Susan's Place Transgender Resources

BY MICHELLE GARCIA
JULY 01 2014 2:04 PM ET

Monday's Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case honestly makes me sick.

As a woman, some guy who pays me can now also tell me that my hard-earned company health insurance can't cover my no-baby-candies because he thinks it might have some sort of voodoo power that kills phantom babies. Fortunately, I work at a company where that wouldn't be the case. (Uh, right?)

As a queer woman, it makes me want to shake every LGBT person who doesn't see the broader implications of this. What if a company could tell employees that they won't pay for insurance that covers HIV treatment or health care to transgender people because of owners' "sincerely held religious beliefs"? Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, promised its scope was "very specific." Still, some of us side with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and foresee a potential onslaught of legal challenges testing the limits.

More: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/07/01/op-ed-hobby-lobby-and-constitutional-right-be-stupid

Lobby Hobby is not against birth control. They provide for several kinds of birth control. Their limitations are for medications that can kill fertilized eggs. However, those items are still available to anybody who wants to purchase them.

What is wrong with paying for your own preventive care? Why should it be somebody else's responsibility? When I was young everybody had to pay for all of their own medical and dental care. There was no such thing as medical insurance. You can also purchase coverage in addition to that which your employer provides.

It should be an employers option as to what they are willing to provide. You can always work for another employer. There is nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that limited the availability of the medication or your right to take such medication.

Firstly the problem is that it should not be up to an employer to decide what medication its staff takes, secondly, perhaps more importantly and something that you did not address, it opens some very scary doors. What about blood transfusions, capsulated tablets (with gelatin - which is most of them), or even treating LGBT people all together? What about when this applies to areas other than healthcare.

Like the guy said on the chat show program that somebody posted, insurance and laws are like a buffet, you might not like beets, but that does not mean that you don't have to pay for them or tell anyone else they are not allowed to have them. You pay the ticket price like everyone else and that's it. Whether you have beets or not is a personal choice, not one you make for others.

Personally I have always paid for my own insurance. What I want covered and that is usually extremely high deductables in case something catastrophic happens. Everything else I pay for out of pocket and usually by paying cash its a lot cheaper than going through the insurance company.

For prescriptions, I always ask for the older medications that have been out for a while instead of all the new cutting edge stuff. Sometimes the new stuff my be 90% more than the stuff that has been around a while. And the new stuff seems to have some pretty unintentional consequences even though it has been cleared by the FDA :laugh:. The stuff that has been around a while usually has all the possible side effects found that have been associated with it.

But that is me and I am on my own but even if I worked for a business or corporation, I would still get insurance on my own for the simple reason I know what and how to take care of myself, I like the doctor I go to and don't want my healthcare influenced by what someone else may or may not believe in. And, a great big AND, I would not want the company that I worked for to know every little thing about my health.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 02, 2014, 05:40:21 AM
Still, some of us side with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and foresee a potential onslaught of legal challenges testing the limits.

I see the slippery slope/unexpected consequences thing coming into play here. Everyone is focused on the contraceptive issue and is discussing that aspect, but i think that this decision is a lot bigger than just birth control. The court has set a precedent that companies are the same as individuals, and thus companies have a right to claim a religious exemption to certain laws that they believe infringe on those religious beliefs.

An example - what would stop any company from claiming a religious exemption when they want to discriminate against TLGB employees? Currently that action cannot be justified solely from the Hobby Lobby decision, but I think that it is just a matter of time until a company tries this in court and claims the Hobby Lobby decision as a precedent.

I believe that this decision will open the floodgates for companies to legally have the right to discriminate against whoever they choose and claim a religious exemption to justify it. Suddenly, it's 1950 once again.

Quote from: Eva Marie on July 02, 2014, 08:46:28 AM
I see the slippery slope/unexpected consequences thing coming into play here. Everyone is focused on the contraceptive issue and is discussing that aspect, but i think that this decision is a lot bigger than just birth control. The court has set a precedent that companies are the same as individuals, and thus companies have a right to claim a religious exemption to certain laws that they believe infringe on those religious beliefs.

An example - what would stop any company from claiming a religious exemption when they want to discriminate against TLGB employees? Currently that action cannot be justified solely from the Hobby Lobby decision, but I think that it is just a matter of time until a company tries this in court and claims the Hobby Lobby decision as a precedent.

I believe that this decision will open the floodgates for companies to legally have the right to discriminate against whoever they choose and claim a religious exemption to justify it. Suddenly, it's 1950 once again.

I really hope you are wrong about the 1950 part but have a strange feeling that you may be right.

Ok this is what I really don't understand about the whole religious freedom debate. Ok it is an extremely good thing that we have freedom of religion and free to practice whatever relgion even if it is our own beliefs that no one else in rest of the country share.

Ok, so the people who own Hobby Lobby are religious and hold certain views. I don't care, they can really believe in and have the morals they feel right about. If their religion condemns the use of birth control or whatever else, other religions may not. Ok say that we can call Atheism a belief system, no haters please just hypothetically speaking. So are the heads of Hobby Lobby infringing on other's rights to freedom of religion or even those that choose to be atheist? To me this is an interesting thought and we are heading down a slippery slope. To me this shouldn't even be an issue. The heads of Hobby Lobby believe a certain way then follow those beliefs for yourselves and families and relgious establishment. Other's belief systems may have other opinions and beliefs about it and infringing on those beliefs of other's is not securing the the Freedom of Religion that was set forth in the Bill of Rights. So even though the Supreme Court, head of the judicial branch of government is supposed to rule on these types of constitutional battles it really seems to me that they picked one set of beliefs over others and I really think they crossed the boundry of Separation of Church and State.

What really irks me about the whole situation is that we cherish the thought of having the Freedom of Religion and everyone else to have that same freedom as long as it falls in line with our own. They don't like BC or other aspects of the abortion debate. Fine they do not have to practice them. But they really shouldn't infringe on other's belief systems. Just my opinion.

Quote from: mac1 on July 02, 2014, 07:09:12 AM
Lobby Hobby is not against birth control. They provide for several kinds of birth control. Their limitations are for medications that can kill fertilized eggs. However, those items are still available to anybody who wants to purchase them.

What is wrong with paying for your own preventive care? Why should it be somebody else's responsibility? When I was young everybody had to pay for all of their own medical and dental care. There was no such thing as medical insurance. You can also purchase coverage in addition to that which your employer provides.

It should be an employers option as to what they are willing to provide. You can always work for another employer. There is nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that limited the availability of the medication or your right to take such medication.

Well it's not the employer's decision how you live your life, and not everyone has the magical ability to leap from job to job so easily. All of those things are required to be covered under that law, and a corporation is not a person. Nobody should be exempt from the law because they claim it goes against their beliefs. Also, where does it stop? If transgender surgery and treatment were covered, any business could easily say "It goes against my beliefs" And leave a person without necessary coverage. If blood transfusions go against a company's "Beliefs" Then should we just let that person die? And it's wrong to assume that everyone is going to be able to pay out of pocket. My mom has a hysterectomy ((A more drastic measure of contraception)) and she can barely afford food, this surgery could save her life and if it wasn't covered, she would have a few months to live.

By the way, male methods of contraception are still covered in Hobby Lobby. Also, birth control pills are often used for reasons other than contraception, the cost of IUD's can come up to $1000, and abortions can prevent an another unloved baby from being born into this world. There are no bosses in my bedroom. A fetus is a clump of human cells, it is not a person with "beliefs". A company is a place that provides products or services, it is not a person with "beliefs". A woman however is a person, with beliefs. :/

What is wrong about being thankful for what your employer or somebody else is willing to provide for you? Some of us have to pay the full premium for our medical insurance and still not have the same degree of coverage that many employers provide for their employees.

