>>Additionally, people can opt not to participate with an insurance company (or at least they used to be able to), so they have some motivation to be efficient and provide a basically decent level of service.
You have the same backwards concept of Healthcare as everyone else who is rich; it's only for me. Healthcare is for everyone, it is a right. It is not a privilege that you only get if you can afford it. Health insurance is THE PROBLEM.
If you don't have car insurance, you might be financially strained. If you don't have flood/fire insurance, you could loose your stuff. If you don't have health insurance (in this country) you could die. If you think these things are the same, there is no hope.
I agree with what your saying but I'm bothered by the use of "right" -- I wish there was a better word. The US has the bill of rights and they're all effectively about "the right to be left alone".
In the case of healthcare it is effectually a demand of the government. Because language frames the debate it would be nice to have a better word to describe this.
I disagree with him, but agree with you, healthcare is not a right. As you stated, the natural rights enumerated by our constitution make no demands on others - in fact, they are the opposite - they guarantee protection from coercion by others. Anyone who believes in healthcare as an entitlement believe, effectively, that they are entitled to demand that others serve them without compensation. While there are cases where this is necessary at the federal level, healthcare is not one of them, and it's why it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Generally things like healthcare are better handled at the state level (and indeed, states were beginning to try before the feds stepped in). Handling these issues at a federal level enables people in the midwest to force people on the coasts to do things they'd rather not do, and vice-versa. Eventually, this leads to the kind of strife we've been seeing lately in the form of protests regarding healthcare.
Seeing how states often want to apply their rights (denying marriage equality, outlawing abortion, etc.) I don't trust them more than the Feds.
What's interesting about the current "health care reform" taking place is that there doesn't seem to be any discussion of how to actually decrease costs other than denying coverage.
There's a fundamental problem - the medical industry has made all kinds of decisions based on the assumption of high cost - doctors take on $300,000+ student debt, hospitals have built huge new facilities, and pharma has poured billions into R&D on the assumption of high cost. Rolling it back now will be difficult and will surely screw over some group of people, whether it's the elderly, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, or hospital owners (which, due to 401(k)s, is you and me).
The primary function of insurance companies is to make a profit and serve their investors. These are publicly traded companies and only care about making that dollar; in this case, they make money by denying people healthcare and business is booming. Aetna for example has seen a 400% jump in their stock prices in the last 5 years.[1]
You really do sound like you work for the insurance industry, claiming their functions are necessary (even though every other country manages without them). Also, government run healthcare is bad because they are going to shoot people (or threaten to) and put them in jail for not paying their medical bills? Come on.. are you serious?
>>Personally, I feel that the government's tactic of taking someone's freedom for refusal to participate is much worse than refusing coverage, which is what the private companies do.
Oh fuck right the fuck off. The government does not throw people in jail for not having health insurance or if they can not afford it. Refusing/denying coverage KILLS PEOPLE. You sound like someone who's got it made (so screw everyone else right?), and doesn't give 2 shits about anyone but themselves.
That is simply wrong. Most health "insurance" companies no longer provide much actual insurance anymore. Instead they provide claims payment and administration services for self-insured employers who bear the risk. Furthermore the ACA imposed a minimum medical loss rate. So insurers have little financial incentive to deny claims anymore.
Agreed. Many large firms do self-insure at this point, relying on the 'insurance' companies for administration. In fact, my employer does this. However, it's not a popular thing to recognize the actual value that insurance companies and the folks who work for them contribute these days (and no, I don't work for an insurance company).
> Also, government run healthcare is bad because they are going to shoot people (or threaten to) and put them in jail for not paying their medical bills? Come on.. are you serious?
Really their taxes, but yes, dead serious. If you have a decent income, stop paying taxes for a while and see what happens. They'll eventually send the cops to arrest you. Vigorously resist arrest, and you'll end up dead or injured.
> You really do sound like you work for the insurance industry, claiming their functions are necessary (even though every other country manages without them).
That argument can be made for every industry, not just healthcare. If you want to live someplace like that, the best examples in the modern world (since the USSR collapsed) are cuba and venezuela. If you haven't already, I strongly encourage you to research these countries, and I think that you'll find that the downside is much greater than the upside. Corporations are not evil and do perform a valuable function in society -- this coming from someone who works for a corporation that's been having mass layoffs for the better part of a year. The world is a brutal, competitive place. Sticking your head in the sand to ignore it doesn't make it go away, it just makes your entire country poor.
> You sound like someone who's got it made (so screw everyone else right?), and doesn't give 2 shits about anyone but themselves.
Not rich, but solidly middle class. I worked hard for everything that I have, and no, I don't believe people are entitled to confiscate my things just because they've been less fortunate. I believe that people who have been blessed like this should help people who are less fortunate (and I do - through private charities), but I don't believe that the government is the solution to this. If you do believe the government is the solution, I encourage you to voluntarily pay additional taxes, you are allowed to do this but very few people actually do.
>Aetna for example has seen a 400% jump in their stock prices in the last 5 years.
In all honesty, what would you expect? The ACA forced millions of people who didn't have health insurance to buy health insurance, and investors responded accordingly by buying the shares of companies who benefited from an influx of new customers.
>I'm strongly in favor of legalization, but I still believe Cannabis is dangerous (just like alcohol, tobacco and countless other legal drugs are).
Oh, well if you "believe" it is dangerous. What's the LD50 on Cannabis vs alcohol, tobacco and countless other legal drugs? How many people die per year from Cannabis use vs other drugs? If you actually look at these questions with an open mind you will see which are really dangerous.
>It's a well known fact that it can trigger psychosis in susceptible persons and I have even witnessed it happen to a close friend.
It's not a "well known fact" because you saw it happen to someone once, not even mentioning their psychosis could have been triggered by a million different other things.
>It also had hugely detrimental effects on some of my weed-smoking friends, to the point that I no longer want to spend time with them since it affected their personality. I also know people who smoke it daily without any (visible) negative effects whatsoever..
All I get out of this is "some of my former friends act differently now so I don't hang out with them", which is like.. most people with or without drugs. I doubt you followed them all around 24-7 to see what their issues were, easier for you to just blame the drugs, as it were.
Marijuana is absolutely harmful for people with certain mental illnesses. Schizophrenics for example. Since it often manifests at the same age people are experimenting with drugs a person may not know they have it until they get high and have a psychotic break. GP made reasonable claims IMO. Your reaction was over the top.
Keep the humidity in mind if you do this. Out in Saudi it is the desert so evaporative cooling works outstanding. Where I am the humidity often gets up to 100% overnight so you would just be sleeping with a soggy warm sheet all night.
You hit the nail on the head, pure research is not a profitable activity. This is why we can't trust companies and corporations to research.. their motives are almost always profit driven. This only underlines the importance of government funded research, and the need to have a government in place who is willing to put the advancement of our society over their own personal gain (We don't have that right now..).
I don't understand your issue with people making money. Why should people not make money while doing beneficial research for humankind? Is there some reason why making money and helping people are mutually exclusive?
This is why these corporations lobby/fight so hard to keep the prison industry private. Their profits are obscene, and the only way to keep themselves profitable is to ensure a steady supply of slaves ahem I mean "criminals". The more people we put in jail the better it is for these companies.
Can you imagine that? Your company profits off of human misery, suffering, and destroying families/lives. I hope hell exists..
A whole bunch of your comments have been badly breaking the HN guidelines by being uncivil and by using the site for political and ideological battle, which is destructive of what HN is for. We ban accounts that do these things, so would you please not do them anymore?
(I'm replying to this one because it's your most recent comment, not because it's the worst of them, though it is the sort of overheated rant we don't want here, regardless of how correct the underlying point is.)
The prison industry is, overwhelmingly, not private. This farm in particular in run by the Colorado Correction Industry, a division of the Colorado Department of Corrections, not a private company.
Get rid of private prisons, period. You can even keep the same business model except instead of the profits going to a corporation, the system is run as a non-profit government entity and the workers are actually paid a fair wage.
As it is right now, we have slaves working to enrich CEOs, board members and investors.
You can even keep the same business model except instead of the profits going to a corporation, the system is run as a non-profit government entity
Which is exactly what's happening in this case. There's no private corporation, it's a governmental division, yet the inmates are still paid a pittance. Maybe you should review your preconception of private industry vs government.
>>it's better than working inside in a factory, it gives them skills for when they get out.
That argument starts to fall apart when you think about it: The skills they are gaining are only applicable to an industry that is unsustainable outside of slave labor.
Luckily, most people don't think about it and just take what they read at face value.
Would you say that if you were to switch industries right now, none of what you've experienced in your working life would be useful in your new profession?
You have the same backwards concept of Healthcare as everyone else who is rich; it's only for me. Healthcare is for everyone, it is a right. It is not a privilege that you only get if you can afford it. Health insurance is THE PROBLEM.
If you don't have car insurance, you might be financially strained. If you don't have flood/fire insurance, you could loose your stuff. If you don't have health insurance (in this country) you could die. If you think these things are the same, there is no hope.