Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

NY Soda ProhibitionFollow

#152 Mar 19 2013 at 8:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

The free market didn't make this a problem and I'm not sure why you'd think it did. The market offers larger drinks because customers want larger drinks. That and larger drinks are cheap, but make people think they're getting a better value.


Sort of true, sort of also a known fact that that food marketers try as hard as they can to create formulas that engage lower brain instincts that largely disable the brain's ability to say "nah I'm good."


Sure. But if we're going to balance that on one side of the freedom scale and government passing a law mandating what can be sold on the other, there's really no contest, right? No matter how weighted a choice appears, there's still a choice. Contrasted to not having the choice at all, it's not hard to see which course of action curtails freedom and which doesn't.

Freedom has to include the freedom to make bad choices, else it's not freedom at all. Put another way, if we empower government to take away all the choices which it decides aren't good choices, how is that different than the government simply taking all choices away from us? There's always some choice that could be quantified as "better" than another. Thus, we could follow this logic to the point of the government taking all choices away but the one it's decided is the "best choice". At that point, we have zero freedom, right?


The same rationale used to justify limiting soda purchases to a certain size can be used to justify a specific "ideal" size. Thus eliminating all choice in the matter (and think of the money we'd save if there was only one size cup that ever had to be manufactured). Similarly, we could eliminate choices of drinks to the one "ideal" drink. We could eliminate all meal choices to the one "ideal" meal. Slippery slope? Sure. But there's no reason why a government which could mandate the size of the drink you can buy cannot (or even should not) also mandate the type of drink you can buy. It's a matter of what you've empowered the government to do and why. Failing to consider what other actions can be justified with the same argument is foolish IMO. It's not a matter of whether the next step in this kind of slope will occur, but when.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 Mar 19 2013 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Sure. But if we're going to balance that on one side of the freedom scale and government passing a law mandating what can be sold on the other, there's really no contest, right? No matter how weighted a choice appears, there's still a choice. Contrasted to not having the choice at all, it's not hard to see which course of action curtails freedom and which doesn't.

Freedom has to include the freedom to make bad choices, else it's not freedom at all.


That's a quaint notion that has existed in no society, ever. "Freedom" should include the freedom to fail, it shouldn't necessarily include the chance to play a rigged game where failure is guaranteed. If you want to attempt to summit Everest, great. If you want to attempt to attempt to summit Everest and you weigh 800 lbs, we have a problem.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#154 Mar 19 2013 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
The same rationale used to justify limiting soda purchases to a certain size can be used to justify a specific "ideal" size.

Yeah, yeah, and the same rational used to justify speeding tickets can be used to justify summary execution of suspicious looking people. Who gives a fuck? Believe it or not, logic isn't an exercise in "finding the stupidest fucking metaphor possible".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#155 Mar 20 2013 at 4:20 AM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
gbaji wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
What right of others is being infringed if someone purchases a 20oz soda? None? Then we should not infringe the right to do so.


Drinkers of large soda drinks are at a much higher risk for diabetes & obesity, which leads to my tax dollars paying for fat people to not work, continue to consume large amounts of soda, which leads to further health issues.


If the problem is that your tax dollars will pay for their health problems, then the solution is to not have tax dollars pay for their health problems. Again, we create the need for government regulation of our day to day activities when we put the government in charge of paying for our health care. It's a predictable outcome, but it's shocking how consistently some people just fail to see it even when it's pointed out to them.


BTW, this is why conservatives oppose things like publicly funded health care. Not because we want people to be sick, or die, or suffer, but because we recognize the infringement of liberty that will inevitably result if the government is put in the position of paying for our health. Anything we do can be defined within the context of health, so by putting the government in the position of paying for our health we're basically giving the government unlimited power to control our activities on the grounds of reducing health care costs borne by all of us.

The correct answer, no matter how much you might thing it's cruel or uncaring, is to *not* make the government responsible for our health care.



Even if they are not using tax dollars and have insurance they are still costing everyone money by being over weight. Demand drives up price, so the more demand on the health care system the more we all have to pay. This also drives up health insurance premiums for everyone as well.
____________________________
.
#156 Mar 20 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not a matter of whether the next step in this kind of slope will occur, but when.
Hey there irrational fear, so we meet again. Ha ha, just kidding. It never left.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#157 Mar 20 2013 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not a matter of whether the next step in this kind of slope will occur, but when.
Hey there irrational fear, so we meet again. Ha ha, just kidding. It never left.
Gbaji lives on and for that big slippery slope of his.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#158 Mar 20 2013 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
What I find odd is he seems perfectly alright with people not being allowed to drive drunk in school zones as fast as they want. I guess soda is just that important.

Ha, I kid again. It isn't odd at all.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#159 Mar 20 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Sure. But if we're going to balance that on one side of the freedom scale and government passing a law mandating what can be sold on the other, there's really no contest, right? No matter how weighted a choice appears, there's still a choice. Contrasted to not having the choice at all, it's not hard to see which course of action curtails freedom and which doesn't.

Freedom has to include the freedom to make bad choices, else it's not freedom at all.


That's a quaint notion that has existed in no society, ever. "Freedom" should include the freedom to fail, it shouldn't necessarily include the chance to play a rigged game where failure is guaranteed.


Sure. But that's not the case here. No one is forced to purchase a larger soda than they want. Failure is not guaranteed. So, um... good point I guess, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#160 Mar 20 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Even if they are not using tax dollars and have insurance they are still costing everyone money by being over weight. Demand drives up price, so the more demand on the health care system the more we all have to pay. This also drives up health insurance premiums for everyone as well.


Which is why insurance companies charge more money for people who are higher risk. And they can even refuse to cover people who are considered too high risk to be worth covering. Do you understand that it is the very things that make a truly private insurance system "fair" that systems like Obamacare view as failures and attempt to correct? The entire point of getting government involved in mandating coverage is to ensure that the overweight smokers will have their health care paid for by the healthy people.

Whether they do it by simply charging everyone taxes and paying for everyone's health care directly, or mandating that insurance companies must cover everyone, mandating that everyone must buy insurance if they can, and then mandating the coverage that insurance must cover, doesn't matter. You're comparing one form of socialism to another, declaring them the same, and concluding that there's no way to avoid the problem of people who make good decisions having to pay for those who make bad ones.

There is a way to avoid this. Don't create mandates. Let the insurance companies choose who to cover and what to charge their customers. Let the buyers of insurance decide if the insurance is worth the cost. Let the market set the prices. Do this, and you'll see health care costs decrease dramatically across the board. People will find that for most health care, they don't need insurance. And for those things which do require insurance, the costs will be lower as well. Additionally, we'll find that people will actually take responsibility for their own health because they'll have to pay for themselves. Nothing like personal responsibility to drive good choices. And it'll do this while *not* infringing people's liberties. If someone wants to eat nothing but triple bacon cheeseburgers and supersized drinks, they can. But they'll have to deal with their health care costs as a result. They're free to make the bad choice, but have to pay for it.

Taking the responsibility for their actions out of the hands of the individual and to the government sounds great in the short run, but doing so also puts the power to regulate people's actions into the hands of the government. That's the problem. I'd much rather live in a world where I'm free to make whatever decisions I want, but I'm also expected to be responsible for the consequences of those decisions. That's freedom. You can't take away the responsibility for the choice without also taking away the freedom of the choice.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Mar 20 2013 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Yeah, I agree. People who make bad decisions or en up with cancer should just die. They don't deserve health care.
#162 Mar 20 2013 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
But they'll die with freedom.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#163 Mar 20 2013 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
No one is forced to purchase a larger soda than they want.
1955 a small soda in McDonalds was 7oz, today it is 12oz. I guess "forced" isn't as accurate a word as "tricked" would be.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 6:29pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#164 Mar 20 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Belkira wrote:
Yeah, I agree. People who make bad decisions or en up with cancer should just die. They don't deserve health care.


What makes someone "deserve" health care though? I mean, we sling these words around without stopping to think about what they mean. Who gets to decide what people "deserve"? To my way of thinking, you don't deserve anything except the freedom to make your own decisions and take your own actions. You don't deserve health care, you purchase it. Just like you purchase any other good or service. If I take good care of my car, it'll cost me less to maintain it, right? Should I be forced to pay for someone else's car maintenance, regardless of how they care for it, because they "deserve" a car?

The larger point is that if you stop requiring people to pay for their own costs and expenses, they'll be less inclined to take any action to reduce those costs. And when we apply that to health care, this means that people will take less care with their own health. It's an interesting dilemma from an ethical perspective because on the one hand you have the inevitable number of people who will, through no fault of their own, become sick and require expensive care who might not be able to afford it, but on the other hand you have the inevitable number of people who, because they aren't responsible for the cost of their care, will not take care of their health and thus be more likely to fall ill to otherwise preventable ailments. Should the government step into this situation and choose one of those courses? Or should the government simply step aside and let nature (both human and natural) decide what happens?


Call me an old school conservative, but I think that human activities should always err on the side of not causing harm where possible. Doubly so in a case like this where there are massively negative economic and liberty aspects to the choice itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#165 Mar 20 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Let the insurance companies choose who to cover.
Because historically having rich, powerful companies decide what's best for the common good has always worked so well.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#166 Mar 20 2013 at 4:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No one is forced to purchase a larger soda than they want.
1955 a small soda in McDonalds was 7oz, today it is 12oz. I guess "forced" isn't as accurate a word as "tricked" would be.


Then don't buy the soda. No one's forcing you to do anything here. But if someone wants to buy a larger soda and is prevented from doing so by law, that *is* an imposition on their freedom. I don't see how one is remotely balanced against the other.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Mar 20 2013 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
Really you use a lot of words just say you don't know what you are talking about. Also nice dodging the main point of more demand on the Healthcare system in the first place not just the insurance companies.
____________________________
.
#168 Mar 20 2013 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
Then don't buy the soda. No one's forcing you to do anything here.
That's why I said tricked instead of forced. I know you have this complete aversion to facts, but at least pretend to keep up, short stack.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#169 Mar 20 2013 at 4:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let the insurance companies choose who to cover.
Because historically having rich, powerful companies decide what's best for the common good has always worked so well.


They don't attempt to decide what's best for the common good, and it's false assumption to think that anyone can (governments included). They simply offer a good or service and let the consumers decide if it's worth the cost. The fallacy is assuming that any large organization can make such a decision for everyone. It's not like rich powerful governments do a great job of this either.

The failure is in trying to do that in the first place. Stop trying to micromanage society. Create an environment where people can make their own choices and then step back and let them do it. They'll decide if health care is important, and based on that importance, they'll create systems to provide it, and methods to obtain it. You don't need government to handle this directly. I really think people's failing here is thinking that someone has to plan everything out with a specific social goal in mind. That's the wrong way to look at it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Mar 20 2013 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let the insurance companies choose who to cover.
Because historically having rich, powerful companies decide what's best for the common good has always worked so well.


They don't attempt to decide what's best for the common good
Welcome to the point.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#171 Mar 20 2013 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Then don't buy the soda. No one's forcing you to do anything here.
That's why I said tricked instead of forced. I know you have this complete aversion to facts, but at least pretend to keep up, short stack.


Ok, "tricked". What does that mean in this context though? I mean, they tricked you by posting a menu, with sizes of drinks and costs for them, and then what? You lost your ability to make your own decisions somehow? OMG. 40 years ago, fast food restaurants charged X dollars for a small drink that was 7oz in size, and today those same restaurants charge the inflation adjusted equivalent of X dollars for a small drink that's almost twice the size. We're being tricked!!!

Unless you think there's some ulterior profit motive for those companies to make people fat and unhealthy? That's pretty much tinfoil hat territory right there. Their motive is to make money. As time has gone by, and the costs and methods for producing soda have come down, competition has required them to provide more soda for the same relative price. It's not trickery. Soda is relatively free in this context. It's why you can get as many free refills at the restaurant itself as you want. Again, not trickery, just competition. If they don't offer that, their competition will and they'll lose business.


In the grand scheme of things companies might do to make money, but which can result in harmful side effects, providing relatively large amounts of soda for low prices is far far down the list of things I'd worry about. Wouldn't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Mar 20 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Let the insurance companies choose who to cover.

Haha. Or just go straight to single payer and don't bother with the wholesale collapse that would happen if you allow insurance companies to cut off coverage to people who cost them money. Lzaiez faire medical insurance markets work like this: "Let the sick people die".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#173 Mar 20 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let the insurance companies choose who to cover.
Because historically having rich, powerful companies decide what's best for the common good has always worked so well.


They don't attempt to decide what's best for the common good
Welcome to the point.


I never missed this point. The counterpoint is that this isn't what we should be trying to do in the first place and it's strange that people think this *should* be the goal, at lest not in the positive sense. I want a government that decides what things are *not* for the common good, and legislating against those things. What I don't want, and what I believe is dangerous for any free society, is a government that tries to decide what things are *for* the common good, and legislating to force those things to happen. That's a recipe for disaster because it rarely produces the results we intend, but *always* results in a loss of liberty for the governed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#174 Mar 20 2013 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Create an environment where people can make their own choices and then step back and let them do it. They'll decide if health care is important, and based on that importance, they'll create systems to provide it, and methods to obtain it

We have one. Democracy. We decided health care was important and voted in a guy who said he'd create a system to provide it so we could obtain it. Then, four years later when the other guy was promising to do away with it, we voted in the first guy again.

The system works! Smiley: clap

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 6:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#175 Mar 20 2013 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
Unless you think there's some ulterior profit motive for those companies to make people fat and unhealthy?
Nice try changing the topic, but soda is almost 100% pure profit, regardless of size. We're talking portion size in relation to health. I edited because I know it'll have to be spelled out for you.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 7:04pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#176 Mar 20 2013 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
I want a government that decides what things are *not* for the common good, and legislating against those things.


Well, you could say that 20oz drink are not for the common good.
#177 Mar 20 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Well, gbaji, please stop using electricity, the internet and roads immediately! Since they were put in place for the common good and all. Wouldn't want to get any of that socialism on you, right?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#178 Mar 20 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
We usually buy 1 big drink and split amongst the 4 of us. We all know the government can't force people to do things for their own benefit.

This is America dammit. Smiley: motz
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#179 Mar 20 2013 at 5:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Let the insurance companies choose who to cover.

Haha. Or just go straight to single payer and don't bother with the wholesale collapse that would happen if you allow insurance companies to cut off coverage to people who cost them money. Lzaiez faire medical insurance markets work like this: "Let the sick people die".


Now you're just repeating campaign rhetoric. That's not true at all. Lassaiz Faire medical insurance markets don't make that kind of decision at all. They charge what the market will bear for their service, and the customers define what that service consists of. If they don't offer an insurance product that satisfies people's needs, then people wont pay for it, and they'll go out of business. If the insurance companies routinely collected premiums while people were healthy and then dropped them when they got sick, no one would buy their insurance. At least, not for coverage for the things that really matter.

The odd problems with insurance coverage and methodologies only really occur when governments start getting involved and start mandating coverage levels. The reason companies can get away with dropping sick people is precisely because the government mandates so many businesses to provide comprehensive care (which is basically free money for the insurance companies) that they can ***** over the customers who really need the actual insurance for major medical problems. If we went back to a system where people pay for their day to day health care out of pocket and only insure against major medical situations, insurance companies would have to honor those commitments or go out of business. Also, the insurance would cost a **** of a lot less *and* health care as a whole would cost less.

If we had a truly free market health care system, most of the problems liberals point to and proclaim can only be fixed with more government regulation would not exist. Once again we find that the problem is with attempting to do things "better", and failing every single time. We should stop trying to do that and accept that a free market system, while not perfect, at least has the virtue of being imminently fair to all involved.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#180 Mar 20 2013 at 5:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Create an environment where people can make their own choices and then step back and let them do it. They'll decide if health care is important, and based on that importance, they'll create systems to provide it, and methods to obtain it

We have one. Democracy. We decided health care was important and voted in a guy who said he'd create a system to provide it so we could obtain it.


Obama wasn't elected because of his health care proposal. When passed, more people opposed it than supported it. This is not a great example of democracy in action, but it is a great example of how representative democracy can result in people getting elected for one reason but doing something else that the people didn't want.

Quote:
Then, four years later when the other guy was promising to do away with it, we voted in the first guy again.


Obama wasn't re-elected because of his health care either.

Quote:
The system works! Smiley: clap


The system is what it is. And one aspect of it is that we vote based on a collection of positions and actions of any given candidate and not directly on any single issue. If we used a direct democracy, Obamacare would not have been passed. Again, that's the system we have, and it does allow for this sort of thing to happen. Claiming that because an unpopular law was passed and the person who pushed it was re-elected means that said law was intended or desired by the voters is extremely questionable. In this case, it means that the negatives of that action didn't outweigh other positives for him (or negatives for his opponent).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#181 Mar 20 2013 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Now you're just repeating campaign rhetoric. That's not true at all. Lassaiz Faire medical insurance markets don't make that kind of decision at all. They charge what the market will bear for their service, and the customers define what that service consists of. If they don't offer an insurance product that satisfies people's needs, then people wont pay for it, and they'll go out of business.

