Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Die Quickly

  1. Oct 1, 2009 #1
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2009 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How is this "bravery"?
     
  4. Oct 1, 2009 #3
    IMO we're about to hear that the neo-cons are going to have him eliminated.
     
  5. Oct 1, 2009 #4
    You heard the man, die quickly. Let's go.
     
  6. Oct 1, 2009 #5
  7. Oct 2, 2009 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Again, "bravery"?

    Or is this another one of those finger in the ear "la la la la" political rants?
     
  8. Oct 2, 2009 #7
    He's just pointing out the Republicans neglect for real health care reform, not insurance reform. Insurance reform is not health care reform, it's not a health care plan.
     
  9. Oct 2, 2009 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I thought the functionality of the health insurance system was the primary flaw in our overall health care system? That was initially the major focus of this reform effort, anyway.

    I mean, what else is there? Malpractice? Malpractice hasn't entered much into this debate. Overall quality? Quality in the US is unparalleled - the complaint is that it isn't available to everyone. Again, that's an insurance complaint. Cost? Most of the cost issue is about insurance (since that's how we pay for heath care). There are sub-issues to that, though, that not even democrats are paying attention to, such as the cost of prescription drugs and patent extensions for drugs.

    Anyway, for the video - I'm not a big fan of rhetoric in general and I don't think quotes/rhetoric like that are useful. I only listened to 30 seconds or so of the interview, and Wolf Blitzer did a commendable job of pointing out both the factual inaccuracy of saying that republicans have no plans and the uslessness/stupidness of the rhetoric.

    Overall, though, ehh - just another idiot in a Congress full of them. Best to just ignore him and he'll go away.
     
  10. Oct 2, 2009 #9
    I disagree.

    What seems to be the ultimate goal of the Democrats is that every person in America have full health coverage. That's basically impossible using an insurance model. Once you start covering pre-existing conditions, it is no longer insurance.

    I'm always stunned by people who think that the government should force private companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Just like you can't walk purchase fire insurance on an already burnt down home to cover the cost to rebuild, a person with say cancer shouldn't be able to walk into an insurance company, tell them that they're going to give them a few hundred dollars a month and expect the company to pay for their treatment. It seems common sense to me.

    Anyways, the Republicans seem to be trying to make health insurance cheaper by disallowing states from restricting out of state health companies and by enacting Tort reform. However cheap you make it, however, eventually someone is going to get sick without insurance, and that person is then going to feel entitled to other peoples sweat and treasure to treat them. While I couldn't personally care what happened to that person, the Democrats think that everyone else in America who took steps to not be a burden to society should pay to make them better.
     
  11. Oct 2, 2009 #10

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Again, "bravery"? I give up...
     
  12. Oct 2, 2009 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    We don't really disagree there. I'm just talking about how the debate is currently going: Whether you still call it insurance or not, forcing insurance companies to cover everyone is what is currently being pushed.

    The caveat to that, though, is that if everyone gets insurance, there no longer is any such thing as a "pre-existing condition" since no one will ever be without insurance. In other words, the insurance companies will take an initial hit, but then they'll also be charging more healthy people for premiums long before they get sick. Insurance companies don't want to pay for chemo for that 60 year old lung cancer patient who has spent 59 years without insurance. But if the government forces people to get insurance, that scenario goes away eventually: all 60 year old cancer patients will have paid into their insurance system for 59 years.
    Yes, that's basically how I see the debate bieng framed.
     
  13. Oct 2, 2009 #12
    Yeah, it still blows my mind, too.

    Many obviously have no idea what insurance is. They think they know what it "should" be, but fail to comprehend that the private contract between me and my insurance company didn't take what they think it "should" be into account. And I'd like to keep it that way.

    Why should anyone who is not a party to a contract have any say in its contents?

    What justification is there for government to outlaw a private agreement between private parties because it doesn't do what neither party agreed to?

    If Democrats want to start selling insurance to compete with private companies, that's fine with me. They don't even need to pass any law to do that. Nobody has ever stood in their way except their own regulatory hurdles.
     
  14. Oct 2, 2009 #13
    Its bravery because he's standing up for something he believes in and sticking to the real message that insurance is about getting evryone covered regardless of ones wealth. Its about protecting all life, instead of just that of the unborne. Why is it considered "brave" or "moral" to stand against abortion but the second that child is borne they can rot in hell as far as anyone else is concerned?

    These huge corporations put up these fence posts to keep costs high and to reduce competition, i can't believe you think for one second they want to tear them down. What the republicans offer could have been done over the previous 8 years if they really gave a hoot.

    That is what this brave man is standing up against. He's just playing their game instead of sitting by and trying to be the nice one about it.
     
  15. Oct 2, 2009 #14
    Why is that? Insurance is a risk tool, the more you spread the risk, the lower the risk each payee has to burden him/herself.

    Also, how do YOU define pre-existing conditions? Are you implying people with these so called conditions should "just die" (as this congressman said).

    Why not? Can you give me a good reason people with cancer shouldn't live a life with dignity?

    They're not making insurance cheaper by anymeans, they're appeasing the situation to blind us to the realities of STILL INCREASING PREMIUMS for even HEALTHY people.

    Hell, i bet 100% of america has pre-existing conditions. If you have a parent who had a heart attack, you have pre-existing conditions to have one yourself, if you have a relative with diabeties, heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, chronic disease, asthmaa.. whats to stop insurance companies from excluding you simply because they run a genetics test on you and pre-condition you as a failed human being?

    I don't get what you guys are defending and you guys aren't defending anything with real meaning but completely ignoring the fact insurance isn't about MONEY its about PEOPLE.. Maybe insurance shouldn't BE FOR PROFIT, should our society make money off the sick or make MORE MONEY OFF HEALTHY PEOPLE?
     
  16. Oct 2, 2009 #15

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That, for me, is the problem.
     
  17. Oct 2, 2009 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    People with cancer should recieve treatment for cancer. And they should pay for it via the insurance they've been paying for for their entire lives. People who never bothered to get insurance should get the treatment they can pay for, however little that is.

    Perhaps you think that's insensitive. Well I think people who want health care coverage without paying for it are stealing from me!

    So twisting the question like you did: Why are you in favor of stealing peoples' money to pay for other people's irresponsibility?
     
  18. Oct 2, 2009 #17
    What happens when you're insurance drops you or reduces your coverage and you have to shop around? What happens when you're out of work because of your condition?

    WHat you suggest is to just die, what you suggest isn't insurance.

    I'm not twisting the question but stating the real issue we should be resolving and simply and falsely reducing the costs as the republicans seek to do solves nothing as you don't need legislation to reduce costs unless you want to force new plans to the private companies so i can make a choice. right now the only choice i have is my employer plan or my own plan and if i chose my own plan i don't get my employers tax benefits.

    and no, insurance isn't stealing.. not sure why that is even in this discussion. I'd rather "steal money (or have it stolen as you put it)" than steal ones dignity and wellbeing if thats what we want to disgrace this discussion into ;)
     
  19. Oct 2, 2009 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Quality insurance shouldn't do that. Whether what you suggest is a reality or not, I don't know, but the law can easily be made to require companies to not arbitrarily drop coverage without cause.
    Disability insurance is a component of proper health insurance.

    The bigger part of the problem is people who don't have insurance. You're arguing footnotes here.
    What does the word "insurance" mean to you? It seems to mean, 'pay for my health care even if I never had insurance before'. As noted before, if you sign up for something after you are already sick, that's not insurance, it is just free health care.

    What I want is for people to get health insurance, not for people to steal my money to pay for their free health care.
    My suggestion resolves the issue without leaving people uncovered or stealing money from others. Why don't you advocate forcing people to buy health insurance, but do advocate forcing others to pay for the health care of people who are too irresponsible to get it themselves?
    So the choice seems obvious, eh?

    Why not compare this to car insurance? Everyone in my state is required to get car insurance or their car gets confiscated. They are all required a minimum amount of insurance.
    It is in the discussion because what you are arguing is for some people to get free health care by forcing others to pay for it. That's stealing.
     
  20. Oct 2, 2009 #19
    I agree completely, why do we have to have insurance? It seems to me that the reason health costs are so high is that the insurance companies(and lawyers) have been running up the price of procedures for years, they really dont care what they pay since it is not their money. It is my understanding that not even a hundred years ago insurance companies were thought of as shysters, now they are supposedly our saviors, what a change in less than a century. It seems the argument is that the insurance corporations have been taking advantage of us for years and it is now time to use the government to punish them and make things right(reparations), but who was it that has given the insurance companies all their power? So we need to grow the government even though that is who gave them their power in order to control their power?
    The insurance companies would never have the power they have without the backing of government. Who else could sell a product(security) to protect against unforeseen difficulties, then as soon as the difficulties happen the government declares an emergency and the taxpayers pay for what the insurance companies were supposed to? What other industry does the government force people to support? What other industry gets bailed out almost every year by the federal government? The way it is now, I would just as soon have the government be the insurer, atleast that way we would only have one bill, instead of paying premiums then having our taxes pay for what the insurance companies where supposed to. Either we need to get rid of insurance or we need to get the government to stop propping them up IMO, without that we will not even begin to solve the problem.
     
  21. Oct 2, 2009 #20
    Doesn't this assume that insurance is already affordable and reliable? Bad assmption to make at it completely ignores the statements that this congressman stated.

    You're fighting the egg or the chicken or the cart or the horse. Neither of which is relevent to the discussion of non insurred vs insured and expensive premiums.

    huh? I advocate a national single payer plan, but i'm all for a trojan horse plan if it can disrupt the crappy system we have today. Neither of which is robbing anyone but giving a little bit of decency, respect and humanity back to living people.

    wait wait wait.. you just compared HEALTH to care insurance? *sigh* Car insurance is property insurance, value based insurance. Are you implying for health insurance to work its correct to place monetary value on human life?

    It seems to me you're ignoring economy of scale, ignoring the benefits of healthy people, the benefits of healthy society and looking at it from "how will this hurt me" vs "how will this help me"

    just think of the personal freedom you could have if you didn't have to work for insurance but could work because you enjoy your job? just think of how small businesses could grow better because insurance risk & liability wouldn't be a factor of their bottom line and they could compete with the big boys because it wouldn't be a choice of working somewhere else just because they offer insurance?

    Health insurance as a national plan is the democratization of basic human rights if you ask me. keep it commercial, keep drs, hospitals and health providers in there competing for the best service, the best value so on and so forth.

    if you ask me, the more people in the system, the more people paying the system the lower the risk. The sooner you can diagnose, the lower the risk, the sooner you can prevent, the lower the risk, the better the health of our society the better we are as a nation. seems common sense to me.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Die Quickly
  1. That was quick - (Replies: 8)

  2. Odds of dying (Replies: 46)

  3. Death's died! (Replies: 11)

  4. The bees are dying! (Replies: 1)

Loading...