Individualism Dies The Stroke of a Pen

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Ah, you are the stone that produces no ripples when thrown in the pond, how very Eastern mystic.

You do know that is ridiculous? I guess you don't huh?

How is that ridiculous? Please enlighten and explain this to me. I'll be glad to wait and see your answer, because I highly doubt you can't show me one instance where I have inconvenienced other people.

I've been working and trying to take care of my own things since I was 14. I wanted to work when I was 12, but the law would not allow me to. I've always been a self-sufficient/motivated individual to take care of my own needs.

[Wyld Blu 35]

I have auto insurance because I have to and because I choose to work somewhere that's outside of the public transportation realm here. I'd still drive either way though because it's just easier.. I also have insurance because there's too many jack #### drivers out there who need to take a driver's ed class once a year to get a damn clue....

Think of it this way otherwie though. Without interest. Let's sad you go 10 years of saving $100 a month. That's $12,000. 20 years, that's $24,000, etc.. Imagine saving more than that a month if you could.

Not everyone can do that, but it is possible to do for most people.

The problem here isn't about insurance as I keep saying, it's about cost. The thought of a medical procedure costing more than your home is utterly absurd.

The thought of that might be absurd to you...but unfortunately it is reality. MANY, MANY people go bankrupt and lose EVERYTHING each year trying to afford medical bills for themselves or loved ones who have suffered a horrible injury or illness. It seems the reality of how high the costs are for even a short stay in the hospital may be are alluding you.

-Blu-

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I spoke to Individualism on the phone today and it would like me to make it known that rumors of its untimely death are premature, but that Hyperbole is very much alive and has Bill tied up and gagged in his kitchen.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Once he gets past his 'chicken little' anxiety over the bill actually passing, he'll soon mellow out and reap the benefits.

I get my healthcare and dental thorough my wife's work. Before that, I paid for my own insurance, which, unlike all you clock punchers, was fully deductible. I shouldn't really notice any change, but I am not selfish. I worry about the next generation, rather than steal from them like our parents and grandparents are doing.

It really sucks to be twenty-something, doesn't it? Not only do you have to pay for all the old people, now you have to pay for all your lazy neighbors as well. Yep. Sucks to be you.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Someone who believes they can continue to pay the costs of health care even while being incapacitated due to an accident or illness is worth the risk simply in order to be able to claim they are an individual I guess.

Medical insurance doesn't always cover you, if you were injured by somebody else, say in an auto accident, or away from your place of residence, at work, or in a place of business, for example.

[Peikko 1,575]

How is that ridiculous? Please enlighten and explain this to me. I'll be glad to wait and see your answer, because I highly doubt you can't show me one instance where I have inconvenienced other people.

I've been working and trying to take care of my own things since I was 14. I wanted to work when I was 12, but the law would not allow me to. I've always been a self-sufficient/motivated individual to take care of my own needs.

Most people do work hard, most people do not want to be a burden on others, you are not alone, you are not unique. However, you appear to ignore some very self evident facts. Just because you work hard and are self motivated does not mean you are not dependent on the co-operation of others nor that you benefit from the sacrifice of others, nor is it true that because you want to be self sufficient and try hard to be so (which is no bad thing) you can't possibly have ever inconvenienced any one else.

I know the libertarian position is that everyone is an individual and each individual makes individual contracts with other individuals and each contract is mutually beneficial and society doesn't exist but that's nothing more than conceptual nonsense. The reality is that human beings co-operate with each other in order to achieve more than any one individual could ever achieve. It is the collective nature of humanity that allows us to continue to progress. If everyone really did negotiate individual contracts that mirrored the actual worth of each individuals contribution to the contract, humanity would never have moved beyond the stone age.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Most people do work hard, most people do not want to be a burden on others, you are not alone, you are not unique. However, you appear to ignore some very self evident facts. Just because you work hard and are self motivated does not mean you are not dependent on the co-operation of others nor that you benefit from the sacrifice of others, nor is it true that because you want to be self sufficient and try hard to be so (which is no bad thing) you can't possibly have ever inconvenienced any one else.

I know the libertarian position is that everyone is an individual and each individual makes individual contracts with other individuals and each contract is mutually beneficial and society doesn't exist but that's nothing more than conceptual nonsense. The reality is that human beings co-operate with each other in order to achieve more than any one individual could ever achieve. It is the collective nature of humanity that allows us to continue to progress. If everyone really did negotiate individual contracts that mirrored the actual worth of each individuals contribution to the contract, humanity would never have moved beyond the stone age.

There's a difference in cooperative actions and inconveniencing others.

[Peikko 1,575]

Medical insurance doesn't always cover you, if you were injured by somebody else, say in an auto accident, or away from your place of residence, at work, or in a place of business, for example.

I am not 100% familiar with the US system of health insurance so I don't doubt what you say, but what is your point? That it is sensible to rely on the fact that someone else will be responsible should you ever be in a position where you are incapacitated and can no longer pay your own way?

I also wonder what people who are born with disabilities of various sorts are supposed to do? Rely on charity? How very modern

[Peikko 1,575]

There's a difference in cooperative actions and inconveniencing others.

If you insist on doing something for yourself, when in fact co-operating would produce better result, you are inconveniencing others. Are you saying that when co-operating with others is the best course of action, that is what you do? Your refusal to buy health insurance tells me otherwise.

[CDAgirlMI 51]

The thought of that might be absurd to you...but unfortunately it is reality. MANY, MANY people go bankrupt and lose EVERYTHING each year trying to afford medical bills for themselves or loved ones who have suffered a horrible injury or illness. It seems the reality of how high the costs are for even a short stay in the hospital may be are alluding you.

-Blu-

Last number I saw was 62% of all bankrupcies are due to medical costs.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you insist on doing something for yourself, when in fact co-operating would produce better result, you are inconveniencing others. Are you saying that when co-operating with others is the best course of action, that is what you do? Your refusal to buy health insurance tells me otherwise.

It's not mutually beneficial for me to purchase a service I may never have the need for/decide to use.

Therefore it will benefit one person while not benefitting me. I am throwing my money down an endless tube.

This is why HSAs are nice. However, they are very limited unfortunately again, by government.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am not 100% familiar with the US system of health insurance so I don't doubt what you say, but what is your point? That it is sensible to rely on the fact that someone else will be responsible should you ever be in a position where you are incapacitated and can no longer pay your own way?

I also wonder what people who are born with disabilities of various sorts are supposed to do? Rely on charity? How very modern

I am just saying that we are not quite yet to universal coverage, even with the signing of this legislation. Insurance here in America is loss based by and large, and fault must be assigned before coverage can begin. This is not an argument against getting coverage, just that the coverage may no be complete. If it was, there wouldn't be the need for ten pages of fine print that accompany every policy listing all the exclusions, or enumerating the inclusions.

I would like to see no fault insurance for auto and health policies, and homeowners insurance that covers me, even if the house slides down the hill, or some terrorist sets off a nuke in downtown Forestville.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not mutually beneficial for me to purchase a service I may never have the need for/decide to use.

Therefore it will benefit one person while not benefitting me. I am throwing my money down an endless tube.

This is why HSAs are nice. However, they are very limited unfortunately again, by government.

You want the dice to be loaded so that you always win? That's hardly mutual co-operation. The point about insurance is that it allows risk to be spread so that everyone can afford to pay in while allowing everyone who needs the jackpot to win it. You just want to win, period. You stubbornly and selfishly want to go it alone for the off chance that you might end up the winner, even while being perfectly aware that going it alone means that you decrease the efficiency of the insurance system and therefore inconvenience those who accept that's how insurance works and buy in.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

I am just saying that we are not quite yet to universal coverage, even with the signing of this legislation. Insurance here in America is loss based by and large, and fault must be assigned before coverage can begin. This is not an argument against getting coverage, just that the coverage may no be complete. If it was, there wouldn't be the need for ten pages of fine print that accompany every policy listing all the exclusions, or enumerating the inclusions.

I would like to see no fault insurance for auto and health policies, and homeowners insurance that covers me, even if the house slides down the hill, or some terrorist sets off a nuke in downtown Forestville.

Ah, ok. I get what you are saying. Yes, that would be nice, particularly in health care. Assigning fault is a stupid and expensive way to go.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You want the dice to be loaded so that you always win? That's hardly mutual co-operation. The point about insurance is that it allows risk to be spread so that everyone can afford to pay in while allowing everyone who needs the jackpot to win it. You just want to win, period. You stubbornly and selfishly want to go it alone for the off chance that you might end up the winner, even while being perfectly aware that going it alone means that you decrease the efficiency of the insurance system and therefore inconvenience those who accept that's how insurance works and buy in.

It's not that at all. I use the economy each and every day to do my 'co-operative' part in things.

Just because I choose not to use one service does not inconvenience others.

I don't decrease the efficiency of it, I actually save it by not using it more than anything. If I can stop it from spending thousands of dollars on me, I call that more of a benefit for the system itself.

If I could have a limitless HSA account, that's more beneficial for everyone because I'm not burdening a system and at the same time if I don't use it, I have that much more money when I retire. Like I said though, the limits are very small on HSAs and what you are allowed to contribute.

My goal in life is to never have to use anything like Social Security and there you go, I contributed and paid for those who do and yet won't benefit from it one damn bit. There's my sacrifice.

I have friends and family who I will gladly help out in a heartbeart, but I should never be expected to help anyone out or contribute to a complete stranger if I so choose not to.