Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Corollary: You are crunchy and, with enough BBQ sauce, palatable.
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||The Bill To Permanently Fix Health Care For All; entered at 2017-05-08 22:05:40|
You got banhammered because you were warned and kept trying to wave an aborted fetus around in rhetorical terms. I will not stand for that **** and I will make an example out of you, since you did it in public.|
It is clear that:
1. There is NO just answer in cost-shifting a $750,000 per year cost to others. Going to work for someone with such a condition to get on their "group" plan is GROSS THEFT from everyone else who works there; if the place employs 1,000 people you're proposing to STEAL $750 per worker, per year, FOREVER plus administrative expenses -- and they don't get a vote. Worse, the employer is COMPELLED to conspire with the applicant AND CONCEAL THE CONDITION and its expense to the existing staff. Such a condition a LITERAL $37 million dollar theft from others, assuming the person lives to a mere 50 years old! You have the BALLS to demand that others pay that? In doing so you argue that ANY LESSER cost condition must ALSO be covered in full. WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY AND CANNOT RAISE IT.
2. The ONLY way to solve this problem that can actually WORK is to provide a PROFIT incentive for people to beat each other over the head until someone figures out how to make that affordable -- which means to whack SEVERAL zeros off the cost. If it's $7,500, he might be able to pay it. At $750,000, not a prayer in Hell. Only TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT will bring that cost reduction by a factor of 100 -- if it can be done at all. It MIGHT be impossible.
This sort of situation is flatly outside of the purview of any ordinary view of a "social contract." There simply are things we CAN do technically but are not OBLIGATED to do -- they're just flatly impossible to provide on demand to everyone who wants or needs them. By breaking the medical monopolies and demanding "America first" pricing for pharmaceuticals we MIGHT get a breakthrough that makes this sort of event affordable, or we might not. But what is certain is that we CAN'T provide everyone who might need it $750,000 worth of medical treatment every year for LIFE.
You claim that it's unreasonable to drop into medical indigence. I claim that it's FAR WORSE to BANKRUPT an employer, putting EVERYONE in the firm out of work or steal thousands per person who works for said firm AT GUNPOINT, which is what you propose. The bill outline proposed provides a safety net. Yes, it results in the person in question winding up with a MONSTROUS tax liability they'll never pay, and when they die it will die with them. But in the meantime they have an incentive to get together with others and people in the medical field to FIND ANSWERS, instead of the system we have now which simply shoves off the $750,000 ON OTHER PEOPLE at gunpoint, with a LITERAL gun up their nose, destroys employers and puts EVERYONE in the place out of work and ultimately winds up with EVERYONE who comes into professional contact with this person that applies somewhere on food stamps and public assistance while yet another business is rendered to ash.
I am not going to play the "flying carcass of the aborted baby" game here with you or anyone else. It's an argument that has no place in THIS debate on public policy.
Yes, there's a public policy debate to be had on this but it needs to be HONEST and FORTHRIGHT: Do you have the right to demand tens of millions of dollars from other people because you had a misfortune of genetics?
THAT is the debate you raised and it's NOT one of health care and its delivery.