Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2017, 07:13 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 07:22 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
Insurance covers risk to property and commodities. It represents a way to protect optional things we acquire.

Healthcare is not a commodity. Protecting your health is not an option, not something you can effectively shop for, or choose not to buy without major risk.

By making insurance companies the way to care for the individual's health, you turn keeping people alive (or not) into a profit motive, and open the entire system to predation of the powerless by the powerful. You allow money to influence politicians, lobbyists to craft laws that bought politicians sign, and you leave hardworking Americans at risk of going bankrupt simply because they got sick. It happens every day in this country by the thousands; it happens in no other First World nation. They are rightly baffled that we allow this to happen to our people.

Calling it a "privilege" is something that ignores the ramifications of such a bankruptcy on the productivity and capacity of those who are poorly insured, unknowingly underinsured (as is often the case... "Clause 217(b) subsection 13 says that we don't have to cover your cancer treatments"), or uninsured. More importantly, such an illness can devastate two individuals simultaneously since many/most households have two working parents, as well as the children whose parents have since been reduced to poverty by that illness or accident, and thus have their chances of economic advancement all but ruined. This sort of thing carries into future generations.

Furthermore, even if your only interest in this subject is economic, it costs significantly less to publicly cover preventative healthcare so that more expensive problems do not arise, down the road, either by causing people to have to show up in the emergency room or ruining their economic productivity, when the preventable major stuff shows up because it wasn't prevented.

It's easy to call something a "privilege" when that privilege is easily afforded to/by you, in your comfortable suburban bubble. If you were from a working-class background, unable to afford decent insurance, and had your spouse and your children depending on you to never get hurt or sick, you would likely look at it differently.

Edit to Add: I saw that you said you were uninsured. Nevertheless, as someone who has survived cancer only because I happened to be on an involuntary public healthcare program (I was at the time wrongfully incarcerated, and have since been exonerated), I can tell you that there will come a time when you will realize The Hard Way™ just what it means to have insufficient healthcare, unless you are already getting help through government-funded or -backed programs.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
05-02-2017, 07:18 PM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
(05-02-2017 06:02 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 05:44 PM)Thatconservativeatheist Wrote:  I never saw the teach the controversy thing i my experience but again I was super lucky when it came to teachers.

It never affected me directly either but I see it affecting others. I don't limit my views to my personal situation.

Quote:I manged to avoid all sex ed taking instead medical classes so I can't speak to how it played out in my school. I am pro-abstinence (I'm anti-sex personally but I'm also asexual as hell so it doesn't involve me anyway) with an emphasis on pregnancy reduction tips including teaching girls about how to tell if or when they are fertile. Honestly I thought people who liked sex were mentally ill until my mid 20s so there's that.

Advocating abstinence is fine but abstinence-only education is a real problem. It doesn't give teens the information they need to understand what is going on ad what the risks are and what they can do to avoid them. It's been repeatedly shown that it is totally ineffective in reducing STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Quote:The government or individuals? I'm on the government should stay out of things like marriage and healthcare side so if they don't fund things and it's legal for them to not do so I'm fine with it. Individuals can do what they want,they just have to deal with the consequences.

Not entirely sure what you were replying to... if it was in regard to contraception as part of healthcare then it is not a matter of not facing consequences; it's a medical issue for many that needs to be a part of their overall healthcare.

Quote:Again it depends on the entity or individual.A private business that doesn't receive government funding can do whatever they want within the law. The consumer can choose to support them or not. In the age of the internet things are more accessible , and to that fact I give online businesses more leeway because there are more options.

Again, not quite sure what that is in regard to... I respect a public/private distinction but the US system ties healthcare to employment which effectively entangles private and public.

Quote:Ah, I(an uninsured disabled woman) think 1: there should be a difference between health insurance and health maintenance.

You'd have to define how you are using those terms.

Quote:2: that healthcare isn't a right it's a privilege.

Who decides? What do you have to do to earn the privilege?

Quote:3: reproductive care is separate and should be funded by the individual.

Reproductive care is part of healthcare. Why would you extract that and not digestive care or circulatory care or the care of any other system?

Quote:Insurance is part of the problem anyway.But that's just my opinion.

I agree that insurance is part of the problem. The system in the US is totally fucked in my opinion and we need to get the private insurance companies out of standard healthcare.

I tend to go on personal experiences it's a major weakness but it is what it is.I'm a rather self focused person.

Look until I was in late teens I thought only 30% of the the population ever had sex I has such a bad phobia I would throw up when I saw cartoon drawing of nude people. Until my mid 20s I thought people who liked sex were mentally deranged and unstable and sex was a punishment for misbehavior. I have never had any sort of attraction towards anyone so I don't get it. I am pro information.

i was referring to religious discrimination and companies that won't allow contraception. Honestly if companies don't have to provide health care and the private sector does it it won't be a problem.

I view health insurance like car insurance. Catastrophic plans would fall into this. It's a just in case for things like hospitalization.

Health maintenance would fall into the primary care/preventative care and condition maintenance. You could go even further and divide those ito two categories.The problem would be funding it

Part of the problem is the rising obesity and cancer epidemics.Complications are making things even more expensive (I say this as an obese person with chronic conditions) and our system isn't very cost effective anyway.If you allow everyone in regardless of their condition it will raise the costs for everyone.Of course the young and healthy don't want and/or need it so the they can't help shoulder the costs.Which is a flaw.

That's more to do with my belief that right's don't really exist and a point of view that helps me not take things for granted. You have to be a citizen for one. If you are not a citizen/legal resident you do not get access to things that citizens/legal residents do.You should be treated at best as some vacationing from another country and at worst the criminal you are and yes that includes the dreamers.

I'm using reproductive health in the terms of Reproductive technology, birth control and abortions. I view them as voluntary things that you should have to shoulder yourself (remember I view sex as unnecessary). Do what you want just take responsibility for it. And yes I know BC is used for other things that's another topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 07:29 PM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
(05-02-2017 07:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Insurance covers risk to property and commodities. It represents a way to protect optional things we acquire.

Healthcare is not a commodity. Protecting your health is not an option, not something you can effectively shop for, or choose not to buy without major risk.

By making insurance companies the way to care for the individual's health, you turn keeping people alive (or not) into a profit motive, and open the entire system to predation of the powerless by the powerful. You allow money to influence politicians, lobbyists to craft laws that bought politicians sign, and you leave hardworking Americans at risk of going bankrupt simply because they got sick. It happens every day in this country by the thousands; it happens in no other First World nation. They are rightly baffled that we allow this to happen to our people.

Calling it a "privilege" is something that ignores the ramifications of such a bankruptcy on the productivity and capacity of those who are poorly insured, unknowingly underinsured (as is often the case... "Clause 217(b) subsection 13 says that we don't have to cover your cancer treatments"), or uninsured. More importantly, such an illness can devastate two individuals simultaneously since many/most households have two working parents, as well as the children whose parents have since been reduced to poverty by that illness or accident, and thus have their chances of economic advancement all but ruined. This sort of thing carries into future generations.

Furthermore, even if your only interest in this subject is economic, it costs significantly less to publicly cover preventative healthcare so that more expensive problems do not arise, down the road, either by causing people to have to show up in the emergency room or ruining their economic productivity, when the preventable major stuff shows up because it wasn't prevented.

It's easy to call something a "privilege" when that privilege is easily afforded to/by you, in your comfortable suburban bubble. If you were from a working-class background, unable to afford decent insurance, and had your spouse and your children depending on you to never get hurt or sick, you would likely look at it differently.

I can't afford HI it costs more than I make in a year (I make under $5,000).I just pay out of pocket or go without.
See my other response I view things in the terms of privileges not rights because they can be taken away.
I also tend to view things in terms of punishments that's how my family is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 07:36 PM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
(05-02-2017 07:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Insurance covers risk to property and commodities. It represents a way to protect optional things we acquire.

Healthcare is not a commodity. Protecting your health is not an option, not something you can effectively shop for, or choose not to buy without major risk.

By making insurance companies the way to care for the individual's health, you turn keeping people alive (or not) into a profit motive, and open the entire system to predation of the powerless by the powerful. You allow money to influence politicians, lobbyists to craft laws that bought politicians sign, and you leave hardworking Americans at risk of going bankrupt simply because they got sick. It happens every day in this country by the thousands; it happens in no other First World nation. They are rightly baffled that we allow this to happen to our people.

Calling it a "privilege" is something that ignores the ramifications of such a bankruptcy on the productivity and capacity of those who are poorly insured, unknowingly underinsured (as is often the case... "Clause 217(b) subsection 13 says that we don't have to cover your cancer treatments"), or uninsured. More importantly, such an illness can devastate two individuals simultaneously since many/most households have two working parents, as well as the children whose parents have since been reduced to poverty by that illness or accident, and thus have their chances of economic advancement all but ruined. This sort of thing carries into future generations.

Furthermore, even if your only interest in this subject is economic, it costs significantly less to publicly cover preventative healthcare so that more expensive problems do not arise, down the road, either by causing people to have to show up in the emergency room or ruining their economic productivity, when the preventable major stuff shows up because it wasn't prevented.

It's easy to call something a "privilege" when that privilege is easily afforded to/by you, in your comfortable suburban bubble. If you were from a working-class background, unable to afford decent insurance, and had your spouse and your children depending on you to never get hurt or sick, you would likely look at it differently.

Edit to Add: I saw that you said you were uninsured. Nevertheless, as someone who has survived cancer only because I happened to be on an involuntary public healthcare program (I was at the time wrongfully incarcerated, and have since been exonerated), I can tell you that there will come a time when you will realize The Hard Way™ just what it means to have insufficient healthcare, unless you are already getting help through government-funded or -backed programs.

I don't qualify for public assistance. I have to live with my parents so the total household income is to high and I have no children. My parents won't pay for it and because I don't pay rent my money goes towards my healthcare bills. I'm one of the ones that obamacare screwed over.i know it's irrational but that's why I'm working through. Unfortunately I will have to learn the hard way and I have been isolated from everyone (I've lived in the same town for most of my life.) so what's another slap or 5 with the reality stick. Most of it's idealistic anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 07:42 PM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
Perhaps I should rephrase, then.

Preferring private insurance over a public option is not an actual conservative position. It's simply the one that serves the capitalists who own the system, and has been propagandized into one conservatives are supposed to support.

Conservatives tend to claim to be interested in protecting American lives at all costs-- thus our military adventurism, because we can't allow even one terrorist attack on Americans, no matter what it costs us to maintain our gigantic military! It is interesting to me that when it comes to protecting people from much more common dangers, we suddenly consider this expense to be optional, even undesirable.

If your interest is simply in the financial aspect, then it's still not conservative. It's actually cheaper on all taxpayers to fund a system that offers free preventative maintenance to everyone so that major (more expensive) issues don't crop up as often, and so people don't end up in emergency rooms (which we all pay for), and it maintains a higher taxpaying base by not forcing people into poverty and bankruptcy when they get hurt or sick.

We do not expect Americans to pay individually for other things that are not really options for a functioning civilization, such as police, military protection, firefighters, childhood education, et cetera. If you told me my safety was a privilege, not a right, unless I could afford private security rather than the "public option" of police protection, I would call you insane.

Americans are suffering, both personally and financially, from a system that is not conservative by any measure. The only people who benefit from this system are the unusually well-off and the owners of this system. The rest of the First World has proven that most of the fearmongering tactics/propaganda about how expensive it would be to cover everyone collectively is a Big Lie.

I truly hope you never find out why that is. But I suspect you will. Maybe you will accept that as some sort of inevitable tragedy and your lot in life, but I find it unacceptable. Though it has been cast as a conservative-versus-liberal issue, I think it is neither. We are being systematically lied to in order to protect an untenable system. And the rest of the world has shown that this is the case.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
05-02-2017, 08:01 PM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
(05-02-2017 07:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Perhaps I should rephrase, then.

Preferring private insurance over a public option is not an actual conservative position. It's simply the one that serves the capitalists who own the system, and has been propagandized into one conservatives are supposed to support.

Conservatives tend to claim to be interested in protecting American lives at all costs-- thus our military adventurism, because we can't allow even one terrorist attack on Americans, no matter what it costs us to maintain our gigantic military! It is interesting to me that when it comes to protecting people from much more common dangers, we suddenly consider this expense to be optional, even undesirable.

If your interest is simply in the financial aspect, then it's still not conservative. It's actually cheaper on all taxpayers to fund a system that offers free preventative maintenance to everyone so that major (more expensive) issues don't crop up as often, and so people don't end up in emergency rooms (which we all pay for), and it maintains a higher taxpaying base by not forcing people into poverty and bankruptcy when they get hurt or sick.

We do not expect Americans to pay individually for other things that are not really options for a functioning civilization, such as police, military protection, firefighters, childhood education, et cetera. If you told me my safety was a privilege, not a right, unless I could afford private security rather than the "public option" of police protection, I would call you insane.

Americans are suffering, both personally and financially, from a system that is not conservative by any measure. The only people who benefit from this system are the unusually well-off and the owners of this system. The rest of the First World has proven that most of the fearmongering tactics/propaganda about how expensive it would be to cover everyone collectively is a Big Lie.

I truly hope you never find out why that is. But I suspect you will. Maybe you will accept that as some sort of inevitable tragedy and your lot in life, but I find it unacceptable. Though it has been cast as a conservative-versus-liberal issue, I think it is neither. We are being systematically lied to in order to protect an untenable system. And the rest of the world has shown that this is the case.
Indeed ,I won't pretend that that I'm fully conservative. I'm fairly new to anything remotely moderate and I'm still working out my views which is why I appreciate your interaction.To be fair even moderates are being considered right-wing by some these days.

I think we have the same conclusion that the system doesn't work. I'm looking into different systems currently an a mix of the private system with competition across states and a public system like other countries seems to be the best bet.

I'm worried about it being overwhelmed due to how big the U.S. population is not including the non citizens including them it is even worse.But we shall see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 10:03 PM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
(05-02-2017 07:18 PM)Thatconservativeatheist Wrote:  I tend to go on personal experiences it's a major weakness but it is what it is.I'm a rather self focused person.

It isn't uncommon but if you know it is a major weakness I'd call that a step in the right direction.

Quote:i was referring to religious discrimination and companies that won't allow contraception.

Companies have no business being involved at that level in the lives of their employees. Contraceptive coverage is good preventive care for women that want to take advantage of it.

Quote:Honestly if companies don't have to provide health care and the private sector does it it won't be a problem.

That doesn't make sense... companies are the private sector. What makes sense is to move to a single payer public system and get companies out of it so employer's individual beliefs don't interfere and we get the profit motive out of it so treatment isn't delayed or denied to boost the bottom line.

Quote:I view health insurance like car insurance. Catastrophic plans would fall into this. It's a just in case for things like hospitalization.

They just aren't the same thing though. You have a choice on car ownership and use. You can't control when you get sick or have an accident. A simple misstep could literally wipe out decades of savings and ruin not only the victim but the spouse, children, family, and friends.

Quote:That's more to do with my belief that right's don't really exist and a point of view that helps me not take things for granted.

There are no intrinsic rights but rights exist once we've granted that they do based on the kind of society we want to live in.

Quote:You have to be a citizen for one. If you are not a citizen/legal resident you do not get access to things that citizens/legal residents do.You should be treated at best as some vacationing from another country and at worst the criminal you are and yes that includes the dreamers.

Our healthcare "system" doesn't even handle citizens decently though. How did we get dragged off into illegal residents and dreamers? Why should somebody who was brought here as a child and who grew up here as part of this culture be punished because of what their parents did? It may be biblical but it isn't moral. That's all beside the point anyway since the main issue is the overall system, not the percentage of care going to illegal aliens.

Quote:I'm using reproductive health in the terms of Reproductive technology, birth control and abortions. I view them as voluntary things that you should have to shoulder yourself (remember I view sex as unnecessary). Do what you want just take responsibility for it.

I understand the sentiment but it is short-sighted. STDs and unwanted pregnancies and other complications are not only more expensive than prevention they ruin loves and that affects many more than the individuals involved. If you want to live in a stable, prosperous society you need to think about how to make things better across the board and not just for yourself.

Quote:And yes I know BC is used for other things that's another topic.

Very convenient that you can just ignore the parts that you can't argue against.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
05-02-2017, 10:10 PM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
(05-02-2017 08:01 PM)Thatconservativeatheist Wrote:  I think we have the same conclusion that the system doesn't work. I'm looking into different systems currently an a mix of the private system with competition across states and a public system like other countries seems to be the best bet.

We need the public system. I'm not sure what benefit there would be from retaining the private system.

Quote:I'm worried about it being overwhelmed due to how big the U.S. population is not including the non citizens including them it is even worse.But we shall see.

A quick search returns as estimated 11 million illegal aliens and a population of 318 million. That puts them at under 4% of the population. Even assuming they have more dangerous jobs and poorer living conditions they are still a relatively small part of the problem.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
06-02-2017, 12:00 AM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
(05-02-2017 10:03 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 07:18 PM)Thatconservativeatheist Wrote:  I tend to go on personal experiences it's a major weakness but it is what it is.I'm a rather self focused person.

It isn't uncommon but if you know it is a major weakness I'd call that a step in the right direction.

Quote:I was referring to religious discrimination and companies that won't allow contraception.

Companies have no business being involved at that level in the lives of their employees. Contraceptive coverage is good preventive care for women that want to take advantage of it.

I said that companies shouldn't have to provide insurance. I was just clarify what i was referring to.

Quote:Honestly if companies don't have to provide health care and the private sector does it it won't be a problem.

That doesn't make sense... companies are the private sector. What makes sense is to move to a single payer public system and get companies out of it so employer's individual beliefs don't interfere and we get the profit motive out of it so treatment isn't delayed or denied to boost the bottom line.

As long as private insurance is still available for those of us that want it.
Quote:I view health insurance like car insurance. Catastrophic plans would fall into this. It's a just in case for things like hospitalization.

They just aren't the same thing though. You have a choice on car ownership and use. You can't control when you get sick or have an accident. A simple misstep could literally wipe out decades of savings and ruin not only the victim but the spouse, children, family, and friends.

Hence why I mentioned Heath Care Maintenance. I view heath insurance as a separate thing.
Quote:That's more to do with my belief that right's don't really exist and a point of view that helps me not take things for granted.

There are no intrinsic rights but rights exist once we've granted that they do based on the kind of society we want to live in.

Quote:You have to be a citizen for one. If you are not a citizen/legal resident you do not get access to things that citizens/legal residents do.You should be treated at best as some vacationing from another country and at worst the criminal you are and yes that includes the dreamers.

Our healthcare "system" doesn't even handle citizens decently though. How did we get dragged off into illegal residents and dreamers? Why should somebody who was brought here as a child and who grew up here as part of this culture be punished because of what their parents did? It may be biblical but it isn't moral. That's all beside the point anyway since the main issue is the overall system, not the percentage of care going to illegal aliens.

I was referring to the question of who decides who receives these privileges and how that is decided.In my mind rights=privileges. Dude I voted for Trump because of his immigration stances. Also not my problem that their parents messed it up for them. We're a country not a charity ward. Maybe it's not moral but I DGAF.
Quote:I'm using reproductive health in the terms of Reproductive technology, birth control and abortions. I view them as voluntary things that you should have to shoulder yourself (remember I view sex as unnecessary). Do what you want just take responsibility for it.

I understand the sentiment but it is short-sighted. STDs and unwanted pregnancies and other complications are not only more expensive than prevention they ruin loves and that affects many more than the individuals involved. If you want to live in a stable, prosperous society you need to think about how to make things better across the board and not just for yourself.

Honestly I am not reproducing and I will be gone in 60ish years. The world can burn for all I care. I'm not a humanist,I don't care about making the world a better overall for everyone.Again I'm just an asshole.

Quote:And yes I know BC is used for other things that's another topic.

Very convenient that you can just ignore the parts that you can't argue against.
Okay,I think that the use of BC as a treatment is a band aid for the real issue and most of them can be treated with other things (Acne:Diet,topical medications,balancing hormones and not covering them up.PCOS:Balancing hormones and diet. are my my main concerns) Yeah it's a bit woo woo but people can do what they want. I'm not the supreme dictator of the world. I'll just sit there and be my judgemental self.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 12:04 AM
RE: Atheist but not an Anti-Theist
(05-02-2017 10:10 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 08:01 PM)Thatconservativeatheist Wrote:  I think we have the same conclusion that the system doesn't work. I'm looking into different systems currently an a mix of the private system with competition across states and a public system like other countries seems to be the best bet.

We need the public system. I'm not sure what benefit there would be from retaining the private system.

It should be an available option. I think both can work together. If people want to pay for better care they should be able to.
Quote:I'm worried about it being overwhelmed due to how big the U.S. population is not including the non citizens including them it is even worse.But we shall see.

A quick search returns as estimated 11 million illegal aliens and a population of 318 million. That puts them at under 4% of the population. Even assuming they have more dangerous jobs and poorer living conditions they are still a relatively small part of the problem.
There are tons more than that but it's hard to say how many. I agree there are other issues like obesity that will cause more issues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: