Not sure if it is for or against.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
“Not sure if it is for or against.” /// Yea, I think this is an example of something being “too clever by half.” I think it intends to Mock/be against UNIVERSAL health coverage, but actually it points to the simple common sense of “imposing common sense” on people.
Yes imposing common sense on people is a violation of their individual rights. Just like mandatory education is a violation of individual rights to remain ignorant.
Im sorry..
Health insurgence is Giving someone $300-1000 per month, and then THEY can tell you AFTER an accident that you arnt covered.
Its spending $300 per year for 10-20 years..
$3600 per year…
$36000-72000 and Staying healthy, and NOT getting anything back…When you retire..AND NO insurance AFTER 3-6 months AFTER you retire.
#3 wow! lemme in on tha t$300 dollar a year health plan! i’d save a boat load of cash with that!
Here’s what America should do:
Hook up methane collectors to the asses of fat people, feed them a steady diet of beans, and use that to power generators to make electricity to pay for healthcare for skinny people.
Like the Matrix, but with beans.
#1 is right….
I often wonder about these rabid idiots who are so dead set against universal health care. They drive cars. To them I ask: How would you feel if your state made auto liability insurance optional? Would you be happy knowing there there are tons of people driving the roads without insurance because they can’t be bothered? Or because they can’t manage their own money?
Most states have made the decision that people must have a minimum level of insurance to drive a car. They know from experience that stupid people will spend that money on booze, jeans, and other nonessentials before they buy insurance for something that probably won’t happen.
If the state allowed drivers to insurance themselves the way we allow people to insure their health, then we get the health mess like we have today.
Now the argument is for those who have the means to pay for health insurance must be forced to do so, either through mandatory insurance (like in Mass.), or taxes.
There are many Americans who have no money, some through no fault of their own. If they get sick, we tell them “tough shit”. That is not right.
Then there are many who are refused insurance because of preexisting conditions. Or denied or cancelled coverage. These cases are the worst abuses by private insurance. As long as even one such case of this exists, then no one can argue that 100% private medical insurance works. It doesn’t. It is flawed and can not be fixed.
#7 Ron Larson said,”To them I ask: How would you feel if your state made auto liability insurance optional? Would you be happy knowing there there are tons of people driving the roads without insurance because they can’t be bothered? Or because they can’t manage their own money?”
Already there man, we call them illegals.
The actual number of American citizens who really don’t have and can’t get medical insurance seems to be about 5,000,000 and of course if you are a fat diabetic or have any sort of chronic health problem nobody wants to take you on.
This needs to be addressed some way but I don’t expect nor want anyone including the President as an ex President to get unlimited coverage with the tax payer picking up the tab. I’d cap it at a million lifetime.
The problem is that they are going to need to save more than is in medicare to pay for their plan.
If they know how to get rid of the waste in medicare all they have to do to convince me is to do it. If they don’t I can only think they can’t and their fine new plan is to cut payments for seniors to the bone, run up taxes on everybody and everything and run the country on the printing press will the dollar falls like a rock.
dEOWLL,
only 5 million??
When 1 person works they end up paying for FAMILY. at least 1 wife and 2 kids.
I consider those NON-working persons.
I also count those persons on the street, at about 6%, 18,000,000.
NOW, all those persons that hit the unemployment line?? 9%++ thats in the areas of 27,000,000 also.
NOW all the working people that get 32 hours or LESS arnt covered by medical.. WHICH is about 30% of our work force, AT the very least.
Thats Another 90,000,000..
NOW take that, and THINK about what paying Workmens comp, and MEDICAL for a full time person costs a company…And say..7% of his wages. YEP, thats whats paid. 7% is whats paid for a full time employee.
An employee making full time, getting $1400 per month. $98..for his FULL COVERAGE.
It’s reason.tv, which means libertarian. I think we can safely assume they are against government intervention into health care.
Health care is not expensive, even with our current quasi-socialized corporatist system.
I pay $50 a month for catastrophic insurance. If something serious happens to me I’m covered. If not, then I pay out of pocket.
It would be MUCH cheaper still if we actually had something resembling a free market in health care.
Bobbo, If you say “the free market is a theoretical construct” I’m going to stab you through the Internet.
NOTbobbo says:
The idea that initiating force against people to achieve your own ends is moral is a theoretical construct.
Forget Capitalism. This ad is pro- Social Darwinism. Wasn’t that philosophy supposed to have died out after WWII?
Let the weak and stupid die off…We’re better without them…?
On a strictly a-moral level, the argument has mild merit, but when you start suggesting that fiscal intelligence is more important than any other type of strength or intelligence, you’re system is broken.
That’s the biggest problem with Social Darwinism: *how* exactly are you going about judging others as unworthy? There’s no “fair” way to go about doing it systemically, thus you shouldn’t be doing it.
#14,
I just get nervous when around the people who think they are so much smarter than everyone else, that forcing them to do what they want is clear.
When you can’t educate, debate, persuade or provide the help yourself, use force. That’s a dangerous road.
#15
Taxation *with* representation doesn’t qualify as fascism, Number 6. No one is going to imprison you for not having health insurance. You’ll just be taxed for being stupid.
Now, if I were to walk around without clothes, I just might get imprisoned. How’s that fair? My lack of insurance raises healthcare costs for everyone else, but my lack of clothes (which harms no one) is somehow more illegal…
#16,
And if I don’t pay those taxes, for doing what the enlightened ones decide is stupid?
Government always comes down to force. It may be justified in some cases (for instance in defending against murder or other acts of force), but just thinking I’m smarter than others isn’t justification, its hubris.
#17
Okay, but you didn’t bother to answer my question: Why is it okay for the government to force me to buy and wear clothes, but it’s not okay for the government to tax me for not buying health insurance?
I don’t like the mandate either. His opposition to mandates is a reason why I liked Obama more than Clinton. But it is not fascist. If forcing me to wear cloths in public isn’t fascist, than neither is forcing me to have health insurance.
It’s easy to speak loftily about libertarian ideals, but a policy isn’t automatically wrong, simply because you can’t see the forest as more than individual trees. That’s the difference between the *general welfare* and your *personal welfare*.
We have a representative democracy because the founders knew that a straight democracy is detrimental to society as a whole. Look at the ballot/proposition system (or whatever you call it) in California for evidence.
It’s not about them being smarter. As part of the federal government, it’s their job to deal with the forest (general welfare) as opposed to individual trees (personal welfare). If everyone buys into the system, the cost of doing so goes down universally. That’s all.
#18,
I’m not a big fan of people running around nude. And I would insist on eating only at restaurants that enforce a “No pants, no service” rule, or shop at malls that insist on clothed patrons. And I see a role for government to enforce the property rights against trespassers. That’s a good example of where it makes sense to use force since they’ve initiated force by violating the property rights of the restaurant or the mall.
You are right, a policy isn’t automatically wrong … but no matter how easy it is to speak of forests and trees and how some people have a perspective I apparently lack, I still don’t see I have a right to advocate for the use of force in any but a defensive way.
I’ve yet to see the perspective that gives me that right, and therefore the right to ask my representatives to do so.
Oh, and I never used the word fascist. It isn’t.
I just don’t see that I have a moral leg to stand on when advocating the initiation of force. No matter how right I think I am.
14,
I love the idea that you WORK yourself for 20-40 years, and end up dieing 5-7 years after you retire.
LOVE the idea that you have a medical problem, and are out of work for 3 months and IT STOPS, unless you can pay the $300+ per month.
or
yOUR MOTHER IS 70 YEARS OLD..Has to MUCH property, cars and such..And CANT get Medicare coverage.
You retire, and your diabetic supplies were paid for…NOW they arent..You made a retirement fund, and MEDICARE wont let you on.
You and your wife WORK to make ends meet, but are not considered full time on EITHER JOB..NO MEDICAL. you kid gets hurt. $10,000.
#19
Fair enough, but can we *at least* agree that the anti-nudity laws are worse than this one? How about the anti-sodomy laws?
As I said, I don’t like the mandate either, but I think it’s good to have a sense of perspective on these things. There are far more offensive laws on the books than ones that actually result in promoting the general welfare (as suggested by the constitution). When we go out protesting, I thing we aught to *at least* prioritise other laws before this one.
And out of curiosity, would you have less of a problem with the government simply *giving* you health insurance, rather than forcing you to buy into it?
#21, said:
“Fair enough, but can we *at least* agree that the anti-nudity laws are worse than this one? How about the anti-sodomy laws?”
Yes.
And your point about perspective is well taken. There are certainly worse things going on, by far. I suppose that’s why I was in an anti-war march but for this issue I just post on blogs.
On the giving thing … the only issue I’d have is where the money came from to pay for it. I don’t like the idea of receiving stolen goods.
So reason.tv is libertarian? That explains the Cato Institute videos…
bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist: “mandatory education is a violation of individual rights”, “imposing common sense on people is a violation of their individual rights”, hee haa hee haa hee haa – what a moron.
You can still go to school and not learn anything, as you amply show. If you want to impose “COMMON SENSE”, then you just might end up killing all the Demoncrats. Not having health insurance and getting sick and dying should be right up your Darwin alley, but then you couldn’t get off on telling people what to do, could you? Dying is a means of imposing “COMMON SENSE”, not voting for a Globalist like President Hussein would have been “COMMON SENSE”, understanding that when President Hussein say’s that he won’t insure the illegal’s, he really means that there won’t be any illegal’s sense even now he’s going to give away citizenship to anyone and everyone.
Another Brainwashed Induh!vidual rushing themselves into the 2nd Dark Ages.
Whatever……………………….
Traaxx
Traxx..
Boboo, is a good debater..
he is trying to be NEUTRAL..
The first place that came up on google with the figures shows 45.8 million people without healthcare. See
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=631
How is that acceptable in a democracy?
In the UK, we have 0(zero/none/nada) without healthcare. Yes, we only spend half per head what you guys do but we do have ‘experts’ working on that.
A friend was diagnosed with breat cancer a few years ago. She was in hospital that afternoon and operated on next morning. No waiting list there. She then got the chemotherapy etc as and when needed. I phone my doctor and get an appointment for 30 minutes later – no waiting list there either.
The biggest list we do have would be hugely sorted by more people carrying donor cards. Yes, we are short of kidneys and stuff. I suspect you guys have the same problem. You can still get your dialysis free here.
Obviously produced by Republicans to enrage and create fear over government subsidized health care. It’s not funny. It’s disgusting. The rich people of this country need to met their moral and civic responsibilities and help those who have not. The rich are the ones that shipped the jobs overseas and they are the ones who benefited from that. So they are the ones that should help pay for health care. We wouldn’t even need Obamacare were it not for them! Don’t take this shit sitting down, speak out now!!!!!
#7, I often wonder about these rabid idiots who are so dead set against universal health care. They drive cars. To them I ask: How would you feel if your state made auto liability insurance optional? Would you be happy knowing there there are tons of people driving the roads without insurance because they can’t be bothered? Or because they can’t manage their own money?
Not exactly a good analogy. If the Federal Government were to get involved in car insurance as deeply as they are in HC:
— Car insurance would be covering oil changes, gas, tires, etc.
— All mechanics would belong to the AMA (American Mechanics Association) and would have to attend AMA sanctioned trade schools (while taking out $150,000 school loans to pay for it)
— All repairs would have to be approved by Federally Certified Approvers
— You would only be able to work on your own car with Federally Certified tools
— You would have to get any parts from Federally Certified Auto Parts Stores.
— You wouldn’t be able to help your neighbor with any car problems unless you were a member of the AMA . . . malpractice.
— Mechanics would have to have malpractice insurance.
— And lets not even get into the manufacturing laws that would be required (although I could see some lemon laws bordering on abortion laws).
At which point, people would be clamoring for National Car Insurance.
Federal Medical Regulations are 330,000 pages long. How many pages do you estimate a NEW Federal Program would add or subtract to that?
Besides, the Federal Government doesn’t have the authorization as per the Constitution.
#18, It’s not about them being smarter. As part of the federal government, it’s their job to deal with the forest (general welfare) as opposed to individual trees (personal welfare). If everyone buys into the system, the cost of doing so goes down universally. That’s all.
As evidenced by the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security systems? Everybody pays into that but not everybody uses it and it can’t even stay afloat.
Seems to me that should be all the evidence we need that the Federal Government can’t manage a system of that magnitude.
Besides, the Federal Government doesn’t have the authorization as per the Constitution.
#28. When the government forces the people be charitable, that is not compassion; it’s compulsion. I am not a biblical scholar or anything of that nature, but I very much doubt the Good Samaritan that Jesus spoke of assisted the Jew at the tip of the Roman’s spear.
If you’re going to make the argument that the rich need to “meet their moral and civic duty”, are you going to make that request to people like George Soros and Ophrah Winfrey?
As much as these rich liberals cry out about the uninsured, I am shocked that they don’t pull their collective resources together and build a pool of capital large enough to purchase policies for these folks.
Leaving aside secondary discussions (above) of Government’s rights/role in healthcare…this kind of video is just ridiculous, emotional rhetorical crap. May as well watch for the counterpoint when someone asks some white executives about their mansions or yachts (or you fill in the stereotype)…then says “because no billionaire should have to choose between mansions and affordable healthcare”…it’s all off the point.
There is NO free market in healthcare right now. People can’t “walk” if the insurance companies all fix prices (which is all it is)…there is no company coming in low to drive prices down and no way (often because of legislation) the regular folks can bargain collectively as to exert this pressure.
Reminds me a little of Comcast (cable)…sure, I hate them. There are websites dedicated to them. Now, if I want to get mad at their billing department or their company at all, how do I leave them and still purchase the actual content with which I had no argument? I can’t. If I get fed up with my health insurance company, or in fact all of them, what do I do? I stand my ground and let the chemo fall behind, right? That’ll show ’em!
With all this talk of insurance and illegals and driving with/without insurance…I can only assume the same folks saying this would say driving is a privilege not a right, and it carries with it some “terms” that must be met to get to do it. I got NO problem saying making money in America in the health industry is a privilege, not a right. Now, how about the people who allow that privilege set some terms that work for everyone.
The ONLY reason the health industry is as messed up as it is can be summed up in one word – LAWYERS! And Washington is stupid with GREEDY lawyers too. It’s simply amazing to me that the health care industry isn’t even more broken than it already is. But once Washington get’s involved I’m sure it’s all going to change, and for the better too! Right?!
If you believe THAT then you might also be interested in some real estate property on the moon!