CSNbbs

(05-12-2021 01:39 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]But to backup a bit, when you say the words "health insurance" what do you mean?

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]By health insurance, I mean the means by which we finance our health care. The actual definition. That includes the government as well as the myriad of individual decisions and options that are part of it. Much of what you talk about is a value judgement on those components... and ignores the reality that many people can't possibly afford the cost of their own care, often through no fault nor lack of responsibility of their own. If you want that sort of society where 'survival of the fittest' is the norm, that's fine... but we would differ here, and I'm 'on the right' of this issue.... just not that far right. I believe supporting those who cannot support themselves (through no fault of their own) is a reasonable goal and purpose for government and a developed society. My issue is with the lies being told about it. If its such a good thing, you shouldn't need to lie about it. Despite what the left likes to argue, the majority of 'the right' isn't 'in bed with' wealthy business owners. Again, it is telling that the ONE aspect of the ACA that focused on 'taxing the rich' (The Cadillac Tax), somehow never passed the Democratic controlled House, Senate or White House.

Hmmm...a bit to unpack here, but I appreciate the discourse.

tl;dr version: an attempt at explanation of difference and commonalities in thinking and approach.

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]By health insurance, I mean the means by which we finance our health care. The actual definition. That includes the government as well as the myriad of individual decisions and options that are part of it.

So, and correct me if I am reading what you said wrongly, you equate insurance with finance, as in you are saying that:
health insurance=health finance. My financial industry background always emphasized that insurance and finance were two separate, though sometimes related things, especially on the Series 7, but perhaps they have changed the definitions in the intervening years.

When I see the word "insurance" my thinking is the legal definition: a contract whereby, for specified consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for a loss relating to a particular subject as a result of the occurrence of designated hazards.

When I see "finance" I think to the origin from Middle English finaunce, maeaning settlement, money supply, from Old French finance, payment, from finer, to pay ransom, from fin, end, from Latin fīnis.] In Commerce: funds or the provision of funds, which to me seems different from "insurance" where there is a reason or risk transfer factor involved in the providing of funds.

I believe you take the finance definition to encompass insurance as providing the funds for, leaving out the reason or risk transfer aspects.

So, our difference seems to be that for you, "health insurance" is whatever mechanism pays for, or finances, the costs involved, and for me, "health insurance' involves the sharing of and/or transfer of responsibility for risk.

Which, if you can see, shows why I take the perspective I do. I don't necessarily presume that risk must automatically be assigned to mere financing involving compensation for loss of another, which to me appears quite different form undertaking a financing of an endeavor or project, especially when government elements are involved. I suppose the key is the "loss" aspect, which mere financing does not seem to me to encompass in this usage. Perhaps that sheds some light on things?

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]If you want that sort of society where 'survival of the fittest' is the norm, that's fine... but we would differ here, and I'm 'on the right' of this issue.... just not that far right.

I'm not sure from reading your responses we are differing in such a Spartan way on this issue. I believe we both would like some mechanism for helping those who suffer misfortune. We seem to differ on the mechanism and the assignment of transfer. Again, for me it is an assignment of transfer, and for you it appears more de facto cost. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I read your initial statement I quoted here.

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I believe supporting those who cannot support themselves (through no fault of their own) is a reasonable goal and purpose for government and a developed society.

While I definitely believe in finding ways to help those whose fortune is down on at any given moment (which happens to everyone many times in a lifetime, to varying degrees) I seek voluntary ways to encourage this assistance rather than the heavy-handed government mandates that many feel abridge our Creator-given Free Will, from which our own very government derives its own powers, as our country's enlightened Founders rightly (in my opinion) surmised. As did they, myself and millions of others take any assault on, usurpation of or abridgement thereof any of these essential and unalienable rights quite seriously, especially when it is assumed by non-elected administrators and self-proclaimed elites. Those parameters encompass the very totalitarianism and tyranny which gave birth to our nation, and many feel we must not let those hard-earned rights fritter away lightly.

In short, I don't disagree on helping those in less fortunate positions at any given time; we appear differ more on how that help should be delivered.

Were I a doctor, I might well take it upon myself to deliver free or low-cost medical care to those I choose to help. However, the important part to me is the choice. That would make me pro-choice. It seems to me you are more comfortable with compulsion, and uncomfortable with choice, which would make you anti-choice. If so, that is a big point of difference.

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]My issue is with the lies being told about it. If its such a good thing, you shouldn't need to lie about it.

I'd agree that the information is best when it is fact-based. Democrats, progressives, socialists, communists and Left-wing-types seem to have their biggest problems with simple truth. Socialism has never worked in human history, it just takes time for the innate underlying issues to surface, and lying about them is the number one way its proponents appear to use to cover it up.

If socialized medicine was such a good and cost-effective thing, why do so many of its proponents need to lie about it to convince folks to try its Sisyphean ways yet once again?

Why could we not keep our doctors and our plans if we liked our doctors and plans, as we were famously promised? Why did we have to pass the bill before we could have time to read and evaluate the more the 1,000-page bill to see in advance what problems might lie in it? Where was the touted $2,3000 per family "savings" that never seemed to materialize (annual savings, I believe?) Why are almost everyone's costs and premiums higher than before? Why have medical costs not come down after all these years? Why does this "perfect" plan need any '"fixing" if it was so perfect for our nation? Why can people not be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves what course of treatment might be best for them? Why are there long waits and denials of service? Why did removing military people and their families from only going to the VA for treatment and allowing them to muse open-market providers solve so many of the severe problems with VA (a government agency) and its delivery of 'services' so quickly and effectively when we were told that government does things so much better than free-market providers ever could?

The questions about the lies told about government involvement in medicine and the medical industry and business abound. I agree that's the real shame, along with the propagandized ignorance of much of the buying public/sheeple mis-educated in government skools to their own peril.

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Despite what the left likes to argue, the majority of 'the right' isn't 'in bed with' wealthy business owners.

Indeed, I'll agree we are finally seeing a re-alignment of party interests where the Left and the democrats are the pushers for Big Corporate callousness and the right and republicans are defenders of the everyman, poor and middle-class workers and citizenry and their rights. OF course, the leftovers from the Bush-era dynasty and their henchmen (and women--we're lookin' at you, Liz) aren't interested in giving up all their power and control quietly.) In general, today's republican is more interested in kithcen-table and pocketbook issues most average Americans deal with and understand than the out-of-touch elitists on the left who only seem to want to feed anti-freedom corporate interests that destroy the poor and middle classes.

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Again, it is telling that the ONE aspect of the ACA that focused on 'taxing the rich' (The Cadillac Tax), somehow never passed the Democratic controlled House, Senate or White House.

Well, one only has to look at what's been done to the average Cadillac to see how ugly they have become to the regular American. Taxation never helped the poor.

edit: got the quote brackets wrong initially. I think i fixed them now.
2nd edit: I seemed to have also missed a bracket end-quote above where we discuss what is a reasonable goal and responsibility of a society. I corrected that quoting.

(05-13-2021 12:32 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So, and correct me if I am reading what you said wrongly, you equate insurance with finance, as in you are saying that:
health insurance=health finance. My financial industry background always emphasized that insurance and finance were two separate, though sometimes related things, especially on the Series 7, but perhaps they have changed the definitions in the intervening years.

When I see the word "insurance" my thinking is the legal definition: a contract whereby, for specified consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for a loss relating to a particular subject as a result of the occurrence of designated hazards.

When I see "finance" I think to the origin from Middle English finaunce, maeaning settlement, money supply, from Old French finance, payment, from finer, to pay ransom, from fin, end, from Latin fīnis.] In Commerce: funds or the provision of funds, which to me seems different from "insurance" where there is a reason or risk transfer factor involved in the providing of funds.

I believe you take the finance definition to encompass insurance as providing the funds for, leaving out the reason or risk transfer aspects.

So, our difference seems to be that for you, "health insurance" is whatever mechanism pays for, or finances, the costs involved, and for me, "health insurance' involves the sharing of and/or transfer of responsibility for risk.

Which, if you can see, shows why I take the perspective I do. I don't necessarily presume that risk must automatically be assigned to mere financing involving compensation for loss of another, which to me appears quite different form undertaking a financing of an endeavor or project, especially when government elements are involved. I suppose the key is the "loss" aspect, which mere financing does not seem to me to encompass in this usage. Perhaps that sheds some light on things?

To ignore the risk transference (for which you pay a premium to an insurance company) is to ignore the position that insurance companies occupy in the process.

I don't care what the legal definition is, I care what the practical definition is. Whether we like it or not, the government is part of that practical definition.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

I held a series 7 for 20+ years and sold investments to insurance companies. I also held an insurance license. I then went to work in healthcare in financial operations and now work for a healthcare insurance company that specializes in ACA and 'alternatives' to Medicare and Medicaid in quality improvement. I consider the entire process part of 'insurance'.

Quote:

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]If you want that sort of society where 'survival of the fittest' is the norm, that's fine... but we would differ here, and I'm 'on the right' of this issue.... just not that far right.

I'm not sure from reading your responses we are differing in such a Spartan way on this issue. I believe we both would like some mechanism for helping those who suffer misfortune. We seem to differ on the mechanism and the assignment of transfer. Again, for me it is an assignment of transfer, and for you it appears more de facto cost. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I read your initial statement I quoted here.

I have no idea what you want, hence my 'if'.

I still don't.

I made clear that the "assignment of transfer' of the risk and cost of caring for those who can't care for themselves to the government is not an invalid desire of an advanced society... and not to those who make good choices or are otherwise healthy.

I said nothing about a 'de facto cost' and don't know how you define that. If you mean that I believe some people are born needing a lifetime of more care than others, then yes.. I do assume that. I also am aware of some correlations between income and health, especially among children.

Quote:Were I a doctor, I might well take it upon myself to deliver free or low-cost medical care to those I choose to help. However, the important part to me is the choice. That would make me pro-choice. It seems to me you are more comfortable with compulsion, and uncomfortable with choice, which would make you anti-choice. If so, that is a big point of difference.

Given that there are pockets of society already that I would refer to as 'healthcare deserts', i think the above position is a pipe dream. But what do I know? I merely spent 7 years trying to get providers to deliver care AT A PREMIUM to under-served populations. Try and get a Chic-Fil-A to a small town.... and they do LOTS of 'charity' work.

For the record though, I didn't say anything about compulsion. I prefer a carrot to a stick.... hence a non-economic decision is being made... and this is where government has a purpose... to fund things that don't make financial sense or that 'the generosity of man' can't cover.

A 'Volunteer' ER or 'Stroke care without borders' for those who can't afford the care is (with respect) ridiculous.

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]To ignore the risk transference (for which you pay a premium to an insurance company) is to ignore the position that insurance companies occupy in the process.

I don't care what the legal definition is, I care what the practical definition is. Whether we like it or not, the government is part of that practical definition.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

I held a series 7 for 20+ years and sold investments to insurance companies. I also held an insurance license. I then went to work in healthcare in financial operations and now work for a healthcare insurance company that specializes in ACA and 'alternatives' to Medicare and Medicaid in quality improvement. I consider the entire process part of 'insurance'.

Hey, please understand , I'm not trying to fight with you here, I'm trying to discuss. Currently, I see our main differences here in the assignment of responsibility and the mechanism for providing for care.

Forgive me, but like most businessmen and some citizens, I have had more to deal with in courts than I'd care to, so while I feel you on not caring about what the legal definition is, I think it has relevance in these types of discussions, especially when it is lawyers who comprise many of those creating these regulations. Does that make sense?

Now, I'm not sure how much government should be part of the issue, I am quite certain that the answer lies in "too much today, and far less in the future." Does that make sense, at least as far as understanding where I am coming from?

As to the practical problem, ditto, the less involvement of government in the 'solution' the better for me and millions of others.

I'll also say we share more commonality in career than I thought. My experiences in medical equipment and in insurance and medical insurance, as well as in fiance also colour my perspectives, along with, of course, my own personal experiences with what we broadly refer to as 'health care.'

(05-12-2021 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]If you want that sort of society where 'survival of the fittest' is the norm, that's fine... but we would differ here, and I'm 'on the right' of this issue.... just not that far right.

(05-13-2021 12:32 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure from reading your responses we are differing in such a Spartan way on this issue. I believe we both would like some mechanism for helping those who suffer misfortune. We seem to differ on the mechanism and the assignment of transfer. Again, for me it is an assignment of transfer, and for you it appears more de facto cost. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I read your initial statement I quoted here.

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what you want, hence my 'if'.

I still don't.

So, let me clear that one up for you: I am not advocating for only 'survival of the fittest' in your words. One of my kids is special needs, so if it helps you, I have quite a perspective on these issues, to give you some additional insight. Now you do, hopefully.

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I made clear that the "assignment of transfer' of the risk and cost of caring for those who can't care for themselves to the government is not an invalid desire of an advanced society... and not to those who make good choices or are otherwise healthy.

I said nothing about a 'de facto cost' and don't know how you define that. If you mean that I believe some people are born needing a lifetime of more care than others, then yes.. I do assume that. I also am aware of some correlations between income and health, especially among children.

So...if I'm reading that correctly, when a society is advanced enough (and we'd have to have a separate discussion of what exactly is meant by advanced enough and who or what determines that one...but I don't want to derail this right now, so I'll go along with your assumption we are currently in a country that has a society that is 'advanced enough' for the sake of discussion) then you appear to assert government should necessarily be involved in caring for those who can't care for themselves, and I take that is is all instances?

Hmmmm. I think I see one difference, now. In my opinion, government should have nothing to do with forcing it, only at the most encouraging it by laying a framework, not by explicitly redistributing (tax incentives, allowing structures for volunteerism, philanthropic organizations and non-profits, allowances for religious assistance and charity, and things along those lines.)

Quote:Were I a doctor, I might well take it upon myself to deliver free or low-cost medical care to those I choose to help. However, the important part to me is the choice. That would make me pro-choice. It seems to me you are more comfortable with compulsion, and uncomfortable with choice, which would make you anti-choice. If so, that is a big point of difference.

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Given that there are pockets of society already that I would refer to as 'healthcare deserts', i think the above position is a pipe dream. But what do I know? I merely spent 7 years trying to get providers to deliver care AT A PREMIUM to under-served populations. Try and get a Chic-Fil-A to a small town.... and they do LOTS of 'charity' work.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, Ham, just to understand your perspective and why you think that way, and why you might not believe there are other workable ways to accomplish.

From reading this, it seems (and let me be clear, VERY understandably so--it appears from your history of postings you have quite a good heart, which is admirable) appears you have an emotional component to this based upon your own experiences with the systems you deal with that touch on some of these issues. I sense a great deal of frustration in your apparent experiences of fighting with the system. My contention is that LESS government involvement in your decision-making and MORE freedom to solve the practical problems you face would be a better answer/solution. Yet I am baffled why you appear to believe the answer is MORE government involvement and rules not less.

You state my ides are a "pipe dream." Okay, that is an opinion. So was American and government by the people for the people considered a pipe dream. But we have a country because many men were willing to follow that dream. A society where people are judged by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin is also labeled by many a pipe dream, but God bless the man who stated that Dream and God bless those who aspire our society towards, not away from that Dream. Unlike what we are seeing today with explicit separation by race by those on the Left...an almost unthinkable development 60 years ago.

So, maybe you DON'T get a Chick-fil-a in the under-served area. Maybe you settle for a dairy Queen, like many small town s did, and you learn how to cook your own southern fried chicken sandwich instead of expecting or waiting for others, especially outsiders, to do it for you and complaining when they don;t. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's the one you suggested, so I'm trying to use your terms. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Many societies have developed medicines and treatments that, while not passing the board review at Haaaavaaad, my in fact work as well or in some instances better than merely drugs, drugs, drugs all the time.

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]For the record though, I didn't say anything about compulsion. I prefer a carrot to a stick....

then we'd be in agreement on that. I also prefer carrots to sticks. So why do I feel I'm advocating for more carrots and less sticks (as few as I can get) and you appear to me to want more sticks (I don't know how many carrots you are willing to have)?

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]hence a non-economic decision is being made... and this is where government has a purpose... to fund things that don't make financial sense or that 'the generosity of man' can't cover.

I'm not sure I can agree on this one, ham. I think that's where the Founding g fathers and millions of other Americans draw the line. I am not interested in guaranteeing outcome. I can't play God. I am always for, and will fight for, equality of opportunity.

Now, you might well say "what about the under-served areas, to which I turn to the great philosopher Sam Kinison:



...before you say it, the cost of living in an underserved-area...is being underserved. Send 'em u-hauls, not government health insurance.

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]A 'Volunteer' ER or 'Stroke care without borders' for those who can't afford the care is (with respect) ridiculous.

Aha. It's only 'ridiculous' because you know the only way to pay for it is to compel "others" to pay it. That is the root of the problem. They didn't sign up to pay for it. Additional, there are not enough "others" to pay the costs you seek. Printing money to cover the increasing difference will only go so far. See: Venezuela or Wiemar Republic. It is not insurance you seek, but in actuality you DO advocate for compulsion in an area that exceeds Constitutional authority. If you need more funds, you should make a better argument for those funds. If I have a business, and I use the government to mandate that people buy my product, then I do not have a business, I have a tyranny. Americans have historically not been interested in universal tyranny. Eventually, they find ways to fight and overthrow it. Sometime it takes longer than others, but it always seems to eventually happen.

FTR, I would pass a law making it legal for hospitals and providers to turn away those who aren't legal citizens. NOT mandatory to do so, just legal to do so. They can do it, but they, not any government funds, pay for it if they choose. And I'd also allow for non-profit hospitals and providers to exist in this country to serve illegals who may be amongst us. They can be privately funded to the extent that the folks so concerned think this is a problem and with to voluntarily do something towards it. This simple change would greatly reduce the cost of and increase the affordability of healthcare and health insurance for poor and middle-class American citizens without the bloat and ineffectiveness of something as ridiculous as the ACA or even more government healthcare...it would also have the alleged wealth-redistribution component that many so-called 'tax the wealthy' leftists say they desire. But the truth is they do not actually desire that. What they want instead is to tax those they disagree with, who want to keep their Constitutionally allowed freedoms and rights and not have them infringed by a small group of elitists and experts who appear to know next to nothing in the first place.

What I and millions of others are not supportive of are artificially-inflated medical costs and problems being exacerbated by millions of folks who do not belong in the system in the first place, and then be forced to pay for it by compulsion. Nope. That's not the answer, and as long as it is allowed, no amount of fixin' will really fix it. As we are currently seeing with the unemployment compensation and employment issues...when the gravy train is on...people keep comin' to line up for it. When the gravy is gone...so are the people who don't really need it.

THEN we can deal with the much smaller numbers of people who actual need help...THEN we can find ways to address those issues. THEN we can see that we CAN afford to have alternatives to government involved to assist. And then we're willing to consider some sort of perhaps universal catastrophic-only plan for Legal citizens and only if charities are not willing/able to fill the gaps after we remove the unreasonable burden of excess cost paying for things that do not belong in the equation in the first place. Not one minute before...because it will never work because there will never be enough money and resources to make it work no matter how much is taxed and how much government is involved. But there WILL be more rationing with more government and more poor people will die and suffer, not less. The government is NOT the solution to the problem...the government IS the problem. That maxim appears well-illustrated in this arena.

What seems most "ridiculous' is the idea that socialized approached to market-based problems will somehow ever work. They do not. History shows it over and over again. So why, this time, is your idea so 'different'?

A universal truth is never, scientifically, in the history of the universe, has something ever been created from nothing. Never. Show me one instance where it has happened. It has not. There is always a cost or a creator.

Both of us want to help the underprivileged. We appear to differ greatly in how and who controls the process. The cost of the social/government approach to "health insurance" as you define it, which is to you just the cost of providing the care, is too great for me and millions upon millions of others. Some compromise has to be made. You wish to compromise on fiscal responsibility and individual freedoms. That's your opinion. I wish to compromise on self-education level, personal motivation and charitable character, but not on tyranny or overreach of inalienable rights. I am not against voluntary cost-sharing, only involuntary compulsion to do so. Your approach appears to takes personal feeling of brotherhood out of the equation and replaces it with government-controlled compulsion, (we can argue the extent.) My approach requires a universality of feeling of brotherhood of man and belief in more than oneself in the universe, along with some measure of personal responsibility (again, we can argue the extent.)

(05-13-2021 02:42 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, please understand , I'm not trying to fight with you here, I'm trying to discuss. Currently, I see our main differences here in the assignment of responsibility and the mechanism for providing for care.

I'm not either. I just don't understand the points you're trying to make. I gave my 'resume' to explain why I see 'the whole process' as 'insurance'.

Quote:Forgive me, but like most businessmen and some citizens, I have had more to deal with in courts than I'd care to, so while I feel you on not caring about what the legal definition is, I think it has relevance in these types of discussions, especially when it is lawyers who comprise many of those creating these regulations. Does that make sense?

Sort of... but as a businessman, I think lawyers should mostly stay out of it. They often care more about the legalese than about the reality. This is part of why I don't understand your point, since we seem to be disagreeing where I would expect we would agree.

Quote:Now, I'm not sure how much government should be part of the issue, I am quite certain that the answer lies in "too much today, and far less in the future." Does that make sense, at least as far as understanding where I am coming from?

Yes, but my point is that the ONE area where they SHOULD be is in 'promoting the general welfare'. That to me generally means more for healthcare and less for healthcare beauracracy.

Quote:So, let me clear that one up for you: I am not advocating for only 'survival of the fittest' in your words. One of my kids is special needs, so if it helps you, I have quite a perspective on these issues, to give you some additional insight. Now you do, hopefully.

We share that as well. But that isn't what I meant by 'fittest'... I meant 'financially fittest'. If you can afford the care, you get it.. if you can't, you need the charity of those who can deliver it. That's how I understood your comment.

Quote:So...if I'm reading that correctly, when a society is advanced enough (and we'd have to have a separate discussion of what exactly is meant by advanced enough and who or what determines that one...but I don't want to derail this right now, so I'll go along with your assumption we are currently in a country that has a society that is 'advanced enough' for the sake of discussion) then you appear to assert government should necessarily be involved in caring for those who can't care for themselves, and I take that is is all instances?

I deleted my line, but I believe it was something like 'not an invalid desire'... which is not the same as 'should necessarily be involved', especially not in 'all instances'.

Quote:Hmmmm. I think I see one difference, now. In my opinion, government should have nothing to do with forcing it, only at the most encouraging it by laying a framework, not by explicitly redistributing (tax incentives, allowing structures for volunteerism, philanthropic organizations and non-profits, allowances for religious assistance and charity, and things along those lines.)

which i explicitly said in the next comment, so this isn't a difference.

The difference is, you seem to think that will deliver the necessary healthcare... and I am confident that it won't.

Quote:

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Given that there are pockets of society already that I would refer to as 'healthcare deserts', i think the above position is a pipe dream. But what do I know? I merely spent 7 years trying to get providers to deliver care AT A PREMIUM to under-served populations. Try and get a Chic-Fil-A to a small town.... and they do LOTS of 'charity' work.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, Ham, just to understand your perspective and why you think that way, and why you might not believe there are other workable ways to accomplish.

Except I quite clearly made a suggestion that is the polar opposite of what we're doing (where we tax healthy/good choices to pay for bad ones) so the idea that I don't believe there are other, workable ways is not correct.

Quote:From reading this, it seems (and let me be clear, VERY understandably so--it appears from your history of postings you have quite a good heart, which is admirable) appears you have an emotional component to this based upon your own experiences with the systems you deal with that touch on some of these issues. I sense a great deal of frustration in your apparent experiences of fighting with the system. My contention is that LESS government involvement in your decision-making and MORE freedom to solve the practical problems you face would be a better answer/solution. Yet I am baffled why you appear to believe the answer is MORE government involvement and rules not less.

Because that's not remotely what I've suggested.

WHat I've suggested is that a society that seeks to care for 'the least of us' (mostly democratic goals) doesn't have to be a totalitarian, government run socialist state (what many democrats support). It can instead be a small, efficiently run system of support, which many republicans support. It doesn't have to be purely a private function.

Healthcare, almost by definition is not a 'business' decision. If it is, we need to start adding the value of people's lives/contributions to society in the equation, when deciding whether to help someone or not. While I don't want the government deciding that, I also don't want a businessman deciding that.

Quote:You state my ides are a "pipe dream." Okay, that is an opinion. So was American and government by the people for the people considered a pipe dream. But we have a country because many men were willing to follow that dream. A society where people are judged by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin is also labeled by many a pipe dream, but God bless the man who stated that Dream and God bless those who aspire our society towards, not away from that Dream. Unlike what we are seeing today with explicit separation by race by those on the Left...an almost unthinkable development 60 years ago.

These things aren't remotely comparable. It's a pipe dream because we've been trying it for decades and it hasn't worked since the times when the only reason you went to the hospital was 'to die'. People can't decide to be born into a democracy, but they CAN decide that if they have a good enough job (a doctor) to live in a town where their waiting room is full all day as opposed to 'not'.

Quote:

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]For the record though, I didn't say anything about compulsion. I prefer a carrot to a stick....

then we'd be in agreement on that. I also prefer carrots to sticks. So why do I feel I'm advocating for more carrots and less sticks (as few as I can get) and you appear to me to want more sticks (I don't know how many carrots you are willing to have)?

I have no idea.... hence why I had to guess.

PART of it though would come from your comment above, where you ignore that Chic-Fil-A and Dairy Queen both cook chicken, but a doctor and a 'medicine man' don't cook the same foods.

Quote:

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]hence a non-economic decision is being made... and this is where government has a purpose... to fund things that don't make financial sense or that 'the generosity of man' can't cover.

I'm not sure I can agree on this one, ham. I think that's where the Founding g fathers and millions of other Americans draw the line. I am not interested in guaranteeing outcome. I can't play God. I am always for, and will fight for, equality of opportunity.

ALl I've talked about was 'access to care', which doesn't guarantee equality of services or outcomes... It just guarantees that if you need a bypass, that the person performing it has the necessary training for it. He may be using 20 year old equipment while the city has 'the latest and greatest', but he isn't flipping burgers by day and doing surgery at night.

What you described with 'alternative medicine' is by definition not 'equality of opportunity'. It's not even a Maybach to a GM... It's a Maybach to a camel.

Quote:Now, you might well say "what about the under-served areas, to which I turn to the great philosopher Sam Kinison:



...before you say it, the cost of living in an underserved-area...is being underserved. Send 'em u-hauls, not government health insurance.

WHich is funny because I'm very familiar with this joke and used it myself... but interestingly, the under-served place I'm talking about actually IS 'in the desert' but they actually GROW the food there... so who is going to grow and pick and butcher the food that they sell at Whole Foods? I moved from the CV Cali (where the FPL is about 30k) to San Fran.... where the FPL is $105,000. What is that farmer going to do in San Fran that will more than triple his income (net of owning the much more expensive land)?

Quote:

(05-13-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]A 'Volunteer' ER or 'Stroke care without borders' for those who can't afford the care is (with respect) ridiculous.

Aha. It's only 'ridiculous' because you know the only way to pay for it is to compel "others" to pay it.

No. It's ridiculous because the skillset necessary to provide the required services is in short supply, can't be taught in a few weekends, and can't be available in the time necessary to save a life.

Quote:That is the root of the problem. They didn't sign up to pay for it. Additional, there are not enough "others" to pay the costs you seek.

The costs I seek?? What costs are you assigning to me that I haven't articulated nor supported???

Quote:FTR, I would pass a law making it legal for hospitals and providers to turn away those who aren't legal citizens. NOT mandatory to do so, just legal to do so....

edited for brevity. So what do you do when the guy is unconscious and/or can't prove his citizenship while having a stroke??

Quote:What seems most "ridiculous' is the idea that socialized approached to market-based problems will somehow ever work. They do not. History shows it over and over again. So why, this time, is your idea so 'different'?

a) healthcare is not a market-based problem... because it involves non-economic decisions like whom to save and whom to let die.
b) I have not suggested a Venezuela style approach
c) 'on demand' (and on site) charity services is unrealistic

Quote:Both of us want to help the underprivileged. We appear to differ greatly in how and who controls the process. The cost of the social/government approach to "health insurance" as you define it, which is to you just the cost of providing the care, is too great for me and millions upon millions of others.....

Again, edited for brevity...

I think you're making a whole lot of assumptions about me and my intentions, much less my 'plans' and what they would cost.

I've articulated them a fair amount on here and they're pretty extensive and detailed... and I don't really care to go into it again... I'm not trying to be rude, it's just a WHOLE lot.

Bottom line is that many decisions you'd seem to like to make (like citizenship or whether we spend 50k to save this guy but not that guy) are not easily defined. Many hospitals (like Kaiser or Kelsey) are already allowed to turn people away... and most other hospitals are already 'charity' hospitals. The key to controlling costs is to avoid pointless regulation and compliance and to encourage good choices while discouraging poor ones. There is more to it, but this is enough.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why...li=BBnbfcL

For those who feign unfamiliarity with the anti-Israel leanings of The Squad.