society would not function if the average person simply got to decide how much to give away every year.
Question for the day?
- Thread starter WCS Coach
- Start date
It is a necessary evil because of the debt we've run up and the cost of defense. It is WAY out of control though.
Like I said.....we have generation after generation that have been conditioned to think government is the solution to the problem as to the reality that government is the problem.
The cost of national defense is the ONE THING that government should be involved in. Cutting waste out of it would be a huge help. That is difficult when you have people lining their pockets left and right with tax payer dollars.
That is exactly the issue with the government getting involved with about anything. Once they get their hooks in you, then it is next to impossible to get them out. Obama care is a classic example. They drew in millions of people that had insurance with pre-existing conditions that could never get back to those companies once they left. Once that happened there really wasn't ever going to be a way to completely dismantle it. Now government is once again involved in something they shouldn't be involved in. Once the government starts a program it is almost impossible to stop it.
I'm sorry, do you not believe that insurance companies should be mandated to provide health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at a reasonable cost?
Here is the issue with mandating those things. Now you have government telling private companies how they have to market and do business. Think about the lunacy of that. People who have virtually little or no experience in business mandating to people that do. People that continually overspend in government and waste tax dollars. Little wonder the insurance companies got out of the market. The government's answer is to subsidizes it and put penalties in place. The penalties never did solve the problem because they were still less than the coverage would have cost people. They do not have a clue from a business standpoint on how to run anything. Our debt is proof of that.
The other issue is people. Once a person knows they can get coverage even when they are unhealthy why in the world would a healthy person opt to buy it if they didn't need it?
Now the fix is even trickier because of the government's meddling in this. We have millions of previously insured people that dropped their coverage so they could get the government subsidized plan. They had coverage and now will not unless there is some provision written in the replacement plan.
Here is my issue with any government program. Before someone gets a dime of tax payer money given to them there needs to be criteria that makes sense put in place. when someone tells me they can't afford the insurance they I'd like to at least know they aren't wasting money on other things like DirecTV, cigarettes, casino's etc.
I have a client that I know is getting a huge amount of their insurance paid for the ACA. They just returned from 10 days in the Caribbean. I have a huge problem with that.
This isn't apple selling you an iPhone. This is health insurance. Without it, you die if you have a pre-existing condition. So yes, an essential product like that should be subject to more regulation.
The rest of your post doesn't deal at all with pre-existing conditions.
So I'll ask you again, should people with pre-existing conditions be afforded the opportunity to buy affordable health insurance, or should insurance providers be allowed to deny them coverage?
Why don't you explain to me the details of "affordable"?
Then after you do that please explain as the owner of the health insurance company how you make that work without going out of business?
Insurance for centuries has already adopted the issue of shared risk. That is what it is all about. I would suggest that we begin educating students about this so they have a proper understanding. If you have coverage then there are no pre-existing conditions. The issue is when people choose not to do the responsible thing and purchase it while they are healthy. Most of this goes back to the issue of social conditioning I was talking about in another thread. You guys have grown up being taught that someone else owes you something. They don't. This is the same mentality we see with abortions. People aren't responsible using birth control and want to kill an unborn child as a result. Laws should protect people who are responsible and not to bail out people who are not.
On the flip side we should have provisions in place to protect people who have employer coverage and lose it. Insurers should have a conversion option in that case. Children born with pre-existing conditions should always be insured from their parent's coverage and have guaranteed options to convert when they are age 22 or so.
Then after you do that please explain as the owner of the health insurance company how you make that work without going out of business?
Insurance for centuries has already adopted the issue of shared risk. That is what it is all about. I would suggest that we begin educating students about this so they have a proper understanding. If you have coverage then there are no pre-existing conditions. The issue is when people choose not to do the responsible thing and purchase it while they are healthy. Most of this goes back to the issue of social conditioning I was talking about in another thread. You guys have grown up being taught that someone else owes you something. They don't. This is the same mentality we see with abortions. People aren't responsible using birth control and want to kill an unborn child as a result. Laws should protect people who are responsible and not to bail out people who are not.
On the flip side we should have provisions in place to protect people who have employer coverage and lose it. Insurers should have a conversion option in that case. Children born with pre-existing conditions should always be insured from their parent's coverage and have guaranteed options to convert when they are age 22 or so.
So if your parents don't have insurance, you're just screwed? What if you parents can't afford insurance? Your answer is just to screw those people?
By the way, if private industry is so great, why do we pay way more money for worse outcomes than countries that have universal healthcare?
The #1 problem with health care is not governmental in nature. It is that many people are de facto uninsurable at a reasonable cost in a private market.
Insurance companies should be required to offer insurance to everyone at a price commensurate with their HEALTH. Affordable is not what people are wanting. They want to have insurance at a price that allows them to live as though their healthcare has no affect on their lifestyle.
If you have food, basic shelter and clothing and can pay premiums after that, it is affordable. People want to avoid the hand they are dealt and require others to pay the price.
We should have a safety net for those who truly can't afford the premiums but we've defined afford wrongly. Anyone who chooses a cell phone, internet access, or pay TV over paying insurance premiums just wants their lifestyle subsidized.
Now, answer my question since I answered yours. Is it unreasonable to expect people to give up their toys if they want someone else to provide ANYTHING for them?
If you're going to define a cell phone and internet access as "toys," there's really nothing to discuss with you.
Health Care (vs) ESPN,Porn Access, Walkie-talkie?
No wonder we are light years apart...
So, you don't want to answer his question, or you truly are a spoiled, brat. Which is it?
And , NO, I should not have to pay for YOUR healthcare, to answer your previous question.
I did answer his question.
And you'd rather people die on the street. How very Christian of you.
Since you won't answer the other question (shocking), maybe this one (doubt it), if they aren't toys, what are they?
Cell phones and internet access are ways of life in the 21st century. Certainly not "toys."
It is comical how the left calls into question one's "Christianity" because they don't want to pay for everyone else's wants and needs.
wcowherd, I have a few things I have been wanting, where do I send the bill, so you can pay it?
wcowherd, I have a few things I have been wanting, where do I send the bill, so you can pay it?
Healthcare is not a want. I'm assuming you were referring to that when you responded to my question.
The law states, no American citizen or resident may be denied medical treatment, regardless of ability to pay.
For emergency conditions, sure. Prolonged medical care? That's a different story. Both sides acknowledge this fact.
Cowerd FYI,
All of us are guaranteed certain services from government, even if we do not pay for them. We are all guaranteed police protection. Our children are guaranteed the right to public education.
These basic rights of police protection and public education are guaranteed to all citizens because they are essential functions of any society. So, if you have income or property, you must pay taxes to support the police, fire departments, public libraries, parks, sewers, waterworks, education, and myriad other things, including the military, that benefits other people as well as yourself. Paying for the health care of our fellow citizens who lack the means to pay for it themselves is one of our obligations that comes with living in a civilized country.
Though I believe your not, but for those that feel morally opposed to paying taxes, then you need to renounce your citizenship and go live in the woods in some remote part of the world that doesn't have any civilization.
All of us are guaranteed certain services from government, even if we do not pay for them. We are all guaranteed police protection. Our children are guaranteed the right to public education.
These basic rights of police protection and public education are guaranteed to all citizens because they are essential functions of any society. So, if you have income or property, you must pay taxes to support the police, fire departments, public libraries, parks, sewers, waterworks, education, and myriad other things, including the military, that benefits other people as well as yourself. Paying for the health care of our fellow citizens who lack the means to pay for it themselves is one of our obligations that comes with living in a civilized country.
Though I believe your not, but for those that feel morally opposed to paying taxes, then you need to renounce your citizenship and go live in the woods in some remote part of the world that doesn't have any civilization.
Having personally experienced the nightmare of a long and horrible fatal disease that claimed the life a 7-year-old child over a 5 year period of time, and witnessed to numerous other children's eventual death, some with parents better off than most, others much worse than most, no coverage, some cured too, I beg your pardon. This is what makes your argument a hyperbole. That every uninsured child with a terminal illness will be left to die, even if they seek long-term care. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, for there are idiots out there too stupid to raise their fingers to get help.
Now you're being hyperbolic. I did not say every child. There are a substantial amount of people that will die without health insurance. That's just a fact. A simple google search would tell you as much.
Bottom line, I want people to be covered. I do not like those politicians that are reveling in the demise of Obamacare. I'm really pissed off all the way around at Trump and every elected bastard right now. I want what's best for our country. What is best (because someone has to pay for it) IDK.
If Trump said, universal healthcare. I'd agree.
Why not let me keep my Money and i will take care of myself??
Could be.
IMO health care is a right to people living in any civilized country. We'll just have to disagree philosophically on that point.
There is also disagreement philosophically on whether the government has the right to conscript our young relatives into the military if, God forbid if we were to get into a major war that required conscription. Some people believe conscription is an inherent power of government to coerce people into the military who would not otherwise volunteer for service; some people deny conscription is a legal right of government. The Constitution is silent on that question, but the laws of Congress permitting it have passed muster in the courts, so it is law.
Likewise, the opinion of the majority of Americans is that healthcare is a right that must be guaranteed by the government. The Constitution is silent on that point, but the law states that no American citizen or resident may be denied medical treatment, regardless of ability to pay.
I assumed from this statement you imply that healthcare is not a basic right.
Food, shelter, clothing are rights. So are jobs, at least to the extent of "workfare" jobs where people are paid minimum wage and provided healthcare by the government in return for work. So, the right to have work, is a human right, even if the work must be of the lowest kind, for the lowest wage.
FDR put it this way:
"Every man has a right to life; and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living. He may by sloth or crime decline to exercise that right; but it may not be denied him. We have no actual famine or death; our industrial and agricultural mechanism can produce enough and to spare. Our government formal and informal, political and economic, owes to everyone an avenue to possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs...."
The concept of taxing property owners to pay for public education originated in the 1700's. It's not an idea that the teachers' unions and similar pinkos & commies concocted recently.
Americans have paid property taxes since colonial times. As old Abe Lincoln said, "Government exists to do those things that the people can't do well by themselves." That includes many other things besides the police and the army.
Basic breakdown of liberal vs Conservative thinking...
Leftist View-
Everything I want is my "Right" to have.
Conservative View-
Everything I want has a cost....
Am I willing to work my butt off to get it?
Leftist interpretation of the Constitution -
The Constitution of the United States guarantees me happiness.
Translation-
"Owes me"
Conservative interpretation of the Constitution -
The Constitution of the United States guarantees me nothing.
Translation-
If you Work Hard, Play Hard, Study Hard and follow all the rules...
you're still not guaranteed success.
If however you "don't" Work Hard, Play Hard, Study Hard and follow all the rules...
you are guaranteed failure.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Basic breakdown of liberal vs Conservative thinking...
Leftist View-
Everything I want is my "Right" to have.
Conservative View-
Everything I want has a cost....
Am I willing to work my butt off to get it?
Leftist interpretation of the Constitution -
The Constitution of the United States guarantees me happiness.
Translation-
"Owes me"
Conservative interpretation of the Constitution -
The Constitution of the United States guarantees me nothing.
Translation-
If you Work Hard, Play Hard, Study Hard and follow all the rules...
you're still not guaranteed success.
If however you "don't" Work Hard, Play Hard, Study Hard and follow all the rules...
you are guaranteed failure.
