If the motive of the example I gave was not compassion, then what was it? I’m not talking about the Red Cross. I’m talking about US government action and aid, such as the personnel we sent to Mexico to assist in finding victims buried by the earthquake.LeafByNiggle:
It is not compassion if it is compelled. When the Red Cross helps, that is compassion because the donors do so by free will.
It is kind. It is nice. But it is someone else’s money. It is easy to be kind and nice with other people’s money.JonNC:
If the motive of the example I gave was not compassion, then what was it? I’m not talking about the Red Cross. I’m talking about US government action and aid, such as the personnel we sent to Mexico to assist in finding victims buried by the earthquake.LeafByNiggle:
It is not compassion if it is compelled. When the Red Cross helps, that is compassion because the donors do so by free will.
Yet even when government leaders spend other people’s money in such a fashion, they must have a reason for doing it. And in such cases that reason is compassion.LeafByNiggle:
It is kind. It is nice. But it is someone else’s money. It is easy to be kind and nice with other people’s money.
Then they should use their own money, like Trump did
I didn’t ask you what they should do. I asked why they did what they did. Of course the answer is compassion, which refutes your claim that there is no such thing as statutory compassion.LeafByNiggle:
Then they should use their own money, like Trump did
Compassion for whom? The people whose money they spent? It is not compassion if it doesn’t come out of your pocketJonNC:
I didn’t ask you what they should do. I asked why they did what they did. Of course the answer is compassion, which refutes your claim that there is no such thing as statutory compassion.LeafByNiggle:
Then they should use their own money, like Trump did
That’s not what I said. They’re not required by law to sign the contract in the first place - but there are legal limits on what kind of contract they can sign. One of those limits is that if they sign that sort of contract, they can’t sign one that says they won’t cover employees who are more expensive. They could have some period of time in certain cases where they would limit coverage for certain employees (although there were limits on how long that could be). But they couldn’t legally sign a contract saying “we’ll cover all full-time employees except Joe because Joe has an expensive chronic condition.”
Still not able to answer the question, eh? If it was not compassion, what was it?LeafByNiggle:
Compassion for whom? The people whose money they spent? It is not compassion if it doesn’t come out of your pocketJonNC:
I didn’t ask you what they should do. I asked why they did what they did. Of course the answer is compassion, which refutes your claim that there is no such thing as statutory compassion.LeafByNiggle:
Then they should use their own money, like Trump did
No healthcare policy I’ve had that came through an employer had as a limit the exclusion of family members who had a pre-existing condition, before or since ACA. It has primarily been in the individual market that that has been a problem.
Right, because even pre-ACA that was illegal. That’s my whole point. It’s been illegal for years. Health insurance companies weren’t making those deals out of the goodness of their hearts, they were making them because the government put restrictions on the kind of contracts they could sign, so they had to take either everyone in a certain group or no one.
Then the government has done all they need to do. Allow free citizens to associate and negotiate. The need for government to end the right to healthcare and turn it into a government power is unnecessary
Well, what had happened previously ended up being more like, corporations have the necessary legal protections to be able to associate and negotiate and get a good deal. But individuals or private associations didn’t have those legal protections, so insurance companies wouldn’t offer them the same sort of coverage they offer employers (because why would they? It’s a losing proposition for them).
If you insist on using the words “kind” and “nice” instead of “compassion” then I can go along with that. The word first entered our discussion in my post 491, which I can restate as
Contracts are negotiated. That’s the problem with a government dictated system. It interferes with the market, forces prices up and ends the rights of individuals.
Contracts are negotiated, but there aren’t a huge number of insurance companies, and it’s hard to break in because the existing insurance companies will work to keep others out of the market. I’ve seen plenty of cases where “free negotiation” has a tendency to screw the people who need help the most. Particularly if you combine this with the idea that the working poor are least likely to be able to negotiate well and most likely to not have a good option already.
The main point I made on those is that people like me - people with preexisting issues - are almost universally excluded from these plans. We’re not poor enough to qualify for medicaid but not rich enough to cover our own care.
This is simply not true. There are enough companies out there who will seek the business of a large corporation or a large association of citizens who are joined together to negotiate reasonable healthcare prices. That is the only thing that will moderate healthcare prices. Government won’t, other than by queuing and rationing. On the bolded, perhaps you can list some examples, with links, of course, since you’ve seen plenty.
Who here is speaking of a magic bullet, or even “without regulation”? I haven’t said any of those things. But I do know what is not a magic bullet, but is more like a poison pill; government dictated healthcare.
Source, please, that this is true of Catholic or other health share plans. Are you telling us that you’ve been turned down by these plans?phil19034:
The main point I made on those is that people like me - people with preexisting issues - are almost universally excluded from these plans. We’re not poor enough to qualify for medicaid but not rich enough to cover our own care.