|
Rexicon1 posted:There should just be a button that shines a tremendous light on someone and yell this through the entire PA system of Capitol Hill I nominate Candy Crowley to operate it. Oh drat it...new page...hmmm let me check the hidden feeds of my worst acquaintances... Well, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZSuTlPmPGk The best part is that it ends in a conservative lynch mob chasing Barak Obama 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Nov 25, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR APPENDECTOMIES WHEN I DONT HAVE AN APPENDIX That's my typical response to the maternity care nonsense. Either that or "I, too, was grown in a test tube!" Farrok fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 05:44
|
|
Farrok posted:WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR APPENDECTOMIES WHEN I DONT HAVE AN APPENDIX I was born in a farmhouse in. 1978, I don't see how health insurance has anything to do with it. More to the point no one is complaining about being put into a risk pool with other people who have or have had appendixes. They are complaining about being put into a risk pool of people who have organs that they do not have have never possessed and will never posess. Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
My dad tried to pull the "Why do I have to pay for maternity care?" crap on me on the phone the other day. I responded with "You're right. Also you should see if you can get out of your mental health coverage too because you sure as hell aren't using your brain." He got flustered, said I "disrespected" him when he was trying to "educate" me, and quickly said goodbye. Man this is going to be one awkward Thanksgiving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:My dad tried to pull the "Why do I have to pay for maternity care?" crap on me on the phone the other day. I responded with "You're right. Also you should see if you can get out of your mental health coverage too because you sure as hell aren't using your brain."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Things do tend to get awkward when you flat-out insult people, yes. Hmm. I should have prefaced it by saying that he tends to insult me a lot too over the course of our political arguments. He has called me "brainwashed," "naive," and "an example of what's wrong with young people" before so I think he shouldn't insult me if he can't take it himself. Which isn't to say that I don't love him. I do. Like many goon parents from the sound of things, he turns into a total Fox News-reciting tea partier the second politics is brought up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Hmm. I should have prefaced it by saying that he tends to insult me a lot too over the course of our political arguments. He has called me "brainwashed," "naive," and "an example of what's wrong with young people" before so I think he shouldn't insult me if he can't take it himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I was born in a farmhouse in. 1978, I don't see how health insurance has anything to do with it. You didn't do very well on the analogies portion of the SAT did you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I was born in a farmhouse in. 1978, I don't see how health insurance has anything to do with it. It's true. I was never at risk from problems with uteruses. Like I said, I was grown in a test tube.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
Maybe prior to issuing out insurance we should test for genetic disorders so that people who aren't susceptible can opt out of that coverage. There's no reason that I should have to pay for a disease that I can't get because I was not born with those genes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Maybe prior to issuing out insurance we should test for genetic disorders so that people who aren't susceptible can opt out of that coverage. If health insurance required a mandatory genetic profile to set rates and coverage options these people would be screaming about Big Brother, but because this particular gene has a very obvious phenotype that can be discerned 99% accurately by looking then suddenly yeah obviously you'd ask someone to mark what sex chromosome they have on a form and charge them for it! That's just common sense!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I was born in a farmhouse in. 1978, I don't see how health insurance has anything to do with it. Holy crap dude, Your risk is balanced out by other peoples risks. That's how insurance works. No man is an island and it's better to have a healthy society than not There is no simpler way to explain this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If health insurance required a mandatory genetic profile to set rates and coverage options these people would be screaming about Big Brother, but because this particular gene has a very obvious phenotype that can be discerned 99% accurately by looking then suddenly yeah obviously you'd ask someone to mark what sex chromosome they have on a form and charge them for it! That's just common sense! Dr. Arbitrary posted:Maybe prior to issuing out insurance we should test for genetic disorders so that people who aren't susceptible can opt out of that coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I'm going to assume that you mean this to be sarcastic, but it doesn't really come across that well. It's not really that shocking that something almost always immediately apparent upon looking at someone wouldn't be treated as an invasion of privacy. It sounds like this argument would support asking for race on insurance forms and charging black people more because they're at greater risk of sickle cell anemia (or maybe drug use), and that's not wrong or an invasion of privacy because you can tell by looking. I think you're playing devil's advocate, but you're not doing a good job of defending the merits of the argument here...unless you mean to point out that those making it are racist and sexist. E: It's pretty ridiculous to say "Ah, as a white man, obviously I should not have to subsidize women's healthcare. We should just charge women more. But don't you dare get a genetic profile, because that might uncover a risk I have that other people are subsidizing. That would cost me more!" VVVV Car insurance isn't a basic necessity. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It sounds like this argument would support asking for race on insurance forms and charging black people more because they're at greater risk of sickle cell anemia (or maybe drug use), and that's not wrong or an invasion of privacy because you can tell by looking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:VVVV
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I think a totally generic approach that averages over everyone is probably a better option, particularly given the presence of an individual mandate. So in that sense, I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate. But I don't think individualized rates based on risk profiles are inherently ridiculous, and I certainly don't think they're racist or sexist. Do you apply the same logic to the higher rates that young men pay for car insurance? I personally think that healthcare cost shouldn't be dependent on how sick you are; but what do I know I'm just your friendly neighborhood commie!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That's arguable, but even if I grant it, do I take you to mean that it's okay to have sexist policies for things that aren't basic necessities? Car insurance is also already very affordable (compared to health insurance), and I don't think subsidizing everyone's car insurance is a goal we need to pursue as a society. It's so completely different that there really is no comparison. I do think that we should make convenient and affordable public transportation available to everyone and not require the poor to depend on a personal vehicle just to get to work. And I don't think public transportation should have sexist policies. Does that answer your question?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Car insurance is also already very affordable (compared to health insurance), and I don't think subsidizing everyone's car insurance is a goal we need to pursue as a society. It's so completely different that there really is no comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
I bought a burger and I'm allergic to onions so I asked for no onions, but the burger still costs the same! All products should be tailor made around my requirements!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Not really. I still don't know if you consider it to be sexism that young men are paying higher rates for car insurance based on the higher risk they represent. I mean, you're clearly trying to say that the situations aren't analogous, but that doesn't answer the core question. Is it sexism, but acceptable, because car insurance is relatively cheaper than health insurance, and less critical? Or is it not sexism, because paying different rates based on genuinely different actuarial risks isn't sex discrimination as we tend to mean the phrase? Actuarial risk profiles aren't sex discrimination, no. The sexism comes in when men want insurance companies to ask people to bubble in what sex they are on a form because that benefits men, but don't want the company to ask people to include a strand of hair when mailing it in, because that could reveal actuarial risks that could affect them. It's super sexist when the law forbids discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions so men with diabetes can still get covered but "oh gently caress no it's not okay to ask me to subsidize a baby machine." VVVV But if those people already accept the functionalist argument that companies shouldn't discriminate for pre-existing conditions, then this objection really is sexism and it's not stupid to point it out. Maybe you don't think it's the most effective debate tactic, but that doesn't make it any less true. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
I mean, I would argue about it from a functionalist perspective. Diversifying rates based on risk sounds attractive to the person in the lower-risk group, but it's a zero-sum game - it necessarily means that there are those who must pay more, perhaps substantially more, particularly if you do start getting into screening for various genetic factors or what have you. Part of the reason we started on this whole healthcare kick was the effective financial unavailability of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and paying different rates based on your risk factors is a step in that direction. Saying it's bad because it's sexism is just childish. VitalSigns posted:Actuarial risk profiles aren't sex discrimination, no. The sexism comes in when men want insurance companies to ask people to bubble in what sex they are on a form because that benefits men, but don't want the company to ask people to include a strand of hair when mailing it in, because that could reveal actuarial risks that could affect them. It's super sexist when the law forbids discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions so men with diabetes can still get covered but "oh gently caress no it's not okay to ask me to subsidize a baby machine." Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:I bought a burger and I'm allergic to onions so I asked for no onions, but the burger still costs the same! All products should be tailor made around my requirements! As someone said many pages ago, "the risk pool for my insurance plan should be composed solely of myself!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Alternately, a genetic screening is meaningfully more intrusive than filling out a bubble on a form. Even if that's true, it does not address the point that everyone is fine with a man with preexisting diabetes getting coverage at the same price as a woman without diabetes despite his actuarial risk. But when a man has to subsidize a woman's baby parts suddenly it's this huge injustice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:VVVV Forgive me if I don't respond again. I can't imagine much else of substance is going to come up in this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:VVVV VitalSigns posted:Car insurance is also already very affordable (compared to health insurance), and I don't think subsidizing everyone's car insurance is a goal we need to pursue as a society. It's so completely different that there really is no comparison. It seems to work out cheaper than the alternative of making driving without insurance illegal and then having to spend money detecting and prosecuting that. edit: vvvvvvvvvv I refuse to believe that unless there is One Weird Trick involved. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
DID YOU KNOW: That cancer (all forms?) have been cured but there's more money in treatment than a cure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Have you ever heard of a pharmaceutical executive dying of cancer? I haven't bothered to check.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 15:35
|
