Premiums Unveiled For Health Overhaul Plans

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In some cases, no. In many others, absolutely there's a problem. I live in Houston with the disastrous light rail system. There's also that little albatross called Amtrak.

You're right, Insulin is not a luxury. It's a necessity. Type 1 diabetics require it to live. Just like most people require food and shelter to live. Are you telling me that both of those should be provided to those who are otherwise capable of supporting themselves?

It should be provided to people who work and put in if they choose to participate in something that benefits everyone. Those people with type 1 diabetes working are you know. Part of your National Tribe.

Right now we have a problem where a lot of capable people who would otherwise be able to participate in society because of greed and corruption, can not. So I'm in favor of more socialism at this point.

Especially as technology advances further down the roads of automation.

Do we need a lot of conservative reform? Ooooh yeah... but should we say "fuck it theres 2 many people on the planet cause someone says so?"

Nah. We don't need to endlessly cut short all our social welfare overnight without providing people a chance to not need it first.

I'm very on the fence about welfare. I hate how people can abuse it.

But I also hate how the lower classes are made to pay the most for it because some how the most wealthy are above it all etc...

I am constantly looking towards a revised compromise between our dynastic capitalists and Marxism. Because both can be pretty fucking terrible when taken to extremes.

Even the most libertarian societies have social welfare... see Sweden.

And yeah, if I have the means to. I am looking to enrich everyones lives. Better if those means exist in everyones individual control (liberty u know). But not always workable OR the most efficient.

I mean I keep seeing the argument that people must work to live. God for bid we did start being able to feed and care for people without forcing them to work... holy shit what a concept. Its quite possible. Either now or in the near future.

Do people need to work to maintain a high standard of living? Pretty much currently yeah.

Do we need to work hard to live? Nope. Hunter gatherers didn't expend much energy at all. And I have visited places where the 1st world is not all encompassing. Plenty of people still out there working very little to subsist.

Last little thing here....

Is COOPERATION more productive? Generally it is? Damn coorpoeration. Like U know, getting in a group to hold a camp vs trying to do it yourself vs a a group. Makes a difference. Translates perfectly well to real life.

Its pretty much how we got where we are today. Despite the illusion that its everyone for themselves. Even the rich stand on the back of cooperation. They would have nothing with complete anarchy.

I will add that having a productive and creative occupation is very good for peoples sanity, psychology, well-being, and happiness. So I think the more opportunities we can provide people to work the better.

[Tiddlywinks]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I empathize with your position, and I understand the difficulties it presents. But how is this different from anyone else who lives paycheck to paycheck through no fault of their own? How is the former case different from this latter? There's very little justification presented as to why certain classes, that are otherwise capable of supporting themselves, should be subsidized.

It's simply bad policy.

Wow.

[Millburn]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I empathize with your position, and I understand the difficulties it presents. But how is this different from anyone else who lives paycheck to paycheck through no fault of their own? How is the former case different from this latter? There's very little justification presented as to why certain classes, that are otherwise capable of supporting themselves, should be subsidized.

It's simply bad policy.

Because the same system that makes me live paycheck to paycheck is forcing someone else under the poverty line. My situation improves by it being being fixed for everyone. I'm not the model person you should sympathize with, it's the person who can't stay afloat.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero

It should be provided to people who work and put in if they choose to participate in something that benefits everyone. Those people with type 1 diabetes working are you know. Part of your National Tribe.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean to say. Is it that we'd get a lot more done if everyone worked together and more altruistically? Sure! But that's not how the world works. Perhaps someday, but not now. Individuals and personalities have shaped our society and such a utopia is currently unobtainable.

As technology progresses I absolutely agree with you that perhaps our society would be transformed in such a way that subsidy can be sustained far more efficiently than any individual could hope to achieve himself. Perhaps when 3d farming and robotics progresses to fully automated growhouses we can create food and medical supplies for virtually no cost. Perhaps 3d printing will allow for an incredible revolution in cheap engines. However, those technological steps do not currently exist in a way to meaningfully subsidize in the manner that you propose.

That time is not now for many of the subsidies you propose. Creating many of the subsidies you propose is grossly inefficient.

Originally Posted by Millburn

I'm not the model person you should sympathize with, it's the person who can't stay afloat.

Which is why I said that few people will argue against a system that provides for those who cannot support themselves meaningfully. How does it help "everyone" when you, an otherwise capable person, is subsidized for something that you are otherwise capable of obtaining?

Originally Posted by Tiddlywinks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wow.

What's so "wow" about that? I fail to see why we should provide goods to a person that is otherwise capable of earning them while maintaining a comfortable existence.

[runlvlzero]

Maybe, and your right. Certainly not for everything. And it also eliminates choice and competition. A big downfall of socialism. On the upside if people don't have to work for necessities they can still focus on creating luxuries (Gourmet Pizza instead of soylent geen...). Making new markets. And potentially new currency. (Bitcion is something almost in this realm, though its really just yet another fiat).

I think it could work for some specific situations though.

And I do think prices/costs are artificially or meaninglessly high. This is however just an opinion I can't thoroughly back up with data for the sake of this debate.

I know there are a lot of alternative fuel sources we don't use because our economy and regulations are not fit for them. Pretty well studied.

Those ideas go back to my criticism of Obamacare.

[Tiddlywinks]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What's so "wow" about that? I fail to see why we should provide goods to a person that is otherwise capable of earning them while maintaining a comfortable existence.

Living paycheck to paycheck is your definition of a "comfortable existence". Where if they were to be fired they would have no savings to fall back on and would most likely end up on unemployment while searching for another paycheck to paycheck job?

God forbid those people get sick and are uninsured or don't have a sold family/friend support system to help them through those rough times. Not to mention all the luxuries I'm sure their paycheck to paycheck jobs is currently affording them.

Not my idea of a "comfortable existence". Then again, they are a member of a certain class, and that is to be expected.

Right?

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I could have phrased it differently. But seriously. We don't have to let people die to issues like diabetes. The damn world has the technology to deal with it. Its douchey to just be like "fuck you die" in this case.
...

Again, who here is saying "fuck you die" or anything similar?

You know, I really don't think we should be murdering kittens for fun.

[Millburn]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Millburn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because the same system that makes me live paycheck to paycheck is forcing someone else under the poverty line. My situation improves by it being being fixed for everyone. I'm not the model person you should sympathize with, it's the person who can't stay afloat.

And what about those who are living paycheck to paycheck and now will have a harder time because they have to pay for your healthcare? Or do you just figure the money is only being taken from rich people or something?

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, who here is saying "fuck you die" or anything similar?

You know, I really don't think we should be murdering kittens for fun.

I believe the original point was that people think anyone who disagrees with Obamacare is a fascist, racist etc...

I initially started down this path because I was defending that you can DISAGREE with obamacare, yet still be ok with socialistic ideals. And NOT be an asshole.

I dunno. I live in the redneck south. A lot of people here think its the worst thing on the planet. And it definitely colored my point of view for a long time.

Yet those people aren't "evil assholes".

I also wanted to assure that I really do empathize with Millburn. Even if I myself do not have a medical condition like that.

I still think this bill sucks in general. And we need to attack this problem from a completely different viewpoint.