Quote:
Originally Posted by Slon
Then have the kid sign a contract saying he yields any special claims to further medical care following the procedure
|
Why would the kid do that? Moreover why would anyone want the kid to do that? The kid will life long needs, not just for operation - so such a solution is simply not viable.
Quote:
First of all, it's not irrelevant. All one needs to see to figure that out are the baseless variations on the laws. Why do they vary by sex? Why do they vary by state? Are people dumber for a longer time in some states? 
|
The baseless variations are also irrelevant, as the variation cannot diminish the case for such legislation across the country.
Why indeed do they vary by sex? By state?
So what?
Its completely irrelevant.
Quote:
|
Of course not. The real reason (or at least one of them) for age-based discrimination is winning votes from American idiots who think it protects their kids. "I want to raise the age of consent from 16 to 17 to protect your daughter from being raped, and the guy that opposes me obviously wants her to die a painful death." Do you really think most Americans would figure out that it is bullshit?
|
They think alot harder about it than your example demonstrates. Just ask your mom what she thinks.
Quote:
|
No, but there is health care for which you are forced to pay through taxes REGARDLESS of your use of it. The taxed amount is a sunk cost, and thus must not be considered in a rational decision. As a result, the choice is between getting health care from someone who will do it at no cost to you, vs getting it from someone who will charge you full price. The difference between getting one or the other is the full price of care.
|
The taxed amount proves its not free.
Quote:
|
In this case, it really wouldn't matter for most people how much government care sucks or how inefficient it is since they won't even be able to afford private health care after having their money taken from them to fund the government care. And for those who do have the money, it would be like choosing between free care and full price care.
|
For most people, they can have good government aided care, should they need it, and any extras it doesnt provide they can pay for themselves. This is excellent news, because if they get into trouble with an expensive bill they face no possibility of medical bankruptcy.
Their money will not all be taken, and everyone can get on with their lives.
Quote:
|
Think about it. How can a business reasonably compete when the other side is allowed to break into the homes of its patients and take their money even before (and even if they don't) they say they need any health care, while giving people care at no additional cost?
|
They simply contract out from the government service, taking on the jobs that require doing. They also can provide their own care for those willing to pay extra. BUPA, a private company in the UK, does very well.