The way insurance functions is that young healthy people are effectively subsidizing those less healthy, and then when those people eventually need that care, the new crop of young healthy insurance payers are effectively subsidizing their care. Keeping your money now to "spend on whores instead" short circuits that system, and puts you in the position of burdening everyone else by never having payed your share earlier.
Why should people who are young and healthy have to subsidize those who aren't? Car insurance doesn't work that way -- if you choose to live in an area with a lot of accidents and auto thefts you will pay more for car insurance. Why is nobody clamoring about how unfair it is that car insurance costs thousands of dollars in New York City compared to hundreds of dollars elsewhere?
Now to a point I can see the argument that it's unfair to penalize people for things that are beyond their control. You didn't get to pick the genes that made you susceptible to breast cancer. But why can't insurance companies charge more for self-inflicted stupidity (obesity)? Under the current legislative proposals they won't be able to do this. The net result will be that someone who lives a healthy lifestyle will wind up paying the same as someone who lives off big macs and chain smokes.
Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude?
Because we value our liberty and sovereignty more than most other countries?
I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??
Because that's not all it does and many Americans hold legitimate concerns about it's passages regarding economic, social and cultural "rights" and are worried that it would intrude into the parent->child relationship?
So what? The grandparent implied that you can't live near the east coast without residing a "stones throw" away from urban sprawl. That's clearly not the case.
Are you seriously suggesting that the solution is that everyone just move to the city, and anyone who doesn't is either wanting to be subsidized for their lifestyle or should be forced to pay more for basic utilities?
Yes, if you want to live in rural areas you should be prepared to pay the full cost of doing so. It's bullshit to expect other people to give you money for free.
Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that some industries only exist in rural areas? Farming and agriculture, for example, is not going to happen in urban areas.
Then why don't the farmers charge more money for their product so they can pay for their higher utility costs? Why have the government step in as a middle man?
Economics, education, opportunity, feasibility of certain industries, security and yes sometimes cultural inclinations are among the many factors of why someone would live in rural areas.
Preaching to the choir. I grew up in a rural area and desire to move back to one. I just don't desire to have other people subsidize my expenses when I do so.
To say we can solve the problem by everyone moving out of rural areas is just boneheaded.
Fortunately I didn't say that. I just said you should be prepared to pay the full cost of living in the community you choose. Should rural areas pay some subsidies to city folks so they don't have to drop insane amounts of money paying for parking?
I object to this for a different reason: I consider the concept of an organization with world jurisdiction intrinsically dangerous and unacceptable. It's like a monopoly: if you don't like their rules, where else are you going to go?
To the unsettled reaches of the outer solar system? Hey, it worked for Mal Reynolds....
Well, when a significant portion of your population is becoming temporarily and/or permanently useless thanks to vice-related illnesses, the decision not to tax certain vices can become an anti-subsidy of its own.
Only if the people who aren't useless decide to support the people who are.
If you're going to talk about rural areas you shouldn't use the very developed East coast where you can't throw a stone without hitting urban sprawl as the the example of rural.
You've never been in Upstate New York, central Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine have you?
Actually the points I made above would apply to that post as well. Pointing out that the rest of the world spends less money is not justification for supporting the current legislation. The current legislation stinks. Anybody who is halfway honest about it can see that.
I'm choosing how I want to spend my money. That's the very definition of choice.
I'm less than 30 years old. I take care of myself and live a healthy lifestyle. The odds are good that I'm in need of serious medical care it will have resulted from trauma (i.e: automobile accident) and will be covered by a non-health insurance policy. Why should I spend $5,000 a year on a health insurance policy? I can put away $4,000 of that towards future medical expenses and have the other $1,000 to do something fun with.
I understand that most of the population on/. is not rural, but your blatant stereotypical prejudices are amazing!
Your outrage is wasted. I grew up in the rural sticks. My town had a population of 500. It had so few people that not only did we have a single telephone exchange but we all had the same first four numbers, i.e: 895-6XXX. The nearest grocery store was 14 miles away. The nearest gas station 8 miles away. The nearest traffic light was 10 miles away and was only a flashing light at that.
Do you think we live in shacks, don't wear shoes, and cook over the fireplace?
Where did I say that?
Taxes are higher because I live out in the sticks? Really?
Around here they are. Most people who live in rural areas where I'm from do it so they can own a decent amount of land. Having a large amount of land in NYS will raise your property tax bill above and beyond that of someone in the city, even though you aren't paying for all of the services and extra government of the city.
OK maybe it costs more in gas... nope.. S.C. has some of the lowest prices of gas in the country, and gas is usually 5-10c cheaper near my house than in the city.
I don't know the particulars of your situation but my point was that you'll usually have to drive more by virtue of living in the country. My point wasn't that the price of gas is higher in the country. Driving more miles will cost you more in gas money.
The *entire* idea of universal health care is to provide a bare minimum level of health care to *everyone*. A level which should be minimum enough that those with the resources will go elsewhere.
That bare minimum level of care already exists. No ER can turn you away. Charity hospitals and clinics exist with the express mandate of serving those that can't pay. Even most other institutions will treat those that can't pay up front -- you'll just wind up indebted to them afterwards.
Just like the "universal school system" in which public schools are for everyone but those with the resources tend to send their kids to private schools.
Bad example. Public education in this country is a joke. It's held hostage to the demands of a small constituency (teachers unions) while producing worse and worse results year after year. Taking the money we spend on each kid and giving the parents a choice of where to spend it would seem like a better idea, at least from where I'm sitting.
Fact is, US healthcare is more expensive than healthcare just about anywhere else on the planet, including countries where doctors-salaries are higher than they are in the USA. Fact is, despite this you score badly, not only on longevity, but also on stuff like 5-year survival-rate of various cancers, risk of dying in labour, etc.
And how is that relevant to the bills currently pending before Congress? They do nothing to address the underlying structure of our health care system. In fact they take everything that's wrong with it and codify it into law.
Demonstrably, mind you, not according to some theory. You -actually- end up paying more, and getting less.
Again, how is that relevant to the bills currently pending before Congress? They do nothing to address costs.
Yes, I realize this doesn't match your map, so thus
You didn't answer a single one of my points. Will I lose the choice I currently have to purchase a high-deductible policy or go without health insurance? Yes, I will. Will my insurance company be forced to charge me the same rate as they charge a chain smoker? Yes, they will.
Pointing out that the current system sucks != justification for why I should support the current legislative proposals. When will you people understand that?
Uhh, What you have described is exactly what we have now with private health insurance.
Not quite, as I currently have the choice to buy a high-deductible policy or even to go without insurance altogether. I won't have either of those choices under the bills currently under consideration in the Congress.
Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled.
That's up to your employer, not the government. My employer will pay me the money they put into health insurance if I ask them to do so. Of course I'll then be paying taxes on it, but that's the government's fault, not theirs.
I know your hatred for Obama is blinding you
Who said anything about Obama? I don't hate him or anybody. I think he'll make an awesome President -- just as soon as we get rid of Nancy Pelosi.
I'd expand on that and say that the notion of anti-subsidizing lifestyles is equally annoying. Adding taxes to 'unpopular' activities or products has the same effect of subsidizing the popular lifestyle.
I'd concur with that. Vice taxes in particular annoy the hell out of me.
In Europe this kind of thing is seen as helping the development of economically challenged regions.
Just because a region is rural does not mean it's "economically challenged". Many of the households around here in the rural sticks are fairly well off -- they have to be in order to afford the insane property taxes levied in NYS. There are less well-to-do people in the rural sticks too but you can find them in the city just as easily.
In any case, what's the problem with having a "US-centric" view on an American political issue on an American website?
I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit.
The market already provided a solution to this particular problem. Yes, it'll cost you more, but most things worth having do. If you buy cheap (cable company DVR) you get what you pay for......
Seems to be some folks attitude to universal healthcare too.
Except it's not universal healthcare. It's "universal what-uncle-sam-thinks-you-need care". The future of government run health care is the future of unelected bureaucrats deciding whether or not your treatment is "cost effective". Care that may have saved your life might not be covered if it doesn't meet the cost benefit analysis. The best and brightest will have less incentive to enter medicine when their salaries and reimbursements are slashed by Uncle Sam in an effort to rein in costs.
Your freedom of choice will be constrained by government laws and regulations that proscribe what kinds of insurance policies can be sold. Want a high-deductible policy with an HSA? Sorry, our "Health Insurance Choice Commissioner" isn't going to allow those types of policies to be sold. Here's a nice PPO policy that costs three times as much. Don't worry though, your $80 office visits will now only cost you $20. No, you can't refuse to buy it, else we'll tax you more. What, you make less than $250,000 and thought Obama wasn't going to raise your taxes? It's not a "tax" silly, it's just money collected by the IRS under penalty of law. Ante up or go to jail.
Maintain a healthy weight and abstain from tobacco use? Sorry, we can't offer you a cheaper policy, because everybody has to pay the same. Have fun subsidizing the people who live off beer, big macs and marlboros. Have only one kid? Sorry, we can't charge you any less. You'll be paying the same rate as octomom.
Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else's prices.
Sadly you are doubtless going to be modded troll, but really, what's wrong with this? If you want to live out in the rural sticks then you should be prepared to pay the cost of doing so. It will cost you more money in taxes, more money for running water (pump and septic system upkeep), your roads will be less maintained, you may not have access to cable and will have to rely on satellite, you'll pay more for energy (having oil or propane delivered vs. natural gas out of a permanent connection), more in gas money to get places, blah, blah, blah.
This notion of subsidizing lifestyles is really annoying. If you want cheap fast broadband move to civilization. If you want clean air and open spaces move to the country.
which would have bought the UK enough time to field a stronger naval force with better air support than one carrier and it's harriers.
What stronger naval force was available? It's not like they left carriers back at home when they went south.
The UK would also have been in a position to shift land based air forces into the area given more time
Staging out of where?
But over time, the US navy became far more powerful than it was at the start of the war.
Not a valid comparison. WW2 was a total war. The Falklands wasn't. The British had what they had when the war started. Neither side had the political will to fight to the "bitter end". If the Argies had managed to turn back the British Fleet that probably would have been the end of it. You are correct in pointing out that they had nothing with the capability to counter the British submarines, but submarines can't retake land. Only surface ships and troops can do that.
It's an oligopoly and they all play by the same rules to ensure they are properly compensated for their massive capital investments. Shell and Exxon would ride our economy to the brink of failure in order to extract more profit
Does this really surprise you? Shell and Exxon are oil companies. That's what they do. That's where their expertise lies. I would no more expect them to come up with a green breakthrough than I would expect Dell to start building airliners.
If there is a breakthrough to be made in green energy it will come from somewhere else. We didn't stop using whale oil because the whaling outfits discovered something better -- we stopped using it because someone else discovered something better.
Slashdot Mirror
The way insurance functions is that young healthy people are effectively subsidizing those less healthy, and then when those people eventually need that care, the new crop of young healthy insurance payers are effectively subsidizing their care. Keeping your money now to "spend on whores instead" short circuits that system, and puts you in the position of burdening everyone else by never having payed your share earlier.
Why should people who are young and healthy have to subsidize those who aren't? Car insurance doesn't work that way -- if you choose to live in an area with a lot of accidents and auto thefts you will pay more for car insurance. Why is nobody clamoring about how unfair it is that car insurance costs thousands of dollars in New York City compared to hundreds of dollars elsewhere?
Now to a point I can see the argument that it's unfair to penalize people for things that are beyond their control. You didn't get to pick the genes that made you susceptible to breast cancer. But why can't insurance companies charge more for self-inflicted stupidity (obesity)? Under the current legislative proposals they won't be able to do this. The net result will be that someone who lives a healthy lifestyle will wind up paying the same as someone who lives off big macs and chain smokes.
Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude?
Because we value our liberty and sovereignty more than most other countries?
I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??
Because that's not all it does and many Americans hold legitimate concerns about it's passages regarding economic, social and cultural "rights" and are worried that it would intrude into the parent->child relationship?
Famous last words. Would you sing the same tune if you were diagnosed with cancer?
If I'm diagnosed with cancer that's my problem, not yours.
I don't like freeloaders
Then end the ridiculous notion that ERs have to treat people who can't pay.
we need to mandate insurance coverage.
The constitution be damned, eh?
So what? The grandparent implied that you can't live near the east coast without residing a "stones throw" away from urban sprawl. That's clearly not the case.
Are you seriously suggesting that the solution is that everyone just move to the city, and anyone who doesn't is either wanting to be subsidized for their lifestyle or should be forced to pay more for basic utilities?
Yes, if you want to live in rural areas you should be prepared to pay the full cost of doing so. It's bullshit to expect other people to give you money for free.
Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that some industries only exist in rural areas? Farming and agriculture, for example, is not going to happen in urban areas.
Then why don't the farmers charge more money for their product so they can pay for their higher utility costs? Why have the government step in as a middle man?
Economics, education, opportunity, feasibility of certain industries, security and yes sometimes cultural inclinations are among the many factors of why someone would live in rural areas.
Preaching to the choir. I grew up in a rural area and desire to move back to one. I just don't desire to have other people subsidize my expenses when I do so.
To say we can solve the problem by everyone moving out of rural areas is just boneheaded.
Fortunately I didn't say that. I just said you should be prepared to pay the full cost of living in the community you choose. Should rural areas pay some subsidies to city folks so they don't have to drop insane amounts of money paying for parking?
I object to this for a different reason: I consider the concept of an organization with world jurisdiction intrinsically dangerous and unacceptable. It's like a monopoly: if you don't like their rules, where else are you going to go?
To the unsettled reaches of the outer solar system? Hey, it worked for Mal Reynolds....
Domain Name:SLASHDOT.ORG
Status:OK
Registrant Name:Host Master
Registrant Organization:Geeknet, Inc.
Registrant Street1:650 Castro St.
Registrant Street2:Suite 450
Registrant City:Mountain View
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:94041
Registrant Country:US
Got any other "insightful" observations to make, asshole?
Well, when a significant portion of your population is becoming temporarily and/or permanently useless thanks to vice-related illnesses, the decision not to tax certain vices can become an anti-subsidy of its own.
Only if the people who aren't useless decide to support the people who are.
If you're going to talk about rural areas you shouldn't use the very developed East coast where you can't throw a stone without hitting urban sprawl as the the example of rural.
You've never been in Upstate New York, central Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine have you?
Actually the points I made above would apply to that post as well. Pointing out that the rest of the world spends less money is not justification for supporting the current legislation. The current legislation stinks. Anybody who is halfway honest about it can see that.
I'm choosing how I want to spend my money. That's the very definition of choice.
I'm less than 30 years old. I take care of myself and live a healthy lifestyle. The odds are good that I'm in need of serious medical care it will have resulted from trauma (i.e: automobile accident) and will be covered by a non-health insurance policy. Why should I spend $5,000 a year on a health insurance policy? I can put away $4,000 of that towards future medical expenses and have the other $1,000 to do something fun with.
Anonymous Coward: I'm going to equate terminal cancer with DVR service and be a snarky asshole about it.
I understand that most of the population on /. is not rural, but your blatant stereotypical prejudices are amazing!
Your outrage is wasted. I grew up in the rural sticks. My town had a population of 500. It had so few people that not only did we have a single telephone exchange but we all had the same first four numbers, i.e: 895-6XXX. The nearest grocery store was 14 miles away. The nearest gas station 8 miles away. The nearest traffic light was 10 miles away and was only a flashing light at that.
Do you think we live in shacks, don't wear shoes, and cook over the fireplace?
Where did I say that?
Taxes are higher because I live out in the sticks? Really?
Around here they are. Most people who live in rural areas where I'm from do it so they can own a decent amount of land. Having a large amount of land in NYS will raise your property tax bill above and beyond that of someone in the city, even though you aren't paying for all of the services and extra government of the city.
OK maybe it costs more in gas... nope .. S.C. has some of the lowest prices of gas in the country, and gas is usually 5-10c cheaper near my house than in the city.
I don't know the particulars of your situation but my point was that you'll usually have to drive more by virtue of living in the country. My point wasn't that the price of gas is higher in the country. Driving more miles will cost you more in gas money.
You should watch "Sicko"
And you should read Sarah Palin's book. She's just as unbiased as Mr. Moore is ;)
The *entire* idea of universal health care is to provide a bare minimum level of health care to *everyone*. A level which should be minimum enough that those with the resources will go elsewhere.
That bare minimum level of care already exists. No ER can turn you away. Charity hospitals and clinics exist with the express mandate of serving those that can't pay. Even most other institutions will treat those that can't pay up front -- you'll just wind up indebted to them afterwards.
Just like the "universal school system" in which public schools are for everyone but those with the resources tend to send their kids to private schools.
Bad example. Public education in this country is a joke. It's held hostage to the demands of a small constituency (teachers unions) while producing worse and worse results year after year. Taking the money we spend on each kid and giving the parents a choice of where to spend it would seem like a better idea, at least from where I'm sitting.
Fact is, US healthcare is more expensive than healthcare just about anywhere else on the planet, including countries where doctors-salaries are higher than they are in the USA. Fact is, despite this you score badly, not only on longevity, but also on stuff like 5-year survival-rate of various cancers, risk of dying in labour, etc.
And how is that relevant to the bills currently pending before Congress? They do nothing to address the underlying structure of our health care system. In fact they take everything that's wrong with it and codify it into law.
Demonstrably, mind you, not according to some theory. You -actually- end up paying more, and getting less.
Again, how is that relevant to the bills currently pending before Congress? They do nothing to address costs.
Yes, I realize this doesn't match your map, so thus
You didn't answer a single one of my points. Will I lose the choice I currently have to purchase a high-deductible policy or go without health insurance? Yes, I will. Will my insurance company be forced to charge me the same rate as they charge a chain smoker? Yes, they will.
Pointing out that the current system sucks != justification for why I should support the current legislative proposals. When will you people understand that?
Uhh, What you have described is exactly what we have now with private health insurance.
Not quite, as I currently have the choice to buy a high-deductible policy or even to go without insurance altogether. I won't have either of those choices under the bills currently under consideration in the Congress.
Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled.
That's up to your employer, not the government. My employer will pay me the money they put into health insurance if I ask them to do so. Of course I'll then be paying taxes on it, but that's the government's fault, not theirs.
I know your hatred for Obama is blinding you
Who said anything about Obama? I don't hate him or anybody. I think he'll make an awesome President -- just as soon as we get rid of Nancy Pelosi.
I'd expand on that and say that the notion of anti-subsidizing lifestyles is equally annoying. Adding taxes to 'unpopular' activities or products has the same effect of subsidizing the popular lifestyle.
I'd concur with that. Vice taxes in particular annoy the hell out of me.
In Europe this kind of thing is seen as helping the development of economically challenged regions.
Just because a region is rural does not mean it's "economically challenged". Many of the households around here in the rural sticks are fairly well off -- they have to be in order to afford the insane property taxes levied in NYS. There are less well-to-do people in the rural sticks too but you can find them in the city just as easily.
In any case, what's the problem with having a "US-centric" view on an American political issue on an American website?
I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit.
The market already provided a solution to this particular problem. Yes, it'll cost you more, but most things worth having do. If you buy cheap (cable company DVR) you get what you pay for......
Seems to be some folks attitude to universal healthcare too.
Except it's not universal healthcare. It's "universal what-uncle-sam-thinks-you-need care". The future of government run health care is the future of unelected bureaucrats deciding whether or not your treatment is "cost effective". Care that may have saved your life might not be covered if it doesn't meet the cost benefit analysis. The best and brightest will have less incentive to enter medicine when their salaries and reimbursements are slashed by Uncle Sam in an effort to rein in costs.
Your freedom of choice will be constrained by government laws and regulations that proscribe what kinds of insurance policies can be sold. Want a high-deductible policy with an HSA? Sorry, our "Health Insurance Choice Commissioner" isn't going to allow those types of policies to be sold. Here's a nice PPO policy that costs three times as much. Don't worry though, your $80 office visits will now only cost you $20. No, you can't refuse to buy it, else we'll tax you more. What, you make less than $250,000 and thought Obama wasn't going to raise your taxes? It's not a "tax" silly, it's just money collected by the IRS under penalty of law. Ante up or go to jail.
Maintain a healthy weight and abstain from tobacco use? Sorry, we can't offer you a cheaper policy, because everybody has to pay the same. Have fun subsidizing the people who live off beer, big macs and marlboros. Have only one kid? Sorry, we can't charge you any less. You'll be paying the same rate as octomom.
Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else's prices.
Sadly you are doubtless going to be modded troll, but really, what's wrong with this? If you want to live out in the rural sticks then you should be prepared to pay the cost of doing so. It will cost you more money in taxes, more money for running water (pump and septic system upkeep), your roads will be less maintained, you may not have access to cable and will have to rely on satellite, you'll pay more for energy (having oil or propane delivered vs. natural gas out of a permanent connection), more in gas money to get places, blah, blah, blah.
This notion of subsidizing lifestyles is really annoying. If you want cheap fast broadband move to civilization. If you want clean air and open spaces move to the country.
which would have bought the UK enough time to field a stronger naval force with better air support than one carrier and it's harriers.
What stronger naval force was available? It's not like they left carriers back at home when they went south.
The UK would also have been in a position to shift land based air forces into the area given more time
Staging out of where?
But over time, the US navy became far more powerful than it was at the start of the war.
Not a valid comparison. WW2 was a total war. The Falklands wasn't. The British had what they had when the war started. Neither side had the political will to fight to the "bitter end". If the Argies had managed to turn back the British Fleet that probably would have been the end of it. You are correct in pointing out that they had nothing with the capability to counter the British submarines, but submarines can't retake land. Only surface ships and troops can do that.
It's an oligopoly and they all play by the same rules to ensure they are properly compensated for their massive capital investments. Shell and Exxon would ride our economy to the brink of failure in order to extract more profit
Does this really surprise you? Shell and Exxon are oil companies. That's what they do. That's where their expertise lies. I would no more expect them to come up with a green breakthrough than I would expect Dell to start building airliners.
If there is a breakthrough to be made in green energy it will come from somewhere else. We didn't stop using whale oil because the whaling outfits discovered something better -- we stopped using it because someone else discovered something better.
It's going to be equally hard to sell the American public on the concept of voluntarily accepting a lower standard of living.