DescentBB

...but, every time he opens his mouth, Ben Carson demonstrates that he doesn't know much else.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... hopath-is/

I don’t know about psychopath, but he sure shows the lack of ability to empathize, which is one of the symptoms.

(inability to understand what it is to be uninsured, and making them scapegoats instead)

having spoken with, eaten breakfast with and been around the man, Obama has more empathy than most citizens I'm in touch with. A lot more than I see on these pages, for example.


Oh, and the goofy 'uninsured' observation is evidence of what I speak. Obama gets what happens to folks that are uninsured, because he sees the stats on personal bankruptcy, early and unnecessary death, etc. You merely see money, which is hardly empathetic, it is SHALLOW.

Although money is a consideration, to the issue at hand, it is not my motivation for making this comment.

I don't like being blamed for problems I didn't cause, it’s really as simple as that.

The fundamental problem has been and always will be the cost of health care…notice I didn’t say insurance, but the president needed a scapegoat in order to make a politically motivated policy.

Result:

Blame the un-insured for the cost of premiums, and other costs and force them to get insurance, instead of dealing with the fundamental problem.

It’s been 6 years, and I still can’t afford the eye surgery I need, the meds I need to control my sugar (back up to 200) or the tests my doctor has prescribed.

No instead I get threatened with losing even more of the recourses I do have to provide for my own care.

Sure money is an issue, that’s easy for someone who has plenty of it to say. (talk about shallow)

Spidey wrote:Although money is a consideration, to the issue at hand, it is not my motivation for making this comment.

I don't like being blamed for problems I didn't cause, it’s really as simple as that.

The fundamental problem has been and always will be the cost of health care…notice I didn’t say insurance, but the president needed a scapegoat in order to make a politically motivated policy.

Result:

Blame the un-insured for the cost of premiums, and other costs and force them to get insurance, instead of dealing with the fundamental problem.

It’s been 6 years, and I still can’t afford the eye surgery I need, the meds I need to control my sugar (back up to 200) or the tests my doctor has prescribed.

No instead I get threatened with losing even more of the recourses I do have to provide for my own care.

Sure money is an issue, that’s easy for someone who has plenty of it to say. (talk about shallow)

blame the uninsured? well, if they're uninsured, they probably can't afford insurance. So how are they going to force them to get insurance if they can't afford it? Fine them? Charge them with a crime?

Haven’t you been keeping up…yea the uninsured have been blamed for the high cost of premiums, and other costs the government has to cover.

It’s a specious argument because it is based on a false concept that everyone should have insurance, so the cost can be spread out, but health insurance is a product offered by private industry, and therefore the people who opt out, can bear no responsibility of what happens within the system. (it falsely applies a socialist premise to the free market, marking people who don’t have insurance as deadbeats)

It also conflates the people who abuse the ER as people who don’t have insurance, and it well may be true that there is some overlap…those are two completely different groups. People who abuse the system, are just that…people who abuse the system, and people without insurance, such as myself, who have never abused the system, get thrown in with the others.

And yes….fines, or whatever you call that penalty you have to pay the taxman.

So if they have no money to pay for insurance, how are they going to pay the fine?

Ferno wrote:So if they have no money to pay for insurance, how are they going to pay the fine?

Tell that to the IRS when they fine them....according to the penalties as part of Obama care

except, the offer of free insurance is available to anyone under the threshold income, and the subsidies are so large as to make NOT buying insurance completely idiotic. Big difference.

Just for arguments sake, let’s assume someone is philosophically opposed to taking taxpayer money, and if they were to take it they would have to become a major hypocrite, would that person still be an idiot?

Spidey wrote:Just for arguments sake, let’s assume someone is philosophically opposed to taking taxpayer money, and if they were to take it they would have to become a major hypocrite, would that person still be an idiot?

