Healthcare is not a right

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    So we’re back to justifying socialism and theft by preying on emotions. Perfect.

    Not exactly. The logical outcome of your position is eugenics, no matter how you attempt to mask it. You are promoting social darwinism. I'm not.

    Insurance is socialism.

    You belong to a union. Socialism

    You work for the government. Socialism.

    There is no iron in your words.
     
    Last edited:

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,922
    113
    Arcadia
    Insurance is voluntary (at least it was before Obama). Union? Voluntary. My job? Voluntary.

    Paying for for your healthcare? Hmmm not voluntary.

    There is is no logic in your words, only emotion.
     

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,922
    113
    Arcadia
    I’ll just concede to being a big meany pants so we can avoid a back and forth. I’ve said what I believe and it won’t be changing so there is no point.
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    You decision to be employed in that profession might be voluntary. Everything else associated with it is not. Nothing is pure and to argue absolutes on these issues in the world today is meaningless.

    I didn't ask you to pay for my health care. I earned it myself. That's part of volunteering during wartime.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    You decision to be employed in that profession might be voluntary. Everything else associated with it is not. Nothing is pure and to argue absolutes on these issues in the world today is meaningless.

    I didn't ask you to pay for my health care. I earned it myself. That's part of volunteering during wartime.

    As a veteran who also volunteered to and served during war time, I as well earned access to the Obamacare VA subsidized healthcare. I believe in disability granted healthcare as part of a contractual obligation, but not the new every veteran gets healthcare regardless of disability or service connected anything policy. The new system allows a veteran to sit at home not working and be completely covered due to low income, this includes non injury, voluntary and disciplinary early exit veterans. The VA will also support non disabled vets who just want to be lazy with housing etc... I'm not blind to the dependence and socialist leanings of many VA programs, nor am I blind to the socialist ideals that a standing military must adopt for uniformity and discipline across the breadth of the standing military. A military comprised of staunch capitalists would being very difficult to control and command. I am a proud veteran, but I am not proud of what all veterans choose to do with themselves after their service.

    I feel like the VA and our general societal sensitivity towards all veterans is fostering a generation of completely dependent vets, who begin to have major socialist leanings when it comes to government programs that benefit them without any extra effort on their part. Again, I'm all for fulfilling contracts and taking care of service connected disabilities, both physical and mental, with long term and wide sweeping coverage. I do not think that the newish VA we cover all vets regardless of service connected injuries or illnesses program is sustainable. I don't feel like 4 or even 18 years of voluntary service with no long term service connected injuries warrant a lifetime income based super discounted/free healthcare. I don't feel like as a taxpayer we should be forced to bear the cross of a person that voluntarily served safely and without harm for four years for the rest of their lives. I do not mind doing everything we can for the veterans who truly need our help due to service related injury, sometimes voluntary service leads to completely life altering injuries and the risk we take hiring war fighters is that we may have to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Volunteering to go to war is certainly honorable, but it is far from rare in today's world. We have been actively fighting for nearly 18 years with a fresh batch of Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers and Marines walking the parade ground every week. It will become unsustainable to provide free/deeply discounted healthcare to every single healthy non disabled veteran who chooses not to seek their own policy after serving their time. I'll be completely honest and state that I signed up for the program only to avoid paying the insurance tax, and covered my own medical bills while I was working in a non insured shop.
     

    mmpsteve

    Real CZ's have a long barrel!!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 14, 2016
    5,928
    113
    ..... formerly near the Wild Turkey
    Sir, I believe you misunderstood Houghmade's post. His purple button broke, but I think he probably agrees with you. Re-read his post.


    If you’ve taken from my statements that I’d be in favor of further government involvement I haven’t a clue how.

    Guess what? **** happens. Life sucks sometimes. Some people die young and some people don’t. I personally prefer the type of freedoms this country is supposed to represent.

    So, why stop with socialized medicine just in the US? Are there not sick little kids all over the world? Why shouldn’t we all be forced to pay for flights to bring them all here for free treatment? Why not spend a few trillion to build state of the art hospitals all over the planet? Where does it end?

