Roethlisberger injured in motorcycle accident

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by LadyT

Sorry, I can't agree that it's all about personal freedom. When morons refuse to wear helmets or buckle up, and then get hurt in accidents, it affects us all in terms of higher insurance rates for everyone. The cost of surgery, medical care, rehab is covered by insurance and then passed along (in a fashion) to all policy holders by the insurance company. You don't honestly think that the premiums you pay would cover all of your medical expenses in a major car accident, do you? Because they won't and the insurance company recoups its costs by allocating their expenses to all of us.

You are totally correct, but I think you have confused what IS with how it OUGHT to be--just because that is the reality, doesn't mean that it is right or acceptable. I see that insurance is the problem here--not negligent people. The government doesn't have the right to tell people how to live, unless it endangers other people (people should have the right to endanger their own lives, IMO). Riding without a helmet only endangers the bike rider (and not others). So if the only justification for telling people how to live their lives is so insurance premiums will not rise, that is a weak argument.

The problem with insurance rates is the government's problem--they are supposed to provide for the healthcare of their citizens (IMO). Since they cannot (read: do not want to), they have created the health insurance industry (privatization at its worst). If the government's only solution for their failure to provide adequate healthcare is to impose unnecessary restrictions on how their citizens live, then we are in desperate need of a revolution.

BTW, if you cannot already tell, I HATE insurance. It's the biggest scam EVER. ...and yes, I am ready for everyone to tell me how BAD things would be without insurance (and how naive I am).

EDIT-I should not say that I "HATE insurance", that is not accurate and I would like to retract that statement. It would be more accurate to say that I am truly frustrated with the entire situation.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

BTW, if you cannot already tell, I HATE insurance. It's the biggest scam EVER. ...and yes, I am ready for everyone to tell me how BAD things would be without insurance (and how naive I am).

You've pretty much answered your own question but I'll just elaborate.

If it wasn't for the people out there scamming the insurance companies, you probably wouldn't hate the insurance companies as much.

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

You've pretty much answered your own question but I'll just elaborate.

If it wasn't for the people out there scamming the insurance companies, you probably wouldn't hate the insurance companies as much.

You're right. Unfortunately, they are a business who profits from NOT providing a service. The more of their service they provide (paying claims), the less money they make. So, they do everything in their power to invalidate any claims made from people who are (for the most part) honest, loyal, and paying customers.

Also, if they didn't behave this way they would be less profitable and the shareholders would fire the corporate officers. It really comes down to a fundamental flaw in the corporate model.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

You've pretty much answered your own question but I'll just elaborate.

If it wasn't for the people out there scamming the insurance companies, you probably wouldn't hate the insurance companies as much.

Bingo.

Between criminals (including illegal aliens who cross the border to have a baby or get free medical treatment) and people who put themselves in danger like Roethlisberger and expect everyone else to pay for their mistakes as well as lazy people and greedy lawyers who sue for millions of dollars for stupid stuff like burning themselves on coffee...that's driving the rates through the roof.

Insurance is not evil and DOES have a purpose, however the cost of having insurance is being driven up by the people who want to live without resposibility and/or morals.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

The problem with insurance rates is the government's problem--they are supposed to provide for the healthcare of their citizens (IMO). Since they cannot (read: do not want to), they have created the health insurance industry (privatization at its worst). If the government's only solution for their failure to provide adequate healthcare is to impose unnecessary restrictions on how their citizens live, then we are in desperate need of a revolution.

What do you base that opinion on?

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

What do you base that opinion on?

That is my opinion and I base it on my own experiences and principles...basically the same thing anyone bases any opinion on.

Maybe we should start an insurance thread? Ha ha, just kidding.

Really, I thought that I put enough IMO's and conservative remarks to have people just accept my opinion without too much argument. I guess I was wrong.

Please, instead of telling my why my opinion is wrong (and how I don't know), just tell me what your opinion is. That would be nicer.

mheisig: you didn't tell me my opinion was wrong, only other posters.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

That is my opinion and I base it on my own experiences and principles...basically the same thing anyone bases any opinion on.

I'm sorry, I thought maybe it had a basis in constitution law, government models, hisotry or some other form of rational thought.

I'm on a spree of side-rants today: why won't people just argue their belief as opposed to chalking up to "oh it's my opinion and I guess we just have differing views." FIGHT and argue your damn viewpoint if you think you're right, I'd have alot more respect for that than this spineless capitulation of agreeing to disagree.

If the founders of this country just decided that their opinion differed from that of merry ol' England and left it at that, we'd all be drinking tea and driving on the wrong side of the road.

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I'm sorry, I thought maybe it had a basis in constitution law, government models, hisotry or some other form of rational thought.

I'm on a spree of side-rants today: why won't people just argue their belief as opposed to chalking up to "oh it's my opinion and I guess we just have differing views." FIGHT and argue your damn viewpoint if you think you're right, I'd have alot more respect for that than this spineless capitulation of agreeing to disagree.

If the founders of this country just decided that their opinion differed from that of merry ol' England and left it at that, we'd all be drinking tea and driving on the wrong side of the road.

This is not the place to "fight" for what I believe in. Besides, I can do a much better job when I can reply instantly (and not have to wait and then type my response).

Oh, and my "experiences and principles" are based on rational thought. Look up the ad hominem fallacy and you'll see that your argument is flawed. (and you also employ the slippery slope fallacy )

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

This is not the place to "fight" for what I believe in. Besides, I can do a much better job when I can reply instantly (and not have to wait and then type my response).

Oh, and my "experiences and principles" are based on rational thought. Look up the ad hominem fallacy and you'll see that your argument is flawed.

