"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

so if your friends had "decent insurance" and still got wiped, what would the government do or how would the government prevent that?....would decent insurance purchased through government exchanges rather than decent insurance purchased through the private market or provided by an employer have been any different?

you are going through all sorts of emotional gymnastics without any solid point or explaining exactly how this should work.... and ignoring your own repeated mantra....I feel like I'm listening to Obama or Hillary during their primary...:uhuh: "we should do something....anything...our consciences demand it...innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control".....GOOD GRIEF...WHAT????? WOULD....YOU....DOOOO


wait...I think I've got this....from what I can discern from what you've written....you'd like to create a efficient and effective benevolent government program run from a benevolent government office that will be efficient and effective...and filled with benevolent government officials and underlings who will likewise be efficient and effective and what?...non-union?...and whose job it will be to decide who gets assistance from their benevolent budgets despite your railing against and pointing out the problems with all of this benevolence for quite some time....so that things like what happened to your friend will never happen to anyone again because that is the only way to prevent such things from happening....

sadly...the only thing that skirts reality in all of that is the story about your friend........

Scott, the difference between me and them, as that I wouldn't mandate that we all pay for the voluntary, sometime-unethical choices that we make. I'm not saying you pay for my drug needles.

I'm not saying I have a vision for how this would work. I am saying that we can do better, in my opinion. If you need some details, I'd say that we all pay some amount into a pool, that could be tapped into to ease the burden of catastrophic and uncontrollable medical expenses.

I'm glad you weren't in the Army Chief Of Staff in 1938. You want to increase the military tenfold? Impossible. Stop showing news reels of European Jews being gassed, I'm not persuadable by such 'emotional gymnastics'. How can we fight on 2 fronts? Why should we have to sacrifice to save Europe and China from enslavement?

Obamacare, clearly, is about much more than helping our neighbors. It's a vehicle to fund a whole liberal wishlist like contraceptives, and to increase the scope of the feds - that's the goal. I'm talking about things, I think, that are more vital to the human condition.

That something is hard, or will be flawed, doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth doing.

well...looks like I nailed that...except that the benevolent government official will efficiently and effectively decide what are ethical and unethical choices :uhuh:

"glad you weren't in charge when Hitler was killing Jews"...that's good one Jim...real original :)

Jim, I understand how you must feel, especially being these people are friends of yours and a child is involved. I don't think there are any answers at this time to pay for such an event that no one could predict. Any Govt. program would be a losing proposition with waste fraud and the usual incompetency.

The only thing I could think of would be some kind of a catastrophic insurance policy, similar to an Umbrella Policy which you can add to a Home Owners Policy,added to a medical insurance policy to cover those kind of medical issues. The cost, I am sure would be very expensive, but the cost of medicine, which will never go down, and is now a fact of life. As our technology's progress costs will continue to rise and everyone wants the best. The days of Doc Adams getting paid with vegetables are long gone, although I do know of some Docs who do NC work for those who can't pay, but that's not the big costs of high tech and hospital costs.
Competition is the only way to keep things some what in check, and the Govt. is unwilling to do what they could do to reduce costs by allowing Interstate Competition and Tort Reform.
I feel for this family as they are truly between a rock and a hard place.

no one can argue that the circumstances for this family are tragic...it's a little surprising to see Jim however, who spends significant time railing about the inefficiencies and looming financial disaster created by various government programs and the inherent dynamics that occur when government involves itself in many things, would seek to have government attempt to solve this issue...but more and more we seem to think that government should and could provide the solutions to many things, with the right people in charge of course....government seems quite content to supplant private charity with it's own form of compassion

The fact that it wasn't original, doesn't mean that it wasn't on point. Your argument against my thought, was that it would be difficult and imperfect. Some causes are noble enough that you take them head-on, even though they will be difficult and imperfect. Sometimes when you have the ability to do something, then you also have the responsibility to do it. That was Bush's argument wen he launched his AIDS treatment plan in Africa. It was difficult, and it was imperfect, and probably has some waste. But Stanford University estimates that it saved more than one million lives. If I have to work an extra month or two before I retire, to pay for my share of the cost of saving a million lives, that's something I'll gladly take.

Scott, you and Detbuch pointed out a long lit of absolutely valid concerns about why such a thing would likely be inefficient, wasteful, possibly ineffective, and maybe unconstitutional. I concede all of that.

I did try to answer most of your points. Maybe you can answer one of mine. Just one. My friends will likely never be able to purchase a home, and likely never be able to retire. What would YOU say to him when he's 75 years old, and working at McDonalds or as a greeter at WalMart, because his daughter will still need expensive care? "Too bad?" "That's the way life goes?" "That's the way the cookie crumbles"?

I think we can do better. That's just my $0.02.

I don't pretend to have any kind of a solution. But I don't believe that it's beyond the abilities for us to improve the current situation. One of the my favorite things about this country, is that we are at our best when things are at their worst.

[QUOTE=scottw;1020128it's a little surprising to see Jim however, who spends significant time railing about the inefficiencies and looming financial disaster created by various government programs and the inherent dynamics that occur when government involves itself in many things, would seek to have government attempt to solve this issue...[/QUOTE]

Scott, I agree with you on the vast majority of the issues, an dI respect the way you state your opinions, including the way you are stating your opinions here. You make a very, very compelling case, and I admit I don't have an effective response to many of your arguments.

I do rail against the hole we are in with entitlements, as it was avoidable...I don't want to go broke myself, so that we can reward blocks of citizens with financial perks that are insanely expensive.

My assumption is that we could, collectively, make a big dent in reducing stress of people like my friends, without making extreme sacrifices. Hell, if the feds could wisen up and gut (or eliminate) wasteful boondoggles like the Dept of education, dept of energy, etc...that alone might provide the funds. It'd be a better allocation of those dollars, that's for sure...

Good jousting, though.

:)

I see people who are at that age working in the places that you speak of, one that comes right to mind is working at the cash register at the CVS down the street...he was an owner of a furniture store here for most of my life...I don't know the circumstances but he has to work at that age for whatever reason, he may need a government program to cure that? I fully expect to still be working at that age, maybe I need a government program....as unfortunate as your friend's circumstance is...people get kicked in the nuts by life all of the time...he could also be a millionaire by the time he's 75 with the right circumstances... you seem to be assuming the worst for him...there are plenty of examples of people that turn these things into great successes... but it's less likely he'll succeed in this economy being strangled by all of the debt that we owe due to the other misguided programs that were sold as intended to prevent people from having to deal with the unfortunate things that happen in life and our steady move to a government assisted society rather than an entrepreneurial free market capitalistic model ever since we reached "peak capitalism" back during the recovery summer

I don't know if "we" can do a little better. I'm sure philanthropic donors could. Voluntary free hospitals could. Pro-bono services by other hospitals in rare cases. Various children's charities, even ones for specific diseases such as leukemia and cancer. There is something called Catastrophic Illness in Children Relief Program that's sponsored by individual states. Connecticut had such a House Bill 5498 proposed in 2008. I don't know if it was passed. Massachusetts and New Jersey have versions of it. Even other local and state government assistance and regulations where such is closer to the people to approve at ballot boxes. But if you let the federal gvt. stick its nose in the door, it will soon walk in entirely and add your problems to its unsustainable budget as well as regulating it in ways that you may not like, and for which you will have no control. And that will be precedence to expand to other peoples various personal catastrophes. Not just the rare ones in which we could do a little better.

it was fascinating to watch him roll through just about every classic modern liberal reasoning/argument and mode of argument for a federal government program to cure an ill or correct a societal wrong....:uhuh: thought he was being possessed by Spence after a visit to the witchdoctor or something

No. I wouldn't say that we need a government program for every conceivable reason that someone may be struggling.

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

My Catholicism trumps my political conservatism...

you should know by now that when government takes the reigns they tend to blur those "distinguishable differences" so as to include as many in their "charity' as possible...there are plenty of current examples

I'm not about to argue with that irrefutably correct statement. I wouldn't trust this current federal government with much.

