oh yeah I just remembered why I thought writing about the concept of ownership was important today, because I though it was relevant to current events with the government shutdown and the controversial question about who gets the right to choose and who gets penalized for the decisions in defacto system that requires we leverage the existing business structures to organize medical insurance coverage.
I can sympathize with religious business owners may not want to pay for insurance that could be used to facilitate an abortion, like as if they are providing or performing the abortion, what they consider an act of murder punishable by their god.
The real controversy over this I think lies in the concept of ownership.
Do the heads of the company that which must provide insurance as dictated by the commanding government, presumably in an effort to facilitate more robust and reliable health care for the human hive it is supposed present and assist, own the company that is the entity that incurs the burden of this mode of operation? Do these people who are at the head of these companies own the wealth that is actually being attributed to the insurance that must facilitate the operation? Do they own some part of the insurance hey are buying? Certainly we know that not ALL the insurance company and its operations could be owned by them as a result of this kind of transaction, for that is not customary in these times.
Is the transaction of paying for insurance somehow transferring ownership of the abortion itself to the head of the company or any member of the company or its customers or contributors?
Is it the government who owns the abortion? Is it only the representatives who voted for this policy to be enacted the owners of the abortion? They are the ones who are dictating that abortion facilitating insurance be so at the expense of the common business structure known as the employer.
Does the person getting the abortion even own any part of the transaction in some circumstances or any circumstances?
Does the world own the abortion? Does nature?
Does ownership really exist in nature or is it merely a human construct? Does it exist only in the presence of humans? Does it exist in the presence of aliens, meaning that exists only in the presence of those that use it or conceive of it?
If ownership doesn’t exist in nature, but is an imaginary idea, then can we ever say that nature owns the abortion?
Is exploiting the structure or the business even necessary in this circumstance?
Don’t make me do somethin’ I don’t wanna do! I’m sure that’s what a lot of Christian and otherwise company owners are thinking right now, for whatever reason they’ve used to justify that conviction, even if it be greed or it just be their emotions.
Would it be better, or even possible, for the government to provide a different solution to the problem that not all are able to take advantage of a health care system due to wealth inequality that has arisen from history and our present organizational and economic structure, whether it was intended to be that way or not.
To clarify the seriousness of the problem of inequality in access to the healthcare system in place now, one may need the “safety net” style of support to overcome the burden of their families, who have claimed ownership over them, until the age of 18, or whatever. Further, one needs to be working, coupled with one or more of these business structures, or somehow independently acquiring monetary wealth. The former wealth acquisition scheme, consisting of coupling with privately owned business being the most feasible acquisition scheme in most cases due to the need to increase the value of one’s work with infrastructure for most practical skills.
Do the businesses take ownership of part of the lives somehow when the worker has to couple with them? Who gets to decide that, and why? I the case that having ownership of something implies a situation in which the owner is disadvantaged, does the owner get to define how the relationship forms? Does the worker get any part in the decision of who gets to own anything, or must they just comply?
Does the worker own their work when coupled with the business? Is it not the work of the worker in coordination with the business that generates the wealth the worker and the business have set out to acquire?
Because it is easier for the business to replace the workers, and thus the worker has very little negotiating leverage, does that give the business ownership over the rules of how the coupling must be formed between the worker and the business, and how ownership of the insurance policy gets defined?
Is it practical or even feasible for the government to provide a health service in which it is declared and agreed upon by all business owners that the service will own the abortions it facilitates? Does this require some alternate mechanism of transferal of funds to facilitate the service?
Can we not provide any service to those whose prospects of health care are in effect being owned by independent factions, without somehow extracting the wealth from the independent factions who have claimed ownership of so much wealth that it may be impossible to provide access to health care for those who can’t accumulate wealth independently?
Do we just have to continue to live with the fact that not all people will have equal access to healthcare, even though the health care system is prepared to facilitate this access?
Could we provide that service based only on the contributions of those who personally submit to a tax, or only those who make donations to private organizations?
Should everybody stop using insurance provided by their company and get their own? Can poor people do that? Can the average worker do that? Is analyzing the wealth of the average worker meaningful in this discussion?