Who's responsible for your sorry ass?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

I have a friend living in the US...she's 27 years old and was diagnosed with MS a little over 4 years ago. At the time of the diagnosis she didn't have any health insurance. So now, because her MS is a pre-existing condition, she doesn't qualify for any insurance. She used to qualify for a grant from the government that paid for a medication that is proven to slow down, and in some cases stop the growth of brain lesions...but recently she started making more money, and no longer qualifies for this grant.

BUT, everyone can have FREE contraceptives!! Ain't it a wonderful system?!?!

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

Good commentary.

I do believe that people like SP's friend should have lots of help. Same with other genetic diseases.

But how long do you think we should continue to pay exorbitant sums of money in order to simply extend a life that is little more than existence in it's present form? Such as the uncle I described?

well, the really important question is, to whom do you give the authority to decide when you;re done, and why?
ya see, this is exactly what some are calling the "death panel" (and what else would you call it? once it happens, it's only a semantics issue.)

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


BUT, everyone can have FREE contraceptives!! Ain't it a wonderful system?!?!

1. No they cant.
2. Think about the failure of the logic of your argument there.

(I'll help, it goes like this:

Premise A: We waste too much money on healthcare, paying for all the poors
Premise B: We should not provide contraception for poors
Result: Poors have more children)

Now, do you think that's going to increase or decrease government costs.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


well, the really important question is, to whom do you give the authority to decide when you;re done, and why?
ya see, this is exactly what some are calling the "death panel" (and what else would you call it? once it happens, it's only a semantics issue.)

Private insurance companies, of course! (Like they do now)

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Yeah...she's self employed and currently working on a solution like that...which may or may not work out. But fingers crossed.

...

Or Canada

FYI, in 2014 the public exchanges that the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obummercare" ) mandated will be in effect. Those public exchanges will have policies available to people with pre-existing conditions, and will be subsidized to try to keep them affordable. It's still too early to tell how that's going to work out exactly, and I know it's a long time from now, but there's at least that little glimmer of hope for her, I guess.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

FYI, in 2014 the public exchanges that the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obummercare" mandated will be in effect. Those public exchanges will have policies available to people with pre-existing conditions, and will be subsidized to try to keep them affordable. It's still too early to tell how that's going to work out exactly, and I know it's a long time from now, but there's at least that little glimmer of hope for her, I guess.

Yeah its hope. There is no cure for MS, but hopefully with the right treatment she'll be able to live into her 50's without significant symptoms....which is not happening now.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

I agree, for people in their 70's and up, for whom the health risks of tobacco were not yet known, and smoking was considering the "in" thing.

But as a guy in my mid-40's, who's been told all my life that tobacco will kill me..... I think I rolled the dice and should live, or die, with the results.

It's just not that simple; these outcomes are probabilistic, not binary. So you can't say, "You smoked, now you have lung cancer, and we're not going to treat you because you brought this on yourself." There are very, very few medical conditions attributable to a singular causal factor.

There are just WAY too many variables. Using the lung cancer example, you might have grown up in a high-radon area. You might have been exposed to carcinogenic particulate in the environment, or you may have just had a genetic disposition to lung cancer. But likely, it's some combination of your genetics, environment, lifestyle choices, etc.

Too hard to do something like that, IMO. (Not to mention the lack of empathy it shows; I think societies need some level of empathy in order to thrive. You just can't leave people to die in the streets because they made poor life choices)

I was responsible for my sorry ass. Then I found out I fought for my country.
I now have benefits that exceed and surpass Obama care.
Am I happy? Not really but they do help me live.

Quote:

Originally posted by Notech_The_Abbot

... Then I found out I fought for my country.
I now have benefits that exceed and surpass Obama care....

As all soldiers should, imho. Without them the constitution I revere would be useless.

I don't often do this .. but thanks...

(fist bump)

I'll treasure it my friend.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

It's just not that simple; these outcomes are probabilistic, not binary. So you can't say, "You smoked, now you have lung cancer, and we're not going to treat you because you brought this on yourself." There are very, very few medical conditions attributable to a singular causal factor.

There are just WAY too many variables. Using the lung cancer example, you might have grown up in a high-radon area. You might have been exposed to carcinogenic particulate in the environment, or you may have just had a genetic disposition to lung cancer. But likely, it's some combination of your genetics, environment, lifestyle choices, etc.

Too hard to do something like that, IMO. (Not to mention the lack of empathy it shows; I think societies need some level of empathy in order to thrive. You just can't leave people to die in the streets because they made poor life choices)

I'd say I pretty much agree completely.

Where I'm struggling with the whole thing is that we live in a land where we are guaranteed a select few things:
Life,
Liberty,
PURSUIT of happiness.

The pursuit never comes with a guarantee. Just a promise that our government will not impede our efforts, so long as they are lawful. With "entitlements" swallowing an ever growing portion of our GNP, primarily so that politicians can be reelected, not due to some overwhelming sense of public good, where do we draw the line?

