Personal responsibility vs. Public safety net

[manifold]

I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.


Discuss.

Personal responsibility has precious little to do with the healthcare crisis in the US. People who have worked all of their lives are finding that their employers are not providing any healthcare benefits or have reduced their benefits and suddenly the employees have to pay well over $1,000 a month to cover their family's basic healthcare needs.

If it hasn't happened to you yet, consider yourself blessed. There are many working people with a high sense of personal responsibility that are facing problems providing health insurance for their families simply because of the greed of the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies. Interesting that you don't feel they should take any responsibility for the role they play in creating this crisis.

Wow, you're pretty damn fucking stupid. No offense.

A. I never mentioned anything about healthcare in the OP.

B. I didn't say anything remotely implying what you've seemingly inferred with your last sentence.

C. My point still stands, the two ideals conflict. And if you weren't so blinded by your own biased bullshit, you might have noticed that I didn't say either one was better than the other. Simply that there is an unavoidable trade-off that exists between the two.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm all for personal responsibility.

Unfortuanetly there are a good many in this country who have made a living out throwing themselves into those big safety nets. There is no incentive for them to take responsibility for anything. Why should they?? We have a Govt that is more concerned with them and their wants and needs than it is with the hardworkers who provide the money. To them the taxpayers are a big cash cow they can keep on milking to take care of the irresponsible luckie duckie's in thie country.

I think there should be a basic safety net no matter how lazy and how worthless you are. Nothing better than three hots and a cot.
If you are willing to work or better yourself...better hots and a bigger cot

I have no problem with incentives to improve yourself. I just do not want people begging in the street

 

[Vel]

The "market" isn't what provides basic health care for everybody, darlin. Nobody is denied basic health care.

Yes, millions of people are. A person who has to wait until they are at death's door to go to the ER because they are ill can't afford to go to a doctor is not being provided for, sweetie. Most doctors will not even see you unless you have insurance. The ER is not providing basic health care. That is emergency care - or crisis care. Guess which costs more...

You realize that you're propagating a load of crap don't you? Walk in clinics have sprung up all over this country and they still accept cash. The average price of a visit here is around $75.00.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You realize that you're propagating a load of crap don't you? Walk in clinics have sprung up all over this country and they still accept cash. The average price of a visit here is around $75.00.

And if you don't have $75? What if you get a $50 prescription you can't afford to fill? What if they tell you to go to a doctor? Again, you're back to square one. It's either hope you get better or keep getting sicker and sicker until you're in the ER. My best friend is an ER nurse. She tells me ALL about it.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Personal responsibility has precious little to do with the healthcare crisis in the US. People who have worked all of their lives are finding that their employers are not providing any healthcare benefits or have reduced their benefits and suddenly the employees have to pay well over $1,000 a month to cover their family's basic healthcare needs.

If it hasn't happened to you yet, consider yourself blessed. There are many working people with a high sense of personal responsibility that are facing problems providing health insurance for their families simply because of the greed of the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies. Interesting that you don't feel they should take any responsibility for the role they play in creating this crisis.

There is no health care crisis. Which is not to say there is not a need for some changes. The problem is, the response of the left is typical..... total transformation over thoughtful change.

Amazing how those who don't have their own problem with it refuse to recognize the problems within the rest of the country.

The "rest of the country" has a problem with their health insurance? Im the only happy one? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "its funny how those with problems refuse to recognize the 200,000,000 or so that are satisfied...."

 

[ThePickledPunk]

The "market" isn't what provides basic health care for everybody, darlin. Nobody is denied basic health care.

Yes, millions of people are. A person who has to wait until they are at death's door to go to the ER because they are ill & can't afford to go to a doctor is not being provided for, sweetie. Most doctors will not even see you unless you have insurance. The ER is not providing basic health care. That is emergency care - or crisis care. Guess which costs more...

Perhaps that person should have gone to the ER before they were at death's door... where they would have been treated.

Absolute BS about doctors refusing to see patients with no insurance. I had back surgery with no insurance. If you are sick or injured- you have access to health care. It may not be what YOU want, but its there.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no health care crisis. Which is not to say there is not a need for some changes. The problem is, the response of the left is typical..... total transformation over thoughtful change.

Amazing how those who don't have their own problem with it refuse to recognize the problems within the rest of the country.

The "rest of the country" has a problem with their health insurance? Im the only happy one? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "its funny how those with problems refuse to recognize the 200,000,000 or so that are satisfied...."

How is your health insurance coverage now compared to ten years ago or twenty years ago?
What coverage do you think you will have in ten or twenty years?

We need to fix it now

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Yes, that is precisely what I believe.
I don't care if you are the meanest and laziest son of a bitch that god ever created. No matter how badly you screwed up your life, I don't think the punishment should be death and starvation for you or your family.
I don't care if it is three hots and a cot as well as basic healthcare.
EVERY human being in this country deserves a basic level of sustenance .

Basic healthcare is already guaranteed. You mean to say health insurance. And children are already protected- which is why so few ever starve. I also agree that every American deserves a basic level of sustenance. And they already receive it.

No, I mean healthcare. I don't care how it is payed for. If you are seriously ill you have a right to be treated.
I agree with you that we do provide a basic safety net. The philosophical question of this thread is personal responsibility vs a safety net. I am arguing for a basic saftey net regardless of whether you deserve it or not

Ok- I agree in the safety net as well. It should be very small and allow one to stay in it for a very short period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.


Discuss.

If you want to see what poverty looks like in a country with a safety net, you can look at the United States.

If you want to see what poverty looks like in a country with little or no safety net, go to India.

Then let us know what you prefer.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Amazing how those who don't have their own problem with it refuse to recognize the problems within the rest of the country.

