People against socialized medicine but fast to spread Gofundme links for sick friends

[Vash The Stampede]

I am just pointing out the fact that saying "without state healthcare everybody would become bankrupt" is not a good argument at all.

The problem is that if we put a price on your life, how much are you willing to pay to stay alive? Probably everything right? Hence the problem with private insurance agencies.

Especially when you consider the conservative world view on the subject. You are not going to convince them with this argument when they value private insurance and self responsibility a lot. According to their world view, if you do not buy yourself insurance and do not have a close knit community it is your own fault and they are not completely stupid for saying that.

Except that's a jerk off thing to do. If you need to ask for hand outs to get care, you're screwed. Which incidentally most politicians and elderly are on social medicine.

In the same vein, socialized medecine is not all that its cracked up to be. As a personal anectode, I have seen with my own eyes my aunt die of a cancer that might have been cured using some new technique that had a huge success rate for that specific cancer. Our state agency that approves of what treatments to use did not approve of it yet and so she died without having the possibility to try. Of course, it might have not changed the outcome but we will never know. That treatment was actually approved a couple of years later.

Was she on social medicine? Would she even be cared for without it?

[The Plague]

Do you mean people won't try to get away with showing a care for social minded policies and pretend they are decent human beings by posting charity groups, despite being too greedy to actually do anything about it? Come on now, why would you believe this is anything more than an attempt to show something they are not, or just help those near them since they clearly feel bad for them, and not a stranger in the street with the same issue.

[Zcion999]

Was she on social medicine? Would she even be cared for without it?

Yes she was. Your other question has an undefined response since so many things need to be different for it to make sense. The reality is that we are living in a socialized medecine country so how much she would have been cared for without can't be answered. It becomes opinion and depending if you are for or against social medecine you would have a different answer.

A conservative would say : "yes absolutely, she would have had private insurance of high quality and would have been able to take the experimental treatment."

A "liberal" would say : "No private insurance would have cheated her out of her treatment to save money"

Just pointing out that socialized medecine is not PERFECT. That some familles experience terrible drama because of the slow lumbering nature of huge governmental programs. I do not know what the solution is but my personal pain is telling me that we might want to rethink how we deal with healthcare instead of just standing on our predetermined positions and clamoring for either extremes.

[Ivanstone]

So that is 152.1 BILLION dollars that are spent for charity -- i.e. improving healthcare, supporting education, and supporting actual charities.

The largest organized church in the world managed an impressive 152 billion. World wide.

Or it would be if the U.S. federal government didn't spent 495 billion on Medicaid (ya know, aid for the poors) in 2014. Sry kids, church charity doesn't cut it in the real world.

[Caolela]

this argument shouldn't even exist. dozens of other countries have better outcomes than the USA while spending less.

it's over. conservatives are wrong. it's proven.

But facts don't matter to right-wingnuts. They want you to go begging to some church so they can try to convert you or at least push their form of magic fairy worship on vulnerable people in a weakened condition (physically and emotionally). The potential for generating even more tax-free income is thus much greater.

I see it all the time here in TN, where everyone and their dog has some kind of church. BTW, TN has the highest combined state-local sales tax rate in the country (9.45%, the next 3 highest being Southern red states), which affects the lower and middle incomes much more than upper, while the upper incomes enjoy the typical tax breaks and gov't welfare not available to the average guy. Yet even with that high sales tax rate, TN refuses to provide Medicaid except for certain cancer treatments and pregnant (well, they don't want to be seen as totally barbaric, but mostly is OK).

[Jibjub]

The largest organized church in the world managed an impressive 152 billion. World wide.

Or it would be if the U.S. federal government didn't spent 495 billion on Medicaid (ya know, aid for the poors) in 2014. Sry kids, church charity doesn't cut it in the real world.

But that's forced giving (taxes). It's not the same as charity. And people give less when they are taxed higher (because there is this illusion, which this thread seems to confirm, that paying taxes is the same as giving).

