This is en example of why the MSM is so dangerous

As far as I am concerned, that's a logical impossibility, since by the definition of marriage the two parties mutually agree to tie their destinies together for good or ill, so it's not actually possible to "leech" off of your husband.

So you "ass-u-me"-ed that she's leeching off of.... somebody.

She's produced evidence to the contrary in this very thread,

And? If she were, you'd be telling her to STFU and pay her fair share in taking care of the less fortunate.

She's being taken care of without contributing anything.

Sounds leechy to me.

Would I? You have a job and take care of yourself, have I ever said that to you?

Tamar likes to play this high and mighty game with Dicky, when she has no right to lecture anyone on being self-sufficient. It's tiresome, and she deserves to be called on it at every opportunity.

How's that gender reassignment working for you?

It was a hilarious failure, but he keeps babbling about it being "halftime" or some nonsense like that. He's totally in denial of how badly he got owned.




Wait, what were we talking about?

The time you got bukkakeed by a busload of Jap guys.

Shows how much you know....




They were Korean.

Can we strike everything after and including post 66 from the collective consciousness and go back to when this thread wasn't a bunch of poo-flinging? I'll go one further and include posts 64 and 65 in that in exchange for keeping Liet's idiocy out of the rest of this thread.

Packard, UA, Marso, you with me?

Quit yer whining, it was a stupid thread from the start.

More of a paranoid delusional train wreck from the start. It improved when it hit stupid.

MSM = WWF Wresting. Its entertainment , do not take what they say to the bank.

Well, your inability to comprehend even the simplest of ideas might lead you to think that.

Only this system doesn't force the rich in general to pay. It forces those to pay who, rich or not, were stupid enough to take responsibility for their own costs by getting insurance, and then only if they had the bad luck to get ill.

Then do tell us about it. Did you do it without credit at lower-than-standard interest? Without hospitals or doctors taking he risk you might never pay? You already mentioned in the thread next door that your doctor bills you less than the free-market prices sans insuracne discussed there.

"I'm so destitute I can't afford even minimum premium" is a last resort. "I choose not to get insurance because I'm a libertarain and free to do so, and others will pay my bills anway", is not.

So...married people are leeching off of each other?

So... being physically incapacitated and unable to work is comparable to being a perfectly healthy young man who chooses not to work?

So....the only way I can be contributing to my marriage and being a partner in it is to be employed outside the home or I am some kind of burdensome parasite Zel is forced to sustain? Really?

So...not being a globetrotter has relevance to this discussion? Really?

So....I'm not self-supporting now so years of working and life experience doesn't count at all? Actual experience with needing healthcare and being poor and dealing with it doesn't count? Really?

I left home at 18 and never went back. My parents do not support me financially.

I do not get Government assistance of any kind. Kind of funny watching a Canadian trying to use that as some kind of indictment somehow.

It's always good times when the "compassionate left" lets their true colors hang out in public though! Thanks for the giggle and really...stop trying to be a troll, you seriously suck at it.

It's socially acceptable to [-]leech off[/-] rely on the generosity of your spouse and the charity of friends and strangers. It's not socially acceptable to [-]rely on the generosity[/-] leech off of your parents or the government. It's also socially acceptable to exhibit a massive superiority complex because you do the former rather than the latter. This is the case because life, to most people, is an exercise in seeking excuses for developing superiority complexes.

Pretty much, yeah.

Your ignorance is showing. Again.

You seem to be confusing "compassion" with "tolerating hypocritical idiocy." I feel compassion for your situation, and if Zel dropped dead or threw you out I'd have absolutely no problem with you leeching off the government indefinitely because of your condition.

What I do have a problem with is you leeching off others and still acting superior because you think you have a better excuse than everyone else.

Seems you've forgotten to factor in the able-bodied aspect of the discussion.

Um, don't think many folks are invested in that battle but again there is a difference between these two groups of people.

Interesting take yet a tad too narrow in my opinion.

Red herring. There are plenty of jobs that don't require full mobility, and plenty of jobs that allow you to work from home.

If you're able to use a computer and a telephone for a few hours a day, there's a job you can do.

These two examples are not identical. Of the differences not listed the differing physicality is high on the list.

When I was working for the city one of the attorneys in my office was afflicted with muscular dystrophy. He was much less mobile than dear old Tamar, with no ability to move his legs and with limited control over his arms and hands. He's permanently confined to a motorized wheelchair. But he has enough control to type, which was enough to get through law school and now be a successful attorney for a decade or so. Of course he still has to "leech" off the government for various services and he still has to "leech" off his parents by living with them because he requires significant assistance for everyday life and they're willing to provide it.

We all rely on others. Some of us rely extensively on others. And some of us are assholes with superiority complexes who pretend that our reliance on others doesn't exists or is somehow better than the reliance of people to whom we want to feel superior.

^Stephen Hawking is another fine example.

Still those with means indentured to those without. No system where that part is not strictly voluntary should merit any serious consideration.

And I would not propose anything like that. But even assuming nobody will accept the option of flat out denying someone like that any kind of treatment, unless they're a homeless transient there will be something of value to seize and auction to offset the bills.

There you are then. That's the curren tsystem in the US; it seems you would dismiss Nova's defense for this system for the same reasons as I.

Like what? Catastrophic health payments can easily go up to several hundred thousand of dollars. If we seize everything that you, for instance, own, would that suffice?

Fix the reasons it amounts to back-door UHC rather than formalizing it with a government program.

Of course not, but why does it cost that much? It's not because we took consumers and providers and turned them loose in a market without corrupting or meddling in it. It's because we tripped all over ourselves to hand over the reigns to lawyers and government bureaucrats.

Go ahead then. But as you yourself pointed out above, this does not admit for charity as a scapegoat; so don't pretend your solution allows survival for the sick poor. If it does, it's not the free market you demand.

While those factors certainly contribute massively to costs, especially in the notoriously litigious US, there is no reason to think that the costs of treating person X's illness will always be less than or equal to the worth of X's property, because these two things, as much as a property-focused political ideology wants to conflate them, are physically independent of one another in reality. That's why insurance exists in the first place; if it were different, insurance would hardly ever be attractive to anyone.

There is no 100% solution. That doesn't mean a system of voluntary, charitable support in a free market is not viable or preferrable.

Again, that doesn't mean it could never be a fallback position for anyone's situation. I won't be constrained by some bullshit fantasyland requirement that nobody fall through the cracks. There are some situations that simply cannot be helpd, but at the same time cannot be used to condemn an entire system. In combination, I say doctor/patient negotiated payment arrangements, voluntary charities encouraged by a relieved tax burden, and personal asset forfeiture could do much. The fact that it all rests on consentual interactions alone means that this is a more worthy idea to attempt than any government UHC system.

That's one reason. The other reasons are related to public policy: people who pay out of pocket have a strong tendency to underconsume even health they can afford care because they drastically underestimate the costs and risks of not consuming. This is exacerbated by many people's false belief that bankruptcy is their worst case scenario for delaying consumption--two of the risks of delayed health care consumption that people most grossly underestimate are the risks of permanent disability and death. The other related public policy reason for insurance, or some other mechanism for encouraging consumption of health care, to exist is that there are externalities associated with poor health. Contagion and lost productivity affect people beyond the sick individual.

Nothing about property forfeiture or negotiated payment plans preclude a tiered system of private health care with at least some kind of option for anyone who pulls in a paycheck. And since neither the cost of the care or the consumer's ability to pay are static factors that are immune to any corrective measure, it's dishonest to use that as a basis for disqualifying any proposal.

Gee, this couldn't have anything to do with the fact that prices for those paying out of pocket are the above-market rates that those who are insured get charged, at least for non-catastrophic care, thanks to the constriction of supply and the overconsumption of others promoted by the government. No, that would be impossible.