This is not true. Care should be emergency care. Once you are stable you are on your way. Further diagnosis or a plan to manage your condition is not included if you don't have insurance.
Please get your facts straight.
This is not true. Care should be emergency care. Once you are stable you are on your way. Further diagnosis or a plan to manage your condition is not included if you don't have insurance.
Please get your facts straight.
Not only that, even if his numbers/comparisons were true and valid, 15% savings in overhead is a drop in the bucket.
Thanks for another good reason to take the entire profit and bonus driven motivation out of the health care system.
Thank you Craig, that was perfect. Moral conviction - you want to legislate morality now? Funny, there's a party that already tries to do that, you just happen to disagree with its morals. Morals are a perception, not an absolute. They perceive theirs to be correct; you perceive the opposite.
Slavery is wrong because it violates the basic freedoms and rights of each person. Duh.
Pretty damn vague lines there. Insure domestic tranquility? Police, fire, maybe a justification for FBI. Do we have riots, uncontrolled looting, violent mobs, lynchings, mass arson, et cetera, because of lack of healthcare? No. Therefore, domestic tranquility is in reasonable condition. As for promote the general welfare, that is even more vague than insuring domestic tranquility. In my opinion, that means provide an economically safe and reasonably healthy (i.e. no plague or epidemic) country, with sufficient liberties for a person to make their own success. You, clearly and unsurprisingly, view it very differently. I respect your right to have an opposing viewpoint, but I find it to counter some of the basic foundations of this country, among them a small government. As enjoyable and convenient as a government-provided healthcare may be, it goes against the design of a small federal government.
We are doing quite well in terms of defense; in fact, our "defense" has gone far beyond the level of defense, a point you are quite keen to drive home whenever you get a chance. We could cut our military budget to, as a quick guess, a fifth of where it is, and still be quite sufficiently defended.
You're posting based on a word game.
"Legislating morality" has a meaning of legislating based on morality - murder is morally wrong - and a meaning of excessively inflicting personal moral views on others - for example, making possession of a picture of a naked woman a crime. Since you can't completely reject it - murder legal? - or completely embrace it - ever moral whim of anyone enforced on all, often contradictory? - you have to find the reasonable balance of the two that you try to blur with your use of the phrase applies to my post.
There is a moral element to healthcare for people having nothing to do with the pejorative use of the phrase 'legislating morality' to, say, make adultery a felony.
Indeed, all the other examples I just mentioned but healthcare, and the phrase itself normally are about crims - where healthcare is about meeting a need, not a crime.
Countless laws we pass are for entirely or partially moral reasons - a tax credit for the blind, handicapped parking and access, Medicare, laws against murder, theft, rape, the law requiring emergency care be given to all, laws against animal cruelty - the list is very long. Of course, there are lines, such as 'protecting people from themselves', creating choices between competing rights, just as in the constitution. Motorcycle helmets are in the gray area, greatly reducing brain injuries while limiitting personal freedom.
You need ot back off on your tone - 'duh' is rude even if you were right, which you aren't.
finally, you are really confused in on the one hand condemning, wrongly though it is, the entire idea of 'legislating morality', and then wanting it both ways by condeming slavery.
What's wrong with 'violating the basic rights and freedoms of people', if not a moral issue?
And people who lack healthcare are missing something they need similarly.
You need to develop a sense of morality you are now lacking, and stop the blind ideology on economics, to understand the moral choices our society makes are served by economics, not the other way around. It'd be one thing if we were a 16th century nation in poverty, but we're not. We have a comple inter-dependant economy with plenty of wealth for basic needs of people and the system has a huge influence over wealth and poverty such that it makes a lot of sense to treat healthcare as a human right.
It's a political issue, and a moral issue, with economic elements - not an economic issue. What are our values, our morals?
As has been discussed in other threads, I'm not at all convinced that the foundation of our country was one of a 'small government', as many of our founding fathers wanted an extremely powerful federal government. (an almost tyrannical one in my opinion) The founding fathers had wildly different ideas of what the role of the federal government should be, and to be completely honest the people who wanted a small one lost.
Regardless, the powers that the Constitution grants Congress are vast, and they are vast on purpose. Whether or not you think it is the appropriate role of government to provide health care, the Constitution leaves that decision in the hands of Congress, and it would appear that Congress thinks that health care does in fact merit their attention.
I think a lot of people confuse the nature of our original government determined by the state of the civiization - technology, wealth, etc. - versus the principles.
They were a nation of rural farmers, basically, who weren't sure if Unicorns were real (Encyclopedia Brittanica said probably they were). Things are different now.
Some basic things - the need for political free speech - are analogous; others - the nature of the miltary for example, the nature of healthcare, of transportation - much less so.
Espxeically the nature of corporaitons, which barely existed early on, and were always strongly constrained to be limited to serving a somewhat specific purpose required to be for the public good, not the runaway powerhouses dwarfing and dominating governments in many ways that we have today.
Most people would agree that murder is morally wrong; however, in legal terms, it deprives the victim of their rights as a person. No legislation of morality there. It happens to coincide with societal norms of morals, but the reasoning can be found legally. You can try another, but a lot of what you would probably call moral legislation would go into the category of depriving another person of their rights (and/or property). Obviously, that covers theft, rape, arson, et cetera. At a glance, I disagree with the tax credit for the blind - but then again, I disagree with the majority of how the tax system functions as of now. Handicapped parking is for equal accommodation for physical disability, again, that isn't moral legislation.
