Anyone Else Find This Description Of "Personal Responsibility" Odd?

[pocketfullofshells]

Why do you not accept such emotional appeals from people trying to convince you to give up your rights for physical security? Or do you...

Perhaps if you lost a loved one in a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by allowing government to violate a few rights, maybe then you will get it.

Have you changed your mind now on giving up your rights for security?

the odds of dieing in a terror attack are microscopic...the odds of not having health care are not. And no it would change my view. To go into lockdown mode means they win, and if I lost a loved one to terror...I would make sure they do not win. You think they win by blowing up a plane...they win by changing who we are, what we want, and how we live...

 

[GenSeneca]

the odds of dieing in a terror attack are microscopic...the odds of not having health care are not.

I see... So your decision on whether or not to sacrifice rights for security is purely based on statistical probability and not on principle. That does explain why you are inconsistent in your support of individual rights.

...they win by changing who we are, what we want, and how we live...

You already know I don't think we should ever sacrifice rights for security.

I want to stop the collectivists from sacrificing our freedom for security because we will never fill the void of need. The more we sacrifice our rights to fill it, the larger the viod will grow until we are all out of rights and need has overwhelmed society.

If you want to see need shrink to a managable level, protect and respect individual rights. That's how we got to be the strongest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I see... So your decision on whether or not to sacrifice rights for security is purely based on statistical probability and not on principle. That does explain why you are inconsistent in your support of individual rights.


You already know I don't think we should ever sacrifice rights for security.

I want to stop the collectivists from sacrificing our freedom for security because we will never fill the void of need. The more we sacrifice our rights to fill it, the larger the viod will grow until we are all out of rights and need has overwhelmed society.

If you want to see need shrink to a managable level, protect and respect individual rights. That's how we got to be the strongest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

yes, unless you look at when the US realy got booming...after we passed all the major bills you cry about..Welfare, SS, and then we had that nice WWII that helped quite a bit as well....That pumped alot of federal money into the system to fight a war.

Your mythical evry man for himself US....was at its closest back when you could walk out stake your land, and farm it, then you owned it...When most people could provide a living for them self off the land, or with little or no education...

welcome to 2010...your myth is a pipe dream in today's world

 

[GenSeneca]

all the major bills you cry about..Welfare, SS,

106 Trillion dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities.

WWII...That pumped alot of federal money into the system to fight a war.

Where do you think federal money comes from?

welcome to 2010...your myth is a pipe dream in today's world

The endless deficit spending and the exponential growth of our debt to support your Utopian welfare state is a reality. Your belief that such a system can go on indefinitely simply by sacrificing individual rights is they myth.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

This has been a very interesting exchange between PFOS and Gen Sen. It is striking, given the title and the original BigRob post, that we are at a critical point of a national understanding of what personal responsibility entails.

The left, Liberalism, Progressivism, Collectivism - is totally reliant on emotional-based outcome. It FEELS nice to share. It FEELS good to care. It FEELS right to provide for all. But those feelings hold true, and always have, on a personal level. What I'm afraid the entitlement mentality has brought us to is the fact that those pushing these policies feel we are incapable of caring and helping on a personal level.

Sen. Landrieu's statement really did say it all: we must have personal responsibility to take care of ourselves, but of course we must have the governments' assistance to do so.

 

[top gun]

On January 11, 2010, Senator Mary Landrieu was confronted by protestors outside the Vermilion Parish Library as she spoke about coastal protection. The protestors were there to discuss the Senator’s vote on health care reform. As she responded to criticism, she noted:


This is a strange kind of personal responsibility. Real personal responsibility requires individual people to take ownership of their actions. If the government mandates behavior, it can hardly be thought of as people taking the responsibility to accomplish something on their own.

To make matters worse, Landrieu follows up with a promise that the government will help pay for this required behavior. It seems that she views personal responsibility as something that ought be legislated and subsidized rather than left to the individual where it belongs.

If legislators focused on addressing the unnecessary rules and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance and health care, more individuals could afford to act responsibly. That would be better for the individual and less expensive for the government.

When put into context of the problem with the system today it makes total sense.

If you become ill or injured and you didn't choose to spend your money on it or can't get health insurance either because you felt you were young and didn't need it... or it isn't offered at work... or you have a preexisting condition... or just didn't choose to... then you go to the Emergency Room and get treated at top dollar rates (like $600 per hour and up) and then people like me and you with insurance are forced to pick up their tab through our higher insurance premiums.

Under the current system the first $1000 (one thousand dollars) that every insured person pays in premiums each year are paying for indigent care.

The giving out of credits goes to the point that if you are unemployed or would not be earning a living wage with insurance taken out then that too must be addressed or we're right back to the original even more costly Emergency Room problem.

 

[groupthink]

freedom is not free
citizenship is not free either

 

[BigRob]

When put into context of the problem with the system today it makes total sense.

If you become ill or injured and you didn't choose to spend your money on it or can't get health insurance either because you felt you were young and didn't need it... or it isn't offered at work... or you have a preexisting condition... or just didn't choose to... then you go to the Emergency Room and get treated at top dollar rates (like $600 per hour and up) and then people like me and you with insurance are forced to pick up their tab through our higher insurance premiums.

Under the current system the first $1000 (one thousand dollars) that every insured person pays in premiums each year are paying for indigent care.

The giving out of credits goes to the point that if you are unemployed or would not be earning a living wage with insurance taken out then that too must be addressed or we're right back to the original even more costly Emergency Room problem.

There are CBO estimates out there that basically say the cost of preventative care (which is what you are talking about it seems like) would be more under a new system as opposed to simply leaving things the way they are.

Now, since we have not seen any final legislation on health care, that is up in the air if that will be changed.

Putting all of that aside however, it hardly seems like "personal responsibility" to me if the government is going to pick up the tab. I suppose you could offer some round a bout explanation that an increase in taxes will cover the cost, and it will be your responsibility to pay those taxes, but that is not really what the Democrats seems to be espousing here.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There are CBO estimates out there that basically say the cost of preventative care (which is what you are talking about it seems like) would be more under a new system as opposed to simply leaving things the way they are.

Now, since we have not seen any final legislation on health care, that is up in the air if that will be changed.

Putting all of that aside however, it hardly seems like "personal responsibility" to me if the government is going to pick up the tab. I suppose you could offer some round a bout explanation that an increase in taxes will cover the cost, and it will be your responsibility to pay those taxes, but that is not really what the Democrats seems to be espousing here.

Preventive care should cost more...there should be more of it...and it should be offset by a large reduction in Major care cost...Pills to help your heart =preventative....triple Bypass surgery...major...if we give 100 more people pills the cost goes up...if it saves one heart attack it saves millions

 

[BigRob]

Preventive care should cost more...there should be more of it...and it should be offset by a large reduction in Major care cost...Pills to help your heart =preventative....triple Bypass surgery...major...if we give 100 more people pills the cost goes up...if it saves one heart attack it saves millions

The CBO report that I remember basically said that offset would not make up for the increase in cost of preventive care, and therefore increase spending and the deficit.

That said, the final language of the legislation has yet to be seen, so we shall see.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The CBO report that I remember basically said that offset would not make up for the increase in cost of preventive care, and therefore increase spending and the deficit.

That said, the final language of the legislation has yet to be seen, so we shall see.

CBO for Senate showed a decrease in debt over 10 years, more so in next 10 years, at least the last one I saw

 

[BigRob]

CBO for Senate showed a decrease in debt over 10 years, more so in next 10 years, at least the last one I saw

I am pretty sure the CBO letter I am talking about is a response to the House legislation....

Putting everything aside however, the CBO is only allowed to score what they are sent in legislation.

Therefore, if I was a Senator, and wrote a bill that said we will pay off our debts with a 1% tax increase, which will cause 1000% growth in GDP over the next decade, the CBO has to score the legislation using the parameters I have set, even though obviously 1000% GDP growth is not going to happen. The Senate bill does assume some things that (in my opinion at least) will probably not happen, but the CBO has to score them anyway as if they will.

So, you always have to be careful of the CBO, but certainly it is a good reference point. When the final legislation comes out, we will see what it all involves. (Assuming we even get the chance before it is voted on)

Edit: I also think I remember the CBO cost projections for the Senate increasing spending dramatically more than 10 years out, but I could be remembering wrong. Also, the Senate bill only covers 7 years for 10 years of taxes and spending, so that accounting method is flawed. If you want the real 10 year number, I think you have to go 13 years out.

 

[top gun]

There are CBO estimates out there that basically say the cost of preventative care (which is what you are talking about it seems like) would be more under a new system as opposed to simply leaving things the way they are.

Now, since we have not seen any final legislation on health care, that is up in the air if that will be changed.

Putting all of that aside however, it hardly seems like "personal responsibility" to me if the government is going to pick up the tab. I suppose you could offer some round a bout explanation that an increase in taxes will cover the cost, and it will be your responsibility to pay those taxes, but that is not really what the Democrats seems to be espousing here.

Preventative care will be roughly the same cost wise. But for that same cost a whole hell of a lot more people will be getting it. That's a good thing.

And that's not the issue the people referenced were talking about anyway. It's the fact that you and I with health insurance with it's ever skyrocketing price have to PAY for all that most expensive, non-insured, indigent care. At the Towne Hall at OSU that I actually spoke at Senator Sherrod Brown clearly broke down the numbers and it's a fact that right now every insured person is paying that first $1000 on THEIR POLICY to cover someone else's indigent care... and that number is rising.

Just throwing random numbers out here it's easy to see that while that $1000 (of mine or yours) is not even covering 2 hours worth of treatments for someone in the emergency room at $600 per... but it could cover 10 hours worth of treatments at $100 an hour in a clinic or doctors office. That's the plan.

The only way you could achieve true "Personal Responsibility" is if someone didn't by health insurance and when they became ill or injured and did not have the cash up front to cover the estimated bill we said... Sorry we can't treat you.

And that's just not what America is about.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Preventative care will be roughly the same cost wise. But for that same cost a whole hell of a lot more people will be getting it. That's a good thing.

And that's not the issue the people referenced were talking about anyway. It's the fact that you and I with health insurance with it's ever skyrocketing price have to PAY for all that most expensive, non-insured, indigent care. At the Towne Hall at OSU that I actually spoke at Senator Sherrod Brown clearly broke down the numbers and it's a fact that right now every insured person is paying that first $1000 on THEIR POLICY to cover someone else's indigent care... and that number is rising.

Just throwing random numbers out here it's easy to see that while that $1000 (of mine or yours) is not even covering 2 hours worth of treatments for someone in the emergency room at $600 per... but it could cover 10 hours worth of treatments at $100 an hour in a clinic or doctors office. That's the plan.

The only way you could achieve true "Personal Responsibility" is if someone didn't by health insurance and when they became ill or injured and did not have the cash up front to cover the estimated bill we said... Sorry we can't treat you.

And that's just not what America is about.

Also there is a limit to what some people are able to do. one of my freinds, who does need alot of medical help but does not get it...has alot of major mental issues that make it realy hard for her to work. Not to get into Details, be she has been abused and had some bad crap happen to her since she was a kid and it has screwed her up bad...But she is not able to realy get the mental health needed to help her get to the point she could hold any real job. Maybe she could find a job, but those jobs would not pay for her medical costs..and She would be realy hard pressed to find a non government health care plan that would take her right now...one key thing she has is Post traumatic Stress Disorder from some of those things that happened to her. IF she had say served overseas and came back with it, people would understand and not yell it was there personal responsibility to just ignore it and get back to work...they would fully support giving that person the help needed to try to get them back into working...But since my freind has a reasons that you don't want to come out and say what happened to just anyone, she would be judged as just needing to go and take responsibility and man up and just work. Ignoreing the fact she wishes should hold a job, and get some money to help get her out of a bad situation, but her mind does not work right , and its not as easy as some think.

All this Macho tough Personal responsibility crap, its stuff that only holds true in some fairytale land. A land people like to believe existed at one time, but never really did. Old myths that never need to bother with the real details.

 

[BigRob]

Also there is a limit to what some people are able to do. one of my freinds, who does need alot of medical help but does not get it...has alot of major mental issues that make it realy hard for her to work. Not to get into Details, be she has been abused and had some bad crap happen to her since she was a kid and it has screwed her up bad...But she is not able to realy get the mental health needed to help her get to the point she could hold any real job. Maybe she could find a job, but those jobs would not pay for her medical costs..and She would be realy hard pressed to find a non government health care plan that would take her right now...one key thing she has is Post traumatic Stress Disorder from some of those things that happened to her. IF she had say served overseas and came back with it, people would understand and not yell it was there personal responsibility to just ignore it and get back to work...they would fully support giving that person the help needed to try to get them back into working...But since my freind has a reasons that you don't want to come out and say what happened to just anyone, she would be judged as just needing to go and take responsibility and man up and just work. Ignoreing the fact she wishes should hold a job, and get some money to help get her out of a bad situation, but her mind does not work right , and its not as easy as some think.

All this Macho tough Personal responsibility crap, its stuff that only holds true in some fairytale land. A land people like to believe existed at one time, but never really did. Old myths that never need to bother with the real details.

No offense, but your friend is hardly the norm. I have no problem helping someone like that, however your antidotal examples hardly mean that large numbers of people could have health care and choose not to have it.

However, the idea that 10% of the country is in the situation that your describe is ridiculous in my opinion.