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.
Again, if you think it doesn't you need to re-read your own OP -- the question you asked people was, and I quote: "Why is it necessary or beneficial for a person with a lot of money to have better health care than a person without a lot of money?"
As to the ACA not reducing resources and access to people with employer plans, you are wrong. Let's start a list going,
1. Tax on medical devices increasing their cost
2. Tax on healthcare plans (flat % of premium) means higher copays, reduced benefits, smaller networks, or higher premiums
3. Cadillac tax if paid does the same as the premium tax, if it causes employers to drop or degrade plans does far more damage.
4. Structure of Medicare quality stars incentive system encourages insurers to narrow their networks, and once they start the research and process of figuring out how to do that for MA they can then apply the cost-side of those tools to their employer plans as well (additionally providers may stop accepting commercial plans when cut out of MA networks).
and that's just the 4 things that immediately come to mind, ignoring the host of smaller changes in the law and the general nebulous harms of additional unfunded government spending.
Like I said, this thread is not about the ACA. Continue with your strawman argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
Are you seriously saying that convicted murderers should be selected as recipients for scarce organs over normal citizens? I don't even know how to respond to this, your moral system is completely alien to mine and to the general viewpoint of people in western society, heck in human society period.
Not really. I think pre-meditated murderers should get the death penalty to begin with.
However, in the case of 2nd or 3rd degree murder, what business is it of yours to decide who is "more human" than the next person? Whether you agree with it or not, convicts are humans. Even terrorists are humans (prisoners get health care....). Maybe you should take that up with your neoconservative government...
A 72 year old isn't taking any life away from a 23 year old.
Why are you equivocating people to commodities?
(Spoken like a true corporation)
Ceteris Paribus:
If there is one organ and the two donees are 23 and 72 then giving to one effectively takes life away from the other. Sure, we could assume that another organ will come up, but when we have to choose who gets the organ first we should include years of life gained into the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelva
Of course, sound nice and hide the truth - swell.
Are you considering past contributions to society or future? Never mind, don't bother answering that.
If there is one organ and the two donees are 23 and 72 then giving to one effectively takes life away from the other. Sure, we could assume that another organ will come up, but when we have to choose who gets the organ first we should include years of life gained into the equation.
A computer algorithm would agree with you.. but morality would not. Ironic, conservatives are usually the ones bet on "fairness."
Then again, conservative politics usually reduces human life to some sort of number.
I have one simple question regarding adoption of a single-payer, federally funded national health care system. It is directed to the opponents of such a system.
Why is it necessary or beneficial for a person with a lot of money to have better health care than a person without a lot of money?
Why is it necessary for a person with a lot of money to pay your way. Is it right to take from someone just because they have more.
A computer algorithm would agree with you.. but morality would not. Ironic, conservatives are usually the ones bet on "fairness."
Then again, conservative politics usually reduces human life to some sort of number.
Technically the algorithm would disagree with me since age isn't supposed to be a factor, though I think the expected recovery is. Not sure about that one though.
Where is the morality in the equation? We have one organ and two people. Who gets the organ if the people are equally in need?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Cut off their life support, eh?
No, just up their premiums. People on Medicare take out $3 for every $1 they paid in, so increasing premiums is reasonable.
A computer algorithm would agree with you.. but morality would not. Ironic, conservatives are usually the ones bet on "fairness."
Then again, conservative politics usually reduces human life to some sort of number.
Look, there are Y people each year who need a particular organ (hearts, livers, etc., let's exclude Kidneys here because the fact that we each have two and can live with one complicates things) and X available. X people will get a transplant and Y - X = Z will die.
We currently do things like your OP wants for healthcare in general -- we don't allow them to be sold. This costs lives -- if people could check a box on their licence in addition to the current one which instead of having their organs go into the public system if they die and they are recoverable instead has them auctioned off and the proceeds go to their family, a lot more people would check one of the two boxes in total and X would be larger and Z would consequently be smaller.
We don't do that though -- we say society doles them out instead and can discriminate in who gets them, and that policy has a real, tangible cost in human lives. That discretion does allow things to be done like give them to people more likely to have a transplant take, more likely to have a higher post-transplant lifespan, etc. It allows us, if we want, to favor people who aren't addicted to hard drugs, who haven't committed major felonies, etc.
If you want to restrict organ sales - which you clearly do - but don't want to allow society to set priorities on recipients, then you are literally advocating throwing away people's lives for nothing. If we pay the price of making the recipients a public decision, we should take advantage of that to make them go where they will do the most good in providing the most quality adjusted life years to people who play by societies rules and don't harm others. If we're not willing to do that, we should take the actions that maximize the number of people willing to give their organs after dying. Doing neither is senseless.
Last edited by ALackOfCreativity; 11-30-2014 at 06:01 PM..
If there is one organ and the two donees are 23 and 72 then giving to one effectively takes life away from the other. Sure, we could assume that another organ will come up, but when we have to choose who gets the organ first we should include years of life gained into the equation.
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.
