why that was nice

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

My experiences do not suggest this. I have been in way too many crackhouses to think that living in a crackhouses (where the parents sell the food for money anyway) is better than fostercare.

Nice try but we werent talking about drug addicted parents. We were discussing parents whom the government bureaucrat has deemed unwilling to work. They are otherwise fit parents, just unwilling to work.

We have decided, as a society, which drugs people are allowed use and which ones they are not. We have decided that recreation drugs, such as marijuana, shouldn't be consumed except in specific states as prescribed by a physician. There are mechanisms in place for the mentally ill to get help with LEGAL drugs which allow them to work and carry on an otherwise normal life.

This person is CRAZY. You dont expect them to work or support themselves but you expect them to comprehend and follow these drugs rules but not the general rules of society governing providing for their own existence?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Nice try but we werent talking about drug addicted parents. We were discussing parents whom the government bureaucrat has deemed unwilling to work. They are otherwise fit parents, just unwilling to work.

This person is CRAZY. You dont expect them to work or support themselves but you expect them to comprehend and follow these drugs rules but not the general rules of society governing providing for their own existence?

Must have misread.

If that person is that crazy, there are mental institutions to house them.

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

orly?

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

I dont assume it you plainly said it.
If your government determines they dont want to work, then YOU would just let them starve to death.

Trying to shift blame is flawed because you directly contribute to their starvation by refusing to provide a minimal discomfortable level of living.

A subsistenence level of living wouldn't be a detriment to society.

No one would be starving to death if they got off their *****. You're assuming that people would rather starve than work, which I think is bull.

And there are plenty of people who take my money to live in government housing and use food stamps. That is what you would call a minimal discomfortable level of living, yet people are perfectly content to do so, and nothing more. So how do you get them to get off their ***** and pay for their own lifestyle?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

orly?

rly

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

No one would be starving to death if they got off their *****. You're assuming that people would rather starve than work, which I think is bull.
And there are plenty of people who take my money to live in government housing and use food stamps. That is what you would call a minimal discomfortable level of living, yet people are perfectly content to do so, and nothing more. So how do you get them to get off their ***** and pay for their own lifestyle?

Remove welfare, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage.

That also solves the some of the illegal immigration problem.

 

[JayRich 10+ year member]

Healthcare is not free if they are paying for it in the form of higher taxes.


the increase in tax is not the primary funding of free health care its a portion of it, the governemt funds the rest.So the percentage difference in tax increase will not exactly constitute paying for the health care. No by free I mean there is no co pay, no possibility of it being a non covered loss and no out of pocket expense what so ever and it would not matter if you in the hospital for 20 days or 20 weeks. The increased tax amount does not fund the free health care, it help counteract the cost for the gov't

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Healthcare is not free if they are paying for it in the form of higher taxes.


the increase in tax is not the primary funding of free health care its a portion of it, the governemt funds the rest.So the percentage difference in tax increase will not exactly constitute paying for the health care. No by free I mean there is no co pay, no possibility of it being a non covered loss and no out of pocket expense what so ever and it would not matter if you in the hospital for 20 days or 20 weeks. The increased tax amount does not fund the free health care, it help counteract the cost for the gov't

How does the government fund anything? Taxes.

I am not understanding your argument. While the main beneficiaries may be getting "free" health care, someone is paying for it. I am guessing that the cost of goods and services must be more expensive there (excluding tax) to finance this. Perhaps people there are less able to afford to purchase a pair of Jordan's to color coordinate with each outfit?

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

The excessive costs of our current medical system can be classified into three major categories:

• The first, and by far the largest excess cost, is due to the current overuse of medical resources by patients. Overuse is the rational response of consumers who do not have to pay the entire cost of the medical services they use. The causes of those excess costs are Medicaid, Medicare, and tax laws that provide incentives for individuals to have their employers purchase their medical care in the form of private health insurance.

• The second category of excess cost consists of administrative and paperwork costs that are unnecessary for the provision of health care, but that have come into existence because of the current patchwork of third-party payers and their attempts to control their increasing costs by closely monitoring the behavior of doctors and patients. Even worse is the fact that those cost-containment activities do not seem to have contained costs very well.

• The third excess cost is associated with the fear of malpractice suits. Administering medically unnecessary tests and procedures helps to insulate doctors and hospitals from the potential wrath of patients or their families when inevitable accidents occur in medical treatment or when treatments just do not work.

In some sense each of those costs has been brought about by the retreat from a market-based system of medical delivery. The first two of them could have been avoided if patients had been given incentives to make their own choices about medical care. The third cost could have been controlled if the courts had allowed patients and medical providers to use market contracts to detail liability in case of unforeseen accidents.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

How does the government fund anything? Taxes.

I am not understanding your argument. While the main beneficiaries may be getting "free" health care, someone is paying for it. I am guessing that the cost of goods and services must be more expensive there (excluding tax) to finance this. Perhaps people there are less able to afford to purchase a pair of Jordan's to color coordinate with each outfit?

As P.J. O'Rourke so aptly put it many moons ago, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free."

Nothing is "free" coming from the government...WE pay for it in taxes. Period.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

It takes 10 seconds of math to show that there is positive correlation. Proving causation is beyond the scope of most members of this forum. That process is much more demanding. Correlation, on the other hand, can be done in excel in the time it took to write this post.

i dont think he understand the difference between the two flip.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

As P.J. O'Rourke so aptly put it many moons ago, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free."

Nothing is "free" coming from the government...WE pay for it in taxes. Period.

It's free if you are willing to live in squalor.

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

Only a idiot deals in absolutes.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

i dont think he understand the difference between the two flip.

I wasn't sure. He said correlation but I think he meant causation.

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

Of course we need reform.

We don't need the government to insure everyone, though.