|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Let me just ask you this, in the UK basic health care is essentially a right is it not? If so, do you agree that it should be? For most definitions of 'basic health care' - yes.
I was about to reply a bit harshly but figure maybe it has something to do with the literal ocean between us. Now that I am warned - I'm also curious. Do you have a problem that I am making my living as a result of the insurance industry (I'm not an organ grinder or anything, just a monkey)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
You basically did not respond to any of the points that I was making.
Nobody is talking about unlimited amounts of health care for everyone. It is noteworthy that every single other industrialized nation has defined pretty well a standard level of care for which every single citizen has a right to have.
That is greed, plain and simple. Not on the part of the insurance companies, but on the part of the OP who thinks that others should be forced to pay for your healthcare. And yet we have absolutly NO PROBLEM paying for everybody elses "firecare" and "hurricancare" and "crimecare". Is it equally unjustifiable that people who happen to live in neighborhoods with low crime pay for the police who spend most of the time in the "bad" neighborhoods? I find it APPALLING that you can call "greed" the desire to live when you have a perfectly manageable and cureable disease or accident, perhaps by no fault of your own. Nobody, not even the MOST liberal advocates of health care reform are advocating unlimited health care for everyone.
We have limited resources. We *cannot* afford everything that can be done to help people, and we don't have the ethical right to choose for them what can be done. The choice should be made by the person themselves, according to how many resources they choose to devote to it of their own. Which is a TOTAL strawman of what I was saying, or what anybody is proposing a single payer or other universal system should be. Also, what resources does that baby have if tomorrow he is diagnosed with lymphoma? Apparrently his only "choice" is to die? If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Modulous writes:
Umm, no it isn't? The idea of insurance is, for the insurer, to provide the benefit of a large pool of capital to cover unexpected eventualities in exchange for a rate of return higher than inflation. Otherwise they would be wise to invest their money elsewhere rather than devoting it to what is in essence charity.
But profiting from insurance (either as an insured or as an insurer) is against the principles of insurance... Modulous writes:
Hmm, that sounds like a monopoly. Don't we have laws against that?
...such as large insurers artificially increasing the premiums to mutually increase their profits... Modulous writes:
No, that is totally the goal of a free market. It is just that the goals of a government are not always in line with the goals of a free market.
...but it is fundamentally against the principles of a free market.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
So you do realized that what I am talking about is insurance to provide 'basic health care' by pretty much any reasonable definition.
I certainly do not mind medical insurance for stuff beyond that. I just hope you realize that in the USA, if you happened to get a treatable cancer right now, assuming you couldn't afford care or are unable to obtain charity, you would probably die. I don't think it is that way in the UK. Luckily for that little baby, he is probably covered by the single payer system called SCHIP assuming his parents are poor enough. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
Then I feel compelled to note that I don't live in any of those other nations, and I think ours is better.
It is noteworthy that every single other industrialized nation has defined pretty well a standard level of care for which every single citizen has a right to have. Jazzns writes:
The police are the regular soup kitchen, which you will note I didn't say was a bad idea. However, if you want more security like armed guards patrolling your estate, guess what? You can *pay* for it from a private company! Gosh, what an idea! Is it equally unjustifiable that people who happen to live in neighborhoods with low crime pay for the police who spend most of the time in the "bad" neighborhoods? Also, who is to say that the police spending a lot of their time in the bad neighborhoods isn't of benefit to the good neighborhoods?
Jazzns writes:
Desire to live is expected, it is GREED when you want to take from others to help yourself.
I find it APPALLING that you can call "greed" the desire to live when.. Jazzns writes:
Depends, can he pay for it? Can he get a loan? Loans happen all the time you know.
Also, what resources does that baby have if tomorrow he is diagnosed with lymphoma? Apparrently his only "choice" is to die?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The idea of insurance is, for the insurer, to provide the benefit of a large pool of capital to cover unexpected eventualities in exchange for a rate of return higher than inflation. Otherwise they would be wise to invest their money elsewhere rather than devoting it to what is in essence charity. They do invest 'their' money elsewhere. It's actually their customer's money. As I said - 20% of LSE is owned by insurance companies. That's where they should make their money. The motor insurance industry in the UK often runs at an underwriting loss (one year I remember it was about 100million) but the insurance companies don't collapse because they make a lot more money investing their customers money.
...such as large insurers artificially increasing the premiums to mutually increase their profits...
Hmm, that sounds like a monopoly. Don't we have laws against that?
It's not a monopoly - that is when only one company can provide the goods or service and especially is in a position to prevent others from entering a market. Price fixing is illegal, as is insurance fraud. But making things illegal does not remove the concept of moral hazard in finance. As we should know only to well.
...but it is fundamentally against the principles of a free market.
No, that is totally the goal of a free market. The goal of a free market is regulate profits by legislation? Really?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
Here in Canada we have decided that a person should not live or die based on how rich they are. The idea that money should be the deciding factor over life or death is considered to be inappropriate here.
We do not have a perfect system but it delivers more and better health care than the US at a lot less cost. This seems to be a result of a society that acts with more Christian charity than the so-called "society" of the USA while having half or less as many theists per capita.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Why? Tell me your justification for why someone deserves something they cannot afford. The easy answer is because we are not sadistic monsters without care for our neighbors wellbeing. The perhaps better answer is because there is a public interest in doing so, AND the public wants us to. Overwhelmingly in fact. Furthermore, it is the EXACT same reason why we give away free fire and rescue protection, free public education, free disaster recovery, etc. EVERYONE is better off because of those things and not just the people who are recieving benefits disproportionate to their contributions. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So you do realized that what I am talking about is insurance to provide 'basic health care' by pretty much any reasonable definition. Yep - and it should exist. It is my view that a government should provide healthcare for all its citizens who in turn should pay an income adjusted tax or insurance towards running this.
I certainly do not mind medical insurance for stuff beyond that. I just hope you realize that in the USA, if you happened to get a treatable cancer right now, assuming you couldn't afford care or are unable to obtain charity, you would probably die. I don't think it is that way in the UK. It depends how much it costs. The NHS won't pay for all treatments. They will refuse certain drugs that cost too much, and then you have to beg with the local NHS trusts and we get what is often called a 'postcode lottery'. And if you are still out of luck you might need to go somewhere else, like the USA or Switzerland or something. It ain't perfect over here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Modulous writes:
No, actually it is their money. The insurance companies have agreed to pay for certain classes of expenses, not to provide the customer's money back to them. The fact that they pay for the service is another issue, the companies don't have pools of "customer money" or one big pot that belongs to "the customers". They have obligations they must fulfill from their own resources, and a stream of income in exchange for those obligations.
They do invest 'their' money elsewhere. It's actually their customer's money. Modulous writes:
And making stealing illegal does not stop theft. Sometimes endless work is not a bad thing.
But making things illegal does not remove the concept of moral hazard in finance. Modulous writes:
Got that mixed up with you saying that the goal of insurance providers wasn't profit.
The goal of a free market is regulate profits by legislation? Really?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Also, who is to say that the police spending a lot of their time in the bad neighborhoods isn't of benefit to the good neighborhoods? Ummm...Yea!!! Exactly!! The same actually applies to basic health care it turns out!!
Jazzns writes:
Depends, can he pay for it? Can he get a loan? Loans happen all the time you know. Also, what resources does that baby have if tomorrow he is diagnosed with lymphoma? Apparrently his only "choice" is todie? I'm trying to think of some dispationate argument to reply to this. But all my brain can come up with is that you are a sick fuck. Damn you! If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
Then this overwhelming majority should have no trouble passing the healthcare bill, right? Or perhaps this "overwhelming majority" is a little more divided than you care to admit?
The perhaps better answer is because there is a public interest in doing so, AND the public wants us to. Overwhelmingly in fact. Jazzns writes:
A public service I can support, but having it as the *only* option is not.
Furthermore, it is the EXACT same reason why we give away free fire and rescue protection, free public education, free disaster recovery, etc. EVERYONE is better off because of those things and not just the people who are recieving benefits disproportionate to their contributions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
Think of the BABIES!!! (waggles arms and legs in a fit)
I'm trying to think of some dispationate argument to reply to this. But all my brain can come up with is that you are a sick fuck. Damn you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Then this overwhelming majority should have no trouble passing the healthcare bill, right? Or perhaps this "overwhelming majority" is a little more divided than you care to admit? Since when has Congress ever had the exact pulse of the people? Its a representation. IT doesn't change the fact that the PEOPLE want it regardless of if Congress does or does not.
A public service I can support, but having it as the *only* option is not. Nobody is suggesting that. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I have 2 children who are both healthy, they were not always both healthy.
I have what some people call "gold plated" health care thanks to the job that I am fortunate enough to have. And keeping my little girl alive and healthy completely drained my family's savings. We planned for her expenses years in advance. If I had happened to be poorer, she may not be alive today. You are a fucking monster. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024