Headphones, Running and the Government (Page 3)

So, if my taxes go to pay for medicare for folks with debilitating illnesses that require lifelong care, and we can diagnose these in the womb, or better yet, can determine that two parents will give birth to someone with that condition, under that theory, we should be in favor of abortion or sterilization.  That's the "smart" thing, isn't it?

ETA - NB, obviously an extreme example to make a point, not advocating the point

I'm more of the opinion that IF a pedestrian is involved in an accident, and they had their headphones on (or were yakking away on a cell phone), then you could hit them with a bigger fine.  But just banning those activities outright seems heavy-handed.  But maybe in legal circles, such a distinction isn't possible.

And I might be wrong, but my guess is that FAR more auto/pedestrian accidents are the fault of distracted drivers, not distracted pedestrians.

Thank God this is from Arkansas this time. So often it is my fair commonwealth that proposes such inanity

Wikipedia:

In May 2004 in Louisiana, state legislator Derrick Shepherd proposed a bill that would make it a crime to appear in public wearing trousers below the waist and thereby exposing one's skin or "intimate clothing".^[36] The Louisiana bill was retracted^{[by whom?]} after negative public reaction.

In February 2005, Virginia legislators tried to pass a similar law that would have made punishable by a $50 fine: "any person who, while in a public place, intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner". (It is not clear whether, with the same coverage by the trousers, exposing underwear was considered worse than exposing bare skin, or whether the latter was already covered by another law.) The law passed in the Virginia House of Delegates. However, various criticisms to it arose. For example, newspaper columnists and radio talk show hosts consistently said that since most people that would be penalized under the law would be young African-American men, the law would thus be a form of discrimination against them. Virginia's state senators voted against passing the law.^[37][38]

Carol Broussard, mayor of Delcambre, said^[when?] that he will sign the proposal unanimously passed by town councillors, so that wearing trousers that reveal one's underwear will lead to a $500 penalty and the risk of six months in jail. "If you expose your private parts, you'll get a fine," said Mr Broussard. He told the Associated Press that people wearing low-slung trousers are "better off taking the pants off and wearing a dress." Ted Ayo, town attorney, said that the new legislation would expand on existing indecent exposure laws in Louisiana: "This is a new ordinance that deals specifically with sagging pants. It's about showing off your underwear in public". Mr. Broussard has received local criticism for the ordinance, with some Delcambre residents claiming that the proposal is racially motivated, due to the popularity of "sagging pants" among black hip-hop fans. However, he responded: "White people wear sagging pants, too."^{[citation needed]}

I get to "choose" from the one healthcare provider my company has decided to use, or to venture on my own to get individual coverage (which is not afforable ).  So technically I suppose there is a "choice", but I do not realistically have a choice of providers.

The problem I have with your "free market" approach is nobody wants to cover the sick, as it's not profitable.  Every company wants to cover the healthy people who pay premiums and infrequently make claims, no company wants to cover the population with pre-existing or expensive conditions whose claims exceed their premiums.

In your free-market scenario, how does it handle those cases?  Drop them from coverage?  Charge them for the full cost of their treatments and care?    

I would very much rather it not be tied to employer.  Especially since losing a job can easily cause a disruption in coverage.  In that we agree.

Where we disagree is that it would be WORSE for the government to provide it.

This still hasn't addressed how a non-employer bound free-market system is helpful to those with expensive long-term care type conditions.  IE, diseases like cancer, MS.  How would they be covered under the free-market system?  What profit-motivated insurance provider will offer to cover them at other than exorbitant premiums?  Or is the answer, "tough cookies, you have an expensive to treat condition, you pay for it"?

"If you expect to buy a policy for a cheap premium with the guarantee that you are going to make a claim and your claim is going to be much more than you put in, that is no longer insurance, that is a handout."

Except that's exactly what insurance does.  It pools the risk across a larger group (today, your risk pool is your fellow employees).  The expectation is that the cost of claims of the group will be less than the total premiums paid by the group. 

The larger the pool, the more evenly the "burden" is spread, providing for the lowest average premium cost to each individual in the pool.  This is why individuals ( a pool of 1 ) face such large premiums if they try to self-insure, and why small businesses also face large premiums.

If getting back more than you put in is a handout, then you are classifying anyone who makes a claim as receiving handouts, and should be dropped from insurance.

What then is the point of insurance ( as you see it ), if you are not allowed to make a claim greater than the amount you've paid in?

I also agree that health insurance does not equal health care.  I think that everyone should be entitled to health care, in a so-called civilized society.  If the healthy are unwilling to help the sick, the strong unwilling to help the weak, is that really the society you want us to strive to become?  It absolutely means that some will bear more burden than others, yes, I don't understand why that is looked down upon as something bad.