Good Point Grove
Good points, OakTree. To be honest, I had never even considered the lack of choice in health insurance compared to auto insurance. But I should have because that's what's always pissed me off so much about my own health insurance. I'm lucky enough to get it through my employer, but it's really annoying to have no options in something that is so important to have.
I suspect they think both their employees and local readership has no other choice. It's time to disabuse them of such arrogance.
Cancel your subscription. Speak with your wallet. Support our local news outlets. Memphis Flyer, Choose901, I Love Memphis, etc. Show these corporate clowns that they messed with the wrong city.
@nobody - You are correct. The comparison to car insurance isn't apt for a number of reasons. Insurance, by definition, is something which you have a choice in purchasing. Even in the case of cars, you have a choice to not drive, and thus avoid car insurance. the same is not true of health insurance, because you can't choose to not have a body. Yet anyway... Heh... Also, you can shop for car insurance, whereas in much of the healthcare market, there is only one provider of insurance. Additionally, when your car is damaged, you have adjusters, and they will find various shops which can fix the problem, and bid on it. In health care, that really doesn't happen, because the doctors don't have the bargaining power, generally. And there aren't real comparisons with the different modalities of treatment as well.
Good spin job by Mulroy. He got one thing right: Trumpcare, Ryancare, Obamacare Lite would not work.
I'll give you the arguments.
First from the GOP side:
It's wrong for the someone from within the US government to leak information about dealings of politicians. It's not wrong for unbiased outside sources to leak information about a political candidate that does nothing other than to help inform the voting public about the integrity of said candidate, especially when the operations of said candidate were posing a national security risk.
From the Dem side:
It's wrong for someone to leak information during the middle of an election cycle with hopes of influencing the election, especially when the leaking entity is an outside source, likely tied to another country trying to tamper in our election results. It's not wrong for people within the government to hold others accountable by leaking information about the corruption that they see, especially when it's not influencing election outcomes, only serving to out existing corruption and pressure our politicians into fair action.
Did I cover that well enough? Point being, depending on which side of the fence you're on, you can and will build your argument about why one is wrong and the other is fair game.
Barf - that's true and the average life span was 40 because people died from common, curable ailments.
Grove - there are plenty of people who want insurance but can't afford it because they're paying everything they have for food and shelter.
What you're saying makes sense to me. I just think it's cruel and heartless. So what if a person who has been struggling all their working life to make ends meet only gets insurance when they need it? It really doesn't bother me at all.
In my opinion, Single Payer is the way to go. Outside of that, keep the mandate. Further punishing poor people who get sick because they couldn't afford insurance when they were healthy is wrong.
If humans need medical care to live, then they should make sure they're paying into that system even when they're healthy. If you don't pay when healthy, you shouldn't expect cheap coverage when you're not healthy.
If the system doesn't work that way, then no one healthy will pay into it, which causes the whole system to collapse.
So in that way, yes, it's a completely valid comparison. I'm not talking about what the coverage is for, just the fact that you shouldn't be allowed to go and get it only when you need it. That's not the way insurance works, and it'll never work that way. The point of insurance is that you pay when you don't need it, so that you have it when you do need it (regardless of what you're insuring).
If you don't pay for it when you don't need it, then yes you should have to pay substantially more if you try to get it when you do need it.
Why does that not make sense to you? Just because we're talking about human life doesn't mean that the economics of insurance are all of a sudden different.
If you want to have a system where subsidies are offered to the poor, I'm fine with that, but they better use those subsidies to purchase insurance if they want to have reasonable rates when they do actually get sick. If they don't use those subsidies to get insurance when they're healthy, then they should have to deal with the out of pocket expense that comes with not being responsible.
You don't "need" medical care to live or exist. Humanity existed and even managed to thrive for thousands of years, during which medical care consisted of homespun wisdom that as often as not resolved the health issue by killing the patient or by paying homage to a witch doctor.
No, the auto insurance comparison is not accurate because humans need medical care to live. We don't need to get our cars fixed in order to simply exist. I don't think anybody ever died because their car was damaged.
The ultimate "punishment" for people who don't get necessary health care can be death. I don't mind if a poor person gets to pay less than me as long as they get to live.
It is very disheartening to see the editors choosing to put so many employees under the bus and run over them, I am considering dropping my subscription and I have had a subscription for 35 years. I can get national news and state news elsewhere. Such a stupid choice the managers, editors and owners have made to drop Michael Donahue, Beth Gooch and so many other long term dedicated employees. Shame upon all involved in this decision.
That is a pretty big and poorly thought out- leap to make. Applying your same summation to other cities, NYC, Boston, San Francisco and Chicago must be outright inbred and simplistic towns. Hard to imagine that a relic like Brooklyn could be so dynamic. Come to think of it, maybe there is something to this relic status.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but todays example of modernity is destined to follow one of two paths: become tomorrows bemoaned fad or historic fodder. Most of the recent higher profile projects in Midtown have fallen into the box of Modernity (no pun intended) by one definition or another. To demolish a high-quality example of historic design simply to be replaced with its modern counterpart is asinine as it boils down not to a question of logic but the subjective matter of taste in design. Memphiss only unique status in the realm of historic preservation is the extremely weak role it plays when compared to other cities nationally. You can hardly blame residents knee-jerk bias towards preservation both here and throughout the country when the call for modernity in all aspects of design and urban planning is what essentially created the great sprawl and much of the 1950s-1970s blight we are burdened with today. If not for this desire for preservation, even the latest example of modernity is not likely to survive more than a couple of decades (in a healthy market).
My personal issue with architectural design that could be defined as modern is more related to the inability of local architectural firms to create/and or implement great examples of such. I tend to listen when members of the local design crowd point to this or that example of the city's great modern design, specifically when said examples fall flat in both concept and execution compared to even the more mundane precedents found in other cities. Quite frankly, so much of what has been built locally along those lines appear to be more cheap knock-offs of the pretty pictures the designers have seen in Architectural Record, Azure and Metropolis as opposed to examples of true ingenuity or creativity.
A great example would be the recently proposed strip shopping center on Union: sure it's new, but whether it trumps the bastardized design of the Loeb strip center at Belvedere and Union is subjective. It seems likely to become a ho-hum brown box with just as much spirit and character as the brick bimbo down the street. That being the case, its success will not be determined by its adherence to and execution of design principles, but by its vacancy/lease rate in a couple years after the new has worn off. There is also that masonry pile UT just erected on Health Sciences (Forest) Park. While I rather like the entry itself, the remainder of the faade throws up a visual blank wall against the Medical Districts open space centerpiece. I suppose we should have seen it coming considering that the buildings on the west side of the same park along Manassas contain not one door opening to the street or the park beyond. At least we know what UT thinks about that park and the public realm and the neighborhood in general. It would all be funny if it were not so tragic.
Answer to Richard Thompson's question: They think the readers are extremely stupid.
I wouldn't mind it if I've got the option to buy extra insurance to help ensure I get good coverage and also get some priority for appointments. Don't get me started on defense spending. While I recognize that defense spending is a necessity and a societal need, it's full of over-spending and waste.
The comparison to auto insurance is accurate though, because you shouldn't be able to avoid paying into the system and then expect similar rates when you finally have an emergency. That's punishing those of us that paid insurance premiums while we're healthy all those years.
If the goal is to ensure that people pay into the pot, keeping premiums down, then you can't just give people the option to wait for an emergency and only pay when they have expenses coming up. I don't believe in a system that rewards people who refuse to pay into the pot and punishes those of us that do. I've been paying for health insurance for over a decade now without a major medical emergency. I've been subsidizing the elderly and the sickly for all of that time. I should be rewarded when I do become older and sickly with not having to pay as much as the person who hasn't been paying for the past decade.
If I get to be 60 years old and have cancer, and I have to pay the same out of pocket as a guy who is 60 years old, has cancer, and just for the first time is trying to enter the insurance market, that's BS and completely unfair.
Forgive me if I compare your cancer to getting your car totaled, but I don't see any logical reason why you SHOULDN'T have to pay more if you get cancer and just then decide to pay into the pot. It's a thing called personal responsibility, and if you refuse to plan for your unhealthy years, then yes, you should have ridiculously high medical bills to have to deal with, because you failed to plan. We absolutely should NOT reward failure to plan with government dollars. It makes no sense.
If reason is going to prevail, it will have to do it district by district.
And there's the rub....
@BP45 - Memphis has always welcomed density. (blinks) (blinks again)
and Waters survives?
Grove - why do you assume there would be long wait times on an American Single Payer health care system? People on Medicare don't experience longer wait times.
And, insurance only works if there are tons of people paying into the pool. I mean, the CEO's have to make HUGE salaries, right? Those poor insurance companies can't afford to pay out thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars per claim unless there are a lot of people paying in. I can pay in to insurance all my life, but if I get in a some kind of horrible accident, I won't have enough of my own money in the pot to cover the outrageous costs.
I'm really getting tired of the auto insurance comparison. Yes, they are both insurance, but do you really think a car is as important as a human life? Driving is not a right, and it should not be a right. Health care is not a right, but it should be.
By Chris McCoy
download this issue
click here to see more »