9/11, Pearl Harbor, and Contraception Coverage

Remove all ads!

That also touches in cultural differences between Germany and the US. From my understanding, the average worker in Germany is under contract and there are very strict guidelines which must be followed in order to terminate the worker. In the US the vast majority are "at will" employees -- that means either the company or the employee may end the employment at any time and for no reason (although there are some protected status groups). That the German government would also dictate insurance simply is an extension of the work culture there.

In a very broad generalization -- the average German worker is somewhat risk adverse and having security (long term work contracts, mandated insurance, etc.) is key to the worker's happiness. By contrast, the average US worker more readily accepts risk, the ability to be independent and have a more active role in life decisions is key to the US worker's happiness.

 

Taxpayers have every right to voice their opinions on how their money is being spent. Citizens have every right to voice their opinions on the policies their governments enact. While I could care less about contraception that prevents a pregnancy from occuring in the first place, and the funding that goes along with it, I would never stoop to trying to silence those who object to the policy of forcing it on employers.

 

It is not about silencing them. It is taking their comments seriously, listening to them and then considering the situation as it is. And when what they object to is a result of a constitutional democratic process, in which they didn't have their way, the reasonable answer would be: Well, tough for them, but such is life.

Trying to not thread on anyone's toes means there is no point in governing at all, since it would be impossible to have any general rule. You will always have people who don't like this or that. This is not about sheer majority rule and steamrolling the minority either, after all, our constitutional democratic processes have safeguards against that, and rightly so. It is about what is sensible and what's supposedly the greater good for the greatest number of people.

---------- Added 5 hours, 5 minutes and 44 seconds later... ----------

Considering the promiscuity with which corporations, including the one I work at, do fire people habitually that is indeed, very broad

That is really silly stuff. Is health care something one reasonably wants to take risks on?

I'd say, leaving the distorted meaning of the term in the nutty US political discourse aside, the supposedly 'German' position on that is very conservative.

Reasonable people don't want to gamble on being able to pay for having a cancer treated, if they ever have the misfortune to get one. Much less do they want that to be conditional on being employed at the time (also since severe illness usually involves being incapable of working). Probably to add to the thrill of it all, the next employer's insurance may refuse coverage because of a 'pre-existing condition'.

If accepting all that is US style risk taking, well, the lesson of health care cost related bankruptcies and foreclosures should serve as stern warning for those patriotic enthusiasts who want to rely on bold US spirit on health care.

Get Sick, Get Out: The Medical Causes of Home Mortgage Foreclosures

Spoiler

 

Holy cow, Snook! The guy that didn't have health insurance and had a heart attack will certainly be treated if he's rushed to the hospital. But if he had health insurance he might never have had the heart attack in the first place. There is almost always an underlying cause of having a heart attack - high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc., and the guy without health insurance is far more likely to let these things go untreated (or may not even know he has them since he doesn't see a doctor).

 

Odds are that same guy qualifies for Medicare, as you would be speaking toward the elderly.... Average Joe 35 yr old doesn't go around having heart attacks daily....

 

Silly or not, I know many people who actually do forego better insurance to have a higher take home pay -- gambling is a good comparison because they are gambling they will not have any major medical issues. There are also people who want to have total control over their social security account (which is basically the best annuity you can buy -- there's nothing that really comes close) -- again, people want to gamble that they can do a better job at funding their retirement (although the odds are very much against them). I find I am in the minority in basing a significant part of my employment decision on the quality of health care the company provides and quality of retirement programs, most appear to be simply going for the highest wages and do not really count other benefits as compensation. I agree it's insane and not very reasonable, but people in the US (another broad generalization) are optimists about their future and often do not include the possibility of tragedy, or failure, into their plans.

By the way, my silly generalizations come from my company's acquisition of a German manufacturer -- our German counterparts are all astounded by the concept of an "at will" employee and often question how we can sleep at night knowing we could be fired in the morning. In fact we even make jokes about getting fired.

I seriously believe there is a cultural difference that makes seeing the other point of view difficult for many. I imagine most of Europe simply can't understand why health care reform would be such a firebox issue for the middle class in the US (and there are many in the lower income groups who oppose health care reform). Perhaps this comes from our basic beliefs (and misconception) in freedom and independance. Most in the US are opposed to regulation and will fight against mandates -- even when those mandates are clearly (to a "reasonable" person) for the better of the nation.

 

Blades: True - but I know a whole lot of people who had heart attacks in their 50s or early 60s - and those people don't qualify for Medicare...

 

And how many of them didn't have insurance? I have sympathy for anyone in a bad spot, BUT if you are in your 50s or 60s and still don't have either a) health insurance or b) the ability to pay for your own insurance for a while, well, what does that tell you? I have worked multiple jobs, multiple times in my life. Why? To help set myself up financially, in case something were to happen later in life, like lay-offs, injury, etc.. How did they get to their current situation? They reap what they sow. ANYONE in this country that is willing to make an effort, get off their lazy ass and do something about it can do so. Life isn't perfect, easy or hunky-dory. It's tough. If they don't like it, they should get a helmet. I would love to sit home all day and play video games. But in the world we live in, that is not a reality, so I go to work. There are plenty of jobs out there. Maybe they don't pay the same as your last job before a lay-off hit, so bite the bullet and work a second job as well to get yourself on your feet. Like our grandparents and great-grandparents had to do during tough times. We live in the age of effing cry-babies... Gen Whine is what we will be known as in the future...

 

There's that, and then there is the point that about 1/3 of those without healthcare insurance in the US are employed. It's that they can't afford it on their salary. And I can see that. The health insurance plan I'm on would be totally unaffordable if I was making around $10 per hour.

 

If you were only making 10/hr, would you be working one job? Hell no. You would be working several to compensate. Which is my point....