"Shouldn't we be able to choose which benefits we want to pay for?"
That's the repeated and overarching question posed by the video. The answer is:
It would not only be impractical, but it requires the same clairvoyance on the part of the insured as it requires on the part of the government which directs the mandates. And we rely on the government (like it or not) to conduct the studies and make the determinations as to which health insurance "mandates" should be available and/or required.
Sure - males don't have uteri and females don't have prostates, but "dem's (nyuk, nyuk) the breaks." As demonstrated by the video, it gets even more confusing when you let THE STATES get involved, which IMHO strengthens the argument for FEDERAL mandates.
All in all, the argment put forth in the video is a red herring. Universal health care is NECESSARY for the vast majority of Americans. Benefits should not be able to be selected "al a carte," as it were. I'll exercise my own "clairvoyance" here and suggest that if this were the system, you'd have a lot of people paying for coverage for exactly the maladies they DON'T GET. Then they would blame THE GOVERNMENT for having a system which let them do it.
Seb, you provided the point which I was hoping someone would make. It's the argument that political elites need to be in charge of what you pay for.
If the decision of what to pay for, in terms of health care, aren’t made by the consumer (the ones PAYING for it) than the question is WHO?
Who, rather than the one flipping the bill, should decide what is to be paid for?
If not the consumer, it's the State which is to determine FOR US, by way of studies, what we should/should not be taking.
Of course, we all know, scientific studies are infallible of being slanted to favor a specific outcome.
However, as we've just seen, in an effort to mandate that everyone be “cut from the same cloth”, we end up with people paying for procedures they will NEVER use in their lifetime. I, for one, don’t find that fair.
If the answer to that is "dem's the breaks," well, I'll argue we are no better than any totalitarian regime.
Even Mussolini said any disagreement from the all powerful political elite’s decision was against the state.
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
I assume that I would be a deviant since my decision to use my income as I see fit as "against the state."
No - I didn't say that "political elites" should be in charge of what you pay for. My point was that the individual insured might be the LAST person who should be allowed to cherry-pick ala carte medical coverage because in the long right they'll probably get it WRONG (i.e., they won't have coverage for the maladies that they do get).
Also - my "dem's the breaks" comment referred to whether you had a uterus or a prostate - nothing more.
Right now, there is a system in place which considers medical coverage for the illnesses and injuries the population is likely to get on a per capita basis. Most of the individual insured - if allowed to do what the video suggests - neither have the background or (I submit) the inclination to independently do the research and independently make intelligent decisions for their own coverage.
I submit that in this case, you ought to let the government do what you are paying them to do: make decisions which are in the best interests of the people.
I realize from your posts that you would prefer that there be NO GOVERNMENT - period. I don't think that is a practical (or sane) position - at least on this planet. Populations as massive as the human race will always require systems of government to guide, moderate, and - yes - CONTROL their actions. "Anything goes" = EVERYBODY suffers.
In a related story, President Obama warns the Supreme Court not to engage in "judicial activism" and overturn ObamaCare. See:
Hmmmmm....interesting choice of words since the Democratic Party IS the party of judicial activism. The most flagrant example is Roe v. Wade. A good article on point is here:
...and for a related "he said WHAT?", check this out:
Who do you feel has the most vested interest in health care decisions?
The individual or the Gov't ?
"Decisions" is a broad term. I'll try to answer it this way:
The individual has the most vested interest in their own health care "decisions," but the government has the most vested interest in the collective health care "decisions" of the citizenry since the government essentially runs the system, which in large part is funded with taxpayer dollars.
The difficulty is in providing/ensuring adequate health care for everyone. No single individual or their "vested interests" can drive an entire health care system; conversely, the government has to have a hand in the "decisions" that are made in order to properly maintain and improve the system and ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the individual.
It sounds convoluted, but I'm not sure how to describe it in a less complicated way. Part of the problem is that if it was a simple situation, it wouldn't be so difficult to manage.
\The problem here arises in that only ONE decision can be made. When you allow the Gov't to have a "hand in the decisions" the individuals whose decision deviates from this is pushed to the way side.
This is the fallacy of Govt's proper maintenance and "improvement" in a system. It's a one size fits all approach, and not everyone fits into this category.
Rather I would advocate a more market-orientated approach that allowed people to buy the insurance they want, with the company they choose.
This would weed out the bad companies and leave only the ones that served the people the best insurance at the price they wanted. Simply the power of competition, which works in every other industry.
But we've drifted off the topic (mainly my fault).
Do you disagree with the main thesis of the video that; the cost of insurance rises from each marginal expenditure the company legally must provide?
There by transferring these mandated expenses to the consumer, as a whole?
"The problem here arises in that only ONE decision can be made."
This statement appears inconsistent with the question you asked:
"Who do you feel has the most vested interest in health care decisions?"
The question says plural; the statement says singular. I was addressing what I thought was PLURAL - i.e., healthcare decisions that are made every day by individuals undergoing treatment or seeking healthcare coverage, as well as decisions made by the government in providing healthcare and in determining what coverage is available and paid for by whom.
I don't think you can boil the question (or the entire problem) down to one "decision." If you as an individual have decided that you want a "government" (which you DO if you stay in this country), then you have "decided" to play the healthcare game according to the way your elected officials (i.e., the government) sets it up. If you don't like it, vote for someone who represents your ideas. If your candidate loses, oh well. If you don't like it, move to someplace where the system supports the way you want to make your "decisions."
Those are your choices. Love 'em or leave 'em.
Sorry, you are correct. I did write that sentence incorrectly.
The essence of what I was saying is this;
Specifically speaking of health insurance costs and their long-term benefits, I feel the person whose life is at stake has the MOST vested interests into how it's carried out (co-pays, benefits, choice of Dr., etc).
Also, that if we continue to advocate a system where the person with the most vested interests DOESN'T have the final say over their own body, than who? In this case, it's the political officials.
We perpetuate a system where, Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, Barbara A. Mikulski, Johnny Isakson (etc, etc) somehow know what you need, better than you and your doctor.
I, for one, will never agree with that.
To your last point, I will continue to vote for officials that favor choices that give more rights to people and less to the officials themselves. Because I reject the "Love 'em or leave 'em" premise. There is a third option, change 'em.
Still, thanks for discussing this with me Seb. It’s too bad we couldn’t get more input from others. C'est la vie – See you on the next blog!
No - you're right - I did leave out a choice and it is "change 'em."
I don't disagree with your points; but you'll have to have a whole lot of "change 'em" to get things the way I think you'd like 'em.
So I salute you - and wish you all the best.