You're sick and need a $25,000 surgery

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (64 posts)

52
AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago
Your neighbor comes up to you and tells you he can break into a rich guy's home, steal a bunch of jewelry, and pay for your surgery. Would you ask him to do that for you?
reply report
1. 74
  aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are you trying to make a metaphor for the Affordable Care Act? Yikes. lol
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Would you ask your neighbor to do that or not?
  
  And no, this is an analogy to any disproportionate taxation. Most people wouldn't have their neighbor take money from another neighbor and give it to them, but they can be perfectly fine with the government taking that money from another neighbor and giving it to them.
  
  You either have to support both, or neither. Otherwise, it's just being dishonest.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So you don't send your children to public schools, drive on public roads, cross public bridges, use any public service like police or fire!
  
  Thought so.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000! You have found a KINDRED spirit in me. No, I do not believe in disapproprionate taxation. Each person should DO for self, support self, and have personal responsibility and accountability. The welfare state is the MAIN reason why America as a nation is the way that it is. There are able-bodied people who expect to be rescued and uplifted by others. They have the mentality that "the man" and/or "society" OWES them. People have lost the sense of ownership and personality. Don't people realize that when one is dependent upon a government entity, OWNERSHIP is no more and one becomes a SLAVE.
  
  The "WAY" America is going now is towards socialism, believe it or not. There is an anti-success and anti-achievement mentality. The concept of personal responsibility is eroding and the mentality of hand outs and being rescued is increasing. What YOU have presented is a GREAT analogy of the CURRENT administration.
  
  The government is becoming MORE INTRUSIVE in people's lives and IT'S TIME it STOPPED. Btw, I am a Liberal but an intelligent, discerning one. I believe in personal responsibility, not handouts. I also do not believe in the socialization of America-leave America to be the capitalistic, free market enterprise it IS. Health care should be a personal thing, not a government thing. Obama"care" means a lower quality of care; besides, Obama"care" will eventually bankrupt the nation!
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh BS! there are people who desperately want to work but are not wanted.
  There is absolutely nothing socialist about that, socialism says that if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat.
  
  And since when has the USA been a free market?
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  John, your argument is so moot in its context. Who ever WANTS to work, CAN find employment. Please, stop with the excuses. This is so typical of the LIEBERAL mindset. There are PEOPLE who just want society to TAKE CARE of them instead of working for living!
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How is it when the economy is booming most people work but when it isn't many people decide to live off other people?
  It doesn't make sense to me.
  reply report
  74
  aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Except stealing does not equal paying taxes. That's a strawman argument - it makes no sense. I am happily supportive of taxing based on income.
  
  Also, I trust the government to collect taxes over um, vigilantism or whatever you described.
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In one situation, you ask someone to take money from a wealthy neighbor that he doesn't want to give away.
  
  In another situation, you have the government take money from a wealthy neighbor that he doesn't want to give away.
  
  That's the whole point. If you are morally against theft, then you have to be morally against forced taxation. That's the point of an analogy, it's the same principle, just a different scenario... but you would accept one but not the other.
  
  "We are living in a sick society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them."
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Again, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000-however, these people refuse to realize that dependence upon the government is SLAVERY. The government OWNS such people and THEY don't know it! Well, there are some people who prefer to be slaves; however, I and other intelligent thinking people DON'T. Independence is a WONDERFUL thing. It is OWNERSHIP and POWER! I have been TAXED enough-let others EARN theirs and stop the dependence game.
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You're correct. It is slavery. If I don't pay my taxes, the government will take away my possessions and even my freedom. Yet, a person just down the road from me doesn't pay their taxes, and gets large "refund" checks every year(paid for by people like me).
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the government will lock you up like any other thief.
  
  And are you trying to tell me that if you fell on hard times you wouldn't accept money out of the pot?
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If I was unemployed with NO investments and other independent means of support, I would take a job, ANY JOB, to tide me over until I was on my feet. When one is unemployed, he/she goes to the unemployment office where the counselors WILL find him/her a job. John, you AMAZE me really. I will NEVER be on the government's dole. I would work, even if the job is not to my liking. Responsible and mature people WORK.
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Remember all those stories about employers who couldn't get workers to work for them, even for jobs that pay upwards of $15/hr? Lots of farm jobs if I recall correctly, people just choose to take the easy way out a lot of the time.
  
  It's telling how John sees it. If one person works an ok job, they can get a $5000 "refund" from the government(actually from another taxpayer), and that's fine... but if you work really hard, and make a lot of money, then you're a "thief" if you don't pay your taxes.
  
  So, one guy gets money from his taxes = ok.
  If you don't pay though, you're a thief. Not only that, you have to pay faaaaaaaaar more than anybody else.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who is this person who works an ok job and gets a $5000 handout from the government?
  
  Is an ok job one which doesn't pay enough to live on?
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Analogous, "great" logic and mind "in action". Some people just perplex me to no end. Analogous, inverse logic is in operation. This owe me, anti-achievement mentality that some Liberals, I prefer Lieberals, have is analogous to the A student being derided and penalized because he/she studies and achieves while the D student garners much sympathy for his/her dire academic condition, everything being blamed with the exception of the latter's poor and/or negligent study habits. President Obama seems to be the president for the underachievers and antiachievers in this society.
  
  Analogous, I bid you a Blessed Night. I am off to bed after ordering sushi and a salad.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  GN, you do an excellent job of ignoring my points.
  
  Enjoy your rice and salad.
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Good night. Thank you for the cordial discussion, it's a breath of fresh air
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That says an awful lot.
  
  I'd rather discuss things with people that stretch me rather than have a friendly chat with a bunch of yes men.
  report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Have a Nice Night, John and Analogous. Thank you both again for this discussion.
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Night night, I hope you sleep well and awake refreshed and ready for the fray
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You don't get it do you?
  
  There are no jobs, I know people desperate for work who've been looking for years.
  I know people who are working but desperately unhappy in their jobs but afraid to leave because they know they won't easily find another job.
  
  There are no jobs.
  reply report
  79
  junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You might have a point if it was in fact "forced taxation". It isn't. We are a Democracy. Presumably you cast votes. You might not like the outcome. That happens occasionally to just about everyone, I despise the money the government takes from me to blow up kids on the other side of the world. Tough luck for me, though, and tough luck for you.
  
  You do have remedies. Leave. Or vote in representatives who will eliminate the taxes you don't like.
  
  The whole notion of it being "theft" and comparing it to an individual stealing from their neighbor is purposefully and daftly simplistic. Public monies are collected for the express purpose of advancing the public good. You calling it a name doesn't change that.
  
  And if you really wanted to examine this notion of a transfer of wealth, then you would have to do a full accounting. For example, where do you suppose the wealth of people today came from? Well, a good chunk of it is a direct result of the enormous subsidies following WWII that went to transportation, housing, and education, which built a gigantic middle class who had pocket money and free time.
  
  You know what is going to happen via the Affordable Care Act? More people will have insurance, more people will get to the doctor, more people will be healthy, more money will flow into the health system, and more people will be able to work or recreate than were able to before and so they'll be out making and spending money. Good for them. Good for EVERYBODY and that's the point.
  
  You, however, don't want to do such a full accounting. Why? I have no idea, but perhaps you ought to.
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Let's try another analogy. 3 people are in a room. Under the guise of democracy, two of the men vote to take the money of the third man. Does that make it ok?
  
  If you justify it with "well, it's ok, because Democracy", then you automatically think any Democratic action is moral. What if 55% of Americans voted to kill the other 45%? That would be Democratic...
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No,they aren't analogies either, time to get out your dictionary again.
  reply report
  61
  Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What about if 55% of Americans wanted to help heal the other 45%? Would you rather let them die?
  
  The system in the UK is rubbish but it works, if I am sick I go to my doctor, if my doctor sends me to the hospital and I have to stay a month (which I have had to do in the past) the one thing I know I will not have to stress over is whether my insurance or the money in the bank covers the bill. When I am well I shall go back to work and pay my fare share of tax (even if I think it is a bit steep).
  
  I am by no means a socialist (ask John) I see it as paying my insurance just in case I need it, what others pay doesn't concern me as long as I can call an ambulance, turn up at the doctors or hospital without checking whether I can afford it.
  
  The problem comes of course when people decide they are not going to pay the taxes or government politics totally screw up the system.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry about this, but 100% agreement with that
  reply report
  61
  Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Have you been taking my tablets John?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Reckon I must have!
  reply report
  79
  junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If the 3rd guy agrees to that framework of decision-making than absolutely it is right. As for the "all democratic actions being moral, of course not. That is why he have systems of checks and balances as well as the judicial system to correct for and/or prevent such egregious examples of wrong. That's another reason why your analogy doesn't work very well. It completely lacks the nuance, dynamism, and complexity of the larger system.
  
  And the ACA has in fact been taken to the judicial system, it just hasn't agreed with your side (in bulk).
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  When did the 3rd guy agree? He was just placed into that situation, and has to play by the rules. Maybe if he immigrated you would have an argument, but if he was born into it, there's not much he can do, especially since the often cited "If you don't like it, leave" requires that you earn enough money inside the system to do so, pay a fee for the privilege of doing so, and passing interviews before you are allowed to do so.
  
  This has nothing to do with the larger system. You argued for it being OK because it's a Democracy(it's not, actually a Democracy), so I showed why that argument doesn't hold up. A Democracy would not have those checks, if 55% voted for something it would happen.
  reply report
  87
  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh no! All the nation's wealthy have to pay an extra 0.04¢ because of my surgery!
  
  HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT ADD A FRACTION OF A FRACTION OF A CENT TO SOMEONE'S TAXES IN ORDER TO SAVE HUMAN LIVES
  
  THAT IS PURE EVIL
  reply report
52
AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago
Are we going to stick to the topic this time John?

I don't send my children to public schools, because I don't have any children. Yet, I still have to pay for those public schools. That argument backfires on you.

I drive on public roads, and pay a tax for every mile that I do, just like everyone else who uses them. That's not a disproportionate tax. Again, backfire.

Bridges are the same.

Police and fire are the same.

So now that I've responded to you, why don't you answer the first question I asked. Would you ask your neighbor to steal from another to pay for your bills?
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I bet you make use of other peoples children though don't you? You know, when one serves you in a shop, or bandages your wounds or whatever.
  
  The taxes you pay for the use of roads do not cover the cost of those roads, even none drivers pay!
  
  Bridges are not only paid for by those who use them, they are paid for by everybody. Likewise fire and police, both paid for by people who may never use them.
  
  Though I wouldn't expect my neighbour to steal for me you have obviously considered it.
  reply report
  74
  aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yup. I don't see why health insurance should be treated any differently than public education. Whether or not you use it (and you should use it) it makes society healthier and better well off, particularly the underprivileged who can't afford private.
  
  I am very happy to pay taxes that support "socialist" government programs like education, public parks, city infrastructure, police, and yes, people's health.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  John, there are essential and necessary taxes and there are superfluous and unnecessary taxes. Health care and welfare comes into the category of the latter. I, for one, feel that socialized health care is unncessary. Socialized health care diminishes the quality of health care. Obama"care" is a TOTAL WASTE of taxpayer's dollars. I WILL NEVER support such inanity, NEVER!
  
  There are ways of affordable health care that DOES NOT require everyone to be part of it. Individuals can work out their own particular health care through hospital and medical insurance programs without trying to bankrupt the nation. Individuals can also WORK for living instead of expecting other people's TAX monie$ to support their indolent way of life! YES, I SAID IT and AM PROUD! Socialism WILL NEVER happen in this great and wondrous country. I may be a Liberal but NEVER a naive LIEBERAL.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  GM, I explained to you in another post in another thread about how the evils of socialised medicine had helped me quickly to an almost full recovery from a stroke, how my ongoing medication was not a burden to me.
  
  Explain to me how none socialised medicine is better than me not having to worry about the costs of hospitalisation and medication?
  
  Obamacare is a move in the right direction but it is nothing like socialised medicine and to say that it is is divisive.
  reply report
  78
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The US spends close to $3 trillion per year, accounting for almost 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). We spend 2X to 4X more than any other industrialized country on healthcare. Yet for all this outrageously high spending, our ROI is notoriously low.
  I can cite you many studies on that.
  Here is one one how this is hurting US global COMPETITIVENESS.
  Hmmmm.
  http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I engage in voluntary trade that includes the work of minors, and they get paid for it. What is your point? That has no relevance to the topic of disproportionate taxation.
  
  The taxes I pay for the use of roads are exactly what other drivers pay, therefore that is not disproportionate either. Why don't you go back and read what the topic is about? It's about stealing from one person to pay for another. Completely different.
  
  I have obviously considered it? Where did you get that conclusion? I have said that it would be immoral to do so.
  
  Nevermind. I think I'll just have to refrain from discussing any topic with you if you're always going to act like this.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But what about the taxes that none road users pay for the upkeep of the roads?
  
  Those minors that you use have been educated and not by the amounts you pay them.
  
  And act like what? Showing up your arguments for being so selfish and ill considered?
  reply report
2. 83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Instead you could just pay another fee that is basically a tax (mandated insurance), and get the surgery.
  
  Problem solved, everybody happy.
  reply report
52
AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago
Still just changing and shifting things John. Acting like I said something different from what I actually said.

cor·dial (kôrjl)
adj.
1. Warm and sincere; friendly:

Has absolutely nothing to do with agreement.
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so!
  
  I didn't actually see any debate/discussion between the two of you.
  reply report
52
AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago
There you go again. Debate and discussion are not the same thing.

What we were doing is called discussion.

dis·cus·sion
disˈkəSHən/
noun
noun: discussion

1.
the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

You struggle with the simplest of definitions, so I'll ask again. Is English your second language?
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So, you've got a dictionary!
  
  I get along fine without one but in your case I may start using one.
  reply report
60
John Holdenposted 10 years ago
Look,here is my first use of the dictionary

de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

This is fun isn't it?
reply report
60
John Holdenposted 10 years ago
Oh look, and here we go again -

dis·cuss (d-sks)
tr.v. dis·cussed, dis·cuss·ing, dis·cuss·es
1. To speak with another or others about; talk over.
2. To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.
[Middle English discussen, to examine, from Anglo-Norman discusser, from Latin discussus, past participle of discutere, to break up : dis-, apart; see dis- + quatere, to shake; see kwt- in Indo-European roots.]
dis·cussa·ble, dis·cussi·ble adj.
dis·cusser n.
Synonyms: discuss, argue, debate, dispute, contend

Are you sure English is your first language?
reply report
52
AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago
If you take from someone who didn't agree to it, then it is absolutely forced. How can you say otherwise?

It can be forced, or voluntary. There are no other options. Having the option to vote for someone who might change it if they get elected doesn't change the fact that I have more of my money taken than my neighbor, and I don't do it voluntarily.

In the theft analogy, you could argue that the stolen goods are going to the public good too... It's no different.

With ACA, insurance premiums are rising tremendously. You think that's good? More people are losing their insurance and are going to be forced to pay for something they can afford. It won't take long for you to see the results if you're not willing to look at the effects now though. Oh, and not everybody is going to be insured. Estimates of 30 million are presented by the government itself.
reply report
1. 79
  junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You agree to it when agree to be a citizen of a democratic nation. For every decision there is someone on the losing side. That's part of the deal. You take it or leave it.
  
  You can choose to characterize it as taking from you to give to your neighbor, that doesn't make that correct. The taking is from the citizenry to the public. We all take and we all give. And you can not argue that the individual theft is going to the public good. By what way is it being determined to be the public good? It has no publicly agreed to framework for such a determination (as in a democratic vote).
  
  As for the ACA, I think the government and the punditry and the media are all wrong. They haven't been in touch with the street in a long time. The vastly greater numbers of people showing up to the healthcare sign-up page is pretty good evidence of this. They have no clue what this means to people (people who are largely disaffected) and so they won't accurately assess the results. That's just opinion, but at this point, I trust my gut over the government and punditry by quite a bit.
  reply report
52
AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago
People often don't like analogies, because it can force them to face their own inconsistencies of opinion. I've been there myself many times.

You can face it, or try to rationalize it, but only one choice will lead to your growth.
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A crass statement isn't an analogy.
  For it to be an analogy it has to include two similar events, not totally unconnected events.
  You liken taxation to theft, which it isn't however much you begrudge paying your way.
  reply report
2. 79
  junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I love analogies, but they have to be apt, not crafted to support a predetermined narrative.
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Crafted to demonstrate a principle, but that doesn't make it right.
  
  You try to rationalize it, presenting all these other options and arguments, without actually discussing the morality of the majority voting to take from the minority.
  
  Would you, or would you not, call the analogy with 3 men an act of morality? What about 55% killing 45%?
  reply report
  79
  junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We don't really NEED to talk about morality. We are talking about frameworks for decision-making. You either can agree to the democratic model or not, but agreeing to it and then not liking the result and throwing a tantrum is just the work of a child.
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What do you mean we don't NEED to talk about morality. That's what this thread is about.
  
  Why do you resort to insulting tactics? Is it not possible to discuss this rationally and maturely?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hm, where have I seen this reaction before?
  
  It seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of "rationally" or "maturely".
  Time to reach for your dictionary again.
  reply report
  79
  junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  YOU are trying to make the thread about morality, that doesn't mean that is what it is about. You are trying to equate an immoral individual act to be the same as a non-moral rational establishment of a framework for decision-making. They are nothing alike and there is no reason anyone has to accept that. I have no clue what exactly you consider me having said that is insulting or irrational so I can't really comment about that.
  reply report
  52
  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not allowed to say what the thread that I started is about? The first post very definitely was about morality, and you're demonstrating my point exactly. Just because you wrap an action up in "Democracy" doesn't change the nature of the action.
  
  The insulting part was "throwing a tantrum" and "work of a child".
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But you thought you were allowed to say what the thread I started was about!
  
  Double standards here I think.
  reply report
  79
  junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You can say whatever you want. Go for it. So can I.
  
  The first post may have been about morality, you have since tried to also make the ACA about morality. I have completely disagreed with that and have provided my reasoning (The ACA is simply a result of a rational decision-making framework). You can ignore that or address it, but what possible reason could I have to not say it?
  
  Not only have you tried to make the ACA about morality but you have tried to state the NATURE of that morality as being a bad one (i.e. one of unjustified taking and theft). Several of us have also disagreed with that. The motivation for the ACA is nothing more than a desire to improve the public well-being (a positive morality). But the motivations for why either side does what they do isn't relevant. If you agree to the framework ahead of time, you accept that a wide variety of moral motivations might go into people's decisions. People's moral motivations dont really change much, so you can't after the fact all of sudden decide you don't like those motivations, therefore the previous decision is invalid. It doesn't make sense. If you don't agree with the moral motivations of people and you are worried about how they will vote for things than don't agree to be a citizen bound to that framework. Simple.
  
  Personally, I consider shutting down the government to be a tantrum and the work of children, though, it wasn't necessary to state in such a way and so I apologize for any offense.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't even call it an analogy, where are the similarities?
  It is not enough to describe something as "being under the guise of democracy", for it to work you have to show that democracy has sanctioned something similar.
  reply report
52
AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago
Ok, I think a big area where we disagree is with the 'agreeing' to that framework. My position is, as it currently stands, you are forced into the framework through no agreement of your own, and you have to actively work to have a chance to remove yourself from it.
reply report
1. 79
  junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well heck, I'm on the wrong side of almost everything, so I feel your pain in that regards, but overall I think the framework of Democracy is pretty good and so I try and defend it. That doesn't mean I don't think there aren't serious problems with our government. There are. And I'm all for challenging them and working on them, but shutting down the government, to me, seems like completely throwing Democracy out the window. There's just no way we can function if a minority party can get their way via threats like that.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

You're sick and need a $25,000 surgery

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

You're sick and need a $25,000 surgery

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies