OOO Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I played in a chess tournament in the peoria civic center once. True story. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I was making a joke. Jeez. I even think he knew I was making a joke.Oh. I think I might have known that as well, but I'll have to consult my notes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
the carlos Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Oh. I think I might have known that as well, but I'll have to consult my notes.awesome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Hmm. Looks like there's a drawing of a pyramid in the notes. And an arrow that looks like this ^ profit ||||||(picture an arrow pointing down on this end) loss Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 So every death is a violation of rights? The purpose of the government is to ensure that we don't die...ever? Or is it possible that the Founding Fathers meant that we had a right to not be killed by other people? If you feel the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from hostile nations why stop there when everyone is put at risk if public health is allowed to fail? Diseases are often infectious, public health measures and prevention of dangerous health practices endanger wide sectors, whole geographic regions and at times the whole nation. As more and more viruses, pathogens and bacteria evolve and become more drug resistant, would it be unreasonable to suggest that in the future, these threats will outweigh those posed by other nations, rendering our currently held beliefs regarding what constitutes National Security obsolete? Human and civil rights have expanded throughout our nations history. Is there something special about this point in history so that it is reasonable to suggest that the expansion of rights should cease, the list of rights considered complete? Why is it that the "Right to Education" belongs on the list, but the "Right to Health Care" does not? Or is it just a matter of how people are accustomed to thinking, combined with their own political biases and/or prejudices? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 If you feel the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from hostile nations why stop there when everyone is put at risk if public health is allowed to fail? Diseases are often infectious, public health measures and prevention of dangerous health practices endanger wide sectors, whole geographic regions and at times the whole nation. As more and more viruses, pathogens and bacteria evolve and become more drug resistant, would it be unreasonable to suggest that in the future, these threats will outweigh those posed by other nations, rendering our currently held beliefs regarding what constitutes National Security obsolete? Infectious diseases are nowhere near the top of the list of causes of death in America. Heart disease, strokes, and cancer are all much bigger problems and they are all (as far as we know and with some exceptions for cancer) not infectious. And it's not about outweighing threats from other nations. There is a difference between protecting people's right to live by preventing other people from voluntarily killing them versus subsidizing their healthcare so that they might live longer (assuming they abide by the treatment and it works). Using your logic that the right to life implies a right to healthcare, you could arrest someone for smoking because they are violating their own rights. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Infectious diseases are nowhere near the top of the list of causes of death in America. Heart disease, strokes, and cancer are all much bigger problems and they are all (as far as we know and with some exceptions for cancer) not infectious. And it's not about outweighing threats from other nations. There is a difference between protecting people's right to live by preventing other people from voluntarily killing them versus subsidizing their healthcare so that they might live longer (assuming they abide by the treatment and it works). And where does death from foreign enemies fall on that list? Above or below treatable infectious diseases? Why and what exactly is that difference? If a government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, then it has responsibility to protect its citizens Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 And where does death from foreign enemies fall on that list? Above or below treatable infectious diseases? Why and what exactly is that difference? If a government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, then it has responsibility to protect its citizens Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 The numbers don't matter (though if we had no law enforcement or national defense, the number of deaths from murder and foreign enemies would probably be quite high). As I've already said, there is a difference in death from murder versus death from disease. If person A kills person B, then A violated B's rights. If B dies of a heart attack, A has not violated B's rights. The government has no obligation to prevent all deaths. Even if it were possible, it could not be done without violating our rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (2 rights you mentioned that you seem to have forgotten). Technically they've only violated their own rights if they succeed, in which case pressing charges would be kind of pointless. But law enforcement does intervene if someone announces that they are going to commit suicide. Using your vaguely-defined right to health, smoking would be a violation of that right and the government would at the very least be obligated to confiscate the cigarettes if not actually arrest the smoker. With all due respect, if you do not see a problem with two people entering a hospital and then, after being admitted, one patient, we Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Good job on refusing to correctly interpret my views! That was very astute of you to infer that I have no problem with people not receiving medical care because they lack insurance. Although I never stated that to be the case, I did indeed state that the government shouldn't pay for healthcare. Obviously, any problem of importance should be solved by the government and not private citizens and charities. Rather than taking measures to decrease the cost of healthcare by removing the government interventions that increased it in the first place, we should probably just have the government pay for it. Oh, and thanks for bringing up abortion again. That only highlights the consistency of my views: government should protect people from being killed by other people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Good job on refusing to correctly interpret my views! That was very astute of you to infer that I have no problem with people not receiving medical care because they lack insurance. Although I never stated that to be the case, I did indeed state that the government shouldn't pay for healthcare. Obviously, any problem of importance should be solved by the government and not private citizens and charities. Rather than taking measures to decrease the cost of healthcare by removing the government interventions that increased it in the first place, we should probably just have the government pay for it. We Quote Link to post Share on other sites
j4lackey Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Geez, why don't you two get a room... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tommyjacobs Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 If you think the government has no responsibility in ensuring everyone receives the same level of care, well, again, nothing I (or anyone else for that matter.) have to say will do fuckall to change your mind. Let's say that the government gives Patient A and Patient B each $5000 to cover the same medical procedure. If Patient A wants to spend an additional $5000 of his own money to receive what he decides is better care, should the government prevent him from doing so? That's what your argument comes down to; you just framed it differently. The government should provide everyone with the same opportunities to succeed, but it shouldn't guarantee the same end result for everyone. Doing so removes important incentives, and if the incentives are lacking, shit won't work right. For the record, I don't think our current system is close to optimal, but I do think your idea would be worse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 We Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stooka Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 With all due respect, if you do not see a problem with two people entering a hospital and then, after being admitted, one patient, we Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 An Irishman's opinion of what's wrong with America in order. Number 1: American Extremists- There is nothing more annoying than an American who believes in something utterly proposterous like Evangelicals and the such. Personally, I'd much rather run into an Islam extremist than an Evangelical one. Two words for the open minded discourse of the Irish...SINN FEIN Number 2:American tourists- American's make very bad tourists. They talk too loud, don't speak the language and tend to want to eat the exact same thing as they'd get at Sal's diner at home, despite the fact that they're on the Champs Elysee. You must have us confused with Germans and the Japanese Number 3: The term African-American- Thay are BLACK, not African-American.Not all Blacks come from Africa. Take Obama for instance, he won't be the first Afircan-American President, he's from Hawaii. Hell, he's not even black Although I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments, I also believe in the fundamental right of a people to identify themselves as the wish. Number 4: American Soccer Commentators- First off, it's FOOTBALL. Also, if the commentator gets really really really excited it doesn't transcend to the viewer. The presentation is so slick and good in the UK and Ireland but across the pond it's impossible to watch. I feel for you guys. We don't really care about SOCCER in the US unless it is being played by seven year olds kids. Number 5:American accents that end everything in a question mark-It's really annoying? Once again, I hear the same thing from my Irish friends accents. Number 6:America and Islam- Not only is this a political problem but a problem on the ground. How can American's be so scared of an attack? It's insanely stupid. The chances of it happening to you are so small and I would guarantee you that there are maximum 7 States that terrorists would attack. Just move to Hawaii and be happy.Also, I hate any American who booed the Iranian President. An intelligent world leader comes to speak in supposedly the 3rd best college in the world and gets booed out the building. Would not happen in Oxford or Cambridge. Don't confuse College Students in American Universities with actual Americans. Pampered, spoiled humans in training they are. Number 7:Cancelling Firefly- God damn you Fox (could be an Australian problem but I'm running out of things) Good God Almight I couldn't agree more if I wrote the above myself. Number 8:Perception that everyone likes Americans- Funny one this. Americans always think that they are welcomed everywhere with unconditional love but tend to be spoken off in less higher esttem behind their backs. Not like us Irish I think the world hates Americans but loves American Tourists' Dollars. That would make you the world whores...As a Texan, I feel the same way when I got anywhere in the States too. Number 9:Tyra Banks and America's Next Top Model-None of those girls ever reach the top yet Tyra and her minions take up endless TV Square time But Tyra has great boobs! Number 10:The need for Americans to make their own versions of British Tv Shows- Why, the Office is perfect, American office not so much and I suspect the I.T. Crowd will go the same way. Some things are better in Britain, sitcoms being one. Could you imagine if they remade Father Ted ? Interesting...an Irishman taking umbrage at Hollywood copying the BBC. P.S. I'm Sorry Me too... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 The real problem with the US? Our beer is bland. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Then you're not drinking the right beer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Our government pays for almost half of our medical care. And the problem with privately-funded healthcare is over reliance on insurance which prevents patients from taking cost into account and emphasis on employer-provided insurance (individuals do not get the same tax break as businesses for providing insurance). If we moved toward tax free health savings accounts and high-deductible catastrophic insurance, individuals would have more control over their healthcare, and prices would go down because providers would have to compete for patients. Reducing government regulations on insurance and tort reform wouldn't hurt either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 True, but this method would still leave an unacceptable number of folks off the insured list. Some tax free catastrophic coverage type plans have a deductible as high as $5000 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 The deductible would come out of the tax free health savings account, which also rolls over if unused. Limiting your coverage to catastrophic expenses would also greatly reduce premiums. Also, the individuals (not the employers) would be providing the insurance, so the money that employers would be putting into insurance are going (tax free) to the employees.My tax-free flexible spending account does not carry over, and I have not heard of any that do. Do such things exist, or would this be a new creation? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
plasticeyeball Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 My tax-free flexible spending account does not carry over, and I have not heard of any that do. Do such things exist, or would this be a new creation? Mine doesn't either and according to ADP, there isn't one that does. If there was, I would use it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 My tax-free flexible spending account does not carry over, and I have not heard of any that do. Do such things exist, or would this be a new creation? I'm talking about health savings accounts, which are actual bank accounts that do carry over. My understanding was that they do exist, but there are caps on how much you can put in them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Yeah, probably has something to do with not paying taxes on that income. If you take it into the next calendar year, you have to pay taxes on it...I'm talking about health savings accounts, which are actual bank accounts that do carry over. My understanding was that they do exist, but there are caps on how much you can put in them.Well, my flexible spending account is a health care savings account. I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. Either way, I'd welcome it if it was available, rather than having to scramble to buy an extra pair of glasses or two cases of Advil by the end of December... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
plasticeyeball Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 this is what ikol is referring to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
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.