The more I read the more it seems to be because of a morning after or abortion pill, not birth control.

Quote from: LordKAT on July 03, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
The more I read the more it seems to be because of a morning after or abortion pill, not birth control.

That agrees with my previous post. They still provide for several feminine birth control methods in their medical coverage. They just refuse to provide the coverages which you mentioned. However, that medication is still available at the employee's individual cost, separate from the employer paid provided coverage.

mac1 are you concerned at all that this may set an unfortunate precedent?

I feel the most common corporate religion is the worship of money...

You and your doctor should be the only ones that decide what form of birth control are right for you. Your boss shouldn't even be in the loop. Medical records are confidential. This sets a dangerous precident IMO.

Some of you must have wonderful employers. My company "provided" insurance costs me money every paycheck. Sadly it excludes ALL trans specific care. Luckily I work for a good company and HR knows I'm trans, so maybe that will change next year.

Those of you who pay all your own insurance, I'm amazed, kudos, I don't see how you can afford it.

Quote from: Dee Walker on July 03, 2014, 01:59:53 PM
Some of you must have wonderful employers. My company "provided" insurance costs me money every paycheck. Sadly it excludes ALL trans specific care. Luckily I work for a good company and HR knows I'm trans, so maybe that will change next year.

Those of you who pay all your own insurance, I'm amazed, kudos, I don't see how you can afford it.

High deductable catostrophic insurance. For the really bad things in life like heart trouble, cancer, stokes, and other illnesses that may come down the line that will really break you in the end. After I meet my 3500 dollar deductable insurance kicks in 100%. The money I save per month more than makes up for paying out of pocket cash. And like I said earlier the Doctors will give one hell of a break costwise because they get paid right then and there and do not have to wait on the insurance companies and so. On Dr visit costs me cash 50 dollars If I claim it through insurance to add toward the deductable, that same visit wold cost me payable to the insurance company around 80 dollars. And there is not doubt in my mind legal or illeagal that the insurance company negotiates and ends up paying the doctor less than 80 Dollars. Legal or not, etical or not there are loopholes I am sure the insurance companies lawyers have covered. If I had twenty or thirty million dollars in the bank I wouldn't even have health insurance. I am fairly healthy now and if it wasn't for being a little older and the chances of bad illnesses and so on I wouldn't even have it now. I definately wouldn't have it if I was still in my twenties.

My combined medical insurance premiums for my wife and I for this year are $7,568.57 and there is a lot that they don't cover. Recently when my wife was in ER because she was unable to breathe and one of the items which she was provided was a take home inhaler. Guess what, that was classified as a self administered medication and it was not covered by any insurance coverage. The ER did not give her a choice as to whether she wanted the item and the hospital subsequently billed us $467.00 for it. We don't have any recourse and must pay for it.

I actually have no idea if HRT or SRS is covered, but therapy is. I suspect the others are too, bit I'm not even sire how to find out.

Quote from: awilliams1701 on July 03, 2014, 01:54:16 PM
You and your doctor should be the only ones that decide what form of birth control are right for you. Your boss shouldn't even be in the loop.

I agree.  Neither the government nor your employer should be a part of your healthcare at all.  It's only because of government that your employer is a part of your healthcare.  Healthcare should be a free market.

Since healthcare is not a free market, and is not likely to be a free market in the near future (read: my projected lifetime) then let's discuss this ruling.  The problem with this ruling is that there is nothing stopping people from coming up with any sort of denial of coverage for any or no reason, and then taking that to court.  There are people whose "sincerely held beliefs" include not having blood transfusions.  There are people's whose "sincerely held beliefs" include avoiding modern medicine entirely because they believe that ONLY god should be trusted to take care of you.  Can they be exempt from paying for blood transfusions or, for the latter, any and all healthcare conceivable?  If not, how is that any different than what Hobby Lobby is doing right now?

Get the government out of healthcare, and this problem would solve itself.  A company that wants to be competitive would offer more benefits, and thus attract more skilled workers.

Tbh this is a very alien subject to me, due to living in the uk that has public funded healthcare. I don't really understand how a country that pumps so much money into war doesn't even care to attempt to organize a basic level of tax payer funded national healthcare.

All I know is I'm staying put right here with the NHS lol

Allowing healthcare to be a commercial privatized market has major moral conflicts, in my view it removes the care from healthcare, because noone cares, they just want your money.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 04, 2014, 12:52:22 AM
Tbh this is a very alien subject to me, due to living in the uk that has public funded healthcare. I don't really understand how a country that pumps so much money into war doesn't even care to attempt to organize a basic level of tax payer funded national healthcare.

All I know is I'm staying put right here with the NHS lol

Allowing healthcare to be a commercial privatized market has major moral conflicts, in my view it removes the care from healthcare, because noone cares, they just want your money.

Oooh I am a uk girl too and tbh I think the whole privatisation of health is just.... what?

I think get the businesses out of healthcare (or at least only for an optional route) that way everyone is covered. Separation of church, state, media and business is the way forward. If you own a business/run an organisation in one or work as an elected member, then you should not be owning or running an organisation in any of the others/working as an elected member. There are too many conflicts of interest and opportunities for corruption otherwise.  But that's just what I think and what do I know, hey? :-)

Quote from: mac1 on July 02, 2014, 07:09:12 AM
It should be an employers option as to what they are willing to provide.

Except when the law requires that it be provided by all companies. Claiming a religious justification should not exempt any company from following the law. This is a bad decision made by conservative members of the Supreme court to support their individual political agendas in violation of their solemn oaths as judges. They should all be impeached.

Can someone explain to me (a none USA) what all this means? I thought that 'Obamacare' was going to give universal health care to Americans, now there is this. How do you guys actually get and pay for health care?

As an Aussie I pay 1.something of my income for 'free' health care, in addition I can take out private insurance that gives me freedom of choice.

Yes there are problems but it seems to me a good system that protects those who cannot afford health care, the majority pay for the poor and everyone gets free access with no restrictions.

So what do you get and why not have a similar system?

Quote from: Olivia P on July 04, 2014, 12:52:22 AM
Allowing healthcare to be a commercial privatized market has major moral conflicts, in my view it removes the care from healthcare, because noone cares, they just want your money.

I really don't understand why healthcare is somehow in a special category of things that should be provided for free from governments versus any other need a person has. I understand wanting a safety net and I was heavily involved in voluntary efforts to provide one in the form of a privately-run overflow homeless shelter. I spent several nights a month as a volunteer staying up all night at it. For several years I spent one night a week helping prepare food at the local soup kitchen. The idea was the efforts of volunteers who could afford the time was given up for people who were in desperate (though usually temporary) need. But it's this idea that certain things should automatically be provided to everyone because we need them that I just don't get. It's very inconsistent. There are SO many things we need to survive. Why don't we say the same about shelter, food, or even shoes? Those needs are even more key to our survival than healthcare.

Quote from: Cindy on July 04, 2014, 04:38:25 AM
Can someone explain to me (a none USA) what all this means? I thought that 'Obamacare' was going to give universal health care to Americans, now there is this. How do you guys actually get and pay for health care?

I'm sure that's the ultimate goal and that's what it was sold as to plenty of people who didn't read the fine print or at least failed to put effort into fully grokking it. It established standards for commercial companies that provide insurance as to what it must provide, standards for companies, like whether they must provide health insurance as a benefit depending on number of employees and how many hours an employee works, and it established penalties for failure to obtain health insurance depending on whether the Federal government thinks you can afford it based on math formulas.

My sister, for instance, who recently lost her house to foreclosure and is now renting and who's husband is now unemployed, is paying over $300/month in addition to her normal taxes as a fine for not having health insurance which she says she can't afford. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I don't think my sister is particularly responsible with money. Maybe she really should be renting a tiny apartment and making the kids share a room so they can afford health insurance. All I know is her family made a decision that affects them alone and they're being punished by the U.S. government for their "bad" decision.

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 07:12:10 AM
I really don't understand why healthcare is somehow in a special category of things that should be provided for free from governments versus any other need a person has.

Erm, because its morally wrong to let people die and suffer from curable stuff just because they are poor maybe? :-)

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 07:18:09 AM
Erm, because its morally wrong to let people die and suffer from curable stuff just because they are poor maybe? :-)

I'll repeat myself. Then based on that reasoning, why aren't you arguing that all housing and food be completely provided by governments instead of by businesses? People will suffer and die if they don't have those things.

Where I was two employers ago was self insured so they got to build whatever plan they wanted. They artfully cut out all trans care coverages. They denied coverage to same sex domestic partners and lied to myself and another colleague about it by saying they couldn't cover same sex domestic partners at the time because of ERISA. I know it was a lie because General Mills was operating under the same law and did offer insurance to same sex couples.

I can't prove that company was operating under religious descrimination, but it felt like it and not just to me. The two gay guys who started with me: one mounted an in your face resistance, the other went back into the closet while at work.

The people I worked with there were great. But HR and management made it an intolerable place to work. I totally get the importance of religion to many people. I would not call their faith "stupid". I do demand however, that those of faith follow George Carlin's second commandment, "Keep thy religion to thy self." After that employer, after listening to those advocating for faith based discrimination no, we cannot allow this country's laws to be used to protect only those who use their faith as a proxy/justification for their own hatred of something.

Quote from: Susan on July 04, 2014, 04:26:04 AM
Except when the law requires that it be provided by all companies. Claiming a religious justification should not exempt any company from following the law. This is a bad decision made by conservative members of the Supreme court to support their individual political agendas in violation of their solemn oaths as judges. They should all be impeached.

Spot on, Susan. Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justices are selected by the president and confirmed by congress and then serve for life. There is no way to remove one from the bench. It's supposed to give us a measure of stability, which it does unless a president is allowed to "pack" the panel, as Bush was, then it gives us a measure of instability.

The top priorities of any private business are to survive and to make a profit. Whilst individuals within a private healthcare company may genuinely care about helping others at the end of the day the agenda for the business will be set by management who's job is to make money and to keep the company running.

In a market where viable alternatives to private care exist a reasonably high standard must be maintained in order to ensure repeat business. However where the only access to health care is from private providers (particularly large monopolies or oligopolies) then they are able to give you less bang for your buck (provided they are united in their shoddy service) and you have little alternative but to take what you can get.

This is particularly obvious where Phone and Internet monopolies which use the fact that they are often your only option in a geographical area to provide you with terrible service which lags behind Estonia.

The US private health care system is on average more than twice as expensive for you the customer than it is in countries where you receive universal health care paid for though taxation.
Particularly outpatient care where private healthcare companies take the opportunity to gouge you for additional fees.

What I can't understand is why Americans continue to pay far more in premiums for health insurance than they would for universal healthcare.
Whilst it tends to be slow and bureaucratic for non emergency procedures no one will refuse you treatment in an emergency or ask for money for emergency aid.
In Scotland prescriptions for existing conditions are also paid for by the taxpayer.
If they weren't then I'm not sure my mother could continue to obtain the drugs required for her to keep her sight.

Is it ingrained in the cultural psyche of America that any form of tax increase is unacceptable?

Here's a recent comparison by Forbes which may comparing the US health care system to 10 other countries showing that not only does private health care cost you more money, but that it's also worse...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fdanmunro%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F06%2FTCFchart.png&hash=6428c23062669b4cc7e3e81220e3180a6107e893)

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 07:53:42 AM
I'll repeat myself. Then based on that reasoning, why aren't you arguing that all housing and food be completely provided by governments instead of by businesses? People will suffer and die if they don't have those things.

Yes homelessness and extreme poverty is terrible and it is indeed morally wrong to collect insane amounts of money you will never spend while there are people experiencing homelessness and extreme poverty.

Fortunately there are charities that plug the gaps, although as my dad says, if the system worked there would be no need for charity.

Quote from: Cindy on July 04, 2014, 04:38:25 AM
Can someone explain to me (a none USA) what all this means? I thought that 'Obamacare' was going to give universal health care to Americans, now there is this. How do you guys actually get and pay for health care?

As an Aussie I pay 1.something of my income for 'free' health care, in addition I can take out private insurance that gives me freedom of choice.

Yes there are problems but it seems to me a good system that protects those who cannot afford health care, the majority pay for the poor and everyone gets free access with no restrictions.

So what do you get and why not have a similar system?

To put it as simply as possible Obama care is NOT universal health care but it is mandated insurance. So basically everyone is to buy health insurance. They set it up that if one fell under a certain percentage of the poverty level then the feds would help subside the insurance payments,or if eligible one could qualify for medicare. But there is a catch with that,some of the states accepting the federal funding to expand the medicare coverage to about 140% of the poverty level so those who fall under that would be covered by medicare. However other states did NOT accept the federal funding (The state I live in did NOT) In the state I live in if you go over 100% of the poverty level,you're up a creek without a paddle so to speak. You don't qualify to be on medicare nor do you qualify to GET THE federal subsidy towards your health insurance.

Basically what we have is far less health care for our money then you do because what we really have is a system that is a glorified bill paying service that charges a huge sum of money to do so. Why is that you may ask? It's the great paper chase. Our biggest problem is all the paper work to get the bills paid.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 04, 2014, 08:31:55 AM
Yes homelessness and extreme poverty is terrible and it is indeed morally wrong to collect insane amounts of money you will never spend while there are people experiencing homelessness and extreme poverty.

Fortunately there are charities that plug the gaps, although as my dad says, if the system worked there would be no need for charity.

I'd actually say he's got it backwards:

If the public funds charity well enough to meet requirements, government largesse is not required.
If the public refuses to fund charity well enough to meet requirements, government largesse has no mandate.

It's actually moot in the United States, as in either case the government is simply not authorized.   

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 07:53:42 AM
I'll repeat myself. Then based on that reasoning, why aren't you arguing that all housing and food be completely provided by governments instead of by businesses? People will suffer and die if they don't have those things.

Actually in the UK, if you are not able to feed and house yourself, for example through being made redundant or becoming disabled, you will be supported in that too. So yes, I think that, in a civilised society, we do not allow people to suffer in pain, starve or become homeless, so I would prefer that actually.

The fact is though, that most people can feed and house themselves, though it does become somewhat tricky to perform your own triple heart bypass, so healthcare is pretty much always a collective provision.

Quote from: SarahM777 on July 04, 2014, 08:44:16 AM
To put it as simply as possible Obama care is NOT universal health care but it is mandated insurance. So basically everyone is to buy health insurance. They set it up that if one fell under a certain percentage of the poverty level then the feds would help subside the insurance payments,or if eligible one could qualify for medicare. But there is a catch with that,some of the states accepting the federal funding to expand the medicare coverage to about 140% of the poverty level so those who fall under that would be covered by medicare. However other states did NOT accept the federal funding (The state I live in did NOT) In the state I live in if you go over 100% of the poverty level,you're up a creek without a paddle so to speak. You don't qualify to be on medicare nor do you qualify to GET THE federal subsidy towards your health insurance.

