Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it.
Do I have the right to force a nurse to check out my vital signs, a doctor to use his education and experience to diagnose me and recommend treatment, the surgeon to operate, the pharaceutical company to make my drugs, and the hospital to house me? That's why I have a problem calling health care (well, you don't say this here, you say health ... but unless you're God, you can't really call that a right ... some are born in poor health and die in a violent abuse of their personal rights).
Somebody pays. We sometimes discuss if everybody else should pay for the destitute, how we define destitute, etc. That's usually classed as "Welfare Programs." National healthcare means the government is your insurer, and you now pay taxes in part to insure yourself ... an agency of the government pays your bill when you visit hospital etc.
AKA quoted text is right. Insurers are out there to make money, to collect more from you in monthly payments than they're gonna spend for you on hospitalization, drugs, and all the rest. You buy in because regular payments is a better prospect than suddenly being billed for something you cannot afford, and you can (to some extent) leverage your current health and low-risk habits for a very cheap deal (i.e. get this service for very cheap).
But just knowing some people leap from "health is a right" and "poor people shouldn't have to die because they can't afford insurance" to "Nation Healthcare" is saddening. In unrelated news, your average poor person has a car, air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, DVD, and video game system (Reporting done on Census data).
imo health "insurance" is inherently immoral since we all only have 1 life to live. as a society we should strive to have healthcare as a right. Your definition of "right" is a bit different.
How would you like it if I asked you if you felt like calling the police and/or ambulance and having them show up wasn't a "right"?
(I know of situations where police and ambulance/fire don't come but those are specific situations (and obviously the police/ambulance should show up when you call them), as a whole for 99.5% of people if you expect someone to show up when there is an emergency)
Healthcare needs to be thought of in the same way as the police/fire department/emt's
I would love for a system like Canada considering how burned I have been by the "health insurance" companies here in the US. Preventative care is where its at, but with the US system you get butt raped for urgent care/doctors office visits
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it.
Do I have the right to force a nurse to check out my vital signs, a doctor to use his education and experience to diagnose me and recommend treatment, the surgeon to operate, the pharaceutical company to make my drugs, and the hospital to house me? That's why I have a problem calling health care (well, you don't say this here, you say health ... but unless you're God, you can't really call that a right ... some are born in poor health and die in a violent abuse of their personal rights).
This, right there, is a very common fallacy used against the notion of a right to healthcare. Such a right would NOT be opposable to individuals (such as doctors) but to the government. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating for a right to walk into any doctor's office and force the doctor to treat him. Yet each time I read a discussion about the idea of a right to healthcare, someone comes up with that ridiculous fallacy that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. There's even a video of Rand Paul making that exact comment and arguing that a right to healthcare would amount to enslaving the doctors. No, it wouldn't. How do you think the right to counsel works? Does an accused individual suddenly get the right to walk into any lawyer's office and force the lawyer to defend him in court? No, the right to counsel is not opposable to individuals but to the government, meaning that it is the government that has to find someone willing to defend the accused (in exchange for money, of course). A right to healthcare would imply the exact same thing - the government would have to provide you with access to healthcare, notably by paying doctors who will willfully be public employees.
On September 06 2012 07:40 Souma wrote: At least I gave you three lines.
And I gave you an example of the Japanese government doing wasteful spending to create a Lost Decade, a plan very similar to what Democrats want to do here. Would you like to read about how Spanish investment in solar power turned out to go along with all the Democrats praise for it here today?
Do I have to write out the whole history of Japan's economic miracle? And god, if you're going to link me to a page outlining the Lost Decade, at least read it.
Most Economists take the fractional reserve banking system as a given in their analysis of the root causes of the Japanese financial crisis and are uncritical of its influence on creating and exacerbating the situation. For example Economist Paul Krugman has described Japan's lost decade as an example of the liquidity trap, a situation where consumers and firms saved too much overall, thereby causing the economy to slow. He explained how truly massive the asset bubble was in Japan by 1990, with a tripling of land and stock market prices during the prosperous 1980s. Japan's high personal savings rates, driven in part by the demographics of an aging population, enabled Japanese firms to rely heavily on traditional bank loans from supporting banking networks, as opposed to issuing stock or bonds via the capital markets to acquire funds. The cozy relationship of corporations to banks and the implicit guarantee of a taxpayer bailout of bank deposits created a significant moral hazard problem, leading to an atmosphere of crony capitalism and reduced lending standards. He wrote: "Japan's banks lent more, with less regard for quality of the borrower, than anyone else's. In so doing they helped inflate the bubble economy to grotesque proportions." The Bank of Japan began increasing interest rates in 1990 due in part to concerns over the bubble and in 1991 land and stock prices began a steep decline, within a few years reaching 60% below their peak.[7]
In response to the recession, Japanese policymakers tried a series of government economic stimulus programs and bank bailouts. A 2.4% budget surplus in 1991 turned to a deficit of 4.3% by 1996 and 10% by 1998, with the national debt to GDP ratio reaching 100%. In 1998, a $500 billion bank rescue plan was implemented to encourage bank lending and borrowing. The central bank also attempted to increase inflation (which devalues savings over time), to encourage consumer spending. Krugman wrote that by 2003, the Japanese economy began to recover, helped by imports from the U.S. and China that helped Japan achieve a real growth rate of 2%. He wrote the recovery was "provisional" and there was significant risk of a return to a liquidity trap.[7]
Economist Richard Koo wrote that Japan's "Great Recession" that began in 1990 was a "balance sheet recession". It was triggered by a collapse in land and stock prices, which caused Japanese firms to become insolvent, meaning their assets were worth less than their liabilities. Despite zero interest rates and expansion of the money supply to encourage borrowing, Japanese corporations in aggregate opted to pay down their debts from their own business earnings rather than borrow to invest as firms typically do. Corporate investment, a key demand component of GDP, fell enormously (22% of GDP) between 1990 and its peak decline in 2003. Japanese firms overall became net savers after 1998, as opposed to borrowers. Koo argues that it was massive fiscal stimulus (borrowing and spending by the government) that offset this decline and enabled Japan to maintain its level of GDP. In his view, this avoided a U.S. type Great Depression, in which U.S. GDP fell by 46%. He argued that monetary policy was ineffective because there was limited demand for funds while firms paid down their liabilities. In a balance sheet recession, GDP declines by the amount of debt repayment and un-borrowed individual savings, leaving government stimulus spending as the primary remedy.[8][9]
Economist Scott Sumner has argued that Japan's monetary policy was too tight during the Lost Decade.[
This, right there, is a very common fallacy used against the notion of a right to healthcare. Such a right would NOT be opposable to individuals (such as doctors) but to the government. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating for a right to walk into any doctor's office and force the doctor to treat him.
A right to healthcare would imply the exact same thing - the government would have to provide you with access to healthcare, notably by paying doctors who will willfully be public employees.
And so when there are no doctors to treat you you still have the right to health care but government shrugs it's should and says watayagonnado?
j/k government says the problem is taxes are too low and it needs more money.
Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan is barnstorming the country, promising to repeal every provision of the Affordable Care Act if the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected. But a letter he wrote to the Obama administration may undermine this message.
On December 10, 2010, Ryan penned a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a grant application for the Kenosha Community Health Center, Inc to develop a new facility in Racine, Wisconsin, an area within Ryan’s district. “The proposed new facility, the Belle City Neighborhood Health Center, will serve both the preventative and comprehensive primary healthcare needs of thousands of new patients of all ages who are currently without healthcare,” Ryan wrote.
The grant Ryan requested was funded directly by the Affordable Care Act, better known simply as healthcare reform or Obamacare.
The letter, among several obtained by The Nation and The Investigative Fund through a Freedom of Information Act request, is a stark reminder that even the most ardent opponents of Obamacare privately acknowledge many of the law’s benefits.
Federally funded health clinics have long provided a broad range of vital medical, dental and mental health services to underprivileged communities across the country, regardless of a persons’ ability to pay. To meet the goal of expanding coverage, the Affordable Care Act provides for a sweeping expansion of such clinics, including $9.5 billion for operating costs to existing community health centers and $1.5 billion for new construction.
In public, Ryan has cultivated a profile as one of health reform’s most outspoken critics. He savages the Affordable Care Act as an example of “Washington’s reckless spending spree,” as “irresponsible,” and has warned repeatedly that it would place the “federal government squarely in the middle of health-care decisions.”
Explaining his “philosophical difference” with Democrats, Ryan told ABC News this summer that he would seek to repeal the “entire law” because healthcare rights come from “nature and God,” not the government. He expressed dismay that the Supreme Court upheld the law during the interview.
I don't see the issue. Ryan is just supposed to oppose something that might help some of his constituents because he doesn't like the ACA? In addition characterizing him as "health reform's most outspoken critics" is absurd. Unless I'm wrong, he's part of the Republican party that is calling for repeal and replace not that no reform should have been done in the first place.
I'm fine with disagreeing on how health insurance gets reformed, but let's at least be a little honest about it. Before I hear how there aren't any details out there I've posted a link to Romney's Health Care Plan.
This story reminds me of the Republicans that complain about the President using Super PACs in this election.
This, right there, is a very common fallacy used against the notion of a right to healthcare. Such a right would NOT be opposable to individuals (such as doctors) but to the government. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating for a right to walk into any doctor's office and force the doctor to treat him.
A right to healthcare would imply the exact same thing - the government would have to provide you with access to healthcare, notably by paying doctors who will willfully be public employees.
And so when there are no doctors to treat you you still have the right to health care but government shrugs it's should and says watayagonnado?
j/k government says the problem is taxes are too low and it needs more money.
So what you are saying is everyone shouldnt have healthcare because we dont have enough doctors?
On September 06 2012 06:51 Savio wrote: I found this hilarious. Democrats just pwned their own delegates. They have been criticized for removing language referring to "God" from the platform and for removing the plank stating that Jerusalem should be considered the capital of Israel. I think they saw that this would hurt them politically and they tried to fix it and this ensued:
Democrat delegates just got pwned by party leadership on that one I'd say.
EDIT: That combined with the move of Obama's speech to a smaller indoor stadium and I would say this has been a bit of a bumpy convention for dems. I expect that this video is gonna make some news in the next 2 days.
EDIT 2: There is no way that was 2/3 vote. That was maybe 50/50 at best.
They obviously thought the vote would just pass without any of the delegates noticing. How they weren't prepared for a roll call vote just in case is beyond me.
Nice work by the CSPAN crew finding the Arab-American couple that was obviously not happy with the changes.
On September 06 2012 08:29 Souma wrote: Koo argues that it was massive fiscal stimulus (borrowing and spending by the government) that offset this decline and enabled Japan to maintain its level of GDP. In his view, this avoided a U.S. type Great Depression, in which U.S. GDP fell by 46%.
easy enough to argue something that can't be proven or disproved. Always easy to say 'without me things would be even worse' as Obama has shown us time and time again. Personally it seems more like a repeat of not just Japan recent but FDR as well:
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
This, right there, is a very common fallacy used against the notion of a right to healthcare. Such a right would NOT be opposable to individuals (such as doctors) but to the government. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating for a right to walk into any doctor's office and force the doctor to treat him.
A right to healthcare would imply the exact same thing - the government would have to provide you with access to healthcare, notably by paying doctors who will willfully be public employees.
And so when there are no doctors to treat you you still have the right to health care but government shrugs it's should and says watayagonnado?
j/k government says the problem is taxes are too low and it needs more money.
So what you are saying is everyone shouldnt have healthcare because we dont have enough doctors?
I'm saying that increasing the number of doctors will lower costs. Supply and demand. Government policies that increase demand for services and lower the supply of doctors is counterproductive to the goal.
On September 06 2012 08:29 Souma wrote: Koo argues that it was massive fiscal stimulus (borrowing and spending by the government) that offset this decline and enabled Japan to maintain its level of GDP. In his view, this avoided a U.S. type Great Depression, in which U.S. GDP fell by 46%.
easy enough to argue something that can't be proven or disproved. Always easy to say 'without me things would be even worse' as Obama has shown us time and time again. Personally it seems more like a repeat of not just Japan recent but FDR as well:
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
Defenders of the New Deal will find much to argue with in Cole and Ohanion’s account, but for simplicity’s sake, I am going to zero in on just one point — the impact of the New Deal on unemployment.
Cole and Ohanian:
The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn’t restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office.
How can one make this claim? Unemployment reached 25 percent in the Great Depression, and fell steadily until World War II (although there were some bumps up along the way). Ah, but the revisionist position is that unemployment did not fall as much as it should have. And this argument is based on an interesting interpretation of the available data. As Amity Shlaes, currently the premier anti-New Deal historical revisionist writing for a popular audience, explained proudly in her own Wall Street Journal opinion piece in November, “The Krugman Recipe for Depression,” a necessary step is to not count as employed those people in “temporary jobs in emergency programs.”
That means, everyone who got a job during the Great Depression via the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), or any other of Roosevelt’s popular New Deal workfare programs, doesn’t get counted as employed in the statistics used by Cole, Ohanian and Shlaes
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it.
You have a right to manage your health like you have a right to manage your speech.
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it.
You have a right to manage your health like you have a right to manage your speech.
Sure, and when you get tourettes, let's see you manage that.
This, right there, is a very common fallacy used against the notion of a right to healthcare. Such a right would NOT be opposable to individuals (such as doctors) but to the government. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating for a right to walk into any doctor's office and force the doctor to treat him.
A right to healthcare would imply the exact same thing - the government would have to provide you with access to healthcare, notably by paying doctors who will willfully be public employees.
And so when there are no doctors to treat you you still have the right to health care but government shrugs it's should and says watayagonnado?
j/k government says the problem is taxes are too low and it needs more money.
How the hell is that in any shape or form relevant to the point I was making, namely the fallacious nature of the argument that proponents of a right to healthcare would have it be opposable to individuals? Could you maybe stop jumping on the reply button every time you see a comment you don't like and try to understand the argument first?
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it.
You have a right to manage your health like you have a right to manage your speech.
Only when either does not infringe upon the rights of others.
You do not have a right to manage your health in a way that hurts others, whether by carrying around infectious diseases instead of getting treated or by skimping on health insurance and leaving taxpayers to foot the bill when something happens.
EPT