It's pretty unusual to be able to argue a point better in person than through the written word. Very few debaters are capable of addressing each logical premise in sequence, draw conclusions and identify fallacious reasoning on the fly and in person. The written word provides a much higher degree of precision and referential ability than an oral debate.

You must have a remarkably unusual ability to argue orally or perhaps, like many, you use the ambiguity of speech to your advantage.

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 lesson - unfortunately my previous post exhibits no sign of an Ad Hominem attack, primarily because no argument was made. I made an inocuous, largely sarcastic comment that was in no way an attack on your person, thus no Ad Hominem.

I asked a question, you replied, I responded in sarcastic apology - no argument was formed or proposed. In the future it might be helpful to look up the fallacy yourself prior to using the term.

I'm done with this thread unless someone starts a "Healthcare Reform" thread in the Warpath Parking lot. This sucker has gone waaaaaaaaay

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

It's pretty unusual to be able to argue a point better in person than through the written word. Very few debaters are capable of addressing each logical premise in sequence, draw conclusions and identify fallacious reasoning on the fly and in person. The written word provides a much higher degree of precision and referential ability than an oral debate.

You must have a remarkably unusual ability to argue orally or perhaps, like many, you use the ambiguity of speech to your advantage.

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 lesson - unfortunately my previous post exhibits no sign of an Ad Hominem attack, primarily because no argument was made. I made an inocuous, largely sarcastic comment that was in no way an attack on your person, thus no Ad Hominem.

I asked a question, you replied, I responded in sarcastic apology - no argument was formed or proposed. In the future it might be helpful to look up the fallacy yourself prior to using the term.

I'm done with this thread unless someone starts a "Healthcare Reform" thread in the Warpath Parking lot. This sucker has gone waaaaaaaaay

I missed the sarcasm. My mistake. You win. I lose. (no sarcasm here)

P.S.: it's not a philosophy lesson--it's ethics (maybe you should look it up first *sarcasm*).

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

You are totally correct, but I think you have confused what IS with how it OUGHT to be--just because that is the reality, doesn't mean that it is right or acceptable. I see that insurance is the problem here--not negligent people. The government doesn't have the right to tell people how to live, unless it endangers other people (people should have the right to endanger their own lives, IMO). Riding without a helmet only endangers the bike rider (and not others). So if the only justification for telling people how to live their lives is so insurance premiums will not rise, that is a weak argument.

The problem with insurance rates is the government's problem--they are supposed to provide for the healthcare of their citizens (IMO). Since they cannot (read: do not want to), they have created the health insurance industry (privatization at its worst). If the government's only solution for their failure to provide adequate healthcare is to impose unnecessary restrictions on how their citizens live, then we are in desperate need of a revolution.

BTW, if you cannot already tell, I HATE insurance. It's the biggest scam EVER. ...and yes, I am ready for everyone to tell me how BAD things would be without insurance (and how naive I am).

I work for a Health System in Philadelphia in the finance department. I'm not going to get into a big thing, but suffice it to say you know nothing about the business. Socialized healthcare results in horrible standards of care.

Healthcare in the US is some of the most expensive in the world, but it's also BY FAR the best.

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

...suffice it to say you know nothing about the business...

And let the comments about naivety come pouring in!

I don't need to know insurance business, because all business is the same: profits rule, and nothing else matters. It's a flaw in the corporate model (you probably learned about that in ethics).

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

And let the comments about naivity come pouring in!

I don't need to know insurance business, because all business is the same: profits rule, and nothing else matters. It's a flaw in the corporate model (you probably learned about that in ethics).

A flaw in the corporate model??? Any business owner's goal is to have his business succeed - success in business is typically measured by one's profit.

For the purpose of discussion I'll ignore the flawed, gross over-generalization that "nothing else matters." Pursuit of profit is not a flaw, it's the natural outworking of the pursuit of success. Maybe in a eutopian world every business would solely exist for the good of mankind, but we live on the planet earth where money is kind of important.

As a side rant while I'm thinking about it, it always blows me away at how mad people get at Microsoft for apparently being wealthy and successful. Microsoft simply did better business than everyone else and reaped the rewards - should we expect a successful company to just start giving things away when they reach a certain level of wealth? That totally flies in the face of the mindset that got that company there in the first place. Why the hell do people get angry at businesses succeeding? It's what makes the opportunitites and benefits that we enjoy possible.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by mheisig

A flaw in the corporate model??? Any business owner's goal is to have his business succeed - success in business is typically measured by one's profit.

For the purpose of discussion I'll ignore the flawed, gross over-generalization that "nothing else matters." Pursuit of profit is not a flaw, it's the natural outworking of the pursuit of success. Maybe in a eutopian world every business would solely exist for the good of mankind, but we live on the planet earth where money is kind of important.

As a side rant while I'm thinking about it, it always blows me away at how mad people get at Microsoft for apparently being wealthy and successful. Microsoft simply did better business than everyone else and reaped the rewards - should we expect a successful company to just start giving things away when they reach a certain level of wealth? That totally flies in the face of the mindset that got that company there in the first place. Why the hell do people get angry at businesses succeeding? It's what makes the opportunitites and benefits that we enjoy possible.

There is not anything wrong with the pursuit of profit, but there just seems to be something off with combining the pursuit of greater profit and healthcare. Don't get me wrong : doctors and all the healthcare workers deserve what they get paid, but trying to gain as much money out of anything you can just seems wrong to me. And this is mainly aimed at the corporate and committee heads that focus on the bottomline.

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

There is not anything wrong with the pursuit of profit, but there just seems to be something off with combining the pursuit of greater profit and healthcare. Don't get me wrong : doctors and all the healthcare workers deserve what they get paid, but trying to gain as much money out of anything you can just seems wrong to me. And this is mainly aimed at the corporate and committee head that focus on the bottomline.

AMEN!