Conquer Club

Baron Von PWN wrote:

rockfist wrote:To me making everyone responsible for everyone elses ailments, which could be self inflicted sounds like theft. I mean if someone puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger, but somehow lives, to treat them and for society to pick up the tab is retarded (and I am aware that it may well be happening now since that is emergency room).

That would suck, but overall the benefits, so well stated by stahrgazer, outweigh the costs of treating a few fools who injure themselves needlessly ( this is likely such a small percentage of patients it doesen't matter far more costly are old people).

Hell, treating people who shoot themselves in the head might cure their depression. Instead of being a waste of effort they could then contribute to our society in a meaningfull way!

Hmm. Do you understand what the odds of that would be and what the potential payback versus cost would be? No, liberalism ignores costs.

rockfist wrote:Hmm. Do you understand what the odds of that would be and what the potential payback versus cost would be? No, liberalism ignores costs.

Odds would be fairly high. Depression is very easily treatable and relatively inexpensive compared to the potential gain from a fully functioning member of society. "Liberalism ignores costs" - not just ignorant of what liberalism actually means (not the soundbite version) and a very sweeping statement.

I'm talking about treating people who have already shot themselves not people with depression, which is treatable in a sometimes inexpensive way.

rockfist wrote:Hmm. Do you understand what the odds of that would be and what the potential payback versus cost would be? No, liberalism ignores costs.

The costs of treating someone who shot himself trough the head aren't that high. Either they do instakill and we take them to the morgue, let them die in the ambulance, or they survive it and all you need to do is stop the bleeding.

rockfist wrote:The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right.

I can understand why you would think that owning a home is not a right, but would you consider having adequate shelter so that you, and your family don't freeze to death, a right? How about food? In a nation as wealthy as yours, do you think that people should have the right to not starve to death?

Timminz wrote:

rockfist wrote:The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right.

I can understand why you would think that owning a home is not a right, but would you consider having adequate shelter so that you, and your family don't freeze to death, a right? How about food? In a nation as wealthy as yours, do you think that people should have the right to not starve to death?

No. You have a right to pursue gainful employment so that you can obtain those things. If you can't provide for your family, you shouldn't procreate. If you choose to do so anyway, you should learn to go without. Or die from lack thereof. Every action has a consequence. Or at least it should.

But in today's society, it's more like,

"I'm 17 and I dropped out of high school. I don't want to work, so what should I do all day? Maybe find someone to f*ck."
"Oh, you're pregnant? Okay, that's cool. Let's file for some welfare and medicaid, WIC and foodstamps. Now we have a monthly check, free groceries, free healthcare."
"Damn this welfare isn't enough to move out of my parents house. I'll file for section 8 housing. They'll pay my rent, and give me money for utilities. Just the basic necessities, like cable and cell phone bills."
"Well this welfare still isn't enough to buy a car or pay for gas, since I don't budget it. So I have no transportation, so I can't get a job. Plus, if I got a job, I might lose the section 8 housing or the welfare. I guess I'll just stay around the house and f*ck."
"You're pregnant again, huh? Well, we'll get a bump on our check."

You're going to tell me I am intellectually dishonest, whatever the hell that means. But I have seen real flesh and blood people that behave in exactly this way. I am related to some. But if I had the choice, I would rather they do without their "basic human rights" than have it taken care of from my paycheck.

Our nation is wealthy in spite of deadbeats like the above, not because of it. Our nation is wealthy because of a strong desire (among those with half a brain, a declining majority) to improve quality of life through hard work and innovation. The more we diminish the returns of such efforts through redistribution of wealth, the more those efforts themselves will diminish.

72o wrote:

Timminz wrote:

rockfist wrote:The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right.

I can understand why you would think that owning a home is not a right, but would you consider having adequate shelter so that you, and your family don't freeze to death, a right? How about food? In a nation as wealthy as yours, do you think that people should have the right to not starve to death?

No. You have a right to pursue gainful employment so that you can obtain those things. If you can't provide for your family, you shouldn't procreate. If you choose to do so anyway, you should learn to go without. Or die from lack thereof. Every action has a consequence. Or at least it should.

So, it is safe for me to assume that your position is, "Have money, or die"? How do people who, for example, have been crippled by a drunk driver fit into your opinion? If they can't work anymore, is the only fair way to deal with it letting them starve? If not, where do you draw the line? Able-bodied? Sound mind? Living somewhere where there is enough work for everyone?

You're going to tell me I am intellectually dishonest, whatever the hell that means. But I have seen real flesh and blood people that behave in exactly this way.

I suppose now wouldn't be the best time to explain the logical fallacy associated with anecdotal evidence.

Timminz wrote:So, it is safe for me to assume that your position is, "Have money, or die"? How do people who, for example, have been crippled by a drunk driver fit into your opinion? If they can't work anymore, is the only fair way to deal with it letting them starve? If not, where do you draw the line? Able-bodied? Sound mind? Living somewhere where there is enough work for everyone?

You're going to tell me I am intellectually dishonest, whatever the hell that means. But I have seen real flesh and blood people that behave in exactly this way.

I suppose now wouldn't be the best time to explain the logical fallacy associated with anecdotal evidence.

I guess the "have money, or die" position is a point-blank summation of my opinion. I think there's a little more to it than that, but for 4 words that's not bad.

In the instance of a person handicapped due to a drunk driver, I would say they should have insurance for the situation where they become disabled and cannot work. I do.

I am not so disillusioned by our social programs that I believe that Social Security will save me if something happens to me. I plan for the worst and hope for the best. And I make damn sure there is enough money for whatever life might throw at me. I feel this is my duty as a responsible member of society. You make me sound like an idiot for thinking people should take personal responsibility.

If I made a decision to have children (yes, I said decision, they're not brought by the stork), I would be sure I had adequate healthcare and insurance to provide for the possibility, however remote, that that child would have health issues that would inhibit their physical or mental development, and potentially their earning potential when they get older. I would not depend on the government to provide for those rare occurrences, not to mention the basic necessities of that child.

I have done that for my children. Luckily they are healthy, but we would have been financially secure had they not been. They will never go without, but they will also grow up to understand the value of a dollar and the hard work required to become successful.

I guess what it boils down to is that I don't feel that everyone has the "right" to reproduce. I feel that everyone should do the due diligence to determine if having children is something they can support financially as well as emotionally, and unfortunately most do not. Then we reward this irresponsibility with social programs and assistance, all funded by those who are responsible stewards of our population growth.

Living somewhere where there is enough work for everyone - now that's just laughable. As if we're such a helpless race that we can't figure out what to do about such a dire situation. People are mobile creatures. My grandfather once walked from Burma to India to find work and a better place to live.

Snorri1234 wrote:

rockfist wrote:Hmm. Do you understand what the odds of that would be and what the potential payback versus cost would be? No, liberalism ignores costs.

The costs of treating someone who shot himself trough the head aren't that high. Either they do instakill and we take them to the morgue, let them die in the ambulance, or they survive it and all you need to do is stop the bleeding.

This is worth quoting, without any modification because of how obsurd it is.

"Gunshot wounds cost the nation $2.3 billion a year in medical treatment, and almost half that sum is paid for with taxpayers' dollars, a study by a group of economists has found."
"134,445 gunshot wounds reported per year"
"The average cost of a gunshot wound that brings the victim to a hospital is $14,600 for emergency care and $35,400 for lifetime medical care resulting from the shooting, the study found."

Those 3 quotes seemed relevant Rockfist. They are from this site http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/04/us/an ... gewanted=1

I would say that treating the gunshot wounds is expensive, I just bought a car for a tenth of that price......

Nice!

From the above it appears america is populated by lazy, breed till you drop, welfare sucking schmucks, that shoot each other...a lot.

Where do they get the funds to buy bullets I wonder?

I would venture that a lot of gun related violence also involves drugs or alcohol.

I've never done illegals, but I know drinking used to negatively impact my mood in the days subsequent to doing it.

Timminz wrote:

rockfist wrote:The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right.

I can understand why you would think that owning a home is not a right, but would you consider having adequate shelter so that you, and your family don't freeze to death, a right? How about food? In a nation as wealthy as yours, do you think that people should have the right to not starve to death?

Has mankind really become this dependent? BUILD A F'ING HUTT, ok, or a cardboard box. Don't tell me after a week in those conditions, that person will not have a plan to better his/her circumstances. and watch them do it. Making humans do something themselves is a critical part of the learning curve. With all this safety net bullshit, people will become less productive, since, ya know....

oh well. don't worry, it's covered

edocsil wrote:"Gunshot wounds cost the nation $2.3 billion a year in medical treatment, and almost half that sum is paid for with taxpayers' dollars, a study by a group of economists has found."
"134,445 gunshot wounds reported per year"
"The average cost of a gunshot wound that brings the victim to a hospital is $14,600 for emergency care and $35,400 for lifetime medical care resulting from the shooting, the study found."

Those 3 quotes seemed relevant Rockfist. They are from this site http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/04/us/an ... gewanted=1

I would say that treating the gunshot wounds is expensive, I just bought a car for a tenth of that price......

Notice how it reads "gunshot wounds" and not "deliberately self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head". The numbers for the latter will certainly be lower.

I would argue that self inflicted gun shot wounds would be a low percentage of the total, but would in each individual instance be much more expensive to treat.

I used self inflicted gun shot wounds as one example of something I would not like to pay for treating. There are others.

My father once treated someone for a shotgun wound to the face. He apparently parked in the hospital lot, pulled out a shotgun and shot himself in the mouth.

Oh, he didn't pay for any treatment by the way.

rockfist wrote:I would argue that self inflicted gun shot wounds would be a low percentage of the total, but would in each individual instance be much more expensive to treat.

Why?

Snorri1234 wrote:

rockfist wrote:I would argue that self inflicted gun shot wounds would be a low percentage of the total, but would in each individual instance be much more expensive to treat.

Why?

Probably because they tend to be in vital areas like the head, at least as long as they're deliberately self-inflicted, rockfist may actually have something resembling a point there.

MeDeFe wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

rockfist wrote:I would argue that self inflicted gun shot wounds would be a low percentage of the total, but would in each individual instance be much more expensive to treat.

Why?

Probably because they tend to be in vital areas like the head, at least as long as they're deliberately self-inflicted, rockfist may actually have something resembling a point there.

Except that in areas like the head most people don't survive long enough for treatment.

Besides, any gun shot wound in the trunk or head is going to be expensive. Getting shot in the gut is messy and hard as balls to cure.

Snorri1234 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

rockfist wrote:I would argue that self inflicted gun shot wounds would be a low percentage of the total, but would in each individual instance be much more expensive to treat.

Why?

Probably because they tend to be in vital areas like the head, at least as long as they're deliberately self-inflicted, rockfist may actually have something resembling a point there.

Except that in areas like the head most people don't survive long enough for treatment.

Besides, any gun shot wound in the trunk or head is going to be expensive. Getting shot in the gut is messy and hard as balls to cure.

ok, if one counts in those who do not survive long enough to get treatment I suppose you're right. If one doesn't, rockfist is.

For those of you who really care about this socialized healthcare, here is the bill in it's entirety.

isaiah40 wrote:For those of you who really care about this socialized healthcare, here is the bill in it's entirety.

2000 pages?! Sorry, I don't have the time for that. Have any of the politicians even read through that monolith?

Ray Rider wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:For those of you who really care about this socialized healthcare, here is the bill in it's entirety.

2000 pages?! Sorry, I don't have the time for that. Have any of the politicians even read through that monolith?

Nope, nobody has read it,(in fact the democrats made news making fun of republicans for trying to read it)

Only one thing is for sure. even though nobody knows what is in it, Liberals call it a victory. NO MATTER how good or bad it is.......