Why The Outrage About the iPhone/Healthcare Comments?

[44nutman]

Republican playbook 101. Get the middle class to complain about the poor, so they don't see the rich robbing them fucking blind.
The Rubes buy it everytime
BTW I spend 12k a year on health insurance, because I own a business. That is a family of 4, so dumbass elected official with free health care and lifetime pension can shove his cell phone analogy up his candy ass.
The reason why our Congress has an approval rating of like 15% is due to they are elitist pricks who work for the Elite and fuck over the middle class on the reg.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I think you're going to have to explain the bolded part to me because you really haven't contested my assertions concerning the choice being taken from you in the instance of universal healthcare. I could go off half cocked - that is my usual methodology - but I'll try it this way for a change and see what happens.

Having UHC and not having UHC BOTH limit people's choices.

 

[ehtheist]

Having UHC and not having UHC BOTH limit people's choices.

Hrm... That's kind of a matter of perspective depending on what level of healthcare related choices you want to focus on. In the realm of the particular choice of "Do I want to pay for insurance?" non universal healthcare leaves you a choice of whether to pay for it or not, and universal healthcare makes your choice for you and the government takes your money to pay for it. I'd say one of those limits ones' choices on the central issue more than the other because there is no choice with universal healthcare - you're paying for insurance and that's that.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Hrm... That's kind of a matter of perspective depending on what level of healthcare related choices you want to focus on. In the realm of the particular choice of "Do I want to pay for insurance?" non universal healthcare leaves you a choice of whether to pay for it or not, and universal healthcare makes your choice for you and the government takes your money to pay for it. I'd say one of those limits ones' choices on the central issue more than the other because there is no choice with universal healthcare - you're paying for insurance and that's that.

No, it's a matter of fact. A person in a non-UHC society who has expensive healthcare needs cannot choose to have his healthcare needs met without cutting something else from his budget. That's a freedom only people in UHC societies have.

 

[Greoric]

Having UHC and not having UHC BOTH limit people's choices.

The question then is which limits people's choices more....

 

[Greoric]

No, it's a matter of fact. A person in a non-UHC society who has expensive healthcare needs cannot choose to have his healthcare needs met without cutting something else from his budget. That's a freedom only people in UHC societies have.

How do you figure? Do UHCs get rid of scarcity?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

How do you figure? Do UHCs get rid of scarcity?

I figure by the fact that having to pay $5000 for medicine or surgery means $5000 one can't spend on home improvements or vacation. Don't play dumb.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

The question then is which limits people's choices more....

No, the question is, "Which is a more ethically sound limit?"

 

[Greoric]

I figure by the fact that having to pay $5000 for medicine or surgery means $5000 one can't spend on home improvements or vacation. Don't play dumb.

Right so like we've already covered those costs aren't within a free market in HC by any means, so that objection is void. I'd like to know how UHC gets rid of scarcity, though.

I've been snapping my figures for a new Ferrari Enzo... but I don't think my declaration is making it appear. Can you help me out for how I can get that to work?

 

[Greoric]

No, the question is, "Which is a more ethically sound limit?"

Great question. Is it ethically sound to compel people under threat of being thrown in a cage to pay for services they already want?

Or should we approach this from the greater good perspective? Which allocates and produces the most services for the most amount of people?

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Just because the costs of healthcare outweighs the costs of an iPhone doesn't change the fact that poor people often choose to make very poor financial decisions, choosing to buy luxuries rather than necessities. He could have just as easily said to not finance $20k cars, and have a $300/month payment when you can't afford to pay rent.

lol

this myth is so beneficial to money hoarders. im not a communist. id actually say that im a fiscal moderate, possibly even conservative. this shit about "poor people are poor because of life choices" has to be checked, though.

FOR SURE, there are some dumb ass people who buy tattoos instead of school supplies for their 8 kids, but those people are the exception, rather than the rule. it sure does benefit the elite to claim that theyre the rule though doesnt it? it places the burden of reform on the character of the poor lol. genius. "you should all just be will smith from the pursuit of happiness. thats how to fix this."

 

[Seano]

lol

this myth is so beneficial to money hoarders. im not a communist. id actually say that im a fiscal moderate, possibly even conservative. this shit about "poor people are poor because of life choices" has to be checked, though.

FOR SURE, there are some dumb ass people who buy tattoos instead of school supplies for their 8 kids, but those people are the exception, rather than the rule. it sure does benefit the elite to claim that theyre the rule though doesnt it? it places the burden of reform on the character of the poor lol. genius. "you should all just be will smith from the pursuit of happiness. thats how to fix this."

I honestly don't believe those people are an exception.
You know, I'm middle class and I have to make decisions all the time about whats a necessity and what isn't.

Why don't people getting handouts have to have the same responsibility?

 

[ehtheist]

No, it's a matter of fact. A person in a non-UHC society who has expensive healthcare needs cannot choose to have his healthcare needs met without cutting something else from his budget. That's a freedom only people in UHC societies have.

You're leaving out a big part of the equation here. You're presenting "healthcare needs" as an absolute or some sort of constant when, in fact, they're specific to the individual. There are literally millions of people who go through their whole lives without ever needing a visit to a doctor. A person like that, or even one who has relatively modest healthcare needs, is absolutely having their healthcare needs met without taking anything, or much, from their budget - THAT is a fact. These people aren't few either - lots of people really don't need advanced medical care and, even when they do get injured, community support or simple home remedies are all they need. Again, *I* don't want to live like that, but there are plenty who are fine with it and universal healthcare steals that choice, and likely tens to even hundreds of thousands of dollars, from them over their lifetime. Your position seems to hinge on the idea of "I just don't want healthcare" to be some sort of non-option, but that's an outright fallacy. Lots of people who believe that will regret believing it when they suddenly need healthcare, but it still is a perfectly reasonable choice that many make - and universal healthcare takes that choice from them and forces them to pay for a service they may never need or want.

Anything that can be done in a universal healthcare society can be done without universal healthcare - the individual just has to pay for it *If* they need it. Conversely, in a universal healthcare society, the individual is never given that option - they (to my knowledge) can't opt out and that choice is literally taken from them and they are out a very significant amount of money through their lives. Again, this is a real choice that your position ignores outright.

I'm on the side of universal healthcare - this is not something I'm arguing against. That being said, I'm actually one of those people who has never needed anything from healthcare beyond a few vaccinations and, so far, I've personally lost a lot of money in paying for healthcare in my life. On the other hand, I have a friend who has a kid who needed *tremendous* help through his first two years of life and now, whenever I babysit the little dude, I get to see where my tax dollars went as the little bugger is running around - because there is no way in hell he could have afforded months of children's hospital bills to keep the little tyke alive. I've lost money, but I see where my money went, and I know that other people will essentially be bailing me out should I ever need a lot of help - which might never happen. My choice to pay into, or not pay into, healthcare has been stolen from me, and I can never gamble my life on chance that I probably won't need healthcare. I am *totally* OK with that choice being taken from me - but don't try and tell me that a choice hasn't been taken from me and many others because that is false.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I honestly don't believe those people are an exception.
You know, I'm middle class and I have to make decisions all the time about whats a necessity and what isn't.

Why don't people getting handouts have to have the same responsibility?

i think the ones doing stupid shit are more often noticed, and more easily remembered. they piss us off more. in my job, i see a lot of parents quietly working their asses off at 3 part time jobs. those people dont make it on internet memes.

 

[HomerThompson]

You're leaving out a big part of the equation here. You're presenting "healthcare needs" as an absolute or some sort of constant when, in fact, they're specific to the individual. There are literally millions of people who go through their whole lives without ever needing a visit to a doctor. A person like that, or even one who has relatively modest healthcare needs, is absolutely having their healthcare needs met without taking anything, or much, from their budget - THAT is a fact. These people aren't few either - lots of people really don't need advanced medical care and, even when they do get injured, community support or simple home remedies are all they need. Again, *I* don't want to live like that, but there are plenty who are fine with it and universal healthcare steals that choice, and likely tens to even hundreds of thousands of dollars, from them over their lifetime. Your position seems to hinge on the idea of "I just don't want healthcare" to be some sort of non-option, but that's an outright fallacy. Lots of people who believe that will regret believing it when they suddenly need healthcare, but it still is a perfectly reasonable choice that many make - and universal healthcare takes that choice from them and forces them to pay for a service they may never need or want.

Anything that can be done in a universal healthcare society can be done without universal healthcare - the individual just has to pay for it *If* they need it. Conversely, in a universal healthcare society, the individual is never given that option - they (to my knowledge) can't opt out and that choice is literally taken from them and they are out a very significant amount of money through their lives. Again, this is a real choice that your position ignores outright.

I'm on the side of universal healthcare - this is not something I'm arguing against. That being said, I'm actually one of those people who has never needed anything from healthcare beyond a few vaccinations and, so far, I've personally lost a lot of money in paying for healthcare in my life. On the other hand, I have a friend who has a kid who needed *tremendous* help through his first two years of life and now, whenever I babysit the little dude, I get to see where my tax dollars went as the little bugger is running around - because there is no way in hell he could have afforded months of children's hospital bills to keep the little tyke alive. I've lost money, but I see where my money went, and I know that other people will essentially be bailing me out should I ever need a lot of help - which might never happen. My choice to pay into, or not pay into, healthcare has been stolen from me, and I can never gamble my life on chance that I probably won't need healthcare. I am *totally* OK with that choice being taken from me - but don't try and tell me that a choice hasn't been taken from me and many others because that is false.

Millions of people who never ever need to go to see a doctor in their entire life?