You can't possibly be this fucking stupid. Just as no company is going to insure a car that's already been in a catastrophic accident, no company is going to insure someone who has an expensive illness. To do so would be idiotic. Hence, the sick people die when they run out of money. That's the outcome. There's no debate. It's not an emotional argument, it's a simple statement of the 100% unavoidable outcome of your assertion. Oddly, insurance companies don't seek clients where they are guaranteed to pay more in claims than they take in from premiums.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#182 Mar 20 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Well, gbaji, please stop using electricity, the internet and roads immediately! Since they were put in place for the common good and all. Wouldn't want to get any of that socialism on you, right?


There's a pretty massive difference between infrastructure (part of the environment we live in), and specific benefits to individuals. I'll also point out that those systems are not as simple as you're implying. Most of what made the internet useful to most people happened only after privatization of it. Similarly, while the government (at various levels) does fund major road and highway construction, a whole **** of a lot of the end point stuff is paid for by private contractors as part of their license to construct homes in a given area. Same deal with electricity, phones, light posts, signal lights, sewer, water, gas, etc. I couldn't tell you the ratio of fully public versus private funded infrastructure in the US offhand, but the privately funded portion is probably a lot higher than you think. And in those cases, government serves the function of standards, but lets the private market determine the rest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#183 Mar 20 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
What makes someone "deserve" health care though?


Being alive...? It's ******* despicable that you think only the wealthy should be allowed to see a doctor.
#184 Mar 20 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
Belkira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What makes someone "deserve" health care though?


Being alive...?
HellthKare4Zombies!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#185 Mar 20 2013 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,283 posts
Elinda wrote:
Belkira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What makes someone "deserve" health care though?


Being alive...?
HellthKare4Zombies!


ZombiesRPeeples2!


Edited, Mar 20th 2013 7:57pm by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#186 Mar 20 2013 at 5:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Now you're just repeating campaign rhetoric. That's not true at all. Lassaiz Faire medical insurance markets don't make that kind of decision at all. They charge what the market will bear for their service, and the customers define what that service consists of. If they don't offer an insurance product that satisfies people's needs, then people wont pay for it, and they'll go out of business.

You can't possibly be this fucking stupid. Just as no company is going to insure a car that's already been in a catastrophic accident, no company is going to insure someone who has an expensive illness.


I didn't say they would. You insure against future events, not past ones. Insurance companies should not have to insure against something that happened in the past, and customers should not expect them to. The problem with Obamacare (well, one of many) is that it's effectively requiring them to do this. Which is insane.

Quote:
To do so would be idiotic.


Yes, it would be. Which makes you wonder why our government is choosing to force companies to do just that. Then we're all supposed to sit back and wonder why the **** our premiums have just skyrocketed. Duh!

Quote:
Hence, the sick people die when they run out of money.


Sick people die even when they have money. Healthy people die randomly all the time. The idea that we can magically make the world a perfect place if only the government can address one issue, is astoundingly arrogant and stupid. If people pay for insurance against major illnesses, then when they get major illness, they will be covered. There is no "running out of money". In the same way that if you pay for life insurance and then die, the insurance pays out. If you don't pay for insurance and die, it doesn't. Trying to force things to work differently is absurd.

Quote:
That's the outcome. There's no debate.


No debate on what? Sick people die if they run out of money and *don't* have insurance. Insurance costs are driven up by government forcing companies to provide "comprehensive care". Thus, most people can't afford to insure against the most expensive health care costs because we've flooded the insurance market with money spent paying people to have checkups and spending $500 bandaging up sprained ankles. If we didn't do this, more people would be able to afford major medical insurance, and the insurance companies would have to honor the contracts they've signed requiring them to provide care when those rare and expensive medical problems occur.

Again, the problems aren't caused by the free market here. They're caused by existing government regulation. Responding to those problems with yet more regulation that is basically just doing the same thing is doubling down on stupidity.


Quote:
It's not an emotional argument, it's a simple statement of the 100% unavoidable outcome of your assertion. Oddly, insurance companies don't seek clients where they are guaranteed to pay more in claims than they take in from premiums.


