Penalties grow for not getting insurance

[dblack]

"It's not the job of government to run the country."

I'm not surprised you find that notion preposterous. All of the policies you advocate for are premised on an authoritarian government.

 

[Arianrhod]

"It's not the job of government to run the country."

I'm not surprised you find that notion preposterous. All of the policies you advocate for are premised on an authoritarian government.

Oh, now you slip the qualifier in there.

IYO, are all governments "authoritarian"?

 

[dblack]

"It's not the job of government to run the country."

I'm not surprised you find that notion preposterous. All of the policies you advocate for are premised on an authoritarian government.

Oh, now you slip the qualifier in there.

IYO, are all governments "authoritarian"?

Not at all.

 

[Arianrhod]

"It's not the job of government to run the country."

I'm not surprised you find that notion preposterous. All of the policies you advocate for are premised on an authoritarian government.

Oh, now you slip the qualifier in there.

IYO, are all governments "authoritarian"?

Not at all.

Then let's get back to your original statement. "It's not the job of government to run the country."

 

[dblack]

"It's not the job of government to run the country."

I'm not surprised you find that notion preposterous. All of the policies you advocate for are premised on an authoritarian government.

Oh, now you slip the qualifier in there.

IYO, are all governments "authoritarian"?

Not at all.

Then let's get back to your original statement. "It's not the job of government to run the country."

Let's do, because it's critical to understanding liberalism and a free society.

The government isn't the boss of society, it is our employee - a tool to achieve ends, not a master to determine them. It isn't there to tell us what to do.

 

[Arianrhod]

"It's not the job of government to run the country."

I'm not surprised you find that notion preposterous. All of the policies you advocate for are premised on an authoritarian government.

Oh, now you slip the qualifier in there.

IYO, are all governments "authoritarian"?

Not at all.

Then let's get back to your original statement. "It's not the job of government to run the country."

Let's do, because it's critical to understanding liberalism and a free society.

The government isn't the boss of society, it is our employee - a tool to achieve ends, not a master to determine them. It isn't there to tell us what to do.

So it should just "sit there and look beautiful"?

You have very strong opinions about what you believe should not happen.

 

[dblack]

I'm not surprised you find that notion preposterous. All of the policies you advocate for are premised on an authoritarian government.

Oh, now you slip the qualifier in there.

IYO, are all governments "authoritarian"?

Not at all.

Then let's get back to your original statement. "It's not the job of government to run the country."

Let's do, because it's critical to understanding liberalism and a free society.

The government isn't the boss of society, it is our employee - a tool to achieve ends, not a master to determine them. It isn't there to tell us what to do.

So it should just "sit there and look beautiful"?

Not at all. I believe in a strong government. Government should be strong enough to protect us from violence. That's is core mission. The problem is, once you grant it that capacity, unscrupulous people are ready and willing to use it aggressively.

You have very strong opinions about what you believe should not happen.

I certainly do. Government shouldn't do anything on behalf of society that an individual wouldn't be justified in doing themselves. For example, if I saw a thug robbing somewhat at gunpoint, I'd feel justified in using deadly force to stop them. But since I'm not very good at deadly force, and a bit of a coward physically, I would rather have trained professionals at hand to do it for me. That's the core function of government.

On the other hand, while I might think we'd all be better off if everyone followed my religious views, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing them on others. I wouldn't want them forcing theirs on me so I must reciprocate. I expect the same from my government.

 

[Arianrhod]

^Thank you.

 

[Conservative65]

^Thank you.

Yet you don't mind having a government force people to buy something such as health insurance.

 

[dblack]

^Thank you.

Yet you don't mind having a government force people to buy something such as health insurance.

Thanking my post didn't, necessarily, indicate agreement.

In any case, it is the same calculus for me. I might believe that we'd all be better off if everyone a certain kind of insurance, but I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbor to buy it. And I can't condone government doing it either.

 

[Conservative65]

^Thank you.

Yet you don't mind having a government force people to buy something such as health insurance.

Thanking my post didn't, necessarily, indicate agreement.

In any case, it is the same calculus for me. I might believe that we'd all be better off if everyone a certain kind of insurance, but I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbor to buy it. And I can't condone government doing it either.

I understood that.

What I found hypocritical is that he believed forcing things on people is wrong yet supports an ideology that does just that and used insurance as the prime example.

 

[Arianrhod]

I just find it interesting that y'all didn't seem to mind (or simply didn't know about) the old "system" where people who couldn't or wouldn't pay out of pocket were treated anyway and their costs were passed along to you in higher hospital bills or, in some cases, your local hospital shut down.

That's the "everything was fine the way it was" y'all are pining for.

 

[dblack]

I just find it interesting that y'all didn't seem to mind (or simply didn't know about) the old "system" where people who couldn't or wouldn't pay out of pocket were treated anyway and their costs were passed along to you in higher hospital bills or, in some cases, your local hospital shut down.

That's the "everything was fine the way it was" y'all are pining for.

I'm glad you find it interesting, because it's an opportunity for you to learn a bit more about this point of view. Allow me to explain:

I agree with you that EMTALA, and other unfunded mandates of that sort, are bad law. It should be up to doctors and hospitals to decide what sort of policies they have regarding treatment and billing. And it should be up to their customers whether those policies are acceptable. Personally, I wouldn't patronize a hospital, or a doctor who dealt with a hospital, that took the hard line - that left people to die in the street because they couldn't offer payment up front. Others might be so stingy that they insist that their doctor screen all their patients for ability to pay before treating them. But I think this group would be in a tiny minority, even if it did save them a few bucks.

Regardless, EMTALA never bothered me that much because it was, and is, mostly symbolic. Before it was passed, nearly all hospitals had policies that mirrored those mandated by EMTALA. Doctors, in general, are trained to treat people in emergency situations first and worry about payment afterwards. And I don't mind the potential for cost shifting that that entails. I'd rather have health care professionals focused on healing first, and bill-collecting second, even if it costs me a little more.

The cost shifting issue was never a real issue when it came to ACA anyway. It's merely a talking point that supporters think will impress conservatives because, they assume, conservatives are universally selfish. In any case, ACA actually expands the cost shifting, pushing it on to taxpayers and consumers (by forcing them to buy insurance they don't need). It funnels an informal system of cost-sharing into corporate controlled, for-profit, insurance pools. It's hard to see how anyone (other than the insurance companies) is supposed to consider that a 'win'.

 

[Arianrhod]

Point of order: There's this little thing called the Hippocratic oath that prevents most medical professionals from rifling through your pockets while you're having an MI and saying "Oh, you can't pay? Fuck you! Somebody put him back out on the street."

Annoying, I know.

 

[Granny]

I have a neighbor who sorely needs insurance but she can't afford it - way to young to draw SSI benefits, children are grown so she doesn't qualify for the state coverage, doesn't qualify for Medicaid, has no car so can't get to a place where she can get a decent job. She lives with her sister and just goes crazy thinking about her situation and how to cure it. She's applied for employment at every place around here where she can walk to work. She's not stupid or lazy - just down on her luck right now.

 

[dblack]

Point of order: There's this little thing called the Hippocratic oath that prevents most medical professionals from rifling through your pockets while you're having an MI and saying "Oh, you can't pay? Fuck you! Somebody put him back out on the street."

Annoying, I know.

Yep. What's your point? (also, why is that annoying?)

 

[emilynghiem]

Point of order: There's this little thing called the Hippocratic oath that prevents most medical professionals from rifling through your pockets while you're having an MI and saying "Oh, you can't pay? Fuck you! Somebody put him back out on the street."

Annoying, I know.

Dear Arianrhod
The funding and support can come from charities, businesses or school programs.
There is nothing that says that govt HAS to be the source of managing health care.
In fact, there are more arguments AGAINST federal govt being the central authority.

Because people's financial and health decisions are personal
it only makes more sense to govern this as locally as possible.

The way I explained it to a coworker, centralizing health care under one plan
is like trying to dictate to every household in the neighborhood that all the families
are going to go on uniform vacations or trips. You don't get a free choice of where and when
you want to go, and how to pay for it.

In order to 'streamline the process and make sure it is EQUAL for everyone'
the neighborhood is trying to manage it all through the same CENTRAL system, but unfortunately
that means limiting the choices. The families all want to follow different plans,
so they argue that they can manage their own, they want to retain their freedom to do so.
But central management argues BUT YOU'LL GET DISCOUNTS, it will cost less and everyone
will get to go on trips instead of just some people having access and others having none.

then the families argue: why not let the families who NEED the central planning help OPT INTO
the program and have the CHOICE to organize group vacations for discounts, but they will be limited to just the options offered. That's better than nothing.
And the families who want to continue planning their own trips on their own don't
mind PAYING more in exchange for the FREEDOM to plan where when and how they travel.

The point is WHO SAYS that all health care HAS to be managed through central federal govt?
Not everyone believes in that, wants that, or believes it is the role of govt so it's unconstitutional.

Instead of trying to force a centralized plan on people WHO DON'T WANT OR BELIEVE IN IT,
why not give families the CHOICE of whether to participate or plan and pay for their own trips.

The central program can be organized for just those who want that.

And Arianrhod the biggest kicker is that these centralized/collective programs can be set up, managed and funded independently; there is no law saying it HAS to be done through govt.

If people AGREE to that, that's fine.

But from what I've seen, the beliefs both FOR and AGAINST these health insurance mandates
are so opposite, it seems better to separate the programs by party so people can exercise their beliefs without further obstruction or denial of equal protections and due process of laws.

The same battlecry to separate church from state, should also be applied to separating political beliefs from govt so these aren't imposed or enforced through govt at the expense of others.

 

[Arianrhod]

^Funding can come from those sources, but often doesn't. Then what?

 

[Kosh]

Point of order: There's this little thing called the Hippocratic oath that prevents most medical professionals from rifling through your pockets while you're having an MI and saying "Oh, you can't pay? Fuck you! Somebody put him back out on the street."

Annoying, I know.

Yep. What's your point? (also, why is that annoying?)

Far left drones never have a point, they just run their debunked religious narratives..

 

[Arianrhod]

Point of order: There's this little thing called the Hippocratic oath that prevents most medical professionals from rifling through your pockets while you're having an MI and saying "Oh, you can't pay? Fuck you! Somebody put him back out on the street."

Annoying, I know.

Yep. What's your point? (also, why is that annoying?)

Far left drones never have a point, they just run their debunked religious narratives..

Do you ever post without the word "drone"?