Former Mexican president Message to Trump

[ShockerPrez]

I still don't think "socialism" means what you think it means. Liberal and progressive do not necessarily mean the same thing as socialist.

If you mean Europe is more liberal and progressive than the US, I absolutely agree with you. I think they've been that way for generations, but I don't think they are becoming significantly more. You might want to check your sources regarding Corbyn being an "avowed communist" (not true). Check your sources about Macron as well, who is a centrist that left France's socialist party because he was too far right. In his political career he has advocated for the free market and has supported legislation that would be considered conservative in the United States.

Liberals and progressives push for more government control. Taken to that end, you will end up with socialism.

Corbyn appointed a communist to lead his campaign, and has praised Marx. That's sufficient for me.

Macron left the socialist party so he could get elected. But he's still a socialist.

But Im conservative, so I just see things differently

[ShockTalk]

There are some dread diseases (such as diabetes) which can be managed with lifestyle changes. Let me provide you with a counterpoint:

I have a friend who is a brittle diabetic. He even went to the extreme of having bariatric surgery (which he promptly reversed because he liked to go out and eat the wrong 'stuff').

He has neuropathy, problems with his eyes, problems with his heart, all due to diabetes. He has been told by his doctor if he has any medical issues they can't do anything for him.

He still loads up on carbs. He knows if he gets the carbs out of his diet he will be much healthier, but he refuses (or lacks the will) to do so.

So why should I have to subsidize his medical care? Why should I have to subsidize someone else who could do something about their medical conditions and does not?

I don't eat potatoes anymore (I can have sweet potatoes in limited quantities), I don't eat rice anymore, I can't have cake or pies anymore. I exercise strenuously (which is a requirement to keep my sugar low). I do all this to stay healthy. Why should I have to subsidize anyone who could easily do what I did, but refuses to do it?

Yes, I feel it is discriminatory to charge me more simply because I have a physical disability. Not my fault my body attacks myself. Trust me, I wish it wouldn't.

You answered @ShockerPrez:. What about @shocka khan:'s question to you?

However, back to your above answer. I understand "spreading risk" and "spreading cost", so don't take what I'm about to say as being cold. I'm merely asking a question based on your answer.

You say it's not your fault your body attacks itself. What your body does is also not anyone else's fault, yet others end up "paying more". I believe you are your body, so it is either you, someone else, or nobody's "fault". In this case, I'd go with nobody's fault. However, tying this in with shocka's question, it is the fault of an individual who doesn't do all he can to help himself and condition to not cost others extra money. Yes or no? How should this individual's costs be handled to be fair?

[Aargh]

I sure don't want to have to pay for skateboarders learning to ride down handrails. It's cheaper to pay for the injuries those idiots get than to hire someone to watch them, which is the only way to determine who's doing what.

I shouldn't have to pay for injuiries that college athletes get, should I? I don't particpate in sports with high injuiry risks, so should I have to pay for athletes who get injured?

The moment there is a "high risk" pool and insurance coverage is based on employment, anyone in a high risk pool immediately becomes unemployable. Employers are unlikely to hire someone who is going to cost them on their insurance contributions.

[ShockTalk]

I don't have a good answer for it. If there was an objectively way to account for the cost related to not taking care of yourself then I'm fine with them paying it but that is impossible. Would I be labeled with not taking care of my condition because I was a cheerleader for our beloved shockers and therefore was doing approximately 25 to 35 hrs worth of physical activity a week which is a bit much for someone who has rheumatoid arthritis? Who and how do we draw the line.

I believe shocka's example is more clear cut than using your own. Nevertheless, did a physician tell you that you were doing too much? Did you ask a physician? I'm not sure what "a little bit much" is....5 hours, 20 hours? At the time of this "bit much", did you know it was and that it could create additional/more problems later? If you feel at all guilty now (I'm NOT saying you should) or then, does it seem logical that you are partially responsible and pay more (also not saying you should). "Who and how do we draw the line" is for discussion. I have no problem with those that cannot help themselves or do what physicians ask of them to do to help themselves. It is those who basically flip the bird to do as they want and expect everyone else to pay the tab.

If people are fully for pay your own way 100% of the time, then I view them as heartless to be honest. If it is nobody's fault I have arthitis then why am I being burdened with the cost. The cost are fine now but during grad school I was absolutely broke (never once took out loans) there would've been no way for me to pay my way. If that was the case, would I then be told years later by insurance companies that I didnt take care of myself in grad school because I couldn't afford to go to the doctor so I am now responisble for paying for my current treatment.

Never, nor would I, say each is to pay his/her own way 100% of the time. That's off the table for discussion with me. Also, any type of reform would not look back , but forward as to one's good or negligent responsibility.

I'll ask again, what do you think about shocka's example as I believe this type of attitude is getting more and more prevalent.

[wufan]

No, I didn't know at the time. My physican was more worried with my current pain than future damage. It is now after I've stopped that I think cheer has caused some issues.

There is research to suggest practically everything is bad for you so where do we draw the line? Because I have 1 or 2 drinks on the weekend should I have to pay more. Should I pay more because didn't have money in grad school to pay for healtu food so there were a lot of ramen noodles during the time? I don't think there is an easy way to make a decision on who should pay more and who shouldn't. Did that diabetic guy know what proper care is? Some people actual don't know. How do we draw the line? Who should decide?

