It's time to end socialized fire and police services now - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #16 09-06-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I wonder if anyone has argued that fires should not be put out if caused by someone who is a leech on society.

I don't want to poo-poo the concerns of them against this too much. I think the phenomenon of people taking advantage of "free" services just because they are free can be a real problem. OTOH, I've heard of too many horror stories of someone losing their sight or some other lousy outcome owing to the lack of some relatively minor urgent care.

A person handicapped in such a way is unlikely to be a strong taxpayer or employee in future. Likely instead to be even more of a leech, if that was the original determination, until their death.

cmac2012 · #17 09-06-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Equating firefighting to health care is dumb. Especially since the current debate hinges on government CONTROL of the system. The problem is they want to cover the 15% of Americans without coverage (a lot of which choose to be that way) by breaking the system for the other 85%, most of whom are happy with it the way it is. Common sense dictates that a proposed plan SOLVES the problem, which is not the case with Obama. His plan is to CONTROL the system.

Everybody will need to spend money on healthcare at some point in their life, MOST people will not have to use the services of a fire department. As people get older, more money is spent on health issues. As you get older, there is no increase in usage of the fire department by the same people. To the fire department, each citizen is equivalent, which if that was the case in healthcare, we would not have a problem.

The problem with healthcare has been known for years, anybody with a brain saw it coming. You can also substitute the word "social security" for "healthcare" and the problem is the same.

And for those not in the know, it was caused by the aging of the baby boomers. When the boomers were contributing to the system, all was well. Problem is they get older, retire and now start to suck out of the system. But now we have more people on the debit side than we do on the credit side. The young financed the old, but now the old outnumber the young substantially.

Maybe the government had hoped for another baby boom, who knows? Either way what has happened was ALWAYS going to happen, no way around it without increasing the supply or decreasing demand. They cannot force either, and the supply of medical care has been flat for years, so increasing demand automatically means reducing supply RELATIVE to demand, which will be rationing.

Rationing of some sort is inevitable, and happens now. That's why some claims are denied. All this crap about death panels ignores that fact. If all medical care were insurance supplied, and the average person paid $500 a mo. for 40 years, that comes to $240 K. Even with interest, when you subtract the enormous wealth of ins. co. execs. and shareholders (Berkshire Hathaway) it's going to be impossible to dispense one or two $million in care to everyone, and with the price of extension of life technology steadily on the rise, many people are going to want to spend some serious $$ in their final years.

There's something a bit whack about a society that let's the health of people of productive age languish owing to lack of access to routine care while lavishing huge sums on people who can't accept the fact that they are near death. And today many people in their 20s and 30s, people who work, struggle to maintain a standard of living that is lower than what their parents had at the same age. Many of those people have difficulty paying for medical care.

tankdriver · #18 09-06-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I don't want to poo-poo the concerns of them against this too much. I think the phenomenon of people taking advantage of "free" services just because they are free can be a real problem. OTOH, I've heard of too many horror stories of someone losing their sight or some other lousy outcome owing to the lack of some relatively minor urgent care.

A person handicapped in such a way is unlikely to be a strong taxpayer or employee in future. Likely instead to be even more of a leech, if that was the original determination, until their death.

I think it's a legitimate question. If a crack house with crack addicts in it goes up in flames, should the fire department spend my tax money to put it out?

Matt L · #19 09-06-2009, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I think it's a legitimate question. If a crack house with crack addicts in it goes up in flames, should the fire department spend my tax money to put it out?

Yes, they should put out the fire in the crackhouse next door before it burns down your house.

cmac2012 · #20 09-07-2009, 03:06 AM

Similarly, disease can spread. But suffering due to the lack of a hip transplant won't spread. That is, not every item that might be sought under a public health care plan could be construed as in the greater public good. Then again, a higher level of general health and welfare would almost have to enhance the quality of life in genera in a society.

I'm not completely deaf to the concerns of conservatives on this issue. I understand the slow, stifled way a large bureaucracy can work. OTOH, the behavior of large insurance companies is pretty strange as well.

tonkovich · #21 09-07-2009, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Equating firefighting to health care is dumb. Especially since the current debate hinges on government CONTROL of the system. The problem is they want to cover the 15% of Americans without coverage (a lot of which choose to be that way) by breaking the system for the other 85%, most of whom are happy with it the way it is. Common sense dictates that a proposed plan SOLVES the problem, which is not the case with Obama. His plan is to CONTROL the system.

Everybody will need to spend money on healthcare at some point in their life, MOST people will not have to use the services of a fire department. As people get older, more money is spent on health issues. As you get older, there is no increase in usage of the fire department by the same people. To the fire department, each citizen is equivalent, which if that was the case in healthcare, we would not have a problem.

The problem with healthcare has been known for years, anybody with a brain saw it coming. You can also substitute the word "social security" for "healthcare" and the problem is the same.

