Stipend as Welfare

A friend works for a Pharmaceutical Company. Her company is being pressured by the Government to give away all their swine flu vaccines, not just here, but all over. Their CEO flat out stated No. They will sell it at cost or even below, but without the ability to make profits, how will they be able to continue to produce the drugs and develop more?

Of course drug companies a looking to profit. All businesses are, that is the point. It is why we all work as well. It isn't a crime to work hard and have money, and to decide for ourselves where that money should be spent, no matter what the current gang of thieves in Washington think.

Ya, that is what i am thinking.

Like that one woman on video said when Obama was elected: "I am so happy, i don't have anything to worry about now, i don't have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage now".

I think states need to reverse the trend of being addicted to Uncle Sam's milk giving weenie and they need to start massively charging the federal government for services and end this near century long trend of the federal government exploiting states by way of financial blackmail to get the states to comply with federal wishes.

Anyways, don't get me started, or i will go on about how everyone under the age of 40 who has less than "X" dollars paid in income tax and are not dependents, need to serve in the military.


Put all these lazy mother'fers to mandatory work - where the hell are all the 'shovel ready programs'? Toss those lazy sons-of-poor parents some shovels and kick their asses to work.

O.k. i better go silent....

nah you should'nt force them to work, but you shouldn't subsidize them if they do not want to work. 'Cause you know, capitalism isn't the only way to live.

How do you make that out, unless you regard -- as some people do -- having any course of action forced on you by the government, be it paying taxes or observing speed limits, as a form of slavery?

There are doubtless other cogent arguments in favour of your position, but "having to pay taxes I don't like is slavery" might suggest, at least to some people, an astonishingly broad definition of the term. Indeed, to steal Churchill's words in a rather similar context, some might think " it cannot [...] be classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the word without some risk of terminological inexactitude." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

I can tell you exactly why. Because it is an epic failure. Take the case of that clinic I mentioned earlier that refused to accept anybody's insurance, completely across the board. Here's how things worked before he made that decision:

You go to his office for something, say this visit is going to cost $25. Before you even have a chance to tell anybody why you're there and what your problem is, they have to know about your insurance. This is the most important thing about your visit, what the numbers of your insurance policy are. You have form after form after form after form to fill out, and if you don't have insurance it gets even worse. Somebody in his office has to process all this information too. He has to pay somebody to work full-time just dealing with the paperwork created by this. Once you finally get a chance to see him then you can finally say what your problem is. After all is said and done, and it comes time to pay up, oh, well, you have insurance. Guess who he's going to hit up for the money. Not you. Your insurance company. More money he has to spend out of his own pocket just preparing the claim filled out properly to submit to them. Should they refuse to pay it then he has to come after you looking for his money. Meanwhile, there are many cases (most often with federal insurance, medicare and medicaid) where the accountants have determined that he's charging too much wanting $25 for that office visit, and they'll instead pay him $15 for that $25 bill. WITH a provision that he is not allowed to come after you for the extra $10 that he didn't get paid. So here he has to spend his own money to have some bean counter in some office somewhere arbitrarily decide that he's charging $10 too much and he cannot do a thing to appeal that.

Contrast that with how things worked after the fact. You come to his office and all anybody wants to know is what your problem is that they can actually treat you for today. So you get things taken care of. Afterwards you're informed the cost of this visit is $25. So you pay him. If you can't, well, that's fine, it gets worked out, without the need to pay somebody to spend a lot of time dealing with three to five pages of paperwork you have been required to fill out, and then put that information together in a form that some insurance company prefers to have it stated, only to have that company decide what he's really allowed to charge. Everybody wins.

So the idea of people paying insurance companies increased premiums to cover your healthcare if you can't afford that $25 visit is ridiculous. A scenario like above where the doctor donates his time is, in the long run, better for all concerned.

I haven't even gone into what would happen to the price of that $25 office visit if too many people with insurance have their insurance carriers deliberately cutting $10 off of how much he will be paid for that office visit, because you and I both know that the cost of a $25 office visit is guaranteed to go up since the accountants are reducing his allowed fee by $10 for their clients.

