$153,000 For a Rattlesnake Bite

[SGOS]

However, monopolies only exist, where there is government regulation (and campaign contributions).

Actually, they can exist where there is no government regulation too.  But the government always regulates.  It's the basic function of government.  In the US, the government usually regulates the individual, but in extreme cases of injustice, it can regulate a monopoly, but it usually won't.

[Gilgamesh]

Not remotely as immoral as forcing people to die, or crippled by debt, all so people can make money off of you being sick or injured.

And here we have it. The 'progressive' thinks that by you not providing them a service for free/what they deem an acceptable trade, you are actively doing an injustice upon them.

Not how it works, kiddo.

And I say good! If a private citizen was giving you the option of dying or paying them $100,000+, that would be attempted murder and you bet your ass the police would threaten you at gun point. If you are looking to exploit people's health and life for money, then you can't complain when someone else threatens your life for doing so.

Just accept that your position is immoral upon the individual for the health of the collective. I'm of the same position as you, and I have to accept this reality. I don't try to reason that it's something else - because that's not what it is. Just tell yourself the truth. It's not necessarily ignoble to have a position the benefits the collective at the detriment of doing what is technically morally right.

An individual exercising their right not to provide you a service for what you want to offer is not the same as that individual imposing upon you a necessary dichotomy between their service and harm.

[SGOS]

Hyperbole!  This is only necessary when a criminal refuses to abide by the law.

Right. And when the state says you are no longer allowed to decide what to charge for your services, you are a criminal if you exercise your inalienable right to do so.

Exactly.  That would be the definition of criminality. 

[Baruch]

Actually, they can exist where there is no government regulation too.  But the government always regulates.  It's the basic function of government.  In the US, the government usually regulates the individual, but in extreme cases of injustice, it can regulate a monopoly, but it usually won't.

Show me a natural monopoly and I will show you a pink elephant.  Yes, government regulates.  That is part of what it is there for.  But it is a partisan instrument ... the Rs only want to regulate Ds and vice versa.

[SGOS]

No right is inalienable.  I've always wondered who put that nonsense in the constitution when it decreed that its objectives were inalienable rights.  Where do inalienable rights come from?  A higher power?

[Gilgamesh]

Exactly.  That would be the definition of criminality. 

So what exactly is your point? I said that charging people for your services what you wish is your right so long as the state doesn't tell you otherwise - because if they do you'd be forced by gun point (threat of violence) to stop.

You said that this was hyperbole and would only happen if the state deems you a criminal.

Is english your native language or..? Because the above sentence contradicts itself if it is meant to be a response to me:

It is not hyperbole.. IF the state does install socialised medicine.. BECAUSE then it would be criminal to run it privately..

[SGOS]

So what exactly is your point?

My point is that you are exaggerating ideas to unreasonable proportions.  You are defining regulation as immorality in such an idiosyncratic way that it is unreasonable.  You imply that regulation by the state involves sadistic violence.

I said that charging people for your services what you wish is your right so long as the state doesn't tell you otherwise - because if they do you'd be forced by gun point (threat of violence) to stop.

Here is what you said:

I just want people to understand that socialised medicine is immoral.

Hyperbole!  At best that's just a weird and totally arbitrary definition of immoral.

To continue your actual post:

Socialised medicine is the state forcing individuals to charge for their services what the state deems is right to charge. Failing to comply will be met with a gun pointed at you: armed police hauling you off to rot in a cell.

Rot in a cell?  That's hyperbole because it exaggerates the consequences of noncompliance.  You will be incarcerated until you have served your sentence.  That's all.

You said that this was hyperbole and would only happen if the state deems you a criminal.

I misspoke.  I should have simply said rotting in a cell is hyperbole.

On top of that you say:

By the way. I am FOR socialised medicine.

You support something you define as immoral, and you support something you say violates someone's inalienable right through the use of violence.  I won't say you are self contradictory in this case, just not making much sense.

[Gilgamesh]

My point is that you are exaggerating ideas to unreasonable proportions.  You are defining regulation as immorality in such an idiosyncratic way that it is unreasonable.

I'll stop you right here because that is NOT what I'm doing. I was explaining things as they actually are because I want people to know what they're arguing for when they're pro socialised medicine. If you think explaining things as they are is hyperbole then you should examine your own biases.

Rot in a cell?  That's hyperbole because it exaggerates the consequences of noncompliance.  You will be incarcerated until you have served your sentence.  That's all.

Let me get this straight. You have a problem with me saying, 'rot in a cell' because it sounds worse than, 'You will be incarcerated until you have served your sentence' and you think this stems from a bias *I* have?

So you have no problem with people explaining the consequences of your position so long as they express it in language that makes it look 'not that bad.' Well, hate to break it to ya' but that is readily telling everyone that you are ideologically possessed - not me.

[trdsf]

Part of the reason it's so expensive is because of insurance.  When people have insurance, they don't care that much about what things cost.  So they get a bill for $45,000, and think, "Oh my, it's a good thing I have insurance," and they feel better.  The insurance company deals with it by charging more for insurance, happy to have the excuse that medical costs are going through the roof.

