Health care rant

Aug 24, 2009 13:44

OK, I don't normally comment on contemporary political stuff but I will now ( Read more... )

rant, politics

Leave a comment

dancesontrains August 24 2009, 18:42:08 UTC
Isn't it currently 44 million in the US without health insurance, due to unemployment/having rent and food to pay for/ etc?

As a college age non-taxpayer, my opinions are probably moot, but if I may counter your personal argument with a personal one of my own- the NHS saved my life. It is currently keeping several of my friends + relatives, who would not be able to afford insurance if they were in the US, alive whether due to mental or physical issues.

Also, I think your outview on life is rather cynical. I agree that all people, inculding myself, are innately selfish, but I like to think that a part of growing up means at least attempting to move beyond that. Again, perhaps I am naive?

Reply

dangermousie August 24 2009, 18:54:12 UTC
I am cynical - I have grown up in a country (USSR) which was turned into shambles due to a bunch of people having high-minded impractical ideals about people which could not possiby work and failing to take into account that majority of people are not angels. Enlightened self-interest seems to me the best approach - of course, the balance between the enlightened part (regulation) and self-interest (free-enterprise etc) is what is being disputed here ( ... )

Reply

dancesontrains August 24 2009, 19:11:10 UTC
To me, even 5% of the US population at risk of dying because they can't afford their operation/medication/a trip to the ER is far too many. I read an article the other day (although I can't find the link now) about a medical organisation that was initially set up to give aid for people in the 'third world', and they were just in a big city on the West Coast giving thousands of people treatment.

Even for those who can afford insurance, why are companies allowed to reject those born with pre-existing conditions?

Reply

dangermousie August 24 2009, 19:18:23 UTC
Well, they aren't allowed to turn you away from the ER because you can't pay so if you get into a life-threatening car wreck or have a heart attack, you will be treated. It's various other things that are not covered. (Whether that is bad is obviously another issue but I wanted to clarify).

Even for those who can afford insurance, why are companies allowed to reject those born with pre-existing conditions?Because it's much more expensive to pay for treatments of e.g. diabetics than it is for people who don't have a pre-existing condition? It's a business. They are out to maximize profits. I have no objection to regulation mandating pre-existing conditions can not be used to exclude someone from coverage but the reality will then be premiums for everyone will rise to cover it (unless the companies are allowed to charge higher premiums just for preexisting condition people). Now, one might still want to mandate the regulation, but trying to minimize the side-effects (like higher premiums across the board) the way I have seen people do ( ... )

Reply

katranna August 24 2009, 19:47:12 UTC
Actually, if I may say so, you achieved an awful lot due to coming from a family that was already educated and valued education, having got a very strong START on education in Russia's rather well-run public schools, and thus being able to go through American schools well enough to be qualified for a top college. Someone with a different family background, who did not come from intelligentsia (like so many other immigrants) would have had a rather different road.

Reply

dangermousie August 24 2009, 19:52:40 UTC
Yes, but past a certain point we will enter into a bizarrely Calvinistic predeterminism - everything anybody is, according to such logic, is a product of genetics and environment with nothing in his control. I am sure I was born smarter than some people and not as smart as some others, due to pure genetics - does that mean that any achievement is then meaningless and anyone who has a white collar job should receive equals amounts as a janitor because it's not the janitor's fault his parents weren't as bright?

I think people are responsible for everything about their lives. My friend from college came from rural China and studied hard and did well.

Spending our whole lives giving over the fruits of our work to someone else because they weren't lucky enough to have parents who valued education is not only bizarre but would lead to nobody wanting to do anything.

Reply

dancesontrains August 24 2009, 20:03:15 UTC
I think people are responsible for everything about their lives.

Does this include the fact that society sees people who were born with a vagina, a queer sexuality, etc etc as lesser than those who happened to be born with other characteristics?

Reply

dangermousie August 24 2009, 20:48:41 UTC
Huh?

What does that have to do with my point? You are responsible for your choices in life and your life, period. What other people chose to think of you is their business, not yours - I fail to see what one being responsible for himself/herself has to do with someone else thinking gay people are inferior (it is illegal to discriminate in hiring on a bunch of grounds, gender and sexual orientation among them, btw).

Reply

dancesontrains August 24 2009, 21:18:25 UTC
It has everything to do with your point when how a person is treated by society directly affects how they are treated. For example, the arrest of Professor Gates- he had worked to get to the very top of his profession, and still got arrested for what were almost definetly race-related reasons. Malia Obama was still called a whore by the members of a conservative politics site for wearing a peace sign shirt + dreads.

I agree that what idiots think of me is not my responsibilty, but I still pay for their opinions- especially if they are in a position of power over me.

Reply

katranna August 24 2009, 20:53:24 UTC
Well honestly I think a janitor is as necessary to our society as someone who does a white collar job. More people might be able to do that job, but it's still very very necessary, and I certainly think it's stupid if the janitor cannot get health insurance while the white collar person can--in many ways, the janitor is providing the more-needed service ( ... )

Reply

katranna August 24 2009, 21:05:21 UTC
Now, then, if all jobs provided at base (or all people were provided this, by the gov't) solid health insurance, access to quality education, and other such life needs--then I feel it would not matter so much if janitorial work paid a lot less than graphic design or whatnot (even if it's so much more trivial, regardless of how much more training and qualifications it requires). Then, fine, people could have their differences in luxury income, but we wouldn't be depriving a large percent of our society of a very important need based on the fact that they fulfill different social functions.

Reply

dangermousie August 24 2009, 21:08:57 UTC
Isn't it what the market would bear - market is willing to pay more for a doctor than a janitor so brighter people get attracted to working as the former.

It's also supply/demand - when you can get a lot of people easily doing this job, then you don't pay much - if you can only obtain people by paying them more (either because few people have skills required like chemical engineers or because the job is distasteful to many but with stringent criteria - like high class escort) then they will get more. Makes sense to me.

Reply

katranna August 25 2009, 01:03:50 UTC
Except that a job that can be easily done by many people is still valuable for the society as a whole. We still need janitors. One should be able to be a janitor and have healthcare, housing, etc ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up