Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 86

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 08-12-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky

Health care is different. You just can't let bleeding people die on the street. So your health problem becomes my health problem. Just like your national security problem is my national security problem.

Only a communist thinks this way.

Replaced_Texan · 08-12-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Only a communist thinks this way.

I'm moving on from Sebby to Burger. Sorry balt.

Spanky · 08-12-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It was a joke, my friend.

Were you joking about including more strict labor and environmental provisions in CAFTA. That is telling other countrys to adopt our values isn't it? You whole idea of parallel regulations means making third world countries adopting our rules (and values) as far as labor and the environment are concered.

Spanky · 08-12-2005, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm ready to guess. Spanky is really notme, all pissed off that the board ran him off. look at the evidence- he completely ties this board up with CAFTA and has ruined the purpose of BB while diluting the FB at the same time. No mas!

I promise I will never post about CAFTA again. Hard habit to break.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-12-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I think Aristotle also said that only a Moron bets against the house. The problem is that whole personal responsiblity thing Penske keeps talking about. You can't always save people from themselves.

Health care is different. You just can't let bleeding people die on the street. So your health problem becomes my health problem. Just like your national security problem is my national security problem.

So you have to compromise. You want to let people have as much personal responsiblity as they can but you have to also keep costs down and take care of those that can't take care of themsevles (I know that makes me a pinko). So I figure my solution is the best compromise. You are not forcing people to pay for health insurance. They don't have a right to use the public roads. You are just charging a fee for their use of the public roads. And yes, you are charging people through taxes to take care of other people but in this case humanitarian reasons trump the evil of taxation. In addition, the system I propose makes the system more efficient than the one we have now. And so far I have never heard of a better alternative.

I think wonk has already explained that if you go to the emergency room, you get a bill. The health-care system has many problems, 't'is true, but I remain unconvinced that people getting free care by going to ERs and then skipping out on their bills is a big problem. Maybe RT will tell me otherwise.

My point about Las Vegas was only that people might be acting rationally in declining insurance, in the same way that it might be rational for you or I to decline to buy earthquake insurance. I agree that it becomes a problem for the rest of us when those people lose their bets.

I think the bigger health care problems can be seen in the fact that wonk, who I suspect is about as informed and rational a health-care consumer as there is, can be whacked $5000 for the trip to his ER doctor. The complexity of the contractual arrangements necessary to purchase health-care defies the efforts of any reasonable consumer to act rationally. The transactions costs are massive, and the benefits enjoyed by repeat players are overwhelming.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-12-2005, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Were you joking about including more strict labor and environmental provisions in CAFTA. That is telling other countrys to adopt our values isn't it? You whole idea of parallel regulations means making third world countries adopting our rules (and values) as far as labor and the environment are concered.

I was joking that the combination of CAFTA and the details of health-care requirements would be even more scintillating than either topic alone.

Spanky · 08-12-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think wonk has already explained that if you go to the emergency room, you get a bill. The health-care system has many problems, 't'is true, but I remain unconvinced that people getting free care by going to ERs and then skipping out on their bills is a big problem. Maybe RT will tell me otherwise.

My point about Las Vegas was only that people might be acting rationally in declining insurance, in the same way that it might be rational for you or I to decline to buy earthquake insurance. I agree that it becomes a problem for the rest of us when those people lose their bets.

I think the bigger health care problems can be seen in the fact that wonk, who I suspect is about as informed and rational a health-care consumer as there is, can be whacked $5000 for the trip to his ER doctor. The complexity of the contractual arrangements necessary to purchase health-care defies the efforts of any reasonable consumer to act rationally. The transactions costs are massive, and the benefits enjoyed by repeat players are overwhelming.

Under my plan everyone has health insurance (if you drive it is provided by private insurance, if you don't drive it is still provided by private insurance but the government pays for it, and if no private plan covers you, you get government insurance). So no one gets wacked with a big ER bill. And people that avoid going to the doctor because they can't pay for it will now go because they have insurance.

So where is the problem?

Spanky · 08-12-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was joking that the combination of CAFTA and the details of health-care requirements would be even more scintillating than either topic alone.

Oh - realize that was a joke. I was also using it as a chance to compare your position on trade to the Neo-cons. A stretch - but what the hell.

Replaced_Texan · 08-12-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Under my plan everyone has health insurance (if you drive it is provided by private insurance, if you don't drive it is still provided by private insurance but the government pays for it, and if no private plan covers you, you get government insurance). So no one gets wacked with a big ER bill. And people that avoid going to the doctor because they can't pay for it will now go because they have insurance.

So where is the problem?

Wonk had/has health insurance and still got whacked with a big ER bill.

Spanky · 08-12-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point about Las Vegas was only that people might be acting rationally in declining insurance, in the same way that it might be rational for you or I to decline to buy earthquake insurance. I agree that it becomes a problem for the rest of us when those people lose their bets.

Valid point. But it is not in our interest that they don't get insurance. So we force them to get it if they drive. And if they don't drive we pay for it because it is in our interest that they get it.

Hank Chinaski · 08-12-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Reciting the phrase "hard work" shows a special cluelessness when you're discussing a president who famously doesn't work as hard as anyone since Reagan, at least. Bush has his virtues, but working hard has never been one of them. It takes a particularly special cluelessness to say the "hard work" thing when he's on a five-week vacation.

I'm in a position where I am somewhat managerial. Much of my day is spent listening to younger lawyers explain things and then agreeing or focusing their proposed course of action. I also spend a good deal of time client hand holding. I do work, but only about half the time. When I'm on vacation much of the managerial stuff continues.

A president would have all his office time be the managerial type. People would come explain stuff then he'd decide things. Why can't he do that in Texas? I bet the main difference is that he can go outside in Texas.

See Ty, your vacations aren't necessarially what a President or a sucessful lawyer experiences.

ltl/fb · 08-12-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm moving on from Sebby to Burger. Sorry balt.

He's mine. Back the fuck off, bitch.

And it was a joke, slave. I don't use hyperbole like that. That's you and penske.

Spanky · 08-12-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Wonk had/has health insurance and still got whacked with a big ER bill.

You don[t force people to get any old insurance. Obviously, you force people to get plans that cover Emergency situations. Wonk got screwed by the small print. And just further evidence the current system sucks and needs to be changed to mine.

ltl/fb · 08-12-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You don[t force people to get any old insurance. Obviously, you force people to get plans that cover Emergency situations. Wonk got screwed by the small print. And just further evidence the current system sucks and needs to be changed to mine.

Maybe what Wonk thought was an emergency wasn't really an emergency. What result then?

Hank Chinaski · 08-12-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I promise I will never post about CAFTA again. Hard habit to break.

Since you're new I'll give you a bit more slack. We NEVER engage the internet trolls and you keep engaging the worst- if we all ignore this Ty sock it'll go away, but you responding to it keeps it here and it creeps most of us out.