|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), a top House Republican, said Friday morning that he would vote against the GOP’s Obamacare replacement bill, known as “Trumpcare.”
Frelinghuysen’s opposition is significant not only because Republican leadership can only afford to lose 21 or 22 votes, but also because he is the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Committee chairpersons typically vote in line with the House leadership – and indeed set the party line and help pull recalcitrant members on board.
“Seven years after enactment of Obamacare, I wanted to support legislation that made positive changes to rescue healthcare in America,” Frelinghuysen said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, the legislation before the House today is currently unacceptable as it would place significant new costs and barriers to care on my constituents in New Jersey,” he continued. “In addition to the loss of Medicaid coverage for so many people in my Medicaid-dependent state, the denial of essential health benefits in the individual market raise serious coverage and cost issues.”
Source
|
United States42778 Posts
On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday.
They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue.
A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people.
A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race.
All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal.
Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed.
|
On March 25 2017 00:50 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Thanks for providing an example post of what I meant with dishonest arguments... Your example is deeply flawed: If the poor person can not afford the coverage of the rare disease under B, then you don't help him by forcing him to buy it anyway.
So how exactly do you help him under model B. He is not insured (couldn't afford insurance, or in your own words *gambled wrong*). And paying for care is not an option. He either gets free treatment or slowly wastes away (possibly in agony due to not being able to afford pain medication either) and then dies.
The choice of A vs B has absolutely nothing to with the accessibility of it for poor people. At least not in the way you are describing it.
The redistribution in model A happens not from one income-group to the other. But from low risk people to high risk people. If you are looking into accessibility to health services for poor people you have to subsidize them, but this could (and Imho should) be done regardless of the choice between A and B.
Now it is true, that many proponents of B also refuse those subsidies. But this is a very different topic.
As stated before, I strongly support and prefer A...
But this intentional misrepresentation of the other side somehow deeply disturbs me. There are enough good arguments, why not stick to those? It is a discussion culture which only aims at the total defeat of the "enemy" instead of an exchange of ideas, after which everyone can decide which ones he considers to be more convincing. And people may decide differently even after everything has been said.
I don't really care whether the solution is single payer, or some system like the Swiss and Dutch have: they both work just fine. Moreover single payer is different in all the different countries that have it. But health CARE is not really a choice in modern society. We have decided that people suffering/dying to preventable causes is not acceptable. The only question is how to divide the costs. Model B is a false equivalence, because it rolls back that decision: it says everybody gets the care they can pay for. If you have no money, you get no care. Or in the words of one US politician: should have bought insurance instead of an iPhone.
|
On March 25 2017 00:41 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:I also don't know why this hasn't been talked about either. This is homegrown terrorism, and we have a president in office who's yet to condemn these type of actions. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39363465A white US Army veteran with a hatred for black people travelled to New York City and confronted a black man before killing him with a sword, police say.
James Harris Jackson, 28, is said to have taken a bus from Baltimore to New York with the intention of targeting black men.
When he came across Timothy Caughman, 66, he allegedly stabbed him in the chest and back.
Mr Caughman was pronounced dead in hospital.
His alleged assailant walked into a Times Square police station about 24 hours later and was arrested on suspicion of murder.
He is said to have told officers that he had harboured feelings of hatred towards black men for at least 10 years. Mentally ill lone wolf, what else can ya say?
+ Show Spoiler [Time for another dose of] +
|
|
|
On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday. They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue. A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people. A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race. All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal. Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed.
Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs.
On March 25 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:50 mahrgell wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Thanks for providing an example post of what I meant with dishonest arguments... Your example is deeply flawed: If the poor person can not afford the coverage of the rare disease under B, then you don't help him by forcing him to buy it anyway. So how exactly do you help him under model B. He is not insured (couldn't afford insurance, or in your own words *gambled wrong*). And paying for care is not an option. He either gets free treatment or slowly wastes away (possibly in agony due to not being able to afford pain medication either) and then dies. Show nested quote +
The choice of A vs B has absolutely nothing to with the accessibility of it for poor people. At least not in the way you are describing it.
The redistribution in model A happens not from one income-group to the other. But from low risk people to high risk people. If you are looking into accessibility to health services for poor people you have to subsidize them, but this could (and Imho should) be done regardless of the choice between A and B.
Now it is true, that many proponents of B also refuse those subsidies. But this is a very different topic.
As stated before, I strongly support and prefer A...