[Tyrianth]

I thought Obamacare fixed this problem? Are you saying it didn't accomplish anything? Maybe if you're such a prick that you lack any friends or family to help you in a time of need, you should reevaluate how you lived your life. "I can't find a job that provides health care like 85% of Americans. I somehow don't qualify for Obamacare, Medicaid or Medicare. I have no friends or family who are willing to help me. Definitely not my fault, fucking republicans."

The affordable care act didn't fix American healthcare because congress refused to pass it without ripping it to shreds.

[alexw]

But that's forced giving (taxes). It's not the same as charity. And people give less when they are taxed higher (because there is this illusion, which this thread seems to confirm, that paying taxes is the same as giving).

Charity simply cannot come close to covering the same number of people to the same extent as gov programs do. It was tried in the past and it failed. Which is why the gov programs were invented in the first place.

[Ivanstone]

But that's forced giving (taxes). It's not the same as charity. And people give less when they are taxed higher (because there is this illusion, which this thread seems to confirm, that paying taxes is the same as giving).

Doesn't matter if its "forced". Its about getting the job done. Charity does not get the job done. Even if they were taxed less there's no guarantee that charity would be able to make up the short fall.

And that was just Medicaid. Medicare expenditures are even higher. These things exist because the former model of charity was not cutting it.

[Repefe]

I live in EU. I am required to give small part of my income to healthcare ... in turn, nobody in my country gets to die, because he can't afford standard healthcare. Feels good.

[Caolela]

Individual states did not have to accept Medicaid expansion under ACA (and the federal gov't funds that go with it):

The ACA Medicaid expansion was designed to address the high uninsured rates among low-income adults, providing a coverage option for people who had limited access to employer coverage and limited income to purchase coverage on their own. However, with many states opting not to implement the Medicaid expansion, millions of uninsured adults remain outside the reach of the ACA and continue to have limited, if any, option for affordable health coverage: they are ineligible for publicly-financed coverage in their state, most do not have access to employer-based coverage through a job, and all have limited income available to purchase coverage on their own.

The majority of people in the coverage gap are in poor working families—that is, either they or a family member is employed either part-time or full-time but still living below the poverty line. Given the characteristics of their employment, it is likely that many will continue to lack access to coverage through their job even with ACA provisions for employer responsibility for coverage are effective in 2016.12 Further, even if they do receive an offer from their employer that meets ACA requirements, many will find their share of the cost to be unaffordable. Because this population is generally exempt from the individual mandate, and because firms will not face a penalty for these workers remaining uninsured, they will continue to fall between the cracks in the employer-based system. ...

What about those who don't have any family, or just a few left who happen to be pricks and refuse to help them? Perhaps some old family or personal grudge, whatever?

It's my fault if I didn't go out and "make friends" enough that if I need their largess some day...oh yeah, that sounds like a real "health plan" there.

The level of disingenuous crap to try to justify selfishness and greed from the right-wing knows no limit.

[Machismo]

I think a major issue Americans have with socialized medicine, is that they are tough individual responsibility is of paramount inportance. Socialized medicine and health care, when forced, upon a populace, is actually a reduction in overall freedom. What is worse, the ACA has been a failure on multiple fronts. The American government is largely ineffective, inept, and corrupt. Americans do not have a very high opinion of those in charge, so are very reticent to give them more power over their lives.

[alexw]

Doesn't matter if its "forced". Its about getting the job done. Charity does not get the job done. Even if they were taxed less there's no guarantee that charity would be able to make up the short fall.

And that was just Medicaid. Medicare expenditures are even higher. These things exist because the former model of charity was not cutting it.

It wouldn't. Charity has a place in filling in gaps but that is it. For social provision systems you need an overarching provider that tries to take care of the major needs. Take for example 2008-9 and the skyrocketing of unemployment. Does anyone seriously think there would have been enough charitable giving then even if taxes were lower? Instead what we saw was major major falls in charitable giving as those doing the giving became much more cautious of their own finances. So when the need is greatest charitable giving falls.

[Elegiac]

I think a major issue Americans have with socialized medicine, is that they are tough individual responsibility is of paramount inportance. Socialized medicine and health care, when forced, upon a populace, is actually a reduction in overall freedom. What is worse, the ACA has been a failure on multiple fronts. The American government is largely ineffective, inept, and corrupt. Americans do not have a very high opinion of those in charge, so are very reticent to give them more power over their lives.

So, in essence, they neither understand how single payer healthcare works, much less the ACA, and they value things of little functional importance for sentimental reasons at very real costs.

*thumbs up*

[Machismo]

So, in essence, they neither understand how single payer healthcare works, much less the ACA, and they value things of little functional importance for sentimental reasons at very real costs.

*thumbs up*

The ACA is total garbage. All it really did, was force people to buy into the same shirt system we already had. Single payer makes far more sense, but Americans aren't too keen on anything involving the word "socialism. " I think they would have better luck trying it with a voluntary v3rion of single payer.

[alexw]

I think a major issue Americans have with socialized medicine, is that they are tough individual responsibility is of paramount inportance. Socialized medicine and health care, when forced, upon a populace, is actually a reduction in overall freedom. What is worse, the ACA has been a failure on multiple fronts. The American government is largely ineffective, inept, and corrupt. Americans do not have a very high opinion of those in charge, so are very reticent to give them more power over their lives.

Lol why on earth is it reducing freedom? Being brainwashed into believing that does make it so. In fact its the exact opposite. If you have healthcare provided with no strings attached it frees you from one the major worries and burdens in life. It enables you to move jobs without worrying about healthcare at your new employer. It de-chains you from current employers where you have access to older more generous packages which you won't get if you change jobs. It enables you to think about starting up your own business without worrying about what happens if you get sick. It enables you to more easily retrain after a job loss, as you don't immediately need another job to cover your healthcare needs. It frees you from the crushing burden of debt if you get seriously ill and have to declare bankruptcy as currently happens.

The idea that the private healthcare system which crushes people under its costs, somehow provides freedom to people is beyond stupid. It does the exact opposite.

[Tyrianth]

The ACA is total garbage. All it really did, was force people to buy into the same shirt system we already had. Single payer makes far more sense, but Americans aren't too keen on anything involving the word "socialism. " I think they would have better luck trying it with a voluntary v3rion of single payer.

The only reason the ACA is garbage is because congress ripped it to shreds before they were willing to pass it. The pitfall of American politics, full of compromise and in turn, shit policies that make no one happy.

[Caolela]

They're stuck in some idealized, modern version of Puritanical Calvinism. This country wants nostalgia, the good ol' days when we gave 'em hell. They long for people like John Wayne riding tall in the saddle, but since he's no longer available they took Ronnie Raygun, then the Shrub & Darth Neo-Cons. Obama still has some of them in his administration.

[IIamaKing]

You're "survival" is determined by your actions, yes. If you fuck your life up and can't afford health insurance, well I'm sorry man that sucks for you. Sorry to tell you, healthcare isn't a right despite what rainbow flaming dyed hair whalelord youtuber tells you it is.

And since you brought it up, that's another big problem conservatives have with socializing medicine. Not all medicine has to do with "survival". Should I have to pay for some emo 13 year old's weed perscription? Should I have to pay for women killing babies? No, I shouldn't.

What? You sound like the high one.

[Machismo]

Lol why on earth is it reducing freedom? Being brainwashed into believing that does make it so. In fact its the exact opposite. If you have healthcare provided with no strings attached it frees you from one the major worries and burdens in life. It enables you to move jobs without worrying about healthcare at your new employer. It de-chains you from current employers where you have access to older more generous packages which you won't get if you change jobs. It enables you to think about starting up your own business without worrying about what happens if you get sick. It enables you to more easily retrain after a job loss, as you don't immediately need another job to cover your healthcare needs. It frees you from the crushing burden of debt if you get seriously ill and have to declare bankruptcy as currently happens.

The idea that the private healthcare system which crushes people under its costs, somehow provides freedom to people is beyond stupid. It does the exact opposite.

Forcibly taking money from people is a restriction of their freedom. The more you take, the more freedom you are taking away.

- - - Updated - - -

The only reason the ACA is garbage is because congress ripped it to shreds before they were willing to pass it. The pitfall of American politics, full of compromise and in turn, shit policies that make no one happy.

Congress really didn't rip it to shreds, they did what they always do, and turned it into a bureaucratic nightmare.