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.
Why do you think there is a VA, medicare, medicaid? Because for-profit insurance companies have no use for those who can't pay (the poor=medicaid) of course. They certainly didn't want to get into covering soldiers especially those at war (VA), and old folks have too many conditions (medicare). So your question has been answered years ago.
In the case of the VA it is because insurance companies do not as a standard practice cover "acts of war" it has nothing to do with not wanting to cover people that cant afford it. An underwriter can figure out how likely you are to break a leg, get hit by lightning, or have a heart attack...not so much for being bombed, or gunned down by an enemy soldier.
I don't recall how it worked out in the end, but I think I remember there being a big deal about the 9/11 attacks being declared an act of war for this exact reason. It would have given the insurance companies a perfectly valid reason not to pay out on life insurance and other related claims.
What I don't get about pre existing conditions is what happens when someone gets diagonosed, say, 6 months after getting a policy. Will they then have to pay a higher premium too? If not it's stupid.
northstar wrote:"Healthcare is a human right..." ......... [snip a bunch of stuff] ...... "Healthcare is not a business. It is NOT a business. It is a fundamental human right."
[protracted ideological, moral, and ethical screed edited for sake of brevity in quoting.... You then write this little gem, as follows].
"Lay your ideology aside for a second. How can you morally justify..." [whereupon you then once again give us your ideological opinion on the matter, after telling everyone else to put their ideology aside]
--------------
Oh for goodness sake.
Let us briefly recap,
First you delved into an ideological, ethical, and moral screed, whereupon you then ask people to "lay aside your ideology," thus not really even following your own advice.
Secondly, I don't know what you seem to think "ideology" means, but it seems as if you might labor under some illusion that something like political opinions are somehow fictionally value-neutral, as if they can ever be divorced from the substantive functional equivalent of morality and ethics (even moral nihilists do not believe this, they simply eshew the concepts of rightness and wrongness as being philisophical fictions). It is ones morality (which moral nihilists would alternatively prefer to frame as "personal behavioral preferences" - though the distinction logically functions the same either way) that is the basis for the construction of ones ethical framework, which in turn forms the basis of what is known as ones "ideology." They are inextricably tied, being part and parcel of each other.
Where do you think ideology arises from to begin with? Does it magically appear ex nihilo from the ether? Is it the byproduct of rolling dice, or throwing darts on a dart board with words placed upon it, whereupon whatever word the dart lands on forms the basis of the average persons ideology? Of course not. It arises from the aforementioned. It's a causal connection. You can't break the link without rendering the word ideology into a completely different concept.
People seriously need to stop misusing the word ideology.
I often see this on forums, and it generally takes two forms:
(a) The first is when people try to divorce ideology from its foundational underpinnings (discussed prior). The latter is subsumed by the former. That is the case we seem to be dealing with here.
(b) The second common mistake we often see with the misuse of the word ideology, is when one succumbs to the perceptual error caused by the presence of either a personal "baseline" ideology, or societal baseline ideology. This leads to a very simply cognitive bias error people make when speaking on the matter. You see this a lot whenever people are tending to address the "other guys" ideology, or otherwise ethics and ideologies which are "outside the mainstream."
The cognitive error is that people see their own preferred, or the mainstreams ideology as "neutral," or in otherwords, "perfectly normal" to such a degree that they they don't even perceive it as an ideology, they just perceive it as something that "is" (as if it were somehow value-neutral). They don't see it as being an ideology in the same sort of manner that you view your two hands as being perfectly normal such that you don't give it a second thought. But if you ever had a third hand, or saw somebody that did, one might take that as "abnormal," because it deviates from the baseline.
In fact, the Wikipedia article on ideology even makes brief mention of this subtle distinction:
"..... Dominant ideologies appear as "neutral", holding to assumptions that are largely unchallenged. Meanwhile, all other ideologies that differ from the dominant ideology are seen as radical, no matter what the content of their actual vision may be. The philosopher Michel Foucault wrote about the concept of apparent ideological neutrality....." - Wikipedia
This mistake people commonly make when they abuse the word ideology is encompassed in the quote above. To those who make this small cognitive error, it leads them to often refer to other peoples beliefs, or those outside the mainstream, as being "ideological," when in fact their belief is also ideological. It's simply the one they have grown so accustomed to, they think nothing 'ideological" about it.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 09-14-2011 at 08:11 PM..
in·sur·ance [in-shoor-uhns, -shur-] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.
Prior to 1920, the state of medical technology generally meant that very little could be done for many patients, and that most patients were treated in their homes. . . . . Hospitals did not assume their modern form until after the turn of the century when antiseptic methods were well established. Even then, surgery was often performed in private homes until the 1920s.
Given the rudimentary state of medical technology before 1920, most people had very low medical expenditures.
Originally Posted by JetJockey
Should I simply accept my fate?
10 years ago, 20 years ago and so on, and you wouldn't have had a choice.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey
What would you do of one of your children (real or hypothetical) were to get diagnosed with something similar?
People die. That's what happens, and humans are incredibly good at dying. I've seen people die all sorts of different ways. I was really naive until I had my first call to an auto-erotic "death by misadventure."
Death is a sad thing to be sure, but apparently some people would bankrupt the US to save a few million people or extend their lives.
Response to quote #1:
Irrelevant
To #2:
Wow, just wow!
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-14-2011 at 09:33 PM..
Society would take care of you, just like it does in pretty much every other developed country.
Besides, you getting taxed at a fair rate wouldn't cause you to lose "all of your money." Don't take everything to the extreme.
What about my right to want to take care of MYSELF and not take the huge risk that "society" will take care of me and do it in a way that I will be happy with, and in a way that allows me to leave a little something for my family?
I'm definitely not taking it to an extreme, if it cost me an extra $1000-$1500 a year in taxes to support your ideas, multiply that times a working career of 45-50 years, with investment interest compounding annually, and that certainly makes a big change in how I am able to care for myself in my last years.
Water is a basic human necessity too, but for the most part we are all required to provide this on our own, no?
For those who cant (and I mean extreme exceptions) there are programs in place. I'm focused on the vast majority of the population that is competent and able to work for a living.
is this a joke? what do you do, go out and lap up water like an animal at the pools in the road after it rains?
have you ever heard of a faucet? a tap? municipal water?
or do you take a bucket to the pond and drink that and get sick?
oh, and 6 months after the Romney-care, uh, I mean Obama-care bill was signed into law kiddies with PEC were automatically covered, or you couldn't discriminate against them. For us adults it'll take like 6 years. Yipee.
and I'd have loved for the media to have asked any Republicons out there if they tried to get the Children with PEC cluase out of the Romeny-care, uh I mean Obama-care bill and if they didn't why they think it's o.k. for kids with PEC to be covered but why then do adults have to wait years for the same, if it's good enough for the kiddies 6 months after the bill was signed why not adults?
is this a joke? what do you do, go out and lap up water like an animal at the pools in the road after it rains?
have you ever heard of a faucet? a tap? municipal water?
Come on, lets be serious, I'm pretty sure that you know what I mean. What I mean is that I pay to live in a residence that has plumbing, and I pay for the water that is used in my home....with no financial assistance from anyone.
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.
