Benyen Soljax Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Isn't it strange how seatbelts are the law, but we put our children on huge shitty buses with no seatbelts EVERYDAY! 2x!isnt it strange how children are the future but teaching jobs are some of the least well paying?if we could darn well get ron paul in office some of these things might change after the Dept. of Ed. is no longer a part of the federal government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MotoGP Tix Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Isn't it strange how seatbelts are the law, but we put our children on huge shitty buses with no seatbelts EVERYDAY! 2x!Not really considering the costs / benefits..LIKE ZERO deaths per year due to not wearing seatbelts in school buses or City buses for that matter...I assume you just said, it it really is a non issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homewrecker Posted February 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 Have any of you watched Sicko? While you have to take everything Micheal Moore puts out with a grain of salt due to the spin, but there are some issues that social medicine addresses that the free market can't. I don't know where I stand on social vs. free market healthcare, but I don't take solace in the fact that the free market incentive is to kill me off through NOT treating me so profits can be generated. Insurance isn't charity - they're in it to make money through cost sharing (as mentioned by gsxrnurse) and denial of disbursement. While insurance can never deny you treatment, they can refuse to cover the costs - so you're bankrupt after any type of medical disaster. Social medicine will fix some aspects of that part of the equation.On the other hand, the free market makes sense from some other aspects, like privacy and choice. I'm sure the optimal solution is some BALANCE of both aspects so people can choose privacy over cost, or some tiered progression thereof.But, since we have to deal with the system as it stands today, I think that forcing people to be more proactive in their health and choices is the best way to curtail these health issues. I believe, HSAs (again as mentioned above) and other high deductible health care plans will help with this.How the hell do you figure that the free market solution is to kill you off. They cant make money off of you if your dead. Social medicine will fix nothing. Michael Moore is a dumb ass. Have you seen any of the other movies generated to debunk sicko. They go to cuban hospitals and show doctors covered in feces and blood and urine for an entire shift. How sanitary. And healthy! Jackass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homewrecker Posted February 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 isnt it strange how children are the future but teaching jobs are some of the least well paying?if we could darn well get ron paul in office some of these things might change after the Dept. of Ed. is no longer a part of the federal government.How do you figure that teachers are some of the least paid. They have an average salary of 48k nation wide which is well above the national median. Ron Paul is nutjob. Give that dream up. He would be better than hillary or ossamabama but it won't happen so just figure out a way to keep the dems out of office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 How the hell do you figure that the free market solution is to kill you off. They cant make money off of you if your dead. . Why do you have such a narrow, short-sighted, uneducated, view of things? Not only that, but your post adds nothing of substance to this debate. It's pretty obvious why private insurance has an incentive to kill you off - you need an example? Ok, I'll pick a simple one so you can follow... A 24-yr-old pays an outrageous $400/mo in health insurance = $4800/yr. So $4800/yr is going to your insurance, which if you NEVER go to the doctor or make use of your insurance, the insurance company profits $4800/yr off you, minus some overhead. Assuming you NEVER use your insurance (highly unlikely), and you insurance company invests their profits at a modest 8%/yr - after 30yrs - your contribution becomes $543,759.41 [You can check this in Excel, =FV(8%,30,-4800)].Now, I've made a TON of assumptions to simplify for you: Your health care premium never changes over 30 years; no compounding (even with monthly compounding, it's only around a $50k difference); You NEVER use your insurance for 30yrs while paying premiums; You're with the same insurance company over those 30 years; Not taking into account any cost-sharing, which would affect the insurance companies risk aversion; and there's a few others, but they're rather minuscule and don't affect the argument.So, BEST case scenario, you're worth $550k to the insurance company you've been with for over 30 years, if you've switched companies - then you're not even worth that. Now at 54 yrs old, too young for Medicare, you're forced to turn to your private insurance. So, I'll say it again - insurance isn't a charity, you are there for them to make money off of. So, my question is -- how long would it take for you to burn through $550k in medical cost if you were stricken with cancer, or needed open-heart surgery (maybe multiple times), or something else?? I'm not doing the research for you, but I believe the answer is "not too long". So, after the $550k is gone, the insurance company no longer has a profit - especially if you need ongoing and expensive drug treatments for your ailments, your premiums end up sky-rocketing to something you can't afford - and thus you're broke. :broke:What's the point of living if you can't afford to live? What good are you to an insurance company -- even alive, you're not profitable. And remember, $550k is BEST CASE with insurance making ZERO profit off you... most likely, you're lucky to be worth 30% of that to an insurance company. Social medicine will fix nothing. Michael Moore is a dumb ass. Have you seen any of the other movies generated to debunk sicko. They go to cuban hospitals and show doctors covered in feces and blood and urine for an entire shift. How sanitary. And healthy! Jackass!Its funny how many people