I think the policy makers (with our input) should decide and draw the line. It wouldn't be 100% fair, but it gets closer.

[ShockTalk]

No, I didn't know at the time. My physican was more worried with my current pain than future damage. It is now after I've stopped that I think cheer has caused some issues.

There is research to suggest practically everything is bad for you so where do we draw the line? Because I have 1 or 2 drinks on the weekend should I have to pay more. Should I pay more because didn't have money in grad school to pay for healtu food so there were a lot of ramen noodles during the time? I don't think there is an easy way to make a decision on who should pay more and who shouldn't. Did that diabetic guy know what proper care is? Some people actual don't know. How do we draw the line? Who should decide?

Before retirement, my wife and I were both self-employed. We had to qualify to get our coverage. I'm not saying people have to qualify for coverage, but if they are guaranteed coverage (this is prior to Medicare), they should have an evaluation (think free preventative screening). It would also be free to have regular "check-ups" so physicians to could monitor those that need help for a more healthy life. Those that do not follow through could have a surcharge or changes to coverage. I've said this before, one needs to have skin in the game. The more skin, the more they care. The less skin (or no skin), the less they care.

Lines can be drawn, they're just not necessarily black or white, yes or no. They can be progressive in nature in most cases. If you want to live in a society/community, you better start having a good idea that decisions affecting the group need to be made and who and how they are made. Otherwise, maybe one shouldn't depend on others because that dependency affects others. The goal of all should to be to reduce that dependency while valuing individuality and freedoms for all. Yes, it's a balancing act.

[atlwsu]

Should I be penalized because I've had rheumatoid arthitis since I was 6? I do everything I can to not take meds but sometimes my body attacks itself and there is nothing other than meds that can control it at times. What about a friends daughter who was born with a rare genetic mutation that results in severe developmental delays.

Sorry for being dense, what does penalized mean? What is the penalty?

[ShockTalk]

It is a hypotheical. They are asserting that people who have more medical issues should have more burden for paying for them.

That is just not true as you have stated. Please show me who and where this has been said. It is being discussed whether or not people with certain health problems that could be improved with life style changes should pay a surcharge for refusing to improve their choice of lifestyle which in turn creates higher medical costs, thus higher premiums for all.

[ShockTalk]

Yes, that is what we were discussing but it is hard to figure out what constitutes as taking care of yourself or not. It would be a slippery slope that some people with medical conditions would end up paying more even if they arw taking care of themselves

If they were making a reasonable (I know, what's reasonable) effort to help themselves as guided by a physician and his/her recommendations and as evaluated by the physician.

If everyone else is taking some responsibility (guaranteed health coverage and paying for it) for those who have medical issues, shouldn't those who have the issues take responsibility, if they can, to try and improve their situation and not make it worse? I'm not saying they can cure themselves, but there are certainly medical issues which can be greatly corrected and controlled if the person affected makes an honest effort.

[wufan]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying it is a slippery slope of what defines taking care of yourself vs not.

It's also a slippery slope to pay for every medical procedure that an individual believes they have a right to. That's why it's important to negotiate the boundary.

I'm with Shaka Kahn on this. Single PAyer is WAY better than this crap! I am for an open market, deregulated medical industry, but we are so far away from that that it seems impossible to obtain. I really think OC was designed to end medical insurance; nothing more.

[atlwsu]

It is a hypotheical. They are asserting that people who have more medical issues should have more burden for paying for them.

Burden = penalized? Doesn't seem the same to me, do you think they are? It seems to me life has all kind of variations that are not the gov responsibility to fix. I pay more for my health insurance than my wife does. I eat better than her and exercise more, but due to our heritages she does not have the issues I have. Should I protest?

[jdshock]

Burden = penalized? Doesn't seem the same to me, do you think they are? It seems to me life has all kind of variations that are not the gov responsibility to fix. I pay more for my health insurance than my wife does. I eat better than her and exercise more, but due to our heritages she does not have the issues I have. Should I protest?

Frankly, that is the exact kind of thing many fans of single payer health care want to see eliminated. If health care is a human right, you shouldn't be forced to pay more because of something totally outside of your control.

[wufan]

Frankly, that is the exact kind of thing many fans of single payer health care want to see eliminated. If health care is a human right, you shouldn't be forced to pay more because of something totally outside of your control.

That is definitely the argument. I don't agree with it, but it has some validity, and it is definitely better than the current strategy where everyone pays too much and very few get their healthcare covered.

[ShockerPrez]

Frankly, that is the exact kind of thing many fans of single payer health care want to see eliminated. If health care is a human right, you shouldn't be forced to pay more because of something totally outside of your control.

Good thing it's not a right.

[jdshock]

Good thing it's not a right.

Maybe not, but it's not like that just ends the discussion. Rights can change. If I remember correctly, a newish poll found a majority of Americans think it should be a right. Internationally, people consider it a right. And if life is a right, where does the line for healthcare stop?

I'm just saying ATL's scenario isn't some farfetched hypothetical we haven't considered. It is in fact part of the reason for the support.