Why should our government guarantee health care, regardless of age or illness... or imho, at all?

Poor life choice, or not, actions always have consequences, and I'm not so sure I see it as governments role to change our diapers at both ends of our lifespan.

I don't see it as changing diapers, I see it as common sense. The same way they don't put meth on the counter with the lollies at the shop.

I get your point Bust and of course we should be accountable for ourselves, that goes without saying. But if the government is taking shitloads of money from smokers pockets, don't you think they have a responsibility to use it properly?, to fix the problems it caused.
It's a basic trait of human nature to get off on chocolates and all the colorful lollies and shit they put on display at the front counters of newsagents and whatnot. Well the same goes with smokes for a smoker. Take for example the dude who's gone without a smoke for a week or two and is well on his way to succeeding when suddenly he's a having a real shitty morning and while paying for his fuel he spies the Camel 20's behind the counter directly in front of his face.
The "fuck it" trait I think is part of a smokers sub-conscious mind and is helped along by the symptoms of smoking itself. More often than not the dude will just go "fuck it, one pack won't hurt. I'll leave them in the car or whatever".
On the other hand, if the smokes were not even there or easily accessible anywhere, I'm pretty sure he'd just grab a piece of licorice, a drink and a pack of chewy or something, take a deep breath and move on. Although anti-smoking campaigns do help a bit, they're just a band aid that won't stick. Make cigarettes illegal and not easily accessible,, the rate of long term and new smokers, health costs associated will drop significantly overnight and more so in the long term. What's so difficult about that? Oh yeah, the revenue.

I love this site! Come for the titties, stay for the debate!

Kudos to all!

Quote:

Originally posted by scrog

,,,, What's so difficult about that? Oh yeah, the revenue.

I don't think I could have said "government doesn't give a flying shit about you" any better than that!!

As long as you can keep feeding quarters into the carnival ride, you serve a purpose to them. And if you kill yourself in the process, big whoopee-shit. "I'll promise you sympathy tomorrow, when your broke and useless to the guy that takes my office. I'll never have to deal with your sorry ass, Sucker! Oh, by the way, Mr. Sucker, won't you build me another stadium?" as he L O L's all the way to his limo, and the yacht owned by the guy he really cares about.

Oh trust me, I understand nicotine addiction as well as anyone.

Just look where it's got us today

If the announcement was made at the check-out line that there was a group of terrorists outside the doors, shooting every customer as they exited, no one would leave until the coast was clear.

But for some reason, when politicians tell us "Bend over, this dry ass-fuck with an old corncob is gonna feel so good,", we want to believe it. Leave your wallet at the door, when you leave please.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

"Bend over, this dry ass-fuck with an old corncob is gonna feel so good,", we want to believe it. Leave your wallet at the door, when you leave please.

Man I lolled!

I'd probably vote for the other guy!!

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

The bolded is incorrect. He essentially paid for the treatment he's receiving now through his contributions to Medicare for the years that he did work. That's sort of why Medicare is a "sacred" program in the United States - because it's not seen as a redistributive policy like Medicaid and Welfare are, but because everyone pays in and everyone gets the benefits when they're older, regardless of their income. It's seen as a gigantic insurance company, basically.

That's like saying that if I got into a car accident tomorrow I wouldn't have to pay a dime out of pocket. Well, no, but over the last however many years I've payed thousands to the insurance company so that they'll pay up when it comes time I need to use their coverage.

I also have kind of a large problem with your categorization of him. Not him particularly, because you might be right that he's a leech on society, but those judgements in general, because the thing is, who would you put in charge of that system? Do you really want the government to be deciding who is no longer useful to society and thus cut off their benefits? I can imagine about a billionty-seven number of things that could go wrong with such a system.

I find myself in agreement with Mr. Lindros...The American entitlement system is very flawed, and running out of money...but it is still pretty humane, and that was a part of the premise upon which it was put in place a long time ago - humane treatment. It certainly can't work well in every case, because it is run by humans, who are, themselves, very flawed and frequently lose sight of the higher (intended) purpose of programs like Social Security and Medicare. If you work for forty or fifty years and pay into the system from every paycheck you draw, then I believe you ARE entitled to draw back on that system if you are lucky enough to live long enough to do so...many do not, of course, which funds the system for those who live as long as, say, bustMall's uncle. It is, indeed, like a huge insurance policy, as Lindros suggested.
The notion of determining an individual's ongoing value to society and therefore what should be 'spent' on their continued existance is a bit disturbing, and not a new idea at all ...and, it is the basis of the powerful criticism lobbed at "ObamaCare" for suggesting the establishment of what many perceived to be so-called 'death panels'...a very scary prospect - and as Lindros asks - who do you feel is qualified to make those judgments?
That is, of course, an extreme manifestation of the system and it's inherent flaws...But if said uncle is still enjoying life at age 80, and he contributed to the system while working for half his life or more, then, as least based on the information presented here, I'd tend to conclude he IS entitled to a comfortable retirement...And it might be worth noting that for every retired individual that might be percieved as over-gaming the system...there are probably dozens who paid in for a lifetime and passed away before taking advantage of retirement at all. That's the essence of life insurance, and, really, ALL insurance. I have just retired from over forty years in that industry, so I do know a little about the actuarial principles upon which it is based. The principle is not working so well for Social Security as it once did...as the ratio of contributing workers to benefit claimants is no longer sufficiently funding the program, which is why it is being suggested that it will be bankrupt within the next decade or so...our economy has changed so dramatically that it can no longer sustain Social Security as we know it...it is not expected to be there for the next generation...
That is just my humble opinion...and if any positions expressed herein offend anyone, I offer my apology in advance, and a prayer for America...
May GOD continue to Bless and Preserve this Land of Liberty and Opportunity...

Quote:

Originally posted by Paddy!

...

Man I lolled!

I'd probably vote for the other guy!!

Suit yourself then. I'll go with the corncob over a pick handle, the lesser of the two evils

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

1. No they cant.
2. Think about the failure of the logic of your argument there.

(I'll help, it goes like this:

Premise A: We waste too much money on healthcare, paying for all the poors
Premise B: We should not provide contraception for poors
Result: Poors have more children)

Now, do you think that's going to increase or decrease government costs.

...

Private insurance companies, of course! (Like they do now)

***do not*** ASSume that you know anything about my logic. you ASSumed every damn thing you ""think"" you responded to there!
...and you clearly don't know shit about private insurance either. funny thing is, you had a post earlier in this thread that I actually thought made sense. Now I'm back to thinking how sad it is that people soooooooo ill-informed get to vote.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


***do not*** ASSume that you know anything about my logic. you ASSumed every damn thing you ""think"" you responded to there!
...and you clearly don't know shit about private insurance either. funny thing is, you had a post earlier in this thread that I actually thought made sense. Now I'm back to thinking how sad it is that people soooooooo ill-informed get to vote.

So your post wasn't being critical of the push to make contraceptive choices more widely available?

What then, exactly, was the point of that comment?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

So your post wasn't being critical of the push to make contraceptive choices more widely available?

What then, exactly, was the point of that comment?

and there ya go, trying to steer the debate. lib tactic.
""more widely available""?!??!? Be serious!!
and don't talk to me about insurance companies. I've had enough issues over the past 2 1/2 years to know damn well what I'm talking about.
Contraceptives are WIDELY available, and, lib scare tactics aside, that is not going to change. I **DO** have a problem with the "free" (bullshit!) aspect, but I also have problems with trying to debate a closed mind, so, y'all have a good time. I'm done here.

Calm down before you rupture a kidney or something. Let me walk you through the timeline of events here, real simple like:

1. You posted this:

Quote:

BUT, everyone can have FREE contraceptives!! Ain't it a wonderful system?!?!

...in response to SP's story about her friend who has MS and is having trouble getting treatment for it.


2. I took that as you being critical of "free" contraceptives. In response, I pointed out that your statement that "everyone can have FREE contraceptives" is factually incorrect, and that it is logically inconsistent with keeping governmental costs down, which admittedly is a position that I assumed you subscribe to (government spends too much on welfare, medicaid, the poors, etc)

3. You accused me of just ASSuming - silly capititalization and all - that I knew what you were talking about. You also made a comment about wishing people as "uninformed" as I shouldn't be able to vote, which I find ironically hilarious.

4. In response to your accusing me of making erroneous assumptions I posed two simple questions in order to eliminate all room for error. I simply asked if my interpretation of your comment was wrong, and I asked that you clarify exactly what you meant. It was really an innocuous question intended to remove all "ASSumption" and allow us to actually move forward on a factual basis.

5. You respond to my request for clarification of what you meant in a defensive and nonsensical way, pigeonholing me into some "lib" stereotype, and assuming I have a closed mind on the subject. This is interesting because the last post you had, not two posts above that one, you were railing about "ASSuming" things, which you freely do in that post. You also go on some tangent about insurance companies, which I haven't mentioned in since like the 4th post of this thread.

I'd also like to point out that these two lines appeared in the very same post:

Quote:

and don't talk to me about insurance companies

Quote:

I also have problems with trying to debate a closed mind

Again, good times.


So, to summarize:

-You say something
-I say that's wrong and point out that the logic behind it is fallacious
-You then say I'm assuming things that aren't true
-I therefore ask you to clarify what you meant
-You accuse me of trying to "steer the debate," being closed minded, engaging in some sort of some sort of "lib tactics," and proceed to check out of the thread, but not before CONFIRMING WHAT I ORIGINALLY ASSUMED WHEN YOU SAY THIS:

Quote:

I **DO** have a problem with the "free" (bullshit!) aspect

So, we're back to square one.

Now, you've admitted that you have a problem with free contraceptives being given to people. Why?

(BTW, I'm going to look into my crystal ball and tell you that your response to this is going to lead to me repeating the things I said here. )