Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 12:49:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured?  (Read 3576 times)
Jeffster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483
« on: May 08, 2017, 01:59:19 PM »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

Women utilize more healthcare spending than men, so wouldn't it be fair to have separate risk pools, one for men and one for women?
Logged
Jeffster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2017, 02:31:32 PM »
« Edited: May 08, 2017, 02:49:05 PM by Jeffster »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

Women utilize more healthcare spending than men, so wouldn't it be fair to have separate risk pools, one for men and one for women?

How far do you want to take that?  Old people use more than young people, so should there be risk pools for different age groups (and how many different age groups)?  Or you can slice the population any number of other ways.  The bigger the risk pool, the better it is for the overall population.  Yes, this means that the healthy subsidize the sick.  That's the way insurance works: those who don't use it subsidize those who do.  It's the same with home insurance, car insurance, or any other kind.

As I understand it, the main objection that many people have is that they don't want to be forced to subsidize the health care of others.  You can debate whether it's moral and/or legal to force everyone to participate in such a scheme; after much thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that it's both, but I recognize that there are reasonable arguments against this.  However, if you accept that everybody is going to be covered, then putting everyone in the same pool is the best way to do it.

The men/women divide is the biggest slice you could make, as it falls somewhere in the neighborhood of 49/51. So what we'd get with one large pool is a transfer of income from men to women.  I'm not talking about dividing it by smaller and smaller groups. Among both men and women groups, we expect there to be healthy and sick, and young and old, so their pools would still have to cover the sub-groups that use more healthcare because most people will get sick at some point and most people will grow old, but they aren't about to suddenly wake up as the opposite sex and have to deal with those sex-specific health care concerns.

In fact why is it the wage gap conspiracy theorists never bring up the fact that men pay in more for health insurance and taxes than they take out compared to women? Men have been subsidizing women with their incomes for years, but we're supposed to care that a woman with a gender studies degree doesn't earn the same amount than a man with an engineering degree.
Logged
Jeffster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2017, 03:26:29 PM »

Women utilize more healthcare spending than men, so wouldn't it be fair to have separate risk pools, one for men and one for women?

Covering at least one aspect of this - women also give birth to all the men, which brings into the fold all the healthcare-related complications and difficulties of pregnancy.

Why do I get a #MensRights vibe from you?

Women also give birth to all the women too, yet you don't want them to pay extra when they grow up, like you expect men to. Having children is a personal choice, if they don't want the expenses and difficulties then don't have kids. Why do I get a #Misandrist vibe from you?
Logged
Jeffster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2017, 03:34:26 PM »

I don't drive much, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay as much for maintaining our roads and bridges as people who drive 12,000 miles a year, right?

Huh? People who drive more do pay more in gas taxes and tolls.
Logged
Jeffster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2017, 03:43:01 PM »
« Edited: May 08, 2017, 03:52:14 PM by Jeffster »

Women utilize more healthcare spending than men, so wouldn't it be fair to have separate risk pools, one for men and one for women?

Covering at least one aspect of this - women also give birth to all the men, which brings into the fold all the healthcare-related complications and difficulties of pregnancy.

Why do I get a #MensRights vibe from you?

Women also give birth to all the women too, yet you don't want them to pay extra when they grow up, like you expect men to. Having children is a personal choice, if they don't want the expenses and difficulties then don't have kids. Why do I get a #Misandrist vibe from you?

Lol at this line of argument.

We aren't living in the Handmaid's tale, no matter how much of a meany you think Trump and the Republicans are, so if you don't want the costs and difficulties associated with child birth, then don't have kids. Saying that because some women give birth to men therefore all men should have to subsidize all women for the rest of their lives out of some sort of life debt is preposterous, when you don't require the same from women.
Logged
Jeffster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2017, 04:07:35 PM »

We aren't living in the Handmaid's tale, no matter how much of a meany you think Trump and the Republicans are, so if you don't want the costs and difficulties associated with child birth, then don't have kids. Saying that because women give birth to men therefore all men should have to subsidize all women for the rest of their lives out of some sort of life debt is preposterous, when you don't require the same from women.

My entire worldview is built on the idea that if we all pool our resources, no one has to needlessly suffer or face financial hardship for things like healthcare, and this is under the assumption I'd be subsidizing all sorts of problems other people face that I would very likely never have. I can definitely assure you I wouldn't be sitting here whining about subsidizing men if the roles were somehow reversed. I already help subsidize a range of activities I don't like with my tax dollars.

Get over your little male persecution complex already.

It's easy to have that worldview when you will be on the receiving end of those subsidies. Women tend to live longer, so you will most likely draw more on social security than you paid in, meanwhile way more men will die off before ever collecting a dime on their contributions. Your party gives no thought to men subsidizing women over their entire working lives, and instead focuses on every women's issue, no matter how small and petty, claiming there is a "war on women."  That certainly sounds like a female persecution complex to me.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 12 queries.