    Sorry but allowing emotions to dictate policy has a lot to do with why this country is trillions in debt. It ain’t supposed to work like this. You can paint me as a monster all you want but I’ll make no apologies for not wanting someone to put a gun to your head, take your money and give it to me.
     

    mmpsteve

    Real CZ's have a long barrel!!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 14, 2016
    5,928
    113
    ..... formerly near the Wild Turkey
    Regarding the broken purple button, I'll just repeat what an infamous INGOer once said to me: "We've upped our game, now, UP YOURS!" :ingo: Yes sir, Mr. Printcraft made me feel right at home. And he was smiling and waving at me the whole time, and he didn't use purple either.

    Since an argument from emotion isn't really an arguments at all....yeah.
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    As a veteran ....

    That was quite a position statement and I don't see the need to repeat it. You seem to agree that providing coverage for service connected injury is part of the contract. Well, 2.5 million of us entered Vietnam out of about 10 million who served during that period. No one recognized that Agent Orange might lead to some serious long-term health effects. Yet, here we are.

    We have a present generation of military that served multiple tours in the mideast and southwest Asia and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg from exposures in that theater of war. Suicide rates exceed US norms. Homelessness and unemployment are also certainly correlated with multiple tours.

    I don't look at our obligation to those guys as "economic" as you seem to. We chose to fight, we are obliged to repair the men we asked to fight. Period.
     

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,922
    113
    Arcadia
    I don't look at our obligation to those guys as "economic" as you seem to. We chose to fight, we are obliged to repair the men we asked to fight. Period.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you on society’s responsibility to veterans injured serving the country. Their medical coverage was earned.
     

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,922
    113
    Arcadia
    Sir, I believe you misunderstood Houghmade's post. His purple button broke, but I think he probably agrees with you. Re-read his post.

    It appears you may be correct. The first paragraph of my response was directed at his post (which I apparently misunderstood). The remainder wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.

    My apologies Hough
     

    mmpsteve

    Real CZ's have a long barrel!!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 14, 2016
    5,928
    113
    ..... formerly near the Wild Turkey
    Alpo, sir, you are wrong on several counts.

    1. Insurance: A voluntary pooling of resources, contractually structured, to mitigate common risks. About as capitalist as you can get. Either party to the contract can walk away. NOT Socialism.

    2. Unions: Again, a voluntary contractual agreement with several parties. The Union, the Union members, the company they work at. Any of the parties may walk away, including the private company they work for, although sometimes the company's only option is to shut down shop, which has happened. Still Capitalist. NOT Socialism.

    3. Government Work: Read points 1 and 2.

    Socialism is where the government gets involved, and forces me to pay for other peoples' needs: for instance, forcing my private health insurance to pay for everyone's birth control, through higher premiums to me.

    There's been several posts in this topic that show you that people can, and do, get health care without having insurance. Houghmade's point was one of the better examples. Did you read it?

    p.s.: I don't think anyone is argueing with you that we owe all affected service members the best health care known to man. We havn't provided that level of care, but I wish we would, and I'd be willing to help pay for that.



    Not exactly. The logical outcome of your position is eugenics, no matter how you attempt to mask it. You are promoting social darwinism. I'm not.

    Insurance is socialism.

    You belong to a union. Socialism

    You work for the government. Socialism.

    There is no iron in your words.
     
    Last edited:

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    That was quite a position statement and I don't see the need to repeat it. You seem to agree that providing coverage for service connected injury is part of the contract. Well, 2.5 million of us entered Vietnam out of about 10 million who served during that period. No one recognized that Agent Orange might lead to some serious long-term health effects. Yet, here we are.

    We have a present generation of military that served multiple tours in the mideast and southwest Asia and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg from exposures in that theater of war. Suicide rates exceed US norms. Homelessness and unemployment are also certainly correlated with multiple tours.

    I don't look at our obligation to those guys as "economic" as you seem to. We chose to fight, we are obliged to repair the men we asked to fight. Period.

    I don't know anyone who has deployed in the last 15 years who is without a disability percentage determination. Again I'm all for fulfilling contractual and moral obligations to provide care for injuries of any capacity that occurred during and connected to their service. VA is giving now determining partial disability based on proximity to the burn pits from early oif oef even without side effects showing. They retroactively pay out to veterans who become eligible after a duty hazard is identified. Agent orange was bad, as was the denial of ptsd. I don't think you will find anyone who disagrees that the way we treated volunteers and drafted Vietnam vets was wrong. The va has grown up a lot since then. They provide a lot of services to those who served who are in need. But for every 5 or 6 vet friends I have receiving needed care I can find another that is pure moochin. I know that ptsd can lead to social issues that make housing, job stability, and depression major issues, and you will never hear me say anything against providing lifelong care for even mental strains due to service. I know more than a few skaters whose only problems in the service were related to their inability to adapt and behave who are receiving more than their fair share of benefits. No one is allowed to call them on it because "you don't know what I've been through man", I know kunsan was tough with it's curfews and constant NBC excercises.. I personally know of a person who was kicked out of 2 branches (active then a guard unit) who never served longer than a year out of training, never deployed, and was never injured whom is receiving a monthly payout, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and constantly getting special career training. This person literally sits around figuring out how to play the system and no one can call them out because "I served, you just have no idea what I've been through."

    Again, all for VA Medical for veterans injured in any capacity due to their service, but I'm not for creating a system of dependents out of our veterans. I believe in empowerment programs that help veterans adjust to civilian life. I'm for honesty in recruiting rather than saying "prepares you for any career path you may choose" in US Army Infantry job description, to "prepares you to be an excellent team member, and tuition assistance will help prepare you for the civilian work force." I sincerely believe we do our troops a major disservice when we tell an impressionable 18 y/o that military service is equal or often times we were told greater than a college degree. Simply not true 99.9 percent of the time. If we want to lower homeless veterans we need to up their employability. We need in service career guidance to prepare a young troop to transition out of a dorm and chow hall and into an apartment and a grocery store. Honesty in recruiting will help give realistic expectations to the reality that military training is rarely in depth and varied enough to translate directly into a civilian career. More veterans that are able to transfer into a career will have lasting impacts on VA healthcare wait and quality, making sure the vets who need are front and center in the attention of the care givers at the va.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    Alpo, sir, you are wrong on several counts.

    1. Insurance: A voluntary pooling of resources, contractually structured, to mitigate common risks. About as capitalist as you can get. Either party to the contract can walk away. NOT Socialism.

    2. Unions: Again, a voluntary contractual agreement with several parties. The Union, the Union members, the company they work at. Any of the parties may walk away, including the private company they work for, although sometimes the company's only option is to shut down shop, which has happened. Still Capitalist. NOT Socialism.

    3. Government Work: Read points 1 and 2.

    Socialism is where the government gets involved, and forces me to pay for other peoples' needs: for instance, forcing my private health insurance to pay for everyone's birth control, through higher premiums to me.

    There's been several posts in this topic that show you that people can, and do, get health care without having insurance. Houghmade's point was one of the better examples. Did you read it?

    qft.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,150
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Hey, I'll stand in line to get my free government gun. :yesway:

    Like it or not, you're already paying for everyone else as it is. You pay for everyone else in Medicare/Medicaid taxes. You pay for everyone else in private insurance premiums. You definitely pay for everyone else when you get your bill from the ER for $40,000 for a cast and some x-rays. We all engage in risk pooling already, so that we can each benefit from it when our time comes. Almost nobody in this country genuinely pays for their own healthcare only, and nobody else's.

    As it is, ERs are already required to provide at least some basic treatment to people who can't pay, and that money is taken out of your hide through this arcane, ridiculous system of overcharging and negotiating. There are more middlemen in healthcare than any other industry in the country. If there was one single private insurer with a massive risk pool who paid 100% of your healthcare expenses with no deductibles or co-pays for a monthly premium at or below what you're paying now, wouldn't you want to sign on to that policy? Wouldn't it be cheaper and better than what you have now, because they have a risk pool of 325 million people and no middlemen? And would it really matter to you, the end user, if that insurer is a government agency instead of a corporation that takes a profit cut for themselves?

    [You have not adequately considered that having a single insurer (ne:single payer or at least payment decision maker) will recreate the problems we have now. There are still no methods in place in that system to reign in the profit motives of providers nor provide any modicum of transparency to allow comparison shopping. It is likely that the middle men, being rent seekers, will simply move to the gov't/insuror side of the equation and there is also no system in place to keep it from happening. Throw in a guarantee to pay all bills by the US gov't and you simply change the mathematics of the boondoggle, not the outcomes. Should you empower the government to directly control the behaviors that increase its cost, it will likely be the greatest loss of liberty and expansion of government power in living memory.]

    Always seemed like a no-brainer to me. The system as it exists now is lunacy. It's like an ancient car that you've spent 60 years jerry-rigging with duct tape and twine. Nobody designed it this way, it's a mess of big changes and little changes that several generations of politicians, insurers, and provider networks have made, and that's why it's so ludicrously expensive. Vertical integration is why Walmart's stuff is cheap. No reason it can't work for healthcare.

    ['Vertical integration' brings its own problems. It was already the case, before some constraints were enacted, that if a doctor or group of doctors owned labs and imaging centers (vertical integration) that curiously enough their patients needed a lot of tests and those tests were referred to the captive labs and imaging centers. You may have noticed that even now your doctor is quite interested in providing referrals for ancillary testing or care. That is because referrals are a huge log-rolling, back-scratching , rain-making scheme. It is quite likely already true that if your doctor is part of a group practice or hospital system owned practice that he is already (hopefully) forced to consider you as a profit center as well as a patient. At worst, he skips the '... as a patient part'. This will not magically get better because the government is paying all the bills]

    National insurance systems work very well. Providers are still private, people are still free to make their own choices, outcomes are better, and premiums/taxes are cheaper. Beats sending hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month to an insurer who won't even lift a finger until I pay another $3,500 in deductible. I'd just as soon spend that money on premiums for a national insurance program and go to sleep knowing I won't get wiped out by bills if I get hit by a drunk driver tomorrow.

    Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab

    California looked at going it alone, and found that they can't afford the estimated $400billion cost. One proposal is to repurpose all current medicare and medicaid monies and still levy a 15% payroll tax increase to raise half the cost as new money (no mention whether there would be any cap on income level vulnerable to the tax). How often does government correctly estimate costs and funding sources and thus not give a rosy picture of implementation cost (and that picture isn't even all that rosy). If FedGov was directly paying all costs, would they be more careful and frugal with how that money is spent?

    You give short shrift to how human nature will cause some of the stakeholders to act to increase their overall share of the pie at the expense of others and any efficiency. There are no mechanisms in place to prevent this and those interested in profiteering will fight tooth and nail against their implementation or to water down whatever is inevitable

    Such a plan is effectively trying to dredge the channel while the ship is in motion

    Your plan appears to reduce to: We enact medicare for all -
    then a miracle happens - and we end up with a financially stable, fair and desirable system at reasonable cost

    but you forgot to mention that middle step


    ETA: 2017 Cali population 39.6 million, estimated single payer cost $400billion. Looks like even socialized medicine is pretty expensive (estimated cost per person $10928). US population 2017 325.7million. Extrapolating cost nationwide at $3.56trillion

    TOTAL federal revenue 2017 $3.32trillion 7% under budget if you redirect every cent of federal revenues
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,636
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Regarding the broken purple button, I'll just repeat what an infamous INGOer once said to me: "We've upped our game, now, UP YOURS!" :ingo: Yes sir, Mr. Printcraft made me feel right at home. And he was smiling and waving at me the whole time, and he didn't use purple either.

    Purple is for *******.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,636
    113
    Gtown-ish
    You decision to be employed in that profession might be voluntary. Everything else associated with it is not. Nothing is pure and to argue absolutes on these issues in the world today is meaningless.

    I didn't ask you to pay for my health care. I earned it myself. That's part of volunteering during wartime.

    Agreed about absolutes. You put an “ism” at the end of a word and then you’re likely treading on some ideological foundation. A nation having some public jobs isn’t socialism. Having a social safety net isn’t socialism. Our system is based on capitalism. But pure capitalism looks a lot more like anarcho-capitalism.

    Obamacare isn’t socialism. It’s certainly not capitalism. I’d say that particular “Obamanism”, if we had to assign an “ism”, is more along the lines of cronyism.
     

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    525,678
    Messages
    9,823,278
    Members
    53,906
    Latest member
    FalconRC369
    Top Bottom