Basically what we have is far less health care for our money then you do because what we really have is a system that is a glorified bill paying service that charges a huge sum of money to do so. Why is that you may ask? It's the great paper chase. Our biggest problem is all the paper work to get the bills paid.

Without disagreeing with you, I'd like to add that the law authorized subsidies only to low-income residents of states which set up "exchanges" which are what it calls the marketplaces.  Most states elected not to set up these marketplaces for the regulated sale of private insurance, and the few that did generally showcased an inability to put together a website.  The federal government had an absolutely disastrous exchange roll-out and the executive is now claiming that the law which explicitly refers to exchanges in "states" allows the federal government to offer the subsidies instead.  Our legal system requires someone to at least pretend they're being hurt by this interpretation before they can sue to have a court (eventually Supreme) actually clarify that one way or the other and we're a little short on people who feel harmed by subsidies.

It is such an overcomplicated disaster that there's a belief from parts of both left and right here that the whole thing was actually deliberately set up as a flaming catastrophe which would set the stage for single-payer so we could get something which works as well as the healthcare we provide our veterans, which has long been the yardstick of how the U.S. government makes single-payer work.     

Quote from: Cindy on July 04, 2014, 04:38:25 AM
So what do you get and why not have a similar system?

I'll speak only for myself.

It's very important to me that if I don't like the game I be able to take my bat and ball elsewhere.

I'd like my medical provider to know that if they don't satisfy me, I can fire them and bring in someone else. That's why I don't favor a single government system.

Again, this is just my personal viewpoint. I have no economic evidence that it's any better.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 08:57:26 AM
Actually in the UK, if you are not able to feed and house yourself, for example through being made redundant or becoming disabled, you will be supported in that too. So yes, I think that, in a civilised society, we do not allow people to suffer in pain, starve or become homeless, so I would prefer that actually.

We have safety nets for people in the U.S. and have for some time. We have food stamp programs, welfare, medicaid. There are clinics that are funded at various levels of government. There are things like Planned Parenthood clinics that are charitably funded and I imagine get some government funding and they actually provide all kinds of healthcare (not just reproductive care; that's a misunderstanding) and the price is adjusted for the customer's income, potentially free. Emergency care cannot legally be denied in the U.S. You just might get a big bill later, many of which go unpaid and just end up being a huge blemish on your credit record, though that's a far cry better than the alternative.

All of that is very different from saying that governments should COMPLETELY TAKE OVER providing everything that is considered a basic human need.

Quote
The fact is though, that most people can feed and house themselves, though it does become somewhat tricky to perform your own triple heart bypass, so healthcare is pretty much always a collective provision.

I can't make my own shoes. That doesn't mean the government has to. I pay someone else to make them. I don't grow food or raise pigs. I wouldn't be very good at it unless I spent a lot of time learning it, just like heart surgery. I pay someone else to do that. We live in a world where we all benefit by specializing on certain things and exchanging our services for the services of others. None of that mandates that choices be taken away from everyone and have governments take it over completely, e.g. food, shelter, shoes, or healthcare.

It is obviously complicated and some how ingrained into the USA psych that there should not be government driven tax to support those who cannot support themselves, some fear of socialism perhaps. But I cannot see taking some good ideas from other models of societies to improve rather than be fearful of compromise leading into a society you do not want.

Quote from: Falconer on July 04, 2014, 08:24:57 AM
The top priorities of any private business are to survive and to make a profit. Whilst individuals within a private healthcare company may genuinely care about helping others at the end of the day the agenda for the business will be set by management who's job is to make money and to keep the company running.

In a market where viable alternatives to private care exist a reasonably high standard must be maintained in order to ensure repeat business. However where the only access to health care is from private providers (particularly large monopolies or oligopolies) then they are able to give you less bang for your buck (provided they are united in their shoddy service) and you have little alternative but to take what you can get.

This is particularly obvious where Phone and Internet monopolies which use the fact that they are often your only option in a geographical area to provide you with terrible service which lags behind Estonia.

The US private health care system is on average more than twice as expensive for you the customer than it is in countries where you receive universal health care paid for though taxation.
Particularly outpatient care where private healthcare companies take the opportunity to gouge you for additional fees.

What I can't understand is why Americans continue to pay far more in premiums for health insurance than they would for universal healthcare.
Whilst it tends to be slow and bureaucratic for non emergency procedures no one will refuse you treatment in an emergency or ask for money for emergency aid.
In Scotland prescriptions for existing conditions are also paid for by the taxpayer.
If they weren't then I'm not sure my mother could continue to obtain the drugs required for her to keep her sight.

Is it ingrained in the cultural psyche of America that any form of tax increase is unacceptable?

Here's a recent comparison by Forbes which may comparing the US health care system to 10 other countries showing that not only does private health care cost you more money, but that it's also worse...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fdanmunro%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F06%2FTCFchart.png&hash=6428c23062669b4cc7e3e81220e3180a6107e893)

Put another way:  Wow, that free market sure produces lousy, expensive televisions. 

Of course, if you made Sony pay absurd lawsuit damages every time a television broke because trial lawyers are a huge political constituency, that would be true of televisions like it is in medicine in the United States.  If you made LG produce a different model of television for every state in the union, it would be true of televisions like it is of medicine here.  After all, Toshiba's love of profit has clearly led to televisions inferior to nationalized television production around the world. 

Then again, a truly, genuinely free market may not be the problem...

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 09:10:17 AM
I can't make my own shoes. That doesn't mean the government has to. I pay someone else to make them. I don't grow food or raise pigs. I wouldn't be very good at it unless I spent a lot of time learning it, just like heart surgery. I pay someone else to do that. We live in a world where we all benefit by specializing on certain things and exchanging our services for the services of others. None of that mandates that choices be taken away from everyone and have governments take it over completely, e.g. food, shelter, shoes, or healthcare.

I knew that would get said.

Yes, but you can buy your own shoes. You can anticipate the need, save a little money and walk to a shop and buy them.

You cannot however anticipate needing open heart surgery, pay for an MRI machine, a hospital, surgeons, nurses, blah blah blah. It is an service, often an emergency service, that needs to be provided collectively and therefore paid for collectively, as and when it is needed. That is a big difference, between shoes, burgers and medical care.

I have to agree with you Cindy. When you have a service that is collectively paid for and collectively accessed, particularly one that is an emergency service, a life or death service, I don't understand how you can justify taking that service and having individualised access based on ability to pay. 

Quote from: suzifrommd on July 04, 2014, 09:05:59 AM
It's very important to me that if I don't like the game I be able to take my bat and ball elsewhere.

You want choices? You fascist!

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 09:24:27 AM
You want choices? You fascist!

Hee Hee, but I have choices, I can choose what Dr treatment etc. what hospital, public or private care.

Quote from: suzifrommd on July 04, 2014, 09:05:59 AM
I'd like my medical provider to know that if they don't satisfy me, I can fire them and bring in someone else.

That is an incredibly strange thing for me to hear regarding healthcare. So can I ask why you might 'fire' them?

Actually, you can pay to go privately here too, like Cindy said. There are more options :-p It just means if your house burns down and you don't have enough money to pay for you or your kids diabetes shots you wont die from it. However if you want to pay to go private and get your own room when you go into hospital and quicker access to treatment, you can go to private hospital/dr/physio/endo/whatever.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 09:22:38 AM
You cannot however anticipate needing open heart surgery, pay for an MRI machine, a hospital, surgeons, nurses, blah blah blah. It is an service, often an emergency service, that needs to be provided collectively and therefore paid for collectively, as and when it is needed. That is a big difference, between shoes, burgers and medical care.

