Poverty is not what you think it is

[Vonsalza]

Not if one is one the receiving end. I suspect Charlie Gard’s parents didn’t chuckle.

Anecdotal and incorrectly cited.

Charlie lived longer than he would have otherwise specifically because of the high level of government involvement.

That poor baby was born with a condition that all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t have done anything about.

Some conditions are inexorably terminal, Jon. Such was the case of Charlie Gard. My deepest sympathies to his mom and dad.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not many monopolies here, except for the progressive call for a government monopoly on healthcare

And a more accurate representation would be “government monopoly on insurance”, and even that isn’t entirely accurate; as private companies are already positioning to offer gap plans.

 

[JonNC]

Anecdotal and incorrectly cited.

Charlie lived longer than he would have otherwise specifically because of the high level of government involvement.

That poor baby was born with a condition that all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t have done anything about.

Some conditions are inexorably terminal, Jon. Such was the case of Charlie Gard. My deepest sympathies to his mom and dad.

But it is not the role of government to interfere with the parent’s choice to o seek care elsewhere. There was no cost there the NHS, and nothing to be lost for trying.
I, too, have the greatest sympathy for the parents, and deep condemnation for the actions of the government there.

 

[JonNC]

And a more accurate representation would be “government monopoly on insurance”, and even that isn’t entirely accurate; as private companies are already positioning to offer gap plans.

One hopes so, because government healthcare is notoriously full of gaps

 

[Vonsalza]

But it is not the role of government to interfere with the parent’s choice to o seek care elsewhere. There was no cost there the NHS, and nothing to be lost for trying.
I, too, have the greatest sympathy for the parents, and deep condemnation for the actions of the government there.

There was simply nothing else to be done, Jon. I think you’re conflating “denial of care” with an absence of options.

That child was going to die and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. It would have been no difference were that Warren Buffet’s grandchild and they were at Cedars-Sinai Hospital (probably the most expensive in the world).

One hopes so, because government healthcare is notoriously full of gaps

If by gaps you mean “lack of treatment”, you’re objectively wrong here. Medical corporations have done a bang-up job getting Medicare to cover pretty much any condition. I just don’t think you know what “gap coverage” signifies.

Lets say you have 80% coinsurance. That means you’re “on the hook” for 20%. Gap coverage provides insurance against that 20% being too high for you to pay out of pocket.

Most insure the gap with something like a $1000 deductible then another 80% on top of that. So with gap coverage of 80% on 80% coinsurance and a $10,000 operation (assuming you burned your deductible by then), you’d owe (10,000x.2x.2), or $400. Without gap coverage, you owe $2000.

There. Now when you see Medicare “gap coverage” commercials on the TV, you’ll know, generally, what they’re talking about.

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14869615]There was simply nothing else to be done, Jon. I think you’re conflating “denial of care” with an absence of options.

The parents ahd chosen something else to be done. They were denied that freedom - yes, denied freedom! - by their government.

That child was going to die and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. It would have been no difference were that Warren Buffet’s grandchild and they were at Cedars-Sinai Hospital (probably the most expensive in the world).

Not the issue. The issue was the parents wanted to try a treatment as was denied the freedom to do so. That is tyranny.

If by gaps you mean “lack of treatment”, you’re objectively wrong here. Medical corporations have done a bang-up job getting Medicare to cover pretty much any condition. I just don’t think you know what “gap coverage” signifies.

Oh, I know. I know that the current language has to do with cost gaps. Treatment gaps are just around the corner the more government is involved. And, as we’ve seen with ACA, the ballooning of co-pays, premiums, and deductibles, equals “lack of treatment”.

 

[DarkLight]

Oh, I know. I know that the current language has to do with cost gaps. Treatment gaps are just around the corner the more government is involved. And, as we’ve seen with ACA, the ballooning of co-pays, premiums, and deductibles, equals “lack of treatment”.

To be fair, I’ve known about treatment gaps for years that had nothing to do with government regulation. Most people in this country don’t get to choose their own health insurance, or if they do they get limited options. And there’s plenty of treatment gaps in private insurance, unless you’re very wealthy and can afford multi-thousand dollar treatments out of pocket.

Ask anyone who’s gone through the “non-preferred” drug hassle. Heck, I have a family member on very good private insurance. That insurance decided that a medication that doesn’t work for her is just as good as the one she’s on that does work for her but is more expensive. So they won’t cover the one that works anymore.

 

[Rau]

The parents ahd chosen something else to be done. They were denied that freedom - yes, denied freedom! - by their government.

Not the issue. The issue was the parents wanted to try a treatment as was denied the freedom to do so. That is tyranny.

The parents were prevented from a course of action impacting their child. That’s a universal wrong in your book is it?

 

[JonNC]

The parents were prevented from a course of action impacting their child. That’s a universal wrong in your book is it?

Every action of took as a parent impacted my children. That’s what parents do, good parents at least. They will do anything for their child. It is a universal wrong for government to step in an stop them.

 

[JonNC]

To be fair, I’ve known about treatment gaps for years that had nothing to do with government regulation. Most people in this country don’t get to choose their own health insurance, or if they do they get limited options. And there’s plenty of treatment gaps in private insurance, unless you’re very wealthy and can afford multi-thousand dollar treatments out of pocket.

Ask anyone who’s gone through the “non-preferred” drug hassle. Heck, I have a family member on very good private insurance. That insurance decided that a medication that doesn’t work for her is just as good as the one she’s on that does work for her but is more expensive. So they won’t cover the one that works anymore.

Everything you mention has its roots in government regulation and limits.

Why does the general government prevent groups of individuals from forming large pools to negotiate with insurance companies and care providers? Had your family member been in a large association, is it possible that their care may have been better?​

Why does government prevent people from buying catastrophic plans, or “Cadillac” plans?​

why can’t people buy insurance across state lines?​

Why is it that the government feels the need to force people to buy insurance even if they don’t need it?​

Why does the government think it is their place to tell people of faith that they must participate in any policy in any way that violates their faith?​

The answer always seems to be government made things worse, so we need more government to fix it.

 

[DarkLight]

Everything you mention has its roots in government regulation and limits.

Why does the general government prevent groups of individuals from forming large pools to negotiate with insurance companies and care providers? Had your family member been in a large association, is it possible that their care may have been better?​

Why does government prevent people from buying catastrophic plans, or “Cadillac” plans?​

why can’t people buy insurance across state lines?​

Why is it that the government feels the need to force people to buy insurance even if they don’t need it?​

Why does the government think it is their place to tell people of faith that they must participate in any policy in any way that violates their faith?​

The answer always seems to be government made things worse, so we need more government to fix it.

Since in this case she only had insurance through an employer, and would be considered completely uninsurable on the private market, I’m not sure that matters. As far as it was insurance through an employer, she was in a large association. As far as buying a private insurance plan - I 100% guarantee no insurance company would willingly insure her (or me) without some sort of compulsion.

 

[JonNC]

Since in this case she only had insurance through an employer, and would be considered completely uninsurable on the private market, I’m not sure that matters. As far as it was insurance through an employer, she was in a large association. As far as buying a private insurance plan - I 100% guarantee no insurance company would willingly insure her (or me) without some sort of compulsion.

If thevptivate market was power ulated with huge nationwide associations instead of individuals on their own, the response would clearly be different. The compulsion comes from numbers

 

[DarkLight]

If thevptivate market was power ulated with huge nationwide associations instead of individuals on their own, the response would clearly be different. The compulsion comes from numbers

Right, but numbers inevitably comes with the one size fits all approach that leads to rationing of care. It’s a function of having a large group in the pool, not a function of government specifically.

 

[Rau]

Every action of took as a parent impacted my children. That’s what parents do, good parents at least. They will do anything for their child. It is a universal wrong for government to step in an stop them.

You are referring to parents making good decisions, or in every case?

 

[JonNC]

You are referring to parents making good decisions, or in every case?

Define good decisions.

 

[JonNC]

Right, but numbers inevitably comes with the one size fits all approach that leads to rationing of care. It’s a function of having a large group in the pool, not a function of government specifically.

Not necessarily. In fact, yours is the argument against government dictated single payer healthcare. It is one size fits all, and you have no say in your care. It is the argument against ACA. By dictating what must be in a plan, it pushes up prices making care less affordable.

Private associations joining together of their own freedom to associate would have the bargaining ability to negotiate the kind of care their members need. In other words, they would be acting on a right to pursue the healthcare they want. Government healthcare takes that right away and turns it into an authoritarian government power.

 

[Rau]

Define good decisions.

If your position is that all parental decisions should be allowed to stand, it does not matter. So perhaps you can clarify? If that’s not your position, then we both agree the need to distinguish good from poor decisions - which is more the point than tying to define “good” in the abstract.

 

[JonNC]

If your position is that all parental decisions should be allowed to stand, it does not matter. So perhaps you can clarify? If that’s not your position, then we both agree the need to distinguish good from poor decisions - which is more the point than tying to define “good” in the abstract.

Where did I say all?

A comparison:

A child’s parents, for religious reasons, do not believe in blood transfusions or other kinds of medical care. Their child will die without one.​

A child has an affliction that is considered terminal. The parents want to do everything within their power, even something experimental, to save their child’s life, because the child WILL die if what is currently being done is all that is being done.​

I think I have a good idea of what is and is not a good decision.

Additionally, a woman decides to terminate the unborn human being she is carrying, even though he/she has a heartbeat and brain function.

I think I have a good idea of what is and is not a good decision.

 

[Rau]

Where did I say all?

A comparison:

A child’s parents, for religious reasons, do not believe in blood transfusions or other kinds of medical care. Their child will die without one.​

A child has an affliction that is considered terminal. The parents want to do everything within their power, even something experimental, to save their child’s life, because the child WILL die if what is currently being done is all that is being done.​

I think I have a good idea of what is and is not a good decision.

Additionally, a woman decides to terminate the unborn human being she is carrying, even though he/she has a heartbeat and brain function.

I think I have a good idea of what is and is not a good decision.

Excellent. Then we agree parents may be overridden. And I’m sure you do highly regard your own judgements about what constitutes a good decision.

 

[JonNC]

Excellent. Then we agree parents may be overridden. And I’m sure you do highly regard your own judgements about what constitutes a good decision.

Of course I do, or I wouldn’t hold them. I’m sure you do yours, as well.

As a follow up, I might add that I am also open to being convinced otherwise, about all three of the examples I cited by those who disagree.

Based on faith and the proposition that limited government is the most moral form of government, which I’ve learned by reading and studying those far smarter than me, the positions I hold are reflective of these