| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2005 12:25:00 PM |
| Object: |
A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
Despite the fear-mongering of some, the idea of a "darwinist morality"
is not an oxymoron. It can be defined simply, and if the time is taken
to do so; it becomes infinitely more tangible and reasonable than a
game played according to the rewards and punishments promised after you
die:
1 - We are creatures driven by instincts, which shape our knowledge,
skills and habits in response to environmental cues that our brain has
evolved to deal with.
2 - These instincts have evolved to serve the reproduction and survival
of our genes first and foremost. That we look after ourselves at all is
a side effect.
3 - The reproduction of our genes depends not just on their host vessel
(our body), but on a society and allies for the protection of them, a
mate for procreation, and offspring to carry the genes when we die.
4 - We have instincts that urge us to attract/encourage/protect these
other humans, and our relationships with them.
5 - To accept that we are driven by naturally-selected instincts;
presents as an option a future filled with nothing more that trying to
satisfy as many of these instincts as possible, as much as possible.
6 - Excess in any instinctive area, that results in neglect in every
other area, is damaging or fatal. (For example eating too much; only
exercising and never eating; always helping others and never looking
after your own health; always looking after your own health and being
afraid to go near any others, etc)
7 - Taking the option of as much instinctive satisfation as possible
would therefore involve a balance that must be refined with experience
over time.
8 - Figuring out how to socialise, serve the community and be
responsible for your family, and how to balance all these values with
your own health, and your own interests, are the central questions of
morality
9 - Balannce at least, and co-operation ideally, between instincts, for
the end goal of personal satisfaction; is a perfectly sound basis for a
moral life and will provide no shortage of noble, moral challenges.
One major objection is that it puts a value on people based,
presumably, on what pre-history has shown to be their value to our
genes. An average estimation of what their worth might be, calculated
genetically over countless generations, according to how well we know
them, whether we are related, how similar they are to us, etc.
The question of what worth the nameless individual human should be
recognised as having, and for what reasons; the quesetion of what
rights each and every able-minded human does have or ought to be
ascribed, is the first such moral challenge, living as we do (in the
west) with a deeply entrenched history of individual dignity and rights
(in theory, anyway).
Again a superficial dismissal is not enough, since a darwinist morality
would recognise basic human empathy, curiosity, and long-term
game-theory (how much would it cost to supress other people, how
productive is that really, how sustainable, will people put up with it,
how likely is it to come back and bite me?), as valid arguments for
assuming a default position of respect to any other human; assuming
that you can argue these motivations arise from healthy, natural
instincts.
But that is beyond the scope of this post. The pursuit of morality is
in the kinds of questions you ask, not in whether you get the same
answer as someone else.
In essence, I submit that there is nothing arbitrary, nor inconsistent
in choosing pluralistic, long-term, instinctive-satisfation as one's
moral compass.
Or in saying that playing this game well, is the moral ideal.
This account requires no mystical vagaries . No ghosts or gods, no
supernatural duties or karma, nothing but the recognition that we are
extremely social animals, and that our interests must be balanced if we
are to be happy.
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
11 Apr 2005 09:24:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1112981100.691300.26000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Despite the fear-mongering of some, the idea of a "darwinist morality"
is not an oxymoron. It can be defined simply, and if the time is taken
to do so; it becomes infinitely more tangible and reasonable than a
game played according to the rewards and punishments promised after you
die:
Overall, I agree with you. Have you been following my posts in the
"Ethics Discussion" thread?
1 - We are creatures driven by instincts, which shape our knowledge,
skills and habits in response to environmental cues that our brain has
evolved to deal with.
2 - These instincts have evolved to serve the reproduction and survival
of our genes first and foremost. That we look after ourselves at all is
a side effect.
There are genes that drive us, and there are genes that allow us. The
former or irrelevant to morality, you must do what you must do. The
latter are important though, they give you a choice. Why is that?
In these cases, the situation is often so complex that no "instinct" can
produce a good enough result often enough. We must determine the correct
course of action through analysis. The important point though, is that
the goal doesn't change, only the tools. The goal (as you mention) is
the reproduction and survival of our genes.
3 - The reproduction of our genes depends not just on their host vessel
(our body), but on a society and allies for the protection of them, a
mate for procreation, and offspring to carry the genes when we die.
The above, IMO is not an absolute. It was right for Ron to call you on
this issue. It happens to be the case that for a vast majority of humans
the above is true though.
4 - We have instincts that urge us to attract/encourage/protect these
other humans, and our relationships with them.
It's a curious love/hate relationship. On the one hand we must protect
these other humans because they share many of our genes (the goal is
gene survival, not individual survival.) However, we also must compete
with them over limited resources. This is why it is both right and good
to kill other humans at times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
11 Apr 2005 06:02:21 PM |
|
|
All that is required is the political will to stop feeding the
starving babies without sterilizing their mothers. Since that is
not possible, then the alternative will be a pathogen to reduce
the number of survivors who lack the access to adequate levels of
healthcare. Whether we like it or not, we dont have the money to
provide for everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
11 Apr 2005 09:45:08 PM |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:AaE6e.551$Q04.61866114@typhoon.cei.net...
All that is required is the political will to stop feeding the
starving babies without sterilizing their mothers. Since that is
not possible, then the alternative will be a pathogen to reduce
the number of survivors who lack the access to adequate levels of
healthcare. Whether we like it or not, we dont have the money to
provide for everyone.
Tsk. Either just another troll trying to steam things up or another
loon who forgot to take their daily meds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
11 Apr 2005 10:36:16 PM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote
All that is required is the political will to stop feeding the
starving babies without sterilizing their mothers. Since that
is not possible, then the alternative will be a pathogen to
reduce the number of survivors who lack the access to
adequate levels of healthcare. Whether we like it or not,
we dont have the money to provide for everyone.
Tsk. Either just another troll trying to steam things up or another
loon who forgot to take their daily meds.
They may be trolling -- who cares? -- but the sentiments
are genuine enough. America spends the most money, including
per capita, on healthcare, yet we rank 24th in life expectancy...
and even that requires us to go by the more generous ranking
method. If we go by the more usual method (simply noting the
age at which people die) then the United States ranks 46th.
It's pretty clear that the money the United States spends on
healthcare *Is* *Not* being divided close to equally, and
that's before I explain the difference between the two
life-expectancy ranking systems.
The first method -- the one more generous to the United
States -- only counts what it calls "Full Health," and
subtracts any & all years it describes as "Ill Heath."
The second, more traditional method simply notes
how long people live, and doesn't make any subjective
calls regarding the "Quality of life."
Regardless of which method you want to trust, the
United States ranks well behind other modern
economies (24th or 46th, as I already stated).
Again: The United States spends more money
on healthcare than any other nation on Earth, including
per capita spending.
You've heard of America, right? That's the country
where George Bush signed a law saying it was
okay to plug patients against their wishes & the
expressed wishes of the family... if they don't
have the cash.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
14 Apr 2005 01:27:27 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:UPidnUcliLGp3cbfRVn-
1A@comcast.com:
Regardless of which method you want to trust, the
United States ranks well behind other modern
economies (24th or 46th, as I already stated).
Again: The United States spends more money
on healthcare than any other nation on Earth, including
per capita spending.
Your thesis is preposterous. The US does not rank "well behind" other
industrialized nations. The difference in life expectancy is between the US
and the average for other large industrialized countries is less than 1
year --- a trivial difference. Furthermore, that small difference is
accounted for by the US's large and inhomogeneous population. Spending on
health care has little to do with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
14 Apr 2005 06:34:38 AM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
Your thesis is preposterous. The US does not rank
"well behind" other industrialized nations.
As I pointed out, we're 24th going by the more generous
ranking system, 46th in rank by the more trational
method of simply noting the age at which people die.
The difference in life expectancy is between the US
and the average for other large industrialized countries
is less than 1 year
No it isn't.
There's a six year difference between the United States
and Andorra, the top rated nation:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/life_expectancy_at_birth_2004_0.h
tml
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
14 Apr 2005 02:58:44 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:a4GdnXMnFMvSzsPfRVn-tQ@comcast.com:
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
Your thesis is preposterous. The US does not rank
"well behind" other industrialized nations.
As I pointed out, we're 24th going by the more generous
ranking system, 46th in rank by the more trational
method of simply noting the age at which people die.
The ranking is not what is significant, given how tightly bunched together
the top 60 - 70 countries are. By saying the US is "well behind," you imply
the differences are large, when they are not. It is a common sophistic
tactic -- phrase the claim in such a way as to invite unwarranted
conclusions.
The difference in life expectancy is between the US
and the average for other large industrialized countries
is less than 1 year
No it isn't.
There's a six year difference between the United States
and Andorra, the top rated nation:
You didn't address the claim I made, which was the difference between the
US and other *large industrialized countries*. The difference between the
US and such countries as France, Germany, Italy, UK, the Scandinavian
countries, etc., is less than 1 year. Comparing to Andorra is absurd. You
should compare that to Stearns Co., MN, which is actually twice as large as
Andorra and has comparable life expectency.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
15 Apr 2005 06:22:53 AM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
The ranking is not what is significant, given how tightly
bunched together the top 60 - 70 countries are. By
saying the US is "well behind," you imply the
differences are large,
They are large.
America spends more than any other country on healthcare,
per person, yet we die on average more than 6 years
sooner than the top-rated nation.
We're getting less for our money, chiefly because the
money is disproportionately spent on the elite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
15 Apr 2005 09:25:53 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YcednWEQgbSQP8LfRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
The ranking is not what is significant, given how tightly
bunched together the top 60 - 70 countries are. By
saying the US is "well behind," you imply the
differences are large,
They are large.
Actually, they aren't. The difference is particularly small
if you factor in that Americans drive more, and driving is the
number two cause of death (it used to be number one before
AIDS overtook it) of Americans aged 25 - 44. Thus,
difference between America and those other industrialized
countries is actually considerably smaller than it should be.
Guns don't kill people, cars kill people. And cell phones,
of course. Americans live riskier lives.
It is worth considering the life expectancy of the average
rock star as compared with the general population before
you jump to a faith-based conclusion about whether life
expectancy is a measure of how somebody is really getting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
16 Apr 2005 03:23:09 PM |
|
|
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
Actually, they aren't. The difference is particularly small
if you factor in that Americans drive more, and driving is the
number two cause of death (it used to be number one before
AIDS overtook it) of Americans aged 25 - 44.
Greece has a greater highway mortality rate than the United
States, yet ranks 24th in life expectancy (going by actual
number of years lived), as opposed to 46th for the U.S.
We do rank quite high for roadway fatalities -- there's no
denying that -- but there's no way of changing that short
of getting people to drive less.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa_indiv-s
tates_per-capita_2003.htm#table-2
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
15 Apr 2005 03:36:22 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:YcednWEQgbSQP8LfRVn-
uA@comcast.com:
The ranking is not what is significant, given how tightly
bunched together the top 60 - 70 countries are. By
saying the US is "well behind," you imply the
differences are large,
They are large.
America spends more than any other country on healthcare,
per person, yet we die on average more than 6 years
sooner than the top-rated nation.
We're getting less for our money, chiefly because the
money is disproportionately spent on the elite.
Well, you seem determined to compare apples to oranges (comparing a country
with a population of 300 million to one with a population of 70,000), and
answer none of the points raised. Instead you repeat the same nonsensical
arguments you already advanced.
But there is always a market for nonsense. Carry on!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
16 Apr 2005 03:11:28 PM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
Well, you seem determined to compare apples to oranges
The "apples" in this case being what we are spending, while
the "oranges" are what we are getting in return.
Personally, I'd like it if we got apples in return for our apple
money.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
16 Apr 2005 09:52:29 AM |
|
|
In article <YcednWEQgbSQP8LfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
The ranking is not what is significant, given how tightly
bunched together the top 60 - 70 countries are. By
saying the US is "well behind," you imply the
differences are large,
They are large.
America spends more than any other country on healthcare,
per person, yet we die on average more than 6 years
sooner than the top-rated nation.
We're getting less for our money, chiefly because the
money is disproportionately spent on the elite.
And because US citizens make choices that jeopardize their lives.
I'm not clear on how disproportionate amounts of health care dollars
factors in deaths due to car accidents or gun killings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
16 Apr 2005 03:24:33 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
And because US citizens make choices that jeopardize their lives.
Voting Republican, chief amongst them.
"Affordable healthcare? ***** that! Not when the super rich
want yet another tax cut..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
16 Apr 2005 05:00:55 PM |
|
|
In article <hdCdnfBLGdgd7_zfRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
And because US citizens make choices that jeopardize their lives.
Voting Republican, chief amongst them.
"Affordable healthcare? ***** that! Not when the super rich
want yet another tax cut..."
Or wanting freebies.
Whose food is it? Mine. Who should pay for my food? Me.
Whose home is it? Mine. Who should pay for my home? Me.
Whose expenses are they? Mine. Who should pay for my expenses? Me.
Whose health and health care is it? Mine. Who should pay for it? Someone
else, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
16 Apr 2005 09:30:28 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
Whose food is it? Mine. Who should pay for my food? Me.
Whose home is it? Mine. Who should pay for my home? Me.
As long as you can move to India, with the rest of the jobs, so
you can pay for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
16 Apr 2005 11:08:26 PM |
|
|
In article <jp6dnXuK0ffeVfzfRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
Whose food is it? Mine. Who should pay for my food? Me.
Whose home is it? Mine. Who should pay for my home? Me.
As long as you can move to India, with the rest of the jobs, so
you can pay for it.
I'm not sure how this responds to the question that I was asking.
Whose health and health care is it? Who ought to pay for it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
17 Apr 2005 06:51:04 AM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
Whose health and health care is it? Who ought to pay for it?
Do we charge people before allowing them to walk on the
sidewalk?
The sidewalk is paid for. It costs money. But we don't
charge people before we allow them to step on it.
The question here is if healthcare is really a social
necessity, not too unlike the sidewalks, or is it a luxury.
Right now, society says that it's not a luxury, but won't
grant anything more than expensive emergency care to
anyone without the cash up front.
Poor people, for example, get the medical care that
they need when they suffer a heart attack, but only
the people with the cash up front can have the
regular check-ups & preventive care (including
medications) which might have prevented the
heart attack from ever occurring.
As society has -- past tense -- made the decision that
healthcare isn't a privilege that belongs to only those
with money, it only makes sense that we stop denying
preventive care to the poor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
17 Apr 2005 10:14:35 AM |
|
|
In article <yNWdnaQhxqU61v_fRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
Whose health and health care is it? Who ought to pay for it?
Do we charge people before allowing them to walk on the
sidewalk?
The sidewalk is paid for. It costs money. But we don't
charge people before we allow them to step on it.
The question here is if healthcare is really a social
necessity, not too unlike the sidewalks, or is it a luxury.
Right now, society says that it's not a luxury, but won't
grant anything more than expensive emergency care to
anyone without the cash up front.
Poor people, for example, get the medical care that
they need when they suffer a heart attack, but only
the people with the cash up front can have the
regular check-ups & preventive care (including
medications) which might have prevented the
heart attack from ever occurring.
As society has -- past tense -- made the decision that
healthcare isn't a privilege that belongs to only those
with money, it only makes sense that we stop denying
preventive care to the poor.
So you then have a right (not privilege) to have me and others pay for
your health and health care. That is an interesting perspective to take.
Many health costs are associated with life-style choices. No one is
forced to eat an unhealthy diet, avoid exercise, or make other choices
that lead to poor health. Yet you seem to take the perspective that
others should pay for the choices that the individual makes.
Further, there are illness that have a genetic component. Whose genes
were they? Who should pay?
What you've argued for, in my view, is the perpetuation of poverty. Why
should someone in poverty succeed when they are provided for by
government? Why should they make good, or healthy choices? A person in
poverty can often work. They can work two jobs. They can increase their
training and education. Rewarding unhealthy choices with benefits
doesn't seem reasonable to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
17 Apr 2005 10:38:04 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
So you then have a right (not privilege) to have me
and others pay for your health and health care. That
is an interesting perspective to take.
It's called reality.
When someone has a heart attack or a stroke on the
sidewalk -- or anywhere for that matter -- they get
medical care. Period.
There's nothing the least bit new or "interesting" here.
Honest. I'm not making this up.
The care they receive costs money. It costs a lot of
money. In fact, it costs more money than the regular
check-ups/medications that I spoke of.
Head. *****. Remove.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
17 Apr 2005 10:56:08 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:xeudnb9IkbIHtP7fRVn-
3g@comcast.com:
When someone has a heart attack or a stroke on the
sidewalk -- or anywhere for that matter -- they get
medical care. Period.
Yup. And once they've recovered, they should promptly receive a bill.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
18 Apr 2005 06:11:00 AM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
When someone has a heart attack or a stroke on the
sidewalk -- or anywhere for that matter -- they get
medical care. Period.
Yup. And once they've recovered, they should
promptly receive a bill.
They do. Many can't afford to pay it though, and they don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
18 Apr 2005 06:03:41 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
When someone has a heart attack or a stroke on the
sidewalk -- or anywhere for that matter -- they get
medical care. Period.
Yup. And once they've recovered, they should
promptly receive a bill.
They do. Many can't afford to pay it though, and they don't.
And the bill they get is a lot higher, even with any deductable factored in,
than the bill the insurance company gets if they can afford the coverage. (A
deductable will rarely cover the cost of ground transport by ambulance for
minor problems.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
19 Apr 2005 11:58:38 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote
And the bill they get is a lot higher, even with any
deductable factored in, than the bill the insurance
company gets if they can afford the coverage. (A
deductable will rarely cover the cost of ground
transport by ambulance for minor problems.)
Yes. The "non-insurance" price is higher.
I can see people not getting it here, thinking, "Of
course the insurance price is lower, because you
only have to pay the deductible!"
That's not it at all.
They might charge an insurance company $500
for some medical care, of which you -- as the
insured person -- would have to pay a small
part of as a deductible.
But for that exact same care someone without
insurance will get charged $1000, or even
$1500.
This is true for prescription drugs as well.
Your co-payment might be five or ten bucks,
but the total cost of the prescription drug --
what the insurance company pays plus your
co-payment -- is LESS than what someone
without insurance has to pay.
Quite literally, prices are at their highest
for people who can least afford them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
18 Apr 2005 08:04:28 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:h1X8e.3027$J12.2181@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
And the bill they get is a lot higher, even with any deductable
factored in, than the bill the insurance company gets if they can
afford the coverage. (A deductable will rarely cover the cost of
ground transport by ambulance for minor problems.)
Yup, again. That is because the insurance co's pay their bills. So the
private-paying patient subsidizes the deadbeats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
18 Apr 2005 08:24:13 PM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:h1X8e.3027$J12.2181@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
And the bill they get is a lot higher, even with any deductable
factored in, than the bill the insurance company gets if they can
afford the coverage. (A deductable will rarely cover the cost of
ground transport by ambulance for minor problems.)
Yup, again. That is because the insurance co's pay their bills. So the
private-paying patient subsidizes the deadbeats.
So you think it is ok for one person to pay $10,000 out of pocket for a day
in the hospital (*Very* easy to do.) and support the people with low income
while the insurance company may pay half that or less?
The insurance company makes money on the deal and pays no taxes on what they
pay the hospital and if the hospital is non-profit they pay no taxes either.
Only the self sufficent person who pays taxes on their income looses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
19 Apr 2005 02:04:55 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:15Z8e.508$zX7.115@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
So you think it is ok for one person to pay $10,000 out of pocket for
a day in the hospital (*Very* easy to do.) and support the people with
low income while the insurance company may pay half that or less?
The insurance company makes money on the deal and pays no taxes on
what they pay the hospital and if the hospital is non-profit they pay
no taxes either. Only the self sufficent person who pays taxes on
their income looses.
No, it is not OK that anyone must pay $10,000 perday for a hospital stay.
If the government would get it's nose out of the health care biz, they
wouldn't have to.
They would have to pay something, however --- whatever it actually costs to
provide the services they are receiving. Or do you imagine all the hospital
staff should work for nothing?
Instead, I'm sure what you prefer is that someone else pay for it.
As for insurance companies, they are bulk payers. They are also dependable
payers. They are able to negotiate lower rates, just as is a bulk purchaser
of anything.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
19 Apr 2005 04:47:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:24:13 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Publius wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:h1X8e.3027$J12.2181@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
And the bill they get is a lot higher, even with any deductable
factored in, than the bill the insurance company gets if they can
afford the coverage. (A deductable will rarely cover the cost of
ground transport by ambulance for minor problems.)
Yup, again. That is because the insurance co's pay their bills. So the
private-paying patient subsidizes the deadbeats.
So you think it is ok for one person to pay $10,000 out of pocket for a day
in the hospital (*Very* easy to do.) and support the people with low income
while the insurance company may pay half that or less?
The insurance company makes money on the deal
No they the Ins Co makes money on your premium payment and paying the
hospital etc is an expense.
and pays no taxes on what they pay the hospital
Of course not it's an expense
and if the hospital is non-profit they pay no taxes either.
No but the employees do pay taxes and when they buy equipment taxes
are paid farther up the line for non-profits.
Only the self sufficent person who pays taxes on their income looses.
What are you getting at here?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
18 Apr 2005 08:10:26 PM |
|
|
In article <xeudnb9IkbIHtP7fRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
So you then have a right (not privilege) to have me
and others pay for your health and health care. That
is an interesting perspective to take.
It's called reality.
When someone has a heart attack or a stroke on the
sidewalk -- or anywhere for that matter -- they get
medical care. Period.
There's nothing the least bit new or "interesting" here.
Honest. I'm not making this up.
The care they receive costs money. It costs a lot of
money. In fact, it costs more money than the regular
check-ups/medications that I spoke of.
Head. *****. Remove.
You are still operating from a perspective that someone else's stroke or
heart attack is anyway my financial obligation, or the obligation of
others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Darwinist Account Of Morality |
18 Apr 2005 10:13:04 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote
You are still operating from a perspective
that someone else's stroke or heart attack is
anyway my financial obligation, or the
obligation of others.
What you don't understand is that I'm speaking
in terms of the way things are, while you're
telling us what you think should exist in your
idea of a more perfect world.
The only "interesting" thing here is the fact that
your idea of "more perfect" is in conflict with
the vast majority.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
