Political Discussions
Health Care is not a RIGHT!!!
Posted by gmoney • 8/24/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: charlie gonzales, gylon jackson, health care, reform, san antonio, texas
Health Care is not a right it is a human right. In a country as great as ours everyone should have healthcare. We are humans....... bottom line we owe it to each other not to be selfish.
So what I am doing and what makes this cool is this is not simply a blog post it is a live stream.... This being done by Gylon Jackson ME of gylonjackson.com
the stream can be found below?
www.ustream.tv/channel/san-antonio-live-town-hall-with-charlie-gonzales
User Comments
-
Good luck with explaining this one to people.-
You didn't read his post, did you. -
Yes, I did.
-
So now you believe health care is a human right? I'll quote from the OP:
Health Care is not a right it is a human right. In a country as great as ours everyone should have healthcare. We are humans....... bottom line we owe it to each other not to be selfish.
-
-
it is a privilege! -
thanks for watching. Tell more people about this. Watch the unfiltered debate. Hell CNN, FOX and MSNBC wont give you this coverage!
-
Can something be a right if it requires someone else to give something to you, or do something for you?
Is food/eating a right?
Is living in a house a right?
Is driving a right?
Is having a baby a right?
Is getting medical care a right?
I think we need to be careful what we declare a right.-
You can demand it as a right if it is essential to you being able to live.
Generally though, food, water, shelter, medical care and clean air are considered rights. -
but those aren't universally recognized rights...
...oh, wait...
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." -
"You can demand it as a right if it is essential to you being able to live."
How about a dialysis machine? A heart?
"Generally though, food, water, shelter, medical care and clean air are considered rights."
If someone refuses to *give* you food, are they denying you a right? -
"The earth is given as the common stock of all to live and labor upon" -- Thomas Jefferson
-
It's not about forcing someone to give you something - it's about ensuring that everyone has proper, equal access to everything they need to live.
Healthy, safe food should not be made so expensive that people cannot afford it, and can only afford to eat mudpies. Water cannot be made so expensive that people cannot afford it. Healthcare should not be so prohibitively expensive that people can't get care when they need it. -
oops - another one in the wrong spot . . . .
-
-
A human right? As in, innate? So then for thousands of years before modern medical care existed, the rights of every human being on earth were consistently violated? Who was doing the violating?-
Health care rights violation: so easy a caveman can do it.
-
I'm wondering whether we're all obliged to become physicians in case someone in our vicinity needs health care.
-
oops! wrong spot
see below -
The medical care they had at the time - however underdeveloped - was still there, and yes, a right.
Of course no one is arguing that when one is out in the wilderness by oneself that the earth simply give up her secrets and treasures because we have a right to it - but we are arguing that anyone living under a State rule, however authoritarian or not - has the right to demand equal access basic living needs such as food, water, medical care, and shelter. -
But what does "equal access" mean, Anok? Does it mean that if you're unable to go out and get your own food, you have a "right" to have someone bring it to you three times a day? And if so, how is it determined on whom that obligation falls--no "right" (except freedom from some sort of infringement) can occur in one person without an attendant obligation on another.
-
Yes, actually Tiffany that's exactly it. If you are physically incapacitated, you have the right to get help in getting your food, medications, and other needs.
Are you arguing that one doesn't have that right? That if they can't get their own food, they should be forced to starve to death? If they can't get out to get their meds, they should just lay down and die?
Equal access = the ability for everyone to have access to life essentials. Be it economic access (in worst case scenarios, preventing the genocide of people by ensuring life needs are not controlled by one group and made so prohibitively expensive that groups of people starve or die because they cannot afford to live), or physical access. -
Here's the problem I have with the constant overuse of the word "right", Anok. Rights also create obligations, but I've yet to hear anyone explain on whom the obligation falls, and why. If, in fact, the person who can't get out to get his own food has a "right" to have it delivered to him, then that right MUST be coupled with an attendant obligation to deliver food to him. On whom does that obligation fall? Does it have any limits? For instance, are only people who have extra food obligated to bring food to him, or is one required to give up his own food to fulfill this "right"? Are only his neighbors required to bring him food, or must someone travel great distances to make those deliveries? Must everyone? What if a person is aware of TWO people with the same need, in opposite locations? Does he violate the "rights" of one when he delivers food to the other?
-
To use the food example - there are several access issues that need to be met in order to make that right happen. For one, medical care - including hospice care - must be affordable enough so that the disabled person can afford to hire the help that will deliver the food.
If he or she can't afford it, then the government or ruling State body that we must live under that purports to be our caretakers for certain things must step up with a program to help said disabled person either afford the healthcare, or help them get the food they need.
These programs of course, are funded by tax dollars -a collective use of money allocated specifically for helping people in need. That is society's contribution towards guaranteeing those rights as a whole.
It takes people to make or break rights - we can either get together and make sure that we have the programs in place to help those in need when they need it (or to guarantee rights) or we can work against that, and risk losing our own claim to human rights in the process.
the argument that people will have to take food out of their pantries or become physicians just in case is a straw man argument at best. -
Anok, we don't disagree about the right outcome at all...only about the rampant overuse of the phrase "human right". The idea that there is a natural right to things that don't exist naturally is simply ridiculous, and yet the claim is made again and again...state-created marriage that didn't even exist for thousands of years is a "human right"...access to medicines invented in the past fifty years that hundreds of generations of our ancestors lived without is a "human right". It's just silly to claim that we have inherent rights to things that don't inherently exist.
To say that someone has a "right" to something can mean only one of two things: that that something is naturally available to him, or that someone else is obligated to create, perfect and deliver it to him.
There are many things that a civilized society should ensure are available to all citizens (and, in my view, non-citizens, but that's another argument for another day). That's an entirely separate issue from whether or not there is an inherent right to those things.
If a child is sitting at the lunch table and has no food and no money for food, it would be a rotten, heartless teacher who didn't buy him lunch, and a selfish, thoughtless classmate who didn't share her sandwich with him...but does he have a RIGHT to his classmate's sandwich or his teacher's money? Of course not.
Everyone who makes the argument that all of these things are "rights" tries to force the discussion into the abstract, but food doesn't appear in the abstract and neither does medical care--if there's a general right to these things floating around in the air, then there's also an obligation. Why the reluctance to attach that obligation to anyone? -
The problem here is the format of the argument.
We don't live in the "natural world" - we live in a human created society. If we based absolutely everything on what would happen in the woods, alone, after dark then none of what we have now should exist.
However, even in nature - if you examine indigenous tribes, herds of animals etc and so forth - natural law includes natural, inherent rights. In a non human created society (animals) the pack, herd, or flock of animals naturally know and accept that defense, food, territory and so forth are to be shared among the entire group. And the obligation is on everyone in the group to make that happen.
Why?
Because if they don't they won't survive. The guarantee of rights in this regard are as basic an instinct as fight or flight.
The same can be said of tribes not in the industrialized world. They naturally adhere to the same principles, and are generally confounded by the thought of not guaranteeing these rights. it's just not even questioned.
The major obligation lies with every man woman and child who is able. In our society- which is State based - they can fulfill their obligation by paying a small sum of money regularly into community programs. They can also volunteer, of course. The obligation of the State - who makes the decisions for the society - is to in turn establish and run these programs, or to provide adequate oversight/legislation so that non government programs are not running rampant.
Either way you slice and dice it - rights to exist, even in the animal kingdom! -
" the rampant overuse of the phrase "human right". "
You it be better to phrase it "moral obligation"?
We believe that our government is obligated to defend us, and so we pay taxes to pay for police forces and the military. We don't complain about this because we have the right to live safely and be protected. Therefore, why does it seems so strange to think that our government should also be obligated to ensure that we have access to healthcare? If we have a right to be protected, then that right should extend to the right to protect our lives through life-saving medical technology. -
NT, for some reason I didn't see this response earlier. The fact is that we DON'T have a right to be protected. The law is quite clear on this. While we are obligated to pay taxes to support the "common defense", the government (including local police and fire departments) has NO obligation to any particular citizen. There are no personal rights involved, despite the fact that we pay to support the services.
-
-
The video will not load for me. It just spins round and round and round.
-
What is next dental care from governments? You wouldn't want that. I would have took them broke with my teeth.
Medicare is a good idea. Im not sure why some were against that years ago. Can't give it to people of all ages because it would take the country broke. Also, we don't have enough doctors. I'll probably be dead before I get my colon test if we have healthcare for all.-
There is, in fact, "dental care from governments", Mikeny. Some states' medicaid plans cover dental work, for instance.
The "don't have enough doctors" comment is interesting--first because it suggests that the limited supply of doctors should be rationed in the manner that prioritizes people with money, and also because it is based on a fallacy. It isn't as if doctors are finite--we can always train more.
-
-
I wouldn't want to live in a country that doesn't have universal health care, paid out of the tax base. You don't say what country it is ("In a country as great as ours") but act with your pen! and your feet!
Write to your local parliamentarian and say that if you don't get health care for all, paid for out of the tax base, you are going to go to a country that DOES have a universal health care system.
Suggest that your parliamentarian visits Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark.... in fact anywhere you feel like sending him or her to see that tax-funded health care is an absolute right for every single citizen.
If a country's tax base has to be increased to cover all essential hospital, doctor and dentist visits, then taxes have to go up. That is a small cost to pay for universal health care.
For those who do not have access to universal health care, what do you do if your child is ill and you aren't wealthy?-
You treat the child yourself, or go broke trying to pay the emergency medical bills after the fact.
-
And, Hels, many children die. Not long ago there was a case of an otherwise healthy ten-year-old child who died for lack of a dentist--his tooth abscessed and his mother was unable to find anyone who would pull it and treat it; he died of the infection it caused.
-
-
Here in America, health care is determined by insurance companies, not doctors. Doctors can make decisions, but health insurance companies can refuse to pay for the treatment or medications prescribed by the doctor, even though we pay thousands of dollars a year to be insured.
I lived for 3 1/2 years in Britain and I have nothing but good comments for the British NHS. But over here, Republicans have brainwashed the masses against such universal coverage with nonsensical talk of governmental takeover and death panels. It's sad what people can be made to believe. Mention socialism and half the population of America envisions a Soviet-type state with tanks rolling down the streets and gulags for dissidents.
The bottom line is, due to the profit that's made by American health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industy, those who profit from it will never let it change. And as long as the majority of the people are gullible and naive, they'll be able to be convinced that it's in their best interest.-
Listened to a very interesting interview with TR Reid on NPR yesterday in which he discussed the various models of universal health coverage employed around the world and also mentioned the origins of the term "socialized medicine" and it's scare power. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939
-
"And as long as the majority of the people are gullible and naive..."
It's always funny:
If someone accepts "my" side of the debate, they're informed and wise.
If someone accepts "your" side of the debate, they're gullible and naive. -
I don't think that's what NT77 meant at all, Bullgrit. I think that the majority of the American public is too easily swayed by good rhetoric, because people simply don't do their own homework, get the facts, and think things through. It doesn't matter which "side" they come down on--they're still landing there for the wrong reasons.
-
"I think that the majority of the American public is too easily swayed by good rhetoric, because people simply don't do their own homework, get the facts, and think things through."
Yes, rhetoric sways people. But which side hasn't done their homework or thought things through? I bet the answer differs depending on which side you ask.
I do agree, that one side of this debate is using facts, and the other side is using feelings. But, again, the answer to which side is using what will differ depending on which side you ask.
Edit: So, my point is one shouldn't tell the other side of a discussion/debate that they are gullible and naive. It doesn't support one's position. -
"If someone accepts "my" side of the debate, they're informed and wise. If someone accepts "your" side of the debate, they're gullible and naive."
Bullgrit, as I said in my post, I lived in Britain and I experienced universal health care paid for by taxes, and therefore I feel qualified to say that the Republican scare tactics are lies and that those who believe them are gullible. Universal health care is wonderful. I was never denied treatment for anything while in the UK. I was able to choose my own doctor. As I was just an average worker with a family to support, I received tax credits which exceeded the amount that I paid in taxes for access to the health system (meaning that it was really free). And for only 96 pounds sterling a year, I was able to get unlimited prescription medication (which is completely free for those with very low income).
There was a time over there, when I received an injury while at home. Not only was all treatment for it completely covered, but even though I was injured off the job, I still received a paycheck from my company (by law), and the City Council paid my rent and council tax (property tax) the whole time I was off work.
Such a system as exists in Britain, in my opinion, provides great peace of mind. I'm sorry that you're offended, or if you're one of those who would rather pay more for health care or do without rather than see some of your money going to help those less fortunate than yourself. Anyway, I don't see how you can accurately judge a different system without experiencing it firsthand. -
"Yes, rhetoric sways people. But which side hasn't done their homework or thought things through? I bet the answer differs depending on which side you ask."
That was exactly my point, Bullgrit. I think that the vast majority of followers of BOTH sides haven't done their homework and are swayed by rhetoric.
"I do agree, that one side of this debate is using facts, and the other side is using feelings. But, again, the answer to which side is using what will differ depending on which side you ask."
I think the reason for that is that both sides are using the facts that suit them and both sides are intentionally stirring emotions in order to get people on board. Both are standards procedure--at least in the U.S. -
"Bullgrit, as I said in my post, I lived in Britain and I experienced universal health care paid for by taxes, and therefore I feel qualified to say that the Republican scare tactics are lies and that those who believe them are gullible."
So, could someone who lives in the US and has experienced the capitalist health care system feel qualified to say that Democrat scare tactics are lies and those who believe them are gullible?
"I'm sorry that you're offended..."
Oh, yeah. If someone points out that you're being condescending to others, then of course that someone must be opposed to you and must be put on the defensive.
You know, if you stop for a moment and think about how you're presenting things, you might realize that I haven't stated my position on the debate. I've only pointed out how you're not really doing your chosen position any good by insulting those on the other side from you. -
So, could someone who lives in the US and has experienced the capitalist health care system feel qualified to say that Democrat scare tactics are lies and those who believe them are gullible?
Well, I'm a US citizen who has (unfortunately) experienced the capitalist health care system. I 100% disagree with your above statement - as i know first hand how terrible our medical care actually is - and how prohibitive it is. I don't need a politician to tell me that being denied for pre-existing conditions, and denying claims and seeking third party compensation for medical care we've already paid for is bad for me.
Trust me, I already know it's bad for me!
That said, because of all of that, I've had to go on medicaid. And you know what? I've had a really great experience with it. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't offer a public option. -
"So, could someone who lives in the US and has experienced the capitalist health care system feel qualified to say that Democrat scare tactics are lies and those who believe them are gullible?"
I've experienced both systems. I know where the lies are. -
Of course you do, you're clinging to the source pretty tightly. -
"Of course you do, you're clinging to the source pretty tightly."
Your point?
-
-
No where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that Health Care is a right. Freedom to pursue happiness is a right. Freedom of life is a right. Freedom to have liberty is a right. Once we cross the line of saying Health Care is a right then the government will also be able to tell you are not free to eat that donut which could mess up your health and cost the government more money. Government will be able to tell you that you can only have two kids because that third one will only be a drain on our society. Health Care is a personal responsibility and we are free to either take care of ourselves or not. This country and the health care system has always taken care of the poor which is correct to do. Universal Health Care does not belong in the hands of government.
I oppose the current plan in Congress and I turned myself in at WhiteHouse.gov.-
You can't possibly have the freedom to live if the access to life saving procedures are prohibitive.
-
"You can't possibly have the freedom to live if the access to life saving procedures are prohibitive."
How does health care in the hands of the government change this concept? -
"You can't possibly have the freedom to live if the access to life saving procedures are prohibitive."
"How does health care in the hands of the government change this concept?"
With our current system, the uninsured have do not have access to many life-saving procedures. Even those with insurance are often denied for reasons such as pre-existing conditions. Heathcare in the hands of governments which can run it competently and not worry about making a profit, is available for everyone. Even the poor and those with "pre-existing conditions" have a right to live. -
We are not talking about whose hands the healthcare is in - but rather whether or not it is a right.
-
"We are not talking about whose hands the healthcare is in - but rather whether or not it is a right."
True. The Netherlands have affordable healthcare for everyone, even though it's run through insurance companies like American HMOs. The government just subsidizes those companies that are taking a loss.
Healthcare doesn't necessarily have to be run by the government, but it should definitely be a right. -
The OP did not mention any health plan, or particulars, but rather a concept.
