All Three Are The Same, But Different - Page 2

duck · 04-29-2008, 12:23 PM

OG, you are still paying for my cigarettes. The pool plays the statistics of how many smokers there would be and adjusts the premiums to the statistical probability.

There really isn't any difference there.

Astreja · 04-29-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Nothing is free. Someone pays. The money comes from taxes. I do not want to pay money so that a smoker can get a lung transplant or so that someone who smashed their head while on Ecstasy can get an MRI. Those people have the funds and should pay for that crap themselves.

Point well taken about people who deliberately expose themselves to health risks. Some jurisdictions are currently debating safeguards to restrict services or are assisting people in breaking habits such as smoking.

Quote:

Put the money into EDUCATION which is about the only social program worth having...It allows for all those other social program problems to be solved.

I agree that education is extremely valuable, but would like to point out that government-subsidized medicine also provides benefits above and beyond the tax cost.

I'm going to use the example of an individual working in a job at the lower end of the wage scale. Because of a low wage and very little disposable income, paying medical insurance premiums is a hardship.

Now imagine that this person falls ill. In the Canadian system, he or she would simply go to the doctor and receive a diagnosis and appropriate treatment, then get back to work. In a for-pay system, this uninsured person would either have to divert badly-needed money from food and lodging, or simply put off going to the doctor until he or she collapses with a much more severe condition. Suddenly everyone is hurting -- The employer, who must find replacement staff; the person's co-workers, who must increase their workload until a replacement is found; any children or elderly parents this person may have been supporting... In other words, it's a domino effect. Quality of life can't be measured solely in terms of cash-in-pocket -- The members of a community are interdependent to a large degree, and if one person trips and falls it's likely that others will stumble as well.

But it would help if the actual cost of providing medical services wasn't so ludicrously high, though...

romansh · 04-29-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

I have no problems with my insurance company. I can get MRIs and other such expensive procedures just as you can and its paid for as part of my work compensation plan as a highly educated employee. But I also don't drink and drive, smoke, do drugs, or take part in other risky behaviors. And damn it, I refuse to pay for those that do.

This is totally illogical Og.
By that logic all schools/education should be private.
All roads should be tolled.
We should do away with goverment, the pinnacle of socialization.

Not everyone who is poor indulges in risky behaviours. But they still get ill.

buzz2 · 04-30-2008, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astreja

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Nothing is free. Someone pays. The money comes from taxes. I do not want to pay money so that a smoker can get a lung transplant or so that someone who smashed their head while on Ecstasy can get an MRI. Those people have the funds and should pay for that crap themselves.

Point well taken about people who deliberately expose themselves to health risks. Some jurisdictions are currently debating safeguards to restrict services or are assisting people in breaking habits such as smoking.

Quote:

Put the money into EDUCATION which is about the only social program worth having...It allows for all those other social program problems to be solved.

I agree that education is extremely valuable, but would like to point out that government-subsidized medicine also provides benefits above and beyond the tax cost.

I'm going to use the example of an individual working in a job at the lower end of the wage scale. Because of a low wage and very little disposable income, paying medical insurance premiums is a hardship.

Now imagine that this person falls ill. In the Canadian system, he or she would simply go to the doctor and receive a diagnosis and appropriate treatment, then get back to work. In a for-pay system, this uninsured person would either have to divert badly-needed money from food and lodging, or simply put off going to the doctor until he or she collapses with a much more severe condition. Suddenly everyone is hurting -- The employer, who must find replacement staff; the person's co-workers, who must increase their workload until a replacement is found; any children or elderly parents this person may have been supporting... In other words, it's a domino effect. Quality of life can't be measured solely in terms of cash-in-pocket -- The members of a community are interdependent to a large degree, and if one person trips and falls it's likely that others will stumble as well.

But it would help if the actual cost of providing medical services wasn't so ludicrously high, though...

