The real issue at hand in the Limbaugh/Fluke controversy

gimpy117 · 03-08-12, 11:51 PM

either which way; just because it's covered by the institution does not mean you have to use them. If people are morally opposed, it should be their decision to use or not use said products. I think it's a slippery slope when we let "moral judgement" decide whats covered and whats not. It's such a subjective thing, especially when you are in effect letting another party decide whats going to happen to YOUR body...especially when this is a take it or leave it health care situation...students don't have money to pay for health care ( i know i sure don't).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Well said. The problem with Obama's current health care "reform" mess is that it was written by the health insurance industry to do exactly what you said - have the government hold you down while the insurance industry robs you. The bill was written by Liz Fowler, the ex-VP of Wellpoint insurance. To solve it, I'm not sure what to do. I guess a good start would be to take profit motive out of the equation. Not because the government could do it so much better, but because the insurance companies do it so much worse.

Government for the corporation, by the corporation is alive and well in America.

well yes, I think 3 things would work; in descending order on what i think is best:
1. Universal health care
2. take out profit motive
3. get rid of the bill

But something needs to change because I think your health is something that nobody SHOULD EVER make profit off of, especially when it's mandated. It's really not a fair market, healthcare is all too often emergency situations and shopping around for the best deal is not something that's often an option, If I'm in a car wreck with a broken neck, I'm not gonna talk to the ambulance drivers about their rates, or read information compairing hospital prices in the city, I'm going to get the nearest ambulance and go to the nearest hospital AT ANY price...because my life is on the line. And that pretty much shoots the free market in the foot.