 

[cincymma79]

I honestly don't believe those people are an exception.
You know, I'm middle class and I have to make decisions all the time about whats a necessity and what isn't.

Why don't people getting handouts have to have the same responsibility?

I see it an awful lot for it to be bs. 2 car payments a house payment credit cards cable new phone broke. Damned trump

 

[BLIND]

In summation, it is a stupid argument.

It is the 2017 version of "buying that new flat screen". As if that is the actual problem.

I think they use "iphone" as a general word to mean any luxuries. Alcohol, cigarettes, fancy cars, fancy clothes, eating out all the time, etc etc. That is what is meant by iphone in this context. It seems you would rather just assume that the speaker is retarded and is 100% wrong. Everyone needs to make these decisions, but for poor people, the decisions carry more weight bc they have less money to begin with

To clarify,I am somewhere in the middle on this topic. Not agreeing with you or the people who are vehemently opposed to you

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You're leaving out a big part of the equation here. You're presenting "healthcare needs" as an absolute or some sort of constant when, in fact, they're specific to the individual. There are literally millions of people who go through their whole lives without ever needing a visit to a doctor. A person like that, or even one who has relatively modest healthcare needs, is absolutely having their healthcare needs met without taking anything, or much, from their budget - THAT is a fact. These people aren't few either - lots of people really don't need advanced medical care and, even when they do get injured, community support or simple home remedies are all they need.

You seem to be using an extremely narrow definition of "needs", in which only things required to prevent imminent death qualify. So by your definition clothing and shelter would only be needs for people in cold climates. I don't share such a narrow definition.

I consider treatment of medical conditions that chronically diminish people's quality of life, while not posing a threat of imminent death, as being needs.

Again, *I* don't want to live like that, but there are plenty who are fine with it and universal healthcare steals that choice, and likely tens to even hundreds of thousands of dollars, from them over their lifetime. Your position seems to hinge on the idea of "I just don't want healthcare" to be some sort of non-option, but that's an outright fallacy. Lots of people who believe that will regret believing it when they suddenly need healthcare, but it still is a perfectly reasonable choice that many make - and universal healthcare takes that choice from them and forces them to pay for a service they may never need or want.

Nonsense. The people with expensive healthcare needs can't just opt out of a property rights system that tells them to compete with the healthy majority for goods and services. You advocate forcing them to pay for and comply with a system of obligations and rights that compounds their disadvantage in attaining a good quality of life.

Whether or not everyone ends up taking advantage of healthcare services in a UHC society is irrelevant; I haven't argued for UHC on the basis that 'everyone benefits'.

Anything that can be done in a universal healthcare society can be done without universal healthcare - the individual just has to pay for it *If* they need it.

No. The same healthcare goods may be available, but getting them without facing economic compulsion cannot be done in a non-UHC society (except for the rich of course).

Conversely, in a universal healthcare society, the individual is never given that option - they (to my knowledge) can't opt out and that choice is literally taken from them and they are out a very significant amount of money through their lives. Again, this is a real choice that your position ignores outright.

"Very significant"? Prior to Obamacare, which penalizes people for not having insurance, what were most Americans spending per year on healthcare? And how does that compare with UHC countries?

Regardless, even if UHC does result in healthy people paying more (which is a reasonable expectation), the choice of allowing healthy people to have more money to choose between different luxury items, or the choice of allowing unhealthy people the same opportunity to spend on luxury items that healthy people have, seems clear to me.

I'm on the side of universal healthcare - this is not something I'm arguing against. That being said, I'm actually one of those people who has never needed anything from healthcare beyond a few vaccinations and, so far, I've personally lost a lot of money in paying for healthcare in my life. On the other hand, I have a friend who has a kid who needed *tremendous* help through his first two years of life and now, whenever I babysit the little dude, I get to see where my tax dollars went as the little bugger is running around - because there is no way in hell he could have afforded months of children's hospital bills to keep the little tyke alive. I've lost money, but I see where my money went, and I know that other people will essentially be bailing me out should I ever need a lot of help - which might never happen. My choice to pay into, or not pay into, healthcare has been stolen from me, and I can never gamble my life on chance that I probably won't need healthcare. I am *totally* OK with that choice being taken from me - but don't try and tell me that a choice hasn't been taken from me and many others because that is false.

I explicitly said having UHC limits people's choices.

 

[Greoric]

Millions of people who never ever need to go to see a doctor in their entire life?

Most people have the kind of ailment or injury that doesn't require 20 years of education to solve their medical problem, no. In fact, for most people it requires two months of training to address most concerns that walk through the ER doors.

 

[HomerThompson]

Most people have the kind of ailment or injury that doesn't require 20 years of education to solve your medical problem, no. In fact, for most people it requires two months of training to address most concerns that walk through the ER doors.

Vaccinations? Also, 2 months of training? Don't be a dolt just to be contrary.