It's interesting that the posts here fall pretty much into two camps. One camp starts with the perspective that responsibility for care lies with the individual. The second camp starts with the premise that basic responsibility lies with the gov, company or some other entity.
As a result, everyone is convinced that someone is forcing their beliefs on someone else either by refusing to pay for bc or for mandating bc be paid for. Starting from such totally different perspectives, no one is going to change the others mind.
This issue lies at the heart of almost all our political issues today. What has made this country special is the basic premise that with personal freedom, comes personal responsibility. It concerns me that that so many want the freedom, but no longer take personal responsibility.
Reasonable folks can disagree and there are many reasonable folks on this board. My opinion is not meant to disparage anyone...it's just my opinion.
What we are talking about is healthcare and "personal responsibility" would mean
1. Buy your own health insurance
2. Paying for healthcare yourself without insurance
These two options that we have been living with created situations of many people not qualifying for health insurance. Pre-existing conditions, and conditions that health insurance companies refused to cover. Paying for your own healthcare works only if you are always healthy or extremely wealthy.
I support changing a system that had major flaws that resulted in many families going bankrupt from medical bills that:
1. Were not covered pre-existing conditions
2. maximum benefits paid out
3. No ability to obtain health insurance
So I do disagree with your statement of camps one. responsibility with individual two. responsibility lies with gov. company or some other entity
The argument the administration advanced successfully in the Hobby Lobby case is a particularly troublesome one for believers of all faiths who operate under the assumption that they can use their moral principles to guide the way their place of business spends money. According to the administration's legal arguments, the family that owns Hobby Lobby is not protected by the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause because “Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not exercise religion.”
FWIW, as an employee I have been required as a condition of employment, to sign a non compete agreement and to allow my picture to be used in company advertising. Other companies require uniforms or drug tests not to mention unconsionable mandatory OT
Exactly, I am required to work 2-4 hours every weekend for free, I can be drug tested, I cannot work in my field for any compensation (I do help people for free) and my work is owned by the corporation.
First, the deceased, if at all possible, should have paid for insurance...even if catastrophic only.
Second, the deceased's estate should first go to settle debts, including medical.
Third, assuming that all available funds fall short, the provider takes the loss which is built into their business model. Has worked that way for decades.
Of courses the AC act was supposed to solve that issue and brings costs down. Now, my personal insurance has gone up at a faster rate AND I'm getting a4 plus percent tax increase on top from the gov once all is said and done to pay for it. So as far as I can tell, the cure is worse than the illness.
Last edited by jr; Dec. 30, 2012 at 08:34 PM.