Americans Only

[Alex_M_21]

lol moody camboy is on his period. For the record, I've given out twelve shitpost ratings total to I think four different shitposters and not once was it for disagreeing with me.

I didn't think I was moody, I was laughing at you as I wrote that. Moody people don't laugh?

Also... how did you know I was on my period? Very intuitive of you.

 

[heybarkeep]

You win camboy. You finally made a halfway decent post and I don't care enough to keep this going.

 

[Teagan]

No, the idea cannot be extended to other areas, because being taxed for roads and infrastructure is a far cry from being forced to pay for something so someone can ruin their livers from drinking, eating their way into obesity or using drugs until their brains have holes in them and their teeth fall out. If someone drove around with a jackhammer purposefully putting potholes on these roads you talk about, I'm fairly certain they would be arrested in short order. Roads decline from regular use over time, not conscious and purposeful misuse - as is the case with the majority of our present health issues in this country.

The idea can be extended to other areas though. You don't want to pay for things for other people and by law our taxes do go to things for other people. Some of those things the money goes to is for things some people will never use. I do not have kids but my taxes go to public schools. Should it? Many could argue no, however those kids are the future. They will be who invent new things, find cures to diseases, and so on. So though I don't have kids there I still will someday benefit from it. People argue all the time, thoughtlessly and selfishly though, they don't want their money going there and it's short sided and pretty ignorant. People argue about roads and other stuff too. It's very comparative.

Thing is where your argument falls flat is everyone uses their bodies. We all do. It's something universal we have in common. Bodies also decline from use over time too. No matter what you do or how you live it will happen. Wear and tear is unavoidable when you age. Not all people with liver issues have them due to drinking, not all overweight people are due to excessive eating, not all people with brain issues are on drugs, not all people with bad teeth are either. Assuming those are the only cases is uneducated. Assuming no one should have universal healthcare due to some people having drinking/drug/obesity issues is as well. It's selfish and again short sided.

The healthier we are as a society the better off the entire society is as a whole. We're stronger that way. It also teaches children to start off on the right track of caring for oneself. It's pretty obvious we don't do that now and it's pathetic. When you set up kids to fail you can't be surprised when they grow up and do, and then to say they deserve it and don't get to have healthcare....wtf. That's ignoring so many compounded issues on purpose. And again it's ignoring the fact that even super healthy people get sick too. No one should die because of money or lack of it. And just because they may be an alcoholic, drug addict, or over eater they shouldn't either. They're just as much of a human being as you are. They have the same feelings, thoughts, emotions, hopes and dreams that you have. Their oath may be different but assuming their entire life and saying they deserve to rot basically for an addiction and disease is grotesque. Instead healthcare should be provided to them so they can change and get the help they need for those who want it. Don;t forget some of the most damaged people we have to give credit to for so many things. Inventions, music, movies, poetry, and so on. The world is a beautiful place with those things in it and due to the exact people you are condemning to death.

 

[Lucid1]

@Teagan

I don't mind taxes if they are properly used. I know that doesn't say much in reference to my earlier post, but I am all for having Medicaid/Medicare(which are funded by taxation) for people who cannot afford health insurance, and yes, that means I am all for it even if my own taxes go up, if needed, to extend coverage to those who need it.

I'm not a heartless man and I struggle every day with the ethical implications of what I implied in my earlier post.

The issue I have is with a mandate "forcing" me to pay into a health care insurance system, that used to be voluntary, but is obviously broken. The money I pay for my own health insurance comes off the top of what used to be my take-home pay, and was optional before the ACA came into being. Now, I don't have that option and "must" pay, and must carry health insurance or face penalties on my tax returns.

The amount I pay for personal healthcare coverage is almost 20 times what I pay in taxes for funding medicade and medicare. Why not just expand medicare/medicade, increase taxes(at a much lower rate than what I pay for personal coverage) and provide coverage for everyone who cannot afford health insurance? Heck, even the automobile insurance industry is allowed to base pricing on driving habits. The more accidents you have, or the more speeding tickets you get, and your premiums go up. Even the health insurance industry already has higher premiums in the form of a tobacco surcharge if you smoke. I don't see people railing against that because it's logical, as there are increased health risks associated with smoking/tobacco use. Why is it such a far cry to expect that we shouldn't do the same with drug/alcohol abuse or obesity?

 

[Teagan]

Medicare doesn't cover everyone though. I didn't even qualify for it when I had no job before but really needed insurance. It's not insurance for everyone like some people seem to think. You have to qualify for it and even with a $0 income I didn't. It's kinda messed up. And states had the option to expand it, and many chose not to. They made that choice themselves. So in order for what you're saying to work they would have to legally make every state expand it and allow everyone into the program. That would be huge costs a lot of states could not cover. Or wouldn't. Hell they don't even wanna cover small numbers for birth control as is. They love the viagra instead.

