Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Secure shelter"??? If you were interested in a secure shelter, then you shouldn't buy in dangerous areas. You choice, no one is making you buy there. If you do, then pay more or take the risk.
If you get leukemia, alzheimers etc. it is not due to a choice. Totally different. By the way, I fully support smokers paying more for health insurance, because that is a CHOICE.
Who makes the decision an area is dangerous?
Who should get to judge this?
As to choosing what of drug addicts?
Overweight people?
Those who engage in risky sex?
Extreme sports enthusiasts?
Those who play contact sports for either fun or professionally?
Perhaps the list of those who would be allowed would be shorter....
I'm assuming you're trying to make an argument against people who say it's unfair that health insurance companies that charge more when people have pre-existing conditions. People choose where they live more than they choose whether they've had preexisting conditions or not, so it's not really a good analogy at all. On the other hand, sometimes it isn't a choice and the government certainly has a responsibility to provide shelter and aid to those whose homes and fortunes are destroyed by disasters, I think, although it largely failed the last time, after Katrina.
Actually I am trying to expand upon the ideas some of you have.
If access to universal healthcare is a right,then so should access to a secure home.
And for you or others to decide whether one is worthy smacks of discrimination.
In our area,the majority of those living are poorer black people who have lived here for hundreds of years,to think you would deny them their heritage is shameful.
Drug users would be denied healthcare, as would smokers,those who engage in risky sexual behavior,those who knowingly have a poor diet,etc etc.
I wouldn't deny anyone healthcare, I would however charge those more that make bad health choices, in an effort to give them an "incentive" to change those bad habits.
What if they cannot or will not pay?
You are in essence denying healthcare,that is indeed a shameful thing to do.
The insurance companies, combined with an approval from state government.
Quote:
Who should get to judge this?
The insurance companies who are responsible for paying. In the case of NIPA flood insurance, the government pays as if it were an insurance company (using homeowners premiums), but sometimes needs taxpayer money.
Quote:
As to choosing what of drug addicts?
Overweight people?
Those who engage in risky sex?
Extreme sports enthusiasts?
Those who play contact sports for either fun or professionally?
I would imagine that the decision would fall on whomever is paying out. Currently, the private health insurance companies would decide. If the federal gov't were to offer a healthcare solution, I would think that whatever agency they offer it under would be charged with making these risk-management decisions.
You are in essence denying healthcare,that is indeed a shameful thing to do.
no I am NOT denying anyone. I would do it as others countries do, deduct a percentage from payroll. Those that are unemployed would be covered under their unemployment benefit.
Interesting how quickly you change your tune, so now it is "shameful" to deny coverage, not what you usually say. I think you are just being a troll
The insurance companies, combined with an approval from state government.
The insurance companies who are responsible for paying. In the case of NIPA flood insurance, the government pays as if it were an insurance company (using homeowners premiums), but sometimes needs taxpayer money.
I would imagine that the decision would fall on whomever is paying out. Currently, the private health insurance companies would decide. If the federal gov't were to offer a healthcare solution, I would think that whatever agency they offer it under would be charged with making these risk-management decisions.
no I am NOT denying anyone. I would do it as others countries do, deduct a percentage from payroll. Those that are unemployed would be covered under their unemployment benefit.
Interesting how quickly you change your tune, so now it is "shameful" to deny coverage, not what you usually say. I think you are just being a troll
You would deny service,if a person refused to change their behavior you would demand they pay more,if they could not pay more you wouldn't provide the service.
Not sure where the unemployed enter into the discussion,in a universal system coverage is....universal.
Is it shameful for private insurance companies to deny coverage,if it is then it would be shameful for a NHS to do the same.
Is having secure shelter a basic human right,as basic as a NHS?
If so I can't see where a government system put in place where we all pay in and equalise the amount isn't 'fair' and 'just'.
To penalise a person for the location of their home should be as shameful as penalising a person for their health.
You would deny service,if a person refused to change their behavior you would demand they pay more,if they could not pay more you wouldn't provide the service. Nope, i wouldn't be question of "demanding to pay more" and refusing to pay more, it gets deducted from your pay, end of story. I like the single payer system and in a single payer system the "premiums" are paid by either the employer/employee, the government, in case of unemployed or poor.
Is it shameful for private insurance companies to deny coverage,if it is then it would be shameful for a NHS to do the same.
What is it with your obsession on the NHS. You need to broaden your horizons a bit. Is having secure shelter a basic human right,as basic as a NHS?
[I]A secure shelter wouldn't be in a high risk zone, anyone who builds in those is responsible for the extra risk they are taking. Having a right to shelter, doesn't mean oceanfront property. The government should help rebuild once, after that you are on your own. You can take the money you get after your house is destroyed and move to a safe area. Why should the same place get rebuilt again and again?
[/i]If so I can't see where a government system put in place where we all pay in and equalise the amount isn't 'fair' and 'just'.
To penalise a person for the location of their home should be as shameful as penalising a person for their health.
I guess you don't get the point that you do not CHOOSE your health for the most part. However you do entirely CHOOSE the location of your home, that you PURCHASED.
Katz,I thought you wanted a gov't controlled healthcare system?
Why would employers be involved?
And by the way I am using NHS for National Healthcare System,simply using the abbrevation,it is easier than typing out the whole thing.....
If you prefer some other term go right ahead and use it.
Mnay people live in the same area they grew up in,as I stated ealrier we have black families here who have been on these islands for hundreds of years,should they be forced off because they aren't rich enough to pay the sky high insurance costs?
And many people DO choose their health,what you put in to your body and how you take care of it directly affect your health.
As people have stated,a large percentage of Americans are considered obese,there is an easy cure for this condition...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