This could get really complicated, but the answer would be both yes and no. Do you really want to get philosophical? Usually when I hear people use this type of reasoning it is due to this illusory sense of independence which is not based on reality. I mean, I can walk through it with you, but perhaps we can avoid pages of typing if you just ask yourself targeted questions like "how do I fit into this social contract I am apart of" and "is it even possible, realistically, to disassociate from it without relocating to a different society?"

You know, I could analyze what you just said in a lot of ways, but I think what you just said was…if you don’t have a particular belief…you’re not part of this society.

Based on what…the idea one must take taxpayers money to belong…wow…just wow.

Spidey wrote:...I think what you just said was…if you don’t have a particular belief…you’re not part of this society.

That's absolutely not what I'm saying, and I'm having a hard time figuring out how you came to that conclusion. Here, let's do this a different way. Please explain your philosophy regarding taxes.

That is a complicated subject, I’m not going to start writing a book here.

So lets just stick to the smaller issue of not wanting other people to pay for my health care…do I have the right to feel that way or not?

The right to feel a certain way is indeed an interesting question. I don't see a problem with you feeling that way, spidey.

Keep in mind that there may be a day where you cannot pay for your own medical insurance. Wouldn't it be nice to let other people help you with that?

I have no intention of ever paying for my own insurance, but I would like to be able to pay for my own health care, and that is at the heart of my issue with the ACA.

Actually I wouldn’t be so against being required to buy insurance if it wasn’t going to go into an over bloated for profit system that is the direct cause of health care being 10, 100 and even 1000 times over inflated.

Funny you should mention the cost of Healthcare. I read an article sent to me by Krom about why healthcare costs so much. And dammed if I could remember where it is now.

Perhaps this will give you some comfort then.

http://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-★■◆●#ASSmeb:F9Jt

I found it when I tried to google "does a person have the right to feel a certain way". It was like 'not relavant, not relavant, wtf, not relevant [page 2] meh, no, ohgodmyeyes, not relavant.. oh what's this?' *click*

You really needed to do a search…

It was an interesting question and the results were quite varied. It's neat, you should try it sometime.

bottom line is that one does have the right to feel as you do, Spidey, but since you live in a society, and thus, are part of a larger group, you sort of have to participate in that society as a matter of personal responsibility. Therefore, if the law and the betterment of your society dictates you participate, you do, or should otherwise choose not to participate in ANY aspect of society. Thus, no commerce, no consumption of goods, no health care, no use of the currency, nothing.

That makes no sense at all, the things you mention are all basic needs, you can’t even exist without those things.

You are saying the same basic thing as vision…if you don’t totally conform…get the hell out.

.......................

Religion is something that is deemed to provide for the betterment of society, do you practice religion?

My issue here is very narrow, and has nothing to do with the idea of not participating in the society…I do my share of those things.

Maybe you should give that speech to all of the parents who let their kids drop out of school, or all of the fathers that let their children grow up with only one parent.

You know…something that would really count for something.

Maybe not, Spidey. I think I get what he's talking about: double standards.

What double standards…I don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for “ANY” of my personal needs. In order for there to be a double standard, I would have to have no problem with taking money for one thing but not the other. (limited to personal needs)

Slick is expecting me to participate in a system that I believe in my heart of hearts is the root cause of a very serious problem, and I don’t see how someone can do that with a straight face.

This has nothing to do with “society” that’s a false premise. (that’s just BS to make me look like the bad guy) This has to do with what I believe is the right thing.

Spidey wrote:What double standards…I don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for “ANY” of my personal needs. In order for there to be a double standard, I would have to have no problem with taking money for one thing but not the other. (limited to personal needs)

So you can't afford a service that you need to survive, and yet you're refusing to take money from something designed to help provide that service for people who can't afford it...just where does that position make any sense, exactly? Pride does you a hell of a lot of good if you're a corpse. You said you have a few specific health conditions that could easily be treated if you were on Medicaid or a subsidized marketplace plan, so just suck it up and get one. Because I'd say a refusal to do so over some sort of ridiculous misguided pride is the very definition of idiotic.

Has nothing to do with pride...yet another specious argument.

Well what, then? Just the fact that you don't agree with how the system works? Like it or not, it's the system we have to deal with, and the current implementation is far better than what we were looking at five years ago.

It’s a Principle thing, I don’t expect you to understand.

Spidey wrote:You are saying the same basic thing as vision…if you don’t totally conform…get the hell out.

I never said that nor implied it in any way, and yet you still believe otherwise.

Spidey wrote:What double standards…I don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for “ANY” of my personal needs. In order for there to be a double standard, I would have to have no problem with taking money for one thing but not the other. (limited to personal needs)

We taxpayers already do pay for your personal needs. Taxes and subsidies pay for the things you use every day, like roads, water, electricity, fire/police services, and more. Unless you live in a tent with a generator, a well, and you foot a trail to the general store, you are using tax dollars for your personal needs -- including Internet since most of the technology and infrastructure was designed by and subsidized by the government. Why draw an arbitrary line at heath care? You going to protest yourself into a grave for a message that no one will hear past it's silliness? Yes, it's your pride coupled with an illusory sense of independence. Also, here is something you might not expect. I want to pay for your heath care. I would literally pay twice as much in taxes if it meant everyone had access to free heath care. I do agree the current system of insurance sucks and that's why it should be eliminated and replaced with genuine national health care, but we all know that won't happen, so just take what is rightfully and legally yours.

I don’t consider those things personal needs, those are mostly public services, and I make direct payments to the government to provide those services.

I use them, I have no problem paying for them.

.............................

“I would literally pay twice as much in taxes if it meant everyone had access to free heath care.”

I bet you can’t even find the error in that statement.

(no I don't mean the spelling)

Spidey wrote:What double standards…

what double standards...?

well the double standard that says you don't want to pay for one thing, but you benefit from all the other things that are paid for. You drive, so you benefit from other people paying into the pool. You send your kids to school (assuming you have kids), so you benefit from those who pay into the pool aswell. Your retirement fund from the government. You especially benefit from others paying into the pool. It would be nice if we could, but we can't pick and choose what our taxes go to. That is the double standard that I refer to and you show.

It's all part of the package, like it or not.


And when principles get in the way of good health, it's probably not a good principle.

Once again those things are public services.

And I don't plan to retire.

and so is healthcare.

Look at what your tax dollar goes to. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

If you refuse healthcare, you need to also refuse retirement fund, schooling, fire, ambulance, police, food stamps, the lot. Otherwise; double standards.

And everybody retires. The difference is wether or not that retirement is voluntary. Telling us you don't plan to retire is like saying you don't plan on breathing.

Health care is not a public service, you cannot walk into any hospital/doctors office and get service without paying.

And let’s stick to insurance…ok?

Spidey wrote:Health care is not a public service, you cannot walk into any hospital and get service without paying.

And let’s stick to insurance…ok?

explain to us how healthcare is not a public service.

I just did.

That's not an explanation. That is a stub, and it also shows what is wrong with what really is a public service.

This isn’t Canada, our health care system is private.

Try to understand the difference….

Public schools
Public roads
Public utilities

Private industry

oh we have private insurance aswell. It's called Blue Cross.

The difference is, we have a bit of a handle on our insurance, and we don't say 'bugger off' when someone needs medical help.

For profit healthcare is a bug, not a feature. The medical procedure to fix your broken arm isn't Apples new widget you can choose to buy or not. You don't get to wait until there's a sale to have your appendix removed. You don't get to shop around for the best deal when you have a stroke.

IMO, there should be a minimum level of healthcare provided for everyone through a single-payer system. If you want something above that level of care, something more cutting edge, that's where you can buy insurance and have healthcare for profit.

Vander wrote:

IMO, there should be a minimum level of healthcare provided for everyone through a single-payer system.

There is. It was called Medicaid or just go to the emergency room.