This is the system which must be thrown out, and as such, yes, I am very much opposed to the subsidizing of other people's health care under the system as it stands today.

Well of course he does. Didn't you read what it said on the package?

THIS !!!! Many times over.

I don't even want to talk about this subject cause it makes me so mad,but just wanted to agree with everything you said in your post.

But I thought he was also quite keen on private property.. without having some sort of legal system to sort out disputes about what's your property and what isn't, and some mechanism to enforce the court's ruling -- all of which has to be paid for somehow -- life can get rather too interesting for my taste, or so I found when I worked in Russia for a bit.

It doesn't say "self-consistent ideology" on the box.

I'll go a step farther: out of fifty thousand or so premiums, how many post on these forums, or even know they exist? It's been stated before, but those of us who post here are a very small percentage of SL residents so many polls/discussions may be a bit skewed.

And I agree, the Welfare analogy is crocked.

I like how you think, Chris, and I'm terrified about this so called "health bill" passing as well. Incidentally, I was listening to a medical talk show on the radio earlier and the Dr. said that about 3/4 of his patients are Medicare patients and they are extremely anxious and terrified about this bill passing.

My own personal incident for what it's worth - a drug I absolutely have to have and have been taking for the last 20 years just came out with a generic. Generic drugs are a whole other ball of wax - some good, some not so good, some downright questionable.

At any rate, a few months ago when I had this prescription filled, my pharmacist said that a generic had just come out for it and to talk to my Dr. and if he wanted me to continue the brand to make sure and put "medically necessary" on the prescription. My Dr. did indeed want me to stay on the brand and so marked the script.

Recently it was time for a refill. I was confident all was well with my properly-marked "medically necessary" script. Nope. My insurance will not cover the brand...period. Retail cost: $105.00 for a 30-day supply. Insurance "will" cover the generic, however.

Since my Dr. had written the script for "only" the brand, a whole other set of red tape rigamarole and hoops had to be jumped through so I could even purchase the generic.

Ok, did that. Lo and behold, within a few days of taking the generic, I began having side effects that are, let's just say, unable to be lived with...I'll spare you details.

So, now I have to make yet another appointment with my Dr. to see if there's another drug that will do the same thing as the one I had been taking for 20 years and go through the good ole "trial and error" routine.

That's a HUGE jump in conclusion to make about someone you don't know. I daresay Chris may know MORE about socialism than you do.

For myself, I keep myself as informed as possible via many different outlets. I listen to points of views from opposing sides.

But as for socialism, I know a little about it having been in Jr. High in Miami during the Cuban revolution and was in class with many students whose families, many very wealthy, successful business people in Cuba, fled to Miami with just the clothes on their backs and started all over again. Same with other socialist countries. And I find it interesting that people from around the world flock to the U.S. for medical services and not vice versa.

So let's not be making these wild and frankly insulting statements. When you have a bit more life experience under your belt, I'll be more prone to give much credence to anything you say.

To go along with this, I listen to a particular radio program that addresses money issues and how to not spend any more than necessary. He said he recently asked his Dr. if he didn't use his insurance and paid cash could he get a discount? Not only did he get a discount, but it was quite sizable. Iirc something akin to some insurance companies co-pays.

I believe doctors have to increase their fees to pay for the personnel to process insurance, etc. This cash system sounds like it may be a good way to go.

ETA: For routine Dr. visits, etc. I highly endorse this. As a prior poster mentioned, catastrophic illnesses would need to be addressed differently. However, even in this regard, I have some input:

My grandfather had Alzheimer's-type Dementia (that was his official diagnosis). In his case, his body remained strong, in fact almost supernaturally so, but his mind was affected. Finally the time came when he could no longer be cared for at home. (He and my grandmother were both in their 80's.)

My grandparents live in the Appalachian mountains in one of the poorest counties in the country. However, they worked hard and went from extreme poverty (into which they were born) to being quite wealthy from building a prosperous business over time. This business provided work for a great majority of people in that county as well.

