Who do you REALLY side with?
-
The questoin about health insurers and birth control had no good answer, so i chose other:
"Health insurers can cover birth control if they want to. But the government should have no authority to compel an insurer to provide any product or service whatsoever. The government certainly shouldn't have the authority to compel an insurer to provide a particular product at a particular price"
-
DaveH;326598 wrote:
Agree^^^I don't know how the government thinks it should be able to tell an insurance company what they "have to" cover in their policies.
I mean, if they want to attract certain "customers", they will offer the coverage. If not, people can go elsewhere, no?
-
ah the free market.... a beautiful thing.
-
People seem to forget the meaning and intent of the word "insurance" when it comes to health. They use "health care" and "health insurance" interchangeably. You hear things like "we must make birth control available to everyone". It's available. Go buy it. With money. Being fertile is not some unexpected circumstance brought upon a woman by accident or misfortune...
-
[email protected];326602 wrote:
People seem to forget the meaning and intent of the word "insurance" when it comes to health. They use "health care" and "health insurance" interchangeably. You hear things like "we must make birth control available to everyone". It's available. Go buy it. With money. Being fertile is not some unexpected circumstance brought upon a woman by accident or misfortune...Nowadays the buzz word "available" seems to mean "free".
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;326604 wrote:
Nowadays the buzz word "available" seems to mean "free".But, to some people saying "Yes, that IS available" still makes it unattainable. A Bugatti Veyron is AVAILABLE, but it is not attainable by most people. (Not referencing contraceptive's here specifically... free contraceptives have been available for free ever since Nixon signed a law funding planned parenthood back in the 70's.... that socialist bastard!)
I find it fundamentally wrong that the more money you have the more likely you are to have advanced healthcare options. If every life is precious and must be protected while it is in the womb, the same rules should apply once they are born.
Currently about 45,000 people per year die due to lack of insurance. What if just one of them turned out to be the next Einstein or Reagan?
The more I study it, the more I think single payer makes sense....at least in theory
-
78%
Gary Johnson
I side the most with Gary Johnson on issues of Social, Domestic policy, Healthcare, and the Economy. More info
74%
R. Lee Wrights
I side the most with R. Lee Wrights on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, and Healthcare. More info
72%
Ron Paul
I side the most with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, and Healthcare. More info
58%
Mitt Romney
I side the most with Mitt Romney on issues of Domestic policy and Science. More info
56%
Rick Santorum
I side the most with Rick Santorum on issues of Domestic policy, Healthcare, Immigration, and the Economy. More info
56%
Jimmy McMillan
I side the most with Jimmy McMillan on issues of the Economy and Domestic policy. More info
56%
Kent Mesplay
I side the most with Kent Mesplay on issues of Domestic policy and Science. More info
53%
Newt Gingrich
I side the most with Newt Gingrich on issues of Domestic policy and Healthcare. More info
50%
Barack Obama
I side the most with Barack Obama on issues of Science and the Environment. More info
48%
Buddy Roemer
I side the most with Buddy Roemer on issues of Healthcare and Domestic policy. More info
45%77%
Libertarian
56%
Green
50%
Republican
50%
Democratic -
Trafik Jamz;326605 wrote:
I find it fundamentally wrong that the more money you have the more likely you are to have advanced healthcare options.The more money you have the more likely you are to have nutritious food, a nice warm place to call home, and pretty much everything else in life. Should the government intervene in everything we do to make sure poor people have the same quality of stuff as more wealthy people?
Trafik Jamz;326605 wrote:
If every life is precious and must be protected while it is in the womb, the same rules should apply once they are born.Wow, thats quite a stretch. Being protected from being killed is quite different from being guaranteed "free" medical care, don't you think?
