Man 'too fat' to live in New Zealand

[mistermack]

I hope that Seth doesn't get to face that dilemma.

I do too. But if I do I won't resort to stealing from other people to solve my problem.

If I fail to plan wisely, then yes, I may be bankrupted by medical costs. But we don't have debtors prisons anymore, and bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen to a person by any stretch of the imagination.

Got ya !! You can't even keep track of your own double standards.
You're happy to leave other people saddled with YOUR debts, but you spout all this high-minded crap about not stealing from other people.

How hypocritical, to be perfectly happy dumping YOUR debts on others, and yet regarding a national health insurance system as theft.

And of course, we all know that if your "nest egg" DID run out, you'd be there with your hand out, taking treatment that other people paid for.
You're actually no better than an uninsured driver. It's all fine till it goes wrong, but when it does, everybody else ends up subsidising you, because you wouldn't buy insurance.

[Seth]

I hope that Seth doesn't get to face that dilemma.

I do too. But if I do I won't resort to stealing from other people to solve my problem.

If I fail to plan wisely, then yes, I may be bankrupted by medical costs. But we don't have debtors prisons anymore, and bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen to a person by any stretch of the imagination.

Got ya !! You can't even keep track of your own double standards.
You're happy to leave other people saddled with YOUR debts, but you spout all this high-minded crap about not stealing from other people.

How hypocritical, to be perfectly happy dumping YOUR debts on others, and yet regarding a national health insurance system as theft.

Well, that's because bankruptcy is part of the contract that I enter with a health care provider when negotiating the costs of treatment. It's a private contract between me and the provider, and the financial arrangements are likewise private. It's a simple business transaction. If they charge me too much I go bankrupt, which is a fact of life. If I have no money, I have no money and you can't get blood from a turnip. So, the provider can work with me to come to an equitable settlement (like by not overcharging me as much as 10 times what an insurance company pays for the same service) or it can take the hard line and force me into bankruptcy, which means they might get pennies on the dollar.

In any event nobody but me and the provider are involved in the transaction. The public is not expected to pick up the tab, much less forced to do so by the government. It's a free-market transaction. If the provider overprices and gouges me, it risks it's profits. If it gives value for service, then it gets what I can pay.

Of course I can also DECLINE medical treatment that's too expensive. In fact I was just thinking about that today. I felt a hard nodule on one of my nuts, so I'm going to need to see a specialist to see if I have testicular cancer. But you can be damned sure that I will negotiate the price of the service BEFORE I accept the service. I don't just walk in and say "fix me, I don't care what it costs...somebody else." That's unethical and it's theft. And if I can't afford to pay for treatment, then I might die.

Oh well.

And of course, we all know that if your "nest egg" DID run out, you'd be there with your hand out, taking treatment that other people paid for.

How do you know that? You're comparing me to you, but I'm not like you at all. I actually have morals and ethics that I'm willing to die for. You? Not so much I expect.

You're actually no better than an uninsured driver. It's all fine till it goes wrong, but when it does, everybody else ends up subsidising you, because you wouldn't buy insurance.

Obviously you don't understand the concept of "insurance." Why should I "insure" the rest of the planet? Not my problem at all. If YOU think that I am a risk on the roadway, then it's up to YOU to obtain an insurance policy that covers you against damages caused by someone with no assets. That's what insurance IS for crying out loud.

If I have nothing to lose, either from being injured or from causing an injury, why should I waste my money making sure YOU get covered? That's YOUR problem. Go buy an insurance policy with "uninsured motorist" coverage...which you probably do ANYWAY because there are a lot of people (mostly illegal aliens) driving around with no license, no insurance, and no assets.

Your financial future and well-being is NOT MY PROBLEM. It's yours. Insure it if you like, at YOUR expense, not mine.

[Woodbutcher]

Insurance companies know people will declare bankruptcy on occasion. That's why they overcharge. Everybody pays for the ones that go bankrupt, not the insurance company. Yours is a silly attitude, Seth.

[Seth]

Insurance companies know people will declare bankruptcy on occasion. That's why they overcharge. Everybody pays for the ones that go bankrupt, not the insurance company. Yours is a silly attitude, Seth.

Right, everybody who is VOLUNTARILY in the insurance pool THEY have chosen to be in.

There are (or were until Obamacare started meddling) insurance companies that had strict requirements for entering the pool, like no smoking, no diseases, age limitations for entry, health maintenance requirements that made the pool up of fit, young men (and women) who take care of their health so as to minimize the claims made, which caused THEIR insurance rates to be markedly lower than those for old, obese chain smokers with diabetes and lung cancer.

The Obama administration made such "discrimination" illegal as a part of Obamacare (the pre-existing condition ban) because it didn't fit the Marxist Progressive ideal of egalitarianism in which the healthy are obligated to pay for the sins and omissions of the unhealthy.

So now rates are set based on EVERYBODY, including the very sickest and most expensive to treat, which makes rates go up.

And even before Obamacare, state legislatures engaged in the same sort of Marxist Progressive manipulation of the health care market by writing laws requiring that a) nobody can buy a policy out of the state; b) larding up the minimum care requirements to be "fair" to people; and c) making everyone pay for what they are not responsible for.

By way of example, a bunch of liberal feminists got the Colorado General Assembly to enact a law that requires that ALL insurance plans in Colorado MUST provide coverage for women's reproductive ailments, including pregnancy and childbirth.

Such ailments, which are a function of women's reproductive organs being more complex and prone to failure than men's, can be very costly to treat. But rather than lump all women together in a pool and setting their rates based on what it costs to serve their medical needs, the law requires that MEN pay higher rates too, because "discriminating" against women by making them pay higher actuarial rates because they use more health care services than men do, in general, is "unacceptable."

So if I buy a policy in Colorado, I have to pay for gynecological care that I don't need and will never use simply because Marxist Progressive egalitarianism wants it that way.

That's just stupid, and it's meddling with the free market in ways that cause MASSIVE increases in health care costs for everyone.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your view is based on pure selfishness. You are saying that any system that helps those who are less fortunate than you are, and which requires you to pay slightly more in the way of premiums or taxes, is unacceptable.

Do not be surprised to learn that very few of the good people here will have the slightest sympathy with your selfish approach.

[Woodbutcher]

Insurance companies know people will declare bankruptcy on occasion. That's why they overcharge. Everybody pays for the ones that go bankrupt, not the insurance company. Yours is a silly attitude, Seth.

Right, everybody who is VOLUNTARILY in the insurance pool THEY have chosen to be in.

There are (or were until Obamacare started meddling) insurance companies that had strict requirements for entering the pool, like no smoking, no diseases, age limitations for entry, health maintenance requirements that made the pool up of fit, young men (and women) who take care of their health so as to minimize the claims made, which caused THEIR insurance rates to be markedly lower than those for old, obese chain smokers with diabetes and lung cancer.

The Obama administration made such "discrimination" illegal as a part of Obamacare (the pre-existing condition ban) because it didn't fit the Marxist Progressive ideal of egalitarianism in which the healthy are obligated to pay for the sins and omissions of the unhealthy.

So now rates are set based on EVERYBODY, including the very sickest and most expensive to treat, which makes rates go up.

And even before Obamacare, state legislatures engaged in the same sort of Marxist Progressive manipulation of the health care market by writing laws requiring that a) nobody can buy a policy out of the state; b) larding up the minimum care requirements to be "fair" to people; and c) making everyone pay for what they are not responsible for.

By way of example, a bunch of liberal feminists got the Colorado General Assembly to enact a law that requires that ALL insurance plans in Colorado MUST provide coverage for women's reproductive ailments, including pregnancy and childbirth.

Such ailments, which are a function of women's reproductive organs being more complex and prone to failure than men's, can be very costly to treat. But rather than lump all women together in a pool and setting their rates based on what it costs to serve their medical needs, the law requires that MEN pay higher rates too, because "discriminating" against women by making them pay higher actuarial rates because they use more health care services than men do, in general, is "unacceptable."

So if I buy a policy in Colorado, I have to pay for gynecological care that I don't need and will never use simply because Marxist Progressive egalitarianism wants it that way.

That's just stupid, and it's meddling with the free market in ways that cause MASSIVE increases in health care costs for everyone.

But women also pay for prostate cancer. In Canada your premiums are lower if you are a non-smoker, and also, if you are not in some risk groups. Everybody gets covered, though. Some pay more.

[Seth]

Seth

Your view is based on pure selfishness.

No, my view is based on Libertarian values of liberty, non-coercion and the right to contract.

You are saying that any system that helps those who are less fortunate than you are, and which requires you to pay slightly more in the way of premiums or taxes, is unacceptable.

I'm asking for one of you socialists intellectuals to explain exactly why anyone should be required to pay anything at all to help "the less fortunate." Where exactly does this putative duty to the collective come from? What rational and logical arguments support the imposition of this duty? Why is government the only organ capable of deciding how to allocate resources to help "the less fortunate?" Why is private charity and individual altruism and enlightened rational self-interest not sufficient to the task.

What is the basis of your claim that government, the enforcement arm of the collective legitimately wields force to coerce compliance with redistributionary taxation?

Think you can answer ANY of those questions with something other than an appeal to common practice or an ad hom attack?

Do not be surprised to learn that very few of the good people here will have the slightest sympathy with your selfish approach.

I'm not asking for sympathy, I'm asking for reason, logic and the willingness to face the questions squarely instead of this kind of typical pattern of evading the roots of the issue. There are only two conclusions I can draw from decades of asking exactly the same questions of Marxists; a) they are simply too mind-numbingly stupid that they don't have the capacity to even question the dogma they cling to every bit as vigorously as the most fervent of religious zealots; or b) they know full well there is no rational, logical argument that supports Marxism and it's derivatives so they don't dare even broach the subject and must therefore resort to Alinskyite smears, slanders and evasive "Big Lie" techniques to evade any chance of a debate that will crumble the sandy foundations of their religious beliefs.

Do you have the wit to defend your beliefs or not?

[Seth]

But women also pay for prostate cancer. In Canada your premiums are lower if you are a non-smoker, and also, if you are not in some risk groups. Everybody gets covered, though. Some pay more.

So why shouldn't non-smokers pay the same as smokers? What is the rationale for this gross discrimination against smokers? Please explain.

Why should women pay for treating prostate cancer? What is the differential in cost between the yearly bill nationally for treating prostate cancer and the bill for treating women's reproductive disorders?

You cite another appeal to common practice fallacy.

If I WANT to be part of a risk group that covers women's reproductive issues, and I don't mind paying a little more in the process, that's just fine, but what is your argument for compelling me by force of law to participate in that group?

Don't tell me "because everyone does it" tell me WHY anyone SHOULD do it?

Justify your dogma.

[fishie]

I'm asking for one of you socialists intellectuals to explain exactly why anyone should be required to pay anything at all to help "the less fortunate." Where exactly does this putative duty to the collective come from? What rational and logical arguments support the imposition of this duty? Why is government the only organ capable of deciding how to allocate resources to help "the less fortunate?" Why is private charity and individual altruism and enlightened rational self-interest not sufficient to the task.

What is the basis of your claim that government, the enforcement arm of the collective legitimately wields force to coerce compliance with redistributionary taxation?

Think you can answer ANY of those questions with something other than an appeal to common practice or an ad hom attack?

Do not be surprised to learn that very few of the good people here will have the slightest sympathy with your selfish approach.

I'm not asking for sympathy, I'm asking for reason, logic and the willingness to face the questions squarely instead of this kind of typical pattern of evading the roots of the issue. There are only two conclusions I can draw from decades of asking exactly the same questions of Marxists; a) they are simply too mind-numbingly stupid that they don't have the capacity to even question the dogma they cling to every bit as vigorously as the most fervent of religious zealots; or b) they know full well there is no rational, logical argument that supports Marxism and it's derivatives so they don't dare even broach the subject and must therefore resort to Alinskyite smears, slanders and evasive "Big Lie" techniques to evade any chance of a debate that will crumble the sandy foundations of their religious beliefs.

Do you have the wit to defend your beliefs or not?

Bit shouty there Seth. Wanna hug? It's ok there's probably lots of things that you like that the government spends your money on. Just pretend that your contributions don't pay for stuff you don't like. Just pretend all yours gets spent on new army stuff instead. Or better still, make up a system where you get to pick where your contributions go. Your contributions to the health system could just be to treat corporate people.
See, I bet you feel better.
No don't thank me.
That's what friends are for.
Now where's that hug

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Your two questions.

1. Why not charities?
Simple. People are mean and stingy. Charities never receive enough money to allow them to meet the human needs.

2. Why do governments take your money and give it to the needy?
Because the whole role of government is to look after the people. If they do not serve the people they should not be in government. To serve the people, governments need money, and hence taxes. Some people need more help than others.

It is really very simple.

And once more. Socialism is not automatically Marxism. Socialism is simply a government giving aid to those in need.

The time is coming when socialism will be required big time. The world is getting more automated and computerised. The next big advance will be robotics. The first robots that can 'talk' are already in existence. One is on the ISS right now. Within 20 years, robots will be taking over more and more of the available work force, and not necessarily unskilled jobs only. Inevitably, 90% or more of the work force will be out of work. If not socialism, what do you suggest? Soylent Green?

[Collector1337]

If not socialism, what do you suggest? Soylent Green?

To your degree of socialism? Then yes, we can only hope.

[Seth]

Bit shouty there Seth. Wanna hug?

Of course I do. Who wouldn't?

It's ok there's probably lots of things that you like that the government spends your money on.

Hm. The federal government? No, not really. I would eliminate 98% of the federal government overnight if it were up to me and nobody would miss them. State government? Yeah, they do good things, and bad, but at least I have some effect on how things go in my state, and if I don't like it, I can always move to another state.

Just pretend that your contributions don't pay for stuff you don't like. Just pretend all yours gets spent on new army stuff instead.

What good would that do? Everybody's money is being stolen and ignoring the problem doesn't help eliminate it. This isn't about how much money I pay in insurance premiums for somebody else, I'm just using myself as the interlocutor. I don't have health insurance so I don't pay anybody else anything. Nor will I ever buy Obamacare. They'll have to kill me.

It's the principle of the thing, you see. Well, maybe you don't see because maybe you don't have any principles or ethics. That's true of all Marxists, so it might be true of you. I really don't know.

But once again you evade the actual debate and turn to ad hom instead, which merely proves my point that you haven't the capacity to defend your preferred social system. In that you're just like every other Marxist on earth.

Or better still, make up a system where you get to pick where your contributions go. Your contributions to the health system could just be to treat corporate people.

Fine by me. I pick ME as the sole beneficiary of my "contributions" to health care.

See, I bet you feel better.
No don't thank me.
That's what friends are for.
Now where's that hug

More dodging, evasion, obfuscation, pettifoggery and intellectual dishonesty. Predictable.

[Seth]

To Seth

Your two questions.

1. Why not charities?
Simple. People are mean and stingy. Charities never receive enough money to allow them to meet the human needs.

Really? I don't think so. Americans are the most generous people on the planet. As a society we give more charity and aid PRIVATELY than all other nations combined, and that does not include our government aid programs.

How about we just cut off aid to everybody who's not a US citizen entirely and direct all that aid towards America for the next 100 years or so and the rest of the socialist world can "share" their wealth with the poor and underprivileged. Let's see how long that lasts... I give it two years max. Fuck, the EU threw Greece, Spain and Portugal under the bus in a matter of months.

Talk about "stingy and mean," there's nobody meaner or stingier than a Marxist who has to "share" his "to each according to his need" portion.

2. Why do governments take your money and give it to the needy?
Because the whole role of government is to look after the people.

The role of the government is to serve the people, not look after them. It's role is to protect the free exercise of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It is not and never has been to "look after" people. Socialism doesn't look after anything but it's own perpetuation and survival, it just uses "free shit" for the proletariat as a political tool to persuade them to keep the Marxist elite in power.

If they do not serve the people they should not be in government. To serve the people, governments need money, and hence taxes. Some people need more help than others.

So why can't government spend it's time and our money going around, hat in hand, persuading us that it's in our best interests and in the interests of compassion, altruism, charity and enlightened rational self-interest to help the poor? The American Humane Society does it for pets for cripe's sake.

It is really very simple.

It's not simple at all, and all you've done is repeat the fallacious appeal to common practice. "That's what government is supposed to do..." Why is that what government is supposed to do? It's certainly not what OUR government was chartered to do.

And once more. Socialism is not automatically Marxism. Socialism is simply a government giving aid to those in need.

"To each according to his need." And socialism GETS that aid "from each according to his ability" whether or not the individual agrees that what's demanded is within his ability, much less whether or not he agrees to being enslaved to the service of others against his will.

You're spouting the "Money Fairy" fallacy again. "Socialism" has to get that aid from somewhere. So does charity. The difference is that charitable organizations like, for instance, the Catholic Church, which is one of the largest distributors of aid to the poor and underprivileged on earth, get their funds from people who exercise charity, compassion, altruism and rational self-interest, and they do it without having the need of the Mace of State to threaten people with.

The time is coming when socialism will be required big time.

I hope not because that is the beginning of the end for liberty, freedom and the entire world's economy.

The world is getting more automated and computerised. The next big advance will be robotics. The first robots that can 'talk' are already in existence. One is on the ISS right now. Within 20 years, robots will be taking over more and more of the available work force, and not necessarily unskilled jobs only. Inevitably, 90% or more of the work force will be out of work. If not socialism, what do you suggest? Soylent Green?

Find something new to do and eschew commerce with companies that use robots rather than employing people.

What you can't do is expect the 10% or less of the remaining workers to support the 90% who are unemployed by technology. That's pure stupidity. Very quickly that 10% or fewer people will figure out that they are enslaved to the needs of the unemployed proletariat and that they will never prosper because every time they do their profits will be taxed away to pay for proletarian indolence and greed, so they will simply stop being productive and will become proletarians instead.

Then who the fuck is going to pay all those bills? Nobody, that's who. And when the bills stop getting paid the farmers stop producing crops to feed the unemployed proletarian masses, and food riots ensue within about a week to 30 days, depending on where it happens. As the food riots start and public order is threatened, the Marxist government will do what it always does when its power is leaking away, it becomes more and more authoritarian and brutal. It removes "counterrevolutionaries" and those who fail to wave the little red book and chant the proper propaganda. It removes "intellectuals" because they poison the minds of the proletariat. They "reeducate" the formerly-wealthy productive class through forced labor under which many die. They seek to control everything, from production and distribution of food to thought, speech and religion, and they use ever-more brutal tactics to force compliance and obedience, and they kill whomever becomes an irritant.

As went Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge, so goes all of Socialism once the OPM runs out and the golden geese and kine have been slaughtered and eaten.

You really don't understand economics at all, do you? Here's your first lesson: TANSTAAFL.

[MrJonno]

What you can't do is expect the 10% or less of the remaining workers to support the 90% who are unemployed by technology

Well the obvious answer to that would be to restrict how many hours the 10% do, ie they will have to work less to allow others to work more. It is a probably its quite obvious in the future a very high % of the population maybe even a majority will never be economically active but that won't stop them needing to be fed and sheltered.

[Warren Dew]

What you can't do is expect the 10% or less of the remaining workers to support the 90% who are unemployed by technology

Well the obvious answer to that would be to restrict how many hours the 10% do, ie they will have to work less to allow others to work more. It is a probably its quite obvious in the future a very high % of the population maybe even a majority will never be economically active but that won't stop them needing to be fed and sheltered.

Seems to me the obvious answer would be to allow the 10% to employ the remaining 90%.