Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Correspondence and Coherence blog

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm not so sure I've acted in my self interest raising this issue...  Also, I have misunderstood and/or been negligent in honestly seeking the motivations of Merlin... justice demands an apology

I didn't see a forum where I thought this post fits well. If the moderators want to move it to another forum , that's okay. Anyway, I've been posting to this blog for a while, and believe some would f

I appreciate all the links Merlin makes to his blog entries. They are informative, and convenient for me to go to from here. I don't get to follow up with comments usually, because I'm on other things

Posted Images

Thanks for the look into MacIntyre's famous book. My own take on moral debates has been and is that there are no incommensurable moral premises; parties only need to be willing to dig deeper. There is deeper to be dug concerning human psychology including moral psychology--digging both in developmental moral psychology and in philosophical analysis. That goes not only for the opponent concerns you exhibited from MacIntyre's text, but for the contrasting outlook of taking the making of one's life a good one (in the circumstances) to be the essence of morality with taking one's treatment of persons as persons to be the essence of morality. The debate and progress in the debate can go on, even if particular thinkers and particular eras have finished their own engagements over the questions without getting beyond certain impasses between the outlooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, merjet said:

Pre-existing conditions

The ACA issue is a smoke and mirrors gambit that pitting one small group against another small group in the population.

But it's promise is regarding most average earners stuck in a healthcare system that is "rigged" to have excessive costs.

The actual solution is a separation of government from economics of healthcare.

But the only solutions available to choose from is one kind of government intervention vs. another.

The fundamental choice is to be entangled in a crony capitalist "scam", with potentially bankruptcy causing situation vs. tolerating an inter generational malaise in the economy that could lead to loss of other freedoms too.

It used to be, we could all suddenly develop a condition that would be considered a preexisting condition that would make you uninsurable. Meaning, uninsurable in the normal market. You could have gotten insurance as much as your rent from the government.

A preexisting condition could simply be "you show signs of aging in this organ", it is somewhat arbitrary.

That is why it is so personal for most people.

Clearly an actual all encompassing free market is the best solution.

But the way it is, is in fact a choice between two poisons. The reason that McCain went against Trump in keeping the ACA was in fact that the Republicans had not proposed anything to solve the "rigged system" problem. Nowadays, the ACA is the norm.

The ACA solution now has causes excessive risk for another group of people. 

Those who make too much to get help from the government who could have paid before.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy Truth,

A huge step to a free market for health insurance health would get away from government interference. The the two-part structure of the market for people under age 65 needs radically altered. The individual market suffers because the group insurance market has been made too big, which is much attributable to government intervention.

Employer-paid Health Insurance
Employer-sponsored health insurance #1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, merjet said:

A huge step to a free market for health insurance health would get away from government interference. The the two-part structure of the market for people under age 65 needs radically altered. The individual market suffers because the group insurance market has been made too big, which is much attributable to government intervention.

Yes, but who is actually offering a free market for health insurance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Yes, but who is actually offering a free market for health insurance?

Some doctors do on a concierge basis. The structural change I described would push out government interference and employers, leaving the matter between insurer and insured.

Edited by merjet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...