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.
Some of those moral decisions have destroyed this country. Time to thin the herd a little.
I am not certain what country you live in, but I live in the United States of America. Far from being "destroyed" it remains the greatest nation on the face of the planet.
And having lived in others, I know wherefore I speak.
HD, thank you for the detailed reply. Since health care in the US is bascially unrationed for those age 65 and up via Medicare, doesn't the question really boil down to "Should we limit care of the elderly instead of the poor?"
It is fascinating to me that you believe those to be the only two options. I do not believe it need be one or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
I've got no beef with fixing pre-existing conditions, or curbing insuror abuses, or limiting care of the elderly. I'm not arguing whether people are getting shut out of the US system now. I just think the issues should be laid on the table--and one of the issues is that the elderly would lose part of the health care access that they currently have, if we could wave a magic wand and adopt any of the examples of "100%" coverage from the rest of the civilized world.
Does that concern play out when we look at the numbers? Almost every one of those other countries have life expectancies that exceed our own.
Whatever the effects might be, it does not appear than any single payer system on the planet is rushing the elderly to their graves in order to free up resources for the younger.
It's not about not having regard for your fellow man and nobody is claiming that the poor are trash. It's about wanting people to take control of their own lives. If the people in these jobs are making ends meet, so be it, that's their choice for their life. If not, they should try to move up. If these workers are okay without having health insurance or a job that offers it, that's their prerogative. Why is it up to you (or the gov't, in this case) to say what he should or should not have? Leave it up to him.
It is not true that everyone in a job w/o health insurance is there by choice. For some, this is the best they can do. Why do they not deserve health insurance? They are people, too.
I'm all for people "working their way up" as well, but what about when they're down at the bottom of the wages ladder? Don't they deserve health care coverage, too?
Whatever the effects might be, it does not appear than any single payer system on the planet is rushing the elderly to their graves in order to free up resources for the younger.
Great post, thanks for the link.
I think one of the dirty little secrets that will eventually come out is that a LOT of big-ticket procedures now done in the US are having zero impact on mortality. We ought to end up with better care for more people for the money we spend.
It is not true that everyone in a job w/o health insurance is there by choice. For some, this is the best they can do. Why do they not deserve health insurance? They are people, too.
I'm all for people "working their way up" as well, but what about when they're down at the bottom of the wages ladder? Don't they deserve health care coverage, too?
No. No one deserves health insurance.
Health care is a completely different animal.
Now this discussion is getting interesting. So if we agree that the poor shouldn't be left to die then it's a matter of agreeing on how their care should be paid for. Because whether government provides health care through tax revenue or the hospitals eat the cost of the uninsured and pass it on to the rest us, we're all still paying.
Now this discussion is getting interesting. So if we agree that the poor shouldn't be left to die then it's a matter of agreeing on how their care should be paid for. Because whether government provides health care through tax revenue or the hospitals eat the cost of the uninsured and pass it on to the rest us, we're all still paying.
That is something a lot of people don't seem to understand. I think we should go with whatever delivers the most care for the lowest cost. If that's health ins. (and I don't think it is) then all employers should offer it.
Are you going to step in and pay for it when some employers cannot fit that into their budgets? Some will likely have to close and/or lay people off so they can afford to pay for Obamacare if it is enacted. Hello increased unemployment!
Are you going to step in and pay for it when some employers cannot fit that into their budgets? Some will likely have to close and/or lay people off so they can afford to pay for Obamacare if it is enacted. Hello increased unemployment!
Your question is a strawman argument.
I'm certain that you are aware that companies get a tax deduction for the health insurance premiums they pay, and that a lot of these threats to close are just posturing.
Please provide a link to prove that unemployment will go up if all employers are required to provide insurance.
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.
