Mr. Wynand Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) Should the government provide health care for them? Edited December 23, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maken Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 No. Need is not a value. I feel for them and wish to help them. In an Objectivist society, finding care for them would not be difficult in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 Should the government provide health care for them? Could you be more specific? Do you mean should they have health insurance and compensation for disabilities incurred in the course of their duties provided by their employer? If that is your question they already do. Or are you referring to the political grandstanding that has been going on to offer additional compensation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 I think it's really quite sad that members of Congress are trying to look good by pushing this issue. If there ever was a charity cause that does not need government support, this would be it. If you were to ask me to choose an issue on which to base an American-centered fundraising campaign, the issue that I could raise the most money for, I might very well choose this one. They can't even pretend their usual "responding to need" B.S. here. It's pure political point-scoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 I suggest this excellent read for anyone who has questions on this issue: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/davy_crockett_and_charity.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 An act of choice, mo matter how heroic, does not necessitate an act of force in the name of honor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wynand Posted December 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2010 (edited) Could you be more specific? Do you mean should they have health insurance and compensation for disabilities incurred in the course of their duties provided by their employer? If that is your question they already do. Or are you referring to the political grandstanding that has been going on to offer additional compensation? Honestly I haven't studied this issue very much, but I've seen these sob stories where 9/11 responders are suffering from cancer probably from the chemicals etc at ground zero. But does public employee insurance already cover situations like this? Edited December 24, 2010 by Mr. Wynand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted December 24, 2010 Report Share Posted December 24, 2010 But does public employee insurance already cover situations like this? This is really the heart of the answer. I would assume that as part of their employment they have contracted health plans. The questions then becomes "is their condition provably resulting from some 9/11 exposure" and "should such exposure and resulting condition have been reasonably covered by their contracted health plan"? Courts would be involved if there were cause to think appropriate coverage is being denied. Additionally, I don't see how they could NOT consider this a workman's compensation issue IF the conditions resulted from their exposure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.