, and no doctor in Canada would be allowed to treat you. But I suppose this is hearsay, isn't it?

Well.. yes and no. Because health care here is in limited supply, doctors DO make treatment decisions based on patient-to-patient judgment calls. For example, I was in a waiting room a few months ago and picked up the hospital's annual report. They were glowing because the government had allocated 41 pacemakers to that particular hospital for 2008 - an increase of, like, 4 or 5 pacemakers from the previous year. Of course, this begs the question, "what happens to the 42nd patient?" Clearly, in a publicly-funded system, the doctors have to start the year knowing that they have to make it until the next fiscal year on 41 pacemakers. This forces them to decide who does and does not deserve a shot at a better heart. So this hearsay definitely has some truth to it.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:off topic: Oh damn, Micheal, are you a broker? What should I do with my 401K. I don't know who to trust. Let it ride out? It is accumulating a lot of low priced stuff at the moment.

I'm not a broker, but I know something about these things. I definitely wouldn't sell right now, and I'd seriously think about buying quality companies at current prices. I've bought some financial stocks over the last few months and taken a serious drubbing, but I'm pretty sure it'll look like a good move in five to 10 years.

adrift in a draft wrote: Mr Gimme gets a painful chronic skin disease, very expensive interferon treatments and lots of doctor visits - for the rest of his life. It is a very sad thing and no one wants to see it happen.

What percentage of Mr Greens income is it moral to takeaway from him to pay for Mr Gimmes treatments? 0.1%,10% 50% ? Would that amount still be moral if you had to threaten Mr Green with prison before he gives it to you?

Hey, you raise a good point, HOWEVER.

Not everyone is poor from irresponsibility. What if Mr. Green had tried to stick with his boring job because he knew that it was, financially speaking, the right thing to do, but nonetheless got laid off? And then, after months of unsuccessful searching for a new job in today's shrinking market, what if Mr. Green developed a skin condition of his own? (hint: Wal-Mart doesn't offer its employees insurance.)

What percentage of Mr. Walton's income is it moral to take away from him to pay the treatment of Mr. Green, whose unemployment might even be, however indirectly, due to Mr. Walton's actions?

melvin wrote:

Sober wrote:If anyone can tell me why our system is better than universal healthcare for my aunt, I'll shut up.

Well, if your aunt had put away $50/month since 1968 and earned a 7% return, she'd have $131,240.66 in the bank right now. I'm sure her insurance premiums have been at least $50/month, right?.

Hey Melvin. Where are you investing your money that you get a 7% return? The money market account I just liquidated was earning an average return of 1.8%, and, at the time I liquidated it, it was actually losing money (tough markets, yada yada yada).

And what about all the people out there living hand-to-mouth, who don't even have $50 a month? Do those simply have to be more careful not to get hit by uninsured drunk drivers? Don't tell me they're not out there; I talk to a hundred of them a week.

Generic wrote:

adrift in a draft wrote: Mr Gimme gets a painful chronic skin disease, very expensive interferon treatments and lots of doctor visits - for the rest of his life. It is a very sad thing and no one wants to see it happen.

What percentage of Mr Greens income is it moral to takeaway from him to pay for Mr Gimmes treatments? 0.1%,10% 50% ? Would that amount still be moral if you had to threaten Mr Green with prison before he gives it to you?

Hey, you raise a good point, HOWEVER.

Not everyone is poor from irresponsibility. What if Mr. Green had tried to stick with his boring job because he knew that it was, financially speaking, the right thing to do, but nonetheless got laid off? And then, after months of unsuccessful searching for a new job in today's shrinking market, what if Mr. Green developed a skin condition of his own? (hint: Wal-Mart doesn't offer its employees insurance.)

What percentage of Mr. Walton's income is it moral to take away from him to pay the treatment of Mr. Green, whose unemployment might even be, however indirectly, due to Mr. Walton's actions?

What is your answer to your question?

Generic wrote: Hey Melvin. Where are you investing your money that you get a 7% return? The money market account I just liquidated was earning an average return of 1.8%, and, at the time I liquidated it, it was actually losing money (tough markets, yada yada yada).

I'm guessing stocks, dude. Who puts their money in a money market account? A money market account says to the world, "I'm pretend-serious about putting my money to work for me."

He also wrote: And what about all the people out there living hand-to-mouth, who don't even have $50 a month? Do those simply have to be more careful not to get hit by uninsured drunk drivers? Don't tell me they're not out there; I talk to a hundred of them a week.

Guess what. Anyone that is able to work can work more and spend less. You know something? I've been one of these people for a few months. It took me a long time to get a job, and the one I got doesn't even pay my bills (rent, utilities, car payment, car insurance), much less get me anything to eat or gas to make the car get me to work. So I got another job. I still haven't completed training at or been paid by my second job, but when I do get into a regular work rhythm there, I'll start to have money left over. I can piddle this away or I can invest it. I'll probably do a little of both. It doesn't matter. If you're not disabled, your complaints about being poor probably aren't legitimate. I moved to a terrible job market and I have no real skills, and here I am, making it on my own. If I can do this shit, all these other fuckers can do it. I'm not denying that these people are out there, but I am asserting that they just haven't done what it takes to get where they need to be.

adrift in a draft wrote:My point is that taxation can get very unfair and immoral. There are some amazing medical advances that can prolong life and decrease suffering. but no amount of money will end all suffering. no amount of taxation will end all suffering.

Your aunt needs money for health care. So how much money can you demand from me, a strangers, without calling it robbery? -LITERALLY- think about it and pick a number! It's question I have trouble answering- that's why I asked it.

I dont think the formula is .. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

This argument is stupid stupid stupid. If I ride a bike, is it immoral for me to pay taxes for highways? If I own a car, are the people who ride buses and subways robbing me? I don't like the war in Iraq, is it immoral for me to have to pay taxes for it? If I only shit once/week, is it immoral for me to pay as much as someone who shits every day?

The idea of everyone paying taxes to a government, regardless of whether or not you currently or will ever use every service provided by it, is a basic feature of the social contract, a philosophy on which our republic was founded upon.

I'm not trying to say that our entire economic system should be overthrown, or argue progressive vs. flat taxing, I'm trying to say that for all of the shouting about how we are "a Christian nation," we treat the least of these, my brethren, with an unbelievable lack of compassion.

Sober wrote: I'm not trying to say that our entire economic system should be overthrown, or argue progressive vs. flat taxing, I'm trying to say that for all of the shouting about how we are "a Christian nation," we treat the least of these, my brethren, with an unbelievable lack of compassion.

Now, now....settle down Sober. You do live in a compassionate society. I know you will be sleeping well tonight knowing that your hard-earned tax dollars are now being used to prop up failed banks.

adrift in a draft wrote:

Pinky Ray wrote: ...responsibility ....... immorality ..... not reasonable.......

...fantasizing .......guy .......painful

Not sure what that was all about.

What that somehow supposed to be in response to my comments about the provision of essential services to remote areas?

Whatever - but since you ask the question about what percentage of Mr Green's income it is moral to take away - I don't know. The only moral questions I usually consider involve very small cameras and velcro straps on my shoes.

If you want an answer about income tax - I dunno - somewhere around 50% for the top rate seems reasonable. That is what most countries with high standards of living have. If, after paying for roads and sewerage and public transport and the myriad of other services required by modern progressive nations, a small amount of that tax also goes to relieve the unnecessary suffering of another human being - then we are all the richer for it.

I would also like to think that some of that tax money would go towards education - in the hope that our schools will turn out useful young citizens with adequate comprehension skills and the ability to go beyond simplistic, one-dimensional analysis of complex social issues.

adrift in a draft wrote:What percentage of Mr Greens income is it moral to takeaway from him to pay for Mr Gimmes treatments? 0.1%,10% 50% ? Would that amount still be moral if you had to threaten Mr Green with prison before he gives it to you?

As much of Mr Green's income as he can spare, and yes in order to maintain our way of life you're going to have to threaten him with jail if he doesn't cough up what society needs in order to preserve itself.

We live in a civil society, and in order to maintain that civility we have rules both written and unstated that help us all live together reasonably successfully. The very "money" that people are so concerned with keeping in their pockets is one of these mechanisms that help us all live together.

Stoplights are another. We've all agreed that in order to live together successfully on the roads, we have to have ways of keeping ourselves from killing each other. So by common agreement, we have traffic laws, and anybody who thinks they're immune from those laws gets punished if caught breaking them-- for the good of society. Sometimes one of these laws here or there is imperfect (speed limit set too low, stop sign poorly placed) but is anybody going to argue that all traffic laws are a bad idea?

When you pay for a healthcare system, you're hedging your bets that you'll need it someday while hoping you don't. At the same time, you're contributing to the welfare of society. Because Mr Gimme gets treated, the world is a nicer place to live in.

I personally don't want to live in a world where random people get sick and die, and are lying all over my streets in filthy dirty squalor because nobody's taking care of their problems-- whether or not they created those problems for themselves. Sure it's annoying when someone is so lazy they don't try to help themselves. But more often someone can't help themselves because of forces that are out of their control-- mental illness, cancer, leprosy.

Also, the rules that help us live together let us take some risks without losing so much that we wind up in the gutter. We can try creating a business, we can try buying a house, we can try investing in other businesses. All of this, our system lets us do. Some people are going to invest unwisely, or start foolish businesses. Others are just going to get unlucky. But in order for us to continue living together in this civil society, we have to guard the back of our fellow citizens.

The banks and mortgage lenders were foolish and greedy, and millions of prospective homeowners were overly hopeful and not skeptical enough. Now we have to bail them out. I don't want it to happen again, I want lessons to be learned, I want those who took illegal advantage to go to jail.

But I am totally prepared to help bail all of these people out in order to preserve the society that I live in, while maintaining a balance-- the bailout should not be allowed to sink society either. And it won't. We'll be weakened economically, but after the dust settles, we'll still get to vote in November, we'll still get to watch TV, we'll still get to send our kids to school to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and we'll still have the resources to continue fighting insurgents in Iraq.

I don't think you need to be a liberal to agree with these principles. They should cross party lines. You just need to be a citizen. These are the hardcore practical matters of living with each other.

The alternative is anarchy, which is truly "I've got mine, and the world is such an uncertain place that I can't help anyone else." In which case, there is no money to grease the friction between people, and there is no progress. There's no TV, there's no Large Hadron Collider, there's no football, there's no music, there's no Song Fight.

JB

Generic wrote:Hey Melvin. Where are you investing your money that you get a 7% return?

The average return of the S&P 500 in every possible 12-month period between January 1871 and December 2004 was 10.8%.

Sober wrote:The idea of everyone paying taxes to a government, regardless of whether or not you currently or will ever use every service provided by it, is a basic feature of the social contract, a philosophy on which our republic was founded upon.

I'm not trying to say that our entire economic system should be overthrown, or argue progressive vs. flat taxing, I'm trying to say that for all of the shouting about how we are "a Christian nation," we treat the least of these, my brethren, with an unbelievable lack of compassion.

- Many, if not most, who believe in the American constitution would say that the social contract exists to provide law and order (i.e. the protection of inalienable rights), not to provide everyone with a free house or state-of-the-art healthcare.

- America treats its weakest members with a lack of compassion? America has the richest poor people on Earth, and is by far the most charitable nation on Earth. Heck, America even sends charity to people in other nations.

Hobs, here's a good answer: get the government out of the healthcare business so that medical fees, insurance premiums, and income taxes can all down. Make doctors and pharmaceuticals compete. Make insurers compete and base their premiums on actuarial realities. Stop letting bureaucracies siphon off valuable health dollars. I keep harping on this, but government intervention has--and will continue to--create the opposite effect: the cost of care will continue to climb, the availability of care will continue to dwindle, and your after-tax take home pay will continue to shrink. It's like a law of nature. If the next federal government forces everyone in the country to add to the current demand on the system, this situation will get even further out of control.

Whoa, I just replied to a phantom post.

melvin wrote:Hobs, here's a good answer: get the government out of the healthcare business so that medical fees, insurance premiums, and income taxes can all down. Make doctors and pharmaceuticals compete. Make insurers compete and base their premiums on actuarial realities. Stop letting bureaucracies siphon off valuable health dollars. I keep harping on this, but government intervention has--and will continue to--create the opposite effect: the cost of care will continue to climb, the availability of care will continue to dwindle, and your after-tax take home pay will continue to shrink. It's like a law of nature. If the next federal government forces everyone in the country to add to the current demand on the system, this situation will get even further out of control.

Whoa, I just replied to a phantom post.

Yeah, sorry about that. I decided that my post was too much to read and that my example of my own variety of insurance status's point wasn't illustrated correctly.

Summary of phantom post:
I just wanted to point out that my 'health care' situation was resolved through my own means PLUS government mandated insurance. BUT the fact that there was insurance mandated by the government meant that *I HAD* to cover myself. The insurance I paid for separately never needed to come into play even though it was there.

Now I'm uninsured so I would have to DEPEND on my PIP which would not be usable unless I was in/on a vehicle at the time of injury. I also illustrated that I couldn't afford insurance at stand alone prices. Overall pickle.