Good point. But, why do you assume the person is uninsured? More often than not, the employer has a health plan that their employees can take advantage of and only have to pay a co-pay of about $20.00 or so. If they don't have insurance coverage, it's likely they've chosen not to participate in the coverage that the employer has available. And those that don't have jobs, can go to a clinic where their payment is adjusted by their income or lack of income. A very nominal fee. Lots of state run programs also for health care. We don't need the federal govt getting involved. They just have the tendency to mess things up more and then charge the public for it with even higher taxes to try to fix their mistakes. Same with public education. Get the FEDS out of it. It should be a state run system. Though, I think either a private school or home schooling is best. You don't have the indoctrination going on then as you do with public schrools. The kids are a captive audience and can't choose to not participate in some of the things that are being taught. Such as sex-ed in the first grade?! Teaching kids how to put a condom on a fruit or vegetable. Those are the kinds of horror stories we hear about quite often down here. It's not the school's place to be teaching that. In my opinion. Whatever happened to just reading, writing, and arithmetic?

duck · 04-30-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzz2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astreja

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Nothing is free. Someone pays. The money comes from taxes. I do not want to pay money so that a smoker can get a lung transplant or so that someone who smashed their head while on Ecstasy can get an MRI. Those people have the funds and should pay for that crap themselves.

Point well taken about people who deliberately expose themselves to health risks. Some jurisdictions are currently debating safeguards to restrict services or are assisting people in breaking habits such as smoking.

Quote:

Put the money into EDUCATION which is about the only social program worth having...It allows for all those other social program problems to be solved.

I agree that education is extremely valuable, but would like to point out that government-subsidized medicine also provides benefits above and beyond the tax cost.

I'm going to use the example of an individual working in a job at the lower end of the wage scale. Because of a low wage and very little disposable income, paying medical insurance premiums is a hardship.

Now imagine that this person falls ill. In the Canadian system, he or she would simply go to the doctor and receive a diagnosis and appropriate treatment, then get back to work. In a for-pay system, this uninsured person would either have to divert badly-needed money from food and lodging, or simply put off going to the doctor until he or she collapses with a much more severe condition. Suddenly everyone is hurting -- The employer, who must find replacement staff; the person's co-workers, who must increase their workload until a replacement is found; any children or elderly parents this person may have been supporting... In other words, it's a domino effect. Quality of life can't be measured solely in terms of cash-in-pocket -- The members of a community are interdependent to a large degree, and if one person trips and falls it's likely that others will stumble as well.

But it would help if the actual cost of providing medical services wasn't so ludicrously high, though...

Good point. But, why do you assume the person is uninsured? More often than not, the employer has a health plan that their employees can take advantage of and only have to pay a co-pay of about $20.00 or so. If they don't have insurance coverage, it's likely they've chosen not to participate in the coverage that the employer has available. And those that don't have jobs, can go to a clinic where their payment is adjusted by their income or lack of income. A very nominal fee. Lots of state run programs also for health care. We don't need the federal govt getting involved. They just have the tendency to mess things up more and then charge the public for it with even higher taxes to try to fix their mistakes. Same with public education. Get the FEDS out of it. It should be a state run system. Though, I think either a private school or home schooling is best. You don't have the indoctrination going on then as you do with public schrools. The kids are a captive audience and can't choose to not participate in some of the things that are being taught. Such as sex-ed in the first grade?! Teaching kids how to put a condom on a fruit or vegetable. Those are the kinds of horror stories we hear about quite often down here. It's not the school's place to be teaching that. In my opinion. Whatever happened to just reading, writing, and arithmetic?

A $20 co-pay? I have a job that has comprehensive health care and the deductible alone is $500/year!!!

As far as your comments on public schools, I am really glad that I teach in a state that doesn't allow those horror stories to happen. If I did anything in those regards I would be so fired so fast.

Astreja · 04-30-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzz2

Good point. But, why do you assume the person is uninsured? More often than not, the employer has a health plan that their employees can take advantage of and only have to pay a co-pay of about $20.00 or so.

$20.00 wouldn't be too bad, if the employer actually has a co-pay. Anything more than that, though, would start to become a liability for someone living paycheck to paycheck. (Speaking for myself, I can buy a lot of groceries with twenty bucks. Or gas for most of the week.)

Quote:

Lots of state run programs also for health care. We don't need the federal govt getting involved... It should be a state run system.

Agreed. Up here, each province administers health care in its own way (albeit with "transfer payments" to redistribute federal tax dollars to some provinces). The fewer levels of bureaucracy, the better.

Quote:

Though, I think either a private school or home schooling is best. You don't have the indoctrination going on then as you do with public schools.

(shrugs) Everything is 'indoctrination' at some level, I think. However, public school systems are in need of a severe reworking. If you want a truly terrifying read, take a look The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. Can be read free here.

Quote:

...Sex-ed in the first grade?! Teaching kids how to put a condom on a fruit or vegetable.

