What was to become of those who were denied coverage? Many died. That's immoral. The govt. is supposed to support programs that advance the public good. Allowing health insurance companies to guarantee their profits while letting the citizens with serious illness die is a pathetic system, and that's why it had to be changed.
The government is not your moral agent, sorry.What was to become of those who were denied coverage? Many died. That's immoral. The govt. is supposed to support programs that advance the public good. Allowing health insurance companies to guarantee their profits while letting the citizens with serious illness die is a pathetic system, and that's why it had to be changed.
The govt. WAS the moral agent in the 50's and 60's in ending segregation in the south. I can tell you it was unpopular, I was there, but it was the right thing to do. The govt. is capable of corruption, but in healthcare reform they are acting as the moral agent. They are providing the counterbalance to the power of the health ins. companies in a way that NOBODY else could.
And Obamacare is very similar to the repub healthcare reform plan from 1993:
Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health NewsIn November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."
Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Here is a summary of the 1993 bill:
Title I: Basic Reforms to Expand Access to Health Insurance Coverage and to Ensure Universal Coverage - Subtitle A: Universal Access - Provides access to health insurance coverage under a qualified health plan for every citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States.
(Sec. 1003) Establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.
(Sec. 1004) Requires each employer to make available, either directly, through a purchasing group, or otherwise, enrollment in a qualified health plan to each eligible employee.
Subtitle B: Qualified General Access Plan in the Small Employer and Individual Marketplace- Requires the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to develop specific standards to implement requirements concerning: (1) guaranteed eligibility, availability, and renewability of health insurance coverage; (2) nondiscrimination based on health status; (3) benefits offered; (4) insurer financial solvency; (5) enrollment process; (6) premium rating limitations; (7) risk adjustment; and (8) consumer protection.
(Sec. 1119) Requires each qualified general access plan to: (1) establish and maintain a quality assurance program and a mediation procedures program; and (2) contain assurances of service to designated underserved areas.
(Sec. 1141) Provides for the formation of purchasing groups by individuals and small employers.
Now the government, on so many levels, is firmly planted between doctor and patient and, unless individual states exert themselves, it will envelop the greatest spending of any government agency. No more America 'the policeman of the world'. It will come to imitate Europe in the same terminally ill ward, ineffectual and powerless.
Mark Steyn -What does your employer or your spouse’s employer have to do with health care? For most of modern history, your health care was a matter between you and your doctor. Since World War II, in much of the developed world, it’s been between you, your doctor, and your government. In America, it’s now between you, your doctor, your government, your insurer, your employer, your insurer’s outsourced health-care-administration-services company . . . Anybody else? Oh, let’s not forget Lois Lerner’s IRS, which, in the biggest expansion of the agency in the post-war era, has hired 16,500 new agents to determine whether your hernia merits an audit.
Last edited by Grant; 09-26-13 at 08:42 PM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/he...anted=all&_r=0WARSAW, Ind. — Michael Shopenn’s artificial hip was made by a company based in this remote town, a global center of joint manufacturing. But he had to fly to Europe to have it installed.
Mr. Shopenn, 67, an architectural photographer and avid snowboarder, had been in such pain from arthritis that he could not stand long enough to make coffee, let alone work. He had health insurance, but it would not cover a joint replacement because his degenerative disease was related to an old sports injury, thus considered a pre-existing condition.
Desperate to find an affordable solution, he reached out to a sailing buddy with friends at a medical device manufacturer, which arranged to provide his local hospital with an implant at what was described as the “list price” of $13,000, with no markup. But when the hospital’s finance office estimated that the hospital charges would run another $65,000, not including the surgeon’s fee, he knew he had to think outside the box, and outside the country.
“That was a third of my savings at the time,” Mr. Shopenn said recently from the living room of his condo in Boulder, Colo. “It wasn’t happening.”
“Very leery” of going to a developing country like India or Thailand, which both draw so-called medical tourists, he ultimately chose to have his hip replaced in 2007 at a private hospital outside Brussels for $13,660. That price included not only a hip joint, made by Warsaw-based Zimmer Holdings, but also all doctors’ fees, operating room charges, crutches, medicine, a hospital room for five days, a week in rehab and a round-trip ticket from America.
“We have the most expensive health care in the world, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best,” Mr. Shopenn said. “I’m kind of the poster child for that.”
As the United States struggles to rein in its growing $2.7 trillion health care bill, the cost of medical devices like joint implants, pacemakers and artificial urinary valves offers a cautionary tale. Like many medical products or procedures, they cost far more in the United States than in many other developed countries.
Makers of artificial implants — the biggest single cost of most joint replacement surgeries — have proved particularly adept at commanding inflated prices, according to health economists. Multiple intermediaries then mark up the charges. While Mr. Shopenn was offered an implant in the United States for $13,000, many privately insured patients are billed two to nearly three times that amount.
An artificial hip, however, costs only about $350 to manufacture in the United States, according to Dr. Blair Rhode, an orthopedist and entrepreneur whose company is developing generic implants.
If free enterprise was at work in the marketplace in the US, we would have lower prices. Clearly they are not competing with each other, they are lobbying and getting sweatheart rules passed, which they then manipulate to keep the prices high. The only alternative at this time is govt. action, or flying to Belgium or India.
If they are not competing, getting Sweetheart deals, and lobbying, then that is the fault of the government, the people you want to be in charge, There are anti trust laws available which the government could have used, just as Reagan used against AT&T but the government wanted the power this will bring. You are now their servant.If free enterprise was at work in the marketplace in the US, we would have lower prices. Clearly they are not competing with each other, they are lobbying and getting sweatheart rules passed, which they then manipulate to keep the prices high. The only alternative at this time is govt. action, or flying to Belgium or India.
They have the right to decide on who they will provide service and labor towards as a property owner, as a service provider and more importantly as a human being. If they do not desire to provide service towards the already ill that is there choice to make. The government is forbidden by the thirteenth amendment from forcing any party into service for another party.You are wrong again. The govt. is the moral agent in this case, moving to disallow the insurance companies from continuing THEIR IMMORAL ACTIONS, putting profits clearly above human life. If you wish to construct an argument that attempts to demonstrate the moral superiority of the heath ins. companies, go for it, but that will be interesting for me to watch.
People will do many things that we feel are immoral and like it or not it is not our place or the governments place to make them follow our moral code. If you really want to push this point of yours further it should be noted that forcing people into service for others is immoral.
Last edited by Henrin; 09-26-13 at 09:16 PM.