|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Settle in, because I am going to lay out some hard truths for you.
Conceptually everyone, even the "terrible Republicans", want people to have healthcare. They want people to have food on their plates, roofs over their heads, and cars in their driveways. We can all agree that the world *should* be this way. However, and this may shock you, it isn't for one very simple reason: Limited resources. We only have so much food, so many cars, and so many houses. We can make more, but that requires work, and there is again a limited amount of that. So how do we decide who gets what? There are many different ways of deciding how to distribute what is available, but the error I want to highlight is the idea that the argument presented in the OP ("Everyone deserves ______") is socialist. It isn't. A socialist method of distribution would require that everyone get the same amount of the limited resources, and the proposal in the OP is that everyone should get "enough" of the resource. It isn't socialist, it is naive. Requiring insurance companies to cover people who they consider to be undesirable investments is the same thing as taxing people to pay for their medical care, just through a private company. The insurance companies are not denying coverage just because they are greedy, they are denying coverage because it would require raising the rates of the healthier people to pay for the fat babies. Those fat babies *can get insurance*, provided they are willing to pay a higher rate. The complaining isn't that they cannot get insurance and healthcare, it is simply that they cannot get other people to pay for it. 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. ** Ok, next hard truth: People can consume a ridiculous amount of healthcare. Compare the concept of a free clinic run with public funds to that of a soup kitchen. People can go to the soup kitchen and eat the soup, which will be filling but hardly thrilling to the pallet. They don't serve lobster at soup kitchens for obvious reasons, but in the clinic it is different. What if someone should get an MRI? Who knows if they *need* the MRI, it would certainly be helpful. A toxicology workup would be nice, along with some blood tests for possible genetic conditions. All of those things are nice, and have good arguments going for them. But did you notice how the goals have changed from the soup kitchen? The soup kitchen's goal was simply to prevent people from starving to death; if the clinic had similar goals they would just be patching people up so they would live for the next day or two. Instead now the objective has morphed into providing a fulfilling life for the clinic patient, and that involves things like surgery to set a spiral fracture, something that isn't life-threatening but would make the limb useless. Who is to say where to draw the line? There is always something that would be helpful to do, like surgery to cover the scar, or physical therapy to aid in recovery. 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. Claiming that "everyone deserves healthcare" is like proposing a soup kitchen where you can order anything you wish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Modulous writes:
Why little to no underwriting profit? They are providing a service, are they not? Assuming there are other health insurance providers who can be used, competition should keep the margins low since they are interchangeable. If one company tries to charge more than the premiums and coverage warrant, then they would simply be unable to compete with the prices for their competitors. The premiums should be proportional to the payouts (ie., there should be little to no underwriting profit), and the only profit created should be in investments the insurer has invested in using the premiums that its customers supply. Legislation should focus on making sure health insurers fulfill their contractual obligations, there is no need to regulate profit margin in a free market. (People often overlook the ability to get insurance for practically anything. Assuming the risks are well-documented and they are not going in blind, an appropriate payment rate and payout amount can be arranged. It will involve overall profit on the side of the insurer, but that is to be expected when they are providing a service.) Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
Why? Tell me your justification for why someone deserves something they cannot afford.
But every single individual should expect some level of basic care above and beyond the emergency room when it may very well be too late. Jazzns writes:
The profit motive for a grocery store is to get as much money from you while providing as little food as possible. The profit motive of a customer at a grocery store is to get as much food as possible while parting with as little money as possible. The main point is that profit motive in private insurance encourages collecting permiums while denying coverage wherever possible. (Gasp!) Welcome to the world, Jazzns. Everyone is looking out for their own goals.
Jazzns writes:
They have to live up to their contract, and they don't have to cover things they don't include. What if the person buying the policy didn't want to pay for the chance occurrence of walrus attack, who are you to force them to cover it, and the buyer to pay for it? Or were you thinking the insurance company should just be forced to pay for it out of pocket, for no good reason?
Profit motive is fine as long as insurers are not allowed to scam people by issuing policys with a million little caveats in which they are allowed to deny claims Jazzns writes:
Ok, that is a good one. But insurance covering their risk should count, right? (Oops, thats the problem...)
not required to demonstrate they have the appropriate capital to manage their risk Jazzns writes:
And there we get to it. If you gave all your money to me, I could save at least one person with it. and as long as people do not DIE because of the decision of a bean counter! Oh, you don't want to? How do you like being a bean-counting murderer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
How nice that you seem to know what people really want, despite what their representatives say. Perhaps you are advocating a dictatorship of the telepathic?
Its a representation. IT doesn't change the fact that the PEOPLE want it regardless of if Congress does or does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
So your superior scenario would be draining someone else's savings to pay for your sickly child? I am still waiting for your justification for "My kid is sick, give me your stuff."
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Seems like a good bill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Izanagi writes:
I'm not Christian. If you are basing your ideas on what public policy should be off of the teachings of your religion, then you should reconsider the role of the government. Many Americans talk about being faithful to Christ and his teachings, but when it comes time to put their words into action, they balk and make excuses like "limited resources" and "it's not my problem." How Christian of them. Our government is not set up to find "good things" to go and fund. It has very specific duties, and should have good reason behind the assignment of each one. So far I have heard a lot about why having healthcare for everyone is a great thing and something to be proud of, but nothing about why taxing people to pay for it is a good idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
I didn't expect you to just come out and say it. You think healthcare is worthwhile for your kids, so you want to tax us for it. I suspect you also think feeding and clothing your children is worthwhile, so you seem to want to tax us for that as well. I suspect just about all you do of your own accord you consider worthwhile, so basically you are saying you consider it appropriate for public funds to be used for whatever you think should be done. Because if it is worthwhile to do, it is worthwhile to tax for it. You want to be a dictator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Izanagi writes:
There is always something more you can do to help people. You have to draw the line somewhere, or you will be devoting 100% of everyone's resources toward helping each other. The government of the United States of America was founded by the people of the United States to promote the general welfare of the people of the United States. You might be in support of that, but it tends to interfere with the whole "liberty" part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
As I said, there are certain aspects of healtcare that I think are appropriate for the government. To draw a parallel with your examples, it is extremely appropriate for the CDC to try to control potential outbreaks of diseases.
You will note that the fire department's help ends when the fire goes out; they don't help clean up or rebuild. That is what insurance is for.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024