The "rest of the country" has a problem with their health insurance? Im the only happy one? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "its funny how those with problems refuse to recognize the 200,000,000 or so that are satisfied...."

How is your health insurance coverage now compared to ten years ago or twenty years ago?
What coverage do you think you will have in ten or twenty years?

We need to fix it now

Ten years ago I did not have insurance, so Id have to say my situation is much improved(thank god for smart choices...). And we do need to change some things in the insurance industry. We do not need the wholesale transformation embraced by the left.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Absolute BS about doctors refusing to see patients with no insurance. I had back surgery with no insurance. If you are sick or injured- you have access to health care. It may not be what YOU want, but its there.

Every doctor I've been to ask you first thing for your insurance card, and no, they will not see people without insurance because they know there is a risk the person won't pay. Congratulations that you're lucky enough to be able to pay for surgery out of pocket. 95% of us can't.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Absolute BS about doctors refusing to see patients with no insurance. I had back surgery with no insurance. If you are sick or injured- you have access to health care. It may not be what YOU want, but its there.

Every doctor I've been to ask you first thing for your insurance card, and no, they will not see people without insurance because they know there is a risk the person won't pay. Congratulations that you're lucky enough to be able to pay for surgery out of pocket. 95% of us can't.

No hospital that receives federal funds turns patients away. Sorry, sugar. It took me three years to pay off my medical debt. I made about 2k a month, and lved with the help of student loans. I sold a car, got rid of cable and my home phone, ceased my gym membership, etc. to pay for it. Your 95% includes many who won't, as opposed to cant.

 

[judyd]

Amazing how those who don't have their own problem with it refuse to recognize the problems within the rest of the country.

The "rest of the country" has a problem with their health insurance? Im the only happy one? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "its funny how those with problems refuse to recognize the 200,000,000 or so that are satisfied...."

How is your health insurance coverage now compared to ten years ago or twenty years ago?
What coverage do you think you will have in ten or twenty years?

We need to fix it now

They don't seem to get that. My husband gets insurance through his job. He is paying a little over 450 per month, and we have an annual deductible of $5,000 each before they pay anything, so unless we have something major (of which they will pay 80% of) we have to pay for everything.

A little over 10 years ago I had coverage for myself and my son at a bit less than $100 a month, which covered everything. People's salaries have not gone up at nearly the same rate as the insurance and pharmaceutical prices have.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

The "rest of the country" has a problem with their health insurance? Im the only happy one? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "its funny how those with problems refuse to recognize the 200,000,000 or so that are satisfied...."

How is your health insurance coverage now compared to ten years ago or twenty years ago?
What coverage do you think you will have in ten or twenty years?

We need to fix it now

They don't seem to get that. My husband gets insurance through his job. He is paying a little over 450 per month, and we have an annual deductible of $5,000 each before they pay anything, so unless we have something major (of which they will pay 80% of) we have to pay for everything.

A little over 10 years ago I had coverage for myself and my son at a bit less than $100 a month, which covered everything. People's salaries have not gone up at nearly the same rate as the insurance and pharmaceutical prices have.

sounds like maybe you should pay a little more to bring that deductible down. How has your salary increased over the last ten years? Whose fault is that?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

No hospital that receives federal funds turns patients away. Sorry, sugar.

I am not talking about hospitals but regular doctors. As I said, hospitals provide emergency and crisis care. GP Doctors - You know, the ones that supply "basic care" so freely, according to you? Oh, so you got student loans did you? That's not very self-reliant of you. Were those USDE loans as well?

 

[judyd]

I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.


Discuss.

If you want to see what poverty looks like in a country with a safety net, you can look at the United States.

If you want to see what poverty looks like in a country with little or no safety net, go to India.

Then let us know what you prefer.

Excellent point, although maybe Mexico might be a better example. We've provided scores of jobs to the Indians. They're doing much better now.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Your 95% includes many who won't, as opposed to cant.

My knee surgery was 28k. More than half of what I make in a year and twice as much as any car I've ever bought. Even with insurance, I paid upwards of 3K of that, which was hard, as they only gave me 2 years to pay it off - but I did. Is that a won't or a can't?

 

[ihopehefails]

The real issue is not personal responsibility but personal freedom. When people are in a free atmosphere then responsibility is forced on them since they suffer all outcomes. When you extend that safety net you lose some freedom.

 

[judyd]

How is your health insurance coverage now compared to ten years ago or twenty years ago?
What coverage do you think you will have in ten or twenty years?

We need to fix it now

They don't seem to get that. My husband gets insurance through his job. He is paying a little over 450 per month, and we have an annual deductible of $5,000 each before they pay anything, so unless we have something major (of which they will pay 80% of) we have to pay for everything.

A little over 10 years ago I had coverage for myself and my son at a bit less than $100 a month, which covered everything. People's salaries have not gone up at nearly the same rate as the insurance and pharmaceutical prices have.

sounds like maybe you should pay a little more to bring that deductible down. How has your salary increased over the last ten years? Whose fault is that?

Do you ever read the news?? Do you even know what is going on in the country? My salary was steadily increasing until I was laid off from a land development company about a year ago--real estate hasn't been doing well, you know. There are very few jobs available to even apply for, let alone be hired. That's why my husband put me on his insurance.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

No hospital that receives federal funds turns patients away. Sorry, sugar.

I am not talking about hospitals but regular doctors. As I said, hospitals provide emergency and crisis care. GP Doctors - You know, the ones that supply "basic care" so freely, according to you? Oh, so you got student loans did you? That's not very self-reliant of you. Were those USDE loans as well?

I never said anything about GP's, sugartits. I responded to your mistaken notion that basic healthcare is denied to millions. As for my student loans- I have to pay those back. And that is what I lived on and paid for school with. My medical bills were paid by the sweat of my brow.