bitch about social medicine, yet you don't hear people whine and bitch about our current government run social medicine programs (Medicare / Medicaid) anymore than they bitch about all the shit you have to deal with going through private insurance. And, people that do bitch, typically have no experience with social medicine in the least. That's like me saying Harleys are the shittiest built motorcycles on the planet, I can't believe anyone would support a company like that -- when I've got ZERO experience with Harleys. That is an ignorant and shallow statement to make. I'd like to see half these people put their money where their mouths are and live the rest of their life without Medicare or Medicaid. It's also pretty easy to bash something, but where are your solutions? I don't think calling people jackasses and dumb asses are really going to solve this countries problems. So thanks for contributing.And, I'm sure there are TONS of movies debunking 'sicko' - I wasn't promoting the movie anymore than to offer some other views on things that any open-minded person could consider, not to CHANGE your point of view, just consider other arguments. It's just like anything else, you'll have horror stories from social and private medicine - neither system is perfect. You have to look at the systems as a whole and pick and choose the best of both to optimize health care.If you've got any credible links or sources that are counter to my argument, I'd be happy to read them. I'm not going to make blanket statements...I'm open-minded enough to consider other peoples point-of-view as long as their FACT-based and not just dribble... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homewrecker Posted February 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 I think maybe you should go back and read some of the original posts to this thread! If you had done that you would see people advocating personal spending accounts. Insurance is crap. They have profit in mind ahead of your health. And your right I haven't experienced socialized medicine however I know people who live in Europe and people who have lived in Europe. They have a lot of bad things to say about the health care and very few good things to say. Also maybe you haven't talked to an elderly person lately about their medicare. I haven't talked to a single one who is happy with it. They all wish they could have saved when they were young so they could afford to pay their own way. You can assume this is all dribble if you want but I only state what I know. I don't make assumptions or guesses when making statements. I will also look for some threads for you since you assume I am too narrow minded to see your side of the so called debate. It's only a debate when both sides are partially right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homewrecker Posted February 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 http://www.nationalcenter.org/2008/02/government-health-care-threatens.htmltheres one i'll look for more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homewrecker Posted February 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.topic.page&topic=HEALTHEnjoy. Here are over 30 pages of links about social medicine mostly in england. let me know if you would like more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 I think you need to heed your own words, the very same post you quoted me from on Page 3 had me advocating HSAs and high deductible insurance in our current system, but even then - those aren't permanent solutions. You're still missing the point... Just as we Americans bitch about private insurance and health care, you'll find Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese complaining about social medicine. YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME! There are some medical conditions that favor social medicine, and other conditions where market-driven medicine is better.And the fact of the matter is, yea, everyone wishes we could've saved more, but another great American ideal is 'instant gratification' - most people today don't care about what happens tomorrow. (Of course, there are polar opposite people). This is why we're in the housing slump we're in, this is why people live beyond their means - the future is later, we worry about ourselves today. Not to mention, future expenses can only be projections, it's all uncertain. If I knew I wouldn't ever get sick, I shouldn't be forced to save money. Do you think it'd be fair to have someone who is genetically predisposed to cancer and still smokes - should we force them to save an extra $1000/mo for their future health care needs? If so, where does that money come from if they only make $24k/yr?There is no incentive to save for health care - why? Because the more you save, the more you penalize people. That's money people could've spent on themselves, instead of on health care needs. I have no incentive to save 10x more money than you, if in the end, you and I both end up with the same medical care. The only difference is that the medical provider will burn through my savings 10x slower than yours - but we'll both be broke in the end, given the same care, being gov't funded. So, why shouldn't I just save the bare minimum I have to, and spend the rest of the money on myself and my family? If I told you I need you to give me $1000/mo to set aside for future medical bills that may...or may not...happen, rather than let you have that extra $1000 to buy a new motorcycle, or do whatever it is you do with your 'fun money' - you'd probably tell me to go to hell. Because the bottom line is that no matter how rich or poor, how much money you saved or didn't, in the end - you'll be bailed out by gov't run social programs.Then, the next question is, well - why should we have social programs to support people who were too lazy, too stupid, or just plain incapable to have saved for themselves? Because the vast majority of us don't have a $100,000/yr job and money only goes so far. How much should they've saved? What's the threshold? What are we supposed to do with these people that can't afford care? Toss them out in the streets to fend for themselves? Put them in some institution full of poor sick people? (If that's my only option, I'd probably euthanize myself before that). How do you propose we handle all these people once their personal savings run out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 You first source is a known CONSERVATIVE slant, therefore it is not an unbiased fact source. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_ResearchDitto for number #2... conservatives.com, gimme a breakThey have an agenda to seek out material that slams social medicine and boosts private medicine. How much are they being paid, and by who? Ohh, I found some of the things that organization lobbies for...and the scandals involved. BIG supporter... or 'willing ally' as one article put it of big tobacco.http://www.slate.com/id/2138082/entry/2137077/http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=682 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MotoGP Tix Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 Dont like paying for your OWN health care costs ?then youll just LOVE paying for everyone elses !!DOES this make sense to only me or something ?Friggen do the math... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homewrecker Posted February 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 You first source is a known CONSERVATIVE slant, therefore it is not an unbiased fact source. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_ResearchDitto for number #2... conservatives.com, gimme a breakThey have an agenda to seek out material that slams social medicine and boosts private medicine. How much are they being paid, and by who? Ohh, I found some of the things that organization lobbies for...and the scandals involved. BIG supporter... or 'willing ally' as one article put it of big tobacco.http://www.slate.com/id/2138082/entry/2137077/http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=682who cares if they are a big supporter of tobacco. It is anyones god given right to smoke and kill themselves slowly if they want. It however is not anyones right to health care. In no religious book or even in a governing document (ie. constitution) does it say that you or anyone else has a right to health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 I mentioned big tobacco simply for the fact that the 'NationalCenter.org' think tank is paid for by lobbying enterprises -- the same ones that stand to lose if social medicine were to take hold here in the US. The tobacco industry is only loosely tied to our discussion. If you're going to give facts (or links to them), they need to be unbiased. I've looked at your links and taken into account the arguments presented, but there's nothing new that I haven't already reviewed. Each side just cherry-picks facts, but particularly the self proclaimed conservatives are the ones who tend to use 'fear' as a political weapon. If you go to social medicine, then this will happen - you'll have lines, it'll be all scary, and...woooooo. That's bullshit. Even with our free-market oriented health system, we STILL have lines and we STILL have people that slip through the cracks on coverage (since many companies will stop at nothing to prove 'pre-exisiting conditions' so they don't have to fork out the dollars). If social medicine is sooo bad, why is the US life expectancy less than many countries with socialized medicine?And your point that 'no one has a right to health insurance' is pretty asinine. Seriously, there's a TON of things that we don't have "rights" to but would make the world we live in a worse place. We dont have a right to sanitation systems, but you don't shit in an outhouse do you? We don't have a right to be hauled off in an ambulance when we wreck our cars, but you sure do appreciate those EMTs when you need them don't you? We don't have any right to have firemen (let alone VOLUNTEER firemen) risk their lives to save your house if it catches fire, or cut you OUT of your wrecked car... but the world is a better place for those people. Or do you not agree with that too? All SOCIAL SERVICES paid for, at least in part, by your tax dollars. You don't have an explicit RIGHT to any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MotoGP Tix Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Yea Im totally down with rippping out another 125 bux MINIMUM out of my pay check every week, to have WORSE care than I have now..AND GEEZ ARSE CRUD dudes, name ONE friggen thing the gov does better than private companies, but magically one this ONE item somehow there going to pull it together and do a decent, let alone good job ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 How do you know it's worse care? What is the basis for this argument -- or are you just making ASSumptions? What are you comparing? While, in theory, the free market allocates resources according to their scarcity - there are certain things that are better-off being run by an inefficient system (namely the gov't) to ensure costs are contained.You want one example that took me all of 5 minutes to research -- utility deregulation. An example of how a gov't monopoly was better for consumers. If Enron was a gov't run institution, it wouldn't have happened. Educate yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homewrecker Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 How do you know it's worse care? What is the basis for this argument -- or are you just making ASSumptions? What are you comparing? While, in theory, the free market allocates resources according to their scarcity - there are certain things that are better-off being run by an inefficient system (namely the gov't) to ensure costs are contained.You want one example that took me all of 5 minutes to research -- utility deregulation. An example of how a gov't monopoly was better for consumers. If Enron was a gov't run institution, it wouldn't have happened. Educate yourself.ok at this point we are just:beathorse:. I am never going to agree with you and you are never going to agree with me so I don't see the point in arguing over nothing. I will simply agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benyen Soljax Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 How do you figure that teachers are some of the least paid. They have an average salary of 48k nation wide which is well above the national median. Ron Paul is nutjob. Give that dream up. He would be better than hillary or ossamabama but it won't happen so just figure out a way to keep the dems out of office.i dont support any republican candidate, i support ron paul. i dont want to "keep the dems out". i want to get ron paul in. thanks for proving that youre still ignorant though.http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=High_School_Teacher/Salarystarting salary for an underpaid engineer is well above national average salary for high school teachers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 ok at this point we are just:beathorse:. I am never going to agree with you and you are never going to agree with me so I don't see the point in arguing over nothing. I will simply agree to disagree.I didn't think we had reached that point...yet. All I asked for was for you to provide compelling, factual, and unbiased information supporting your points of view -- none of which you provided. You have every right to believe what you want to believe, even if it's based on misinformation (or no information at all) -- while most would feel those are a foolish way of forming an opinion, you believe what you want to believe right?For all you know, I could agree with your points of view, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here to try to open your mind up to other sides of the debate. If you want to refute my sources or line of logic, then by all means - I'm willing to listen, just provide the information I've requested. You just don't make a very solid foundation for your reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 My uncle was a JR. HIGH teacher with a Masters and he retired with over $60,000+/year salary. I think you can do well in teaching if you want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 , but....To Benyens point... an engineer without a Masters Degree will hit the $60k/yr mark in their first 0-5 years. Again, where's the incentive to teach? If I can make $60k before I'm in my upper 20s versus hitting that mark in my mid-50s, why teach? Not to mention that your uncle had to bust his ass to get a Masters Degree as well. A Masters in almost any other field will assure you a six-figure salary by the time you retire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 True, but someones got to do it. Plus not everyone thinks about the money aspect. They pick that field because they enjoy it. You shouldn't do something just for the money and be miserable, but instead do something that you would enjoy doing your whole life. Inner happiness is more valueable than any dollar value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Oh so true, but since it isn't our "right" to have health care, we need to pick careers that'll pay our medical costs should we be part of the unfortunate majority. Inner happiness can only be achieved after our outer happiness (and health) has been satisfied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessPratt Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 True, but someones got to do it. Plus not everyone thinks about the money aspect. They pick that field because they enjoy it. You shouldn't do something just for the money and be miserable, but instead do something that you would enjoy doing your whole life. Inner happiness is more valueable than any dollar value. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!!!!! NinjaNick u r sooooooo on point. Some people r so miserable in their lives b/c they have sought out a job based merely on income. WRONG MOTIVES!!! I will graduate with my master's degree in a few short months. I make good money now but my pay will only increase by maybe 15K a year...still a little under "six figures" as everyone puts it. I could go into a field that I would get bumped up at least 40K a year BUT I want to specialize in palliative medicine/hospice. The billing isn't the greatest in these areas especially hospice b/c physicians usually refer late to hospice (esp. if they r an oncology pt...that's someone with cancer). It is impossible to recoup some of the front money we put out for these patients when they die in the first few weeks. But once again I am not going into this field b/c of money. If I wanted that I would have gone to medical school and specialized in plastics!!! Ya, I want to do breast augmentations the rest of my life!!! May be helping some of the American boys out BUT not really improving the quality of someone's existence. Anyhoo, there's my 2 cents! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MotoGP Tix Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!!!!! NinjaNick u r sooooooo on point. Some people r so miserable in their lives b/c they have sought out a job based merely on income. WRONG MOTIVES!!! I will graduate with my master's degree in a few short months. I make good money now but my pay will only increase by maybe 15K a year...still a little under "six figures" as everyone puts it. I could go into a field that I would get bumped up at least 40K a year BUT I want to specialize in palliative medicine/hospice. The billing isn't the greatest in these areas especially hospice b/c physicians usually refer late to hospice (esp. if they r an oncology pt...that's someone with cancer). It is impossible to recoup some of the front money we put out for these patients when they die in the first few weeks. But once again I am not going into this field b/c of money. If I wanted that I would have gone to medical school and specialized in plastics!!! Ya, I want to do breast augmentations the rest of my life!!! May be helping some of the American boys out BUT not really improving the quality of someone's existence. Anyhoo, there's my 2 cents! Watch that pay, and hold on to your wallets if UNI care comes to fruition ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Watch that pay, and hold on to your wallets if UNI care comes to fruition ! Factless and uneducated rants Let's hear more from the grad school folks, people that actually care to think a little more deeper on these subjects. PrincessPratt??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.