?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
29 June 2012 @ 10:20 am
I think I just realized something  
So I follow Joe Bethancourt on Facebook, because I like his music and am willing to overlook his politics. And he posts lots of things about, "What part of my property do you think you have the right to steal?" in response to the Affordable Care Act.

I haven't been able to formulate an answer.

I think I've figured it out. From my perspective, he's asking the wrong question, and that's why I can't answer it.

The question *I* ask is, "We live in a society that conveys many advantages. How can we most fairly distribute those advantages while not constraining personal incentive and creativity?"

I have no problem with people who invent really cool things, or provide really cool services, being fabulously wealthy. I have no problem with the idea that a job requiring 25 years of training pays more than a job that doesn't require that kind of investment.

I do have a problem with a society and culture that treats people who do the day-to-day work of maintaining the infrastructure (by which I mean both public infrastructure like road builders and forest rangers and police and teachers and firefighters, and private infrastructure like custodians and secretaries and house builders and factory workers) -- or who are unable to work because of disability, or who are able to work but cannot find a job because the economy is broken -- as disposable and worthless.
 
 
Shadow/Brookekengr on June 29th, 2012 09:14 pm (UTC)
Actually, if he already *has* health insurance, then it doesn't really affect him.

If he *doesn't*, given the "you can't turn people down for pre-existing conditions" part of the law, then when he'd *get* insurance (because of a need, obviously), then *he'd* be stealing from the insurance companies because they'd have not gotten the premiums he'd have been paying before then, which would help offset the extra costs he'd be saddling them with *because* of the pre-existing condition.

That's the thing, to make the "must accept people with pre-existing conditions" work, you *must* either require everyone to get insurance *or* you must have the government as the payer of the premiums.

I somehow think he'd like that second option less.

Me, I'd prefer it, because low income folks *are* in a bind. If I hadn't managed to luck out and get far enough up the waiting list to get on the Oregon Health Plan, I'd be studying the rules about exceptions to the fines *very* carefully because I'd not be able to pay for insurance (not given the premiums I last saw when I *could* afford it)

And if he wants to drop the "must accept pre-existing conditions" rule, well, that *does* fall under the willfully ignoring social responsibilities bit.