4 ms·

The game would be significantly changed if employers stopped offering it as part of a benefit package. I'm sure the housing hazard insurance industry would loo

by walkon 17y ago

The game would be significantly changed if employers stopped offering it as part of a benefit package. I'm sure the housing hazard insurance industry would look much different if it was a standard employment benefit. Ultimately, insurance of any kind is a financial risk mitigation pool. The financial risks are spread over those in the pool instead of just one. Everyone in the pool shares the cost of everyone else. I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it.

abstractbill 17y ago
The financial risks are spread over those in the pool instead of just one. Everyone in the pool shares the cost of everyone else. I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it. This uniquely American attitude is honestly one of the very few reasons I occasionally consider moving back to Britain.
potatolicious 17y ago
> I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it. This may seem innocuous to Americans, but for us Canadians this sentence epitomizes why American health care is in the mess it is today. The lack of concern for your fellow man is disconcerting at best - and based on people I've talked to here in the US people generally don't feel that other people being sick and dying will negatively affect them. IMHO this is the big difference: in socialized medicine countries we acknowledge that when a large swathe of the population goes without basic medical care, we all lose - lost productivity, general misery, etc. There's at least the general notion of paying up "for the greater good". In America I get the feeling it's more treated as "meh, maybe you should work harder". The level of apathy demonstrated for people less fortunate is frankly the one thing that has shocked me ever since moving here, and nowadays is part of my "definition" of the American consciousness. It's always someone else's problem, not our collective problem.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  I accidentally upvoted you, so I feel I have to weigh in here. I find you greatly oversimplify in order to prevent your own understanding of the greater issues involved. Let's assume for a moment that every American is totally dedicated to helping his fellow man as much as possible. Would that necessarily result in free public healthcare? It's a perfectly reasonable (yet unpopular view) to think that helping other people means doing the things that result in the greater, longer-term good, and that might mean make life miserable. Humanity that struggles is humanity that innovates, adapts, and evolves. Humanity that stagnates does not. There is a very good case to be made for inaction. It's also quite ludicrous to think that, given the inclination to take some sort of direct action in my fellow man's affairs that _you_ get to define what the appropriate sort of action might be. Perhaps instead of a free doctor, I feel that a cash stipend might be best, where the recipient gets to choose how it is spent. Or, perhaps because I think poor people have poor spending habits, I choose to provide free shelter. To even start thinking along the lines that one solution would fit all problems is to engage in the most wide over-generalizations. And to think that you (or anybody else) gets to decide what this one solution would be and basically try to shame everybody else into accepting this one answer is a non-starter. Reasonable people are going to tell you to go jump in a lake. Finally, it's completely disconnected to think that my actions have a direct result on other people's lives. People have a dignity and respect that is part of who they are, foibles and all. My writing a check doesn't make a person into a better one, doesn't necessarily improve their life, and might actually make their problems worse. People are who they are. Even when I'm committed to action, even when I've decided to take direct action, even when I think I know what the best action is, I take action because it is the right thing to do for me, not because I'm expecting some sort of miracle result from it. Having said that, I think there is a strong moral case for some sort of catastrophic health insurance -- mainly because people cannot be allowed to forfeit their life savings because they had the misfortune to die from expensive diseases. However, I respect that others might choose to let each man fend for himself. This country was founded by people braving the wilds, not hanging out at the soup kitchen. As a species, in my opinion, the more comfortable we make our cave, the less likely we ever are to venture out of it (travel to the stars)
  - 17y ago
potatolicious 17y ago
Not related to the above post, but can whoever keeps downvoting posts like the above please stop? Everyone in this thread has been civil and articulate - please don't downvote things because you disagree with it.

by walkon 17y ago

abstractbill 17y ago

The financial risks are spread over those in the pool instead of just one. Everyone in the pool shares the cost of everyone else. I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it. This uniquely American attitude is honestly one of the very few reasons I occasionally consider moving back to Britain.

potatolicious 17y ago

> I don't want the government creating a super large public pool that I am required to pay for, even if I'm allowed to choose not to be a member of it. This may seem innocuous to Americans, but for us Canadians this sentence epitomizes why American health care is in the mess it is today. The lack of concern for your fellow man is disconcerting at best - and based on people I've talked to here in the US people generally don't feel that other people being sick and dying will negatively affect them. IMHO this is the big difference: in socialized medicine countries we acknowledge that when a large swathe of the population goes without basic medical care, we all lose - lost productivity, general misery, etc. There's at least the general notion of paying up "for the greater good". In America I get the feeling it's more treated as "meh, maybe you should work harder". The level of apathy demonstrated for people less fortunate is frankly the one thing that has shocked me ever since moving here, and nowadays is part of my "definition" of the American consciousness. It's always someone else's problem, not our collective problem.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
I accidentally upvoted you, so I feel I have to weigh in here. I find you greatly oversimplify in order to prevent your own understanding of the greater issues involved. Let's assume for a moment that every American is totally dedicated to helping his fellow man as much as possible. Would that necessarily result in free public healthcare? It's a perfectly reasonable (yet unpopular view) to think that helping other people means doing the things that result in the greater, longer-term good, and that might mean make life miserable. Humanity that struggles is humanity that innovates, adapts, and evolves. Humanity that stagnates does not. There is a very good case to be made for inaction. It's also quite ludicrous to think that, given the inclination to take some sort of direct action in my fellow man's affairs that _you_ get to define what the appropriate sort of action might be. Perhaps instead of a free doctor, I feel that a cash stipend might be best, where the recipient gets to choose how it is spent. Or, perhaps because I think poor people have poor spending habits, I choose to provide free shelter. To even start thinking along the lines that one solution would fit all problems is to engage in the most wide over-generalizations. And to think that you (or anybody else) gets to decide what this one solution would be and basically try to shame everybody else into accepting this one answer is a non-starter. Reasonable people are going to tell you to go jump in a lake. Finally, it's completely disconnected to think that my actions have a direct result on other people's lives. People have a dignity and respect that is part of who they are, foibles and all. My writing a check doesn't make a person into a better one, doesn't necessarily improve their life, and might actually make their problems worse. People are who they are. Even when I'm committed to action, even when I've decided to take direct action, even when I think I know what the best action is, I take action because it is the right thing to do for me, not because I'm expecting some sort of miracle result from it. Having said that, I think there is a strong moral case for some sort of catastrophic health insurance -- mainly because people cannot be allowed to forfeit their life savings because they had the misfortune to die from expensive diseases. However, I respect that others might choose to let each man fend for himself. This country was founded by people braving the wilds, not hanging out at the soup kitchen. As a species, in my opinion, the more comfortable we make our cave, the less likely we ever are to venture out of it (travel to the stars)
- 17y ago

potatolicious 17y ago

Not related to the above post, but can whoever keeps downvoting posts like the above please stop? Everyone in this thread has been civil and articulate - please don't downvote things because you disagree with it.