Should Social Security and Medicare be abolished?

[tkwrinklefiber]

It's good of us to shoulder the burden of helping pharamceutical companies get rich while other nations selfishly work for the benefit of the people they represent, isn't it?

Of course, then again, the Fortune 500 pharmaceutical companies make 18.9% profit, which is really quite high, wouldn't you agree, especially since it's more than any other industry represented on the Fortune 500?

[John Dibble]

Yes, they help their own people - AT OUR DETRIMENT. If they did not have price caps, or at least raised the cap a bit, the prices might just noramalize here.

And what's wrong with people trying to make a profit? Seriously - people working in their own self interest often leads to technological innovation, making everyone's lives easier. If the medicine industry wasn't so profitable, there wouldn't be as much motivation to advance it. You can't rely on everyone to be selfless, but self-interest, or greed if you must make it a negative, is very reliable.

[A18]

There are two types of greed. One is destructive, but the other is the beginning of creativity.

[tkwrinklefiber]

Yes, they help their own people - AT OUR DETRIMENT. If they did not have price caps, or at least raised the cap a bit, the prices might just noramalize here.

And what's wrong with people trying to make a profit? Seriously - people working in their own self interest often leads to technological innovation, making everyone's lives easier. If the medicine industry wasn't so profitable, there wouldn't be as much motivation to advance it. You can't rely on everyone to be selfless, but self-interest, or greed if you must make it a negative, is very reliable.

Somehow I get the feeling that such a massive profit margin isn't going back into creativity (especially since that profit margin already factors in R&D).  And I sincerely doubt that the executives of these companies are going to bow out if they're only making $15m each rather than $20m.  Besides, if we institute our own price caps or subsidies, ol' reliable self-interest will motivate them to be more efficient about their work in order to maximize profit.

[John Dibble]

Yes, they help their own people - AT OUR DETRIMENT. If they did not have price caps, or at least raised the cap a bit, the prices might just noramalize here.

And what's wrong with people trying to make a profit? Seriously - people working in their own self interest often leads to technological innovation, making everyone's lives easier. If the medicine industry wasn't so profitable, there wouldn't be as much motivation to advance it. You can't rely on everyone to be selfless, but self-interest, or greed if you must make it a negative, is very reliable.

Somehow I get the feeling that such a massive profit margin isn't going back into creativity (especially since that profit margin already factors in R&D).  And I sincerely doubt that the executives of these companies are going to bow out if they're only making $15m each rather than $20m.  Besides, if we institute our own price caps or subsidies, ol' reliable self-interest will motivate them to be more efficient about their work in order to maximize profit.

They are business, not government, so they are already operating efficiently in all likeliness. If we institute price-caps, especially ones as low as in Canada, yes things will cease to be profitable. You know how low the prices are in Canada as compared to here - much lower than 18.5% of the cost here - so it would be inevitable that the profitability would be much much less. And if we had subsidies(which won't lower profitability), it's only an illusion of cheaper medicine - when the government does something it always costs someone, ie the taxpayers. Let's not also forget that subsidies will likely lead to more government corruption - certain corporations will no doubt be favored, so the quality of their medicine may well decrease since the government pays anyways.

Of course I'm probably arguing with a brick wall here - do you think people have a right to health care? I don't, especially considering many health problems result from people's own bad habits, meaning they are self-inflicted. Heart disease, cancer, high-blood pressure, ect. are preventable through healthy living - but most people don't live healthy. Why should I have to pay for someone's lung cancer treatment, especially if that person smoked three packs a day for twenty years?

[tkwrinklefiber]

Yes, they help their own people - AT OUR DETRIMENT. If they did not have price caps, or at least raised the cap a bit, the prices might just noramalize here.

And what's wrong with people trying to make a profit? Seriously - people working in their own self interest often leads to technological innovation, making everyone's lives easier. If the medicine industry wasn't so profitable, there wouldn't be as much motivation to advance it. You can't rely on everyone to be selfless, but self-interest, or greed if you must make it a negative, is very reliable.

Somehow I get the feeling that such a massive profit margin isn't going back into creativity (especially since that profit margin already factors in R&D).  And I sincerely doubt that the executives of these companies are going to bow out if they're only making $15m each rather than $20m.  Besides, if we institute our own price caps or subsidies, ol' reliable self-interest will motivate them to be more efficient about their work in order to maximize profit.

They are business, not government, so they are already operating efficiently in all likeliness. If we institute price-caps, especially ones as low as in Canada, yes things will cease to be profitable. You know how low the prices are in Canada as compared to here - much lower than 18.5% of the cost here - so it would be inevitable that the profitability would be much much less. And if we had subsidies(which won't lower profitability), it's only an illusion of cheaper medicine - when the government does something it always costs someone, ie the taxpayers. Let's not also forget that subsidies will likely lead to more government corruption - certain corporations will no doubt be favored, so the quality of their medicine may well decrease since the government pays anyways.

Of course I'm probably arguing with a brick wall here - do you think people have a right to health care? I don't, especially considering many health problems result from people's own bad habits, meaning they are self-inflicted. Heart disease, cancer, high-blood pressure, ect. are preventable through healthy living - but most people don't live healthy. Why should I have to pay for someone's lung cancer treatment, especially if that person smoked three packs a day for twenty years?

Business as a paragon of efficiency - that's quite a funny idea you've got there.  Considering the number of companies that go under, the various scnadals among even the largest companies, and white collar workers' broad identification with such cultural phenomena as Dilbert, I'm inclined to think that business is not quite as sunshine and lollipops as you profess it to be.

I'm not a brick wall; you're just not persuading.  I'm all for banning tobacco, and using preventive healthcare to promote healthy lifestyles and diets.  I don't see why, as a society, we can offer people the opportunity to indulge in the problems but not offer up a solution as well to what is, essentially, a social issue rather than a strictly individual one.

[John Dibble]

Business as a paragon of efficiency - that's quite a funny idea you've got there.  Considering the number of companies that go under, the various scnadals among even the largest companies, and white collar workers' broad identification with such cultural phenomena as Dilbert, I'm inclined to think that business is not quite as sunshine and lollipops as you profess it to be.

No, they aren't a paragon of efficiency. However they are usually more efficient than government(after all, they don't have the ability to tax people to get as much money as they need). And yes, companies will go under - usually because they were inefficient or because they didn't sell a product people wanted to buy. But I assure you successful businesses stay in business because they are somewhat efficient - in today's world they can't afford not to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Banning tobacco? You must hate freedom. You would rather people not be able to make their own choices. Alcohol is unhealthy, why don't we ban that? Obesity is a problem - let's ban fast food, because obesity harms society. Meanwhile, let's ban red meat, too. Get my drift? Have you ever seen Demolition Man? Under people like you that's what society would end up like - it becomes easier and easier to ban behaviors the more you do it, all in the name of public health.

Information on what is healthy is widely available, and common sense would tell you much of it. People should be held accountable for their own stupid actions - bailing them out doesn't discourage the behavior. I shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes - they should have to pay.

[Inverted Things]

Yes, social security should be abolished. Senior citizens are distinctly ungrateful toward my keeping them alive.

[John Dibble]

Yes, social security should be abolished. Senior citizens are distinctly ungrateful toward my keeping them alive.

LOL!

[Huckleberry Finn]

What's the point to Medicare?

To prevent people dying.

It's a pro-life program.

[Brutus]

Abolished?  Hell no.  But I do think Social Security should be re-evaluated.  I believe that the intended goal was to be a sort of old-age insurance for those who end up being poor in their elderly years.  What it's turned into is a grab bag for every AARP member who ever paid a dime in payroll tax, no matter how much they've got sitting in retirement portfolios.  I think we ought to reduce the burden to workers by lowering the payroll tax, and in turn, do a little means testing for distributing benefits.  While we're at it, how about getting rid of the income-ceiling on the payroll tax.  I don't think most Americans realize that people with high incomes don't pay a dime of social security tax on anything they make over $87,900.

