Your genetic info can no longer be used for discrimination against you

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Despite what people think, this really, truly, is an actuarial issue. An insurance company is not a charity, morality is a null word for an insurance company, it's purely neutral.

ZV

The insurance company is not a charity, it's there to make a profit, like every other company. However, the legislators are there to look out for the benefit of society in general. Morality and human factors do come into play and need to be factored into their decisions.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Despite what people think, this really, truly, is an actuarial issue. An insurance company is not a charity, morality is a null word for an insurance company, it's purely neutral.

ZV

The insurance company is not a charity, it's there to make a profit, like every other company. However, the legislators are there to look out for the benefit of society in general. Morality and human factors do come into play and need to be factored into their decisions.

Morality is not the province of a secular government. The legislation of morality is one of the hallmarks of dictatorships and other oppressive regimes. Charitable organizations and "moral obligations" are the province of the private sector. Forcing your morality on another is wrong, regardless of whether that "other" is an individual or a corporation.

ZV

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
But that doesn't mean that a responsible company should be barred from using a very good predictor just because some companies handle things poorly.

ZV

Yes, it does. The good of the society in general > the good of using more accurate predictor of potential costs.

The basic concept of fairness seems to elude you. Lets say statistically people with red hair happen to have an extremely high chance of getting some disease that will cost a lot of money. From a purely actuarial perspective, it makes sense to significantly raise the premiums for people with red hair accordingly. The end result of that would be that most with red hair (something they can't control) would no longer have any coverage, they would be destined to be broke in their life. That's not a fair or acceptable outcome, even if it makes actuarial sense.

You also can't compare it with auto insurance rates, since auto insurance is not a basic human need like healthcare. You can choose to forego driving a car, but you can't forego medical care when it's needed.

You're trying to approach a human problem from a stricly analytical perspective without factoring in human concepts of fairness.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Despite what people think, this really, truly, is an actuarial issue. An insurance company is not a charity, morality is a null word for an insurance company, it's purely neutral.

ZV

The insurance company is not a charity, it's there to make a profit, like every other company. However, the legislators are there to look out for the benefit of society in general. Morality and human factors do come into play and need to be factored into their decisions.

Morality is not the province of a secular government. The legislation of morality is one of the hallmarks of dictatorships and other oppressive regimes. Charitable organizations and "moral obligations" are the province of the private sector. Forcing your morality on another is wrong, regardless of whether that "other" is an individual or a corporation.

ZV

Flat out wrong. The government represents the people, and it should reflect the will of the people. If the people have certain ideas of morality and fairness, then government policy will (and should) reflect those ideas.

Face it, bottom line, you are entitled to your views, but you're out in left field on this one.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Carmen813

From the reading I've done, even the people who hate medicare agree it is about 15% more efficient than private companies.

maybe so, got an article or something?

I can't stand HMOs. They place decisions in the hands of some private company bureaucracy where the bottom line is all that matters, taking away decisions from doctors and patients. The concern is always about money, never about humanity. They also have an abhorrent position towards the treatment of mental health, believing that all issues such as depression can be addressed in cute little 8-12 week therapy sessions, if they cover them at all.

ultimately the decision can always be made by the doctor and patient. that the doctor doesn't work for free or that the patient doesn't have enough money to cover isn't something people want to hear, but the world isn't always fair.

the HMOs succeeded in reducing the cost of medicine over the course of the 90s. unfortunately medicine is something whose costs increase due to the fact that any time something easy to cure is cured, what is left to cure/treat costs more to cure. the more rare the illness the less people there are to spread the costs around. ultimately you've got a skilled artisan with a limited number of hours in the day able to work on one problem at a time. that is about the most expensive way of doing things.

the most cost effective advances in the human condition have been proper plumbing and food safety techniques. neither of which are medicine.

http://www.examiner.com/a-5645...e_efficient_plan_.html

Article pretty blatantly doesn't like medicare. States that after factoring in things, medicare is more efficient. Also states that this may be due to medicare paying more out to older people.

"According to Litow, when all costs are included Medicare?s administrative cost ratio is around 5.2 percent. Administrative costs in the private sector average about 8.9 percent, and 16.7 percent when commissions, premiums taxes and profits are included (which are not applicable to Medicare).

Not so fast. Comparing Medicare with private sector insurance is difficult because the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries are 65 years old or older; while most private sector beneficiaries are under 65. As a result, the average Medicare payout ($6,600 per person per year in 2003) is higher than the private sector ($2,700 per person per year). That discrepancy favors Medicare?s administrative cost ratio."

My guess is that medicare will end up being more efficient regardless of this difference because they do not need to pay comissions, special taxes, or worry about profits.

 

[Carmen813]

ZV,
I haven't seen a response to what I consider a good argument against your stance. Many illnesses have numerous genetic markers, however having one of them does not mean you are going to develop the disease. Environmental factors play a significant role, as well as individual lifestyles. Simple looking at a chemical sequence and assuming the person is going to develop an illness, and thus charging them a higher premium, is flawed because it flatly ignores numerous other factors that influence the development of illness. I think you are overestimating genetics in its power to predict future health concerns. It is not a binary value, it fluctuates tremendously.

You are also ignoring the fact that many common ailments have genetic markers, and some have none at all yet are still common illnesses.

I agree insurance should be used for catastrophes, but that is a different argument.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

http://www.pogowasright.org/blogs/dissent/?p=874

On April 25, 2007, opposing [pdf] the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007, H.R. 493, Paul said, in part:

I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information.

This is pretty similar to:

I would remind my colleagues that 46 states currently forbid public facilities from engaging in racial discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of race.

This is not only a hypothetical argument; sadly, Paul actually has opposed the protection of equal rights by the government. He's against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, against protections in general on discrmination such as not allowing discrimination based on gender in salary, and has supported a variety of discriminatory gay laws from DOMA, to 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' to voting to not allow the gays in Washington, D.C. to adopt children. (His ratings on gay rights votes (HRC) and race rights (NAACP) are 38% and 39%, respectively).

There's always two sides - the right to your right not to be discriminated against, and the 'right to discriminate'. He seems to have more sympathy for the latter than most.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
But that doesn't mean that a responsible company should be barred from using a very good predictor just because some companies handle things poorly.

ZV

Yes, it does. The good of the society in general > the good of using more accurate predictor of potential costs.

The basic concept of fairness seems to elude you. Lets say statistically people with red hair happen to have an extremely high chance of getting some disease that will cost a lot of money. From a purely actuarial perspective, it makes sense to significantly raise the premiums for people with red hair accordingly. The end result of that would be that most with red hair (something they can't control) would no longer have any coverage, they would be destined to be broke in their life. That's not a fair or acceptable outcome, even if it makes actuarial sense.

You also can't compare it with auto insurance rates, since auto insurance is not a basic human need like healthcare. You can choose to forego driving a car, but you can't forego medical care when it's needed.

You're trying to approach a human problem from a stricly analytical perspective without factoring in human concepts of fairness.

So it's "fair" for people who have no condition to be forced against their will to pay for someone else's problem? How on earth can you even entertain the concept that such a thing represents fairness?

"Fair" means that I pay for my own problems. Fair has nothing to do with me forcing someone else to pay for things that don't affect them.

The good of society is absolutely subordinate to the good of the free individual. Society serves the individual. Individuals do not serve society.

ZV

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So an insurance company cannot use one of the most accurate risk-prediction tools to base their premiums on? Yay, I've always wanted to have my insurance premiums subsidize people who are at extreme genetic risk for expensive medical care.

ZV

What's it like living in your ivory tower? Must be nice being able to spit on everyone below you.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
ZV,
I haven't seen a response to what I consider a good argument against your stance. Many illnesses have numerous genetic markers, however having one of them does not mean you are going to develop the disease. Environmental factors play a significant role, as well as individual lifestyles. Simple looking at a chemical sequence and assuming the person is going to develop an illness, and thus charging them a higher premium, is flawed because it flatly ignores numerous other factors that influence the development of illness. I think you are overestimating genetics in its power to predict future health concerns. It is not a binary value, it fluctuates tremendously.

You are also ignoring the fact that many common ailments have genetic markers, and some have none at all yet are still common illnesses.

I agree insurance should be used for catastrophes, but that is a different argument.

I never said genetics should be the only factor.

I never said genetics should be used to deny coverage.

I never said that genetic indicators should be treated as guarantors of the eventual development of a condition.

Insurance companies currently use environmental factors (where you live, income levels, education levels, home ownership, type of job) and family history. None of those are guarantors of health conditions. Hell, even being a smoker is not a guarantor of developing cancer. Despite the fact that none of those are guarantors of the eventual development of a medical condition, they are all used to calculate premiums. What is inherently wrong with adding one more factor that can only serve to make the actuarial tables more accurate?

