Reznor Raises $645k for Fan VIA Twitter

soulesschild said:
That's one use of Twitter that I actually approve of.
Click to expand...

agreed... but if twitter was nothing but people asking for donations there wouldnt be anyone on there. so, that in itself sort of proves the worth of all the worthless twitter posts....
 
Does it really matter if Twitter was used or not? Seriously if anyone could find fault in saving someone's life through the use of a social network ...needs to goto therapy for being a bitter asshole.

Grats to trent for again proving he really does love his fans.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
mkay.

Without free market participation, we would see rationing of care, lack of new research/innovation, reduction in quality of care, less choice and of course higher taxes.

States with universal healthcare would act like beacons for uninsured, illegal immigrants, etc, and be vulnerable to bankruptcy.

Its not the government’s responsibility, and as unpopular as this position is, healthcare is not a god-given right.
Click to expand...

Thanks for those links. I went through those, but will read them in depth at a later time.

Argument #1 "free market participation":

The key word here is 'participation'. The idea is not to shut off the free market to enrol patients, but to provide a wider plan that most can benefit from.

Argument #2; "rationing of care"

Care is already being rationed. Not always in terms of time devoted to each patient, but in terms of how often - if at all - people go see their physicians, or specialists when needed.

Argument #3: "lack of new research/innovation"

That is where free market fails. Not in terms of their finding new cures and technology, but in terms of doing everything for the 'greater good.' (OOOH! Now that's big!) If the incentive is money, and money alone, then there will always be a discrepancy of services provided between those who have good health insurance and have no health insurance.
Any government, however, that claims to be working for the people should try to find alternatives - emphasis on FINDING alternatives, not being the alternative - for affordable healthcare. One alternative would be to have the largest US plan, that would have companies work for them, through a national and government approved program.
And I am not saying FREE healthcare.
You benefit from it when you're ill, but you put into when you're fit and well.

Granted, businesses are no charities, and if they decided to provide extra services for the wealthy or those who can afford them, so be it. See argument #1.

Argument #4: "reduction in quality of care"

Screen early, save money, and thus save time and resources. cf argument #2; quality of care is already being reduced to those who cannot or barely afford it. And again, as in #3 have companies compete with lower prices to get the contracts.

Argument #5: "less choice"

Between those who have good healthcare and those who cannot, simply because their employer does not offer a plan, or they lost their job, there is NO choice. Bankrupting families is not a choice either, as they won't be able to repay the astronomical cost to begin with.

Argument #6: "higher taxes"

Yes, that is probable, but not inevitable. Allocate a low percentage of EVERYBODY's income to a 'national health plan' fund. Lower state and federal tax to accommodate for the national healthcare plan premium. Also, have as many companies participate by means of competitive rates to secure the memberships of those who would benefit from a national plan.
Note that in Europe, healthcare is not free; every worker pays a monthly premium which is automatically deducted from their pay.

Argument #7: "States with universal healthcare would act like beacons for uninsured, illegal immigrants..."

Again, if there is a national plan - then this would not be of any concern, since all states would have the same policies and benefits.
In Europe, you don't see people streaming from one country to the next to enjoy medical treatments. (Actually, there has been such accounts; patients from western Europe going to former eastern European countries for medical treatment - especially dental work - because it is cheaper. People will go where doctors charge less. Another medical tourist destination these days is India.)

Argument #8: "Its not the government’s responsibility"
No, they are in the business of governing, not providing healthcare.
What they need to come up with is a plan to have everybody in the active labor force to participate into the same fund and draw when they need it. WHAT IF the government would have businesses compete in a large bid to cover those interested in a national plan? What if the government were just a vehicle to orgnize a large number of healthcare beneficiaries, and have all healthcare providers to cover those beneficiaries?
Leaving those on low incomes or medium incomes, with no or low benefits, on the wayside is just ignoring the problem they are faced with. AGAIN, the idea is NOT for government to replace the free market.
Sad thing is the free market has not been really interested in those who are no potential cash cows.

Argument #9"...healthcare is not a god-given right."
I agree, it is not. But neither is free speech. As a matter of fact, nothing in the US Constitution is. The US Constitution grants it, but I don't think there is any reference to it in the Bible (Bible used here as the US speak of themselves as being christian.)
But I like that term, god-given-right.
That is if you believe what they say. You know... the "nation under god" and "god bless America".. "god bless this and that."
Usually, when people speak of god, and godly works, they usually imply commandments, or obligations, or duties, but no rights. They speak of charity and helping your fellow man. So, if a "nation under god" is allowed to sit by and let people suffer when the cure is at hand, is it really a "nation under god"?
Or is the US government merely catering for the good health of privately owned businesses? They do make sure nothing hinders capitalism, don't they? Furthering corporate wealth and success is not a god-given-right, either. Is it?

And to go back to the point where social conservatives don't want "fedzilla" to interfere or be involved in 'providing healthcare' (like I would want them to operate on me! :D), they clearly fail to see their obligations as christians here.
On the other hand, those same conservatives want the government to prohibit gay marriage, abortions, the distribution of contraceptive material, euthanasia... all matters that - even though I don't agree with - should be a matter of each individual deciding for him/herself.
 
Maybe if more people had snokin hot new anchors for sisters, Mr Reznor would save more lives!
 
Dam I need some money to pay some legal fees, maybe i should start one as well...
 
aardvark sandwich said:
mkay.

Without free market participation, we would see rationing of care, lack of new research/innovation, reduction in quality of care, less choice and of course higher taxes.

States with universal healthcare would act like beacons for uninsured, illegal immigrants, etc, and be vulnerable to bankruptcy.

Its not the government’s responsibility, and as unpopular as this position is, healthcare is not a god-given right.
Click to expand...

Is a healthcare system, which provides no care for 50 million people, not rationed?
As to higher taxes, America spends about 15% of its GDP on healthcare compared to 10% in Canada. In terms of per capita: US $5,635 vs Canada $3,003.
In terms of quality of care I would suggest the following link:
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
 
Too many fartards in this thread complaining about the price.

I would go in debt 4 gazillion dollars if my kid needed a transplant or I did. Life is the only thing you can't put a price on.

Is it fair for the dr n hospital to charge what they do? probably not but in the end everyone will pay what they ask cause I'm sure you don't want some 2nd rate drunk dr working on you and yours....
 
Yes but why does that Dr charge $8k what he is contracted to an insurance company to only get paid $1k for the same service? Is this lower all the service is worth? Then why isn't this the cost for everyone? If he is getting less from insurance than the service is worth (or actually costs to provide) while the insurance company makes record profits and our hospitals clamor for state/federal funding and assistance then this shit is broke.

Sure you can't put a price on life, but why do you get told it will cost you the $8k w/o ever knowing that insurance providers only have to pay the $1k?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top