vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Your original point was:
quote:
If you are suffering a chronic illness that will end your life, it is the illness that is taking your life, not another person.
That is not necessarily true. A person with a chronic heart malady may die of a car accident or he may die of a surgeon's error or he may die of his inability to receive maintenance treatment, which could be provided socially.
And, anyone could die from a meteorite hitting them, or a lightning strike, or drinking too much water. If a guy with a chronic heart malady died in a car accident, does it matter that he had a chronic heart malady, or that he was or wasn't getting care for it?
It could be provided charitably, too, couldn't it? Hospitals have to jack prices up to pay for more expensive ER care for the indigent, right? Aaaand, why do they have to provide care of the indigent that come to the ER? Oh, that's right, Federal law. Perhaps we get rid of EMTALA and let hospitals decide if they want to provide charity care or not. Can you even imagine the PR nightmare if they denied charity care simply because a person was too poor to pay?!? But, do let them claim that charity care on their financials so there would be some non-PR benefit. Oh, and have them provide updated care cost lists so we can choose which hospital we'd like to receive care from. I'm sure that wouldn't start some sort of price war, or end with collusion claims.
Guaranteed there would be charities popping up to deal with helping the indigent pay as soon as there were one or two widely reported denial of care instances.
We are talking here about a minimum of 23 million people who are in need of healthcare. Let's not go down the hocus pocus road that charities will do it. That is the usual Libertarian nonsense. The purpose of our social compact should not be to help the rich get richer; it should be by the dictates of a humane, civic philosophy to make sure those in need have access to medical care, food, shelter, and clean water. America fails the test. But then America has never been a humane nation, has it?
You lead us down the hocus pocus highway, Vincent.
EMTALA = access to medical care.
Lots of people rely on charities for food, shelter, and clean water, don't they? Whatever did we do before the rise of insurance? And, while we're at it, employer "provided" medical insurance is a direct result not of the rich wanting to get richer, but of government actions. So, now that government stepped in(to it), they have to keep stepping in(to it) deeper and make up for their consequences of their own actions. Does that - from a bird's eye view - not look so damn familiar yet? FFS, that's partly why most of the Middle East hates us. We keep acting to make up for previous actions that turned into fuck ups.
More Libertarian Foo Foo, my friend. The origins of employer provided medical insurance was a market based process and not driven by the government. You make it sound like the Feds passed a Law in Congress to instigate this mess.
During WW2 there was a large demand for product but limited Labor. Additionally, Wage and Price controls were in effect. So, corporations and other war profiteers could not compete for Labor by raising wages. Then the Labor Relations Board ruled that fringe benefits were not subject to Wage Controls. Consequently, the market gave birth to employer provided health insurance. The problem of course was, and still is today, that the evolution of this new system did nothing for the elderly or for people who worked in small shops. Many remained uninsured. As corporations freely threw out money in competition for labor the inflation of medical costs zoomed.
The Arabs hate us because we fucked them over in 1919 and 1948, which is a different story.
Bottom line, we do not stand around and watch a drowning man die and then blame him for not having a job. Charities cannot match the need and are highly inefficient spenders with too much of their donations going to administration. Furthermore, if it were not for income tax write offs charities would have a difficult time funding their projects. Either we fund social safety by direct taxation or we fund it by allowing tax relief to the donors. In either case funding has to come from citizens. So, yes, it is true that through charities the donor has the liberty of choice. But Libertarians cry for their liberty only when it comes to humane welfare spending, it seems. Why is it you do not demand liberty of choice when it comes to funding the Military? Taking tax money for that expenditure denies me the "right" to choose between funding jet fighters as opposed to field medical equipment. How do you justify your insistence for liberty of choice in one area of government expenditure but not the other?
_____________________________
vML
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.
|
RE: Fourth of July 2017 - 
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