That kind of specific list is the exact opposite of a general philosophy. A general philosophy is more along the lines of “democratic practice with an apolitical, professional civil service bound by bureaucratic rules and strong constitutional safeguards for the rights of despised minorities is a good form of government”, which is a philosophy I happen to hold.
You’re not going to get the kinds of absolute specific answers you want, because those answers tend to turn in the hand and bite those who wield them.
Using them as supplemental insurance along with a high deductible plan isn’t a terrible idea.
But using them as insurance is.
What do we do with someone who has run out their insurance cap at $10k? Do we treat them and send them a bill that you will never get paid back in full, but still bankrupts them? Do we stop treating them once they hit their cap and just let them die? Or do we treat them anyway, and pass the cost onto people who either pay out of pocket or have more comprehensive plans?
There were things you could do to change that, though. If you took a defensive driving class, they would drop your rates, if you were on the honor roll, they would drop your rates. If you were not at fault for any accidents for a time, they would drop your rates.
This is not the case for healthcare. Rates will only go up over time, as your chances of needing health care approach 100% through your life. At some point, you will no longer be able to afford it, most likely, when you are beginning to need it most.
By paying a higher premium when you are younger, you avoid having an unaffordable premium when you are older.
I’ve never had a claim for an accident, have taken several defensive driving classes, was always on honor roll, and haven’t even gotten a speeding ticket in almost 15 years now, why am I paying anything for auto insurance?
Well, because even though I am in a different actuarial catagory, I am still subsidizing those in higher risk pools.
I take it that you did not disagree that the husband benefits from maternity coverage, then?
You do realize that Pre-ACA, most insurance actually did cover contraception services for women, not because they had to, but because you can keep a person on BC for their entire life, and it will cost only a fraction of what a pregnancy and delivery does. You are not paying for contraception coverage, in fact, premiums would be higher if it were not covered.
And I do agree that my comment about being gay or stirile opting you out of that requirement was in fact flippant, but at the same time, those are the only scenarios where you could not get a benifit from those coverages.
And as I said, the penalty had no bite.
It was about a thousand bucks to not have insurance, while having insurance is going to cost at least twice that, and most likely much much more.
It really ended up just annoying everyone.
Personally, the way I would have set it up, is that if you do not purchase insurance, then you pay a penalty, and that penalty is your premium payment to the public option, but then I was not consulted.
But, most likely, the older woman is subsidizing his driving, as she has likely paid in more in premiums than would be paid out at this point, and she is still paying, even though her history indicates that it is unlikely that there will be payouts in the future.
Employers are moving away from this. It is something they largely started doing in response to govt interference, namely wage controls. If you couldn’t pay your employee more than the competitor, but could provide benefits, then it made sense to throw in healthcare, as at the time, it didn’t cost the employer much.
Some large employers have been moving away from providing healthcare at all, pre-ACA, and many were reducing their benefits, or making it harder for employees to qualify (I had a conversation with a manager once, 'round 2005, where he told me he would work me more hours, but then I would qualify for health benefits.)
Small businesses like mine cannot afford to provide healthcare for our employees. The ACA was actually a large reason why I was open to the idea of setting up my own place. Between needing insurance for myself (My finances are tied to the businesses, if I go bankrupt over medical bills, my employees all lose their jobs, and my clients lose their dog groomer), and desiring that my employees are healthy, the ACA provides an individual insurance market that did not exist before. When I worked for small businesses that did not offer insurance, i would get my own individual plan, which cost more than the ACA plans do now (with no subsidy, never qualified), covered less, and was far more difficult to set up than the set up through the marketplace.
Employer based healthcare is a historical quirk that is not efficient and not sustainable.
No matter how hungry you are you will never have an unexpected food bill of hundreds, or even tens of thousands of dollars.
That’s the difference, food is cheap, and is very easily predicable as to how much of it you will need in any given day, any month, or even year. It is not likely to fluctuate much, even as you get older. There are no preexisting conditions that make you more likely to consume food than the average food consumer. You can grown your own food.
Comparing healthcare to food, other than the fact that both of them are places where the market fails to ensure that all have access to it, is a poor analogy, as the two have substantial differences in production and consumption that invalidate any comparison.
If 85% of people are happy with a particular shade of blue, that’s great, and the other 15% can get over it.
If 85% of people are happy with their healthcare, that means that 15% of people are not receiving adequate healthcare, and are likely to die, or at least to have their quality of life greatly diminished. (And that is assuming that the people that were happy with their healthcare actually knew what their healthcare covered.)
I benefited from the ACA, not through subsidies or other types of financial support, but through the marketplace, actually being able to compare plans, as opposed to calling around, and having to wait a few days to get back with a quote, and if you don’t take it then, then the quote can change, and usually not for the better. Shopping around on the insurance market pre-ACA was as difficult as they were able to make it for the consumer, so, if nothing else gets kept from ACA, the marketplaces, I feel, are a must, and are good public policy.
Helping people to afford necessities that can improve or save their lives, I also feel is good public policy.
Selfishness, in wanting a bill that benefits only a single person or very small group of people, especially a small group of people who are already well off, is not good public policy.
Only because food is normally relatively cheap & plentiful enough that most people don’t need the government to give it to them; as for the people who do need help with food, as a society we hold poor people in too much contempt to help them much. But even in America the government will supply food in a disaster area.
Also, health care is far more complex and expensive than food. People simply have neither the expertise nor the money to handle it themselves.
Why should there be such a philosophy? There’s no moral imperative to favor one or the other.
I think this will always be the crux of the problem. If you think government is a tool, then you only care about how the tool is working, not how often you use it. I don’t care how often I use a screwdriver as opposed to a wrench. I just use the one that will work better. And I have no reason to think that the wrench will work better until I actually look at what I’m trying to accomplish.
Except no. Whatever happens to my car, insurance pays for it (minus the deductible). With health insurance you pay the premium and a significant part of the expenses on top of that - like the $1200 Mrs Cad was charged for a sleep apnea test she didn’t need because her insurance only covered 60%. And trust me no one discussed out-of-pocket cost with her beforehand.
And it’s “a lot” to me because except for the US, the only other places with gated communities are some Latin American countries and South Africa, both with high crime rates.
In Europe, the very idea of a gated community would be - well, beyond strange.
Wait- are we not talking about the US? Where more than 30% of People watch Fox News and voted for Trump, and celebrate “Alt-Facts”, because everything is about how you feel things are true, and real Facts don’t exist, because everything that disagrees with you is conspiracy?
Corruption in the govt. is a much smaller Problem compared to a large Segment of the Population no longer following one of the meta-values necessary for Democracy: Agreement that Facts are Facts and are necessary when working out a compromise for different positions. And also no longer agrees that compromises are necessary, because purity tests of ideological positions are more important than getting things done.
The Problem with the free market he talks about is that it never existed, period. It’s like pure communism that was never implemented fully.
For Starters, a full free market assumes that companies and customers have equal power. That’s never been the case, companies have more power and Money and incentive to lie to customers. Companies love to have monopolies, customers love to have diverse choices.
So government has always introduced rules and regulations to try even out the inbalance a bit.
It’s also called “living in a Society at all instead of going “Alexander Supertramp”” and “thinking beyond being 26 years old”.
A Society is a Group of peple rational enough to realize that spreading burdens over many shoulders is better than living all alone.
If you don’t understand this Basic principle, all your following opinions will be off.
Also, (and at Age 26 you should have known better) it’s very short-sighted to say “Why should I pay for other People?” Because you depend on other People in Society. That you can buy products or Services (or maybe start your own Company) depends on other People being healthy and well-fed and educated enough to work as employees; and having enough Money left over to products and Services themselves.
It may be hard for you to understand, but people’s value and worth to Society is not directly dependandt on how much Money they have/ earn right now. A lot of People don’T contribute but inherited a bunch of Money. A lot of People can Change the world at 40 with a brand new product, if they don’t die of a treatable disease at Age 25. A lof of People can be productive if they get regularly Treatment and meds, but are bedridden without. Their wage does not reflect how much they contribute, so they can’t pay their own health fully.
A poor, hungry, sick, analphabetic Population is a poor base for consumers and workers. As can be seen in each 3rd world Country. Educate and feed and immunize the Population, and the economy there improves, as more educated workers get better Jobs, prosperity rises and more local stuff is bought, prosperity rises etc.
Since you are so adamant about only paying what you Need right now at this Moment -not saving up for future old-age Problems you might have, not considering the risk of accidents or catching a disease out of the blue - I wonder: have you ever really tallied up how many resource of Society you have used until you were 26, and how much Money you paid into Society - you, not your parents?
If you use a road, and don’t pay a toll to a private Company, then Society paid for it. Your taxes paid a part, but less than what you use.
If you learned to read and write at School, Society paid for it, regardless of how Little or much Money your parents had.
If you buy Food at the Supermarket that has been correctly labeled and doesn’t contain poision, Society decided to pass Food laws and pay FDA to control it. And decided to pass Standards law, and pay an Office to control the weights.
If you live in an Apartment, Society passed laws for Standards of safe buildings so your house doesn’t collapse (as happened with cheap insulaes who went from 4 to 5 storeys in Roman Republic, but hey, only poor People lived there, who cares!)
And so on. Every day, you Profit from laws that protect People, which were passed by Society, and which taxes pay for control of. Everday, you use infrastructure that Society paid for. Every day, you buy products and Services produced by employees that were educated at Schools paid for by Society.
you also use a court System paid for by Society to solve Problems you might have.
None of that you can pay alone, unless you inherited tons of Money (which is not self-reliant in the real meaning of the word).
Even rich people benefit from having the poor people be not too poor. Look at public safety in many countries with a large gap between the rich and the poor.
That’s even assuming that one is born rich. The majority isn’t.