Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2014 2:03:53 GMT
And what difference should it make exactly how many people have lost their primary-care physicians, vis-a-vis how many theoretically could lose them? If even one person has lost his or her primary-care physician, because of ObamaCare, that is quite sufficient to make ObamaCare a very bad thing, in my opinion--regardless of any competing considerations.
Again, I inquire: How might it amount to "[g]ender discrimination" or "misogyn[y]" to allow individuals to continue to purchase plans that are gender-specific (and age-specific) in their coverage?
What is statist is the federal government's intrusion into a private concern (in this case, healthcare insurance), with its ubiquitous rules and regulations.
I sort of lied. I've looked at numerous cases related to people claiming they lost their primary care physician because of Obamacare but I only looked at one case in depth. In the other cases it was evident that it was not because of Obamacare but instead it was becasuse of a business decision by their insurance company or they hadn't even attempted to sign-up under Obamacare where we can probably assume that they could have kept their personal physician.
Do you really believe any law can be "perfect" and not adversely affect anyone? I would suggest that is a very unrealistic belief. There's an old saying that "To make an omlette you must break a few egg shells." No law I'm aware have ever existed that didn't "break a few shells" in the history of the United States.
What part of "discrimination based upon race, ethnic heritage, religion, gender, or other invidious criteria" is still discrimination do you fail to understand. A "Person is a Person" and should not be discriminated against based upon an indivious criteria such as gender in the case of health insurance. Health insurance should insure "People" equally without discrimination and "People" includes both women and men. The government is expressly prohibited from discriminating based upon gender under the law and must, by law, include men and women under the same insurance plans offered by the government exchanges.
I do find it interesting that you express opposition to racial discrimination while here you seem to support gender discrimination. Are women less deserving of protection under the law than blacks in your opinion?
Your definition of Statist is wrong. The very foundation for government in the United States is for government to intervene in the lives of the People to protect society as a whole from the violation of their Inalienable Rights as a Person.
We could note that the financial inability of the Person to obtain necessary health care services due to the flaws of "capitalism" is a violation of the Right of Liberty of the Person by other persons. Market coercison that forces a person to work for less than it costs them to live is a violation of the Right of Liberty of the Person.
I do not believe that I "fail to understand" anything as regarding gender discrimination. How might it amount to gender discrimination to assert that women ought not be required to pay for insuring prostate exams, and single men ought not be required to pay for insuring maternity care? And how might it amount to age discrimination to assert that neither men nor women, under a certain age--say, 50--should feel any need to pay toward colonoscopies or mammograms?
Interestingly enough, there is no evidence (of which I am aware, anyway) that the Founders believed that "[m]arket coercion" was one of the inherent "flaws" in capitalism; and that it needed to be corrected, either by the federal government's issuing healthcare insurance or its requiring individual companies to do so.
