Re: [atheists-36] Video: 'Health Care That Can Never Be Taken Away'

From: Harry P.
Sent on: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:40 PM
I could argue that health insurance does nothing to prevent sickness - 
government sponsered vaccinaton would do that. The extent of your treatment 
might be determined by the type of policy you have - pre-existing conditions 
being excluded for example. But there is no argument that Insurance 
Companies have to set rates & allow payments for illnesses so that they make 
a profit. The more people they refuse treatment the more money they make. 
That's good business practice. Universal Health Care, available to everyone 
& paid for by taxes would end all that. & if it is done properly it will 
SAVE money. All you have to do is look at Medicare for the proof of that.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tamara" <[address removed]>
To: <[address removed]>
Sent: Monday, April 28,[masked]:45 PM
Subject: Re: [atheists-36] Video: 'Health Care That Can Never Be Taken Away'


> On 4/28/08 12:32 PM, "Robin" <[address removed]> wrote:
>
>> You [and others] bring up very good points in talking
>> about the police and fire departments, but they really
>> don't apply to this argument.  The police are there to
>> prevent crime.  Health insurance is there to prevent
>> (or treat) sickness.  We, as a society, have decided
>> that certain things are wrong, and that when people
>> break these laws, they're thrown in jail.
>
> Hrm. This sounds like it could be re-phrased to say that government is 
> there
> to enforce issues of *morality*.  Because that's the only substantive
> difference between the police and health care relevant to this issue: 
> Which
> public service fields should be government-funded.
>
> People aren't sent to jail for doing things that society considers morally
> wrong. Our culture considers extra marital affairs to be morally wrong, 
> but
> it's not illegal and no one goes to jail for it. People go to jail for 
> doing
> things that cause damage to others.
>
>
>> Police are
>> there to enforce order.  Yes, the fire department is
>> there to keep people safe, but it seems to me that it
>> is mannned mostly with volunteers.
>
> O_o  .. No they're not. I suppose in really small towns they might be 
> mostly
> volunteers, but the vast majority of firemen are definitely paid.
>
>> I know that it
>> gets a lot of tax funding, and whether that's good or
>> not would be a discussion for a different time,
>
> Really? You really think this is an area for discussion *at all*?? Yikes.
>
> Just for the heck of it, I suppose I could point out that in the early 
> days
> of NYC, fire departments were private and were paid (I believe) by
> individuals whose property they saved. Therefore, massive fights would 
> break
> out among the various fire departments whenever there was a fire because
> they each wanted to get paid. (Meanwhile, while they fought, the building
> would go down in flames.) This did not get resolves until the running of
> fire departments was taken over by the state.
>
>> but
>> think of this: how many doctors do you know who would
>> willingly volunteer their time for the public good?
>> Not many.
>
> Due to my above argument, I don't believe this is relevant.
>
> However I will point out that some doctors do volunteer their time at free
> public health clinics, which are made necessary by the large number of
> people who lack health insurance.
>
>> Again, when you [plural] say, "People are dying, and
>> most of them are children!  You should be forced to
>> help them because they need help!"  You are arguing
>> based on emotion.
>
> No it's not based only on emotion. The way you phrased it makes it sound
> like it is, but it's not. It's based on a sense of *justice.* As in, it is
> unfair that people have to suffer and die due to preventable illness or
> conditions only because of their financial status. People may bring 
> children
> into the argument because they can not be blamed for their own financial
> status as adults could conceivably be.
>
>> This is no different than you
>> trying to force your religion on everyone else.  You
>> think that this would be best, and you don't care what
>> anyone else thinks; you're right.
>
> Your logic is flawed here. Imposing one's religion upon others has no
> demonstrable benefits, whereas imposing health care on others does have
> demonstrable benefits.
>
>> Whatever happened
>> to live and let live?
>
> The irony of your choice of words here is too good not to note.
>
> I guess in this case it should be "Live and let die." ??
>
> -Tamara
>
>
>
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on 
> this mailing list ([address removed])
> http://atheists.m...­
> This message was sent by Tamara ([address removed]) from Orlando 
> Atheists &  Freethinkers.
> To learn more about Tamara, visit his/her member profile: 
> http://atheists.m...­
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here: 
> http://www.meetup...­
>
> Meetup Support: [address removed]
> 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA 

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy