Draginol Draginol

Why don't liberals start more charities?

▼

Why don't liberals start more charities?

A solution for health care insurance

from JoeUser Forums

The far left in the United States are outraged that Bush vetoed the bill that would have provided "free" health insurance to minors.

When these discussions get going, I am always amazed that the obvious solution isn't taken: Start charities that provide health insurance to the "needy".

It wouldn't be that hard to do.  Those who really feel strongly about paying for health insurance for other people could donate to these charities. Then, those who wanted said health insurance would send in their past year's tax return along with proof of children and then be given health insurance for that child. 

These kinds of charities already exist for people who have a random illness like cancer, breast cancer, childhood diseases, etc.  So what is the difference?  The difference from my limited research is that most of these charities and their fund raising are performed by conservatives (particularly religious conservatives). 

As was documented in the excellent book "Who really cares" American liberals have replaced concrete action with political belief.  To them, posting a blog or protesting or some other symbolic but ultimately futile gesture is the same as actually doing something.

For this reason, American liberals are much more inclined to support federal government provided projects for the needy because it takes the burden of having to do anything to back up their political beliefs.  The sacrifice and effort is transferred to other people (typically people who disagree with their views and are hence demonized by the left even as those they demonized are, as a practical matter, the ones actually doing the doing).

It is a pity conservatives aren't more inclined to step up and ask "Why not start a charity?" when an advocate of a socialist policy starts railing for some new government welfare program.  After all, the left routinely says "Why don't you volunteer for the military?" when a conservative supports US foreign policy.

democrat
44,055 views 113 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, I more than "get it." I live it every day, cacto. Prioritizing organ transplants is an issue independent of the financing mechanism & has nothing to do, per se, with the universal health care argument, because you are right - it has nothing to do with money.
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
how do you know that said kid will not go out and get run over the day he/she gets out of the hospital.


Or go on to become a serial killer?
Star Control: Origins
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
We either need to create artificial organs, or create a supply of organs some other way. Either way, first-come first-serve doesn't work. Prioritizing leaves the people most likely to live normal lives with a transplant at the bottom of the list, never getting the transplant.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
Prioritizing leaves the people most likely to live normal lives with a transplant at the bottom of the list, never getting the transplant.


In some cases, as in cardiac & liver transplantation, the sickest are usually near the top of the list, that's true. But those in greatest need should be given some preference when allocating limited resources, don't you think?
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know. It feels utilitarian to me. Which brings more happiness, more people living, or less people living but those who are living having close to normal lives?

Who has the greatest need, and does it only have to do with their sickness? What if someone is close to finding a cure, but they need some transplant in order to function well enough to continue working, but would be able to live for a while without a transplant, but not work? What do you do then? There's too many variables in choosing who lives. What if you have two people who are close to a cure, but only one organ? Now who do you choose? What if two people come in at the same time, for the same problem, with the same health condition, with the same prognosis needing the same transplant? Is it down to which doctor signs them onto the list first? What if the doctors put them on the list at the exact same time? Who gets the one organ?

Life really can't be fair, and arbitrarily picking who gets medical treatment really sucks. But I don't have a better way. I'm just glad it's not my responsibility.
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have only a couple of choices, really - 1) application of some rational thought process to arrive at a determination of which individual(s) would most benefit, or 2) a lottery. Americans are already quite comfortable letting people get rich by accident, so maybe a lottery would the true 21st century American way.  
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
Strangely enough, a lot of people who get rich by accident then get poor fairly soon after, I'm assuming by accident.

I think a lottery with buyable tickets and perhaps extra tickets for those with the most need would be the fairest lottery. Then people could blame God for not getting a transplant!
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is not true liberals have donated almost a billion dollars to a charity over the last seven years. The charity took the money and gave it to disadvantaged people around the country. The charity was run exactly the way they want the government to run all do gooder programs. It is just that it was administrated poorly because they did not have enough money to make it work. The same problem the liberals claim ended the Soviet Union, which they say would have worked if they had more money. This charity was called Air America. This is why liberals don’t have any faith in charities.

I mean think of the three million dollars a year they gave to the host of Air America and never thought that he should take a pay cut until the charity went bankrupt. Now he is running for the senate so he could help his favorite charity, himself.

On the other side of the coin even with high taxes conservatives have donated almost 100 billion dollars in the same time time period and those charities have produced results.
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
If money doesn't come into play when organ recipients are chosen, would someone explain to me why that notorious drunkard, David Crosby, warranted not one, but TWO liver transplants?

Melissa needed a qualified sperm donor - greater good & all that.  
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because he's such a great guy, ya know?
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay this is several comments ago and slightly off topic, but Gid, I'd really be interested in seeing if those quotes hold up if you really try to get insurance. From my personal experience, they seem exceptionally low. When I first moved to DC, I was working in a restaurant and uninsured so I got my own insurance -- despite just being for me, a healthy 25 y.o. at the time, it cost me $263 a month. That allowed me 2 doctors visits a year and, if I remember correctly 50% copay after my $1000 deductible. There was a daily maximum payment of $4000. When I ended up in the hospital for a same day emergency surgery, I ended up paying more than $10K out of pocket -- and that was only because I negotiated with the hospital -- the original bill was for $25K.

I don't know if universal coverage is the right answer, but I do know that something needs fixing in the health care world. Don't quote me on it, but I think I read somewhere that health care costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy in America.

Also, (regarding the article), how do you know the politics of the folks starting charities? It is not like they have to list it anywhere...so I'm curious. While I know you've written about conservatives donating more money to charities, I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has researched who donates more time (ie, volunteers more).
Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gah. I'm still not kissing cacto's aussie ass on main street because the challenge was issued to him, not Noumenon.


So there's nothing to gain by my continuing to bid on a donkey on Australian E-Bay?
Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top
For the life of me I don't understand why she thought she was getting a good deal with that, the man's a regular toad.


Since it sure wasn't for the sex, I'm guessing she liked his music & figured his progeny would be musically inclined. A pure crap shoot of course(ugh, pardon the pun), as his progeny are just as likely to be alcoholics or junkies as successful musicians.