But I do disagree with your statement that I am looking to guarantee equality of outcomes. If people make stupid or irresponsible decisions, they can deal with the consequences of that. I can't say that any more clearly, and that should convey that I am not looking to make outcomes equal.

But it would be worthwhile, I think, to do what we can to remove this opportunity-limiting event.

Did your friend's daughter survive and is she better? Are your friends recovering from the economic disaster? Are they gradually doing better. I hope all of that is the case. If it is, then they seized the opportunity they were given to overcome a terrific obstacle, and they should be a lot stronger for it.

If not, is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes for everyone by eliminating disasters for some?

I think if you put your feelings aside for a moment and look at what you've written you'll realize that you are arguing myopically for more of what you constantly rail against simply because you have an experience or a tragedy close to you that you feel needs being corrected....this is how all of these "safety nets" get set up, some politician finds a sad story, demands that this "never, ever happen to anyone again", proposes a government managed solution, claims anyone that disagrees is coldhearted and draconian and..... poof...we have a new government program sold to cure some societal ill...funded by tax dollars from a "general fund" that is never fully funded.... forever ...but we know how it always ends up....Jim...if you start a fund to help your friends today, I'll be the first to contribute without even knowing them....or...I could send the same money to some government agency and let it trickle through the machinations of the bureaucracy where they might end up with a tiny percentage of the original "contribution" which means many others must be made to "contribute"...of course, if you set up your "safety net to guarantee more equality of [U]opportunity"...you authorize the government to take and spend from others as/when it sees fit and where it sees need for equality of opportunity...if it's a local institution, you may have some measure of control but if it's the federal government, I doubt you'll like how it picks and chooses eventually and there is nothing that you can do once that ball gets rolling....this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the way that government inherently operates, a symptom of how we've been conditioned to "feel" that wrongs should be righted and not only don't you seem to see it, you are participating in it and feeding the beast, :)

If you knew me before my friends were in this situation, you'd know that I felt exactly the same way. Exactly the same way. I'm sure I'm more emphatic about it now, but it did not alter my thinking.

What I rail against is waste, stupidity, political kickbacks/bribery, and spending more than we can ever afford on things we don't need. I'm not an anti-government anarchist, there are some things I'd like the government to do. This is one of them.

She is doing better, thanks God.

They are not recovering economically. They will likely never be able to own a home, and likely never be able to retire.

"is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes "

Not to equalize outcomes. The answer is to equalize opportunity. Those 2 things are very different, and I must be doing a terrible job articulating that, because it seems you and Scott are under the impression I'm talking about equalizing outcomes.

Let's say the average family will soend $150,000 on medical expenses oveit lives. SOme families might spend none, some spend a lot more. I'm making this up...but if there was some public fund that we all poaid into, that paid for all of our medical expenses (for thjings that are random, which we have no control over) over $150,000, that would eliminate the "penalty" that some families suffer, and give them the opportunity to achieve the same success that others enjoy.

I don't think the unlucky families "deserve" the financial struggles and limited opportunities that they will face through no fault of their own, nor do I think the people born healthy "deserve" the financial windfall that comes with being lucky enough to be born healthy.

It would be moral, in my opinion, to normalize opportunity for life-altering events that are completely beyond anyone's control.

I cannot make the case that it will be perfect, flawless, inexpensive, without waste, easy, or constitutional. You and Scott have me there, I concede that. But it feels right to me.

Scott and detbuch, you keep stating that I'm advocating for equality of outcome. Not even close.

A made-up, hypothetical scenario. Lat's say it costs $500,000 to open a McDonalds. Let's say my friends were able to save that much. But all of a sudden, that $500k is wiped out to pay for catastrophic medical expenses. In that case, because of the specific event which they had no control over, let's assume there was a federal program that picked up that tab.

Now he has the $500k to open a McDonalds. I am not suggesting, in any way, that his success should be guaranteed. If the business fails because he is incompetent, or lazy, or because he blows the money betting on college football, or because a better businessman opens up a Burger King across the street, I would never say that society has a responsibility to provide him the wealth he could not acquire.

Say there are 2 identical famillies who want to open a McDonalds. Each family has squirreled away the $500k to pay the fees. Family A has an unforseen medical situation that wipes out their savings. I don't think that Family B 'deserves' the opportunity to open a McDonalds any more than family A does. I'd like to see them both have the same chance to succeed.

Opportunity. Not outcome.

OBAMA?
 

the WHOLE political system is in SHAMBLES because of his presidency....

I doubt it'll ever recover....

he's about as QUALIFIED as Michael Jackson playing for the NFL.

well, that's just my less than Humble Opinion....

ok rant over CARRY on

See, your overlooking the pre-existing condition that people have, as you say, "zero control" over. The most obvious one in the case of your hypothetical scenario is that there are no two "identical" families. Unless by some rare twist identical twin brothers married identical twin sisters. But even in that event differences would occur through nature and nurture. So if it takes equal identity to create equal opportunity ... well, you get the picture.

But, if in your scenario what makes the families identical is that they both saved up $500k so that they both had the same financial opportunity to open a McDonalds, but one lost the money due to uncontrollable circumstances, it would only be "fair" for the rest of society to make the losing family whole by giving them a $500K gift from the rest of us . . . umm, that is problematic. Are you assuming that the rest of us have the "opportunity" to save $500K? What about the many somebodies that are born into families that lack such attitudes of thrift or potential to even earn that amount? What about the individual that didn't have the "opportunity" to earn the $500K due to family background, negative inherited capabilities, and so on that he had no control over? If he/she wanted to open a McDonalds should the rest of us give him/her the $500K gift? Are you saying that if we all put in a few extra bucks into some anti-catastrophic fund it would cover the massive potential of payouts to "deserving" recipients to do what they wish but are not capable because of things they had no control over.

And if the federal gvt. owns this insurance fund, will it even restrict itself to whatever minimal enumerations you limit it to which you think would make this fund fair and operable? The evidence is, as you might say, "irrefutable" that it wouldn't. This sort of "fairness," of so-called "equal opportunity" is what gives the federal leviathan the legitimacy to totally control our lives.

Detbuch, you guys are very, very skilled (and fair, by the way) at playing devil's advocate. As you say, no 2 situations are identical, and my lefty pie-in-the-sky collecticivist notion here would entail a lot of difficulties. All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect. This feels like one of those things to me, but reasonable people can certainly disagree...

ya think?....

btw Jim, this has not at all been "playing devil's advocate"...it's pointing out the obvious problems with your logic, it "feels" right to you in your scenario, the government simply writing a check to your friends in this case...but applied broadly, given what we know about the propensities of those that you'd like to see administering this and the Pandora's box you'd be opening...it makes no sense...but nothing else makes sense....come up with a catchy name for it and I'm sure it will pass......" The Elimination of Life's Hardships And Equal Opportunity(but not Outcomes) Through Government Benevolence Act of 2013"...need a jingle that sort of rhymes too...that always works..."when things get bad...we'll pick up the tab"

Originally Posted by Jim in CT
All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect.


looking to the government to write a check..is not "hard"...it's actually the "easy" solution...which is why it's so popular....holding fund raisers, rallying a community and media, swallowing your pride and "asking for help", calling charities and corporations and others who have interests in these types of situations ...is "hard"...but often prove wildly successful

So, being hard, overcoming obstacles, losses, tragedies must be beautiful. Are they less beautiful if government makes it easier? Is the beauty lost if the difficulty is lost?

We don't disagree a whole lot. Mostly on one small item--the fundamental damage done to founding principles when the federal government goes beyond its enumerated powers to "solve" societal or individual problems. It has never been a secret what happens to moral or governing principles when they are violated and then accepted. That it not only changes the rule for a temporary "good," it sets a precedent for constant changes so that the principle is eventually lost.

Your Catholicism, I think, would agree with your political conservatism on that point. Maybe not.

How about the greatest poet/writer in the English language, Shakespeare? In his play, The Merchant of Venice when Portia in disguise is acting as a judge is asked "To do a great right, do a little wrong," she replies,

"'Twill be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
Will rush into the State. It cannot be."

The great right you wish to be accomplished by establishing a way to help individuals in time of catastrophic need is noble. Many have done such great things. I think even your Catholicism, which has charity as a prime action, would agree that its fundamental faiths and structures must not be subverted for charity. That no charity should take from an individual his responsibility toward church and God and shift it to the State. We have fundamental founding principles that not only place the burden of responsibility for their own lives on individuals, but prevent the State from usurping those responsibilities to grow its own power. The Federal Government was founded to have no business in charity. That was left to individuals and their local and state governments. That was an extremely important restriction. Without it, individual sovereignty is lost. That cannot be overstated.

Individuals and local governments have always been involved with charity. They are less so now that the central government has taken on so much of what individuals and their States had done. You have argued against what has become of this country because of it. Go ahead and be charitable. Campaign in your city, county, State, to help when individuals can't.

Just don't insist that the federal government do it. That is the little difference between us.

You mean just like the people having their plans cancelled? Carry on.

I still would like to know, where in the Constitution does it allow the Govt. to decide what you need for yourself, and if what your buying doesn't come up to their standards, you have to buy what they tell you to or pay a penalty?

I know U believe in Obama and believe like him that policies R being cancelled because they R inferior to his debacled plan ....U know he is a liar.... cancellations of his doing... where insurance companies would not cover condoms or abortions does not mean people had bad policies....some of them cancelltions had great policies....UUUU should explain it to this lady Edi Littlefield.... and your president bullied this person....if all of yours or partially paid for by a company UUU may be losing yours next year....and he blames the insurance companies

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446

When the Supreme Court was bought and declared it a tax and not a penalty .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

You're half right as usual :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that pesky whatever (progressive/neo-con/establishment Republican/independent/goofy or bribed?/whatever) Roberts appointed by quasi-progressive/compassionate conservative/mixed bag/whatever (oh yeah that dumb as a rock) Bush. The labels really matter,don't they? Let us not pay attention to the actual constitutionallity of Roberts' decision, lets use shifty labels to end the discussion.

Actually, Roberts' calling it a tax is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes two specific taxes that the federal gvt. can impose and a third specific type, the direct income tax, was added by ammendment. There is no general, unspecified tax allowed by the Constitution. The Obamacare tax does not fit into any of the three specific types of taxes listed in the Constitution. Roberts justifying his decision by the government's power to tax implies there is a general, unlimited power to tax. There is no such power in the Constitution given to the federal government. Why he did it only he knows. If he felt personally that it was the moral thing to do, or that if was the best social or economic answer to medical costs, or if thuggish politicos threatened to expose some deep dark horrible secret about him or his family, only he knows. But none of those motivations are judicially justified.

You sir, put my thoughts in a much more articulate way, then I ever could.
Well put!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, especially so when it comes to the Constitution.

You know, before you start swinging and patting yourself on the back, you should make sure you know what you're talking about. Maybe use paragraphs, and intelligible language.

If you read the article, she lost her insurance almost a year ago, before the mandated date. Not now. Why is this news now? Oh right, it fits your agenda *now*. So United long pulled out of Cali after announcing it, what? Oh almost a year prior! So it was a known fact it was going away.

Do you take people in when they lose their house to foreclosure when they knew they were going to lose it for a year? No, you tell them "too effing bad you leech!"

But this is about cancer. Cancer is bad, everyone knows someone who's died of cancer.

As far as my personal insurance, I won't be losing mine, we've long changed plans with BCBS that fit the model for Obamacare. And infact its less expensive than my prior insurance. Clean the mud off your face. :rotf2:

As far as my beliefs in the system, I don't trust it, sorry to burst your bubble. And I think people who throw around "oh I know YOU trust him" are complete losers. Enjoy being on ignore.

I'm not sure her being dumped a year ago means all that much. What's more important is that UHC is leaving the individual market in California because they don't make any money.

Employer provided insurance shifts all the time, I have to change every few years and with it doctors and coverage change. Should I be outraged also?

-spence

Very interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpe...lth-insurance/

-spence