You seem determined to follow with your misguided idea about the mechanism behind condemning slavery. Are you disputing that slavery infringes upon the rights of the enslaved individual? Simply enough, that slavery infringes upon someone's rights is enough to outlaw it, morals need not enter the equation. You seem determined to draw the basics of everything to morals - morals are subjective, and people will not always agree. This is why the rule of law exists.
I have a sense of morality, and I know enough that morals should not govern. You fully support using morals to establish laws you agree with by your morals, and don't support it for laws that you do not agree with by your morals. Do you not see the flaw inherent in this? Your comment that I have an ideological problem is laughable at best - you cannot even see your own hang-up over ideology. Just because our country has the ability to do something does not mean it should. Look at Iraq. Hey, we got rid of a psychotic dictator. Is that morally right to you? I'm going to guess no, invading another sovereign country and killing its people, whether aggressive or non-combatants, you will find wrong. The ability does not make something right.
Then I welcome the first signs of a possible revolution. It would be quite refreshing to see the masses actually give a flying fuck about what goes on in this country.
I'll tell my friend who has diabetes and depression that a doctor will see him right away in the ER! :roll:
Except that Congress is bought and paid for. They serve their interests (i.e. being re-elected, or what they morally as individuals feel is right), or the interests of corporations or other wealthy lobbyists. I wouldn't trust Congress, of at least several decades, to even run the cash register at the grocery store.
Congress has always been this way, in fact in the past I would say it was far more corrupt. Either way though, our Constitution does not base Congress' powers on what their motives are. (not sure how they would implement that one) In some ways it's sad, but it couldn't really be any other way.
The implementation of such a safeguard would be utterly impossible. However, I would still say that Congress's ability to make a good decision for this country is terribly flawed by their corruption. I'll try to make a better answer in the morning.
BS. Most employer sponsored healthcare do not have pre-existing clauses and you don't see those policies cost skyrocket. And you can do what those employer sponsored healthcare do, only once a year enrollment period, or one time life event, like getting married, give birth when you can enroll to get ride of those people getting insurance only when they are sick.
A 15% savings on on the gov't portion of 17.7% of GDP (what we will spend on health care this year) is a big deal.
And there is no 'economy of scale' argument, nor empirical data to back it up. There is, however, a recent 'commentary article' (i.e., opinion) from a mouthpiece for health care executives, co-authored with a d00d from the Heritage Foundation, circulating on the internets.
Or you eliminate pre-existing conditions, mandate everyone buy insurance, and slap significant fines on anyone who doesn't fall in line. The added risk is mitigated by the larger insurance pool.
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,648
- 2,924
- 136
Since you have ignored the empirical argument that I made, I will assume that you have no rebuttal. In that case, you are content to argue morality. I have been around long enough to know that you live in a world where your opinion is correct 1000% of the time and no rational discussion is possible, thus I will no longer respond to your blatant flame baiting.
There is plenty of empirical data. In fact, it's all government-provided. Everything you need is in the US Census and Health and Human Services websites.
[/quote]
I replied directly to your "empirical arguement," twice, with a precise statement appropriate to its significance. The operative word was BULLSHIT! because, when it comes to the very existence of our fellow human beings, there is no ethical or moral defense for putting profit ahead of human health and survival.
Until you understand that, your pathetic "empirical arguement" isn't even worth the price of real BULLSHIT because BULLSHIT can be used as fertilizer to help things grow, whereas all your greed based whining will do is kill people.
Thank you. It's about time you figured out I'm right and stopped your whining. :thumbsup:
Single Payer Health Care NOW! Pass Teddy-Care.
An interesting analogy. Unfortunate that the thread has so quickly devolved that it will never be discussed.
It's actually an ignorant analogy, because I don't think the OP understands what pre-existing conditions are used for by the insurance industry. Sub-prime mortgages required both the bank to give the loan and the loanee to default. Insurance companies are not currently covering pre-exisiting conditions, so the analogy falls flat on its face.
A pre-existing condition is simply not covered. There is no "pay 2x the normal premium." There is no cost to the insurance company. You cannot join an insurance plan and start collecting benefits to cover a prior diagnosed condition (at least not in NYS) so I don't know what he is talking about. The way the public plans have been structured is that they must be financially sustainable on their own, i.e., through premiums.
He also seems to be misinformed about how insurance works in the first place. It is the redistributing risk and costs of a single individual across a group (it is in fact, socialism) in order to minimize the impact any one person can have. That is why having more healthy people in the pool is better for the companies bottom line.
All of that ignores the ethical and moral debate of denying sick people coverage (and I'm referring specifically to people who were in the plan to start).
A pre-existing condition is simply not covered. There is no "pay 2x the normal premium." There is no cost to the insurance company. You cannot join an insurance plan and start collecting benefits to cover a prior diagnosed condition (at least not in NYS) so I don't know what he is talking about. The way the public plans have been structured is that they must be financially sustainable on their own, i.e., through premiums.
He also seems to be misinformed about how insurance works in the first place. It is the redistributing risk and costs of a single individual across a group (it is in fact, socialism) in order to minimize the impact any one person can have. That is why having more healthy people in the pool is better for the companies bottom line.
All of that ignores the ethical and moral debate of denying sick people coverage (and I'm referring specifically to people who were in the plan to start).
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,648
- 2,924
- 136
The crux of the OP's point is that under the currently proposed systems, pre-existing conditions could not be the basis for denial of coverage, which is also where the "2x" number comes from. You're talking about the current system and he's talking about the proposed system.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter