Why don't liberals start more charities?

A solution for health care insurance

Published on October 6, 2007 By Draginol In Democrat

The far left in the United States are outraged that Bush vetoed the bill that would have provided "free" health insurance to minors.

When these discussions get going, I am always amazed that the obvious solution isn't taken: Start charities that provide health insurance to the "needy".

It wouldn't be that hard to do. Those who really feel strongly about paying for health insurance for other people could donate to these charities. Then, those who wanted said health insurance would send in their past year's tax return along with proof of children and then be given health insurance for that child.

These kinds of charities already exist for people who have a random illness like cancer, breast cancer, childhood diseases, etc. So what is the difference? The difference from my limited research is that most of these charities and their fund raising are performed by conservatives (particularly religious conservatives).

As was documented in the excellent book "Who really cares" American liberals have replaced concrete action with political belief. To them, posting a blog or protesting or some other symbolic but ultimately futile gesture is the same as actually doing something.

For this reason, American liberals are much more inclined to support federal government provided projects for the needy because it takes the burden of having to do anything to back up their political beliefs. The sacrifice and effort is transferred to other people (typically people who disagree with their views and are hence demonized by the left even as those they demonized are, as a practical matter, the ones actually doing the doing).

It is a pity conservatives aren't more inclined to step up and ask "Why not start a charity?" when an advocate of a socialist policy starts railing for some new government welfare program. After all, the left routinely says "Why don't you volunteer for the military?" when a conservative supports US foreign policy.

Comments (Page 7)

Locamama

on Oct 08, 2007

You're proving my point. The option of getting a lower priced insurance policy doesn't even seem to occur to you.

What these people are too stupid to see if they would qualify for another plan? Not everyone qualifies for the lowest rates. Their children were on chip and they had a car accident. If the children weren't on chip they would have probably lost their house because of medical bills.

My best friend and her husband picked a policy when he went to work for a different company. They kicked them off of it because she has high blood pressure and they had to go to a more expensive plan. They are not with the more expensive plan because it has bells and whistles. It is actually a high deductible plan. They are with the more expensive plan because that is the one that would cover them. Is this rocket science? Just because you plug some numbers into an internet calculator does not mean you will actually qualify for those plans or those rates.

Does the fact that insurance premiums have increased by 78% in the last five years not give you any pause? It's not that all these people are too stupid to get a lower priced plan, it's that they can't.

Draginol

on Oct 08, 2007

I get it - rich people are more conservative because they don't want to lose what they have

Unfortunately, you don't get it. Conservatives tend to be richer because they of their philosophy towards life.

My world view wasn't radically or even significantly different when I was in college and broke.

I'm not afraid to lose what I have. I am afraid of men with guns (the government) stealing what I have earned.

You, like most liberals, have a fundamental lack of understanding about "rich people". I can do far more good with my earnings for society than the government can.

If the rich were simply massive consumers, they wouldn't be rich. The rich are wise investors - that's why they're rich.

The government is a proven poor investor.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2007

Does the fact that insurance premiums have increased by 78% in the last five years not give you any pause?

Do you want last year's cures? You can have 1960 medicine at the same price or less than in 1960. Insurance is a reflection of the cost. as they find newer and better ways to treat diseases, they make them available - at a cost that includes developing the cures.

So you can have 21st century cures, or 1960 cures. You decide, and then you can try to dictate what a person is going to work for. But as we have seen, it usually results in people not working their butts off for what amounts to 25 cents an hour.

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 08, 2007

Does the fact that insurance premiums have increased by 78% in the last five years not give you any pause?

Does it escape your attention that gas prices have TRIPLED in the last SEVEN years? How about the fact that food costs have increased, although not as drastically, certainly significantly. None of these facts are a valid argument for a socialist state, which you are proposing. Do you really want viability to determine whether or not care is received? What will you say to the mother who has struggled for years to have a child that has to watch hers die on the table because it was born dangerously underweight and the doctors will do nothing. Is that a stretch? Nope. Countries with socialized medicine do this routinely.

It's not that all these people are too stupid to get a lower priced plan, it's that they can't.

PROVE IT! Prove that this family doesn't qualify for a reasonable rate plan; that $1200 is the cheapest they can get. Because I DON'T BUY IT, Loca!

The problem with talking points is that there are a billion holes in them.

cactoblasta

on Oct 08, 2007

In fact, cacto all but admitted they allow the elderly to die because it's not cost efficient to treat them.

No I didn't. But organ transplants are prioritised for those who will get the most use out of them. The elderly will go on the waiting list, but they'll go at the back. Children who have fifty or sixty years of life ahead of them with a transplant shouldn't miss out because some 85-year-old, with 10 years ahead of them, wants it.

Daiwa

on Oct 08, 2007

There's universal healthcare in a nutshell. Cacto, or some other benevolent soul who knows "better" than you, decides.

The fundamental flaw in the argument for universal health care is the claim that there isn't enough money to go around, which is a false premise.

cactoblasta

on Oct 08, 2007

The fundamental flaw in the argument for universal health care is the claim that there isn't enough money to go around, which is a false premise.

Okay, you're obviously not getting it. We need more organs. It's that simple. More organs, we can fix more people. Fewer organs, some will miss out. You can't just buy organs. They have to be donated. They have to come from someone who's dies in hospital and is on the register. We need more organs to fix everyone.

Have I made it clearer or do you still think it's a matter of too little money?

Understaffed hospitals tend to be a result of inadequate trained workers and poor working conditions - in Oz at least anyway. We give our doctors training colleges too much independence in how many they train and we don't pay our nurses enough, although they make even less in the private system so it clearly wouldn't be any better if it was all private.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2007

We need more organs. It's that simple. More organs, we can fix more people. Fewer organs, some will miss out. You can't just buy organs. They have to be donated. They have to come from someone who's dies in hospital and is on the register. We need more organs to fix everyone.

I get it now, but unless I am mistaken, I dont like the direction you are headed.

Harvesting?

danielost

on Oct 08, 2007

how do you know that said kid will not go out and get run over the day he/she gets out of the hospital.

100

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 08, 2007

Actually, I'll argue the opposite. A 6 year old who needs a kidney transplant will consume more transplants over their lifetime. It's rare for a single transplant at that age to last. Factor in the cost of the drug regimen they will have to take the rest of their life and the lost productivity over their lifespan and it's a losing gamble. The 85 year old, on the other hand, has already proven their contribution to society.

There is no fair way to decide who gets transplants. Someone's going to get the short end of the shift. Most people in America acknowledge the shortcomings of our system; your fatal flaw is arguing the superiority of yours.

Also, it's good ol' Darwinism, man. If we can keep kids with congenital diseases from reaching breeding age we strengthen the gene pool.

(walks away whistling while you all get yer knickers in a twist over THAT!)

101

Daiwa

on Oct 08, 2007

Actually, I more than "get it." I live it every day, cacto. Prioritizing organ transplants is an issue independent of the financing mechanism & has nothing to do, per se, with the universal health care argument, because you are right - it has nothing to do with money.

102

Daiwa

on Oct 08, 2007

how do you know that said kid will not go out and get run over the day he/she gets out of the hospital.

Or go on to become a serial killer?

103

Jythier

on Oct 09, 2007

We either need to create artificial organs, or create a supply of organs some other way. Either way, first-come first-serve doesn't work. Prioritizing leaves the people most likely to live normal lives with a transplant at the bottom of the list, never getting the transplant.

104

Daiwa

on Oct 09, 2007

Prioritizing leaves the people most likely to live normal lives with a transplant at the bottom of the list, never getting the transplant.

In some cases, as in cardiac & liver transplantation, the sickest are usually near the top of the list, that's true. But those in greatest need should be given some preference when allocating limited resources, don't you think?

105

Jythier

on Oct 09, 2007

I don't know. It feels utilitarian to me. Which brings more happiness, more people living, or less people living but those who are living having close to normal lives?

Who has the greatest need, and does it only have to do with their sickness? What if someone is close to finding a cure, but they need some transplant in order to function well enough to continue working, but would be able to live for a while without a transplant, but not work? What do you do then? There's too many variables in choosing who lives. What if you have two people who are close to a cure, but only one organ? Now who do you choose? What if two people come in at the same time, for the same problem, with the same health condition, with the same prognosis needing the same transplant? Is it down to which doctor signs them onto the list first? What if the doctors put them on the list at the exact same time? Who gets the one organ?

Life really can't be fair, and arbitrarily picking who gets medical treatment really sucks. But I don't have a better way. I'm just glad it's not my responsibility.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!