Rising Ape: geniusiknowit: The last time I went looking for a new job (about 20 months ago), I had 2 companies (let's call them A and B) make me an offer. I liked B better than A, but A was offering more. I told B about A's offer, and B topped it. I told A about B's offer, and they offered to match it. I went with B for other perks. Then I put in my 2-week notice with the company I was at, company C, and they offered to top B's offer... although the extra would've been consumed by the extra cost of gas and parking for commuting to company C, making it essentially the same offer as B's. And B still had those other perks I liked, so now I'm with company B. All that fuss over lil ol' me, and I don't even have a college farking degree.

Employers have to compete with each other for skilled labor, you know.

That's nice, though it would be interesting to see if that would still be the case in the current economic climate. Right now I'd take just about any offer, and I suspect most people aren't in the position of being able to work for "whatever they want to charge for their labor", as the original poster put it.

It's still the case, although it is admittedly tougher. But it's always tough when you don't have the skills that are in demand.

Abox: craig328: Care will be rationed. While you think that's a good thing for whatever reasons you do think...it's not a good thing in practice. Being told you cannot get a procedure done because there are a gazillion people ahead of you in line and they're there because they don't have to pay for their care won't be a good thing when you experience it I assure you.


Newsflash: Care is already rationed, the uninsured are already ahead of you in line, and the cost of treating them at the stage where they are forced into emergency rooms is passed on to you at a much higher cost than insured, preventative treatment.

It's like that because the govt made it like that.

jso2897: geniusiknowit: WrestlerManager: geniusiknowit: WrestlerManager: geniusiknowit: Here's what I'm trying to understand:
Evil greedy insurance companies + evil overpaid doctors = make me pay for someone else's health care
Can someone please explain this? Those in the medical industry are corrupt, and the solution is to punish me?

You're already paying for someone else's health care. All of us are. The solution is not in making you pay, it's in controlling who gets the money, and how much.

Okay, but I want the exclusive privilege of deciding who gets the money I earn.
Is that part of the solution?

Not in a representative democracy. You proxy that right to your elected representatives.
/trust my congresswoman way more than any insurance company.

I didn't vote for the person who got elected, but they get my money anyway.
However, if I don't like a certain doctor, he/she won't be getting my money.
But some useless person gets elected, and they get my money because they're considered my "representative." I put quotes around that because they don't really, in any true meaning of the word, represent me. They support none of the things I support. The are for all of the things I'm against. I didn't choose them. They have very little in common with me. But they still get to spend my money, and will have me attacked if I attempt to resist.
This representative democracy stuff is really shiatty.

Welcome to human civilization. We hope you enjoy your stay here, but you are free to leave if you wish. If, however, you elect to stay, you will be required to contribute. Sorry about that, Holmes.

I do contribute. I have a job where I provide a service that people need. I take the compensation from that job and use it to compensate others who provide products and services that I need. I also donate my labor to charitable causes.

The voluntary transactions in which I participate contribute everything I owe to society.

craig328:
And when they do, you'll get stratified care. The best docs refuse all insurance, take cash only and cater exclusively to those who can pay for the quality and the diminished wait times while the rest of the great unwashed get to take a number and go to Helen Waite.

That situation hasn't arisen here in the UK, it just requires the government to pay doctors a decent amount. From what I've seen in this thread then at least GPs here get a roughly similar amount to in the US. You could also prohibit seeing private patients during normal times as a condition of receiving the government money. If a doctor *really* wants to abandon that to see only private patients, well fine, that's their choice. But get the pay/conditions right and a) not many will do it and b) they won't get any paying patients if they do.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: That number is way too low.

Just look at Canada, The UK, Germany and the rest of the countries with socialist health care... they have like 15 doctors total.

That's why more than 95% of their citizens die in their waiting rooms, more than half of them from old age.

