330 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

http://blogs.investo...ay-our-freedoms

By David Hogberg
Sun., March 21, '10 3:24 PM ET

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 © (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) ©).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

[RighteousReason]

as Jeffrey Kuhner pointed out it may be time for dissenters to practice non-violent civil disobedience against this law, in the same way as Martin Luther King Jr.

[RighteousReason]

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

"Their phrase that night was "Freedom or death" -- and they really meant it" - Newt Gingrich on George Washington crossing the Delaware during the Revolutionary War that founded the United States of America

[hotamali]

While I am not really concerned with the issue of gov't takeover of a private industry, I am very concerned with the cost that this law imposes. Dems claim CBO says HC law will cut deficit after 20 years. That 20 more years of borrowing from China? We need to get out of this mountain of credit were under.

[bobdrake12]

Click on the URL below for the Timeline of Major Provisions in the Democrats’ Health Care Package:

http://republicans.w...r_timelinel.pdf

[Connor MacLeod]

While I am not really concerned with the issue of gov't takeover of a private industry, I am very concerned with the cost that this law imposes. Dems claim CBO says HC law will cut deficit after 20 years. That 20 more years of borrowing from China? We need to get out of this mountain of credit were under.

I suspect any study the Democrats are citing which indicates the health care bill is going to eventually reduce the deficit is working under the optimistic assumption that our national political leaders will have the cajones to eventually implement whatever deficit-reducing teeth the bill has and not buckle under electoral pressure. That assumption, of course, runs counter to just about everything we know about how politicians work, and will therefore almost certainly never happen.

[captainbeefheart]

you're correct it's a long way from perfect, complete public ownership of the health services and drug companies would allow much more freedom

[Sebastian]

I hope this is some kind of joke..

You're losing your freedom? Where were you when Bush was president? Wanna talk about loss of freedom, and the rise of executive power?
Please..

[rwac]

I hope this is some kind of joke..

You're losing your freedom? Where were you when Bush was president? Wanna talk about loss of freedom, and the rise of executive power?
Please..

Bush is gone, and Obama is speeding up the loss of freedom.
Welcome to Hope and Change.

[Ghostrider]

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

"Their phrase that night was "Freedom or death" -- and they really meant it" - Newt Gingrich on George Washington crossing the Delaware during the Revolutionary War that founded the United States of America

There are other countries which offer more freedom than the US does currently, but admittedly, the lifestyle would have to compromise.

In summary, the main thing I don't like about the Health care bill is that on one hand, it treats health care as a luxury item ("Cadillac tax" - companies which provide really good health care for their employees will be penalized) and on the other hand it forces people to pay for the health care of others (excise tax applied to individuals who do not have health care). If it's such a good program, why do they have to force everyone to join?

[Ghostrider]

I hope this is some kind of joke..

You're losing your freedom? Where were you when Bush was president? Wanna talk about loss of freedom, and the rise of executive power?
Please..

That's a very valid point. One could argue that if it was not for Bush, there would be no talk here on health care. Democrats got power due to Bush's, and (some of) the Republicans who supported him, policy mistakes. And no doubt, anytime there is a crisis -- 9/11, financial crisis, housing crisis, that only leads to the expansion of government power at the expense of personal freedoms. It sucks, I agree and yes, Republicans are partially to blame for this.

[A941]

The americans think that universal health care will turn america in some sort of communist country with no freedoms and democraty.
May I ask what sort of plants you somke over there?
We in Austria have such health care and neither, we nor the germans, the french or many others (Canada for example) are a dictatorship.

And by the way, not everything the commies did was evil, they had free child-care too which made it possible for many women to finish theri education, have a stress-free work-day and for example manage their life for a long time without a man, 75% of the physicians in the UDSSR have been female.

[Ghostrider]

The americans think that universal health care will turn america in some sort of communist country with no freedoms and democraty.
May I ask what sort of plants you somke over there?
We in Austria have such health care and neither, we nor the germans, the french or many others (Canada for example) are a dictatorship.

And by the way, not everything the commies did was evil, they had free child-care too which made it possible for many women to finish theri education, have a stress-free work-day and for example manage their life for a long time without a man, 75% of the physicians in the UDSSR have been female.

So you have never been through the Columbus, Ohio airport. The people here in America are not as fit and healthy as those in Europe...we tend to eat toxic waste grown in fertilizer. And yes, Communism does have some good things about it...in that event, I'd either leave the country or retire to playing video games all day...no seriously, I'd probably go back to school and become a professional student with no plans of graduating. By the way, how come 1st world countries don't stay Communist?

[maxwatt]

The bill is almost an exact copy of what the American Enterprise Institute came up with, and the Republican Party proposed to counter Hilary Care. In outline it is What Mitt Romney initiated in Massachusetts. It works but does not control costs. Too many insurance company lobbyists for that.

If you want absolute freedom from intrusive government, try Somalia.

[bacopa]

Thanks for that list, I was looking for severe faults in the bill besides the Republican and Dem cry of "that's not constitutional." Now I see where the costs are really going to, and although I see a lot of good, certainly there are terrible things with this reform.

I wonder what a better legislative reform could be if we thought this thing through clearer.

Knowing little about the bill and only hearing the glossed over version on CNN, it's really like taxing us all in that it requires everyone to buy into this public option.

Edited by dfowler, 29 March 2010 - 11:28 AM.

[Sebastian]

That's a very valid point. One could argue that if it was not for Bush, there would be no talk here on health care. Democrats got power due to Bush's, and (some of) the Republicans who supported him, policy mistakes. And no doubt, anytime there is a crisis -- 9/11, financial crisis, housing crisis, that only leads to the expansion of government power at the expense of personal freedoms. It sucks, I agree and yes, Republicans are partially to blame for this.

It's pretty scary to see living Republican talking point puppets out here. I'd imagine that if you're smart enough to think for yourself on issues such as your own health, you'd be smart enough to put in your own due dilligence into your political viewpoints. Honestly..

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations way back in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

While this is on one extreme, a right to healthcare seems downright reasonable. Not going bankrupt when you or a loved one gets ill? Sounds pretty reasonable.
There are some things that should not be for profit (or at least within reason), and the health of the masses is one of them.

So if you're "losing your freedoms" to keep your fellow Americans alive, or at least to keep them insured to try and keep them alive.. Compared to the stupid reasons you've already lost most of your freedom for, this seems like a worthy cause. A public option is of course the best choice, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

That being said, I absolutely do not agree with communism or socialism for the most part. Any questions? Just go to Ireland. It's a failed 'western' socialist state, and would make any hard working American sick to see the level of goverment handouts that take place.
I have a huge amount of respect for Americans because of their hard working, get-what-you-earn philosophy. I hate freeloaders. But seeing hard working americans who take two jobs just to afford to pay for medications, only getting sicker and unable to keep up with their medical payments and eventually dying because of this is wrong.

If you smoke and get lung cancer, fuck you -- you chose your path. If you eat your way to morbid obesity, develop diabetes and heart issues, fuck you -- you chose your path.
There needs to be a balance between 'small government' (which the Republicans only stand for when they're not in power), and 'big government'/government regulation (god forbid).

What people everywhere are increasingly forgetting is that YOU are the government. This is the basis for democracy. You choose who is going to represent your interests (as 'we' the people) the most. Thus was government regulation born. Setting limits on how much cyanide and poisons go into your food? Probably a good idea, no? Do you think corporations would self-regulate themselves and cut their profits to stop poisoning you?

While having no government is a great idea from the perspective of taxation.. It's not realistic. There's a reason thing have developed to the level they are at now. Because people can't take care of every single aspect of their lives because of the scale of the global economy, and we've decided to elect (and pay) someone who we (should) trust to take care of things for us (because they are chosen by us, and thus held accountable to us).

Politics is far more complicated, and we could talk about the severe problems with the system in any country as they are all not without their flaws. However, it is clear to pretty much the entire world outside of the US that universal healthcare/a public option is in the interest and benefit of the people.

Edited by Sebastian, 29 March 2010 - 11:30 AM.

[bacopa]

That's a very valid point. One could argue that if it was not for Bush, there would be no talk here on health care. Democrats got power due to Bush's, and (some of) the Republicans who supported him, policy mistakes. And no doubt, anytime there is a crisis -- 9/11, financial crisis, housing crisis, that only leads to the expansion of government power at the expense of personal freedoms. It sucks, I agree and yes, Republicans are partially to blame for this.

It's pretty scary to see living Republican talking point puppets out here. I'd imagine that if you're smart enough to think for yourself on issues such as your own health, you'd be smart enough to put in your own due dilligence into your political viewpoints. Honestly..

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations way back in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

While this is on one extreme, a right to healthcare seems downright reasonable. Not going bankrupt when you or a loved one gets ill? Sounds pretty reasonable.
There are some things that should not be for profit (or at least within reason), and the health of the masses is one of them.

So if you're "losing your freedoms" to keep your fellow Americans alive, or at least to keep them insured to try and keep them alive.. Compared to the stupid reasons you've already lost most of your freedom for, this seems like a worthy cause. A public option is of course the best choice, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

That being said, I absolutely do not agree with communism or socialism for the most part. Any questions? Just go to Ireland. It's a failed 'western' socialist state, and would make any hard working American sick to see the level of goverment handouts that take place.
I have a huge amount of respect for Americans because of their hard working, get-what-you-earn philosophy. I hate freeloaders. But seeing hard working americans who take two jobs just to afford to pay for medications, only getting sicker and unable to keep up with their medical payments and eventually dying because of this is wrong.

If you smoke and get lung cancer, fuck you -- you chose your path. If you eat your way to morbid obesity, develop diabetes and heart issues, fuck you -- you chose your path.
There needs to be a balance between 'small government' (which the Republicans only stand for when they're not in power), and 'big government'/government regulation (god forbid).

What people everywhere are increasingly forgetting is that YOU are the government. This is the basis for democracy. You choose who is going to represent your interests (as 'we' the people) the most. Thus was government regulation born. Setting limits on how much cyanide and poisons go into your food? Probably a good idea, no? Do you think corporations would self-regulate themselves and cut their profits to stop poisoning you?

While having no government is a great idea from the perspective of taxation.. It's not realistic. There's a reason thing have developed to the level they are at now. Because people can't take care of every single aspect of their lives because of the scale of the global economy, and we've decided to elect (and pay) someone who we (should) trust to take care of things for us (because they are chosen by us, and thus held accountable to us).

Politics is far more complicated, and we could talk about the severe problems with the system in any country as they are all not without their flaws. However, it is clear to pretty much the entire world outside of the US that universal healthcare/a public option is in the interest and benefit of the people.

I agree with your thinking, and actually think that list should echo in everyone's ears getting them to realize that there is always such a double standard when it comes to certain things like war and gov corruption. Yes it's insane how we condone a war, with the bravado and excitement of a child wanting revenge on the kid who pushed him in the dirt, maybe it's warranted, but, when we stop paying attention to the sheer money involved we are becoming intellectually lazy which is something humans are so good at.

One thing your list has in common is when the problem doesn't seemingly effect our lives we simply say who cares, fuck you to the sufferers. When it at all threatens our lives, we then take action, and in the case of iraq and Afganistan, we go with emotion and seemingly forget about the best and safest way to try and rectify the problem, if even possible, or worth it in the long run.

you said one thing that I thought didn't reflect your intelligent and compassionate beliefs,

If you smoke and get lung cancer, fuck you -- you chose your path. If you eat your way to morbid obesity, develop diabetes and heart issues, fuck you -- you chose your path.

.

I don't think it's fair to blame people who are addicted to things. They are already screwing themselves over often financially, with tobacco products, and in the end screwing their health over many times. No reason to say fuck you to them. So many people are addicted to deleterious things, and these are often obviously normal, good people with a real problem. One poster said he had no sympathy for Patrick Swayze after he died of Pancreatic Cancer because he was wealthy enough to beat his addiction. I agree people should try much harder to stop hurting their health, much harder, but so many rational people do hurt their health, and we at imminst should feel sorry for them while also showing some compassion.

I know plenty of people who are mentally ill that rely on substance abuse due to terrible chemical states of mind where taking these substances is the norm and helps them get through the day. 50% of the seriously mentally ill population smoke and almost as many probably drink alcohol or use drugs. I see it all the time at work in this field. I'm finding that helping them with smoking cessation and becoming clean and sober is THE only way to act in this case. If I said you're doing it to yourself I wouldn't be doing justice to the terrible thing that is physical and mental addiction.

I know where you're coming from, of course, I instinctively used to say "idiots" when I saw this behavior, but with time I learned how screwed up human behavior is. Our own president struggles with a smoking addiction, I think he has some amazing qualities to him. Some people are genetically predisposed, or other life events may trigger an addiction.

Edited by dfowler, 29 March 2010 - 12:28 PM.

