Community

General discussion

Gravatar
0 Votes
Locked

"a government-run insurance plan"

By maxwell edison ·
"A key Democrat voiced confidence on Sunday that Senate leaders will include a government-run insurance plan in the healthcare bill they bring to the full U.S. Senate for consideration -- and suggested it might even pass."

Source and full context:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200**018/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare

What's wrong with this picture? Or, if you're bold enough to show your true colors, what's right with it?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

gravatar
Collapse -

No boldness required.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to "a government-run insuran ...

I frequently hear the stats that 1/6th of our economy is tied up in health care, and 1/7th of the population are either not covered or inadequately covered. Some regard that 1/6th as making health care too large a slice of our economy for the gov't to interfere. I regard it as too large a slice to allow to remain at that size, especially with the level of service provided.

I think the private sector has done a very poor job providing what I consider a necessary service. I don't advocate any new programs; instead, this service should be provided by expanding those eligible for existing programs.

For-profit providers costs are out of reach for a substantial number of consumers. Instead of getting routine preventative care, they wait until a problem is critical or use emergency rooms for non-critical issues. Some claim putting these people (including illegal aliens) under a gov't run program will mean the rest of us will be paying for their care. In reality, their costs are already shifted to the rest of us through the portion of our insurance premiums used to compensate providers for those losses.

In short, I just don't see how Uncle Sam can manage this any worse than it already is.

gravatar
Collapse -

I'm "pro choice" in this case (actually in all cases)

by maxwell edison In reply to No boldness required.

So many people seem unable to back-up a step and consider the more important underlying premise - or principle upon which we govern ourselves. People should have the right to make personal choices in their lives without being dictated to by government. This is another case in which personal choice could be - and most likely WILL BE - infringed upon even more than it is already.

Spare me the rhetoric about proposed plans allowing people to choose their own insurance options, choosing their own doctors, blah, blah, blah. Those choices - as well as other life choices - WILL BE affected.

Do you choose to smoke? Do you choose to consume foods that pack on the pounds? Do you choose to have a diet that raises your cholesterol level? Do you choose activities in life that pose a greater risk? If so, be prepared to have some government (or insurance) bureaucrat dictate to you how you need to alter your life choices or pay more - or both.

And possibly, do you choose to live your life without any insurance at all? There are people who might want to be self-insured. Go to the doctor, pay cash, end of story. In those cases, it might only be the catastrophic cases that throw a wrench into the system. But then again, back-up and consider the whole premise of the system as we currently know it to be.

A citizen will be forced to buy insurance, whether they want to or not - freedom of choice will be denied.

A citizen will be forced to alter lifestyle choices or pay more, or be penalized - or both - etc. - freedom of choice will be denied.

More nanny state equals less choice. It's simply not possible to have more of the former without having to give up more of the latter.

I don't know about you, but being dictated to by anyone in government - presuming government knows what's best - is most distasteful. In fact, it's simply not acceptable to me.

gravatar
Collapse -

Normally, I'd go along with choice

by DelbertPGH In reply to I'm "pro choice" in this ...

The country needs to provide medical coverage for its people. To me, that's simply a given. If we're going to use the insurance model to cover medical costs, then everybody has to buy it. I think that insurance isn't the best way; costs have gone out of control under insurance. But insurance seems to be what we're going to do.

In any case, people deserve medical care that won't bankrupt them. It's the mark of a decent civilization that has achieved a certain level of prosperity. We already do guarantee all people necessary coverage; we just limit it to people who will fit under certain government programs, and to anyone else in emergency cases, and pass the costs on to the insured base and to the taxpayer. It's not efficient and not effective.

There's lots of choice that's already gone. Try not paying your taxes, or not buying auto insurance, or remodeling your house outside of the building code, or printng your own money, or walking naked in the streets. When I was young, there was a draft; you couldn't disregard it, at pain of going to jail; and if you cooperated, you could be sent into combat. There's too much that is compulsory about life to pretend that you'll be saved by basing medical care (i.e., life and death versus bankruptcy) on private choice and private resources.

gravatar
Collapse -

Your first sentence

by maxwell edison In reply to Normally, I'd go along wi ...

You said, The country needs to provide medical coverage for its people. To me, that's simply a given.

What do you mean, the country needs to provide .....? We're a nation of self-governed individuals. For someone to say that the country needs to provide anything is just another way of saying that one individual must provide something for another individual.

Moreover, medical coverage and medical care are two things that are distinctly different, yet talked about as though they're one in the same. They're not one in the same.

gravatar
Collapse -

Self governed?

by jck In reply to Your first sentence

Or, self-indulgent?

If all people would govern themselves properly, you wouldn't have cases like Caylee Anthony, Adam Walsh, Nicole Brown, Sharon Tate, and Matthew Shepard.

Until then, you and I both need government to provide.

Otherwise, someone might self-govern you with a gun if you switch lanes too fast and cut them off.

After all, it would be their choice. Right?

gravatar
Collapse -

Oh please, give me a break

by maxwell edison In reply to Self governed?

Self governed and individual rights - AS LONG AS THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS IS NOT INFRINGED UPON.

Why do you insist on citing such silly examples?

The role of government is to protect individual rights. One person does not have the right to, as you suggested, self-govern (me) with a gun if (I) switch lanes too fast and cut them off - just like there is no right to force me - or you - into any medical scheme.

gravatar
Collapse -

Are you being forced now?

by jck In reply to Oh please, give me a brea ...

Does your job make you pay for insurance out of your check?

Mine does. They won't give me the hundreds per month they pay. I get no option.

So, cry me a river. That's already happening to millions of working Americans and you failed to write a big rant about that.

Or is it business' right to push things on you, but not government?

So please. Make your assessment of process fair and equal whether private or public...before you put the onus of responsibility on the shoulders of your government alone.

gravatar
Collapse -

jck

by maxwell edison In reply to Oh please, give me a brea ...

You said, Or is it business' right to push things on you, but not government?

Those are two distinctly different entities with two distinctively different issues. You choose to work for your company. Any benefit and compensation issues are negotiable.

If I work for you, as an example, absolutely yes, you do have a right to dictate terms of employment, and I have a right to either accept or decline. Competition (for employees) in a free market system tends to create a lot of companies that treat employees pretty well. If you're at a place that doesn't treat you fair, well, it's your choice to remain.

If your analogy had any merit at all, I could choose to opt out of any government mandated program, which I don't.

Business: I can choose to opt out of a company sponsored 401(k) plan. Government: I cannot choose to opt out of the Social Security ponzi scheme.

Don't you see the distinction between the two?

gravatar
Collapse -

absolutely wrong there, Max

by jck In reply to Oh please, give me a brea ...

Any benefit and compensation issues are negotiable.

It's not a negotiable set of benefits at this job, or any other job I have.

They say "This is what we offer." not "This is what you can choose from."

I don't get a la carte or even yes or no choice to getting benefits or receiving the compensation they'd otherwise pay for me.

So, why not? Why can't I have the money ($1,000s a month) instead of accepting insurance.

Reason: My job doesn't give me the choice.

Besides, government is going to give you more choice than I have. You can choose from a plethora of plans from different carriers.

Whereas now, I get to take a choice of 2 plans from 1 carrier.

So, this government health insurance will be good for me. I can shop around and get the best rate, then make my employer let me have the choice where the benefit I EARN is spent.

gravatar
Collapse -

Some do, jck

by TonytheTiger In reply to Oh please, give me a brea ...

Does your job make you pay for insurance out of your check?


But you are not being FORCED to work for them... yet!

Back to Community Forum

Start or search

Related Discussions

Related Forums