Logically speaking, there's no reason that genetic information should be treated any differently than information about one's environment, habits, or family history. The assumption that insurance companies will treat genetic information as a guarantor of the eventual development of a medical condition is an assumption that has no foundation in fact. In truth, based upon the way insurance companies are currently using the information they have, the evidence suggests that they will not treat it as a guarantor since they have not treated any other indicator in that manner.

ZV

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Despite what people think, this really, truly, is an actuarial issue. An insurance company is not a charity, morality is a null word for an insurance company, it's purely neutral.

ZV

The insurance company is not a charity, it's there to make a profit, like every other company. However, the legislators are there to look out for the benefit of society in general. Morality and human factors do come into play and need to be factored into their decisions.

Morality is not the province of a secular government. The legislation of morality is one of the hallmarks of dictatorships and other oppressive regimes. Charitable organizations and "moral obligations" are the province of the private sector. Forcing your morality on another is wrong, regardless of whether that "other" is an individual or a corporation.

ZV

I think this is incorrect. Morality can be separate from religion. If you define morality as "rules for the good of society and its people" then it is definitely in the province of any government or social structure to legislate morality. We have laws against killing one another. We have laws against stealing from another.

Every social structure has its rules for how its members should behave.

You seem to want the benefits of living in a social structure (laws and infrastructures to prevent others from harming you) but none of the responsibilities (why should I pay taxes for schools when I don't have any children?)

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: StormRider
I think this is incorrect. Morality can be separate from religion. If you define morality as "rules for the good of society and its people" then it is definitely in the province of any government or social structure to legislate morality. We have laws against killing one another. We have laws against stealing from another.

Every social structure has its rules for how its members should behave.

You seem to want the benefits of living in a social structure (laws and infrastructures to prevent others from harming you) but none of the responsibilities (why should I pay taxes for schools when I don't have any children?)

Laws against murder and theft have nothing to do with morality. They are practical laws without which it is impossible for a society to exist. A society that allows murder will dissolve as its members kill each other off. A prohibition on murder is a necessary element of a society's existence. A society that allows theft offers no protection advantage to an individual and therefore fails in its purpose. Morality doesn't come into play at all, only purely practical rationality.

I am perfectly happy to pay taxes in support of the police (common defense, and an enforcement arm for the law is necessary), or in support of the few things that cannot be easily handled by the free market (roads, traffic laws, etc). However, this country did just fine for nearly 100 years with schools being private institutions. There's no need at all for the government to run the school system. I also don't object to my tax money going to well-managed schools, but that's a personal choice and it should not be compelled by the government.

In its proper form, government is minimal. The government is best which governs least.

ZV

 

[sandorski]

Genetic Disposition to contract a Disease/Ailment does not mean that one will in fact contract that Disease/Ailment. The advantage of knowing what potential Diseases/Ailments a person may be at risk of is that allows one to make positive lifestyle decisions and also aware of what symptoms to expect for early detection. If you turn that info into a structural disadvantage, people will avoid finding out in the first place. Then there's the inevatible Caste like system that would come about.

If you value Freedom, you can not support Genetic Discrimination.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So it's "fair" for people who have no condition to be forced against their will to pay for someone else's problem? How on earth can you even entertain the concept that such a thing represents fairness?

Yes, it is perfectly fair. Society determined what it considers "fair", not you or I or any individual. If someone is disabled to the point where they could not fend for themselves, a civilized society pays for the basic human needs of that individual. Who pays for that? Yep, we all do. We all share the burden of caring for those who cannot care for themselves, even though you consider it "someone else's problem". Guess what, when you live in a civilized society, everyone has to share the load.

The good of society is absolutely subordinate to the good of the free individual. Society serves the individual. Individuals do not serve society.

Society can and does dictate what the responsibility of each individual within the society is, including paying for the costs of the society at large. Take a peek at your taxes and let me know if you have the option to opt out of paying for "someone else's problem".

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Maybe the problem was turning health care into a for profit business in the first place. I also see a problem with the current costs of medicine, they are out of reach of most normal americans. My wife is in trouble with her medical insurance, it would cost something like 600 dollars a month for one of her prescriptions. It's madness, there is no way anyone our age who isn't born with a silver spoon can afford the treatments she needs.

medicine has always been a for profit business.

Not only that, but remember that for every drug that is approved there are many, many blind alleys. That $600/month wasn't just for her prescription, it was recouping the cost of all the failed experiments that eventually led up to that prescription. Capping the price of prescriptions will only result in reduced R&D, which means fewer new drugs available overall.

Yes, the costs are a terrible burden, but the alternative is quite literally to not have some of those drugs at all.

ZV

That's true as far as it goes. Now add 100% for greed *in addition*, and you're onto another issue, one swept under the rug by your only mentioning the one issue.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So it's "fair" for people who have no condition to be forced against their will to pay for someone else's problem? How on earth can you even entertain the concept that such a thing represents fairness?

Yes, it is perfectly fair. Society determined what it considers "fair", not you or I or any individual. If someone is disabled to the point where they could not fend for themselves, a civilized society pays for the basic human needs of that individual. Who pays for that? Yep, we all do. We all share the burden of caring for those who cannot care for themselves, even though you consider it "someone else's problem". Guess what, when you live in a civilized society, everyone has to share the load.

The good of society is absolutely subordinate to the good of the free individual. Society serves the individual. Individuals do not serve society.

Society can and does dictate what the responsibility of each individual within the society is, including paying for the costs of the society at large. Take a peek at your taxes and let me know if you have the option to opt out of paying for "someone else's problem".

You are not speaking of a "society". You are speaking of a totalitarian regime. You are speaking of the tyranny of the majority, and you are defining "right" as "what the society thinks". Remember that society one thought that African Americans were only worth 3/5 of a person and that it was acceptable for people to own slaves. It was individuals who fought those societal definitions of "right". Society does not determine what is "right". Just because society has the power to compel individuals to do something does not mean that it is right for society to do so.

The simple fact is that while there is much wrong with the way the US is currently stealing from its innovative and successful individuals, the other options are worse. Just because I am strong-armed by the government does not mean it's a good situation. The difference between what is and what should be is quite vast.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Maybe the problem was turning health care into a for profit business in the first place. I also see a problem with the current costs of medicine, they are out of reach of most normal americans. My wife is in trouble with her medical insurance, it would cost something like 600 dollars a month for one of her prescriptions. It's madness, there is no way anyone our age who isn't born with a silver spoon can afford the treatments she needs.

medicine has always been a for profit business.

Not only that, but remember that for every drug that is approved there are many, many blind alleys. That $600/month wasn't just for her prescription, it was recouping the cost of all the failed experiments that eventually led up to that prescription. Capping the price of prescriptions will only result in reduced R&D, which means fewer new drugs available overall.

Yes, the costs are a terrible burden, but the alternative is quite literally to not have some of those drugs at all.

ZV

That's true as far as it goes. Now add 100% for greed *in addition*, and you're onto another issue, one swept under the rug by your only mentioning the one issue.

That sounds nice, but you have no proof. Pharmaceutical companies are certainly not operating on a 100% profit margin as your claim would indicate. A look at the financial statements can tell anyone that much.

ZV

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Article pretty blatantly doesn't like medicare. States that after factoring in things, medicare is more efficient. Also states that this may be due to medicare paying more out to older people.

which is what i was getting at

or worry about profits.

and, thus, very little incentive to actually worry about efficiency or drive down costs in general. the HMOs replaced traditional insurance because they drove down costs and so could charge lower premiums.

Originally posted by: sandorski
If you turn that info into a structural disadvantage, people will avoid finding out in the first place.

and that is the real problem. congress has made the determination that it is more valuable for people to know and have slightly higher insurance premiums in general than for people not to know and still have the slightly higher insurance premiums in general.

 

[JSt0rm]

Where do these people come from? It seems for every issue you get some num nut arguing some weird position. I just have to stop looking in P&N. To many totally insane people here ready to suck up every moment of your life arguing dribble.

This guy thinks hes a libertarian but I bet you top dollar if he was in the wrong position (and one day he will be) he will be crying for the medical work to be done on him. Only problem is, if he doesn't pay cash for that ultra rare procedure that will give him 6 more months hes out of luck. These people just don't get it.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

or worry about profits.

and, thus, very little incentive to actually worry about efficiency or drive down costs in general. the HMOs replaced traditional insurance because they drove down costs and so could charge lower premiums.

But this has not been the case, premiums have increased at a rate that far out performs wages, which for the middle class have barely kept pace with inflation. HMO premiums have increased something like 70% over the past 8 years.

