DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
Your signature mentions your support for a "limited government", how does the government taking over healthcare fit into that?
...
The government is charged with protecting the People from enemies, foreign and domestic.
I tend to believe governments should protect the rights and property of citizens but ok.
That's true, but there are different levels of government. The Federal Government is the "furthest" away and should have the least direct impact on your individual daily life. The lowest level of government (City/County/Local) is the closest, and should have the greatest direct impact on your individual daily life. I'm going to guess that Termyn8or was speaking towards the Federal level of government, not all levels of government in general.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
While my views on most things run like libertarian, there are two things about their doctrine I cannot embrace. First of course is the pledge against violence. Fuck that, I will shoot any motherfucker I choose.
The pledge is to not use force to acquire another person's property or encroach on another person's rights. Most if not all libertarians I know (anecdotal evidence warning) are ardent supporters of the Bill of Rights in its entirety, including the 2nd Amendment, and many carry openly or concealed firearms. If someone has the means, motive, and opportunity to do harm I don't think any libertarian would frown on self defense.
Correct.quote:
The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom) is a moral framework that aids in determining and measuring the initiation of force by one individual or group of individuals against another individual or group of individuals. It is considered by many to be the defining principle of libertarianism. The principle asserts that aggression, a term defined by proponents as any encroachment on another person's life, liberty, or justly acquired property, or an attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained, is always illegitimate.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
the other is the deregulation of business.
Now I do agree that Mom and Pop shops should be left alone, when you get to a scale of operations where you are "essential", then you might as well just get out of that chair and the government should step in. Utilities should be publicly owned. Companies that get that extra digit, grossing billions, should be regulated so bad they don't even want to co eto work.
I'm not sure your idea of publicly owned utilities violate libertarian philosophy although I'm sure one could make a case either way. I don't see why companies should be regulated "so bad they don't even want the ceo to work", however, as that would be a huge disincentive for companies.
Libertarians don't believe in complete deregulation of business, they just believe in a low level of regulation. There is always a need for some regulation, but they should only be there to protect the individual or other businesses from fraud and harm.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
...
But, as I consider things like the electric and gas, and even internet and phone to be things that should be tightly regulated because it is a captive market, I would say that healthcare might be in that group of necessary services.
That comes back to the well being, ad survival of the People. Now that there are almost no furnaces that do not require electricity, if they shut your electricity off in February you might die.
So boil it down to that. Do you want the government to protect you from freezing to death at the hands of greedy corporate moguls ? They have actually passed laws preventing utilities from cutting off your electric and gas during the winter months.
Do you approve of that ?
I'd disagree that internet and phones are "necessary services", much like I'd disagree that insurance is mandatory. I can understand your idea of not wanting people to die in February should their utilities be turned off but these hypothetical people are also responsible for their bills; if one can not pay for services yet continue to receive services, why should anyone pay?
Part of the problem is that it's not that people don't want to pay, but that they can't pay. Governments tend to have programs to assist lower income people in paying for gas/electric heating bills. Help for the truly needy isn't a bad thing.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And another thing, seat belt laws got passed because insurance companies saw a possible loss. (I believe they were wrong because if you are more likely to die they would pay off less, the only other conclusion is they are in cahoots with the medical industry that would like to keep you in diapers and a wheelchair for fifty years)
Do you, generally speaking, want government to dictate what you can and cannot do with your property? If I do not want to wear a seatbelt there's really nothing stopping me from doing so, apart from an annoying chime. While it's generally accepted that a seatbelt is A Good Idea, I'd prefer to keep it at that: it's a good idea to wear one but don't force me to do so. The same can be said for motorcycle helmets, and there are many, many bikers that don't wear one. I believe the police refer to them as "organ donors".
I oppose seat belt (and helmet) laws. I don't think either are bad ideas, but government requiring them is where I have an issue. If an insurance company decides that driving without a helmet or without a seat belt is going to increase their risk of having to pay out, then premiums should acknowledge that, or they should have a rider stipulating that coverage will be less in case of accidents where a helmet or a seat belt would have reduced the required payout (premiums would stay the same, but coverage would be lower).
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
But now, consider this : you buy a new car, it has a warranty. that means the manufacturer has to fix it if it breaks. As such, they have a right to require you to get regular oil changes and whatever.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the manufacturer has a "right to require", but if they fulfill their end of the contract (ie they warranty something) then one must fulfill their own side of the contract (ie the driver stays current with maintenance).
Normal wear and tear isn't covered, and they won't warranty anything that wasn't their fault. If you treat your engine like shit and it dies within the warranty period, that's on you.
Anecdote: I used to work at a Sears. One of my local stores ran into an issue with a brand new oven. This woman bought a new oven the week before Thanksgiving (she was hosting). After Thanksgiving, she ran a "self-clean" cycle. The oven caught fire and was ruined, though it didn't ruin anything other than the oven, thankfully. She did not get a new one or that one repaired for free, even though it was well within the warranty period. The reason she was cleaning the oven was because there was a lot of grease pooled on the bottom of the oven, which is what caught fire. She didn't follow the proper procedures (listed in the manual) for using the self-clean feature. That's why the oven caught fire and was ruined. Expensive lesson there.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Now health insurance is just like a warranty on your body. you break it they have to fix it.
Do they have the right to tell you what to eat ? Order you not to smoke, or do drugs or drink, or eat fatty ot sugary foods ? All of these things are EXACTLY like not maintaining a machine, like a car. They wear it out and make it fuck up.
So by extension, your health care underwriter should have the power to dictate your diet as well as your habits.
...
No, an insurance company does not have the power to dictate a diet. Using a slightly different analogy, lets compare it to car insurance. If one is a bad driver and has gotten into numerous accidents, their insurance rates will be higher because they're more of a risk. Driving a 2010 Toyota Camry with an automatic transmission is less of a "risk" than a 2015 Porsche 911 Turbo S for plenty of reasons, not the least of which is the cost to replace the vehicle. Likewise, if one informs an insurance company, as part of their contract to provide insurance, that one engages in "risky" behavior like smoking or maintaining a poor diet, their rates can (and should) reflect that behavior. If one wants lower insurance rates they can opt for the Toyota Camry and a vegetarian diet. Conversely, they can choose to smoke cigars, drink beer, drive a Porsche 911 Turbo S, and eat plenty of red meat. Ultimately it's still an individual's choice.
Treating Rodney Dangerfield the same as Richard Simmons in terms of health care is silly, no?
Premiums should be based on risk. The higher the risk of an insurance company having to pay out, the higher the premiums should be. Behaviors can dictate which risk pool you are put in. I get a discount on my premiums if I get an annual checkup and another one if I sign the non-tobacco user pledge (that's an honor system thing, though). My coverages don't change, but my premiums do.
Risk pools spread the cost of the payouts for that group among all the group members. IMO (and I'm not saying insurance companies do or do not act this way), risk pools should be tailored to the risk of the average person in that pool. If it's based on the least risky members, premiums will likely be too low to cover actual payouts. If it's based on the riskiest members, premiums will be higher than necessary to cover actual payouts.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: recent obamacare news - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread