Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Free to die?

Old 12-07-2011, 07:49 AM
  #1  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,717
Default Free to die?

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011
*
Free To Die?
*
*********** Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column titled “Free to Die” (9/15/2011), pointed out that back in 1980, his late fellow Nobel laureate Milton Friedman lent his voice to the nation’s shift to the political right in his famous 10-part TV series, “Free To Choose.” Nowadays, Krugman says, “‘free to choose’ has become ‘free to die.’” He was referring to a GOP presidential debate in which Rep. Ron Paul was asked what should be done if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Paul correctly, but politically incorrectly, replied, “That’s what freedom is all about -- taking your own risks.” CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer pressed his question further, asking whether “society should just let him die.” The crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”, which led Krugman to conclude that “American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.” Professor Krugman is absolutely right; our nation is faced with a conflict of moral visions. Let’s look at it.
*********** If a person without health insurance finds himself in need of costly medical care, let’s investigate just how might that care be provided. There are not too many of us who’d suggest that we get the money from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. That being the case, if a medically indigent person receives medical treatment, it must be provided by people. There are several possible methods to deliver the services. One way is for people to make voluntary contributions or for medical practitioners to simply treat medically indigent patients at no charge. I find both methods praiseworthy, laudable and, above all, moral.
*********** Another way to provide those services is for Congress to use its power to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. That is, under the pain of punishment, Congress could mandate that medical practitioners treat medically indigent patients at no charge. I’d personally find such a method of providing medical services offensive and immoral, simply because I find the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another, what amounts to slavery, in violation of all that is decent.
*********** I am proud to say that I think most of my fellow Americans would be repulsed at the suggestion of forcibly using medical practitioners to serve the purposes of people in need of hospital care. But I’m afraid that most Americans are not against the principle of the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another under the pain of punishment. They just don’t have much stomach to witness it. You say, “Williams, explain yourself.”
*********** Say that citizen John pays his share of the constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government. He recognizes that nothing in our Constitution gives Congress the authority to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another or take the earnings of one American and give them to another American, whether it be for medical services, business bailouts, handouts to farmers or handouts in the form of foreign aid. Suppose John refuses to allow what he earns to be taken and given to another. My guess is that Krugman and, sadly, most other Americans would sanction government punishment, imprisonment or initiation of violence against John. They share Professor Krugman’s moral vision that one person has a right to live at the expense of another, but they just don't have the gall to call it that.
*********** I share James Madison’s vision, articulated when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees in 1794. Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents," adding later that "charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." This vision of morality, I’m afraid, is repulsive to most Americans.
*********** Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 08:12 AM
  #2  
Boone & Crockett
 
The Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burleson Texas
Posts: 12,560
Default

I sure hope they don't start charging to die, I can't afford it.
The Rev is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 08:26 AM
  #3  
Nontypical Buck
 
halfbakedi420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: central and east texas
Posts: 4,894
Default

they do charge...its called life....you pay yer whole life to pay off yer death.
halfbakedi420 is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 11:43 AM
  #4  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Well let's see what happens when John Doe gets sick.

First of all, let's assume that John has health insurance.

He has a serious medical problem which costs $1.75 million to treat. Thankfully, John recovers. Who pays? Well, John's health insurance provider will pay. Okay, but where do they get the money? It's extremely unlikely that John has paid anywhere near $1.75 million dollars in premiums. It's easy. Each policyholder pays a small part of that bill in the form of his/her monthly premium. Or it may be paid by the eimployer, same deal.

Now let's assume that John has no health insurance.

He has the same serious problem and it still costs $1.75 million to treat it. Thankfully, John recovers. Who pays? Well they might get a little bit of it from John, but he will probably declare bankruptcy and get out of the bill. So what happens? How do the medical care providers get their money? It's easy, they add a share of it to the bill of every other patient who is covered by insurance and, once again the insurance company writes a check. Where do they get the money? Why the same place they got it in the first example, from the policy holders.

As we can see, not everyone has health insurance. So what will the government do? It's going to force everyone to buy insurance through a government program which will manage your "health care." So if you trust the government to be able to do this, fine. I don't.
sachiko is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 01:31 PM
  #5  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,717
Default

He has the same serious problem and it still costs $1.75 million to treat it. Thankfully, John recovers. Who pays? Well they might get a little bit of it from John, but he will probably declare bankruptcy and get out of the bill. So what happens? How do the medical care providers get their money? It's easy, they add a share of it to the bill of every other patient who is covered by insurance and, once again the insurance company writes a check. Where do they get the money? Why the same place they got it in the first example, from the policy holders.
how about repealing the mandate that everyone receives care in the ER? You can't pay, you don't get services.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 02:42 PM
  #6  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,717
Default

Originally Posted by Venator2 View Post
Haha do away with insurance .and Insurance companies.. do away with the VA Make it illegal for company insurance plans or 401 k's

lets hang all the sob from lamp posts and get back to basics.. what no??? why?
Why are you advocating that venator? I know you didn't pay for all your Medicare, but didn't you at least pay for your private insurance? Are you saying a private citizen shouldn't be allowed to take the risk and open a private insurance business?
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 03:32 PM
  #7  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,717
Default

medicare is risk sharing.
are you kidding me or what? Medicare is anything but risk sharing. Medicare is in fact the biggest ponzi scheme ever cooked up.

Before you showed the board just how crazy your were a few months back, I posted the actual numbers. Only those who make an average of 150k/ year or more in their lifetime, have they paid for the cost of the services they receive from Medicare. The average joe only pays for 50k in services but receives 150k worth of benefits. Where do you suppose that other 100k comes from to cover your care? The program is deeply unfunded and in just over a decade along with the other entittlement programs will consume the entire federal budget. Then what?

Private insurance is risk sharing. Private insurance takes in premiums and invests them to make money, reduce the cost and have a rainy day fund to cover the risks. How long do you think a private insurance company could remain in business if it lost 100k / customer? How long do you think innovation and new ideas will continue to be develope if you kill the investment engine in this country by killing off private insurance companies?

I think your last sentence you were trying to say the cost of private insurance is why the government is involved. If that's the case, you have it backwards. Government mandates and freebies like covering the uninsured in emergency rooms and Medicare and Medicaid are what is driving our high insurance costs.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 03:30 AM
  #8  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,717
Default

It's too bad you always fail to address the real issues. You don't seem to understand what 60 trillion dollars is or you just don't care you're screwing your kids and grandkids. I guess you feel it won't matter since you'll be dead in 10 years. A lot of the old farts on this board feel that way.

If insurance companies want to loose customers before they collect, how come even the company who denies the most claims is half of the number Medicare denies?

Let me give you an education. You're not too old to learn are you? Insurance companies are heavily regulated by the state the do business in. When they wish to raise rates, they just can't do that overnight. They must propose rate increases and then go to many hearings before your state regulators where they are given a thorough anal exam on their books. Only if the state regulators find just cause, are they allowed to raise their rates.

Class dismissed

Last edited by Fieldmouse; 12-08-2011 at 03:34 AM.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 03:35 AM
  #9  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

mY problem with this whole issue is this:

1: I 'join' a medical insurance company as a customer. I agree to pay. I KNOW that
all 'members' of this club share expenses...the company depends on a good
economy and having more healthy members than sick members. It's a club and we
take care of our own. Mostly.

2: Medicare is forced upon us by the government. We have no choice, we have no
ability to decide on medicare OR some other venue. If we choose to stop paying,
we are prosecuted. It is not shared risk, it is forced participation.

In practice, the two are not much different. I just object to the government forcing people to participate under pain of prosecution. Private insurance just drops derelicts, those who refuse to pay into Medicare get referred to the Justice Department. Dont seem right...even the liberal scum say it....'we're all about choice'....unless your choices do not agree with the socialists own.

I do not hold the 'old leeches' and 'aged parasite' idea. These people (I hope one day to be among them) were told they get benefits from 'the government' for participating.
I hold to that 'deal' and do not begrudge them their 'cashing in' on their benes. The problem here is the people who supported and implemented a system that produces 'leeches' and 'parasites'. But these are long gone. Time to rehabilitate these programs to make them self-sustaining and not a burden on taxpayers. If we choose to continue them.
bergall is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 03:43 AM
  #10  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,717
Default

I do not hold the 'old leeches' and 'aged parasite' idea. These people (I hope one day to be among them) were told they get benefits from 'the government' for participating.
I hold to that 'deal' and do not begrudge them their 'cashing in' on their benes. The problem here is the people who supported and implemented a system that produces 'leeches' and 'parasites'. But these are long gone. Time to rehabilitate these programs to make them self-sustaining and not a burden on taxpayers. If we choose to continue them.
I have a serious problem when given the facts that the system really is a ponzi scheme. It's proven that the system isn't paid for and is unsustainable. Yet, the very same people who you won't call them leaches, cry foul when any attempt is made to correct the problem.

At what point do you become a leach?
Fieldmouse is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.