Your arguement doesn't make sense either. If profits were the only reason needed to drive down costs than why would medicare even be *remotely* competitive with private industry? By that argument private industry should blow medicare out of the water, but it doesn't. In fact it shows that staying competitive with medicare seems to be the only objective.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Balt
You said in another post that you don't believe the genetic information should be able to be used to deny someone coverage, but that you think it should be allowed to adjust premiums. How would insurance companies get around that? Easily. They just make the premiums high enough that they know the client can't afford to pay them, the end result of which is the same as denying them coverage.

Yet, somehow, that hasn't happened with other types of insurance. 17 year old boys are still managing to pay insurance premiums on WRX STi's and V8 muscle cars.

Also, from a different post of mine:

If you are statistically likely to cost the insurance company more money, they should absolutely be able to increase your rates. Should they be able to deny coverage based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to price coverage such that it cannot be afforded based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to increase premiums without making them prohibitively expensive based on what is likely to happen? You bet.

I don't think you can really draw parallels between auto and health insurance with the cost of medical procedures today. An insurance company may be willing to insure a 17 year old with a sports car (whose parents are paying very high premiums) because their loss has a theoretical limitation if he totals it. On the other hand, is there really any cap on how much it can cost to keep someone alive and/or healthy these days? Even simple procedures can equal the cost of a car, and if the worst happens you can climb into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Balt
You said in another post that you don't believe the genetic information should be able to be used to deny someone coverage, but that you think it should be allowed to adjust premiums. How would insurance companies get around that? Easily. They just make the premiums high enough that they know the client can't afford to pay them, the end result of which is the same as denying them coverage.

Yet, somehow, that hasn't happened with other types of insurance. 17 year old boys are still managing to pay insurance premiums on WRX STi's and V8 muscle cars.

Also, from a different post of mine:

If you are statistically likely to cost the insurance company more money, they should absolutely be able to increase your rates. Should they be able to deny coverage based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to price coverage such that it cannot be afforded based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to increase premiums without making them prohibitively expensive based on what is likely to happen? You bet.

I don't think you can really draw parallels between auto and health insurance with the cost of medical procedures today. An insurance company may be willing to insure a 17 year old with a sports car (whose parents are paying very high premiums) because their loss has a theoretical limitation if he totals it. On the other hand, is there really any cap on how much it can cost to keep someone alive and/or healthy these days? Even simple procedures can equal the cost of a car, and if the worst happens you can climb into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There are caps on medical insurance policies as well. Read your policy. There will be a lifetime cap on payouts, as well as caps on the payouts for individual instances.

Also, automotive insurance does not cover just the car. It covers medical payments to injured parties, and property damage as well. My own auto insurance will pay out up to $300,000 in medical bills alone for one accident, and close to $400,000 by the time property damage and vehicle replacement are factored in.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Where do these people come from? It seems for every issue you get some num nut arguing some weird position. I just have to stop looking in P&N. To many totally insane people here ready to suck up every moment of your life arguing dribble.

This guy thinks hes a libertarian but I bet you top dollar if he was in the wrong position (and one day he will be) he will be crying for the medical work to be done on him. Only problem is, if he doesn't pay cash for that ultra rare procedure that will give him 6 more months hes out of luck. These people just don't get it.

I hear that a lot from people who've never met me. Never heard it from anyone who actually knows me though. Wonder why...

I've been down. That's what family and friends are for. I don't go crying to the government or to strangers though. Never will.

ZV

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So it's "fair" for people who have no condition to be forced against their will to pay for someone else's problem? How on earth can you even entertain the concept that such a thing represents fairness?

Yes, it is perfectly fair. Society determined what it considers "fair", not you or I or any individual. If someone is disabled to the point where they could not fend for themselves, a civilized society pays for the basic human needs of that individual. Who pays for that? Yep, we all do. We all share the burden of caring for those who cannot care for themselves, even though you consider it "someone else's problem". Guess what, when you live in a civilized society, everyone has to share the load.

The good of society is absolutely subordinate to the good of the free individual. Society serves the individual. Individuals do not serve society.

Society can and does dictate what the responsibility of each individual within the society is, including paying for the costs of the society at large. Take a peek at your taxes and let me know if you have the option to opt out of paying for "someone else's problem".

You are not speaking of a "society". You are speaking of a totalitarian regime. You are speaking of the tyranny of the majority, and you are defining "right" as "what the society thinks". Remember that society one thought that African Americans were only worth 3/5 of a person and that it was acceptable for people to own slaves. It was individuals who fought those societal definitions of "right". Society does not determine what is "right". Just because society has the power to compel individuals to do something does not mean that it is right for society to do so.

The simple fact is that while there is much wrong with the way the US is currently stealing from its innovative and successful individuals, the other options are worse. Just because I am strong-armed by the government does not mean it's a good situation. The difference between what is and what should be is quite vast.

ZV

You are a sad human being. I truly hope that you never have the misfortune of having a loved one be condemned to certain death because they were not able to pay the inflated medical costs. On the other hand, I feel that it would be a perfectly valuable lesson for you, and the rest of the like-minded sociopaths such as yourself.

If premiums are scaled to the likelihood of potential costs with regard to health problems, then many people who haven't a choice in their condition will be doomed to certain death. Sure, anyone can pay a $10,000/mo premium if they need it--IF THEIR NAME IS FUCKING DONALD TRUMP.

Also, if you find yourself and your family to be genetically superior human beings, then why don't you just opt out of your health insurance altogether? I'm sure you can afford the occassional doctor's visit, the routine lab work, and the once-in-a-while emergency room visit for bumps and bruises out of pocket--JUST THINK HOW MUCH YOU'LL SAVE!

You will sleep better at night knowing that you're not supporting the useless cost-inflating lives of us untermenschen. Fucker.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So it's "fair" for people who have no condition to be forced against their will to pay for someone else's problem? How on earth can you even entertain the concept that such a thing represents fairness?

Yes, it is perfectly fair. Society determined what it considers "fair", not you or I or any individual. If someone is disabled to the point where they could not fend for themselves, a civilized society pays for the basic human needs of that individual. Who pays for that? Yep, we all do. We all share the burden of caring for those who cannot care for themselves, even though you consider it "someone else's problem". Guess what, when you live in a civilized society, everyone has to share the load.

The good of society is absolutely subordinate to the good of the free individual. Society serves the individual. Individuals do not serve society.

Society can and does dictate what the responsibility of each individual within the society is, including paying for the costs of the society at large. Take a peek at your taxes and let me know if you have the option to opt out of paying for "someone else's problem".

You are not speaking of a "society". You are speaking of a totalitarian regime. You are speaking of the tyranny of the majority, and you are defining "right" as "what the society thinks". Remember that society one thought that African Americans were only worth 3/5 of a person and that it was acceptable for people to own slaves. It was individuals who fought those societal definitions of "right". Society does not determine what is "right". Just because society has the power to compel individuals to do something does not mean that it is right for society to do so.

The simple fact is that while there is much wrong with the way the US is currently stealing from its innovative and successful individuals, the other options are worse. Just because I am strong-armed by the government does not mean it's a good situation. The difference between what is and what should be is quite vast.

ZV

You are a sad human being. I truly hope that you never have the misfortune of having a loved one be condemned to certain death because they were not able to pay the inflated medical costs. On the other hand, I feel that it would be a perfectly valuable lesson for you, and the rest of the like-minded sociopaths such as yourself.

If premiums are scaled to the likelihood of potential costs with regard to health problems, then many people who haven't a choice in their condition will be doomed to certain death. Sure, anyone can pay a $10,000/mo premium if they need it--IF THEIR NAME IS FUCKING DONALD TRUMP.

Also, if you find yourself and your family to be genetically superior human beings, then why don't you just opt out of your health insurance altogether? I'm sure you can afford the occassional doctor's visit, the routine lab work, and the once-in-a-while emergency room visit for bumps and bruises out of pocket--JUST THINK HOW MUCH YOU'LL SAVE!

You will sleep better at night knowing that you're not supporting the useless cost-inflating lives of us untermenschen. Fucker.

More strawmen in there than a whole field full of scarecrows. Wow. Just plain wow.

Tell me where I said that people should be denied care. You'll never find such a statement. That charity (and it absolutely is charity) should flow freely from free individuals. An honorable man (or woman) would donate to hospitals and to other programs that provide reduced-cost (or, better, free) medical services to those who cannot afford them otherwise. I would (and do currently) support such ventures. I simply believe the government has no business strong-arming people into it.

And we're all "doomed to certain death". You, me, everyone. From the moment we're born, we're dying. I will die someday. I try to live like I already have.

ZV