My grandfather had Medicare and supplementary insurance; however that did not pay for room and board in the nursing home (in which he lived the last 10 years of his life). Because he had worked hard and had saved money, he was being charged HUGELY.

Now in the same nursing home were the type of people Bri mentioned - and in the small county where my grandparents lived (Population 360 - no kidding!) everyone knew everyone and their backgrounds for generations. The majority of people receiving the identical room and board in that nursing home were the types who had spent their days whittling on the front porch with pickup trucks jacked up on cement blocks and non-working refrigerators littering their front yards. You get the picture. These people came from the same initial situation my grandparents did, but made the CHOICE to not try and make anything of themselves. And due to that....Medicaid paid everything for them. Not one red cent out of their pockets.

My mother took action and bottom line was that she got a lot of the costs reduced BECAUSE my grandparents were paying cash, but it took a LOT of research and finding the right contact and downright having to "sell" the idea to the powers that be to accomplish that.

You and me both...except I got on a roll and should probably stop now.

It's good to hear, though, that there really are some thinking people where this situation is concerned. Maybe enough come election time to get that crew thrown out of Congress.

Actually he is very consistent -- the people that use the court shall pay for it.

So if someone burgles my house and makes off with my property, I have to pay -- should I choose so to do, and have the resources left -- out of my own pocket for the costs of investigating the burglary, prosecuting the burglar and then bear the expense of locking him up for a while if that's what the court decides to do with him? Assuming we can't -- because he doesn't have any money -- go after the burglar for the costs, that is?

Yes, I do regard paying of taxes as a form of slavery. I exchange my time and talent for money. The government then takes that money from me by force. They are in effect taking my time, my life from me. If that does not make me their slave what does?

Private courts?

Arbitration companies agreed to by both sides of the dispute? If the arbitrator gets a reputation as not being fair, they won't get very much business.

If a party does not fairly arbitrate, then they will find very few people willing to do business with them. The same would happen if they don't follow through on their side of the bargain.

Insurance companies? You screw up too many times, you don't get insurance, you are basically blackballed from the community.

Hell, even clan elders would be better than the system we have now.

And how is this different than it is now, except that the burglar in most cases never pays in restitution?

Why not let your insurance company fight it out with his insurance company? What he doesn't have insurance? Then living in the woods as an animal is about the only choice he has left.

I am in the middle of a major steroid treatment at the moment and I am in even more of an cranky mood than normal. I think I am gonna take a break from the forums for a few days. Have fun and enjoy.

*HUGS*

I like it when you are cranky. You get all cuddly and lovable in an loud arrogant redneck kinda way.

Be Well Chris and Hurry back!

No, I'm worried about the insurance premiums I'm going to have to pay, 'cos you can bet it's going to occur to insurance companies that many burglars will be negligent about taking out adequate professional liability cover and assess my premiums accordingly. Do you have any idea how much it costs to investigate even a comparatively simple burglary, put a guy on trial for a day or so and then lock him up for a couple of years? We are talking serious money here.

The difference is that many investors in insurance companies are going to say no, that's too risky field to get involved in; we'll stick to providing cover for stuff we're more comfortable about and the people who do want to get involved are going to want very high returns for their money, or they will punt it somewhere safer. Premiums go through the roof and we end up with law-abiding citizens either paying an arm and a leg or not bothering with insurance at all, in which case, under your system, they can be burgled pretty much with impunity.

The point about paying for it out general taxation is that criminals have to worry about the danger of their offences being investigated and brought to book regardless of the state of their victim's finances or his insurance cover. Which seems to me more likely to leave me in the quiet enjoyment of my property, or what's left of it after I've paid my taxes, than is your alternative.

PS. just seen your post -- hope you feel feel better soon

Yes, I've read the libertarian manifestos as well. I am unconvinced.

No exemptions, no exceptions.

Pep (socialism is anathema to the law of the jungle)