Bookmarking this post so I can link to it next time some libtard says "citation needed".

geniusiknowit:
It's still the case, although it is admittedly tougher. But it's always tough when you don't have the skills that are in demand.

Ah, the "I've got mine, fark you" school of thought. Don't be too surprised if not everyone agrees that that's the best way to run a society though.

Rising Ape: geniusiknowit:
It's still the case, although it is admittedly tougher. But it's always tough when you don't have the skills that are in demand.

Ah, the "I've got mine, fark you" school of thought. Don't be too surprised if not everyone agrees that that's the best way to run a society though.

Well of course.

I know there are plenty of those on the other side - the "You've got more so give me some," school of thought.

I'm a doctor who quit three years ago, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

The question that wasn't asked is how many docs are considering quitting if reform DOESN'T happen. I would guess it's also about 45%. So no news here, move along.

alywa: WrestlerManager: Amazing how many doctors joined FARK just in time to participate in the health care debate.

If just joined =

Account created: 2005-11-14 10:03:37


Check the accounts of some of the others claiming to be doctors.

Now I understand why I always have to wait even though I made an
appointment. Your on Fark.

Maybe if Doctors would stop sewing their initials into people, leaving instruments inside of them or actually mis-diagnosing them then they could avoid being sued.

As it is, doctors are seeing less and less people for fear that they diagnose someone who has a raging case of cancer as "fine". If I pay to take my car to a mechanic, pay him $300 to give it the once-over and a week later, my transmission falls out of it then the mechanic should be liable. I am liable for the work that I approve at my job.

If you're charging $250/hr, you had better be farking correct and thorough. Most of my medical experience involves filling out paperwork, seeing a nurse, stepping on a scale, chatting with the doctor for about 40 seconds and then receiving a perscription. No wonder they are being sued left and right.

geniusiknowit: Rising Ape: geniusiknowit:
It's still the case, although it is admittedly tougher. But it's always tough when you don't have the skills that are in demand.

Ah, the "I've got mine, fark you" school of thought. Don't be too surprised if not everyone agrees that that's the best way to run a society though.

Well of course.

I know there are plenty of those on the other side - the "You've got more so give me some," school of thought.


Actually the other side is 'let's find a way to co-exist without killing each other...or at least minimize the killing'.

geniusiknowit: Rising Ape: geniusiknowit:
It's still the case, although it is admittedly tougher. But it's always tough when you don't have the skills that are in demand.

Ah, the "I've got mine, fark you" school of thought. Don't be too surprised if not everyone agrees that that's the best way to run a society though.

Well of course.

I know there are plenty of those on the other side - the "You've got more so give me some," school of thought.

Sometimes, although more often it's a natural sense of justice, and the lack of it that offends people rather than mere envy. People don't mind others having more if there's a sense that it was fairly obtained, or at least that they appreciate it. I don't mind doctors getting paid well, but then to see people moan on here than $140k isn't a lot of money just takes the piss.

Admittedly, doctors aren't even close to the worst offenders on the arrogance and "sense of entitlement" front.

IBD huh? I think I'll wait and see what Stephen Hawking has to say.

Abox: geniusiknowit: Rising Ape: geniusiknowit:
It's still the case, although it is admittedly tougher. But it's always tough when you don't have the skills that are in demand.

Ah, the "I've got mine, fark you" school of thought. Don't be too surprised if not everyone agrees that that's the best way to run a society though.

Well of course.

I know there are plenty of those on the other side - the "You've got more so give me some," school of thought.


Actually the other side is 'let's find a way to co-exist without killing each other...or at least minimize the killing'.

It's more accurately called the "let's pretend we want to find a way to co-exist... until our party is in control, then we'll keep up the killing," side.

Rising Ape: Sometimes, although more often it's a natural sense of justice, and the lack of it that offends people rather than mere envy. People don't mind others having more if there's a sense that it was fairly obtained, or at least that they appreciate it. I don't mind doctors getting paid well, but then to see people moan on here than $140k isn't a lot of money just takes the piss.

I don't see the justice in taking something that wasn't voluntarily given to you. The only way to know if something was obtained "fairly" is to determine whether or not it was obtained without coercion. If someone has obtained great wealth through voluntary transactions, then they've obtained it fairly. If they obtained it through coercion or theft, then they've obtained it unfairly.

45% of doctors would consider quitting

No, they'd consider a hissy-fit.
They're not really going to stop cutting people up with knives for a few $M a year.
They'd have to get JOBS....

Father_Jack: PurplePimpSaber: Nate Silver rips the IBD poll apart. (new window)

awesome. thanks for this.

also, everyone should take a look at this:



its those little tiny pink circles that everyone's peeing over. These little circles represent the changes. How exactly does this turn us into socialized medicine omg oh noes teh libruls?!?

we're talking about a change for a fraction of the population.

Because 90% of that 122,000,000 balloon is going to flock to the subsidized pink bubble when their employers drop their plans.

Citation: my father-in-law pays $600-800/mo/employee. $150 per under the subsidized plan. That's how this becomes socialized medicine

geniusiknowit: Abox: geniusiknowit: Rising Ape: geniusiknowit:
It's still the case, although it is admittedly tougher. But it's always tough when you don't have the skills that are in demand.

Ah, the "I've got mine, fark you" school of thought. Don't be too surprised if not everyone agrees that that's the best way to run a society though.

Well of course.

I know there are plenty of those on the other side - the "You've got more so give me some," school of thought.


Actually the other side is 'let's find a way to co-exist without killing each other...or at least minimize the killing'.

It's more accurately called the "let's pretend we want to find a way to co-exist... until our party is in control, then we'll keep up the killing," side.


That's less accurate. People not in the 'I've got mine, fark you' camp generally like to co-exist with minimal killing no matter what party is in control.

That 45% figure is ridiculous.

However, many of my older colleagues (50+)have expressed this. They made their retirement money already.

Consider if the avg MD career is 30 years, having these docs retire 3 years early depletes 10% of the doc pool.

Add to that, when patients don't have to pay for care, usage goes waaaaay up.

Hope you like waiting.

Half or more probably consider quitting every day the way things are. It's not exactly a stress-free and easy job. Some of them went into medicine for prestige and status as Doc Hollywoods. It's not like that, you have to advertise in the yellow pages like a restaurant does, you have to cater to your customers, you have to tell them things they don't want to hear.

It's like a lot of other jobs. If they quit, other people will pick up their slack anyway, people who are willing.

But more importantly, why does the insurance industry think they can speak for the physicians in this way? They are totally different professions--one provides useful and necessary medical services and the others are parasitic vampires who act as bankers and death panels who ration health care to maintain costs slightly below their profit margins. "Give us your money then we pay the doctors for you. See? It's great. hahaha"

geniusiknowit: Rising Ape: Sometimes, although more often it's a natural sense of justice, and the lack of it that offends people rather than mere envy. People don't mind others having more if there's a sense that it was fairly obtained, or at least that they appreciate it. I don't mind doctors getting paid well, but then to see people moan on here than $140k isn't a lot of money just takes the piss.

I don't see the justice in taking something that wasn't voluntarily given to you. The only way to know if something was obtained "fairly" is to determine whether or not it was obtained without coercion. If someone has obtained great wealth through voluntary transactions, then they've obtained it fairly. If they obtained it through coercion or theft, then they've obtained it unfairly.

There's no such thing as without coercion. Sometimes it's just less obvious than pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "give me all your money". We're coerced into doing things all the time by a wide variety of factors - for example, company B was forced to pay you more than they would voluntarily have done in the absense of company A's offer.

Now, you may think that's perfectly fair, and I'd agree, but it was just an example. But consider the very rich competing with the poor for medical attention, who's going to win? The rich guy with the mild complaint or the penniless woman with cancer? Most people's sense of fairness and ethics would say that the cancer patient should get priority, but not the voluntary transactions of the free market.

landsnark1: That 45% figure is ridiculous.

However, many of my older colleagues (50+)have expressed this. They made their retirement money already.

Consider if the avg MD career is 30 years, having these docs retire 3 years early depletes 10% of the doc pool.

Add to that, when patients don't have to pay for care, usage goes waaaaay up.

Hope you like waiting.

Which is why we need more medical schools, and more subsidized medical education. There are more than enough qualified individuals interested in filling the spots.

Rising Ape: There's no such thing as without coercion. Sometimes it's just less obvious than pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "give me all your money". We're coerced into doing things all the time by a wide variety of factors - for example, company B was forced to pay you more than they would voluntarily have done in the absense of company A's offer.

That's not true at all. Company B could have said, "no," and hired someone else. Or hired no one at all. Company B could have said, "shiat, we so impressed by yo mad negotiatin' skillz, we gon' pay you triple, dawg!"

My hiring and the amount of my salary were both voluntarily agreed to by the company and I. I didn't threaten them with harm of any sort. And company A's offer had nothing to do with it really. I could have simply said I was okay making less at Company A unless Company B paid over a certain threshold. Or I could have insisted on that amount even if there were no Company A. I used no force or intimidation to get that money. I simply said, "If you want to hire me, it has to be for this amount." And they said, "If you want us to pay you this amount, you have to do such-n-such." And we both agreed and shook hands and that was that. If I cease doing what I was hired to do, they won't pay me anymore. If they cease paying me, I'll cease doing what they hired me to do.

No force. No intimidation. No coercion.

landsnark1: Add to that, when patients don't have to pay for care, usage goes waaaaay up.

Hope you like waiting.

Interesting, are people deliberately contracting diseases just to take advantage of the free medical care? Or just quietly dying of illnesses because they can't afford to see a doctor?

Actually, turning the sarcasm off for a moment, there's some truth there. But how can you deter people from wasting doctors time with trivial complaints without stopping people with serious problems from getting help?

Rising Ape: But consider the very rich competing with the poor for medical attention, who's going to win? The rich guy with the mild complaint or the penniless woman with cancer? Most people's sense of fairness and ethics would say that the cancer patient should get priority, but not the voluntary transactions of the free market.

In a free market, someone would soon come along and offer a treatment for impoverished cancer patients. But in our current market, the govt restricts who gets to provide medical services, and restricts the ways in which it may be provided.

If only we had a free market in health care.

Guys, we can't argue with the facts. I guess we have to give up on working toward a health care system that actually helps people and continue with the status quo. We don't want the doctors to get upset and stop helping people. Wait, what?

geniusiknowit: Rising Ape: There's no such thing as without coercion. Sometimes it's just less obvious than pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "give me all your money". We're coerced into doing things all the time by a wide variety of factors - for example, company B was forced to pay you more than they would voluntarily have done in the absense of company A's offer.

That's not true at all. Company B could have said, "no," and hired someone else. Or hired no one at all. Company B could have said, "shiat, we so impressed by yo mad negotiatin' skillz, we gon' pay you triple, dawg!"

My hiring and the amount of my salary were both voluntarily agreed to by the company and I. I didn't threaten them with harm of any sort. And company A's offer had nothing to do with it really. I could have simply said I was okay making less at Company A unless Company B paid over a certain threshold. Or I could have insisted on that amount even if there were no Company A. I used no force or intimidation to get that money. I simply said, "If you want to hire me, it has to be for this amount." And they said, "If you want us to pay you this amount, you have to do such-n-such." And we both agreed and shook hands and that was that. If I cease doing what I was hired to do, they won't pay me anymore. If they cease paying me, I'll cease doing what they hired me to do.

No force. No intimidation. No coercion.

That was a toy example anyway, the more serious one was later in my post. If you're roughly on a level playing field with whoever you're negotiating with then it may well be fair to say that was a perfectly free choice. My point was that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum, and what's voluntary is dependent on external factors. If the only company around was company B, then the outcome of your negotiations would have been very different indeed. You can't claim that if there were no alternatives to B that you could have demanded as much money, because B would have simply refused, saying "hmm, you'll have to take what little I'm giving you or starve". That's coercion by any reasonable definition, but in a "voluntary" (by your standards) manner.

Governments play a key role in trying to prevent such asymmetries of power. The other historic force for doing this has been unions, but I expect you don't like those either.

Oh yes, medicine. If a significant fraction of the population are unable to get medical care, which after all is pretty essential, then that's a clear indication that some of the effects I mentioned are in play.

Rising Ape: landsnark1: Add to that, when patients don't have to pay for care, usage goes waaaaay up.

Hope you like waiting.

Interesting, are people deliberately contracting diseases just to take advantage of the free medical care? Or just quietly dying of illnesses because they can't afford to see a doctor?

Actually, turning the sarcasm off for a moment, there's some truth there. But how can you deter people from wasting doctors time with trivial complaints without stopping people with serious problems from getting help?

Using a three-tiered system. Level 3 could comprise of mainly nurses and interns, with a Doctor or two reviewing the more serious cases. If a patient presents his or herself with a seemingly serious condition ... they move into Level 2, comprised of teams of Doctors who collectively diagnose the problem. If it's an extreme case - requiring a specialist - they move to Level 1, and are seen by a team of Doctors specialized in the more specific field of expertise for the ailment the patient has.

geniusiknowit: In a free market, someone would soon come along and offer a treatment for impoverished cancer patients.

How? The people able to do this aren't going to be willing to do it without being paid (understandably, everyone has to earn a living), and the impoverished aren't going to be able to pay them, are they?

geniusiknowit: Rising Ape: But consider the very rich competing with the poor for medical attention, who's going to win? The rich guy with the mild complaint or the penniless woman with cancer? Most people's sense of fairness and ethics would say that the cancer patient should get priority, but not the voluntary transactions of the free market.

In a free market, someone would soon come along and offer a treatment for impoverished cancer patients. But in our current market, the govt restricts who gets to provide medical services, and restricts the ways in which it may be provided.

If only we had a free market in health care.


'Buyer beware' in health care has selected out. To some extent.

geniusiknowit: Rising Ape: But consider the very rich competing with the poor for medical attention, who's going to win? The rich guy with the mild complaint or the penniless woman with cancer? Most people's sense of fairness and ethics would say that the cancer patient should get priority, but not the voluntary transactions of the free market.

In a free market, someone would soon come along and offer a treatment for impoverished cancer patients. But in our current market, the govt restricts who gets to provide medical services, and restricts the ways in which it may be provided.

If only we had a free market in health care.

You actually believe that? In a "free market" impoverished cancer patients would die because cheap enough treatment wouldn't be profitable. The free market doesn't magically provide all the resources to accomplish any task at an affordable rate.

The restrictions to treatment are there for the same reason we have government regulations on food. Customers want something that will try to ensure their pb&j sandwich isn't full of lead paint chips and rat feces.

I already lost 2 personal physicians because the got sick of dealing with insurance companies who made it hard for them to collect and gave up their practices to pursue other avenues in medicine.
At least with the feds involved they would have a better chance of getting paid.

Rising Ape: That was a toy example anyway, the more serious one was later in my post. If you're roughly on a level playing field with whoever you're negotiating with then it may well be fair to say that was a perfectly free choice. My point was that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum, and what's voluntary is dependent on external factors. If the only company around was company B, then the outcome of your negotiations would have been very different indeed. You can't claim that if there were no alternatives to B that you could have demanded as much money, because B would have simply refused, saying "hmm, you'll have to take what little I'm giving you or starve". That's coercion by any reasonable definition, but in a "voluntary" (by your standards) manner.

If Company B were the only company around and had no desire to employ me, I'd have the option of employing myself or going elsewhere. Even if I were unable to do either of those, what obligation does the company have to hire anyone at all? What if they decided to close up shop? In none of the scenarios is anyone being coerced.

Rising Ape: Governments play a key role in trying to prevent such asymmetries of power. The other historic force for doing this has been unions, but I expect you don't like those either.

Governments act only to preserve asymmetries... that is, they exist to keep all the power under control of the ruling elite. Unions are okay if employers are free to ignore or negotiate with them as they desire. Whether it's one employee or one million employees, the relationship between employer and employee(s) must be totally voluntary. You don't have a right to force a company to employ you anymore than that company has a right to force you to work for them.

Rising Ape: Oh yes, medicine. If a significant fraction of the population are unable to get medical care, which after all is pretty essential, then that's a clear indication that some of the effects I mentioned are in play.

Medical care certainly is great to have when you need it. But nobody's need of medical care trumps my right to be free from coercion.

Does the conservative plan include dumping medicare and medicaid? no?

kthnxby

Rising Ape: geniusiknowit: In a free market, someone would soon come along and offer a treatment for impoverished cancer patients.

How? The people able to do this aren't going to be willing to do it without being paid (understandably, everyone has to earn a living), and the impoverished aren't going to be able to pay them, are they?

How did cell phones go from being affordable only by the rich to being affordable by people living in the projects?

How did cars go from being affordable by only the rich to being affordable by people living in trailer parks?

Companies competing for profit found new ways to sell their products to ever more customers.

Yes, there are people who can afford neither cell phones nor cars nor health care. But their inability to afford these things doesn't give anybody the right to interfere in my voluntary exchanges with others (like doctors and insurance companies), nor does it give anyone the right to coerce me into paying for anyone else's needs.

geniusiknowit: If Company B were the only company around and had no desire to employ me, I'd have the option of employing myself or going elsewhere. Even if I were unable to do either of those, what obligation does the company have to hire anyone at all? What if they decided to close up shop? In none of the scenarios is anyone being coerced.

OK, now you're getting silly. What right does the company have to *exist*? What right does it have to employ people on whatever terms it likes? And if you really think "work for me for a pittance or starve" isn't coercion by any sane definition then I cannot understand your way of thinking at all. It's just a variant of "give me money or I'll shoot you", but slightly less direct.

Call me odd, but I think that society should be organized for the benefit of its citizens as a whole, not the benefit of a handful of powerful, unaccountable entities. And if that means stopping a private corporation from doing whatever it damn well pleases, then so much the better. Nobody should default to being able to have power over others, and the situations where they do from necessity should be carefully regulated.

If you want to be truly free from your oddly-defined idea of coercion, then let's take it all the way. No publicly funded police protection. Of course, without that then the rich and powerful won't have the power of the state to force others to recognise their wealth and power. Let's see how that works out for them.

kronicfeld:

Ah, a self-selecting poll.

kronicfeld gets it in only 5 posts.

Good. The people who went into medicine because they wanted to help people and not money will remain. Those who went in it for the money will leave.

Good riddance. Those are the kinds of doctors who don't care about their patients anyway. Some countries pay for people to go to medical school. America should do the same. We should also provide fully tax funded, universal health care but we aren't civilized enough to do either.

I'm glad sweetcheeks isn't my doctor. My doctor can make money and care about his patients welfare. Any doctor who thinks there are people who don't deserve great care because they are poor is trash who got into health care for the wrong reasons. Sweetcheeks, I hope someone sues you and your family into a homeless shelter.

SushiJoe: making lots of money is the right reason to become a doctor

Doctors don't make much anymore with what they have to pay out. Medical school is so expensive right now, that socialized care wouldn't would because a lower doctors salary wouldn't be able to pay med school expenses.

geniusiknowit: How did cell phones go from being affordable only by the rich to being affordable by people living in the projects?

How did cars go from being affordable by only the rich to being affordable by people living in trailer parks?

Companies competing for profit found new ways to sell their products to ever more customers.

I do not think having the masses worked on by rural refuges getting paid slave wages to cut them up in ways designed by learned engineers as a possible solution to our health care costs. You might be comparing apples and oranges, but I am no economist.

0100010: You actually believe that? In a "free market" impoverished cancer patients would die because cheap enough treatment wouldn't be profitable. The free market doesn't magically provide all the resources to accomplish any task at an affordable rate.

A free market is where the most efficient forms of production and distribution are borne. Individuals and companies operating in a free market are better able to meet the needs and demands of the people. Governments operate with no profit or loss to indicate whether or not they are efficient or effective.

0100010: The restrictions to treatment are there for the same reason we have government regulations on food. Customers want something that will try to ensure their pb&j sandwich isn't full of lead paint chips and rat feces.

Except the FDA failed to do even that, didn't they? People still got poisoned peanut butter. Some of the poisoned peanut product ended up in meals that FEMA was handing out to people. The CEO of that company was appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to serve on the USDA's Peanut Standards Board, and was serving when the outbreak hit. Weeks before the outbreak, the FDA knew about a salmonella-tainted shipment of peanut product from that company (it had gone to Canada, was being returned, and FDA it denied reentry because it was so polluted), and failed to take action against the company. Making things worse (making us less safe), the FDA has delays the introduction of drugs, medical devices, and even food processing sanitation methods which save lives.

j0ndas: doctors have to deal with a bunch of garbage patients

goddamn sick people. who the hell do they think they are?

CaptFun: Dr. Nick and the Quacks

My new favorite band name!

Can someone explain to me why there is even a discussion about this? The democrats do control all the houses of government right? If the democrats truly believe in their ideas and have the public support they claim to have why don't they just pass it already?

geniusiknowit: Except the FDA failed to do even that, didn't they? People still got poisoned peanut butter. Some of the poisoned peanut product ended up in meals that FEMA was handing out to people. The CEO of that company was appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to serve on the USDA's Peanut Standards Board, and was serving when the outbreak hit.

Ahhh. The great Reagan lie. After 30 years of eviscerating the control of government bureaucrats you still want me to believe that it isn't private industry that is the problem?

geniusiknowit: jso2897: geniusiknowit: WrestlerManager: geniusiknowit: WrestlerManager: geniusiknowit: Here's what I'm trying to understand:
Evil greedy insurance companies + evil overpaid doctors = make me pay for someone else's health care
Can someone please explain this? Those in the medical industry are corrupt, and the solution is to punish me?

You're already paying for someone else's health care. All of us are. The solution is not in making you pay, it's in controlling who gets the money, and how much.

Okay, but I want the exclusive privilege of deciding who gets the money I earn.
Is that part of the solution?

Not in a representative democracy. You proxy that right to your elected representatives.
/trust my congresswoman way more than any insurance company.

I didn't vote for the person who got elected, but they get my money anyway.
However, if I don't like a certain doctor, he/she won't be getting my money.
But some useless person gets elected, and they get my money because they're considered my "representative." I put quotes around that because they don't really, in any true meaning of the word, represent me. They support none of the things I support. The are for all of the things I'm against. I didn't choose them. They have very little in common with me. But they still get to spend my money, and will have me attacked if I attempt to resist.
This representative democracy stuff is really shiatty.

Welcome to human civilization. We hope you enjoy your stay here, but you are free to leave if you wish. If, however, you elect to stay, you will be required to contribute. Sorry about that, Holmes.

I do contribute. I have a job where I provide a service that people need. I take the compensation from that job and use it to compensate others who provide products and services that I need. I also donate my labor to charitable causes.

The voluntary transactions in which I participate contribute everything I owe to society.

You have my permission to stop all other forms of contribution then.