$153,000 For a Rattlesnake Bite

[Cavebear]

Liberty isn't just a word you use to describe good things. All the things you described can be perfectly in-line with liberty.

Does "liberty" require impoverishment for the slightest uninsured accident or anomolous snake-bite?  Should community matter for something as group insurance? 

Shouldn't we all together want to to protect each other from general financial ruin from things we can't avoid?  Someone, through no fault, gets snakebite.  It could happen to anyone in some places.  Basically, it sounds to me that you are saying "screw you, go broke, and starve" for something you couldn't avoid. 

I like liberty.  But if it was your neighbor would you just let them starve being broke for a snakebite?  Do you care that little? 

[Gilgamesh]

Being heavily indebted is not possessing liberty.

In fact it is. You are free to borrow; therefore you are free to accumulate debt. Again, 'liberty' isn't just a feel-good word.

you lose the freedom to live where you want, to purchase what you want, to a chance to move up in the world, to maintain a family, etc. ...

Once again the progressive defines not being given things for free as a sort of injustice being enacted upon them. Pathetic.

[Cavebear]

In fact it is. You are free to borrow; therefore you are free to accumulate debt. Again, 'liberty' isn't just a feel-good word.

Once again the progressive defines not being given things for free as a sort of injustice being enacted upon them. Pathetic.

You err again.  Insurance is not "free" nor is it tax-payer bourne.  It is a pooled collective response of individuals to random expensive threats to share financial risks.  Complete and utter capitalists do it, communists do it, and libertarians do it.

[Baruch]

You err again.  Insurance is not "free" nor is it tax-payer bourne.  It is a pooled collective response of individuals to random expensive threats to share financial risks.  Complete and utter capitalists do it, communists do it, and libertarians do it.

Yes, and in this case, it isn't value free.  Have insurance, the insurance agency owns you.  They have an interest in controlling you, to minimize their losses.  Also health insurance (relative to life insurance) doesn't work out mathematically.  With life insurance, there can only be one claim, and you can't claim it for yourself.  With health insurance, you use it and use it as often as you can (for smaller items), and statistically it becomes maximized after say age 60, when the majority of your health problems will catch up to you.  It only works mathematically for young healthy individuals ... but then that is why ACA wanted to expand the pool to young people who aren't carrying health insurance.  It makes the sheep pool higher quality for the insurer.  They would expel everyone older than 60 from health insurance if they could .. you have a prior condition after all, you are old.  Real cost of real health insurance for older people is cost prohibitive, because the higher risk must be paid for by higher premiums.  A millionaire like yourself, might not get this.

[SGOS]

You err again.  Insurance is not "free" nor is it tax-payer bourne.  It is a pooled collective response of individuals to random expensive threats to share financial risks.  Complete and utter capitalists do it, communists do it, and libertarians do it.

I think it's important to underscore this.  Universal health coverage is not free, and the only ones who don't seem to know this are the right wing fringes.  At least they pretend like they don't know it, probably so they can point to all the "freeloaders" who support it. But in addition to not being free, it's not going to be cheap, just cheaper than the half ass coverage we currently buy with all of it's deductibles, co-pays, and hidden exclusions for why "you're aren't covered for that."  It will require a substantial tax increase, but unlike the taxes we currently pay, which are redistributed to bankers who lost their asses playing with your money, or the auto manufacturers who miscalculated the future, this tax comes back to average citizens, and creates an overall savings.

Yes, it's going to cost, but you don't need to put yourself in the hands of a for-profit insurer that wants to collect premiums without providing a service.  In the end, it will be cheaper and less hassle fighting with the provider.  I doubt it will ever be as good a program as those found in most other western societies.  In the US, I think provisions will be made requiring you to purchase supplemental insurance, in order to keep the corporate insurers hand's in your pockets.  Because that's the way our representatives make sure their big cash donors can remain in the game.  No it won't be free, just a better product at a lower cost.

[Baruch]

The point is ... Americans hate freedoms.  They want their neighbors enslaved to the government, or some corporate profit center.  America needs to die already.  Given that, health care is moot.  The dead don't need health care.

[Cavebear]

I think it's important to underscore this.  Universal health coverage is not free, and the only ones who don't seem to know this are the right wing fringes.  At least they pretend like they don't know it, probably so they can point to all the "freeloaders" who support it. But in addition to not being free, it's not going to be cheap, just cheaper than the half ass coverage we currently buy with all of it's deductibles, co-pays, and hidden exclusions for why "you're aren't covered for that."  It will require a substantial tax increase, but unlike the taxes we currently pay, which are redistributed to bankers who lost their asses playing with your money, or the auto manufacturers who miscalculated the future, this tax comes back to average citizens, and creates an overall savings.

Yes, it's going to cost, but you don't need to put yourself in the hands of a for-profit insurer that wants to collect premiums without providing a service.  In the end, it will be cheaper and less hassle fighting with the provider.  I doubt it will ever be as good a program as those found in most other western societies.  In the US, I think provisions will be made requiring you to purchase supplemental insurance, in order to keep the corporate insurers hand's in your pockets.  Because that's the way our representatives make sure their big cash donors can remain in the game.  No it won't be free, just a better product at a lower cost.

The right wing likes to suggest it is a "government give-away", but all insurance is merely a pooling of risk.  And that covers the right wingers if they choose to participate.  And when they don't choose, just listen to them scream about paying the full price. 

[Shiranu]

Once again the progressive defines not being given things for free as a sort of injustice being enacted upon them. Pathetic.

No one is asking for anything for free; collectively sharing the burden to reduce the cost for everyone, and regulating the extent to how expensive the burden can be, is not "free". No one get's anything for "free" in a progressive country. No one thinks that.

You keep on repeating that, but it is both grossly inaccurate and frankly moronic.

[Gilgamesh]

No one is asking for anything for free; collectively sharing the burden to reduce the cost for everyone, and regulating the extent to how expensive the burden can be, is not "free". No one get's anything for "free" in a progressive country. No one thinks that.

You keep on repeating that, but it is both grossly inaccurate and frankly moronic.

You said,

"you lose the freedom to live where you want, to purchase what you want, to a chance to move up in the world, to maintain a family, et"

You were clearly defining not getting free services (because you have no money/are in debt) as a restriction of your freedom, lol. You not having enough to trade for other peoples goods, services, and hard work, is not the same as them restricting your freedom.

[Cavebear]

No one is asking for anything for free; collectively sharing the burden to reduce the cost for everyone, and regulating the extent to how expensive the burden can be, is not "free". No one get's anything for "free" in a progressive country. No one thinks that.

You keep on repeating that, but it is both grossly inaccurate and frankly moronic.

Nicely said.  But please don't delete the poster's name in the quote.  It makes it difficult to find the full post and the other earlier replies.  Just saying...

[Gilgamesh]

Nicely said.  But please don't delete the poster's name in the quote.  It makes it difficult to find the full post and the other earlier replies.  Just saying...

If you say my name snakes physically manifest in your home.

[Cavebear]

If you say my name snakes physically manifest in your home.

Quite the Goth Grrl, huh? 

Just checked around, no snakes.  Trust me, the cats would know...

And I do not fear snakes generally.  I saw one in the shed, and after examaning it carefully, picked it up and set it under the toolshed for a good Winter's sleep (and may it have caught many mice).  I just didn't want to be surprised when I grabbed a tool again.  There WAS a cottonmouth in the yard once...

[SGOS]

Quite the Goth Grrl, huh? 

Just checked around, no snakes.  Trust me, the cats would know...

And I do not fear snakes generally.  I saw one in the shed, and after examaning it carefully, picked it up and set it under the toolshed for a good Winter's sleep (and may it have caught many mice).  I just didn't want to be surprised when I grabbed a tool again.  There WAS a cottonmouth in the yard once...

A copperhead took up residence in my wood shed a couple of years ago.  I killed him, but it was an ugly affair with a lot of thrashing and showing of fangs.  I thought I could just whack him with a hoe, but they are strong and not prone to get cut in half.  I pinned him down with a shovel, then grabbed another shovel and kept jamming it against his neck until after a long battle, his head came off.

[Baruch]

The right wing likes to suggest it is a "government give-away", but all insurance is merely a pooling of risk.  And that covers the right wingers if they choose to participate.  And when they don't choose, just listen to them scream about paying the full price.

It is a pooling of the risk, if it is a tontine.  It isn't pooling with a giant corporation sucking up the money to Switzerland.

Yes, I would like to see everyone pay full price for everything (except children of course, they are stuck with the children's portion and their parents get to pay for them).  That is what honesty is.

[Baruch]

No one is asking for anything for free; collectively sharing the burden to reduce the cost for everyone, and regulating the extent to how expensive the burden can be, is not "free". No one get's anything for "free" in a progressive country. No one thinks that.

You keep on repeating that, but it is both grossly inaccurate and frankly moronic.

Have nine women share the pregnancy, to spread the risk and shorten the time?

I won't collectively share anything with any of you ... none of you are family.  And I don't share much with them either.  And yes, you do think in terms of free, because of free printing of fiat money by corrupt government.  If you had to pay for everything, without free printing, you would already have your multi-trillion dollar bill arrive at your mail box ... you couldn't put it on the tab for your grandchildren.  You are already the beneficiary of free stuff as a child, and most of us want to have Daddy government continue to pay for our larks.