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.
44mln is a disputed number (as is so much of it on this topic - I have seen both higher and lower figures). Still, even if we take 44lmn as a number, current US population is 307 million, thus under 15% of population is uninsured - my point about overhwelming majority of population having insurance stands.
I am not a product of American privilege - we have immigrated here with no money and with my not speaking any English. Anything I have achieved I did not achieve due to money, connections, or the right heritage - I did it on my own. The same is true for my husband (minus the immigrant part). So while I support some national health care, any money I contribute to it will be MINE, hard-worked-for and the government better convince me it is going to be doing a good job.
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?
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, is disingenious.
Ultimate point is this - I am all for health care. I am, however, curious, as to how US is going to get the money to pay for it short of raising taxes enormously. Politicians might be promising to tax only the super-rich, but I am sure that short of taking most of their wealth away (which there are so many loopholes around - set up trusts in Switzerland or Virgin Islands and move there), that won't be enough.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
Also, people who come from low-income, uneducated families where they can't really give any support to the child's academics, and instead pressure them to go into the workforce as soon as they can... for some of these people, it will take a lot more natural smarts and hard work and dedication to finish high school than for other people (with suburban well-off parents) to finish college. Again, I don't think this makes them less valuable a person and allows the college grad to sneer "well I worked for my money and my cushy job, I'm not giving it to someone who isn't such a good worker can't afford health care on their own"--even if that someone is juggling 3minimum-wage jobs.
Actually I have huge issues with the whole "my money" thing, period, because I believe the way American society determines which jobs pay which amount is kind of messed up. So many people whose (hard) labor makes it possible for others to go on and do their well-paying jobs get almost no recompense, even though they're what makes society run. And yes, their jobs are low in training, and others could do their jobs--but they wouldn't necessarily want to,and the point still stands, they contribute just as much or more to the overall fabric as any senior partner in some luxury goods manufacturing company.
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.
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.
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.
And problem is, people without much education, etc, can't just go "oh well this job doesn't value me enough, I won't take it." It's either work as a janitor or starve, if they don't have the opportunities (monetary or otherwise) to get training for other jobs. Right now they don't starve, but they might suffer by being able to get treated for some medical condition. And this despite the fact that yeah, they may not have the money or smarts to get a white collar job, but they still help our society run.
The entirely free market is extremely cruel, and we don't live in a society that's free market anyway. In the entirely free market, there was child labor and 14 hr work days and "the market supported it" until the socialists and anarchists came out and started agitating. I feel like health care should be something we all get, or else why the hell do we even HAVE gov't anyway,but for things like that? If we're supposed to procure everything by ourselves (an entirely free market), we might as well be capitalist anarchists living under no gov't whatsoever.
44mln is a disputed number (as is so much of it on this topic - I have seen both higher and lower figures). Still, even if we take 44lmn as a number, current US population is 307 million, thus under 15% of population is uninsured - my point about overhwelming majority of population having insurance stands.
I am not a product of American privilege - we have immigrated here with no money and with my not speaking any English. Anything I have achieved I did not achieve due to money, connections, or the right heritage - I did it on my own. The same is true for my husband (minus the immigrant part). So while I support some national health care, any money I contribute to it will be MINE, hard-worked-for and the government better convince me it is going to be doing a good job.
Reply
Even for those who can afford insurance, why are companies allowed to reject those born with pre-existing conditions?
Reply
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, is disingenious.
Ultimate point is this - I am all for health care. I am, however, curious, as to how US is going to get the money to pay for it short of raising taxes enormously. Politicians might be promising to tax only the super-rich, but I am sure that short of taking most of their wealth away (which there are so many loopholes around - set up trusts in Switzerland or Virgin Islands and move there), that won't be enough.
Reply
Reply
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
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
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
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
Also, people who come from low-income, uneducated families where they can't really give any support to the child's academics, and instead pressure them to go into the workforce as soon as they can... for some of these people, it will take a lot more natural smarts and hard work and dedication to finish high school than for other people (with suburban well-off parents) to finish college. Again, I don't think this makes them less valuable a person and allows the college grad to sneer "well I worked for my money and my cushy job, I'm not giving it to someone who isn't such a good worker can't afford health care on their own"--even if that someone is juggling 3minimum-wage jobs.
Actually I have huge issues with the whole "my money" thing, period, because I believe the way American society determines which jobs pay which amount is kind of messed up. So many people whose (hard) labor makes it possible for others to go on and do their well-paying jobs get almost no recompense, even though they're what makes society run. And yes, their jobs are low in training, and others could do their jobs--but they wouldn't necessarily want to,and the point still stands, they contribute just as much or more to the overall fabric as any senior partner in some luxury goods manufacturing company.
Reply
Reply
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
And problem is, people without much education, etc, can't just go "oh well this job doesn't value me enough, I won't take it." It's either work as a janitor or starve, if they don't have the opportunities (monetary or otherwise) to get training for other jobs. Right now they don't starve, but they might suffer by being able to get treated for some medical condition. And this despite the fact that yeah, they may not have the money or smarts to get a white collar job, but they still help our society run.
The entirely free market is extremely cruel, and we don't live in a society that's free market anyway. In the entirely free market, there was child labor and 14 hr work days and "the market supported it" until the socialists and anarchists came out and started agitating. I feel like health care should be something we all get, or else why the hell do we even HAVE gov't anyway,but for things like that? If we're supposed to procure everything by ourselves (an entirely free market), we might as well be capitalist anarchists living under no gov't whatsoever.
Reply
Leave a comment