safety shoes for all!

Aug 10, 2007 14:28

I didn't want this to get buried in the deep comment thread of my previous post on this topic, so I'm adding a new post here ( Read more... )

socialism, healthcare, politics

Leave a comment

Comments 45

it has to be said ubersaurus August 10 2007, 19:50:20 UTC
This is the stupidest analogy I've heard of.

Reply

Re: it has to be said caspian_x August 10 2007, 19:55:41 UTC
Care to give any reason as to why this analogy is stupid, or are we to take it on faith?

Reply

every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuit ubersaurus August 10 2007, 20:12:09 UTC
Oh, I could just say that you're equating shoes to people's lives, and leave it at that, but there's no fun in that ( ... )

Reply

Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuit caspian_x August 10 2007, 20:33:39 UTC
Safety shoes are not only worn by people on the manufacturing floor. Many engineers, who spend 75% of their days in their offices or cubicles, wear safety shoes every day because for those few and far between times when they need to go into a safety shoe required area, they need protection and it's a pain to have to change your shoes or wear those clip-on steel buggers. Therefore, people buy normal-looking safety shoes all the time. Most of my co-workers wear them. They're very common. You can't tell the difference except that the sole is a bit thick. Those same engineers sometimes have social outings or customer meetings right after work and don't want to change their shoes. I've even seen people in steel-toed wing tips.

Please do not lecture me about what I know from personal experience every day, you only embarrass yourself.

The analogy is sound - at least as sound as any analogy can be. It's about providing people with choices and treating them like adults instead of forcing them into what Daddy knows is best for them.

Reply


ikkarus01 August 10 2007, 19:52:22 UTC
My, what a wonderful world this would be if healthcare was anything like buying shoes.

Reply

caspian_x August 10 2007, 19:57:13 UTC
My what a wonderful world it would be if everything run as efficiently as the private sector.

Reply

ikkarus01 August 10 2007, 20:00:12 UTC
Yes, because clearly the private sector's running of healthcare to this point has been positively boffo. Let's get some more of that! Hoo-boy!

Reply

caspian_x August 10 2007, 20:01:23 UTC
It's not a free market. I'm for more of that.

Why do people keep thinking socialism works?

Reply


k_sui August 10 2007, 20:06:09 UTC
It's a closed-end system. Your company ponies up $130/year. Let's say you have a pair stolen (not your fault) and the other pair just gets plain worn-out. But it's July and now your tootsies are in peril of being mangled. Your company has already put forth their part of the bill, so I would imagine you would just simply go out and write a check for $65 bucks to the shoe company, right? But if, by analogy, it's kidney dialysis at $3000/pop and needs to be done twice a week, I hope to gosh you're an investment banker or something because not too many people have that lying about.

(Actually, kidney dialysis is a poor example. Long ago, Congress noted the insane cost and regular need and simply decided to foot the bill for all folks who need dialysis.)

Reply

caspian_x August 10 2007, 20:24:18 UTC
Fair enough, but take that same scenario and apply it to both the universal plan and the private, tax-funded plan.

Universal: Government pays the bill.

Private: Government provides additional tax-credit to get you into a higher plan or simply provides additional tax credit to pay the bill.

Since the alternative is the government paying ANYWAY, there's no reason people at the minimum level couldn't be subsidized by the government in the private plan.

Reply

k_sui August 10 2007, 20:39:23 UTC
Dude, a freaking tax credit? Seriously. The vast majority of the people who are not currently in the system have no use for a tax credit. They don't file returns in the first place. They have no use for the tax credit and frankly, no mechanism to therefore redeem it ( ... )

Reply

caspian_x August 10 2007, 20:42:07 UTC
Great, you're a tax attorney. Perhaps I'm using the wrong word. I mean the type of money off of your taxes that you get whether you owe taxes or not. If you don't owe taxes, you get the money applied to your refund.

What's the right term? Tax credit? Rebate? Refund?

Also, people not paying taxes? You mean illegals? Because I don't think your universal health care would cover them - at least it damn well shouldn't if they're not paying into the system in the first place.

Reply


vortech August 12 2007, 17:38:49 UTC


WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PLAN?

Well, for starters, the shoe company will refuse to sell you shoes if you work in an area dangerous to feet.

Reply

caspian_x August 13 2007, 12:30:00 UTC
They're not allowed to refuse. By law.

Reply

vortech August 13 2007, 17:32:38 UTC
Well now the metaphor has become a confusion (as they almost all do, really) are you saying that an insurance company can not deny an application?

Reply

caspian_x August 13 2007, 20:01:32 UTC
You're right, every analogy breaks down eventually.

I'm not sure how this would be dealt with. Obviously there would need to be something in place to cover the "uninsurable".

Perhaps the government stipend for those people is higher, at a level in which the insurance companies would agree to accept them. There could a number of acceptable resolutions. But whatever it is, since the alternative is that the government is paying all their health insurance expenses, we can find one in which the cost is less than or equal to the socialized solution.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up