Sad
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

On the State of Politics

I'm what you might describe as a "bleeding heart liberal." My biggest issue is health care. I work in insurance, and I talk to so many people in poverty on a daily basis that are struggling with healthcare. It's heart-breaking. So politically, I'm typically going to side with whichever candidate is going to help those people get the care they need.

But let me be very clear on this.

If "my candidate" lined up completely with me on policies, but promised to be a dictator on day one, disdained the constitution, tried to throw out votes from mail-in electors to get herself elected, refused to accept the results after the courts ruled on it, and blew off the time-honored tradition in this country of a peaceful transfer of power... I would 100% be voting for "your guy" instead. I honestly don't understand how this is even a live issue for discussion.

God, I miss Regan.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
MasterLee · 56-60, M
Health care needs competition. We need private insurance sold across state lines. The government needs to be completely agnostic.

Communism kills.
ShadowSister · 46-50, F
@MasterLee I used to believe this. And it certainly makes sense on the surface. Competition is good. The free market drives prices down.

I few things about it give me pause. First, we don't have competition in reference to other public services. The fire department is a public service, and yet that seems to work just fine. I don't have to buy a private policy in order to have the fire department protect me. Same with the Post Office (though if any government office could benefit from a little competition, they sure could)! We could find lots of public services do exactly what they are supposed to do, and we don't call any of them "communism."

Second, we intuitively think of health care in similar terms as we think of public services. If someone goes to the ER, we expect them to be treated. If the person is released when they shouldn't be because they "didn't have the right insurance," we view that is inhumane. But why? That is a private business. They shouldn't have any obligation to provide their services to someone just because there is a need. We don't expect grocery stores to give food to people just because they are hungry. Why do we expect that private health care providers would provide care? At least for myself, it's because it just feels like doctors should be in the same category as fire fighters and mail carriers. It's bizarre to me that we DON'T consider it a right as a citizen like we do those other things.

Finally, insurance is not a product in the same way that other items on the free market are products. You don't "get" anything for it. There's nothing physical, there's no services rendered. It's a financial game. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for that game. I've needed it as a beneficiary. And as a licensed sales agent, it's also what puts food on my table. But if there was no government intervention, I have no question that my company would only offer individual policies to the healthiest of individuals. I signed up a senior with a major heart condition for my company's plan earlier today. I have no doubt that we will give him the care he needs. But without the government requiring that we accept him without underwriting, there is NO WAY he would have ever gotten a policy.

To be fair, Medicare is kind of a hybrid. Beneficiaries can choose any healthcare company they want to administer their Medicare (as long as we have a contract with Medicare). Medicare pays the insurance company a flat fee to administer their Medicare. Yet there is competition between carriers to see which of us can offer seniors the most benefits.

It's just sad to me that, with few exceptions, you can only get into this system after you turn 65. Before then, well, you're on your own. Hope you have good employer coverage. Or else it sucks to be you.