But this intentional misrepresentation of the other side somehow deeply disturbs me. There are enough good arguments, why not stick to those? It is a discussion culture which only aims at the total defeat of the "enemy" instead of an exchange of ideas, after which everyone can decide which ones he considers to be more convincing. And people may decide differently even after everything has been said.
I don't really care whether the solution is single payer, or some system like the Swiss and Dutch have: they both work just fine. Moreover single payer is different in all the different countries that have it. But health CARE is not really a choice in modern society. We have decided that people suffering/dying to preventable causes is not acceptable. The only question is how to divide the costs. Model B is a false equivalence, because it rolls back that decision: it says everybody gets the care they can pay for. If you have no money, you get no care. Or in the words of one US politician: should have bought insurance instead of an iPhone.
Model B still works if you assume the poor get some minimum standard of living (which they do...although it depends on your "type of poor"... someone who isn't working, and can't prove they can't work gets the really terrible standard of living provided by food banks and shelters).
As mentioned, Model A still ruins the poor, because it says "You will buy health insurance that costs 500$ a month or you get penalized"
Basically model A is a Tax on the poor.
Now the advantage of Model A is that you can say... alright everyone has to spend $500 a month on Health insurance so we will give poor people $500 a month to pay for the health insurance we are forcing them to have.
(as opposed to Model B, where it is... "health insurance can cost anywhere from $10-$10,000 a month... the minimum health care we want poor people to have can be bought for $500 a month...so we will either
1-give them $500 directly* (if they don't buy insurance they will have to use this to buy healthcare directly when they need it... or they could buy a new iPhone every month until they died if that is what they wanted to do)
OR
2-give them $500 once they show they have some minimal legally required health insurance*
OR
3-give them however much money they spent on health insurance up to $500*
*(possibly once they let us know they are poor, depending on whether this is more UBI or not)
The "$500" could be adjusted for age and medical conditions as well
|
On March 25 2017 01:38 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday. They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue. A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people. A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race. All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal. Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed. Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs.
No, they do not. Churches are not offering public service like a baker or diner.
|
On March 25 2017 01:38 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday. They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue. A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people. A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race. All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal. Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed. Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs.
I don't think churches work that way - they allow you to participate if you accept their religion and do the steps to become part of their religion, no? And so, people of other religions do not want to do that - because it is heresy to them.
|
On the cake stuff; there's a need for some sort of law. The world is very complicated; there WILL be problematic corner cases/grey areas wherein decisions will need to be made, and standards set, that will make some significant number of people in the public unhappy, though the actual number of such cases might be very small.
It's also nice to make laws simple, rather than adding tons of exceptions/clarifications/special cases.
it feels like kwark is arguing about what the law is, whereas some others are arguing about what the law should be, and thus there's some talking past each other.
I think some of the freedom caucus folk should just put forth a proposal for a free minimum standard of care (which is quite low).
|
On March 25 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:50 mahrgell wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Thanks for providing an example post of what I meant with dishonest arguments... Your example is deeply flawed: If the poor person can not afford the coverage of the rare disease under B, then you don't help him by forcing him to buy it anyway. So how exactly do you help him under model B. He is not insured (couldn't afford insurance, or in your own words *gambled wrong*). And paying for care is not an option. He either gets free treatment or slowly wastes away (possibly in agony due to not being able to afford pain medication either) and then dies.
Wonderful example.
so we have:
B: Guy cant afford insurance, thus doesn't have it, gets sick -> problem
A: Guy can't afford insurance, but has it anyway -> all great.
Again, the problem is not, that he didn't have the insurance, but that he couldn't afford it. You don't remove this problem by stating that if he would have bought it anyway (or was forced to) all things are suddenly great..
But if this is the foundation of your argument... good job.
Maybe before starting to discuss whether you choose A or B you should discuss about enabling him to afford it.
Once you made sure that everyone could afford it. (which, as stated earlier is a different topic) you get to the other problem.
The dilemma of "what if you gambled wrong". This is simply a problem of conflicting morales. You either sacrifice the right of "you can do whatever stupid or risky thing you want like skiing, traveling to North Korea or skipping on health insurance" or you sacrifice parts of the morale obligation of society to care for those who are in deep shit under any circumstances.
But you can't have both at 100%. And different people have different opinions on this. But of course you can always pretend that only the other side is sacrificing rights/morales.