Yes, and that's what health insurance is about. And you can predict it somewhat. That's why health insurance costs more for the elderly than for a young person who's far less likely to have a heart attack and a number of other unexpected condition. And I don't buy all the machines that made all the food in the grocery store. That's paid for collectively in a free market. You're still not making the case for why this particular service needs to be provided by governments; that it's actually immoral for it not to be.

Quote
I have to agree with you Cindy. When you have a service that is collectively paid for and collectively accessed, particularly one that is an emergency service, a life or death service, I don't understand how you can justify taking that service and having individualised access based on ability to pay.

It's not. It's illegal to deny emergency care. Like I said, you might get a depressing bill later but they can't just turn you away. A lot of those bills just get ignored or negotiated into a long-term payment plan, sometimes SO long-term that it will never get fully paid off. The company just collects what it can and writes off the rest as a business loss.

For those who say it's immoral for those who have resources to not share them with those in need, I understand that. It's why I have worked so many volunteer hours, probably far, far more than 99% of the population. I didn't have much extra money but I had extra time. Despite several government shelters with huge budgets, there were a couple of deaths of homeless people in my small city due to the cold and it inspired a guy to do something about it HIMSELF with his own time and money. He inspired me to be amongst his first group of volunteers. But why do you feel okay with forcing your morality onto others through governments? We rightfully don't approve when Christians use government to force their morality onto us.

Charities used to be huge in the U.S. They've declined exponentially as governments took over for providing for those in need. Charity is a tiny fraction of what it once was. I think that's sad. It's like a machine taking over for what used to be something very personal. We've lost a chunk of our souls to the machine.

I'm certainly not implying in any way the good we do as individuals is wasted or unwanted or wishing in any way to be insulting or imply what we have is perfect. More my intent was to provide discussion on alternative health models.

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 09:41:58 AM
It's not. It's illegal to deny emergency care.

So in the US, you would not treat somebodies diabetes, but wait until the go into hyperglycaemic shock and treat that? If that is the case, I am afraid that is point enough for me personally to find a collective payment and universal access system superior.

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 09:41:58 AM
But why do you feel okay with forcing your morality onto others through governments?

I wasn't aware I was forcing my morals on anyone :-) Actually, you will find that it is just funding that we are talking about. It's not like they drag you off to the Dr and force heyfever tablets down your neck :-)  Treatment is funded, not obligatory.

Oh, and I in no way think our system is perfect either, I just prefer it. I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that people who need treating get it, without question of whether they can afford it.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 10:00:12 AM
So in the US, you would not treat somebodies diabetes, but wait until the go into hyperglycaemic shock and treat that? If that is the case, I am afraid that is point enough for me personally to find a collective payment and universal access system superior.

There are ways to do that other than having governments take over the healthcare industry and they've been in practice already. There have been many sources of healthcare that are funded through governments and charity that provide such services to people who can't otherwise afford them. In the debate about socialize healthcare, when they say X percentage of people have no healthcare, what they really mean is those people don't have insurance. So many of these points are (accidental) straw-man arguments, i.e. people aren't straw-manning on purpose but they are effectively presenting straw-man arguments because they don't fully understand the situation.

Quote
I wasn't aware I was forcing my morals on anyone :-) Actually, you will find that it is just funding that we are talking about.

They're being forced to pay for it through governments. If they refuse, they will ultimately be dragged off to jail forcefully. A particular* Christian's morality might include avoiding "sodomy" and not allowing gay marriages but they shouldn't force those practices on others through governments. Another person's morality might include being charitable and many are okay with forcing others to be charitable through taxation. If the latter is up for a vote, then I have no logical basis for arguing that the former shouldn't be up for a vote also.

*I say "particular" because I don't want to lump all Christians together in a sweeping manner.

This says a lot about Hobby Lobby:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/investing/hobby-lobby-401k-contraception/

[Hobby Lobby's founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company's 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called "morning after" drug.]

It never ceases to amaze me how much time people waste bickering about things that won't ever affect them in any way.

Here's what well known Democrat and constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz has to say about it:

"[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby] is a monumentally insignificant case. Why is it insignificant? First of all, it was not a constitutional decision, it was a construction of a statute.

Second, the effect will be that not a single woman will be denied contraceptive care, birth control care, the opinion made it clear that there are alternatives by which the women can get adequate contraceptive care, and won't be burdened in any way."

Moreover any uninsured person in the US including non citizens can walk into any publicly funded hospital, (i.e.. County hospital) and be treated free of charge.

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 10:09:13 AM
They're being forced to pay for it through governments. If they refuse, they will ultimately be dragged off to jail forcefully. A particular* Christian's morality might include avoiding "sodomy" and not allowing gay marriages but they shouldn't force those practices on others through governments. Another person's morality might include being charitable and many are okay with forcing others to be charitable through taxation. If the latter is up for a vote, then I have no logical basis for arguing that the former shouldn't be up for a vote also.

*I say "particular" because I don't want to lump all Christians together in a sweeping manner.

So do you have similar views for bin emptying, street cleaning, policing and the military? :-) Everyone uses them, they are state funded through taxes; should they be privatised and individualised based on who can pay? - "Sorry, I am not interested if you have been assaulted unless you have a credit card with you".

Quote from: Colleen M on July 04, 2014, 09:03:57 AM
...............................
It is such an overcomplicated disaster that there's a belief from parts of both left and right here that the whole thing was actually deliberately set up as a flaming catastrophe which would set the stage for single-payer so we could get something which works as well as the healthcare we provide our veterans, which has long been the yardstick of how the U.S. government makes single-payer work.   

Correction: recent reports have shown that system is riddled with major flaws.

Traditionally when our federal government gets involved in anything the legislation becomes so complicated that everything becomes a matter of interpretation and the costs increase drastically. Exceptions or additions for every politician envolved are included. No good system requires the extreme number of pages of legislation that are included in the "Obama Care" legislation. In addition volumes of interpretations, which further complicate the process, have already been implemented. Nothing is clear and simple, every situation becomes a matter of interpretation.

The whole system is totally flawed. Several people have lost their health coverage and their doctor, and have incurred greater costs.  They were assured in advance that they would be able to keep their own private plans and their current doctor if they choose to do so.

You can always be assured that when our federal government gets involved in anything they are certain to complicate the process, make the situation worse, and DEFINATELY INCREASE THE COST OF THE SERVICE.  Both at the state and local level many public services are being privatized resulting with better service at a lower cost. The free market increases quality and efficiency and usually at a lower cost.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 10:01:45 AM
Oh, and I in no way think our system is perfect either, I just prefer it. I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that people who need treating get it, without question of whether they can afford it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's nothing to prefer there.  EMTAALA guarantees this throughout the United States and has for decades.  Hospitals are explicitly prohibited from refusing service based on ability to pay until they have adequately stabilized the patient.  They can't even talk to you about payment until you're stabilized from an emergent condition.  I routinely see people get entire courses of chemo when they can't pay for it.  I'm baffled about how a woman in Nevada just died because Obamacare couldn't process her premiums and pay for cancer treatment when indigent people all around me get the treatment she needed all the time.   

Quote from: mac1 on July 04, 2014, 11:33:39 AM
Correction: recent reports have shown that system is riddled with major flaws.

I didn't say it wasn't killing veterans left and right while lying about everything it was doing, I just said it was clear and undeniable evidence of how well the U.S. government runs single-payer. 

Quote from: Colleen M on July 04, 2014, 08:46:18 AM
I'd actually say he's got it backwards:

If the public funds charity well enough to meet requirements, government largesse is not required.
If the public refuses to fund charity well enough to meet requirements, government largesse has no mandate.

