3 of 3
3
The Hobby Lobby Case
Posted: 02 April 2014 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
FinallyDecided - 02 April 2014 01:02 PM

Regardless, I think most people find it a bit odd that their employer is somewhat of a gatekeeper to their medical care and what types they can or cannot receive, at least it seems odd to me.

Yes it all goes back to the fact that the employee’s job and benefits are a privilege and not a right.
You don’t have a right to health care. You have a job with the privileges/benefits that the employer is willing to mete out to you.

The answer to this problem is simple. Everyone should have healthcare under one umbrella.
The people are able to choose the doctors that suit them and any administrative/insurance system under this umbrella should
pay for any medical needs that the person and their doctor decide on together.

A simple system can be put in place to reduce frivolity or discretionary wants by patients and or doctors.
This includes everything from nose jobs to end of life treatments. Yeah, you can call them “Death Panels”..whatever!

An example would be this…a standardized life expectancy figure. Then a sliding scale equation to determine costs vs. time left on expected life expectancy. Yes. This would need to be addressed.
The patients life expectancy number could be given bonus points in relation to how much of a burden the person was on the insurance system over their lifetime.

As a society we have to face the facts. How much is it worth to keep someone alive for 3, 5 or 10 more years?
That’s where the sliding scale comes in. Of course people can supplement any care with their own money, or use the system less in their peak years to acquire bonus points for use in hospice or end of life treatments etc..

Perhaps when population is more controlled and “booms” and “plumes” are reduced greater discretion can be used.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2014 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
VYAZMA - 02 April 2014 03:09 PM
FinallyDecided - 02 April 2014 01:02 PM

Regardless, I think most people find it a bit odd that their employer is somewhat of a gatekeeper to their medical care and what types they can or cannot receive, at least it seems odd to me.

Yes it all goes back to the fact that the employee’s job and benefits are a privilege and not a right.
You don’t have a right to health care. You have a job with the privileges/benefits that the employer is willing to mete out to you.

The answer to this problem is simple. Everyone should have healthcare under one umbrella.
The people are able to choose the doctors that suit them and any administrative/insurance system under this umbrella should
pay for any medical needs that the person and their doctor decide on together.

A simple system can be put in place to reduce frivolity or discretionary wants by patients and or doctors.
This includes everything from nose jobs to end of life treatments. Yeah, you can call them “Death Panels”..whatever!

An example would be this…a standardized life expectancy figure. Then a sliding scale equation to determine costs vs. time left on expected life expectancy. Yes. This would need to be addressed.
The patients life expectancy number could be given bonus points in relation to how much of a burden the person was on the insurance system over their lifetime.

As a society we have to face the facts. How much is it worth to keep someone alive for 3, 5 or 10 more years?
That’s where the sliding scale comes in. Of course people can supplement any care with their own money, or use the system less in their peak years to acquire bonus points for use in hospice or end of life treatments etc..

Perhaps when population is more controlled and “booms” and “plumes” are reduced greater discretion can be used.

 

That would be ideal, and a single payer plan was discussed when a national health plan was being considered by bi-partisan panels.  As usual, the Republicans did not want such a system and they fought tooth and nail against every plan that would have provided it. Socialism! they said. So we have the mish mash we have under the Affordable Care Act. It was the best that could pass Congressionsl muster. It was that or nothing.  A camel is a horse built by a committee. The affordable Health Care Plan is a health plan is a far odder and more dysfunctionsl animal than a camel. A sane and functioning healthcare plan never got out of the committee room. And to this day, the crippled ACA is trashed by the Republicans as socialism, even though they had a hand in creating it—or at least in preventing a single payer plan.

The choice was never between a sane and functioning healthcare plan and a crippled one. It was a choice between a crippled one and none at all. Which would you have chosen?

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2014 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
FinallyDecided - 02 April 2014 01:02 PM
macgyver - 28 March 2014 06:01 AM
asanta - 27 March 2014 11:34 PM

Funny that Hobby Lobby et al have no problem subsidizing vasectomies, Viagra, Cialis etc. And they were paying for birth control without complaint before the mandate became law.

I hadn’t thought of that, but you are correct. we haven’t heard any information saying that the complain includes those things. It certainly shows that they are discriminating based on gender. I don’t understand enough law to know if it wold make sense for the governement to bring that up in their arguments or if it would distract from the main argument by doing so.

This makes the most sense; that way the employer will not feel the moral burden they evidently feel. Also, it makes sense to remove the employer from the equation of deciding what should and should not be covered. Regardless, I think most people find it a bit odd that their employer is somewhat of a gatekeeper to their medical care and what types they can or cannot receive, at least it seems odd to me. As we discussed earlier…the manner in which a pay check is spent is not controlled by the employer, so why can’t the health plan be the same—and a voucher seems like a viable option, at least for those employers that feel they cannot handle offering health plans without inserting their own ideas on and “medical expertise” on what should be acceptable vs. not.

It would be interesting to see if such a plan would pass Republican muster, which is doubtful, considering their track record on health care proposals and on the ACA.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2014 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Lois - 02 April 2014 05:17 PM

That would be ideal, and a single payer plan was discussed when a national health plan was being considered by bi-partisan panels.  As usual, the Republicans did not want such a system and they fought tooth and nail against every plan that would have provided it. Socialism! they said. So we have the mish mash we have under the Affordable Care Act. It was the best that could pass Congressionsl muster. It was that or nothing.  A camel is a horse built by a committee. The affordable Health Care Plan is a health plan is a far odder and more dysfunctionsl animal than a camel. A sane and functioning healthcare plan never got out of the committee room. And to this day, the crippled ACA is trashed by the Republicans as socialism, even though they had a hand in creating it—or at least in preventing a single payer plan.

The choice was never between a sane and functioning healthcare plan and a crippled one. It was a choice between a crippled one and none at all. Which would you have chosen?

Lois

If the ACA has any faults(and I suppose it does from a few perspectives)it’s because of Republican/Establishment obstruction. Period.
Nevertheless I view at as a stepping stone towards Universal Health. The ACA is going to solidify. It will iron out.
Let’s see who in the future wishes to reduced or eliminate it’s benefits.

I’m off topic here. These bumps in the road concerning reproductive rights will not stand. This is just another attack on the ACA from yet another angle.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2014 09:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
VYAZMA - 02 April 2014 05:55 PM
Lois - 02 April 2014 05:17 PM

That would be ideal, and a single payer plan was discussed when a national health plan was being considered by bi-partisan panels.  As usual, the Republicans did not want such a system and they fought tooth and nail against every plan that would have provided it. Socialism! they said. So we have the mish mash we have under the Affordable Care Act. It was the best that could pass Congressionsl muster. It was that or nothing.  A camel is a horse built by a committee. The affordable Health Care Plan is a health plan is a far odder and more dysfunctionsl animal than a camel. A sane and functioning healthcare plan never got out of the committee room. And to this day, the crippled ACA is trashed by the Republicans as socialism, even though they had a hand in creating it—or at least in preventing a single payer plan.

The choice was never between a sane and functioning healthcare plan and a crippled one. It was a choice between a crippled one and none at all. Which would you have chosen?

Lois

If the ACA has any faults(and I suppose it does from a few perspectives)it’s because of Republican/Establishment obstruction. Period.
Nevertheless I view at as a stepping stone towards Universal Health. The ACA is going to solidify. It will iron out.
Let’s see who in the future wishes to reduced or eliminate it’s benefits.

I’m off topic here. These bumps in the road concerning reproductive rights will not stand. This is just another attack on the ACA from yet another angle.

That’s true. They will try anything to trash it.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2014 04:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26

For those who aren’t familiar with the “We The People Podcasts” from the National Constitution Center, they a generally very interesting. Their March 26th episode deals with the Hobby Lobby case and features a couple of constitutional experts ( Ilya Shaprio from the Cato Institute and David Gaines form the Constitutional Accountability Center) from each side of the issue.

http://constitutioncenter.org/experience/programs-initiatives/podcasts/

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2014 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  169
Joined  2011-11-06

Many republicans despise the idea of national healthcare coverage. I believe the current administration would be in favor of a single payor, national healthcare system; however, they knew that that would be too radical for many Americans. Many republicans have said that there needs to be compromise on the ACA; however, as far as I am concerned the Affordable Care Act IS THE COMPROMISE. If the current administration wished not to compromise, they would have probably just implemented a national healthcare system! But we have settled for this piecemeal system known as the ACA because it is the best we can do at this time in history…it’s probably just a stepping stone. One day, there probably will be national healthcare in the US.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
‹‹ meta-ethics essay      Here goes nothin ››