My sister works for a non-profit insurer, and happened to have the bill for our uncle's final hospital stay cross her desk.  Without insurance, the hospital would have billed his estate $90,000.  However, since it was an insurance company, the final total bill was about $9,000.

If $9,000 settles the bill for an insurer, why the everloving Technicolor fuck doesn't it settle the bill for an individual?

[SGOS]

You have a problem with me saying, 'rot in a cell' because it sounds worse than, 'You will be incarcerated until you have served your sentence' and you think this stems from a bias *I* have?

Yes exactly, it's a personal bias exaggerated to make something you disagree with sound worse than it actually is.  Justify that socialized medicine is immoral, because I'm at a complete loss trying to make sense out of that.  If you didn't mean to claim that a person who is non-compliant with socialized medicine is going to rot in a cell, don't say that unless you want to exaggerate how evil socialized medicine is.

There are pros and cons to socialized medicine, and there is room for rational discussion, and if there are negative aspects to socialized medicine that you think people don't understand, you are going to need a better claim than, "It's immoral."  That's at least as biased as the Republican claim, "Healthcare will have Government death squads, deciding if you will be given treatment."   If you are not biased, you're doing a sloppy job as the voice of reason.

[SGOS]

My sister works for a non-profit insurer, and happened to have the bill for our uncle's final hospital stay cross her desk.  Without insurance, the hospital would have billed his estate $90,000.  However, since it was an insurance company, the final total bill was about $9,000.

If $9,000 settles the bill for an insurer, why the everloving Technicolor fuck doesn't it settle the bill for an individual?

I suppose one would try to make the case that the insurance company deals in volume, which is true, but misses the point about how much price gouging is actually going on.  I expect a hospital or a doctor to make a good income, but if they are happy to get 10% from the insurance company, they should be equally happy to have the poor person who has no insurance pay them the same amount.

I can only think of two reasons at the moment why this sliding scale would be so Draconian.  It might be a special punishment for the uninsured intended as dire warning.  Or it could be unbridled greed.  In either case, I don't understand why it's warranted. 

[Baruch]

No right is inalienable.  I've always wondered who put that nonsense in the constitution when it decreed that its objectives were inalienable rights.  Where do inalienable rights come from?  A higher power?

Deist Freemasonry.  Are you a Shriner like my grand pappy?  No, then no secret handshake for you.

[Baruch]

My sister works for a non-profit insurer, and happened to have the bill for our uncle's final hospital stay cross her desk.  Without insurance, the hospital would have billed his estate $90,000.  However, since it was an insurance company, the final total bill was about $9,000.

If $9,000 settles the bill for an insurer, why the everloving Technicolor fuck doesn't it settle the bill for an individual?

You don't have special friends in Washington DC.  See George Carlin routines.

[Gilgamesh]

Yes exactly, it's a personal bias exaggerated to make something you disagree with sound worse than it actually is.  Justify that socialized medicine is immoral, because I'm at a complete loss trying to make sense out of that.

Already did. Socialised medicine is forcing practitioners to work for a fee which they don't necessarily want to work for. They get no choice, because if they attempt to charge what they want for their services they are compelled by violence by the state to do otherwise. That's why it's immoral.

Again I am for socialised medicine. Rather than attempt to reason that my position is without flaw, I accept its immorality as a justified evil for the benefit of society. It is immorality perpetuated against the individual for benefit of the collective.

 

If you didn't mean to claim that a person who is non-compliant with socialized medicine is going to rot in a cell, don't say that unless you want to exaggerate how evil socialized medicine is.

I DID mean to say that. If someone attempts to practice medicine privately where socialised medicine exists, the government will retain them in a cell. That's exactly what will happen so that's why I described it loll

[Baruch]

I suppose one would try to make the case that the insurance company deals in volume, which is true, but misses the point about how much price gouging is actually going on.  I expect a hospital or a doctor to make a good income, but if they are happy to get 10% from the insurance company, they should be equally happy to have the poor person who has no insurance pay them the same amount.

I can only think of two reasons at the moment why this sliding scale would be so Draconian.  It might be a special punishment for the uninsured intended as dire warning.  Or it could be unbridled greed.  In either case, I don't understand why it's warranted.

We do it in engineering ... we propose it will take $10,000 to build something, but know it will only take $5,000.  This gives an opportunity for management to cut the price in half and look like heroes.  In the Navy it is called "the Admiral's Bridge".  If you actually propose what it actually costs, you have already surrendered in the negotiation, and you have painted management into a corner ... or either approving a failure to be, or to simply deny the project.

Technically, in some cases, private medicine with private insurance will still exist, but only for the rich.  They don't have to obey laws meant for the hoi polloi.  In serious totalitarian societies, the rich will be dead, so their health care will be a moot point.

Right now this is happening with doctors who refuse Medicare, or who refuse any insurance.  The last dentist my mother went too, only takes cash.