The difference with car insurance is the companies don't have the same markups as healthcare has. You go into a hospital and they will try to charge you $50 for a cotton ball. It;s insane and pretty unregulated. Drugs you may need, and ones doctors are paid by pharma to prescribe, are hugely outrageous. Now people may complain they need those costs to be high lest you stop innovation, but that's utter bullshit and we all know it. The true issue is insurance companies, big pharma, and doctor/hospital charges need to be regulated. That is the only thing that can change our healthcare, save lives, and stop the for profit market that preys on sick people. Notice though very few in government ever actually bring it up. Only when convenient like when the epi-pen happened or that Mark asshole. Otherwise they are mum. Because we also need to stop lobbyists and any payoffs to the government too. They also don't mention that crap either so things will never change until that stuff does. We're screwed. We're all screwed. Our entire system is fucked and neither side really wants to change it.

Honestly the only issue with the ACA is it wasn't enough. It was supposed to be done in parts, but that never happened because whiny bitches, who formerly supported the bill by Romney, suddenly didn't like it because of Obama. So instead of continuing to work on it they refused and just kept trying to repeal it. It's disgusting they would rather let something fail then actually do their job because it's the right thing to do for the people they are paid to represent. I see them now blaming Obama and ACA when the bottom line is repubs are who to blame for where it stands now. They would rather spend 7 years trying to get rid of it, when they knew they couldn't, then a single one of them speaking out of how they could make some changes instead. But hey these are the same people who rebuffed healthcare during the Clinton admin so I'm not surprised one bit. None of this is new.

And honestly I'm for preexisting conditions. I just don't agree with what some of them are. Quite a few are skewed against women and it's bull. They basically act like our bodies are toxic dumps and we should pay extra extra extra for anything having to do with the deathly vagina.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Honestly the only issue with the ACA is it wasn't enough. It was supposed to be done in parts, but that never happened because whiny bitches, who formerly supported the bill by Romney, suddenly didn't like it because of Obama. So instead of continuing to work on it they refused and just kept trying to repeal it. It's disgusting they would rather let something fail then actually do their job because it's the right thing to do for the people they are paid to represent. I see them now blaming Obama and ACA when the bottom line is repubs are who to blame for where it stands now. They would rather spend 7 years trying to get rid of it, when they knew they couldn't, then a single one of them speaking out of how they could make some changes instead. But hey these are the same people who rebuffed healthcare during the Clinton admin so I'm not surprised one bit. None of this is new.

Both sides were at fault, not just the Republicans. When you have Pelosi claiming "We have to pass it soyou to see what's in it" that just tells me that they are trying to force issues rather than be open about it such as they kept claiming how great this big pile of stinking poo is. If it is so great, why did they exempt themselves from it?



They ramrodded this through, in many different ways. Not solely blaming Dems here, rather the whole lot of those on The Hill. It needed to be implemented much better than it was, even though I am against it for many different reasons.

And honestly I'm for preexisting conditions. I just don't agree with what some of them are. Quite a few are skewed against women and it's bull. They basically act like our bodies are toxic dumps and we should pay extra extra extra for anything having to do with the deathly vagina.

This was the #1 issue they needed to fix. I had a loophole used against me that cost me tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, and I had zero recourse. I don't agree with all definitions of "pre-existing conditions" as some are a joke. But, many should not have been deniable. I also don't agree that women should pay a higher rate than men, simplay based on sex alone.
I disagree with health insurance covering elective cosmetic, or other elective surgery such as gender change. IMO, that is not what health insurance is for. I'm not against gender change. But, if one feels they want to go through it, it should be out of pocket only and not against an insurance plan. Nor do I think that these types of elective medical procedures should be paid for for those whom are on gov't assistance.

 

[Teagan]

No it wasn't just the republicans. The thing got cut to bits and shit shoved in though. They did what they could while they could hoping the further amendments would happen. But shit went sour and repubs then threw tantrums basically after that. It wasn't the way to go. From either side. They were open about it though. There was many meetings for those who cared about them. Most didn't though. Costs of things should have been rallied against first and foremost. That would have cut down costs to the people greatly once healthcare could be put in place better. It would have been much cheaper that way.

As far as elective surgeries I think they should have select plans available for them. Add on ones you can choose. We can do it with dental and vision, why not elective ones? Everyone shouldn't have to pay for the boob job I want, but I'd buy additional insurance coverage to help with some of the costs of one. Of course really that only works if costs are regulated.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Of course really that only works if costs are regulated.

And we all know how well Gov't works in these regards...