[Sebastian]

I agree with your thinking, and actually think that list should echo in everyone's ears getting them to realize that there is always such a double standard when it comes to certain things like war and gov corruption. Yes it's insane how we condone a war, with the bravado and excitement of a child wanting revenge on the kid who pushed him in the dirt, maybe it's warranted, but, when we stop paying attention to the sheer money involved we are becoming intellectually lazy which is something humans are so good at.

One thing your list has in common is when the problem doesn't seemingly effect our lives we simply say who cares, fuck you to the sufferers. When it at all threatens our lives, we then take action, and in the case of iraq and Afganistan, we go with emotion and seemingly forget about the best and safest way to try and rectify the problem, if even possible, or worth it in the long run.

you said one thing that I thought didn't reflect your intelligent and compassionate beliefs,

If you smoke and get lung cancer, fuck you -- you chose your path. If you eat your way to morbid obesity, develop diabetes and heart issues, fuck you -- you chose your path.

.

I don't think it's fair to blame people who are addicted to things. They are already screwing themselves over often financially, with tobacco products, and in the end screwing their health over many times. No reason to say fuck you to them. So many people are addicted to deleterious things, and these are often obviously normal, good people with a real problem. One poster said he had no sympathy for Patrick Swayze after he died of Pancreatic Cancer because he was wealthy enough to beat his addiction. I agree people should try much harder to stop hurting their health, much harder, but so many rational people do hurt their health, and we at imminst should feel sorry for them while also showing some compassion.

I know plenty of people who are mentally ill that rely on substance abuse due to terrible chemical states of mind where taking these substances is the norm and helps them get through the day. 50% of the seriously mentally ill population smoke and almost as many probably drink alcohol or use drugs. I see it all the time at work in this field. I'm finding that helping them with smoking cessation and becoming clean and sober is THE only way to act in this case. If I said you're doing it to yourself I wouldn't be doing justice to the terrible thing that is physical and mental addiction.

I know where you're coming from, of course, I instinctively used to say "idiots" when I saw this behavior, but with time I learned how screwed up human behavior is. Our own president struggles with a smoking addiction, I think he has some amazing qualities to him. Some people are genetically predisposed, or other life events may trigger an addiction.

Thank you, and I suppose you are right as far as addiction is concerned. I too believe in rehabiliation and helping those that are for some reason addicted.
I was speaking more from a healthcare cost perspective. As the two biggest needless costs incurred on public health system are related to lung cancers (largely due to smokers), and all the complications that arise from the fast/processed food diets.

[bacopa]

I agree with your thinking, and actually think that list should echo in everyone's ears getting them to realize that there is always such a double standard when it comes to certain things like war and gov corruption. Yes it's insane how we condone a war, with the bravado and excitement of a child wanting revenge on the kid who pushed him in the dirt, maybe it's warranted, but, when we stop paying attention to the sheer money involved we are becoming intellectually lazy which is something humans are so good at.

One thing your list has in common is when the problem doesn't seemingly effect our lives we simply say who cares, fuck you to the sufferers. When it at all threatens our lives, we then take action, and in the case of iraq and Afganistan, we go with emotion and seemingly forget about the best and safest way to try and rectify the problem, if even possible, or worth it in the long run.

you said one thing that I thought didn't reflect your intelligent and compassionate beliefs,

If you smoke and get lung cancer, fuck you -- you chose your path. If you eat your way to morbid obesity, develop diabetes and heart issues, fuck you -- you chose your path.

.

I don't think it's fair to blame people who are addicted to things. They are already screwing themselves over often financially, with tobacco products, and in the end screwing their health over many times. No reason to say fuck you to them. So many people are addicted to deleterious things, and these are often obviously normal, good people with a real problem. One poster said he had no sympathy for Patrick Swayze after he died of Pancreatic Cancer because he was wealthy enough to beat his addiction. I agree people should try much harder to stop hurting their health, much harder, but so many rational people do hurt their health, and we at imminst should feel sorry for them while also showing some compassion.

I know plenty of people who are mentally ill that rely on substance abuse due to terrible chemical states of mind where taking these substances is the norm and helps them get through the day. 50% of the seriously mentally ill population smoke and almost as many probably drink alcohol or use drugs. I see it all the time at work in this field. I'm finding that helping them with smoking cessation and becoming clean and sober is THE only way to act in this case. If I said you're doing it to yourself I wouldn't be doing justice to the terrible thing that is physical and mental addiction.

I know where you're coming from, of course, I instinctively used to say "idiots" when I saw this behavior, but with time I learned how screwed up human behavior is. Our own president struggles with a smoking addiction, I think he has some amazing qualities to him. Some people are genetically predisposed, or other life events may trigger an addiction.

Thank you, and I suppose you are right as far as addiction is concerned. I too believe in rehabiliation and helping those that are for some reason addicted.
I was speaking more from a healthcare cost perspective. As the two biggest needless costs incurred on public health system are related to lung cancers (largely due to smokers), and all the complications that arise from the fast/processed food diets.

thanks for seeing my perspective Actually I really feel like saying fuck you to the cigarette companies, and processed food companies and fast food like Mcdonalds. I was at a Lobby Day at the state house in Ma today and I heard so many people coughing. It was f**king depressing. And I looked at the guy to my left who had a chronic cough and he looked ashamed, depressed, anxious, destroyed in many ways. Look, I was very mentally sick for a while, which got me into the field, I smoked for a few years even though I knew it was horrific to my health, I obsessively worry now about what permanent lung damage I may have done to myself, but at the time my delusions made me think i was being killed anyway from some government agency as my mental state was deteriorating.

I even posted on imminst of some mystical "machine" I called it, that was erasing my brain. I was sure I would die from brain death. So smoking got me through it. Obviously I was both very out of it, and addicted. I only wish I had better help with my sickness and maybe I would have seen the light and quit before I had gone 3 1/2 years as a smoker. Obviously when I got even a tad more insight I immidiately forced myself to quit, and will never smoke again for as long as I live! So this topic is a sensitive one for me. Before I got sick, - now I'm doing much better, - I hated smokers like you probably, or in the same light that it costs health care and everyone lost money in the end. Now I have deep compassion for most smokers, but only if they attempt to quit, as it is that addicting for vast majority.

But I see people addicted to so many things..so I tend to have sympathy for them as well.

Edited by dfowler, 29 March 2010 - 09:21 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

Sad to sad if you condemn the individuals for "lifestyle choices" such a smoking and other addictions, then you ignore the massive social and media pressure that they are typically under which leads to such addictions. Most people suffering from Lung Cancer today began their addiction when smoking was not only the coolest thing on the block, but a social and cultural norm. To blame them for being unable to overcome their addictions prior to current health complications is to ignore the reasons they started smoking, and the enormously addictive properties of cigarettes, the social pressure still being applied to many subcultures that view smoking approvingly, and the marketing effectiveness of the Tobacco industry. The same goes for many other addictions.

I don't routinely dive out of working airplanes, off cliffs or from bridges, but there are those who do. Why? For the adrenalin rush. Should an accident happen, should they be denied care? I don't drive a motorcycle, but there are people who do, despite the massively increased risk to life and limb. Should motorcyclists be left to die on the road because they chose to risk their lives?

I could make a case for exclusion based on almost anything. Thats a simple fact. And once the exclusions begin, they keep going.

Universal medical care is a right. Why that care is required is a moot point. Only universal, unlimited, complete coverage for ANY reason is consistent with the principles of equality before the law.

[eternaltraveler]

Its funny how many of you would withdraw healthcare from all the people who don't adopt the lifestyle choices you think are optimal which have attained some kind of moral significance (which is silly).

It's of course entirely because of the way view healthcare is viewed, as a resource to be doled out in some bread line by the government, the less they get, the more you get. It's really disgusting.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 30 March 2010 - 03:15 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

Of course people like valkrie_ice paint a decidedly different picture

Only universal, unlimited, complete coverage for ANY reason is consistent with the principles of equality before the law.

Which any sane person would immediately recognize as complete nonsense. We don't have infinite resources.

[solbanger]

Its funny how many of you would withdraw healthcare from all the people who don't adopt the lifestyle choices you think are optimal which for have attained some kind of moral significance (which is complete nonsense).

It's of course entirely because of the way view healthcare is viewed, as a resource to be doled out in some bread line by the government, the less they get, the more you get. It's really disgusting.

Ha! Exactly. What about that 70 year old truck driver whose lifetime of work can no longer pay for his or her increasingly deteriorating body? Older people become susceptible to a host of diseases that can only be staved off with an ideal, carefully controlled, Hollywood detox diet yet we still have moralists saying that they are irresponsible for not adopting an exercise regime and diet of vitamins as if they were ex fitness trainers. Modern medicine has essentially allowed people to live longer to the point where they simply are exposed to greater and greater debilitating diseases which act in concert with one another. With this principle in mind every old person is destined to be a vortex of costs, living longer than their wages intended and incurring unforeseen illnesses that dips into their children's earnings to treat. Old age cripples not only physically, but financially as well!

[bacopa]

Sad to sad if you condemn the individuals for "lifestyle choices" such a smoking and other addictions, then you ignore the massive social and media pressure that they are typically under which leads to such addictions. Most people suffering from Lung Cancer today began their addiction when smoking was not only the coolest thing on the block, but a social and cultural norm. To blame them for being unable to overcome their addictions prior to current health complications is to ignore the reasons they started smoking, and the enormously addictive properties of cigarettes, the social pressure still being applied to many subcultures that view smoking approvingly, and the marketing effectiveness of the Tobacco industry. The same goes for many other addictions.

I don't routinely dive out of working airplanes, off cliffs or from bridges, but there are those who do. Why? For the adrenalin rush. Should an accident happen, should they be denied care? I don't drive a motorcycle, but there are people who do, despite the massively increased risk to life and limb. Should motorcyclists be left to die on the road because they chose to risk their lives?

I could make a case for exclusion based on almost anything. Thats a simple fact. And once the exclusions begin, they keep going.

Universal medical care is a right. Why that care is required is a moot point. Only universal, unlimited, complete coverage for ANY reason is consistent with the principles of equality before the law.

Thank you for saying that! That should be an adjunct to my point. There is indeed, massive social and media pressures to drink, smoke which equates with the cool lifestyle, although it is dying before our eyes with smoking, not drinking yet. Thankfully the word is getting out much more strongly about the hazards of smoking. I think people are essentially denialists. We want to pretend everything will be alright, whilst killing ourselves. You could argue that abstaining from such habits requires discipline and the responsibilities that most young people are never instilled with, nor can properly adopt at such an age. Everyone should be included, and it's inhumane not to include this demographic. But, it's disgusting to realize that so many people have developed these habits and just look at young Hollywood to realize the vast majority have many of these habits. People look up to them, and think it's cool...ugh, it's a horrible world we live in I think so many times. If we were really smart we'd be more aggressively developing drugs to counter these addictions, such as "mental health" drugs that target the nicotinic receptor sites in an equally pleasurable way that cigarettes give people that dopamine rush. Again, the mentally ill are completely suseptible due to their often compromised mental states. In inpatient units I have a mental health worker friend who views it as inhumane to deny the mentally ill from smoking, and in this setting where people are usually in acute psychosis or depression, I hate to agree, but I do.

It will take a real movement to get people to not start these things in the first place, and I don't see this problem as easily fixable even with education. For those predisoposed to addictions, it will take unbelievable discipline to beat addictions this profound.

[JLL]

Its funny how many of you would withdraw healthcare from all the people who don't adopt the lifestyle choices you think are optimal which have attained some kind of moral significance (which is silly).

It's of course entirely because of the way view healthcare is viewed, as a resource to be doled out in some bread line by the government, the less they get, the more you get. It's really disgusting.

Exactly. And nothing is easier than making someone opposed to universal healthcare look bad.

[Alex Libman]

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

There can be other possibilities - secession (possibly through movements like the Free State Project), a Free Island Project, seasteading, etc.

And what's so good about the Earth anyway? Everything is cheaper in space once you get there: asteroid mining without any gravity getting in your way, solar energy without the atmosphere getting in your way, giant robotized factories with zero pollution liabilities, charter cities (built in 3D without the earth getting in your way), hydroponic space-farms with plants genetically engineered to benefit from much closer proximity to the sun, etc, etc, etc.

If you want absolute freedom from intrusive government, try Somalia.

That's a perfect misunderstanding of what "government" is and isn't. Somalia has one of the largest and most intrusive governments in the world! The fact that it's fragmented into multiple competing warlord fractions doesn't make it any less of a government! All governments start out as small mafia-like criminal enterprises and grow to a point where it starts being in their interest to protect and cultivate their turf, invest in public relations, let their "subjects" collectively vote on certain trivialities, and so forth. The alleged "divine right" to initiate aggression is the defining characteristic of whether something is a government or a voluntary institution: a homeowners' association, a business, a club, a church, a charity, a family, a Web-site, etc, etc, etc. If a government stops initiating aggression, then it's no longer a government! Conversely, if any of the aforementioned institutions, or simply a gang of armed street thugs, initiate aggression against you, then they become your government - their claim to power is just as legitimate!

It's pretty scary to see living Republican talking point puppets out here.

Um, not all people who oppose left-wing socialism are right-wing socialists.

I'd imagine that if you're smart enough to think for yourself on issues such as your own health [...]

Yes, in addition to the risk of me being shot or jailed for tax resistance, now there's a chance I'll be shot or jailed for not complying with new laws regarding government control over my body.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations way back in 1948 [...]

I never signed it (nor is it a "social contract" based on empirically-verifiable Natural Law), and furthermore - a self-contradictory legal contract wouldn't be enforceable anyway. Most ideas about "positive rights" are a definite logical fallacy: there can be no such thing as the freedom to enslave others!

Edited by Alex Libman, 30 March 2010 - 10:33 AM.

[RighteousReason]

"They proclaim that every man born is entitled to exist without labor and, the laws of reality to the contrary notwithstanding, is entitled to receive his 'minimum sustenance' - his food, his clothes, his shelter[, his healthcare] - with no effort on his part, as his due and his birthright. To receive it - from whom? Blank-out. Every man, they announce, owns an equal share of the technological benefits created in the world. Created - by whom? Blank-out. Frantic cowards who posture as defenders of industrialists now define the purpose of economics as 'an adjustment between the unlimited desires of men and the goods supplied in limited quantity.' Supplied - by whom? Blank-out. Intellectual hoodlums who pose as professors, shrug away the thinkers of the past by declaring that their social theories were based on the impractical assumption that man was a rational being - but since men are not rational, they declare, there ought to be established a system that will make it possible for them to exist while being irrational, which means: while defying reality. Who will make it possible? Blank-out. Any stray mediocrity rushes into print with plans to control the production of mankind - and whoever agrees or disagrees with his statistics, no one questions his right to enforce his plans by means of a gun. Enforce - on whom? Blank-out. Random females with causeless incomes flitter on trips around the globe and return to deliver the message that the backward peoples of the world demand a higher standard of living. Demand - of whom? Blank-out."

...

"The doctrine that 'human rights' are superior to 'property rights' simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of 'human'."

...

"You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner's terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man's property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers. Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out ... you believed that crime could be 'practical' if your government decreed that robbery was legal and resistance to robbery illegal."

...

"What they have to discover, what all the efforts of capitalism's enemies are frantically aimed at hiding, is the fact that capitalism is not merely the 'practical,' but the only moral system in history."

-- Ayn Rand

excerpts from my quotes list-- http://hankc.50webs.com/myquotes.html

I have made this list public again today

Edited by RighteousReason, 30 March 2010 - 12:58 PM.

[.fonclea.]

Obama is not taking away your freedom just because he tries to organise a healthcare system in one of the richest country in the world.
have you ever been abroad ? except canada of course!.....no ...... you should.

If you smoke and get lung cancer, fuck you -- you chose your path. If you eat your way to morbid obesity, develop diabetes and heart issues, fuck you -- you chose your path.

Cancer is not systematically due to smoking but your diet or pollution. Obesity is not systematicaly due to a bad diet.
we all have a risk to develop any sickness. This "tax" is to prevent you to very high cost, the day you will have to suport them.

If you want absolute freedom from intrusive government, try Somalia.

totally agree !

[Alex Libman]

Obama is not taking away your freedom just because he tries to organise a healthcare system in one of the richest country in the world.

Wow, the socialist brainwashing is so self-evident in your phraseology that your statement logically reduces to "Obama is not taking away your freedom just because he's talking away your freedom". A health-care system is a means by which individuals choose to take care of their biological capital (i.e. their health), as Americans are able to do quite well as the result of having the highest levels of disposable income, best universities, best (and thus highest paid) doctors, etc. If borders were 100% open then half the doctors in Europe would move here overnight! All this because we have less socialist interventionism in our economy and our health-care system, or at least we did up till now. What Obama (and the puppet-masters behind him) wants to do is impose greater government force to further take away the free market freedoms that we have.

have you ever been abroad ? except canada of course!.....no ...... you should.

All other countries are pretty awful in objective comparison. For example, here's a good summary of why the Scandinavian countries are only about half as well-off as they pretend to be.

totally agree !

There is a word for people who mindlessly parrot failed attempts at witticisms that already were thoroughly debunked with facts and logic...

[eternaltraveler]

The US has had universal healthcare since 1986