Reminds me of a German couple. They were sailing across the world, were warned not to sail in certain areas, did it anyway. Got kidnapped by pirates, bought free by Germany, got a more severe warning to really not sail in certain areas. Guess what... They did it again, got kidnapped again, this time they were not bought free. Now they are dead.
|
United States42778 Posts
On March 25 2017 01:48 zlefin wrote:
On the cake stuff; there's a need for some sort of law. The world is very complicated; there WILL be problematic corner cases/grey areas wherein decisions will need to be made, and standards set, that will make some significant number of people in the public unhappy, though the actual number of such cases might be very small.
It's also nice to make laws simple, rather than adding tons of exceptions/clarifications/special cases.
it feels like kwark is arguing about what the law is, whereas some others are arguing about what the law should be, and thus there's some talking past each other.
I think some of the freedom caucus folk should just put forth a proposal for a free minimum standard of care (which is quite low).
There's always going to be grey areas but the effective policy was laid out in the civil rights era because that was when this question was most relevant. You don't have a religious right to discriminate as a business offering a service to the public. It had to be that way because racism was viewed as an integral religious right, civil rights as a concept could not survive unless the primacy of rights over religious beliefs was established. If anyone is genuinely trying to make the argument that civil rights should not take primacy over religious beliefs here then they can try but hopefully we don't have anyone who wants to return to the bad old days. Religious discrimination was literally the moral foundation of segregation in the American south, attacking primacy of civil rights over religious beliefs cannot be separated from an attack on civil rights as a concept.
The law is what the law should be because the law is what the law needed to be to end institutional discrimination. There is no honest way of arguing that the law should be other than what it is unless you are also trying to unravel civil rights. If someone genuinely wants to make the argument that civil rights need to be scrapped and that discrimination and segregation should be returned then they can go ahead. But if they'd rather not happen then they shouldn't try to argue that the law should be other than it is, it is what it is for a reason.
|
On March 25 2017 01:45 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 01:38 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:
[quote]
Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany.
The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one.
for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class)
Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth).
Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric.
This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday. They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue. A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people. A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race. All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal. Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed. Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs. I don't think churches work that way - they allow you to participate if you accept their religion and do the steps to become part of their religion, no? And so, people of other religions do not want to do that - because it is heresy to them.
If a non-messianic Jew or an atheist wanted to join a Christian church, then they would probably have to sign something stating they agreed with the churches believed that Jesus is God... definitely sounds like it would be discriminating against the person's religion.
(not that that would be likely to happen....but I would guess it would be illegal for a section of the KKK to exclude a black person that wanted to join, because that would be racial discrimination)
Basically the church can discriminate against your religion in membership, and so they are probably entitled to do so in other services they offer as well (especially if the services they offer have a religious nature, like weddings/funerals/etc.)
The bakers are arguing that their provision of custom wedding cakes have a religious nature. Given the fact that many people have strong religious beliefs around marriage, and that a custom made cake involves some personal involvement of the maker, that seems potentially reasonable.
|
On March 25 2017 02:03 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 01:45 JinDesu wrote:On March 25 2017 01:38 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now.
You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race.
Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here.
All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday. They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue. A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people. A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race. All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal. Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed. Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs. I don't think churches work that way - they allow you to participate if you accept their religion and do the steps to become part of their religion, no? And so, people of other religions do not want to do that - because it is heresy to them. If a non-messianic Jew or an atheist wanted to join a Christian church, then they would probably have to sign something stating they agreed with the churches believed that Jesus is God... definitely sounds like it would be discriminating against the person's religion. (not that that would be likely to happen....but I would guess it would be illegal for a section of the KKK to exclude a black person that wanted to join, because that would be racial discrimination) Basically the church can discriminate against your religion in membership, and so they are probably entitled to do so in other services they offer as well (especially if the services they offer have a religious nature, like weddings/funerals/etc.) The bakers are arguing that their provision of custom wedding cakes have a religious nature. Given the fact that many people have strong religious beliefs around marriage, and that a custom made cake involves some personal involvement of the maker, that seems potentially reasonable.
As an atheist I have never been unable to walk into a church. Also have never been questioned about my religious affiliation when attending any services.
I mean, I don't know how stringent churches are in the US, but...
|
United States42778 Posts
On March 25 2017 02:03 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 01:45 JinDesu wrote:On March 25 2017 01:38 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now.
You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race.
Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here.
All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday. They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue. A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people. A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race. All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal. Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed. Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs. I don't think churches work that way - they allow you to participate if you accept their religion and do the steps to become part of their religion, no? And so, people of other religions do not want to do that - because it is heresy to them. If a non-messianic Jew or an atheist wanted to join a Christian church, then they would probably have to sign something stating they agreed with the churches believed that Jesus is God... definitely sounds like it would be discriminating against the person's religion. (not that that would be likely to happen....but I would guess it would be illegal for a section of the KKK to exclude a black person that wanted to join, because that would be racial discrimination) Basically the church can discriminate against your religion in membership, and so they are probably entitled to do so in other services they offer as well (especially if the services they offer have a religious nature, like weddings/funerals/etc.) The bakers are arguing that their provision of custom wedding cakes have a religious nature. Given the fact that many people have strong religious beliefs around marriage, and that a custom made cake involves some personal involvement of the maker, that seems potentially reasonable.
What? Bakeries aren't churches and churches aren't businesses open to the general public.
What are you talking about?
|
That KKK is totally allowed to exude black people if they want to join. They are a private group and do not open their doors to the public. Churches are as well. Bakers are providing the public with services.
On March 25 2017 02:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 02:03 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 01:45 JinDesu wrote:On March 25 2017 01:38 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:
[quote]
The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.)
Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday. They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue. A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people. A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race. All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal. Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed. Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs. I don't think churches work that way - they allow you to participate if you accept their religion and do the steps to become part of their religion, no? And so, people of other religions do not want to do that - because it is heresy to them. If a non-messianic Jew or an atheist wanted to join a Christian church, then they would probably have to sign something stating they agreed with the churches believed that Jesus is God... definitely sounds like it would be discriminating against the person's religion. (not that that would be likely to happen....but I would guess it would be illegal for a section of the KKK to exclude a black person that wanted to join, because that would be racial discrimination) Basically the church can discriminate against your religion in membership, and so they are probably entitled to do so in other services they offer as well (especially if the services they offer have a religious nature, like weddings/funerals/etc.) The bakers are arguing that their provision of custom wedding cakes have a religious nature. Given the fact that many people have strong religious beliefs around marriage, and that a custom made cake involves some personal involvement of the maker, that seems potentially reasonable. As an atheist I have never been unable to walk into a church. Also have never been questioned about my religious affiliation when attending any services. I mean, I don't know how stringent churches are in the US, but...
You could sit in my church any time you wanted and no one would care. Even if you openly admitted to not believing in god. Some folks might try to convince you otherwise, but that is it. As long as you are not just showing up for the free coffee and food during fellowship hour, no one would care.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump approves Keystone pipeline.
|
Yay 35 more jobs and using Chinese steel.
also these are the people in charge right now.
I think amazon would disagree with that
|
On March 25 2017 02:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 02:03 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 01:45 JinDesu wrote:On March 25 2017 01:38 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:
[quote]
The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.)
Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery. Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone. Instead just have " Ask about our custom wedding cakes*" *members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds *members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason) but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday. They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue. A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people. A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race. All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal. Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed. Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs. I don't think churches work that way - they allow you to participate if you accept their religion and do the steps to become part of their religion, no? And so, people of other religions do not want to do that - because it is heresy to them. If a non-messianic Jew or an atheist wanted to join a Christian church, then they would probably have to sign something stating they agreed with the churches believed that Jesus is God... definitely sounds like it would be discriminating against the person's religion. (not that that would be likely to happen....but I would guess it would be illegal for a section of the KKK to exclude a black person that wanted to join, because that would be racial discrimination) Basically the church can discriminate against your religion in membership, and so they are probably entitled to do so in other services they offer as well (especially if the services they offer have a religious nature, like weddings/funerals/etc.) The bakers are arguing that their provision of custom wedding cakes have a religious nature. Given the fact that many people have strong religious beliefs around marriage, and that a custom made cake involves some personal involvement of the maker, that seems potentially reasonable. As an atheist I have never been unable to walk into a church. Also have never been questioned about my religious affiliation when attending any services. I mean, I don't know how stringent churches are in the US, but...
Walking in and attending services is very different than becoming a member.
(and buying a premade cake is somewhat different from buying a custom one)
The comparison was the point that a "members" organization (like a church) is allowed to discriminate in who they allow as members... even protected classes.
And if the bakery organized their custom cake services as such, then they could more easily say they do certain types of services but not others.
|
On March 25 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:
Trump approves Keystone pipeline.
while I don't care much either way on that issue; there's a serious general issue with the lack of uh, I guess for want of a better term, stare decisis in executive decisions. stuff getting reversed back and forth constantly as the presidency changes hands isn't good for the system, it makes for inconsistent and ever-shifting law that can't be predicted well either.
|
also Republicans look like their trying to pull health care vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xzpOCGE.jpg)