Of course they don't. Why do you think they would, or should? This is why we should make it so that if insurance companies want to make money, they need to get customers to buy insurance before they get sick. And a great start to that would be eliminating all the silly mandates which price insurance so high that most people can't afford that insurance in the first place. I could have sworn I explained this in my last post, but it's like you just ignored it all and repeated the same argument again.

I know that insurance companies don't insure people after the fact. But forcing them to do this doesn't change the reality that this is a really stupid thing to do. Yet, that's exactly what Obamacare does. So... stupid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187gbaji, Posted: Mar 20 2013 at 6:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Where do you get that impression? Do you understand that before our government started mandating health coverage levels, and insurance, and medicare requirements into our health care market, everyone but the absolutely destitute could afford health care? Doctors even made house calls. You know why? Because they were operating in a competitive health care market. If they wanted to make any money in the field, they had to provide goods and services to their customers at a price they could afford. Today, as a result of the massive government involvement, it's all about billions of dollars of insurance and medicare money flowing around, and the little guys get washed out of the equation.
#188 Mar 20 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
The ironic thing here is that Obamacare essentially encourages and rewards people to not purchase health insurance. It increases the costs of health care by mandating coverage levels, but at the same time requires insurance companies to provide for people even if they never purchased insurance prior to the day they show up, already sick. Worse, the fine/tax for failing to purchase insurance is far far less than the cost to purchase insurance in the first place. So basically, the government will collect $1500/person from all the healthy people in the country, then when they get sick, they'll allow them to buy insurance from the industry and use the money collected over time to pay for the premiums now required.

Is there anyone who can't see how this will massively increase insurance premiums? It'll actually decrease the real size of the insurance pool, and more or less do the exact opposite of what the Dems claimed it would do. It's not designed or intended to be a functional health care system. It's designed to break what last vestiges of a private health care system we have left. And while I'm sure some of you think that's a great thing, I'd caution you that you might just get exactly what you wish for and will find it's not what you really wanted.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#189 Mar 20 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
You cannot honestly believe that if we just let them alone, then insurance companies would cover chemo treatments for cancer patients out of the kindness of their hearts. The second you look like you are going to cost more than your premiums, either your premiums would get raised so high you can't afford it or they would drop you like a hot potato, and no other insurance company will touch you.

It's a fairy tale world you live in, apparently. You say yourself the only reason the insurancenCompanies are there is to make no eh. You encourage that. And when you aren't making them money any longer, you're @#%^ed.

ETA: I agree that ACA is not the answer. The only answer is a single payer system. Until then, you're screwed if you aren't rich.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 7:16pm by Belkira
#190 Mar 20 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Belkira wrote:
You cannot honestly believe that if we just let them alone, then insurance companies would cover chemo treatments for cancer patients out of the kindness of their hearts.


They wouldn't do it out of the "kindness of their hearts". Why are you placing that requirement on this? They would do it because people would pay them in advance for "cancer insurance", and when the one in 1000 person gets cancer, they will pay for their treatment. They don't have to do it out of any kindness. They'll do it because if they charge 1000 people money for cancer insurance, but then don't pay for the one person out of that group that gets cancer, the other 999 people will cancel their insurance. And then they'll go out of business. The profit motive requires that they provide the services they've promised to their paying customers.

The reason they can do things like deny coverage today is because the government has passed laws effectively mandating that businesses that offer any sort of health benefits must provide "comprehensive care". Which means that insurance companies make "free money" covering regular checkups and minor health issues at a markup. Instead of covering X number of people and calculating the percentage that will suffer a given rare/expensive medical problem, and then calculating the cost they have to charge the entire group to cover that, they instead know that an average number of people will go to the doctor in any given year for any of a number of minor things, and they charge that cost plus their profit/overhead. It's automatic money for them. They can't lose. And if they refuse to cover an expensive thing that comes along, it's no loss to them because the overwhelming majority of their customers are not there by choice. They're paying them because the government requires them to do so.

When your customer can't refuse to pay you even if you refuse to provide them with what they think they're paying you for, what do you think is going to happen?

Quote:
The second you look like you are going to cost more than your premiums, either your premiums would get raised so high you can't afford it or they would drop you like a hot potato, and no other insurance company will touch you.


Why would anyone buy insurance then? In an actual free market, if insurance companies did this, they'd go out of business. In the non free market we have today, they don't. The problem is the lack of a free market, not the other way around.

Almost all the things people complain about today regarding our health care system are caused by the very thing they're arguing for.

Quote:
It's a fairy tale world you live in, apparently. You say yourself the only reason the insurancenCompanies are there is to make no eh. You encourage that. And when you aren't making them money any longer, you're @#%^ed.


Only if they can get away with it. And they can only get away with it because we have government mandating that businesses buy insurance for their employees. How the **** do you not see this? If the government passes a law mandating the purchase of something, it removes the normal market forces which require the producers of that thing to provide a good value. This is not magic or anything. It's basic market reality. We have caused this problem with government mandates. Adding more mandates isn't going to improve things. It's going to make it worse.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 5:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#191 Mar 20 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Insurance companies are there to make money. They are not going to go out of business as long as health care costs are so high. With a single payer system, you don't have that problem.
#192 Mar 20 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Obama wasn't elected because of his health care proposal.
[...]
Obama wasn't re-elected because of his health care either.

Admittedly, there's a whole bunch of Democratic ideas that people far prefer over the Republican counterparts. Health care was just one of them Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#193 Mar 20 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
The biggest problem I see is that Americans are willing to pay obscene amounts of money on end of life care. Extending life by a year or two at a cost that may well exceed what the spend the rest of their life. I fear it's simply an underlying cultural thing, we're not very cost-conscious on medical decisions and we don't do a good job of shopping around or comparing treatment options or costs. We have the ability to treat, why would we turn it down? It's not going to matter what kind of health system we have, as long as we cling to life we're going to be paying for it either way. Just a cultural thing I guess.

I don't know if I'll have the guts to just to go before I run up a giant bill, but I hope I do when the time comes.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#194 Mar 20 2013 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Only if they can get away with it. And they can only get away with it because we have government mandating that businesses buy insurance for their employees. How the **** do you not see this? If the government passes a law mandating the purchase of something, it removes the normal market forces which require the producers of that thing to provide a good value. This is not magic or anything. It's basic market reality. We have caused this problem with government mandates. Adding more mandates isn't going to improve things. It's going to make it worse.


Well, shit, too bad you assholes lost then, I guess. Oh and that your Chief Justice went off the reservation. Oh and that every other first world nation in the world has moved to comprehensive government mandated coverage. Oh and that health care costs and outcomes are better when that happens. Oh and that every analysis indicates cost savings from ACA.

Which is the real problem, the savings. What the GOP is attempting to protect is the profit margin of private insurers and big pharma. Trust me, I spent the last few years working with the pharma side. Their biggest concern is falling reimbursement rates, that's what 90% of their lobbyists spend all day working on. They don't really give a **** who pays, so long as the rate is the same or increased. It'll be single payer in 15 years, there's really not another viable option.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#195 Mar 20 2013 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts

Admittedly, there's a whole bunch of Democratic ideas that people far prefer over the Republican counterparts. Health care was just one of them


I thought it was free stuff for poors? That's Medicaid, right?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#196 Mar 20 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
Why is it then if free market is the way to go that other nations with out it are not only paying less but are getting better outcomes from their healthcare systems.
____________________________
.
#197 Mar 20 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Why is it then if free market is the way to go that other nations with out it are not only paying less but are getting better outcomes from their healthcare systems.

Lack of freedoms, obviously. Everyone would live to be 100 in a medically induced coma provided by the government. Wait, ****, I wasn't supposed to talk about that yet, forget I said anything.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#198 Mar 20 2013 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
FOURTH AMENDMENT!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#199 Mar 20 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Firstly - I just read the original post and WTH? Surely, surely .... the resources and time spent on the looney venture of NY Soda could have been spent on something worthwhile like ... healthcare, help for the homeless, better roads, hospitals, infrastructure.

RavennofTitan wrote:
Why is it then if free market is the way to go that other nations with out it are not only paying less but are getting better outcomes from their healthcare systems.


In the UK it's because we are filthy liberals and we all love each other enough to care.
#200 Mar 20 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
Our roads are relatively fine, and we shipped off the homeless to New Jersey.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Mar 20 2013 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Firstly - I just read the original post and WTH? Surely, surely .... the resources and time spent on the looney venture of NY Soda could have been spent on something worthwhile like ... healthcare, help for the homeless, better roads, hospitals, infrastructure.

Olympics...
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT