Healthcare reform ethics question

If you had to decide between you personally dying of cancer because you couldn't afford proper treatment for some reason and the country going bankrupt in a few years and Americans will have their freedoms taken away what would you choose?

Personally, I would choose to die so that my kids and future American generations could have a chance not to live in a country that is bankrupt and a victim of hyperinflation.

What is your answer? Remember, there are no wrong answers, this is just theoretical.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Wake up, were already bankrupt and have been sold down the river to foreign interests.

Healthcare and Cap & Trade are the nails in the coffin to hasten the collapse.

See here: www.usdebtclock.org...

Each U.S. Taxpayer would have to pay over $109,000 to break even... that isn't going to happen.

reply to post by HotSauce


The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

If given the opportunity I would choose to have a question posed to me that wasn't being presented by a political hack who's ground his axe to a blunt nub

reply to post by HotSauce


I would die!

after falling for three straight minutes having leaped from my faithful Bald Eagle Liberator!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Well so how would you frame your question since I assume you are not a political hack that has ground his axe to a nub?

Nice use of words by the way, you painted a real good picture.

Thanks to all of you for posting. I was worried my thread was going to have 0 posts. Your abuse is much better than having a dead thread.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by HotSauce]

reply to post by HotSauce


"Your abuse is much better than having a dead thread."


That's classic. Love it!

Whether or not you are a political hack with a worn nub, etc. , aside, given the two choices, I would choose to die. Give a younger and stronger and healthier person a better chance.

Of course, just by my dying I save the entire country? That would be awesome!!

Originally posted by kyred
reply to post by HotSauce

 

"Your abuse is much better than having a dead thread."

That's classic. Love it!

Whether or not you are a political hack with a worn nub, etc.

, aside, given the two choices, I would choose to die. Give a younger and stronger and healthier person a better chance.

Of course, just by my dying I save the entire country? That would be awesome!!

Agreed

Star for both of you - needed a good laugh!

reply to post by HotSauce


Thanks, part of the joys of being a writer is learning how to play with language

You present two options - Dying of cancer, or Mad Max future. This isn't at all accurate. You offer no evidence that health care is going to bankrupt us all and lead to no freedoms and dogs and cats living together and all that other Alex Jones-y stuff. You simply ask us to assume that's how it'll go down and work from there.

I would suggest you learn the facts at hand and base a question off of them, rather than simply trying to scoop up flags by posting something uninformative and incendiary.

Let me put your question in reverse, and see what you think of it.

Would you say it's ethical to ask tens of thousands of people to kill themselves so that you could save a buck?

[edit on 5-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


My answer to your question is no. How do you think we can pay for health care reform as it currently stands and pay down the deficit and compete in a global market?

reply to post by HotSauce


Well, first things first, we would need to halt the Afghan and Iraq wars. WHat are we sending our boys over there for again? Saddam's had his head popped off like a cheap action figure, our corrupuppet "won" in Afghanistan, can we wrap it up now?

Next, we divert funds currently going to subsidizing insurance industries and apply them instead to a national fund for health care.

And this is a fun one - repeal the retarded-ass Reagan-Bush tax cuts on the top 5%. It's been thirty years, Reaganomics is a demonstrable fraud.

"But then corporations will take their business overseas" you say? Would we even notice, is what I wonder. We had booming business pre-reagan with tax rates as high 93%. I'm sure the fact we're a democratic society that loves bguying crap will still make us an attractive place for investment, even if we are no longer a nice corrupt tax haven nation.

Don't exactly see many companies setting up headquarters in tax-free Somalia, do we?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by HotSauce

 

Well, first things first, we would need to halt the Afghan and Iraq wars. WHat are we sending our boys over there for again? Saddam's had his head popped off like a cheap action figure, our corrupuppet "won" in Afghanistan, can we wrap it up now?

Next, we divert funds currently going to subsidizing insurance industries and apply them instead to a national fund for health care.

And this is a fun one - repeal the retarded-ass Reagan-Bush tax cuts on the top 5%. It's been thirty years, Reaganomics is a demonstrable fraud.

"But then corporations will take their business overseas" you say? Would we even notice, is what I wonder. We had booming business pre-reagan with tax rates as high 93%. I'm sure the fact we're a democratic society that loves bguying crap will still make us an attractive place for investment, even if we are no longer a nice corrupt tax haven nation.

Don't exactly see many companies setting up headquarters in tax-free Somalia, do we?

Health insurance companies only make about 2.5% profit a year on average. Even if you count the perks and the bonuses it is maybe 5% if you are lucky.

If enought businessiness take their money and their jobs and their taxes out of the country you will definitely notice. Remember the top 5% pay nearly half the taxes in this country.

Originally posted by HotSauce

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by HotSauce

 

Well, first things first, we would need to halt the Afghan and Iraq wars. WHat are we sending our boys over there for again? Saddam's had his head popped off like a cheap action figure, our corrupuppet "won" in Afghanistan, can we wrap it up now?

Next, we divert funds currently going to subsidizing insurance industries and apply them instead to a national fund for health care.

And this is a fun one - repeal the retarded-ass Reagan-Bush tax cuts on the top 5%. It's been thirty years, Reaganomics is a demonstrable fraud.

"But then corporations will take their business overseas" you say? Would we even notice, is what I wonder. We had booming business pre-reagan with tax rates as high 93%. I'm sure the fact we're a democratic society that loves bguying crap will still make us an attractive place for investment, even if we are no longer a nice corrupt tax haven nation.

Don't exactly see many companies setting up headquarters in tax-free Somalia, do we?

Health insurance companies only make about 2.5% profit a year on average. Even if you count the perks and the bonuses it is maybe 5% if you are lucky.

If enought businessiness take their money and their jobs and their taxes out of the country you will definitely notice. Remember the top 5% pay nearly half the taxes in this country.

Well that is not where the cost is... The cost is in the company expenditure - they do not PROVIDE any labor in making people healthy. You all pay the insurance company
more then the doctors - meaning they bill your group and dip in to the pool of money
they have collected. Your money literally sits in a bank account and you are charged for the distribution of that money as need arises. Its simple, the more costs they can justify the more they make and the more you pay. It serves them to make AS MUCH money as possible, that is why they raise the cost on procedures, use of machines,
"modalities" (explanation of procedures, the definition and cost paid to a doctor).

Like a taxi cab driver driving the long way

reply to post by Janky Red


I think you are incorrect. Yes they have to spend money on staff, facilities, marketing, etc... But the government willl have the same types of expenses and they are not the best at finding goood deals.

Also, insurance companes actually negotiate the rates of procedures, medicine, and hospital stays down, because it helps them to control costs so that they can sell the cheapest policy and be competitive.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by HotSauce

 

Well, first things first, we would need to halt the Afghan and Iraq wars. WHat are we sending our boys over there for again? Saddam's had his head popped off like a cheap action figure, our corrupuppet "won" in Afghanistan, can we wrap it up now?

Next, we divert funds currently going to subsidizing insurance industries and apply them instead to a national fund for health care.

And this is a fun one - repeal the retarded-ass Reagan-Bush tax cuts on the top 5%. It's been thirty years, Reaganomics is a demonstrable fraud.

"But then corporations will take their business overseas" you say? Would we even notice, is what I wonder. We had booming business pre-reagan with tax rates as high 93%. I'm sure the fact we're a democratic society that loves bguying crap will still make us an attractive place for investment, even if we are no longer a nice corrupt tax haven nation.

Don't exactly see many companies setting up headquarters in tax-free Somalia, do we?

You sir, simply defy belief. Your thinking is so flawed its sad.

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Janky Red

 

I think you are incorrect. Yes they have to spend money on staff, facilities, marketing, etc... But the government willl have the same types of expenses and they are not the best at finding goood deals.

Also, insurance companes actually negotiate the rates of procedures, medicine, and hospital stays down, because it helps them to control costs so that they can sell the cheapest policy and be competitive.

Your second sentence is WHAT they "do" Sauce... That is the extent really -
All of that is over half the cost - They negotiate YES, but not to keep your premiums down, they negotiate to have money left over for your second sentence.

Medicare has one operating cost - PALMETTO GBA - The company the executes the funds for medicare participants.

Palmetto GBA, a private Company operate much cheaper than "Private insurance".

www.palmettogba.com...

The above is who runs medicare

below is Kaiser and things like that

www.ashlink.com...



The top one is much more efficient because they lack many of the things you listed

And medicare pays more to the doctor than does ASHLINK - the second one

You want more bang for the buck?

Have the government pool the money while private company provides the actual transaction, cut out 30% of cost off of premiums right there.

I am a biller

reply to post by HotSauce


I have issues with the H.R. being presented on SO many levels.

I would support our country providing routine exams (annual physicals, dental cleanings & fillings, eye exams) and consulting/counselling those who have developed or are developing preventable health conditions (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.).

However, I was raised by my parents teaching me that getting good grades and going to college was my incentive to landing a good job with great benefits.

So my question is: What incentive do the children of our future have to do the same IF they are guaranteed healthcare even if they drop/flunk out of school and take a low-paying, rewardless job? Answer: They really don't.

my kids are not college educated superbrains with MBA's. They are not part of any minority. They are just you average hard working while male......

This is their future as it stands now.....
They will work the butts off, get taxed to oblivion, and not be able to enjoy the same lifestyle as those not so hard working people out there will be provided with through their tax dollars....
I chose option c......
forget the healthcare, liquidate all assetts, buy them a plane ticket and ship them to brazil, where they will at least have a chance!

I would have chosen not have spent a trillion dollars making contractors rich in Iraq. Everyone could have had free medical.

Originally posted by Nivcharah


So my question is: What incentive do the children of our future have to do the same IF they are guaranteed healthcare even if they drop/flunk out of school and take a low-paying, rewardless job? Answer: They really don't.

So the only reason you work hard is to get health care?

You don't care about sending your kids to college (assuming you have any), living in a nice house, in a nice part of town, driving a nice car, enjoying the other luxuries that having a lucrative career offers you?

You don't care about your impact on society? I'm assuming based on your life outlook that you work solely for the benefits, not because you enjoy what you do. You don't care about how you spend the vast majority of your time in this life, as long as you can enjoy a trip to the doctor's office?

You do it all for the health care?

Get real.

reply to post by damwel


Someday the two wars will end and there will be a fixed cost in the end. With universal healthcare the expenses never stop coming and never stop growing. Look at Medicare and Medicaid, costs keep expanding on and on and on.