It's actually moot in the United States, as in either case the government is simply not authorized.   

When he says no need for charity, he means that there would be no issues in society that exist that would require any input.

For example, if the system worked poverty wouldn't exist.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 04, 2014, 11:54:18 AM
When he says no need for charity, he means that there would be no issues in society that exist that would require any input.

For example, if the system worked poverty wouldn't exist.

I think we'd all be happy if nobody ever had to go outside the family unit for help.  Services, yes; help, no. 

Not wishing to derail the thread, though this has nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby Op-ed. But in response to all the stone throwing about whose system is best.

My Brother-in-law is a British citizen, he flew to London to visit his aged ailing mum in the NHS hospital. The place was filthy and the relatives had to bring her food and fresh clothing as it wasn't provided as part of the care, when he returned to the US he applied for US citizenship and vowed not to ever return. This along with the continuing ongoing traffic from Canada to get treatment in the Seattle area hospitals makes a pretty undeniably grim comment about government run healthcare programs.

Being a US military veteran I have enjoyed pretty good treatment at the local VA healthcare facility and have no complaints so far, but I do know of documented screw ups at other VA facilities, one instance was when the surgeon removed the wrong leg of a patient that had bone cancer. The other was when several patients became HIV positive after having colonoscopies performed with improperly sanitized equipment.

Quote from: Shantel on July 04, 2014, 12:52:34 PM
Not wishing to derail the thread,......................

This along with the continuing ongoing traffic from Canada to get treatment in the Seattle area hospitals makes a pretty undeniably grim comment about government run healthcare programs.

The same situation is present in Detroit with people comming to the United States from Windsor.

Quote from: Colleen M on July 04, 2014, 12:06:24 PM
I think we'd all be happy if nobody ever had to go outside the family unit for help.  Services, yes; help, no. 

I said nothing about how it would be achieved, or anything about family unit. How to fix the issues with the system is a whole different very in depth conversation. That would be best continued elsewhere due to topic reasons i guess.

Quote from: Shantel on July 04, 2014, 10:49:11 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how much time people waste bickering about things that won't ever affect them in any way.

Here's what well known Democrat and constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz has to say about it:

"[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby] is a monumentally insignificant case. Why is it insignificant? First of all, it was not a constitutional decision, it was a construction of a statute.
...

It's not insignificant, it's a precident. President Obama has already received a letter from conservative Christian business men saying that they should be exempt from his executive order requiring them to not discriminate against, among others, us, because it infringes upon their religious liberties.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

NOTHING the Supreme Court ever does is "insignificant".

Quote from: Dee Walker on July 04, 2014, 02:23:48 PM
It's not insignificant, it's a precident. President Obama has already received a letter from conservative Christian business men saying that they should be exempt from his executive order requiring them to not discriminate against, among others, us, because it infringes upon their religious liberties.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

NOTHING the Supreme Court ever does is "insignificant".

I'm not sure that would get any traction, but what I am sure about as a Christian is that it appears that some of these self anointed bigots are simply trying to hide under the religious shield as they perpetrate their un-American and un-Christian agenda against LGBT folks. And the reason I say this is simply based in the understanding that what they are doing is in diametric opposition to the will of Christ who said, "He who is with me gathers, and he who is against me scatters!" I'm not religious, just a believer who knows what the word says backwards and forwards and I resent anyone or any organization misrepresenting the will of Christ as it applies to all living human beings.

You keep distorting the basic point of the arguement. Lobby Hobby provides for basic birth control items for both men and women. However, they refuse to provide medical insurance for various items which are viewed as abortion drugs or procedures. Those items are still available through other supplemental insurance or private payment. THEY ARE NOT LIMITING THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO THOSE ITEMS.

Mac1 this is a quote from the initial post in this thread.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 02, 2014, 05:40:21 AM
As a queer woman, it makes me want to shake every LGBT person who doesn't see the broader implications of this. What if a company could tell employees that they won't pay for insurance that covers HIV treatment or health care to transgender people because of owners' "sincerely held religious beliefs"? Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, promised its scope was "very specific." Still, some of us side with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and foresee a potential onslaught of legal challenges testing the limits.

More: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/07/01/op-ed-hobby-lobby-and-constitutional-right-be-stupid

Do you still struggle to see how concerns about possible further implications of this ruling are a core part of the scope of discussion here?

It annoys me when religious rights are placed before people's.

Quote from: Kimberley Beauregard on July 04, 2014, 04:24:53 PM
It annoys me when religious rights are placed before people's.

Like the religious types aren't people? So far all of this conversation is a real stretch of the what if's and and OMG "Henny Penny The Sky is Falling Down" sort of hysteria which I suppose fits the title to the thread in part "The Constitutional Right to Be Stupid!" Your own liberal constitutional attorney even said it was stupid.

Noone said that the "religious types", as you put it, aren't people. I think the point people were trying to make is that religion should not be used as an excuse to legitimize discrimination or to circumvent the law.

Given that some religious groups are apparently already trying to use this ruling to exempt themselves from policies designed to prevent discrimination to transpeople it doesn't seem particularly stupid to discus this either.

Quote from: Dee Walker on July 04, 2014, 02:23:48 PM
It's not insignificant, it's a precident. President Obama has already received a letter from conservative Christian business men saying that they should be exempt from his executive order requiring them to not discriminate against, among others, us, because it infringes upon their religious liberties.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

Who precisely do you feel has become hysterical?

This is what russel brand has to say on the subject:

http://youtu.be/yCJpM6Zi6Os

If you think the Hobby Lobby case is about who pays for birth control you are being naive.  The religious argument is a smoke screen.

If you want to know what its about I'll refer you to three cases. Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, Gilardi v. Department of Health & Human Services, and Eden Foods v. Burwell.  These three cases were from companies that wanted to do away with the birth control mandate in the ACA.  They were all rejected at the federal appeals level but the day after the Hobby Lobby decision - the very next day - the Court ordered them to be "reviewed" by the appeals court.

Hobby Lobby isn't about the company's religious rights.  Its about doing away with ALL forms of birth control AND it is a knife to the heart of Roe v. Wade. Remember that the methods HL refused were drugs that kept a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus. That is regarded as an abortion by those who believe that human life begins at the instant the sperm hits the egg.

I don't want this conversation to turn into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of abortion.  The subject has been debated endlessly since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. It is a topic that generates a great deal of heat but not much light. Lets not go there today, okay?

Birth control is just the nose of the camel under the tent flap.  The ultimate goal is to undermine and destroy Obamacare.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 04, 2014, 12:52:22 AM
Tbh this is a very alien subject to me, due to living in the uk that has public funded healthcare. I don't really understand how a country that pumps so much money into war doesn't even care to attempt to organize a basic level of tax payer funded national healthcare.

Because this is a divided country.  Trying to implement a national healthcare would be a risky move by Democrats who are up for re-election.

The problem is that healthcare works best either when it is in a mostly free-market with minimal regulation, or when it is in complete government control with massive regulation.  In the United States Of America, we have neither of those things.  We have a lumbering chimera hybrid of healthcare that wants to be public healthcare without actually being public healthcare.  So, what happens is that huge amounts of time and money are spent on the minutae of what can and cannot be funded by taxpayer/employer/personal dollars and what cannot.

Quote from: Patty_M on July 05, 2014, 01:50:56 AMIf you want to know what its about I'll refer you to three cases. Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, Gilardi v. Department of Health & Human Services, and Eden Foods v. Burwell.  These three cases were from companies that wanted to do away with the birth control mandate in the ACA.  They were all rejected at the federal appeals level but the day after the Hobby Lobby decision - the very next day - the Court ordered them to be "reviewed" by the appeals court.

