Women's Rights

Good night, HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!

I agree with Doug.  As a male I've paid higher auto insurance rates than women my whole life.  Nobody complains about this being discriminatory because it is based on statistical evidence and actuarial tables. Women's health insurance costs more because each of the conditions Jen talks about can be statistically proven to result in higher medical care costs.  That's not discrimination, that's math.

I also agree with Doug that tying insurance rates to an idea of social justice and public good, and not actuarial risk, is an admirable goal for health care reform.  But lets discuss it intelligently instead of trying to rile everybody up with claims of discrimination and women's rights violations.

Good grief, I'll try to keep this civil, but I *hate* rhetorical dishonesty {aka lies}.

Doug said:

"I think a more honest way to approach the topic would be to say that, ..."

There ain't nothin' honest about that clap-trap.  This is a classic Lefty-Liberal technique.  Make some "Dr. Feelgood" statement, wrap it in a pink bow and call it "honest".  I'm calling {bull sh*t}!

What is honest about wrapping a fiscal lie in the 'social justice' blanket and calling it the right thing to do?

Aeon, I hear passion in your words, but would you please be civil.

: - )

Can you start by explaining what was the lie that Doug stated?

(And can we agree to try and avoid name calling?)

I'll take it right off the top... Doug said:

I think a more honest way to approach the topic would be to say that, (1) for reasons of social justice and the public good, we advocate for a system in which Americans' health insurance premiums are not based on their actuarial risk, and (2) we recognize that by implementing such a system, we are inherently picking winners and losers, but we nonetheless feel it is right to do so.

This is a dishonest statement wrapped up in an apology!  I will not suffer that form of rhetoric without calling "foul".  Sorry if that annoys *some* people of a certain political pursuasion.

Support the FairTax!

Well, as I was critiquing what I thought to be an intellectually dishonest argument, I'm certainly sensitive to criticisms of "rhetorical dishonesty."

I suppose you could find my statement dishonest if you misinterpret the "we" as referring to yourself (Aeon) personally, or to everyone in America.

Obviously it would not be true to say that you or everyone else would agree that Americans' health insurance premiums should not based on their actuarial risk, or that everyone who does agree with that statement also recognizes that by implementing such a system, we would inherently be lowering costs for some and raising costs for others.

But I think if you look closely, you'll understand that I was attempting to suggest what I thought of as a more intellectually honest way of advocating for the result that Ms. Nedeau seeks, which is health reform.

It seems beyond question that, by criticizing gender-based underwriting, Ms. Nedeau is advocating for a system in which premiums are not fully based on actuarial risk.  (If you eliminated gender-based underwriting, women would pay less than their actuarial risk and men would pay more than their actuarial risk.)

What I'm suggesting is that Ms. Nedeau and her organization would do better to be honest about what they're suggesting -- that they think that social justice demands that we spread the cost of health care equally across men and women (and presumably in other ways as well) -- rather than demonizing insurance companies for a practice that the evidence suggests is not undertaken out of misogynist animus.  (The evidence being that insurance companies also use gender-based underwriting where it advantages women, in the auto and life insurance markets.  And, to be fair, in another market where it disadvantages them: the disability insurance market). 

As such, I'm not certain that my statement is even susceptible to being "true" or "false" -- it's merely a suggestion of how someone else ought to advocate for her opinion. 

Allen -- hospice care is not "high-end." It's not aggressive, curative treatment. Instead, end-of-life care focuses on symptom and pain management.

And, oddly enough, cancer patients are somewhat rare in hospice, considering it's a major cause of death. There always seems to be something else to try, so the patient continues on the high-end.

Mr. Douge Miller.

If you please, any res;ectable and smart feminist knows that a system loaded with mysoginy can not exist without misandry as well. That's why so many advoacate for infantile genital mutilation to stop on both sides, that's why many women advocate for men's health care research, that's why many feminists believe that when men are being underwritten (such as with life insurance, shorter life span for males), they generally advocate for men to be taken care of as well.

The issue of women who want to carry through with their pregnancies being met with insurance companies that will insure an abortion but not the woman's choice to be a mother and recieve quality prenatal care is deeply rooted in mysoginy. Heck, even if she isn't getting proper check ups, giving birth (an action that when already pregnant, and without an abortion, is completely involuntary) still costs more than an abortion. Mothers have been seen as a tool, an incubator and a maid, long before feminism and deeper research in women's health. Women to this day are still seen as some sort of illness. Beign pregant, a feminine function, a function of the female body, has been equated with cancer and diabetes according to insurance companies. "Pre-existing" doesn't only mean getting pregnant before getting insurance, if she can potentially get pregnant but do not do so, it still adds up, because the existance of her reproductive system is a threat to their wallets, because these companies and hospitals made it so. Being pregnant is given the same status as a diseas, not a natural and inevitable funtion for the vast majority of females. When the majority of females are subjugated to a system where they can be forced to suffre because of their bodies and their status as a mother, it is mysoginy.

Kathleen:

I have two responses to your comment.

First, I think there is a reasonable case to be made that as a matter of policy we ought to prohibit gender rating in all forms of insurance.  We don't for example, allow insurers to engage in race-based underwriting, even though claims experience might vary among different racial groups.  So it's not clear why gender should be any less impermissible than race as a basis for underwriting.

Second, note that the above could only be achieved by government regulation -- you can't expect individual insurance companies to eliminate these distinctions on their own.  

Imagine, for example, that a single insurer decided to equalize term life insurance premiums between men and women.  Men's premiums would go down, and women's premiums would go up.  Not surprisingly, women would stop buying life insurance from that company, because they could get a better rate from companies that did take into account their longer life expectancies.  

Left with an all-male risk pool, the company's gender neutral insurance rates would rise to the original male level, so nothing would have been accomplished.  Gender-neutral rates are therefore only achievable when all insurance companies have to offer them -- i.e. when the government steps in and regulates.

For that reason, I repeat my contention that so long as gender rating is allowed, and as long as gender rating goes both ways depending on the type of insurance, you can't really say that insurance companies who engage in it are motivated by animus.  And to me, "misogyny" (from the greek miseō (to hate) + gynē (woman)) by definition incorporates the concept of animus.

This (again) is why I say that it's silly to sit around demonizing insurance companies, when we ought instead to examine whether the insurance model even makes sense if our goal is universal healthcare. 

Alexander, just because "that's how insurance works" does not make it right.  It's just another excuse to get away with making more money at someone elses expense.  It's become more like pay for NO coverage.  Don't have a car accident....you'll never get coverage again,  don't have a house fire....you'll never get coverage again....don't get sick......you'll never get coverage again.  Come on man, don't you get the picture????????  Insurance wants NO RISK......selling fear at exhorbitant costs.........

One conversation I haven't heard yet is the expense of and mark-up on medical equipment /machines that is fueling the cost of health-care.  Just like good old Pharma, they are raking in the profits.  Mark-ups on equipment would astound most people.  Salespeople are making hundred's of thousand's in commissions.  It's quite a racket and loads of people have their hands in the till...................

This problem won't get solved until we all get real.......

Word.

I'm surprised that Ms. Shriver didn't jump on that one !  How horrible to be treated that way........and what a disgrace to the State of California.  Have you considered seeing a lawyer and pursuing a discrimination suit? 

Thats pretty damn sad of that insurance company and as much as I dont like the pro-life groups...I wish they would protest such bussiness with the same insane zeal that they do abortion clinics.

If nothing else...It just might embarras those companies enough that they just might change their policies...Maybe.

One kwestion:

Did you in fact take a job because you discovered you were pregnant and assumed that you could pass the cost on to your new employer/insurance?

If you did, then I'd have fired you too.

follow-up:

How long were you working for the company that fired you when you discovered you were pregnant?

Amanda's comment illustrates perfectly why the insurance model doesn't work, but also why it's silly to demonize insurance companies for acting like insurance companies.  

Complaining that no health insurance company will take you on once you are pregnant is like complaining that no homeowner's insurance company will take you on once your house is on fire.  Insurance is about pooling the risk of uncertain future expenses; of course you can't buy into it once the expenses are certain.