And for those not in the know, it was caused by the aging of the baby boomers. When the boomers were contributing to the system, all was well. Problem is they get older, retire and now start to suck out of the system. But now we have more people on the debit side than we do on the credit side. The young financed the old, but now the old outnumber the young substantially.

Maybe the government had hoped for another baby boom, who knows? Either way what has happened was ALWAYS going to happen, no way around it without increasing the supply or decreasing demand. They cannot force either, and the supply of medical care has been flat for years, so increasing demand automatically means reducing supply RELATIVE to demand, which will be rationing.

interesting post. interesting, and utterly devoid of facts or logic.

just imagine if we had privatized social security, or linked it with the stock market.

p.s. i'm sure obama is staying awake nights, thinking about how to keep you from ever seeing a doctor again.

and then he's coming for your guns, and then ... who knows, your wife, your daughters...?

oh, and it's " a lot of whom" not "which". and yes, many people don't want health insurance? really? no, health insurance companies will not cover then.

mgburg · #22 09-07-2009, 04:00 AM

So who do you call in the case of spontaneous combustion?

Fire Department?

"O-Care?"

Crematorium/Funeral Home?

The grocery store for some more of the "S'mores" fixins'?

The local Pentecostal Ministry?

We need to know these things...

aklim · #23 09-07-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

just imagine if we had privatized social security, or linked it with the stock market.

How about this. YOU manage what is YOUR affair. After all, when we talk SS, what are we talking about besides YOUR well being after retirement? Invest it in whatever you want. Put it under your mattress or in a cookie jar for all I care. Don't privatize SS. BTW, they are talking about taking your money and doing with it what they will anyways. Like I said about Bubba, I don't want his buddies taking a turn.

How about what is happening to SS now? It is only a matter of time before it too needs a bailout, much like Fannie and Freddie. The money it should have? IIRC, it has been passed around congress and used like a drunk girl at in the prison. Do you remember the Tobacco Windfall money? I hope so. What was it SUPPOSED to be used for again? THIS. In WI, we have so much Road Tax money that it has been used for OTHER items. On top of which, our national budget is not balanced EVEN WITH accounting tricks that Arthur Andersen couldn't imagine in their wettest dreams. And this is who we are supposed to trust? No thanx.

tankdriver · #24 09-07-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

Yes, they should put out the fire in the crackhouse next door before it burns down your house.

And if the crack house is on an empty block?

Matt L · #25 09-07-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

And if the crack house is on an empty block?

When should the decision be made as to whether the fire should be extinguished? Before or after the houses are dispatched? And just who decides?

What if I am the one to decide, and you need to give the number on your communist party card before anyone comes?

tankdriver · #26 09-07-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

When should the decision be made as to whether the fire should be extinguished? Before or after the houses are dispatched? And just who decides?

The question is should they be extinguished at all, regardless of who decides when. Do you try to save crack addicts in a burning crack house or let it burn out?

cmac2012 · #27 09-07-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

The question is should they be extinguished at all, regardless of who decides when. Do you try to save crack addicts in a burning crack house or let it burn out?

How will the fire crew know or not know with enough certainty about who they are passing summary judgment upon? Time is of the essence, after all, just like it is with much medical care.

What's more, I'm not sure that someone's current status as a crack addict means that they are no more than disposable human flottsom and jettsom, and will never be more. It's a slippery slope when you start deciding who is worthy to continue to live and who is not. Sorta like a death panel.

POS · #28 09-07-2009, 06:05 PM

Firefighting and policing society is about PROTECTING society, which is the #1 job of the government - to protect its citizenry. It's an arguable point, but I don't think making sure everyone in society is insured constitutes protection.

cmac2012 · #29 09-07-2009, 06:50 PM

If there weren't a growing body of highly paid pimps standing between doctors and consumers right now, I'm not sure there'd be such a pressing need for some sort of intervention.

The recent episodes of AIG and petro market speculators enriching themselves obscenely at the expense of people who actually produce something in the world ought to tell us something.

aklim · #30 09-07-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by POS

Firefighting and policing society is about PROTECTING society, which is the #1 job of the government - to protect its citizenry. It's an arguable point, but I don't think making sure everyone in society is insured constitutes protection.

That is just it. It isn't the function of govt to ensure you have 3 hots and cot, medical care and have money for your retirement. Problem is that we have become an entitlement society where we want someone to assure us that we have this, that and the other. Someone besides ourselves, that is. Now, if you ask me, do you want someone to pay for all of your needs, my answer would be "why not?". Would it be good for me? Definitely not. The more you are assured to get, the less you have to work for it. That is why we are not competitive anymore.

People say that if we had healthcare taken care of for us, we'd be more competitive. Absolutely BS. If we discount healtcare costs, do you think you can be as cost effective as the Chinese or Vietnamese worker? A cop in Nam makes about $400 a month. Know any cop that will work for that princely sum if I toss in all the healthcare they can use in their lives?