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:I bought a burger and I'm allergic to onions so I asked for no onions, but the burger still costs the same! All products should be tailor made around my requirements! Yet the hamburger, cheeseburger, and bacon cheeseburger all have different prices! I never said I was opposed to genetic testing for pre-existing conditions, sounds like a goog idea,
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Yet the hamburger, cheeseburger, and bacon cheeseburger all have different prices! At that point you just make the insurance pool smaller and smaller, presumably until their size defeats the point of having an insurance in the first place because the super-high-risk people (i.e. cystic fibrosis carriers) now have a $1000+ premium a month.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
peak debt posted:At that point you just make the insurance pool smaller and smaller, presumably until their size defeats the point of having an insurance in the first place because the super-high-risk people (i.e. cystic fibrosis carriers) now have a $1000+ premium a month. God bless America!  Armyman25 posted:Yet the hamburger, cheeseburger, and bacon cheeseburger all have different prices! In this analogy, the bacon cheeseburger is a platinum plan that will still cost the same if you ask them to hold the ovaries. Are you opposed to the reform of pre-existing conditions too? Like, are you staking out some bizarre new risk pooling stance that we shouldn't charge people who actually have cancer more, but we should go ahead and charge those who are genetically more likely to get it in the future? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I never said I was opposed to genetic testing for pre-existing conditions, sounds like a goog idea, It's not though, it's a loving terrible idea. Insurance is only cheap if you pool it and if you start demanding DNA sequencing for insurance then EVERYONE will have a few possible pre-existing conditions. It's short sighted and outright stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Jesus just get with the program America and adopt single payer so you don't even have to have this dumb discussion. I'm curious why one 'pre-existing condition' (ie. your sex) somehow impacts your rates while others do not, simply for being more obvious. But then I remember most people literally have no clue how insurance works. Or idiotically think reproductive care doesn't help men.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I'm curious why one 'pre-existing condition' (ie. your sex) somehow impacts your rates while others do not, simply for being more obvious. But then I remember most people literally have no clue how insurance works. Or idiotically think reproductive care doesn't help men. Because it's cool if healthy women subsidize my diabetes or 12th gonorrhea incident or alcohol-hardened liver, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay for lady parts and baby-delivering and all the sex-having of sluts  Remember, men have zero interest in having healthy children. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
A year ago we had people screaming since THEIR MONEY went towards sluts and their birth control being covered by health insurance. Helping out people has become so toxic to half the country that even the lovely way insurance works is too much "charity."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
So apparently there's a "Liberal Logic" Twitter as well, which produced this gem: Because having a social safety net is exactly the same as brutally forcing most of the population into serfdom and grinding poverty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Hunger Games is one of those things that you see the evil guys as whoever isn't your political ideology. In the case of conservatives, they believe that welfare and other social programs are there to make everyone dependent on the government. Once the percentage of people on the dole hits 51% they will start piling people into the furnaces since at that point you can't vote them out because that would be voting against your self interest. That ignores that if someone is truly a totalitarian regime they aren't going to give a poo poo about voting rights but these are the same people that think they are going to fight off the US Army with what they have in their gun safes so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Why would the government even bother with making the population "dependent on welfare" in the first place? Wouldn't people starving from lack of food and dying of preventable disease be easier targets for Obama's jack-booted thugs or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Jesus just get with the program America and adopt single payer so you don't even have to have this dumb discussion. DISCLAIMER, I was young when this happened so my memory might not be correct. There was a suggestion roughly six-eight years ago here in Sweden that said that if you were a man, you should pay more in taxes. They thought that since men destroy more and put more people in the hospital they should pay more due the pre-existing condition of being a man. Not a terrible idea but it wasn't a serious suggestion. The politician used it as a sort-of thought experiment to open our eyes. Everyone misunderstood it of course and there were panic over our poor men. I think it's nice to see that's a serious view held in America but with the genders reversed. Now, something completely different. Who else hates someecards?  I don't get these? Haha, I think you're so hot. Here's me saying it with an old timey picture next to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Flaskraven posted:DISCLAIMER, I was young when this happened so my memory might not be correct. There was a suggestion roughly six-eight years ago here in Sweden that said that if you were a man, you should pay more in taxes. They thought that since men destroy more and put more people in the hospital they should pay more due the pre-existing condition of being a man. Not a terrible idea but it wasn't a serious suggestion. The politician used it as a sort-of thought experiment to open our eyes. Everyone misunderstood it of course and there were panic over our poor men. I think it's nice to see that's a serious view held in America but with the genders reversed. I'm not sure these are really comparable. One is claiming men are inherently more destructive and using that as a justification to jack up their taxes. The other acknowledges a biological fact that ostensibly qualifies for the 'pre-existing condition' line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 17:40
|
|