Most of us have decided that, as a society, we want pregnant women to have health care whether or not they had insurance at the time they got pregnant.  The insurance model is inconsistent with this goal.

No, no no no! Stop right there!!! Did you just compare a pregnancy to a house fire? What the fuck is wrong with you?!

A house is property, you can buy a new house, or get it repaired and then be wise enough to get insurance before the next accident occurs.

In my experience, health insurance is not a stable thing. My family has had to switch insurance companies countless times.

If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, which is nothing like owning a house AT ALL, and inconveniently got pregnant during a short period that she was switching to or searching for a new insurance company, what right does an insurance company have to deny her coverage? Pregnancy may be costly, but it is not a hazzard. It is not a lifestyl choice that is going to give you cancer 20 years down the road. It is something that women have been doing thousands of years before insurance companies even existed.
WOMEN ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR CHOOSING TO BE MOTHERS ON THEIR OWN TERMS AND NOT ON THE TERMS OF THEIR JOBS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!

Kathleen:

Let's hold off on the invective until we are sure we really disagree.

When someone draws a partial analogy, it is always easy to attack the analogy by pretending that the person meant to draw a complete equivalence between the two things, when you know perfectly well they did not.

Of course I am not comparing a pregnancy to a house fire in the "what the fuck is wrong with you" sense you imply (i.e. comparing human beings to property, comparing the beginning of a human life with the destruction of a person's home.)

Indeed, I'm not really comparing pregnancy to a house fire at all.  What I'm comparing is the act of attempting to buy an insurance policy that will pay for the COSTS of a pregnancy when one is already pregnant, and attempting to buy insurance that will pay the costs of a house fire when the fire is already in progress.

Since insurance is about spreading the risk of uncertain events, no sane insurance company would issue a policy covering the costs of an event that is certain because it is already in progress.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU that no one should go without health coverage for their pregnancy.  But insurance is not the way to achieve this.  Universal, single-payer healthcare is.

@ Alexander...........As I stated one moment ago, how about we charge the DAD's for half of cost of pregnancy insurance?  Let's face it, it takes two to tango.  The burden has always been on women and it's high time that fact is acknowledged in the acturial tables.  But then, we know why that doesn't happen..........just like we know why a birth control pill hasn't been invented for men.  And how about while we're at it, if a woman's guy wants her to get a boob job, let him pay for it and any complications that occur.  And how about we sue the chemical companies for all the xenoestrogens they've dumped in the environment and into the food supply adding to the outrageous numbers of women with breast cancer?  Or the medical establishment that doesn't believe in hormone balancing as a way to counteract the dangers of estrogen?  As you can see, I could go on and on about the imbalances created by men in general and their catagorical denials of discrimination.   Isn't it interesting of late all the men that are stepping forward to talk about their breast cancer?  Maybe once that happens, we'll get some fair treatment? 

Mr. aeon...

The argument that women have more that can go wrong with them is bogus on the grounds that the only thing women can do biologicaly thats different from men is carry and give birth to children...

So...What would be the true reasons for the discrepency in costs between the two genders ?

My thoughts are that for years the good ol boys network has used the insurance companies among other tools for the sole purpose of keeping women as dependant on men as possible...

This thought/belief of mine would seem to be further borne out by the discrepency in wages between the genders that only serves to further that goal.

So...How do you respond ?

How about we charge the DADS for half the cost of insurance?

Whoa Thomas,

I didn't greate the actuarial tables.  In fact I pulled the additional cost of pregnancy from the equation to *try* to equalize the situation.

FACT: men and women are *different* -- like it or not women, consume more medical resources.

The other point (drastic oversimplification) I made was that the women should not be responsible for the costs that a dispassionate observer could attribute to the fetus.

Again, like it or not, women carry the child, the woman has to eat more, breathe more, and go through the labor of childbirth.  I'm talking *insurance* not sustainence or the *normal healthy* pregnancy process. 

Let's go with Deborah, if there is a complication *directly related to the pregnancy* then let the male company pay 1/2 -- it doesn't matter ennough, let the male policy pay 100% of *unanticipated* pregnancy complications...

Womens insurance will *still* cost more!

What you missed was that I'm not advocating a position.  I'm stating facts and hoping to spark debate and perhaps some comprehension...

Categorical denial of equal responsibility.  If all men, beginning at the age of 18 until the age of 65 were charged for half of the reproduction costs, you can bet your sweet booty there'd be an uproar, by men.  I'd call it equality !  When are guys going to step up to the plate !  Like I said earlier, it takes two to tango........so why shouldn't there be an equal charge built into the acturial tables?  By splitting it according to gender causation, it's discrimination all the way down the line.

I agree miss h.

Mr. aeon...

Why should men have to pay half the cost of pregnancy insurance only when theres a problem ?

Why not from conception to birth along with the costs of rearing the children ?

And how is it that the costs for women would be higher if the men took on half the costs ?

Thomas, apparently you missed an important item.

I don't think pregnancy is an *insurable* condition!

As for who pays, well, there we agree, both parents should be responsible...  In fact I believe the the father should assume >>50%!  Preganacy is a 24x7 responsibility for the woman.  The man should probably kick in 3x the cash as the woman, maybe more, but that's an individual decision shared by the couple.

I'm disregarding single parents, and every other 'unusual' situation, because those are not medicaly relevant.

And I should point out that insurance should *never* be asked to pay for 'services' like in vitro, surrogacy, etc, and a slew of other *special* and *normal* expenses, unless the mother wants o invite the insurance company *fully* into the decision-making process.  Let me elaborate:

Say the parent wants to screen for a genetic disease, and have the insurance company pay for the test...  If the test comes back positive for something awful, like CF, hydroencephalopathy, etc... the insurance compant gets to vote for termination.  Whaddya say???  If the parents don't ask the insurance company to *pay* for the test, then the decision remains with the parents and the liability becomes the insurance company's problem.  I see this as a fair exchange of $$$ for input. (these thoughts are off the cuff and not perfectly worked out in all the details...)

What you have to face, is that the costs are real, and whshing them off onto "society as a whole" is simply denying the fiscal realities.

Mr. aeon...

I never said anything about wishing the costs off onto society as a whole.

Now why would you consider any unusual kinds of pregnancies to be medicaly irrelevant ?

What exactly constitutes "unusual pregnancies" in your mind ?

And why should the insurance companies have any say in medical situations when the people paying for the policies are basicly giving the insurance companies money in return for future help with medical expenses ?

Seems to me the whole health insurance industry either needs a complete overhaul from the inside out OR it needs to be completely re-invented from scratch.

Thomas,

Apparltly you can't follow the main points and are stuck in the minutia.  Perhaps you can't tell the players without a program.

1) a Woman
2) a Man
3) The Female or Male Insurance Co's
4) goods & services providers...

Scene: Normal heterosexual (family) couple = 1M+1F +1 bed) = {explicit scene deleted}

She thinks she is pregnant, he does not... {M != F not equal already}

Quick trip to stope for HPT, *mom pays clerk*, *insurance company does not pay*

Schedule appointment with ob-gyn, *couple pays bill*, *insurance company does not pay*
(sends congratulations card and details...)

Variation 1:

Assume all things are A-OK...  mom & dad share expenses, housework, chores, pets, etc...

Mom craves "pickels and ice cream" dad goes to grocery store in pajamas, *dad pays clerk*, *insurance company does not pay*

Mom visits midwife, gets bill, *couple pays bill*, *insurance company does not pay*

-- months go by --

Mom's water breaks during social event, ruins an expensive rug, *couple pays for dry cleaning*, *insurance company does not pay*

Couple drives to birthing center, calls midwife, alters ob-gyn, momma gives birth, center sends bill, midwife sends bill, ob-gyn sends bill(?), *couple pays bill(s)...*, *insurance company does not pay bills*...

People get together, they have children.  These are *normal* activities, like eating, driving, owning a home or renting an apartment.  Not insurable events.

---------

Scene 2: same players... following trip to obgyn -- dramatic plot twist!

OB says there is a problem, schedules followup appointment, notifies insurance company

From this point on, Dad still has to buy the pickels & ice cream, but the insurance company pays for the OB, midwife, hospital, tests, etc... *real* costs. 

For diagnoses that relate directly to the mother, the Female division of the M or F insurance company pays the bills.  For diagnoses that relate to the fetus, the funds come from the combined fund of *both* companies.  For 'complications' where mom & fetus are 'linked' the $$$ can still come from the combined fund (ok?)

Once mom delivers, she goes back on her insurance and tha infant gets assigned to the Male or Female division accordingly.

If the baby is OK, then insurance stops, and thinks go back to normal.  If the baby is not OK then the respective division is the insurance carrier until the child turns 18 (or the parents divorce {sorry})

I'll say it again, this is a web forum, not a dissertation.  You don'tl *like* my plan, because I'm a cold heartless SOB in your opinion.  Sorry!

Can you come up with a better plan that won't bankrupt the system?

Keep in mind that I'm unwilling to spend one thin dime on subsidizing people that think it's their *right* to breed and pass off the cost onto society!  I buy insurance to cover *my family's needs*, and I allow the insurance compamy to determine what that protection *costs*, I either buy it or I shop for a better deal.

Why mr aeon...

Did I hurt your feelings with all of my in deph questions ?

The examples you cited make logical sense and I never implied otherwise...

But since your so intelligent about this then what about cases of rape and/or incest ?

Should the insurance cover abortions ?

What about artificial insemination ?

Should the insurance cover that ?

If not then why not ?

In any case mr. aeon, theres nothing wrong with my reading comprehension...I just dont think you like people asking questions.

But you see...We learn when we ask questions rather than following along blindly.

Hurt *my* feelings???  - lol -  I don't have feelings ;^) I'm a cold hearted SOB!  Besides non of the questions were deep, they were superficial actually.

Should insurance cover the 4 items you listed? 1&2 yes, 3 and 4 no -- unless the policy is written to cover those issues.  But please understand a ploict that covers artificial insemination *should* cost a fortune!!!

Perhaps not your reading, but certainly your conclusions.  BTW I'll respond to the other 2 posts in the appropriate places.  There might be some carryover.

Once upon a time, it was argued that women should not work outside of the home because they were more "fragile" than men.  I guess widows & divorcees were just supposed to die, or live in poverty forever on the State ir charity.

I am hearing echoes, here.

Mr. Aeon,

So you say that pregnancy is not an insurable condition? You're the person who also said that pregnancy is as natural as eating and whatever else?

First of all: No. SEX is as natural as eating. PREGNANCY is natural, but an involuntary outcome of sex. Even if pregnancy was planned, you can not use will-power to force your body to be pregnant.
If the woman were asking to have insurance for being sexually active, eating, and sleeping at night, yes it would appear to be quite ridiculous. PREGNANCY on the other hand has for the vast majority of history killed many women either while pregnant or giving birth. If she is unable to pay for health care for pregnancy, she won't get the care she needs, and the consequences for the uncaring and deluded standards of the company would have been the sole cause of it, not HER excercising her ability to reproduce.
Pregnancy is insurablle, or should be, because it requires constant medical attention in order for it to work out securely for the woman, unilke sleeping, eating, and sex which does not require this sort of close inspection and maintanance.

Yes it is but we must never give up the fight for equality.

Suzanne,

Womens' things cost more, because they demand it!  Please don't admit that you have no clue how the free market works.

If you want cheaper "clothes, accessories, toiletries, haircuts, drycleaning {cough}" then wear mens stuff, and go to a barber instead of a stylist.

More frequent trips by women to the doctor means more $$$ for doctors -- less $$$ for insurance companies; why not tar the grocer and the baker with the same brush?

Whether you think so or not I'm wery much in favor of women's rights.  But as the comedian Gallagher said, "if you stand up for women's rights don't be surprised when you lose your seat."

Support the FairTax!

Equivalent??? Wow what a leap!

Isn't taxation and spending the way you would "charge men for half of the reproductive costs"?

Isn't that the system we're working with?

Maybe I misunderstood...

Or are you proposing a new way of acquiring these funds?

Sorry Deborah,

  The free market is alive and well; wait I could be wrong... Do you live in a town with only one barber and only one stylist?  hmmm?

  Um, last time I checked there was far less social stigma to a woman pulling on a pair of mens jeans, a plain white tee shirt and a cotton dress shirt than a man in a skirt and blouse.  If you are strong enough as a person, either combination is possible, but we're talking about the cost of each outfit.

  "The cost of looking good" is an artificial pressure that you can succumb to or rise above.  My daughter is a perfect example of a person that has risen above the pressure of the gender steroetype.

  I didn't say it was easy in the social context, but the nuts and bolts are very basic.  In truth, the things you desire are *luxuries* and one must be prepared to pay more for luxuries than for basic goods and services.

Like I asked, what planet do you live on?  Have you noticed we're bailing out all the rich guys in the free market lately? 

Does your daughter have a real job? And if she does, does she show up to work in men's clothes?  Women have been fired from jobs for not shaving their legs or not wearing make-up or refusing the boss's advances.  Personal appearance is a large part of most jobs and women are expected to look a certain way.  Certainly not like a guy......  So if you say it's just a matter of rising above, I'm sure there are numerous women out there who would beg to differ as I/we have had a much different experience.  Of course, if one is a "granola" type, then it does get easier, as one's personal appearance is not a priority nor  necessity.

Call pregnancy sharing what you like, taxation, public option, whatever.  The point is, men are the other half of that equation and it's high time they take on half the responsibility.  If a woman is lucky enough to never get ill or never has a baby, remember, she's still paying for it all, regardless.  Just because she's a woman. Is that what you call fair representation?

I

Hi Deb,

  Bingo, my daughter is a professional, *and* a granola type. ^_^

  Planet? I live on a palnet that I struggle to fix every day!  I know that things are unfair to women.  That's why I worked so hard to imbue my little girl with the indefeatable strength of character that I knew it would take for her to succeed in this world.

  As for bailing out the rich guys, I think it's foul and disgusting...  But have you noticed it is the Left, the Socailist wing, that are handing out the bail-outs like Halloween treats?  "W" included (he folded to the Democrat Congress which was in charge of the first stimulus bill).

  I wish I could get through to the majority on both sides (Left & Right) that Libertarianism is ultimately the only philosophy that is entirely self consistent, and ultimately capable of fixing the problems the two party system has created.

  Libertarianism *only* works when people believe in themselves and would rather work than accept a handout -- a tall order I know.

"Who is John Galt?"

Actually miss h and only speaking for myself...

I, as a man, dont need for women to be wearing makeup or have a fancy shmancy hairstyle or even super duper fancy clothes in order for me to be attracted to them.

I actually prefer women that dont wear or make use of such window dressings and instead have a good personality/attitude.

But then Im weird that way.

As for the expectations of male bosses in bussiness...

Hopefully they will all one day grow up and realise that its whats inside the package that matters rather than whats on the outside...

@CTYankee - All opinions aside, my bottom line is how we choose to treat one another.  I see it as we're all in this together, and no matter how hard we try to draw the lines of division/separation ie: female, gay, black, illegal, republican, etc. it still comes back to the a question I've been trying to answer all my life.....are we, the human race, on a path of evolution or destruction?  Is doing the right thing of any less value than the monetary bottom line?  Or is money the sole motivator?  I have the answer for myself...............

Hi Deb,

The hooman[sic] race, all 6+billion, is a collection of dangerous, dirty animals, that fight, destroy, corrupt, exploit, and yes, create, inspire, enrich...

But there are so many more of the former than the later, that I can confifently say I'm entirely comfortable looking out for #1 without an ounce of guilt.  That's my interpretation of the right thing!

Money, is just the mediun of exchange. The only laws that are just are those that say that two people are free to enter into an agreement, and that both are to be held accountable to their word.  Plus the usual prohibitions on murder, theft, etc...  With very few laws, and very clear phohibitions, we can have a fantastic society.

It's the folks with the twisted idea that actions do not have consequences that have screwed things up.  The notion that the lillies of the field are an acceptable burden on society -- whether the citizens agree of not.  And you wrap your arguments in the falsehood that it's the right thing to do; that's what chaps my a$$.

Suport the FairTax!

I forgot to add, that I agree about treating everyone equal...  I try to do that whenever possible, until they prove themselves unworthy.

Bigotry and prejudice are terrible things.  They do however occasionally yield to statistics.  When I'm approached by members of a 'cultural group' that displays outward hostility, I'm not inclined to try to make nice-nice.  However if a member of that group approached me in my domain, i.e. 'job applicant' they *will* get a fair hearing.  They might blow the opportunity, but, I won't assume that they are inherently inferior at the outset.

Trust should always be extended initially, but once breached is incredibly difficult to reestablish.

Your very welcome miss nedeau...

And your right...We do need a public option and a comprehensive one at that.

Alex,

Where do you buy those rose colored glasses?  Compassion? there is nothing wrong with compassion.  You are free to be as compasionate as you want; as long as your compassionate hand stays out of *my* pocket.

But when the enemy that you want to embrace shows up on your doorstep with a knife or a gun, what are you going to do?  Say: " 'Brother!', why are you raping my wife, your sister?  Why are you taking my children?"  Then they cut your head off.

Yes their basic needs are the same, but they don't want to fulfill their own needs, they want to take your means for their own.  That's their self-actualization (whatever hat means).

BTW: I never said that huddling aroung the hearth, shotgun in hand is the *preferred* lifestyle...  I'd prefer a civil society.  The problem is that the do-gooders have corrupted their own message and so distorted the concept of right and wrong, that we are blinded to the harsh reality.

Remember: "Trust, but verify."

My glasses are not rose colored. I'm going for truth here.

As to my compassionate hand staying out of your pocket, we actually agree on that one too. I don't want any money from you unless you'd like to give it.

What about when my "enemy" shows up at my doorstep? As I said, "immediate self-defense excluded, of course" because I expected someone might ask. Yes, self-defense.

>Yes their basic needs are the same, but they don't want to fulfill their own needs, they want to take your means for their own.  That's their self-actualization (whatever hat means).

All of their needs are the same. Think about it. Would someone come and rape your wife if their need for sex, love, care, excitement and adventure was met elsewhere? Of course not. Human needs do not come into conflict. Human strategies do. The people who rape, take children and kill aren't doing it because they "want to take my means"; they're doing it because they want their needs met. They'd be just as happy if they had their own means. Has nothing to do with self-actualization (don't use if it you don't know what it mean ; ).

>BTW: I never said that huddling aroung the hearth, shotgun in hand is the *preferred* lifestyle...  I'd prefer a civil society

Do you think I'm surprised that we agree here again? Of course not. This is what *all* humans want. We all want to feel safe, secure, respected, loved and have control over our own lives and destinies.

>The problem is that the do-gooders have corrupted their own message and so distorted the concept of right and wrong, that we are blinded to the harsh reality.

Bro, I have no clue what you're trying to say here. I'm not big on right and wrong. Are you trying to say that compassionate people are going pursuing their goals in a way that's not working for you?

Alex

Hi Alex,

Thank you for thinking you're keeping hands out of my pocket, but the truth is that it's in there up to the elbow!

Thew do-gooders, the social programs, the 'great society' that we were promised... it doesn't work!  It's not that it can't work, it can, but only for a short and finite period of time!

All the programs the "Imperial Federal Insurance Bureaucracy" (I-FIB) funds -- the non Constitutional ones, are wrapped up in the Dr Feelgood clause "... promote the general welfare..." -- It's just that the interpretation of language has changed/  The left like to use strict interpretation when it helps them and ignore it when it does not "... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  See the difference?

Yup, we seem to agree on most of it, except... Well is it the motivation of the theives and criminals, or is it just the way they express themselves???  $64 Q:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Yeah, it's not working for me!

Certainly a disturbing situation.  I for one feel the solution is for the women to speak up and assert their individual rights, and challenge the unfair treatment.

Too often women simply accept the unfair treatment.  It's vicious cycle...  The more they accept the more burden they are fored to bear.

Why are there no women out there creating insurance companies and provider networks that cater to other women?

I can tell you why they don't exist.  The risks are too great!  Society has tipped the playing field so far to the Left, then the company is presumed to be evil from square one. 

{what follows this applies to *my* insurance company and would be gender independent, except where obvious differences exist}

If I were to create an insurance company, I'd state in no uncertain terms, that certain things are covered, and other things are not.  Pre-existing conditions are *not* covered, and if your benefit exceeds your premium then the company has the right to crawl inside your life to see if anything you represented on the application was untrue.

I'd also create a detailed list of coverages for *any* conceivable illness, and well care options.  You would be able to buy insurance for your left toe-nail contracting fungus if you want...  Pay the premium and you're covered.  Not that into specifics... we'll offer bundled plans that cover anything musculo-skeletal, anything related to EN&T, the space between your ears, the space between your knees, whatever...

If you have a family history of diabetes, we'll cover you, but you'll pay more than someone who does not have that history.  It you lie and we find out, then you committed fraud and we'll seek damages.

Same goes for heart disease, cancer, and all the genetic, maladies.  We will provide coverage, at a price.

Why all the rules, and why plain English?  Because I *know* it's possible to operate an insurance company at a profit, *if* the company can aggressively control fraud and abuse.  Then again there's the rub. 

If I agressively control the benefits then I'm heartless, if I don't then I'm broke, -or- I have to raise premiums across the board to cover the people that game the system. Most folks are offended by the former I'm offended by the later.

What's a wabbit to do?

Intresting concept you have there mr. aeon and perhaps workable although you havent addressed the problem of insurance companies that offer coverage for say cancer and then when the person gets cancer...They up and stop paying for medical care...

How would you handle that in your "insurance company" ?

Companies that do that under the current rules are dishohest players -- unless -- the pt lied about the pre-existence of cancer.

*My* insurance company would handle it like a hard a$$ too.  If the prevalent tendency for cancer was there then I'd've charged the pt a premium that reflects the risk.  If they paid the premium, the I'd make *DAMN SURE* they receive the coverage they paid for!!!

If a person with no risk factors develops cancer and it's a covered illness then that's the risk an insurance company bears, the bills get paid, even thought the premiums were woefully inadequate on a per person basis.  That's what insurance companies do, they pool risk.

What insurance companies cannot afford to do is allow the entire unwashed mass of hoomanity[sic] iinto a pool that was designed and built for a more select group of 'swimmers'.  If you want the really big pool, then go swim in the ocean, but don't complain that it's salty, and there are currents beneath the beautuful surface.

A more select group of swimmers ?

Hmmmm intresting...

Can you clarify your meaning on that ?

Seems to me that, at least in our present time, that were all in the same pool when it comes to pre-existing conditions and/or health risks so where does this "Select group of swimmers" concept come from ?

Thomas,

Clearly you have trouble getting your head around some *basic* concepts.

1) Equal Opportunity is a good thing!

2) Equal Outcome is a desireable thing.

3) Providing Equal Opportunity is no guarantee of Equal Outcome.  Never has been, never will be.

Obamacare wants to provide "Guaranteed Acceptance" regardless of the pts health at the time of application; *IT CAN"T WORK*!  Sure, once, twice, but as soon as it's universal the sytem breaks down.

The flip side is insurance companies *want* to cherry pick, and they would if they could, so we apply a little legislative pressure.  But too much pressure and you limit their ability to function.  The IC's spend more resources trying to keep the gummint off their backs than they spens on what they were reated to do in gh first place -- or else they die.

OK, back to the metaphor. One pool say 20,000 gallons: 

Ten people can swim happily, everyonk knows that the other swimmers at the party took a bath *before* taking a dip.

Open it up to the public, and 500 people try to jump in, 1000 gallons of water overflow the top and sides of the pool.  Some are wearing dirty underwear...  How's the imagery so far?

There's a knob on the TV marked "Brightness", when you find the one marked "Intelligence" give a good firm twist, then call me.

Mr. aeon...

Judging from your above stated post...

Your the one who's sadly in need of intelligence.

Im done with you.

Thomas,

"Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill - an ye harm none, do what ye will"

I'm not all that into organized religion, but I like the above quotation -- because it is the pure essense of Libertarianism.

I'm not that pure however.  My flaw is that when I see sonething or someone that is lacking in desirable qualities, I say so.  That has been known to cause harm (e.g. this little exchange), yet I persist.

The one thing we can agree on its that this thread is done.  I've posted enough to have caused a number of people to more critically examine attitudes and pre-conveived notions, their own and others.  What more could I ask for?

Support the FairTax!

Honey, I AM Wiccan. I have been Wiccan since I was 13... and I'm a socialist.

Capitalism and the free market s fundementally built on people competing with others for success and to fill their wallets to the point that they are willing to kick anyone down. These insurance companies are taking right out of women's pockets without rewarding them with anything, and they pick more from the individual woman's pocket more so than any good socialist would ever dream of doing. Incidentally, the people who own these insurance companies are the fattest free-market capitalists alongside Big Pharma and the corporations.

Lots of ideas, some I agree with others I do not.

Pregnancy is not a disease, nor should it be treated as such.  A family decides to reproduce, period, should the insurance company be sent the bill for painting the nursery?

I'll grant that when something goes *wrong* with a pregnancy, then that *is* an insurable condition, and the companies should not be able to shirk that responsibility. But I see nothing wrong with an insurance company denying even that if the family waited until *after* she knew she was preganant.  She could have bought coverage when she turned 18, for a very reasonable rate and transferred the coverage to her married name.  But again, I don't believe the costs of a normal pregnancy are the insurance company's problem *unless* momma already bought and paid for *full maternity coverage* at a reasonable premium!

Well care is a whole 'nother ball of wax.  I think it's a great idea and I think it sucks! {doublethink}  If you want well care you should be able to buy it.  It's really that simple, but no one should be forced into it, simple.

Hi Barb,

Well, you've nailed several of the many problems with the current system.  Not the least of which is that you perceive a right to medical care when no such right exists.  Women should have coverage *available* -- they should not be *given* coverage! Neither should men!!!  The catch 22 is that insurers are coerces into providing all types of blanket coverage.  Someone mentioned Viagra... why?  CT requires hair transplants to be covered - whose [expletive deleted] idea was that???

Delivery should not cost $5,000-$8000 there we agree 100%!  Why is it *so* expensive?  Because the 'price tag' is a lie; plain'n'simple.

Look, just forget about rape, incest, yada yada -- I'd call that a covered event NQA - no questions asked, well one question... is there a police report?

"Unplanned Pregnancy" aka playing with fire... How is that any different?  Really? It's either a normal pregnancy of it's abnormal.  From the insurance company point of view it is no different than a couple choosing to have a baby.  Mom is either covered or she's not.

What you don't seem to appreciate is that I'd remove "insurance" as a benefit of employment!  It was a stupid war-time program that has outlived its usefulness.

If our 18 year-olds were taught that they are expected to buy personal health insurance, and it's affordable then they will buy it.  There's no law that prevents mom & dad from helping, but the screwed up notion of 'family plans' has got to go!

Infant mortality is somewhat skewed as a statistic in the US by the nature of what we count.  I agree it should be lower, and it can be, but I don't accept for a moment that the insurance industry is the sole player at fault.  Bad parenting is responsible for a large chunk, as for the rest... who can say?  We all hear about daddy-drunkard that shakes a child that won't stop crying... infant mortality rises by one.  Would you blame the insurance company?

Painting the nursery is just one more step along the line that separates responsibility from absurdity.  Clearly that bothered you.  But where is the line? Mommy-2-be eats more food, she needs pre-natal vitamins, maternity clothes, I recognize a whole list of things that her and hubby are responsible for -- I include the cost of a normal delivery -- planned or unplanned, having a child is a responsibility.

Personally I think daddy-dearest should bear the lions share of financial responsibility, because there is hardly a thing he can do biologically after the fact.  But that's not a medical-insurance issue, it's fiscal.

The core of the problem, is that the situation *cannot* be fixed until both sides *honestly* analyze the problem, and clear their heads of unsustainable notions and Dr Feelgood proposals.  Someone like my who can understand both sides, and not care if I 'offend' the players can craft a fair system.  My shoulders are tough enough to take the hate-mail and abuse from both sides.

Me, I don't really care, I'm going to plug along until I drop dead in my tracks -- no lengthy hospital stays, no mountains of debt for my family.  I can't expect everyone to have their head screwed on as firmly as mine, but I can set an example for those that are willing to learn.

"In the not too distant future war will no longer exist, but there will be Rollerball." -- starring James Caan as Jonathan E  (c)1975

Hey Yankee,

Looks like you've been very busy with this debate ;-))

What I keep hearing from you though is largely a concern for the cost of healthcare and not so much a concern for all the players.  Am I right?  Is that all Libertarians are about?  Personal responsibility should be a part of everyone's life, I agree ! But when a system makes it practically impossible to participate on even grounds, what's the next step?  At the rate health insurance is going in this country, only single, slim, rich, white, healthy men will be covered !!!!  The rest of us will be considered too risky !

And while we're on the subject of compassion, have you ever worked in a hospital?  Have you ever witnessed the disparity of care patient's get based on the quality of their insurance coverage?  Have you known anyone who's been sent home to die 'cause they don't have enough money?  I have..........for 10 years I saw it happening.  I got so sick of it I left medicine.  We were told to give extra special treatment to the VIP's (wealthy socialites) and in the room next to them were elderly folks, broke and suffering, going home to die.  It made me sick to my stomach.  But that's the FREE MARKET system at work...............in the richest country in the world.  Damn man, when are you gonna wake up?  It's not about the money, never was..........control the masses, keep us divided, don't ever let them find the truth............

I thought it was RollerDerby in Caan's film..........

Hi Deb,

Yes, I believe that costs are out of control!  And I believe in the free market solution as the *BEST* way to distribute *SCARCE* resources among those that want them. That's what *this* Libertarian is about.

We agree that the system is broken, not just broken but fatally flawed.  See the problems arise when the market gets skewed by external inputs -- like government $$$ --

I have to go beyond the *extreme* opposite end of the argument, because there is no way to fight against the 'well meaning' masses that carry the banner of compassion as their battle standard.  I *must* be willing to go beyond the limits of position to demonstrate the flaws in the warm-fuzzy plan offered by the rest of the (ignorant){sorry} masses.

You saw the reality of 'end-of-life care' well, the truth is *nobody* gets out alive.  There was a time when dying at home was the *expected* outcome following a full life.  Sometimes those lives were cut short, that's just the way things turn out. 

Today, we *expect* the medical miracle...  Folks squander the family fortune for those last few days futilely hooked up to machines, injecting millions of dollars into the system.  The system broke under the weight of its own 'success'.

It's bad enough when private resources are misdirected into the medical mess.  I watched helplessly as my family squandered well over $1M into end of life care that, honestly did *nothing* except to mollify the 'feelings' of the later generations as they witnessed the passing of another. 

It's the ultimate form of selfishness, because on the surface it is made to look utterly selfless.  The medical community has kinda seen to it that it's percieved that way.  Tens of thousands of $$$ spent on medications that stabilized minds that had long abandoned bodies, and stabilized bodies devoid of minds, while the facilities collected hundreds of thousands of fees servicing mouths that chewed without enjoyment.

I guess you can say I was made sick too.

At least in the film, they had the good sense and decency to pull the plug on Moonpie when they say he was beyong caring.

Hi Yankee,

You are so right about wasted money, money that could go to a child with cancer instead of someone at the end of their life and nowhere else to go.  And yes, just because we can (keep them alive) doesn't mean we should.  For heavens sake, we treat our pets better than humans. However, there are so many people that are soooooo afraid of dying, they want every penny spent to make it not so.........families being the worst.  Mine was one of those families.  Dad died within 4 months of a pancreatic cancer diagnosis, yet my sister insisted they try everything known to man to keep him alive.  Yes, we fought and it was ugly.  I understand cancer types well enough to know it was a death sentence, she couldn't come to grips with it.  He was so full of cancer, that nothing and no one could've helped him.  I myself have an Advance Directive, don't want my family financially burdened nor do I want to be kept alive and not realize it ;-))  Quality of life or death, nothing in between.  But that's just me..................

Emergency medicine..........neo-natal intensive care units..........babies born so early their only hope is to be alive with severe handicaps, horrificly expensive to save, millions of dollars, and if they survive, the care and treatment over a lifetime are astronomical.  Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.  But who makes that decision?  Where do we draw the line? 

If doctor's told us (the decision makers) the truth would we face it?  Should we yell and scream to get the best treatment?  Maybe that's what pushes the best minds to keep searching for cures.  I don't know what the answer is...........

I do believe that this mess can be fixed.  There are several hospitals out there that have excellent spending controls in place, some of which have been eyed as a model for the national plan.  And we need to step up and stop the fraud that's costing the system billions of stolen dollars, over-priced medical equipment, expensive pharmaceuticals and extravagant and obscene salaries.  And everyone should be made, one way or another, to carry insurance.  And for every bad habit, there's a surcharge whether it's smoking, body weight, alcoholism and the like.  Health insurance should cover prevention activities like smoking cessation, gym memberships........incentives to get healthy. I'd like to see them cover Alternative Medicine too.............

So no Yankee, my compassion isn't a battle standard, it's who I am moreso than what I believe.  Every human being should have access to health care, equally.   What we can't seem to agree on is how much it should cost and who's going to pay for it.  There will be some tough decisions to make, like the "Death Squad" as Palin called them.  But they'll be necessary.  Not as cost containment, just human sense, based on compassion, reason and intelligent medical knowledge.  This is of course, the Public Option, which will compete with the private insurers for a change, across all state lines............;-))

I still care...................

Like the porcupine said:

I guess we agree on a lot of the issues.

I'm just a lot more prickly than most :^)

Hi Barb,

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on a few points.  I don't feel I *owe* the weakest or the sickest *anything*.  If you *want* to protect those than cannot take care of themselves then that's fine with me, but I will fight if you try to *obligate* me to your cause.

The rights you cite are simply the statement that the government may not do anything to *deprive* a person from life, liberty, or the pursuit... without just cause -- not that the government must *provide* those freedoms!  I have to get you to recognize the difference!!!

As for what you said "will bring us all down in the end" -- you've got it backwards!  Trying to save everyone -- regardless of objective worth -- is the dangerous handle that you want to grab because it appears to be 'selfless and bebeficail to everyone'.  Because being seen trying to grasp the handle I present says you have made a value judgement.

I support your statement that it is in the best interest of our nation that everyone has the *opportunity*...  However I challenge and refute your conclusion that it should be *universally given* -- it needs to be earned, but it should never be denied! (BTW, being unable to afford something that's desired, or even *needed* is not denial, it's just a simple fact of life.)

Alright mr. aeon...

How would you define the worth of a human being ?

I wouldn't dare to make such a pronouncement.  But just like an inumarate Hottentot or a pre-literate toddler, I can compare!

The people I know, the people that know me -- those are the ones I would allow to speak for *my* contribution to society; that and the balance in my bank book.  But even without the bankbook, I've earned enought 'good karma' that I'd stand up to any challenger when the bidding for a scarce resource whose purchase means life itself is at stake.

"Face it girls, I'm older and I have more insurance." -- Kathy Bates in Fried Green Tomatoes

That line crystalizes a certain view of the problems.  It was about a parking space, but the message clear her character was worth more than the girls when the officer fills out the report on the fender bender.  Whether you like it or not!  It's the way the world works, here, there, everywhere, we just don't like to look at it.

But since good deeds don't directly pay for medical procedures... a person is worth what they earn less what they dispose of.  They call it "Net Worth" for a reason.

Alright...

Just because the "world" judges people by monetary worth rather than any sense of intrinsic value doesnt make it right...Nor does it have to remain unchanged.

You yourself did imply that there are some folks worth more than others in at least 2 of your posts...So assuming that, in your mind, a person only has value as long as theyre working and earning an income...What would you say should be done with those of us who are disabled and/or simply unable to work due to age and/or illness ?

I too am a big believer in personal responsability/accountability and in taking care of your own needs first BUT Im also aware that none of us live on an island (Metaphoricly speaking) and that as a result, there are some needs that are universal to us all such as health care and consequintly the costs for those needs should also be borne universaly.

Thomas,

I hope that I stated with *clarity* in all of my posts that some people are worth more than others!!!

Either you don't get it, or, you didn't read what I posted.  There are other intrinsic values, and I have accumulated those too.  As should any descent human being. 

To me a person that goes through life neither producing or accumulating neither real wealth nor 'intrinsic' (your definition) value -- HAS NO RIGHT TO DEMAND ANYTHING.  That includes tax-paid services, housing, food, shelter, education. PARASITES, LEACHES, MOOCHERS -- that's how I define them; that's what they are.

I'm disabled, lost the use of my right arm almost 5 years ago.  I'm 'unable' to work, because I'm unable to sleep, lie down, drive, travel, etc. I have to guard and restrict *all* of my motions or suffer the pain of grinding bones.  What's your point?

I provided enought in the early part of my life that I'm OK, as long as the looters keep their grubby mitts out of my pocket.  So for me this nightmare of Obamacare is truly a frightening prospect.

I didn't plan to lose my arm, I didn't have specific insurance to cover it, and if a company were forced to take me as an insurance risk, they would certainly suffer for it.  I consider that immoral.  Might it improve my situation? Sure, but at what cost to society?

I'm *very* careful about what I demand these days, my ability to produce was severly impacted, I still have more than some, less than others, but only a fraction of my former self.  I still pay more in taxes that a lot of people I know, and what do I get for it? Nuthin'.

Stimulus Plan -- not for me, not one dime. C4C, nope I didn't have a clunker to trade.  AIG bailouts, GM bankruptcy, nope, nope.

Not one day goes by that I don't think about going ex-pat.  But I have kids in school (college), so they're still sort of my dependents...

I'm sorry CTYankee, you still do not understand. You may never get it, because you think solely from objectives. You have sated, "The interrelation you attribute to the delicate interplay really isn't a strong function of the distribution of wealth as the Doublethinkers would have you believe." Of course it isn't. This is not solely about economics. I do understand the physical, empirical, tangible realities of the situation much more than you give me credit for, but I also see our humanity, and I do understand how that works; I believe you don't. Some people just won't go there, because it is too easy not to.

PS: If you still do not believe that what happens half way around the world does not affect you, think about what happened during World War II; Think about the poverty and famine that is occurring now in many countries already feeling the effects of climate change, and what this actually means to all of us. We do not live in a vacuum. I am not saying we can fix all of the worlds woes. Obviously we can't. Real wisdom is understanding what we should 'interfere' with and what we must let go. What we must have is a much better understanding of cause and effect.

PPS: I read "1984".

Hi Barb,

Looks like we've finally boiled it all away down to the objective/subjective debate. :^) Truce? Whaddya say?

BTW: neither of us are old enought to "remember" WWII, but yes war, and the events leading up to war do have far reaching consequences.

Let me close with:

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- John Galt

See you in the funny papers.

Hi Doug,

That's easy!  The 1st society of course. :^)

The 1st society, seeing the risks of fauilure will work hard to develop tools, fire, metals, and technology.  Necessity is the mother of invention!  Are you familiar with "Pascal's Wager" on the existence of an afterlife?  I think Pascal was a wimp. ;^) The odds are I'll pay far less over the course of my lifetime with door #1

The 2nd society will be more typical of the tropical cultures we see around the world today.  In the tropics, life is easy, in Hawaii "hang loose" is the (unnofficial?) state motto.  In the jungles of Africa, Central & South America, and the paoins of North America, as well as the islands of the South Pacific, there have been hooman[sic] settlements for as long as 40,000 years.  None of them made significant advancements in all that time., and yet we percieve them as lifing in harmony with nature and grand them some sort of twisted moral superiority, because a pair of husband and wife professors equated those societies with the great apes.

The 2nd society hasn't really figured out the 'tax' angle, and they tend to have lifespans about 1/2 of their industrial counterparts...

That's my take.  I favor advanced systems over primitive systems, there is nothing noble in my minds-eye about the naked-savage.

I've said it before, (not here but on other fora) if all the socialist commune hippy types want to go live on a grand commune -- I say let them go and do it.  But make sure they buy one-way tickets.  When you have that much confidence in that system and make it through to the 3rd generation with a stable and rising standrd of living... then I'll take a serious look.  So, until then, put *your* $$$ where your mouth is -or- give it up.

Thomas! Don't you understand? Aeon isn't going to "never ask another man to... live" for his life. Aeon fights his own fires when his house burns. When Aeon's neighbor's house burns, Aeon makes smores!

CTYankee, not to gang up on your here, but your quote: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- John Galt

is certainly patent nonsense. Can you really look around your life and say that you are not connected and dependent on those around you? Do you generate your own electricity? Did you put up the line that currently connects you to the internet? Do you grow your own food? Do you not breath the air that is shared by us all?

Can you see that you eternally, infinity dependent upon us all already?

(And please, don't call people unintelligent; please stick to the facts).

Alex,

I'm guessing you thought Wesley Mouch was the hero in Atlas Shrugged... You were clutching your little red book during economics classes too?

Of course there is an element of the common good that we all contribute to, we do it every day when we go to work and *produce* valuable goods and services; it's called society. 

The quote refers to the leaches and parasites that neither produce nor provide anything of value physical or intellectual.  Ahhh, I don't have time to waste on you summarizing the book.

BTW, what do you do for a living?  Have you ever produced anything that another person would buy from you if he had the option not to?  I'm keeping my assumptions to myself, you might surprise me, and I'm ok with that.

Guffaw!

You're right Socialism is the camel's nose under the tent.  It started with Social Security as just a small percentage 2%, now it's 13%+, and Medicare was split off and made additional. So to your statement, I say "Get real."

On selectivly choosing and the items you call a success, let's look at two together police & roads.  Ever hear of the criime of "Driving While Black"?  Waht about the unparalleled efficiency of the Katrina restoration efforts?

OK, ok, I've picked a few notorious examples.  And even I would have a rard time placing those two on the 'rules for radicals' checklist towards the goal of N. Korean society... good one dude. ;^)

But there are too many historical precedents that show that the goal of the Socialists is *not to socialize benefits* but *to gain controls* over the people. That's what keeps me awake at night.

Barb, you said: "We are a Democracy"

No, we are a "Representative Rebublic"

And yes, I do " ... equate Socialism with the implementation of social programs..."

Those two are in fact the same.

then you added: "...make them pay their fair share of TAXES."

Another Socialist pillar, power flows from the barrel of a gun.

And btw, corporations do not *PAY* taxes, they pass the taxes along to their customers in the form of higher prices.  The *consumer* is the only one that *ever* pays the tax, and the consumer is the one that *always* pays the tax.

If you want to call a truce, that's fine, but let me remind you that the bloodiest battles in history have been fought when a defeated people have chosen to rise up against the forces that defeated them in the first place. ;^) (no real blood in the forum, but please don't underestimate the weapons I have in my arsenal.)  What you cannot beat are the *facts* and the logical interpretation of those facts.  Sure you can make emotional appeals, call me names, but *none of that* will alter the *reality* of the situation.  You *want* a better world, so do I, (what's that rhyme about "wishes and...???")

The Socialists want POWER -- please don't forget that.  The do-gooders allow themselves to accept the Socialist arguments because it gives them "warm-fuzzies", and you are comfortable challenging my opinions because the facts are "cold-n-prickly" -- sorry for being honest.

Support the FairTax!

Wow!  I guess I've become so jaded to politicians that good news like this slipped below my radar.  This is the kind of laws that the Congress should feel proud to pass.

The insurance industry should be embarrassed that such laws should need to be contemplated.

The only thing I hope is in there, would be some verbage that allows the insurance companies to file suit against the abuser to recover costs or seek jail time!

Before someone jumps on my back, domestic abuse is *not * the fault of the insurance company.  It's the fault of the abuser! 

Any insurers that denied coverage should be required to pay coverage retroactively and be barred from seeking compensation, but the abusers should still be jailed.

Any insurers that provided coverage should be allowed to seek damages from the abuser, who should also be jailed.

Anyone that commits DV that causes a bruise or draws blood even if it does not result in insurance claims, should be jailed.

I'm not going to say I'm embarrassed that this situation never crossed my mind.  I consider DV to be one of those unthinkable taboos.  To deny coverage to a victim based on tha actions of another is heartless.  Finally, {pulling on asbestos underwear} To stay in a situation where domestic violence has occurred is unimaginable.

I hope we're all in agreement, because I really am unqualified to explore the DV argument.  In my mind it's another case of "Just get away."

A nice provision, although further evidence to me of why the insurance model doesn't work.  

If our goal is a system in which participants don't pay higher rates or lose coverage based on what may broadly be defined as "things that aren't their fault," then certainly you shouldn't be penalized for being a domestic violence victim -- but you also shouldn't be penalized for a pre-existing injury incurred as the victim of a non-domestic assault, or from getting hit by a car.  Or for being born with a congenital heart defect, for that matter.

Doing it piecemeal like this -- picking certain sympathetic groups (and obviously domestic violence victims are a very sympathetic group) and saying to insurance companies "you can't use X piece of information to set rates, but you can still use Y and Z" is again, picking winners and losers.  Who's more sympathetic -- a domestic violence victim or someone who had leukemia as a child?  Who can say?  The only solution is to spread the risk evenly across everyone.    

Hey Doug,

Nuthin' piecemeal about the distinctions, Sure DV is a sympathetic cause, but is't also a tort -- e.g. Childhood Leukemia can't really be blamed on the *actions* of any one person, however Fetal Alcohol Syndrom can.  Both are sad one can point to a responsible party.

In fact I maintain that an insurer can use *every* tidbit of information available to set rates.  I applauded this particular piece of legislation because it said they can't reclassify for benefits after the fact.

I didn't want to get into this this way.  If there is a family history of leukemia then the *family* bears the responsibility of the risk, i.e higher premiums.  If there is no history for alcoholism and mommy boozes baby several standard deviations below normal then the *insurer* bears the risk.  The child, now born with FAS, is a higher risk than the same child born without.

In neither case should the *public* bear the risk!!!

It's the role of the insurer to use the actuarial tables to underwrite the risk.  The clients that pay the premiums are the ones that ultimately bear the risk, while reaping the benefits of *being insured* according to the contracts they signed.

Your assertion: "The only solution is to spread the risk evenly across everyone." is patently offensive to me!  What you fail to realize is that as soon as I have the means, I'm going to walk away from you and your system. 

Your hand in my pocket is going to get cut off at the elbow and I'm going to spit on you as you bleed to death!!!  Can't you feel the rage in my words?  Please tell me you don't expect me to accept that hand in my pocket!

This is such a fundamental difference between Libertarians and the rest of the political spectrum.  I make one damand on you.  Keep your word.  If we have business, we have a contract, honor the contract, nothing more, nothing less.  If that is unacceptable, then we do not have to interact.  It's sooo simple.  It's sooo clean.  We trade as equals.  If you want to be charitable... knock your socks off.

Sheesh!  To all you folks that want Socialised Medicine, go move to Europe, shlep on up to Canada, go on down to Mexico.  Take your Utopian vision of an egalitarian society and go make one.  Stop perverting my nation.  Generations of immagrants came here to escape the oppressive systems you're trying to introduce here.

>Generations of immigrants came here to escape >the oppressive systems you're trying to >introduce here.

I would actually say that generations of immigrants came here to escape the results of 19th Century laissez-faire "liberalism," the intellectual precursor to modern libertarianism.

That system allowed a tiny elite to accumulate enormous power and resources, free from any sense of social responsibility--such as at least some of their forebears had felt toward the peasantry under feudalism--and made life more or less unbearable for everyone else.

Later immigrants came to escape totalitarian regimes that used a false socialism as a ruse to grab and maintain power.

Current immigrants come from both types of places, as well as from places that have no "system" at all.

What you don't see is mass immigration from functioning social democracies -- I don't think you see many Dutch or Norwegian people fleeing to the United States to escape the tyranny of their national health systems.

Hi Doug,

I like your arguement (because it supports my own : ).

Where's the background research to support your statements though? Could you point me to it so I could get a better understanding of the whole picture?

Thanks,

Alex

Alex:

One of the luxuries of commenting on Internet discussions is that one needs no background research -- it's all ipse dixit.

With respect to my statements about gender-rating in life, auto, and disability insurance, these are based on personal experience in obtaining such coverage for my wife and for me, as well as anecdotal reports from people I know personally.

I don't claim to have statistics across the whole industry, and I'd invite anyone who is still reading this thread to correct me if I'm wrong in saying that, other things being equal, women pay more than men for individual health insurance, less for term life insurance, less for auto insurance, and more for disability insurance.

As to my contentions regarding the types of economic and governmental systems from which people have emigrated in favor of coming to America, I doubt that two professional historians could agree on any single dominant factor that drove immigration -- I was merely offering a counter to CTYankee's implication that current health care reform proposals are steps toward the types of government or economic system that people have fled.     

As to my core arguments on this page that (1) social justice demands that we spread the risks and costs of health care in a way that does not correspond entirely (or perhaps at all) to individual risk; but (2) we oughtn't to achieve this goal through dishonest methods, like pretending that gender rating is driven by misogynist animus instead of claims experience -- these are pure opinions, for which I claim no need for background research. 

Barb, what happened?  You had some good points, it now appears you took dope?

I can't believe I'm typing this???

My line: "Support the FairTax!" is a sig... D'Oh!

Your line: "Make them pay their fair share of taxes" is a battle cry akin to the Lemmings marching against the tide.  Both are based on a complete and total lack of comprehension of the objective and the obstacle.

I think you are just saying: "I CAN see your point of view." -- but your rhetoric indicates otherwise.  I'm not belittling you, I'm belitting you ability to draw *logical* conclusions.

To wit: "I also have my own "arsenal" of facts and "logical interpretations".

The facts do not belong to anyone, the facts belong to *everyone* so please share them, let's examine if they are truly *facts* or conclusions.

Another fav' of mine: The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Let's look at your logical interpretations.  I'm going to look for jumps that are unsupported, like Doug's above where he says:

"... Who can say?  The only solution is to spread the risk evenly across everyone."

Someone else's words I know, but you seem much more comfortable defending those words than coming to "logical conclusions" -- conclusions can be attacked -- it's part of the game/process.  Interpretations, are what we pronounce when we're incapable of forming, creating and defending a conclusion.  This is for real, pick a topic and choose a side.

What would I socialize?  Good kwestion.  What would I allow tax $$$ to be spent on...  OK...

I didn't think I'd be asked to craft a Constitution today...  So I'll keep it brief.

A Judiciary / Judicial branch:

The Courts: Fair and impartial judges that never serve within 500 miles from where they live.  Fly them in, they hear the case then they go back on the circuit.

A Legislature / Legislative branch:

The Senate: That can craft and create national laws, codes, statutes, treaties etc, but neither tax nor spend.

The House: That may tax, but spend only in: 1) the Private Sector, 2) the Judiciary 3) The Executive branch. Represent their constituents interest, ratify or reject laws, codes statues, treaties but not modify them.

The Executive branch:

A President that oversees:

The Military, State Department, National Library, Patent Office, Dept of the Interior, Immigartion and Naturalization Service, Dept of Corrections, Internal Revenue Service.

A Treasurer who observes, monitors, controls, and regulates the Currency, Banks, Insurance, and can veto spending bills/line items, monitors and reports all government cash flow.  Also assures that Commerce is 'fair' not criminal.

Some Ammendments:

0) Each citizen, non-citizen, natural person, conscious entity, or being represented by agent 'ad litem' has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness these rights shall not be infringed except by due process, nor shall they be provided by the government or any government agency.  No enity shall by malicious intent deprive another from those rights, no entity may be compelled to provide sustinence or means to another unless withholding constitutes willful neglect and infliction of undue harm or as a result of a prior agreement or understanding. (Specifically a parent is expected to provide for a normal healthy child or seek relief by forfeiting parental rights, but may excercise judgement if the childs future is in doubt without fear of prosecution.)

1) The government shall pass no laws abridging individual liberty, speech, association, press, religion, and privacy nor any litmus test as such, without due process.  No limitations on natural or articifial media known to exist or uninvented, shall be imposed unless it deprives the liberty of another citizen in an unequal way.

2) Citizens shall have the right to possess, carry, operate and display any device, means or method for personal defense without restriction.

3) The government shall respect the right of private property in absolute terms, property seized may never be sold, leased, used or transferred by the government only stored as a last resort.

4) No cruel, unusual, or disproportionate punishments shall be imposed, victims of crimes shall be able to petition for reciprocaland equal punishment once guilt beyond all doubt has been established by the courts.

5) The right to avoid self incrimination, trial by jury, privacy...

Whoops, way too much time on this cut & paste already.

Actually, I wasn't looking for a constitution. I was just wondering which social programs you would have funded. All I see in your post is Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches. 

Are you saying that citizens should be paying the salaries of officials in these branches?

Okay. I'm still with you. Are there any others?

So you share the general agreement that our medical system needs improvement. This petition, in particular is not about that, though I do share your concern.

I don't understand your point about insurance. If selling products are allowed, selling insurance products is allowed. You're not trying to get rid of insurance, right? Because it provides a useful function: it prevents you from large financial losses by averaging that loss over many people (yes, and some CEO's and actuaries and marketing and... ). You *may* choose to self insure as your "save the 8k every year" scheme suggests. This may or may not cover all your expenses, however, if your house happens to burn down. In the case of something extreme, you might want to purchase insurance.

So setting aside the issues with insurance, the question becomes: "Who pays for it?"

Right now, health insurance is private and individuals pay for it (if they can/chose to). Some inefficiencies are introduced by the duplicated actuaries/marketing/CEOs, etc.

As you suggest, you could give that money to the gov't and get national coverage (if the gov't provided it). This would be public and would be paid for by the gov't (meaning "all of us").

The first option (private) leads to insurance companies to offer coverage to all not-so-risky people (assume that those people can afford it). The second guarantees that *all* people can get the insurance and the individual cost is based on ability-to-pay (taxes).

That second one sounds like a solution you just came up with.

I'm with Barbara in that you've made a lot of good points (I especially like the one that points to the miss aligned incentives. I think this happens a lot in capitalism, right? See: Negative Externality. Thus, I suppose that's what gov't is for)

I would like to correct you on one point, though. You mention dissatisfaction about having an insurance rate depend on something you cannot change. As Doug notes, this occurs in *all* insurance (sometimes to your advantage).

Look, you can't control your age, but you wouldn't complain that life insurance is sold at different prices for different ages, right? There's a reason for that; it costs more to insure the old guys!

The same thing applies here. The issue is not with the insurance itself because, as an Actuary, I can tell you that all the insurance companies do is multiply together claim cost tables and pump out an answer. No bigotry involved, just numbers. Those claim cost tables come straight from hospital and mortality data.

Thus, it's not the insurance, it's the availability and "who pays".

Hi Rebecca, you hit the nail on the head with your last three comments. I agree with it all!