So is this the point where I lock the thread for serial off-topicness and we try again later?
Because it looks kinda like that point.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not sure about it ever having been a "tax" you could opt out of, but way back in the day departments used to show up and go "ahem <rubs fingers together>" and unless you "greased the wheels" your house was deemed too far along to be saved.
No, this really did just happen. Some guy in Kansas or Missouri didn't pay into his local fire department, so trucks showed up and watched his home burn, just there to make sure the neighbors' houses didn't catch.
This happened just a few years ago.
Except it wasn't his local fire department. He lived in unincorporated territory, and refused to pay the fee for support from one of the local incorporated towns.
Also the fire department did ascertain upon arrival that no one (people, there were a few animals) was inside/in danger and then chose not to act to save his property.
Plenty of things can go wrong at small/routine fires (for the firemen) so I can see why the chief chose not to risk their well being for the property of someone who was trying to bilk the system and basically didn't support them.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I am sorry but there is no reason to require someone to buy something just by virtue of being alive.
And this attitude is why most of the western world has all-encompassing* and relatively cheap world-class health care while the US has selectively-encompassing and increasingly expensive world class health care.
* Every administrative system will have some individuals who "fall through the cracks" at times. But they should be very rare occurences, not commonplace.
Discussing someone's platform on fire departments is cool. Discussing fire departments in abstract for two pages, not so much. If there's a quote tree five deep that doesn't mention, even obliquely, the candidates or the primaries, you're doing it wrong.
I mean, if you really want to talk about some guy's house burning down? Yeah, make a new thread.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I am sorry but there is no reason to require someone to buy something just by virtue of being alive.
And this attitude is why most of the western world has all-encompassing* and relatively cheap world-class health care while the US has selectively-encompassing and increasingly expensive world class health care.
* Every administrative system will have some individuals who "fall through the cracks" at times. But they should be very rare occurences, not commonplace.
I actually agree with both of you.
If there is something that is so necessary as to require citizens to have it, then it should be provided by the government and paid for by taxes.
That is the entire reason to have government in the first place: Collective Action Problems.
So, what I've learned from this debate is that every day a 15 year old doesn't contract a potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease is a day that a tea party member dies a little inside.
So, what I've learned from this debate is that every day a 15 year old doesn't contract a potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease is a day that a tea party member dies a little inside.
And people complain about the Taliban comparisons... Why, again?
Tort reform doesn't lower costs. Every state that's tried it has seen no effect on the skyrocketing cost of medical care.
Tort reform doesn't work because doctor's don't care anymore what the studies say, they still practice defensively.
The only tort reform that will change that is an entirely different kind of restitution/regulation system altogether. As long as patients have the ability to sue doctors, period, doctors are going to protect their licensure and livelihood.
It's not the money that doctors are really worried about losing in suits, it's their license and their rating, which is strongly influence by their litigation records, regardless of whether prior suits were frivolous or not. As well, the jury system is hardly the best way to determine wrongdoing on a doctor's part, let alone determine what restitution a patient may be entitled to.
Tort reform doesn't lower costs. Every state that's tried it has seen no effect on the skyrocketing cost of medical care.
Tort reform doesn't work because doctor's don't care anymore what the studies say, they still practice defensively.
The only tort reform that will change that is an entirely different kind of restitution/regulation system altogether. As long as patients have the ability to sue doctors, period, doctors are going to protect their licensure and livelihood.
It's not the money that doctors are really worried about losing in suits, it's their license and their rating, which is strongly influence by their litigation records, regardless of whether prior suits were frivolous or not. As well, the jury system is hardly the best way to determine wrongdoing on a doctor's part, let alone determine what restitution a patient may be entitled to.
Wow. Care to come back to reality? The fact is that most doctors will never be sued for malpractice. And on the other side, only 1/3 of doctors who have had 10+ payouts for malpractice have faced any sort of disciplinary action. And, there's a study by the folks at Harvard Medical that showed that juries actually get it right the vast majority of the time.
Edit : Since I know you'll ask, I here's a link to my post a few months ago that has links :
Tort reform doesn't lower costs. Every state that's tried it has seen no effect on the skyrocketing cost of medical care.
Tort reform doesn't work because doctor's don't care anymore what the studies say, they still practice defensively.
The only tort reform that will change that is an entirely different kind of restitution/regulation system altogether. As long as patients have the ability to sue doctors, period, doctors are going to protect their licensure and livelihood.
It's not the money that doctors are really worried about losing in suits, it's their license and their rating, which is strongly influence by their litigation records, regardless of whether prior suits were frivolous or not. As well, the jury system is hardly the best way to determine wrongdoing on a doctor's part, let alone determine what restitution a patient may be entitled to.
Wow. Care to come back to reality? The fact is that most doctors will never be sued for malpractice. And on the other side, only 1/3 of doctors who have had 10+ payouts for malpractice have faced any sort of disciplinary action. And, there's a study by the folks at Harvard Medical that showed that juries actually get it right the vast majority of the time.
Edit : Since I know you'll ask, I here's a link to my post a few months ago that has links :
The man thinking that he could just pay the 75 dollars on the spot after his fire occured would be like me thinking i can just pay a 200 a week health insurance bill for my care after ive gotten seriously ill. The reason that tax is so low/the health insurance is so much lower then the treatment is because you are paying all the times you dont need it.
The fire department had no real choice but to watch the place burn, just as health insurance companies cant just cover someone who decided to get insurance right after getting sick.
But the point is, in both those cases, its not the governments responsibility to step in and help that person out. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. Allowing folks to bypass the initial steps of securing their own saftey brings the whole system crashing down, because if I know the government has my back if I get sick, why the heck should I pay for my insurance?
Suddenly, nobody pays for it and the government is paying for everything without the funds to do so. Now admittedly, just like in the fire department example, the government really SHOULD be paying for everything. But as long as a system is in place where we have to pay for it ourselves and funding isnt set aside for the government to handle it, you kind of have to just watch the place burn/the dude die. The other option is a collapse.
Tort reform doesn't lower costs. Every state that's tried it has seen no effect on the skyrocketing cost of medical care.
Tort reform doesn't work because doctor's don't care anymore what the studies say, they still practice defensively.
The only tort reform that will change that is an entirely different kind of restitution/regulation system altogether. As long as patients have the ability to sue doctors, period, doctors are going to protect their licensure and livelihood.
It's not the money that doctors are really worried about losing in suits, it's their license and their rating, which is strongly influence by their litigation records, regardless of whether prior suits were frivolous or not. As well, the jury system is hardly the best way to determine wrongdoing on a doctor's part, let alone determine what restitution a patient may be entitled to.
Wow. Care to come back to reality? The fact is that most doctors will never be sued for malpractice. And on the other side, only 1/3 of doctors who have had 10+ payouts for malpractice have faced any sort of disciplinary action. And, there's a study by the folks at Harvard Medical that showed that juries actually get it right the vast majority of the time.
Edit : Since I know you'll ask, I here's a link to my post a few months ago that has links :
Posts
Because it looks kinda like that point.
Also the fire department did ascertain upon arrival that no one (people, there were a few animals) was inside/in danger and then chose not to act to save his property.
Plenty of things can go wrong at small/routine fires (for the firemen) so I can see why the chief chose not to risk their well being for the property of someone who was trying to bilk the system and basically didn't support them.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
And this attitude is why most of the western world has all-encompassing* and relatively cheap world-class health care while the US has selectively-encompassing and increasingly expensive world class health care.
* Every administrative system will have some individuals who "fall through the cracks" at times. But they should be very rare occurences, not commonplace.
Should we start a new thread?
I mean, if you really want to talk about some guy's house burning down? Yeah, make a new thread.
I actually agree with both of you.
If there is something that is so necessary as to require citizens to have it, then it should be provided by the government and paid for by taxes.
That is the entire reason to have government in the first place: Collective Action Problems.
And people complain about the Taliban comparisons... Why, again?
Tort reform doesn't work because doctor's don't care anymore what the studies say, they still practice defensively.
The only tort reform that will change that is an entirely different kind of restitution/regulation system altogether. As long as patients have the ability to sue doctors, period, doctors are going to protect their licensure and livelihood.
It's not the money that doctors are really worried about losing in suits, it's their license and their rating, which is strongly influence by their litigation records, regardless of whether prior suits were frivolous or not. As well, the jury system is hardly the best way to determine wrongdoing on a doctor's part, let alone determine what restitution a patient may be entitled to.
Wow. Care to come back to reality? The fact is that most doctors will never be sued for malpractice. And on the other side, only 1/3 of doctors who have had 10+ payouts for malpractice have faced any sort of disciplinary action. And, there's a study by the folks at Harvard Medical that showed that juries actually get it right the vast majority of the time.
Edit : Since I know you'll ask, I here's a link to my post a few months ago that has links :
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/19731248#Comment_19731248
You're missing the point. None of this matters. It's the perception that's entrenched among the field that shapes their reality.
I work in that field. Those perceptions are pervasive, ubiquitous, and very real. Ad hoc, ergo propter hoc, and all that razzmatazz.
The fire department had no real choice but to watch the place burn, just as health insurance companies cant just cover someone who decided to get insurance right after getting sick.
But the point is, in both those cases, its not the governments responsibility to step in and help that person out. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. Allowing folks to bypass the initial steps of securing their own saftey brings the whole system crashing down, because if I know the government has my back if I get sick, why the heck should I pay for my insurance?
Suddenly, nobody pays for it and the government is paying for everything without the funds to do so. Now admittedly, just like in the fire department example, the government really SHOULD be paying for everything. But as long as a system is in place where we have to pay for it ourselves and funding isnt set aside for the government to handle it, you kind of have to just watch the place burn/the dude die. The other option is a collapse.
Then your field needs a reality check. It is not our duty to let you coddle your delusions.
Yeah, I'll tell 'em for ya.
That'll light a fire, I'm sure.