Trafik Jamz;326605 wrote:
Currently about 45,000 people per year die due to lack of insurance. What if just one of them turned out to be the next Einstein or Reagan? The more I study it, the more I think single payer makes sense....at least in theoryIn reality, most die from poor life choices, not lack of insurance. Perhaps the government should attack the root cause instead of waiting for the treatment stage. We should all be given 3 nutritious meals per day, a nice one-bedroom apartment, be forced to exercise 30 minutes a day (to be verified by big brother), anyone caught smoking, drinking, or anything else harmful to our health shall be placed in a government institution and weaned off the offending substance before being sent back, etc etc....
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;326610 wrote:
The more money you have the more likely you are to have nutritious food, a nice warm place to call home, and pretty much everything else in life. Should the government intervene in everything we do to make sure poor people have the same quality of stuff as more wealthy people?In reality, most die from poor life choices, not lack of insurance. Perhaps the government should attack the root cause instead of waiting for the treatment stage. We should all be given 3 nutritious meals per day, a nice one-bedroom apartment, be forced to exercise 30 minutes a day (to be verified by big brother), anyone caught smoking, drinking, or anything else harmful to our health shall be placed in a government institution and weaned off the offending substance before being sent back, etc etc....
Troof, poor people are generally poor due to their poor decision making.
-
DaveH;326610 wrote:
The more money you have the more likely you are to have nutritious food, a nice warm place to call home, and pretty much everything else in life. Should the government intervene in everything we do to make sure poor people have the same quality of stuff as more wealthy people? They already do to a degree with the foodstamp programWow, thats quite a stretch. Being protected from being killed is quite different from being guaranteed "free" medical care, don't you think?
I never said free. Nothing is free. But they should be able to get the same basic care to keep them from dying that a more well to do person would. There will always be haves/have not's. I get that. What I don't get is why your ability to stay alive should be dependent on how much money you make.
In reality, most die from poor life choices, not lack of insurance. Perhaps the government should attack the root cause instead of waiting for the treatment stage. We should all be given 3 nutritious meals per day, a nice one-bedroom apartment, be forced to exercise 30 minutes a day (to be verified by big brother), anyone caught smoking, drinking, or anything else harmful to our health shall be placed in a government institution and weaned off the offending substance before being sent back, etc etc....
Life choices account for a large part, I can agree with that. And I really don't want the gov't telling anyone that they HAVE to do anything.
(Hypothetically speaking from this point on) IF there were a single payer system (or universal multipayer), I'm 100% ok with surcharges for people who knowing choose an unhealthy lifestyle. If you are fat, you are a higher risk, you need to pay MORE for coverage. If you smoke, you pay more. If you do drugs you pay more. Etc, etc, etc... And single payer isn't 100% accurate on how I'd want it done either. I'd rather see a German type system where you choose the coverage you want (basic coverage to keep you alive if you do get sick) but it is a universal multi-payer system. Multiple PRIVATE insurance companies provide the coverage, however the fed pays the bill for the base coverage.... if you want more/specific coverage, you pay out of pocket for that.
So I guess to answer thrash's question, I worded my own statement wrong/poorly. I think everyone has the right to life saving procedures and treatments beyond emergency room care (providing industry standard care for cancer, etc...) However, if you want experimental/high tech/advanced treatments beyond the normal scope, I'm ok with being able to pay that out of pocket or with specialized supplemental coverage.
-
I don't understand the dependence on insurance. I personally think that if health insurance only covered catastrophic or major surgeries and treatments that healthcare costs would go down. Especially if paired with some form of tort reform so doctors didn't have to worry about being sued into oblivion.
If you go in because you have the sniffles it costs so much because the leg work to get paid is ridiculous. If insurance didn't cover that and everyone paid market value a walk in appt would probably cost a max of 50 bucks.
-
Trafik Jamz;326614 wrote:
I think everyone has the right to life saving procedures and treatments beyond emergency room care (providing industry standard care for cancer, etc...)Where does this right come from? Do I have it when I am alone on an island? What will motivate the majestic palms and the sandy beaches to heal my cancer?
Suppose I have a rare condtion called "Portmano Lethalisrexia". Basically, the cells in my forebrain are constantly getting sick and dying off. Without treatment, I'd live about 72 hours. However, with a simple treatment, I can lead a normal lifestyle and be a productive member of society.
The treatment for Portmano Lethalisrexia is simple -- I lay down and the heavenly touch of Natalie Portman's hand is applied to my forehead. I receive this treatment in 4 hour applications, every 48 hours. Lately it's been from 8am till noon, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. Nobody can quite explain how it works, but the radiant aura of Mrs. Portman's hand reverses the cell necrosis and completely restores my brain function. I lead a normal life - I work hard at work and I can be a father for my children.
Mrs. Portman has been very understanding and accomodating, but as the number of patients with this condition seems to increase, it's getting difficult for her to find time to eat, act, and do more basic stuff like hang out with her friends. I feel bad for her, but I'm going to die if she stops doing it. It's just a few hours of her time, right? And it's not like I did anything to deserve this.. some people like me are just unlucky, you know?
I'm glad that in this country I have a right to receive lifesaving emergency medical care, and on-going treatments for chronic conditions that would be terminal if left untreated. I have to admit, I am a little concerned about what will happen to me if Mrs. Portman gets some kind of hand injury, or ends up getting sick, or heaven forbid, leaves the country or dies or something. When I was first diagnosed, she tried to skip the country but the goverment was able to stop her at the airport, luckily. For the first few weeks they were actually treating me at the county jail -- Mrs. Portman was being kept in custody, you see. We've had time to smooth things over though, and now she just wears one of those ankle bracelets so my doctors can keep tabs on her whereabouts. She has a special government agent that lets her take it off if she's going to be shooting a movie scene where she'll have exposed ankles. They've been pretty understanding and flexible with her work schedule.
I guess there are a lot of people in the country that don't care about people like me, and don't think I deserve to live. They talk about how much it is costing them to pay for all this government monitoring and handling of Mrs. Portman, they keep talking about how unfair it is to a rich beautiful actress like her.
Well, what about me? Do my kids not deserve a dad because I'm not rich and beautiful? Where's the fairness in that?
-
Does the "right" NEED to come from anywhere other than human compassion and caring about the well being of others? For me, it does not. I personally think that everyone has a right to have the opportunity to live their life to the fullest. Standardized Basic Health (treatments/insurance/whatever you want to call it), Standardized Basic Education (standard curriculum for K-12), and Standardized Basic Government Services (Law enforcement, fire departments, etc...) are things that I feel EVERY civilized society needs to succeed. Some of these things can happen at a local level, some will (unfortunately likely) need some federal involvement.
I realize my idea has it's flaws as well so there would need to provisions that allow for changes within it as well.
-
Trafik Jamz;326619 wrote:
I personally think that everyone has a right to have the opportunity to live their life to the fullestBut you don't actually beleive that. Or rather, that beleif is in conflict with other things you've written. You don't beleive doctors, for instance, have the right to have an opportunity to live their life to the fullest -- you beleive that their patients have a right to be treated. Do doctors have the right to take time off work? Do stop practicing when they want to retire?
Healthcare, education, law enforcement, etc -- when you call these things rights, they are POSITIVE rights. Positive rights require the cooperation and sacrifice of someone else. All positive rights are immoral because they depend on compulsion.
You cannot simultaneously beleive that doctors have the right to live their life to the fullest while at the same time beleiving government has the right to force doctors to provide services to people who have the "right" to basic healthcare. You have a contradiction you must resolve.
It's not a matter of patching up some things with your ideas -- Establishing positive rights fatally contradicts human freedom.
Tell me, what rights do sufferers of Portmano Lethalisrexia have?
-
integra_gsr98;326617 wrote:
I don't understand the dependence on insurance. I personally think that if health insurance only covered catastrophic or major surgeries and treatments that healthcare costs would go down. Especially if paired with some form of tort reform so doctors didn't have to worry about being sued into oblivion.If you go in because you have the sniffles it costs so much because the leg work to get paid is ridiculous. If insurance didn't cover that and everyone paid market value a walk in appt would probably cost a max of 50 bucks.
In principle I agree with you. People go to the Doctor for WAAAAAY too many stupid reasons. As a parent, I know that I am guilty of taking Jaiden in for minor things as well, but I've had a brush or two with more serious issues (that I thought were minor) that I took him in for that had I not he would likely not have his hearing today (What I thought was a sinus infection was in fact an ailment in his ear that was causing his eardrum to bleed ever so slightly and giving him foul smelling breath normally associated with a sinus infection.) Had I treated it like normal, he would have gradually lost his hearing I'm told. Since then, I tend to take things more seriously.
The truth of the matter is early detection leads to MUCH greater likelihood of survival and at lower costs. Preventive maintenance aka annual exams, etc.. (much like changing oil on a car) goes a long way toward prevention of catastrophic failure. I truly think insurance would cost more if EVERYONE went in only for major problems when they arise, rather than catching them much earlier on.
Tort reform (The changes CBO looked at in 2009 included a cap on non-economic damages at $250,000, a cap on punitive damages at $500,000 and shortening the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits) is estimated to save 2% annually if implemented. It would help, but it wouldn't be the magic bullet.
Don't get me wrong, I understand where all of you are coming from on a legal/constitutional standpoint. I really do. I also think that maybe the constitution needs to be changed if it is deemed unconstitutional. I just find it hard to believe that a country such as ours can't come up with a better solution than the other countries that have some form of universal healthcare coverage.... keeping in mind that most of those governments currently pay less per capita for health costs than our country does.
-
thrash;326620 wrote:
But you don't actually beleive that. Or rather, that beleif is in conflict with other things you've written. You don't beleive doctors, for instance, have the right to have an opportunity to live their life to the fullest -- you beleive that their patients have a right to be treated. Do doctors have the right to take time off work? Do stop practicing when they want to retire?Yes, I do. I think Doctors have a right to live their life to the fullest. Where did I state otherwise? I believe that patients have a right to be treated. Yes. Does that mean we need more Doctors? Possibly. I didn't state that EVERY doctor has to treat every patient. Just that every patient should have access to the same BASIC standard of care.
Healthcare, education, law enforcement, etc -- when you call these things rights, they are POSITIVE rights. Positive rights require the cooperation and sacrifice of someone else. All positive rights are immoral because they depend on compulsion.
If that is immoral, I can live with knowing that I have immoral ideals. Life requires the cooperation and sacrifice of others.
You cannot simultaneously beleive that doctors have the right to live their life to the fullest while at the same time beleiving government has the right to force doctors to provide services to people who have the "right" to basic healthcare. You have a contradiction you must resolve.
I didn't say they won't be compensated. I didn't say that they would need to work longer hours and/or at lower pay. I actually think they would make more money with my system. Many Doctors are the owners (to some degree) of their clinics/hospitals. I am not forcing them to be open longer. I am not forcing them to choose that profession. I am not forcing anything really. If the Hospitals/Clinic can not keep up with patients they will add doctors/nurses/etc.. if not, the patients will go elsewhere. You said a while back that you thought that the AMA should be abolished as they actively restrict the number of new doctors. I agree with you.
It's not a matter of patching up some things with your ideas -- Establishing positive rights fatally contradicts human freedom.
So, you are in favor of abolishing the fire department, police departments, highway systems, etc? Seriously?
Tell me, what rights do sufferers of Portmano Lethalisrexia have?
In my example, whatever the industry standard of care is for that or a similar condition. If no such standard has been developed, then I would assume that you have me in a catch 22. No system is perfect, not even Libertarianism.
-
I guess I consider it hard to consider oneself "civilized" if we are willing to let others die due to financial situation. I know I'm at odds with others on that (and often times myself). It's much easier to say "If you can't afford to get medical attention you should die" than it is to say "Let's find a way to provide services to help treat life threatening conditions for all".
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login