I found it deeply disconcerting when I read an article about this. I can only guess that the Court thinks the outcome will be different in light of the precedent, that it's intended to stem fears by having prominent cases where the outcome remains the same, or that the Court is curious to see if the precedent will be extended. I know very little about US law but do think it would be horrific if the reasoning stripped of inconsequential facts led to extension.

Personally, this is why I'm incredibly glad that the UK Supreme Court is appointed via a commission that purports to select the most talented individuals for the job. I cannot accept a system wherein the judiciary is so radically politicised since it leads to inconsistency and poor legal thought via blatantly obvious attempts to contrive justifications for politically useful pre-determined conclusions. Of course, I don't believe we're 'superior,' we just value different things so I find the difference perplexing.

I appreciate it's a useful legal fiction to sometimes pretend companies are people but I can't envisage an acceptable system within which they're given the same fundamental rights. For better or worse, we live in a capitalist society so people are compelled to work in order to survive and achieve quality of life. Equally, we do not live in some ideal world where people can leave their job and rapidly find another suited to their specific needs. Employers have considerable power over their employees by virtue of biological and cultural necessities. Awarding equal rights to the company allows the employer to extend their will through it and exercise even greater power over the employee that can often choose between the new conditions or poverty. Increasing the imbalance of power so drastically is unconscionable to me. I regard the Hobby Lobby ruling as allowing a violation of people via use of a considerable power asymmetry to impose belief on already disadvantaged social groups in the form of people that face the risk of pregnancy.

Equally, I find the neo-liberal or right libertarian belief that the government shouldn't interfere because it's a private enterprise unconvincing. In my view, a company is an entity participating in the public realm and has far greater potential for impact on society via its actions than the individual does so I think it's entirely reasonable for a government to shield people against abuse and ensure justice via interference. For me, it restores balance and ensures the greatest happiness possible for the community as a whole. This applies whether it's preventing exploitation of those that provide their labour by denying certain health coverage to them or preventing exploitation via stopping the formation of monopolies.

Similarly, the neo-liberal or right libertarian idea that an employee that loses medical coverage for something hasn't lost any freedom because they can still purchase it independently isn't realistic in my mind. It uses a definition of freedom that has no connection to reality since it ignores aspects like exorbitant cost. If a person's practical options have been reduced then they are less free for me. I tend to believe it's somewhat akin to saying that a person that starves to death is free because they could still buy food if they had the money. What's the point of any definition that would describe a person shackled by poverty as 'free'?

With regard to healthcare systems, I have my problems with NHS England but the reports and analyses I've read consistently show that properly managed nationalised healthcare systems yield equivalent outcomes for lower cost in terms of (living cost adjusted) per capita expenditure. In many cases the outcome is superior since it makes it truly accessible to the entire population. For instance, I believe this is the case with things like tooth decay when the UK is compared to the US. I appreciate there are anecdotes about horrible issues and it's unforgivable that those things ever happen but every system has those issues, it's not indicative of the system overall.

Well to me it is not about government run health care here in the states. The government has pretty much controlled it for a long time now. I have very few choices because I cannot buy health insurance from across state lines. I have to buy it in the state in which I live so kill the competition by insurance commisioners that are government bureucrats and the insurance companies can pretty much charge what they want and accept who they want.

Number two for me is that just as I don't want a coporation knowing every little detail about my heath, why would I want the government to have access to my health records. Yeah paying taxes and recieving healthcare for everyone is nice but we have safety nets already like medicaide and medicare. Not to mention the political soup de jour of the day and what kind of care you may recieve in the way of your voting practices. Yeah I distrust both parties. It does sound good on paper and in theory.

I don't want the government in my bedroom and definately don't want them in my hospital room. I had to have a minor surgery a couple of years ago. I found the Doctor and within a week I had an appointment. Tried twice to keep from having the surgery which was six weeks between visits and then when I decided that didn't work I had an appointment for the surgery scheduled in two weeks. Could have been a week if I wanted. What I had to have surgery on I really needed in a bad way and could not have waited months or a year to have it.

To me it isn't whether the insurance companies are privatized but there is so much control over private insurance companies and I am pretty sure they are in bed with the insurance commisioners just to keep the prices up.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 11:12:50 AM
So do you have similar views for bin emptying, street cleaning, policing and the military? :-) Everyone uses them, they are state funded through taxes; should they be privatised and individualised based on who can pay? - "Sorry, I am not interested if you have been assaulted unless you have a credit card with you".

Actually, yes. I'm an anarchist, but I don't care much for arguing that anymore, particularly not in this thread at the risk of severe derailment. If you care to know my reasoning, click here (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/28/anarchy-isnt-the-answer/) (and you'll notice I hardly ever update that site anymore). I'm only arguing from the much more moderate POV that government has certain roles that are primarily about protecting us from having our rights violated by others and I can also understand why many people can't picture a world without public infrastructures like roads. The U.S. was actually founded on these notions. I understand fears around the idea of a private organization going around and engaging in police or military activities because they're using violence. We feel safer if they have a government badge that makes them seem official and accountable.

But anyone can help others without violence. We can raise money voluntarily. We can volunteer our time. There are so many ways we can come together to help people in need get resources they need or just raise money to pay for things without violence that there's no need for this kind of activity to be relegated to governments so that they can force that morality onto people against their will.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on July 05, 2014, 02:59:30 AM
The problem is that healthcare works best either when it is in a mostly free-market with minimal regulation, or when it is in complete government control with massive regulation.  In the United States Of America, we have neither of those things.  We have a lumbering chimera hybrid of healthcare that wants to be public healthcare without actually being public healthcare.  So, what happens is that huge amounts of time and money are spent on the minutiae of what can and cannot be funded by taxpayer/employer/personal dollars and what cannot.

THIS! It's refreshing to see this kind of insight. Healthcare in the U.S. has been corrupted in so many ways for years by excessive regulations and also by a ridiculously litigious society that is a HUGE part of why it's gotten so expensive. It's screwed up by the culture of attaching insurance as a benefit of employment making it expensive to get independently and making it hard or impossible to change jobs if you have an preexisting condition. The problems go deep. We'd have to reform our court system before healthcare reform could be significant.

This might sound nuts coming from a total anarchist, but I honestly feel like the reforms needed for a free market approach to work are blocked by so many hurdles and Obamacare has messed things up so badly that fully socialized healthcare would probably be better than the situation as it is. I've said before I think that was their point with Obamacare. It was supposed to make things horrible. It makes my stomach turn to even think about it but I can't help but wonder.

In order to try to stay more on topic, I would just add this. Do people not see the difference between the extreme position (IMHO) of banning people from getting abortions and what is actually a very reasonable position of keeping them legal but not making people pay for them when they have deeply held moral positions against them? For instance, I very much think pot should be legal. I don't think companies or government should have to subsidize it. If someone tried to force companies to pay for pot, I'd be opposed to that. I'm pro-pot but anti-forcing anyone to pay for pot.

Anarchist? From Websters: "a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary" That's IMHO is a rather extreme viewpoint but hey its your choice.

Pot will soon be like other medicines, it has been proven to be medicinal for many ailments and I for see insurance covering it just the same.
Its ironic that the Supreme court that heard Roe V. Wade and made abortion legal in the first place was republican/conservative majority but these same people now are all against it. The democrats voted against it.
All I will say is if you don't like Hobby Lobby just don't shop there.

Quote from: Xenguy on July 03, 2014, 12:58:29 AM
Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order
DYLAN SCOTT – JULY 2, 2014

"The day after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people.

The letter, first reported by The Atlantic, was sent on Tuesday by 14 representatives, including the president of Gordon College, an Erie County, Pa., executive and the national faith vote director for Obama for America 2012, of the faith community."

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

----------------------------------------------

Thought this might add?

Quote from: dalebert on July 05, 2014, 11:10:38 AMIn order to try to stay more on topic, I would just add this. Do people not see the difference between the extreme position (IMHO) of banning people from getting abortions and what is actually a very reasonable position of keeping them legal but not making people pay for them when they have deeply held moral positions against them? For instance, I very much think pot should be legal. I don't think companies or government should have to subsidize it. If someone tried to force companies to pay for pot, I'd be opposed to that. I'm pro-pot but anti-forcing anyone to pay for pot.

I appreciate that many others may see it as an artificial distinction but I regard companies as separate legal entities with unique responsibilities and powers requiring distinct regulation, hence why I said it's a 'useful legal fiction.' The individuals that comprise the company still retain their rights and are not compelled to pay for anything, it's the resources of the company that are used and I don't regard those resources as entirely belonging to the owners since worker labour generates it in a co-operative effort. If it's accepted that a company is solely an extension of owners and that the right to freedom of conscience is inviolable then how do we justify any regulation? In order to be consistent do we extend the same ability to discriminate against anyone and anything for any reason to companies in every domain? Do we return to the horrors of a laissez-faire world? As I said above, the power dynamics of that situation yield unacceptable injustice for me since a large concentration of power being exercised skews the balance of rights massively in favour of one over the others rather than maintaining them as equally as possible relative to one another.

With regard to cannabis, if best medical evidence demonstrates derivatives have major therapeutic benefits then I fail to see why employers should get the right to object to inclusion in insurance. I tend to judge things based on the happiness they yield relative to harm, allowing owners to use a company to impact greatly on something as intimate and imperative as medical care yields far too much harm for me.

Unfortunately, this is all rather fudged reasoning to accommodate an unnecessarily complicated issue. The US has succeeded in creating a complete nightmare and the worst of all possible worlds by intimately connecting work with quality coverage, generating massive amounts of bureaucracy (the number of administrators is astounding), and providing only partial state support.

How about this for a solution? Let there be multiple benefit plans available from which you may choose (medical, dental, optical, legal, etc: multiple choices for each) and the company provides a standard dollar amount which they will provide toward your premiums. Then the employee will be responsible for any premium amount which exceeds the company provided contribution. If you desire greater coverage you will pay more and if you want lesser coverage you will pay less.

For instance everybody does not desire birth control or abortion coverage so they will be able to select a plan which does not cover that. Why should any person be required to pay for benefits they do not desire just because somebody else wants them? Let them use their benefit dollars for something which is more appropriate for them.

Quote from: dalebert on July 05, 2014, 11:10:38 AM
THIS! It's refreshing to see this kind of insight. Healthcare in the U.S. has been corrupted in so many ways for years by excessive regulations and also by a ridiculously litigious society that is a HUGE part of why it's gotten so expensive.

Government intervention is the reason healthcare got so expensive to begin with, and it is also the reason that employers started offering healthcare benefits in the first place.  It's a lose-lose situation.  If Republicans repeal Obamacare, they will just go back to the old system and not change any of the actual problems that it had.  If Obamacare continues, then the government will gain even more control of healthcare, and the only chance of it getting any better is if they get rid of the private insurance companies entirely (insurance is a large reason why healthcare prices are expensive in the first place)

QuoteThis might sound nuts coming from a total anarchist, but I honestly feel like the reforms needed for a free market approach to work are blocked by so many hurdles and Obamacare has messed things up so badly that fully socialized healthcare would probably be better than the situation as it is.

There is unlikely to be free market healthcare in this country.  Neither the Democrats nor Republicans support it.  When people complain about "free market healthcare" being too expensive, what they really mean is "somewhat open market healthcare which is one of the most regulated industries in the entire country"

It's a shame that the supplement industry isn't more carefully regulated.

WARNING: Video contains information that fans of Game of Thrones may find upsetting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA0wKeokWUU

Quote from: Xenguy on July 05, 2014, 03:59:09 PM
Thought this might add?

Wow.... this is exactly what I feared when the decision was announced, and is a possible consequence that I posted about earlier in this thread. Lets hope that cooler heads prevail and it is nipped in the bud. The last thing we need is a regression of the progress that has been made in our fight to gain rights.

Quote from: Falconer on July 06, 2014, 06:13:22 AM
It's a shame that the supplement industry isn't more carefully regulated.

Investigations have shown that supplements are filled with lots of filler ingredients, and some supplements don't even contain the ingredients listed on the bottle.

Supplements are a perfect example of why a true free market doesn't work.  A lot of libertarians will argue that a complete free market is the best possible economic system, but they miss the fact that it is only the best economic system when the consumer is intelligent.  There will always be good and bad companies, and the only way to shut down bad companies in a free market system with no regulation is if consumers stop buying their products.  In reality, this will not happen.  Companies will just scam and false advertise and make fake products because they can and because people will buy it.  If you can sell a sugar pill and call it Garcinoga Gugala and sell it for $100 a bottle and claim that it cures anything and people will buy it, then why would you want to spend the money and research to come up with an actual product?

Quote from: michelle gee on July 05, 2014, 11:23:45 AM
Its ironic that the Supreme court that heard Roe V. Wade and made abortion legal in the first place was republican/conservative majority but these same people now are all against it. The democrats voted against it.

It wasn't very long ago that Democrats were economically liberal but social conservatives and Republicans were more libertarian, i.e. keep government out of people's lives in general other than certain specific roles of government. Al Gore was very anti-gay back then and even recruited the Westboro Baptist Church for his campaign in their area. Reagan sort of recruited Christians but he was more about convincing them why they should be libertarian. Of course he couldn't use the L-word as a Republican. He was a lot more overtly libertarian in his younger days. I don't want to come off like a fan of Reagan. I used to be but I snapped out of it. He was a war monger and didn't really practice what he preached IMHO. It was around Bush Sr. that the flip happened. Bush started appealing to Christians on the basis of imposing their morality on other through the Federal government.

Quote
All I will say is if you don't like Hobby Lobby just don't shop there.

Or work there or buy their stock, etc.

Quote from: dalebert on July 07, 2014, 08:22:47 AM
It wasn't very long ago that Democrats were economically liberal but social conservatives and Republicans were more libertarian, i.e. keep government out of people's lives in general other than certain specific roles of government. Al Gore was very anti-gay back then and even recruited the Westboro Baptist Church for his campaign in their area. Reagan sort of recruited Christians but he was more about convincing them why they should be libertarian. Of course he couldn't use the L-word as a Republican. He was a lot more overtly libertarian in his younger days. I don't want to come off like a fan of Reagan. I used to be but I snapped out of it. He was a war monger and didn't really practice what he preached IMHO. It was around Bush Sr. that the flip happened. Bush started appealing to Christians on the basis of imposing their morality on other through the Federal government.

Or work there or buy their stock, etc.

I think you nailed it Dalebert!

When Bush Sr. was president the religious right followed the mega church pastor Jerry Falwell's lead and became a huge political block and modeled their thinking after his bigoted ideas. Prior to that church people were quiet and unassuming in the political arena. Then came the Neo-Cons, war hawkish investors who realized that big profits abound in Wall Street for those who invest in the military industrial complex companies. These two elements hijacked the Republican Party and are responsible for what it has morphed into today.

Meanwhile the Democratic party has moved radically to the left over the last few decades to the extent that a huge gulf has formed between the two that appears to be unbridgeable.