Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411281 Posts in 69324 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 11:37:47 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGeneralSo the Health Care bill passed.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14
Print
Author Topic: So the Health Care bill passed.  (Read 35973 times)
Curseman
Guest
« Reply #200 on: March 25, 2010, 11:39:54 PM »

I can't speak for Vanguard, but I think he was talking from an insurance company's point of view.

Kind of.  I don't think it's in the same way that you think it is though.

I haven't done a good job of explaining myself so far, so I'll try again.

I don't believe the government should be able to tell people what they can and can't do with their property, whether they are very wealthy, very destitute, or anywhere in between.  This rule must be bent a bit for practical purposes such as taxes, but I believe they go much further than they need to go with that.

I don't believe the government should be able to force people to provide services against their will, again, regardless of who they are and what their situation is.  Again, this is an ideal to strive for rather than one that can actually be reached.  It must be bent a bit here and there to fill various needs such as jury duty.

I don't believe that the rights of a health insurance company's shareholders supersede the rights of any given citizen, sick or no, but I don't believe that that citizen's rights supersede the shareholders' rights either.

I don't believe that the government should be able to force someone to take a bad deal against their will, again, regardless of who they are.  Taking someone with preexisting conditions is a very bad deal for an insurance company.  They're all but guaranteed to take big losses on it.  I am not saying that their profits are more important than the individual's health, because they aren't, but I'm saying that I consider the right to choose to be of paramount importance.

I do believe that a person should pay for their own health care or health insurance costs if it is at all possible for them to do so.  I would prefer an individual to go out less often or sell their television or trade their car for a bicycle or move to a less expensive house than have the government simply cover them.  The reason for this is not that I don't care about these peoples' misfortunes, but that I don't think doing that is sustainable.  The United States government is massively in debt, running record deficits.  If we try to use government money to make everyone happy, I believe we run a very real risk of economic collapse in which no one would get what they want.  I believe that this bill is increasing that risk by quite a lot.

If a person can't afford to visit their doctor and they can't afford health insurance to cover them and that's that, then in that case I am okay with the government covering the costs on their behalf.

I admit to being a bit ignorant about programs like medicaid, but isn't it already their purpose to provide care for people in those kinds of situations?  I'm sure you could all tell me about plenty of problems it has, but it would be better to just resolve those than to reform the whole system.

I simply cannot comprehend this statement. Health care may be the only thing separating someone from life and death. If health care is not a human right, than neither is the right to life itself.

That depends on what you mean by the word "right."

If a right is simply something the government doesn't take away from you and stops others from taking away from you (which is the traditional meaning of the word; the right to bear arms doesn't mean you get a free gun, freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone else actually has to listen) then you can have the right to life without the right to health care.

If the right to life means you have a right to have others actively preserve your life then it's something else altogether.

In a perfect world everyone would get the best treatment at all times to ensure that they are as healthy as possible and have the longest lifespan possible.  But until we can mass produce medical robots to personally take care of each individual person, we don't have the resources or manpower to do that.  So we come to the bad business of dividing up who gets what treatment.

I favor leaving the decision of who to treat entirely in the hands of the doctors and nurses performing the treatment in the name of personal freedom.  Most, but not all of the time, they will choose those who can pay them (whether personally or by proxy through an insurance company) over those who can't.

This may or may not be the best way of ensuring the longest possible lifespan for each person, but it's the best way to allow as much individual liberty as possible.  I place more importance on the latter.

I hope I've made myself more clear.  I'm sure most of you still think I'm wrong, and that's okay.  It's possible that I am.

I have to say though, I'm surprised at how few personal attacks there are in here.  I mean, it's a discussion about current controversial politics on an internet forum about video games.
Logged
Mipe
Level 10
*****


Migrating to imagination.


View Profile
« Reply #201 on: March 25, 2010, 11:42:32 PM »

There is a slight problem with sale of organs, namely waking up in your bed slightly lighter, dumbfounded and with a stabbing pain in tummy.

Tip: be especially wary vhen travelling to countries like Albania or Kosovo. These guys have no shame and feel that you aren't going to need those extraneous organs anyway.
Logged
Valter
Level 10
*****


kekekekeke


View Profile
« Reply #202 on: March 26, 2010, 01:49:29 AM »

There is a slight problem with sale of organs, namely waking up in your bed slightly lighter, dumbfounded and with a stabbing pain in tummy.

Tip: be especially wary vhen travelling to countries like Albania or Kosovo. These guys have no shame and feel that you aren't going to need those extraneous organs anyway.
...
by making kidney sale legal or even subsidized, the government can make sure that the kidney you donate comes from, well, you.
Example: Iran.
Having an empty waiting list probably keeps criminal demand low.
Logged
Mipe
Level 10
*****


Migrating to imagination.


View Profile
« Reply #203 on: March 26, 2010, 02:02:53 AM »

Assume organ trading is legalized. What happens when someone needs a new heart? Those aren't in ample supply if you just wait on someone to die with a healthy heart. Still, you'd need their consent or the consent of their family, cue legal battles, wife and mommy duking it out at the court for the heart payment. So yeah, somehow I can see certain cartels sweeping through slums and offering healthy hearts for low prices - no questions asked.

Once you put a price tag on human organs... well, shit hits the fan of human rights. Iran, for example, isn't exactly known for respecting the human rights convention.
Logged
Movius
Guest
« Reply #204 on: March 26, 2010, 03:19:42 AM »

I'm sure the dying girl on dialysis is happy for you to moralise on her behalf and criminalise those willing to part with a healthy kidney.
Logged
Mipe
Level 10
*****


Migrating to imagination.


View Profile
« Reply #205 on: March 26, 2010, 03:20:53 AM »

I'm sure she'll appreciate her family going to any extent to keep her alive, including gutting a few hobos up to find the right kidney.
Logged
Movius
Guest
« Reply #206 on: March 26, 2010, 03:23:54 AM »

Indeed, cause victims of crime are always WILLING.
Logged
Mipe
Level 10
*****


Migrating to imagination.


View Profile
« Reply #207 on: March 26, 2010, 07:02:34 AM »

Oh, sorry, misread that. Though I doubt there are just as many happy healthy donors as sickly dialysis regulars. Sure, there are a lot of healthy people on the world, but not very many good Samaritans, especially considering all those people with replacement organs wasting their lives away.

There is a saying in my language; "Dobrota je sirota". Goodwill is an orphan or something like that. Legalizing the sale of organs will only encourage people to sell organs for money for drugs and stuff as well as introduce many potential dangers - selling other people's organs under pretext that they are your own.

All is fine and dandy; poor adorable girls on dialysis sooner or later find sentimental donors and all is well. People love saving damsels in distress. But if you introduce money, they'll sooner save someone with money.

Seriously, things would get fucked up beyond sense.
Logged
Gorgoo
Level 1
*


View Profile WWW
« Reply #208 on: March 26, 2010, 07:24:27 AM »

Honestly, I can't imagine a legalized organ trade having problems with people killing someone and illegally selling their organs. It would likely require a person who is selling their organ to enter a hospital and have it removed there (with a good bit of paperwork to "prove" that, probably).

I do see a problem, though, in that people in desperate financial circumstances would do things like sell one of their kidneys without realizing that they might have to make changes to their lifestyle to adapt to living with only one. The way I see it, there are a lot of medical risks involved.

However, I'm not that against the idea. It certainly has its upsides, but because of what I said above, I probably wouldn't actively support it. If it did get passed into law, though, I doubt I'd have too much of a problem, but it's important to realize that there would be problems that need to be addressed.
Logged
Movius
Guest
« Reply #209 on: March 26, 2010, 07:29:47 AM »

Poor adorable girls on dialysis die. They wouldn't be on dialysis if willing donors were plentiful.

Agree that it's usually a foolish idea for someone to sell an organ, but it's a decision any adult is capable of making. It is, after all, their body.

Here is a brief summary of the situation.

Father: I have a daughter in need of a new kidney or she will die.
Random: I have a spare kidney, you can have it for $XXXXX
Father: I accept your proposal
*suddenly*
Mipey: NO NO NO NO! YOU CAN'T DO THIS! I don't know you, have nothing to do with you and you have no effect on my life whatsoever, but I feel the need to barge in and run your life for you because you are obviously too stupid to do so yourself. TRANSACTION FORBIDDEN!

and then the girl dies.
Logged
Kadoba
Level 3
***



View Profile
« Reply #210 on: March 26, 2010, 08:10:00 AM »

Selling irreplaceable human tissue is morally gray at best. But the real problem with the shortage is that most people are just apathetic about it. They're not directly affected so they either remain oblivious to the problem or just don't care. I think time and energy would be better spent pushing public awareness of applying to be an organ donor or putting people by default on donor status with the ability to opt out rather than in.
Logged
Movius
Guest
« Reply #211 on: March 26, 2010, 08:24:43 AM »

it's not morally gray if it's your fucking tissue.
Logged
undertech
Guest
« Reply #212 on: March 26, 2010, 08:31:22 AM »

It's only morally problematic if you sell your tissue to someone else who didn't put the down payment on it.
Logged
Squiggly_P
Guest
« Reply #213 on: March 26, 2010, 08:33:27 AM »

Oh, sorry, misread that. Though I doubt there are just as many happy healthy donors as sickly dialysis regulars. Sure, there are a lot of healthy people on the world, but not very many good Samaritans, especially considering all those people with replacement organs wasting their lives away.

There is a saying in my language; "Dobrota je sirota". Goodwill is an orphan or something like that. Legalizing the sale of organs will only encourage people to sell organs for money for drugs and stuff as well as introduce many potential dangers - selling other people's organs under pretext that they are your own.

All is fine and dandy; poor adorable girls on dialysis sooner or later find sentimental donors and all is well. People love saving damsels in distress. But if you introduce money, they'll sooner save someone with money.

Seriously, things would get fucked up beyond sense.

The word "legalizing" bothers me.
Everything is legal until it is made illegal. Selling your own organs was perfectly legal until someone said "hmmm, I don't think people should do this". Repealing that law is not going to cause everyone to suddenly start selling their organs.  It's not like you have all that many that you can sell without dying. And if there's a donor list based on organ harvesting at death as well as a legal trade for various organs, I don't see the problem. Would I rather sell my kidney than donate it out of kindness? Yes. But that's not preventing someone from getting their organs the traditional way: waiting for a donor to die and still have a good kidney/heart/lung/whatever.

Life isn't fair. You can't make it fair. Some people are going to be born with more money or with health issues or whatever. You can't just legislate shit to make things fair for everyone, because you end up forcing everyone to have a shitty, horrible life. It will be a terrible way to live, but everyone will be forced to live that way and thus it will be "fair". Of course, politicians won't have to live like that.

Why do people put so much stock into politicians? They don't know anything. They don't know anything about economics or health insurance or the monetary system or anything. They keep fucking everything up, and yet we keep relying on them to make these massive decisions, they keep fucking them all up and we all keep hiring them back on.

We need term limits in congress before we need mandatory insurance.
Logged
Corpus
Guest
« Reply #214 on: March 26, 2010, 08:34:46 AM »

it's not morally gray if it's your fucking tissue.

Fucking fuck, fuck, "lesbian", fuck.
Really? What if you're being exploited into doing it because of monetary difficulties?

(I'm not denouncing organ-trading, just arguing with your absolute "not morally gray").

Sorry for not replying all those pages ago. I had no internet connection for most of this week.
Logged
Movius
Guest
« Reply #215 on: March 26, 2010, 08:58:53 AM »

Violence, coercion and fraud have never been legal or accepted in civil society. Why would this be any different for the sale of human tissue.

the lending of money is not prohibitted because it is possible that you could be forced at gunpoint to borrow amounts of money you can never repay.
Logged
Chris Whitman
Sepia Toned
Level 10
*****


A master of karate and friendship for everyone.


View Profile
« Reply #216 on: March 26, 2010, 09:19:15 AM »

I have to say though, I'm surprised at how few personal attacks there are in here.  I mean, it's a discussion about current controversial politics on an internet forum about video games.

IF YOU LIKE AYN RAND SO MUCH WHY DON'T YOU MARRY HER CORPSE, LIBERTARIAN SCUM.

Seriously, though, I really need to stop having this argument, but I'll try (and probably fail) to keep it brief. At least I'll try to make it entertaining. First of all, rights are not universal. We make them up. To paraphrase George Carlin, that's why you have a "bill" of rights instead of just "rights." They're things people have made up to establish some basic rules and controls to prevent people from getting the shit oppressed out of them.

By anyone.

I will never understand this rabid American fear of the government. You elect the government. When was the last time you were called out to vote for the CEO of your loan shark health insurers? Sure, your only power may be to remove the scumbag who's currently in office and replace him with a scumbag of equal or greater despicability, but at least if you don't like the guy you can get rid of him, and it's something, some kind of control.

There's an idea in the U.S. that only the government can oppress you or take things away from you, and if a corporation does it, then it isn't anyone's fault, it just kind of happens. A lot of things "just happen" in the United States, it seems. You just happen to have a ton of poor people who just happen to be black, Hispanic and Asian, and these people also happen to have the worst health care, but it isn't race-related; it just happened. This division between wealthy corporations and government is, I think, effectively arbitrary (both are legal fictions, after all), and the worst part is that it leads to argument along the lines that the elected government shouldn't step in to protect people from gross mismanagement by their corporate masters. Because why? Because freedom, apparently. Freedom to be exploited by the wealthy. And why are these guys so wealthy? Because they work hard and meet consumer demands and therefore totally deserve it? Why, of course! So says classical economics!

Classical economics is what tells us that capitalism is so awesome and good for everyone, and even though no one really uses it anymore, it still seems to form the basis of most of the arguments for a "freedom" that is basically just unfettered corporate greed. But don't take my word for it! Classical economics tells us that competition always pushes prices down to a stable equilibrium for goods, that the market acts with an "invisible hand" to ensure that people pursuing their own goals work inadvertently towards the public good. It's based on three axioms:

- Perfect rationality: perfect rationality means that you always make the best decision for yourself. You have needs, you're capable of assessing which of your options best meets that needs, you can rank the options and you always take the best one. In the world of perfect rationality, you will always buy the soft drink that tastes better to you, and you are immune to suggestion through advertising, so no amount of scantily clad ladies can convince you otherwise. This means everyone only needs to advertise a product to you once. Once you know about Coca-cola, you are equipped to make a rational decision, so why would need more information? Speaking of knowing about stuff, did you know you also have...

- Perfect information: it is assumed that you have perfect information about all past, present and future actions. Everyone participating in the market at any level knows what everything is worth, what it has been worth in the past and how their choices affect the market. And if you think that's magical, there's...

- Perfect competition: there is zero barrier to entry, and money does not influence your ability to compete. If I make a soft drink tomorrow that tastes better than Coca-cola, everyone will buy it instead, and Coca-cola will go out of business unless they make a better product.

Now, most of these are violated to some extent all the time, but sometimes they're a reasonably good fit. For example, if I want to make software for some particular kind of business, I only really need a computer and time, the people buying it are professionals, so they're probably well-educated in the subject, and they're going to be motivated to buy high quality software, since they'll be focused on their priorities.

On the other hand, for health care, basically all of these are fucked. Most people don't know or understand how insurers make their decisions, or what their priorities are, or how they operate, but most importantly, by definition insurance requires boat-loads of money to sustain. Perfect rationality and information are tough enough, but perfect competition is right out the window due to the incredibly high barrier for entry. As a result, the business is too complicated for most untrained people to understand and there are only a few participants.

Private health insurance does not provide cheaper or better service, nor is it "more sustainable." The U.S. spends more on healthcare for a lower standard of care than pretty much anyone else in the world (I mean, if you factor in total cost combined with the low general standard of care). People are still somehow running around with the idea that capitalism is going to produce a better result, but they don't seem capable of or willing to deal with the fact that those inferences are based on axioms that simply do not apply in many cases (this being one of them). Combine that with an ethos that paints the highest moral duty as "don't mess with wealth" and you have a recipe for the most insane arguments I have ever heard.

I'm not pushing this on you personally. Everyone seems to be making these arguments, and I just want you to think about how crazy they actually sound.
Logged

Formerly "I Like Cake."
Chris Whitman
Sepia Toned
Level 10
*****


A master of karate and friendship for everyone.


View Profile
« Reply #217 on: March 26, 2010, 09:29:00 AM »

You see what I mean, though, right? About government?

The government is at least supposed to be "the people." Saying you're against government interference is saying you're against the ability of the public to interfere for the good of everyone. Whether in practice that's how it works out doesn't diminish the fact that the capability should be there.

If the people don't govern themselves, someone else is going to do it, and you're going to get a sprawling oligarchy, which is, not coincidentally, exactly what the U.S. has.

(and so you don't think I'm being crazy or exaggerating, the former head of the World Bank did, in fact, describe the U.S. governmental system as an oligarchy when discussing the financial crisis).
Logged

Formerly "I Like Cake."
John Nesky
Level 10
*****


aka shaktool


View Profile WWW
« Reply #218 on: March 26, 2010, 09:37:39 AM »

I agree with Chris Whitman's wall of text so hard. Thank you.

The bit about perfect rationality hits hard. We're getting better and better at learning how to exploit irrationality. Zynga, for example, pretty much throws capitalism out the window.
Logged
Dacke
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #219 on: March 26, 2010, 09:40:37 AM »

Nice wall, indeed.

Also:
The idea that the right to property trumps the right to health and life. It's just ridiculous.

All rights are there to make people's lives better. The right to health is primary, it is basic, without it everything else is useless. Having lots of property can make your life better, but it's not necessary.

health > wealth.
Logged

programming • free software
animal liberation • veganism
anarcho-communism • intersectionality • feminism
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic