myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Is coverage for preexisting conditions welfare?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5202

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feuser, thanks, we can see that whiplash happens. More seriously, there are certainly better ideas out there that use tax incentives to encourage insurance buying, and perhaps even reflect some personal choices in the underlying actuarial science. If the insurance industry had a financial stake in reducing obesity, it might get better. But the revisionist history here tries to cover up the fact that the Re-thugs have never come up with an actual health reform program and advanced it legislatively. The Act we got was despite the Republicans, not with the help of their insight. I would have preferred an approach that had conservative ideas for efficiency embedded in the law--and they would have been incorporated had not the Republicans decided that beating Obama was more important than public health.

Flip flopping is only the symptom of deep cynicism about good public policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5202

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The idea of corporate social responsibility has been around for quite a while, and even has an organization https://www.bsr.org/en/our-network/member-list, that is devoted to accountability and sustainability. It is interesting to note that Apple, Chevron, and Exxon are all members. Nonetheless, I choose not to own stock in those companies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1395

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For reference: Here's Butler's original plan - before he figured out it was unconstitutional:
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1395

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Feuser, thanks, we can see that whiplash happens. More seriously, there are certainly better ideas out there that use tax incentives to encourage insurance buying, and perhaps even reflect some personal choices in the underlying actuarial science. If the insurance industry had a financial stake in reducing obesity, it might get better. But the revisionist history here tries to cover up the fact that the Re-thugs have never come up with an actual health reform program and advanced it legislatively. The Act we got was despite the Republicans, not with the help of their insight. I would have preferred an approach that had conservative ideas for efficiency embedded in the law--and they would have been incorporated had not the Republicans decided that beating Obama was more important than public health.

Flip flopping is only the symptom of deep cynicism about good public policy.


I would not accuse someone who's opinion matures or evolves over time as a flip-flopper. Changing your mind is fine, but not when at the same time defending a position you've held in the past.

The argument that the original plan was to protect the public form bearing the cost of free-riders and the new mandate somehow is different and mainly motivated to protect people from their own bad decisions (and thus unconstitutional) is just egregious.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5810

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks florian for the link to Stuart Butler's original Heritage Foundation proposal. There's little doubt that Butler is now in a position of having to weasel out of his current predicament. Reading first his attempt to distance himself from past scholarly study and conclusions, followed by the opportunity to read his original proposal, says a lot. The guy's done such a poor job as the weasel, it's laughable.

I have to say this though, Butler's Heritage Foundation proposal should be required reading for our Supreme Court Justices in the current case reviewing the constitutionality of the ACA.


Last edited by swchandler on Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5810

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding my earlier posts responding to mrgybe's input, I'll stick by my comments. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that Apple, and those other firms using Foxconn, can now just blow the situation off after much has come to light in the media. In a sense, mrgybe is serving to remind all of us of important problems that need to be addressed and resolved into the future. Yet, when you get down to the brass tacks, I think that both Boggsman and myself recognize that mrgybe also has some different reasons for bringing up Apple.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 3551
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
I'm astonished at your reaction to my comments. You are all in favor of government regulation to avoid employee abuse, but you rebel at the the thought of companies exercising oversight to achieve the same end. My comments apply to any company in any sphere of activity including the oil industry. If you are OK with buying cheap stuff on the back of a horribly exploited workforce, that is your choice. I am not. And yes, I would close down Costco, Walmart and Toys R Us if their profits result from abusing their employees. This has absolutely nothing to do with with politics......it is about what is right.

Im with you 100%! I was hoping your initial comments were going to launch a discussion on how to deal with this very important issue. But, it didnt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5202

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent posting of Stuart Butler's original proposal. For those without the patience to click and read, here are a few high points:

--all citizens should have guaranteed universal access to affordable health care

--Direct and indirect government assistance should be concentrated on those who need it most

--Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance

As I've noted before, there is much to like in the analysis and proposals of some fiscal conservatives, and I find much of Butler's reasoning sound. But what makes me sick is the willingness of the so-called "political conservatives" to tolerate bigotry and outright insanity in order to try to defeat Obama. Most of Butler's ideas are actually in the Act.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1945

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac Feuser

Butler's reasoning is similar to my own on the mandate. I like to use the following example...

Skier A and Skier B both work as carpenters in the summer so they can ski all winter. Skier A doesn't carry health insurance because he needs a new set of skiis. Skier B works nights bartending to pay for his health insurance.

Skier A is an aggressive skier...steep terrain...big air. He dates a chick at the little med center at the base of the mountain. She told him if he cracks up the clinic will take him without insurance. There is an ambulance parked at the center and a heli pad a couple miles down the road. Used to be another heli, but too many no pay flights.

Skier A hits an exposed rock, tears his leg, sledded to the clinic. It's really bad...ambulance to the waiting helicopter, flown to Denver, vascular surgeon saves the leg.

Skier B hits the same rock ten minutes later, same injuries,sledded to clinic. ambulance gone with skier A, finally returns, no helicopter, ambulance to Denver, due to the delays in treating the injury it would require two surgeons to save leg. (Surgeon's partner left cause they were treating too many uninsured to support them both). Skier B losses his leg.

Skier A's bill is huge...a total write off. Clinic, ambulance, heli,ER,Hosp,Rehab,surgeon...screwed. Skier B's bill is even bigger, but insurance pays...this time and cancels him. Skier B can't work and goes on disability.

Skier A's refusal to pay for a product he was relying on, with every intention of using it when needed, clearly caused significant personal and financial injury to persons, businesses, governments and the public.

An insurance mandate only forces him to pay for a service he IS using even when not injured.

If everyone behaved as Skier A, the entire health care industry would collapse.

No one is forcing Skier A to utilize health care. The mandate is forcing him to contribute to a pool of funding that provides a means for protecting the health and financial well-being of the entire population. It is not really much different than taxes for the fire department paid by the guy who lives in the concrete house. The only difference is that this "tax" is being paid to private insurance companies to manage.

The obvious solution if the mandate is declared unconstitutional is Medicare for all. However, I happen to believe that private sector involvement...with a mandate...will ultimately yield better results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2665

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:

Skier A hits an exposed rock.....

Skier B hits the same rock ten minutes later....

Be careful. Mikey's going to rant that this has nothing to do with medical insurance, but that they should have removed that rock. The property owners are clearly at fault and should pay.

In fact, they should pay for the disability, too, since he's such a fan of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 17 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group