[tkwrinklefiber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hate freedom?  You have a very narrow definition of freedom to believe that.

In moderate amounts, alcohol, red meat, and fast food do not pose nearly as significant a health risk as inhaling tar.

I agree that people should be held accountable for their actions - but there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive to leave somebody who's made one mistake twisting in the wind, as it were.  Under the system you propose, we wouldn't offer hospital service to drunk drivers involved in crashes, or truck drivers who fell asleep at the wheel, or even children who accidentally drank poison.  If a kid falls behind in school, we'd leave him there, and expel him when he got annoying.  If your friend didn't put his seatbelt on, you'd rather let him sail straight through the windshield than remind him to buckle it, and then the paramedics would leave him on the shoulder rather than take him to the hospital.  What a utopia you espouse!

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hate freedom?  You have a very narrow definition of freedom to believe that.

In moderate amounts, alcohol, red meat, and fast food do not pose nearly as significant a health risk as inhaling tar.

I agree that people should be held accountable for their actions - but there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive to leave somebody who's made one mistake twisting in the wind, as it were.  Under the system you propose, we wouldn't offer hospital service to drunk drivers involved in crashes, or truck drivers who fell asleep at the wheel, or even children who accidentally drank poison.  If a kid falls behind in school, we'd leave him there, and expel him when he got annoying.  If your friend didn't put his seatbelt on, you'd rather let him sail straight through the windshield than remind him to buckle it, and then the paramedics would leave him on the shoulder rather than take him to the hospital.  What a utopia you espouse!

Ok, I don't know where the hell you got the idea that all that would happen, especially with the children drinking poison - use some common sense. I'm not in any means talking about emergency care for accidents. I am talking about health care that applies to things usually caused by people's own long-term bad decisions. So don't twist my words to mean something they don't.

And where do you get the idea that I advocate utopia? Do you advocate a utopia? I doubt it - utopia is an impossibility, human nature won't allow it. What I advocate is a free society with personal responsibility.

As for hating freedom, you only like it selectively if you want to ban tobacco. It comes down to this - do people own their own bodies or not, do they own themselves? I say yes, and therefore it would be hypocritical of me to tell them they can't put what they want in their own bodies, even if I disagree with them for doing so. They should know what they are putting there, for sure(cigarettes are labeled as dangerous, they don't have an excuse for not knowing), but once they know it is dangerous it is their problem what damage they do. By advocating a ban on tobacco, you advocate allowing the government to ursurp a person's ownership of their own body.

[English]

No.
I favour free health care for all, paid for entirely by taxpayers.
As for social security, I favour welfare payments for those who cannot work due to ill health and a temporary 'safety net' for those who lose their jobs. I don't agree with paying welfare to those who refuse to work.

[Nym90]

English! Great to see you back. I hope you stay!

[John Dibble]

I favour free health care for all, paid for entirely by taxpayers.

Do you favor having the tax payers pay for lung cancer treatment for 3-pack a day smokers, or heart disease treatment for people who eat McDonald's every day and don't exercise?

[English]

I favour free health care for all, paid for entirely by taxpayers.

Do you favor having the tax payers pay for lung cancer treatment for 3-pack a day smokers, or heart disease treatment for people who eat McDonald's every day and don't exercise?

I see your point, but the answer is still yes. By that argument you could equally say that people who ride motorcycles or play dangerous sports should be denied health care?

[English]

English! Great to see you back. I hope you stay!

Thanks!! It's good to be back. I may be gone again briefly around christmas and shortly after.

[John Dibble]

I favour free health care for all, paid for entirely by taxpayers.

Do you favor having the tax payers pay for lung cancer treatment for 3-pack a day smokers, or heart disease treatment for people who eat McDonald's every day and don't exercise?

I see your point, but the answer is still yes. By that argument you could equally say that people who ride motorcycles or play dangerous sports should be denied health care?

I suppose you could. Of course, accidents are somewhat different, and usually less costly, than long term health problems caused by bad habits. It's in terms of degree I suppose. I gaurantee you it's easier and cheaper to fix a broken leg from a rock climbing accident involving a physically fit individual than performing quadruple bypass open-heart surgery on an obese man who never exercises.

I don't support 'free' healthcare for anyone(it isn't free, anyways, you pay for it through taxes, so let's not call it that). I don't think people should be denied emergency care, but they should certainly have to pay for it.

P.S. - If I'm not mistaken, the majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by some jerk in a four wheeled vehicle who assumes the motorcylce driver can just get out of the way(many are if not the majority). Heck, driving a car is pretty risky business, plenty of people die in them.

[tkwrinklefiber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hate freedom?  You have a very narrow definition of freedom to believe that.

In moderate amounts, alcohol, red meat, and fast food do not pose nearly as significant a health risk as inhaling tar.

I agree that people should be held accountable for their actions - but there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive to leave somebody who's made one mistake twisting in the wind, as it were.  Under the system you propose, we wouldn't offer hospital service to drunk drivers involved in crashes, or truck drivers who fell asleep at the wheel, or even children who accidentally drank poison.  If a kid falls behind in school, we'd leave him there, and expel him when he got annoying.  If your friend didn't put his seatbelt on, you'd rather let him sail straight through the windshield than remind him to buckle it, and then the paramedics would leave him on the shoulder rather than take him to the hospital.  What a utopia you espouse!

Ok, I don't know where the hell you got the idea that all that would happen, especially with the children drinking poison - use some common sense. I'm not in any means talking about emergency care for accidents. I am talking about health care that applies to things usually caused by people's own long-term bad decisions. So don't twist my words to mean something they don't.

And where do you get the idea that I advocate utopia? Do you advocate a utopia? I doubt it - utopia is an impossibility, human nature won't allow it. What I advocate is a free society with personal responsibility.

As for hating freedom, you only like it selectively if you want to ban tobacco. It comes down to this - do people own their own bodies or not, do they own themselves? I say yes, and therefore it would be hypocritical of me to tell them they can't put what they want in their own bodies, even if I disagree with them for doing so. They should know what they are putting there, for sure(cigarettes are labeled as dangerous, they don't have an excuse for not knowing), but once they know it is dangerous it is their problem what damage they do. By advocating a ban on tobacco, you advocate allowing the government to ursurp a person's ownership of their own body.

Don't twist my words, and I won't twist yours.  I disapprove of tobacco, and would support a ban were it put in place, but I have no intention of telling people they can't use tobacco in the dictatorial fashion you care to propose.

"Information on what is healthy is widely available, and common sense would tell you much of it. People should be held accountable for their own stupid actions - bailing them out doesn't discourage the behavior. I shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes - they should have to pay."  I don't see where you made a distinction between long-term and one-time mistakes in that statement.  Be more specific next time, won't you?

[John Dibble]

Don't twist my words, and I won't twist yours.  I disapprove of tobacco, and would support a ban were it put in place, but I have no intention of telling people they can't use tobacco in the dictatorial fashion you care to propose.

So, you wouldn't tell people they can't use tobacco, but you'd support a ban if it were in place? Uh...excuse me if I think that's hypocritical - supporting a ban on something is telling people they can't do something.

And I pose a question to you - do people or do people not own their own bodies?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I didn't distinguish, but I don't believe I implied one time mistakes or accidents - I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about long-term habits. But still, I don't think I should have to pay for people's one time mistakes either - is that wrong?

[A18]

Yes, but those who have paid into the system should continue to recieve benefits.

Agreed, but those should be funded from the general income tax, and the payroll tax should be repealed.