OK, I will pretend for a moment that you are sincere.
I never found a reason to say (or write, as the case may be) anything I don’t believe in.
And based on your other comments I believe you are the too-clever-by-half libertarian realist that is so in fashion these days.
I don’t know much about what is currently fashionable and I have only the slightest idea what being libertarian actually mean. I find labels redundant and counter productive. I’ll ignore your backhanded compliment.
You wish to make a rationale structure of society that says if you get too sick and are not wealthy you should be allowed to pass.
Not exactly. There is a difference when we discuss a person unable to get an insurance, and people who believe that it’s a civic right.
Republicans are trying to assert that by making the insurance market less stable and more prone to fraud- and in the process transfer massive amounts of money “back” to wealthy people, lives of people in this country will improve.
I fail to see them making that assertion. I don’t find the merit in this assertion, regardless.
Mo Brooks was slightly more honest by admitting he sorts people into categories of “good life leaders” and “bad life leaders”, and he wants to avoid penalizing the “good life leaders” with the choices made by bad people.
It is my impression that Republican should not be allowed to speak publically (for the most part), every time I see Republicans quoted, it sounds like they are promoting the butchering of infants. They need to go through a course in ‘public speaking.’
Brooks might have a good argument here, but his use of ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ just makes him seem uncaring and condescending (which he might actually be — don’t know much about him).
The problem in what he is saying comes from wealth, or rather, the lack of it. It is a known fact that the poor have less freedom in what they eat and the time they can invest in their health. The bad food is cheaper and therefore the more money you have, the better care you can allow yourself.
The bigger problem is that no one (that I know of) WANTS to buy health insurance. They do not even care about access to health insurance.
Well, I don’t want to pay taxes either, but alas, no one asks me and I understand the necessity of them existing in the first place.
As I mentioned before, there should be a system that supports those who cannot access insurance.
We picking winners and losers among stakeholders while not addressing costs. We could not even address the original sin of health insurance in this country- the link between employment and premiums.
A bit vague, but what you describe here is a discussion more important than the actual policy. An understanding that the policy needs to be based on. You can’t have both discussions at the same time.
People NEED to buy health insurance because life happens. When they have an adverse health outcome, they make the reasonable assumption that care will be provided based on terms in their policy. That care is paid for by the premiums of other people. It is call a risk pool. If insurance products are allowed to exist that do not do this, society has failed. And if you find out your policy intends to do this once you get sick, your life will fail. Even in a libertarian fantasy world, that should be something worth avoiding.
This is why the government shouldn’t interfere (for the most part) with insurance. The result will be a crash in the insurance and healthcare market.
If someone is sick enough that they are unable to work and exhaust their financial resources, they lose insurance. The condition becomes pre-existing to all other companies.
Insurance, like many other business structures, work on risk/reward balance. An insurance company needs to make sure that they make a profit or at least break-even. The subprime mortgage crisis is an example of a situation where banks were “too eager” to please the masses and didn’t consider the ramifications. A similar crash could happen in the insurance market.
Of course, I’m not in favor of insurance companies not insuring an individual at all — unless it’s an extreme case, but it’s important not to close our eyes and miss the elephant in the room.
In summary, if you want to tell the author of this story that she became too sick for private resources to save her, that is your right
No. The author was condescending. Pretending that the awful and evil Republicans want her dead. They want to kill her. This is not an argument. This is a plea for emotions.
She cannot and will not consider the opposition to her ideals, the nuance of this decision, and the necessity of having a ‘pre-existing conditions’ clause.
But to suggest that your hard-headed rationality bears any resemblance to the policy discussion currently happening is ridiculous. Please stop.
Please explain to me how emotions can elevate the discussion on the policy? This is just a tactic to win the argument with personal morality and to derive authority from it — an awful aspect of the political discourse.
Consider your own one-sided argumentation about the topic and your own lack of perspective. I can agree with mine and how I hold two mutually exclusive ideas about a single issue. The author of the piece just imagines a world where there is only her perspective and any opposition is nothing but evil.
Perhaps the solution is in neither of those positions, but an alternate one. Perhaps both positions are valid and there needs to be a compromise between the two sides. Perhaps the scope needs to be expanded and not reduced, as is happening now.