That is inappropriate. Sex-ed for eleven-year-olds, yes; six-year-olds, no.

buzz2 · 05-01-2008, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astreja

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzz2

Good point. But, why do you assume the person is uninsured? More often than not, the employer has a health plan that their employees can take advantage of and only have to pay a co-pay of about $20.00 or so.

$20.00 wouldn't be too bad, if the employer actually has a co-pay. Anything more than that, though, would start to become a liability for someone living paycheck to paycheck. (Speaking for myself, I can buy a lot of groceries with twenty bucks. Or gas for most of the week.)

Quote:

Lots of state run programs also for health care. We don't need the federal govt getting involved... It should be a state run system.

Agreed. Up here, each province administers health care in its own way (albeit with "transfer payments" to redistribute federal tax dollars to some provinces). The fewer levels of bureaucracy, the better.

Quote:

Though, I think either a private school or home schooling is best. You don't have the indoctrination going on then as you do with public schools.

(shrugs) Everything is 'indoctrination' at some level, I think. However, public school systems are in need of a severe reworking. If you want a truly terrifying read, take a look The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. Can be read free here.

Quote:

...Sex-ed in the first grade?! Teaching kids how to put a condom on a fruit or vegetable.

That is inappropriate. Sex-ed for eleven-year-olds, yes; six-year-olds, no.

What do you mean, "sex-ed for eleven year olds, yes; six year olds, no? It is inappropriate for them to be teaching ANY SEX in schools. It is MY job as the parent to be doing that. Really. What do you mean? Do you advocate them teaching all aspects of "sex" to our CHILDREN in public schrools? Or just about the workings of the human body? It's disturbing to think that anyone agrees about teaching children about the intimacies between a man and a woman. And I DEFINITELY don't want them indoctrinating kids about "gay sex". That is going where they should not go. I don't want them telling my kids that it's ok for a man & a man, or a woman & a woman to lie with each other. It is un natural and immoral. An abomination. Sorry for the homophobic bigotry and all, but, I can't and won't compromise my principles. The schrools shouldn't be allowed to do that behind our backs either. It is pure indoctrination.

duck · 05-01-2008, 06:41 AM

Well, Buzz, at least you recognize what you said about homosexuality for what it is.

We have had this discussion on this forum before, and being gay isn't something that can be "indoctrinated" by teaching. You cannot prevent anybody from being gay by hiding it and nobody learning about it. It is not learned behavior. And by saying that, it cannot be "unlearned" by teaching such as ExGay. Doesn't happen. It is indeed a fact of life whether the bible condemns it or condones it.

buzz2 · 05-01-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duck

Well, Buzz, at least you recognize what you said about homosexuality for what it is.

We have had this discussion on this forum before, and being gay isn't something that can be "indoctrinated" by teaching. You cannot prevent anybody from being gay by hiding it and nobody learning about it. It is not learned behavior. And by saying that, it cannot be "unlearned" by teaching such as ExGay. Doesn't happen. It is indeed a fact of life whether the bible condemns it or condones it.

Duck,

It is JUST MY OPINION. True. But, it's all I have. I believe it is just wrong for schools to be teaching that being homosexual is ok and normal. IT IS NOT. Why do you think some call it queer? Queer means, odd, strange, etc. Homophobe is just a word that the homosexual community came up with to label folks like me that don't accept their life style, to try to guilt us into accepting it. "Oh No... I don't want to offend the gay people, so I'd better just accept them!" No sir, not me. It is NOT just normal. And I don't want people trying to force it on us. For example; the "gay pride parade" in San Francisco. Talk about discrimination. Why don't they have a "hetero pride parade" then. I know they're out there. Why do they feel they need to thrust it out into the public that way? It's a disgusting display they are portraying out there. I just don't want MY family to have to see it. So, if that makes me a homo-phobe, so be it. It's not just wrong in GOD'S eyes, it's wrong in my eyes too. It's not a religious issue for me. They can do whatever they want to in their own houses. Just don't force it onto the rest of the public. They can be in the military, or even work right beside me if they want. Just leave their sexual preferences at home where it belongs.

duck · 05-01-2008, 09:41 AM

But, the problem with your position is, that you are just plain wrong.

It IS perfectly normal for a percentage of the population to be homosexual, and we had better start getting used to that fact. I teach tolerance and acceptance in my classroom and that most certainly includes the gay students!!!

Matter of fact, the current research shows that very few people are completely gay or completely heterosexual. Most of us are at least partially bixexual.