-
"You can't possibly have the freedom to live if the access to life saving procedures are prohibitive."
What if there is a small, isolated community of, say, 50 people. All of these people, in your analysis, have a "right" to shelter. But there is only one person in the community who is able to build houses. Is he obligated to single-handedly build homes for all fifty people? Given the length of time it takes to build a house, when he starts building a house for one person is he violating the rights of the others, since they don't have "equal access" to shelter since they have to wait in line? Does it matter whether anyone reciprocates at all? Is he allowed to take time out to provide for the needs of his own family, or can he only hunt for food once everyone has a house? -
The builder has the right to ask the others to help him build - and if he - and they - were smart, they'd all learn from him, and work collaboratively.
I'm not sure why this argument keeps getting brought down to a most basic level when we are talking about countries with governments and elected representativs, with laws and rights outlined?
If we were talking about indigenous tribes, that's a different argument. But even tribes understand that all members of said tribe have the right to equal access to their food, shelter, and other necessities. In order to survive they MUST guarantee those rights to each other, and work together to ensure that every does have - and use - those rights.
Otherwise they couldn't survive. -
"Heathcare in the hands of governments which can run it competently and not worry about making a profit..."
The government doesn't have a great track record of running anything competently. And some say this failure is *because* it doesn't worry about making a profit. -
I believe that only people who put profit over people believe that a business is a failure if it is a not-for profit business.
Businesses fail for any number of reasons - however I will argue that the state aid I receive for medical care hasn't failed me. -
(I know this is posted below too, but it was in the wrong spot)
No offense Inclark 1950, but this is the kind of thinking I mentioned earlier. I experienced universal healthcare in the hands of a different government, and no one told me how many doughnuts I could eat, nor how many children I could have. I had the same freedoms that we have in America, along with the peace of mind that I would always have access to health care.
Universal Health Care does just fine in the hands of a government that isn't concerned about making a profit from it. -
"I believe that only people who put profit over people believe that a business is a failure if it is a not-for profit business."
I believe a business is a failure if it can't support itself. There are not-for-profit businesses that support themselves. -
"The government doesn't have a great track record of running anything competently. And some say this failure is *because* it doesn't worry about making a profit."
It's the health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry which would stand to lose their enormous profit - and the rich who are invested in them.
Why can medication that cost hundreds of dollars a month here be bought for a fraction of the cost in Canada or Europe? -
"The government doesn't have a great track record of running anything competently"
And ironically it is Anok that is known as an Anarchist... o_0 -
When the healthcare gun is pointed at my head, I'll choose not-for-profit businesses even if it's run by the government over capitalist businesses any day
My concern is people. -
"I'm not sure why this argument keeps getting brought down to a most basic level when we are talking about countries with governments and elected representativs, with laws and rights outlined?"
Because people insist on using phrases like "human right" and "natural right" and "inherent right"...and if it's any of those things, it applies to every human being everywhere in every circumstance.
You'll notice that I've never argued that we shouldn't HAVE universal healthcare--I've even said directly that I'm more than willing to kick in to make sure that everyone has access to medical care. It is those who insist on throwing around dramatic language for the emotional impact that keep the argument at that base level.
If we can all agree that humans have no "right" to require other people invent things for their use and build those things for them an deliver those things to them, I'm more than happy to move on to the business of finding a way to provide adequate healthcare to every person on the planet (not just in the United States). -
But it is a right - on every level. It matters not what kind of technology or medical advances are present - just that people have the right to access whatever type of medicine they happen to use. Even indigenous tribes have some sort of medical care, and it is guaranteed as a right.
However, I'll bring it back to my original point - we don't live in the woods by ourselves. Humans haven't done that in millions of years. Our genus specifically has never done that, as modern day homosapiens live tribally/collectively.
But by your definition, we also do not have the right to live, as death is imminent at all times to all living things. Which opens up a whole can-o-worms there.
But that is incorrect, isn't it. No one in the wild can prevent us from obtaining food, shelter, protecting ourselves, or obtaining the herbs and natural medicines the Earth provides. The right to access such things are inherent - meaning no on can take them away. No one can hoard them up and keep others from having them. Further that, groups living that way avoid that behavior at all costs - because it will be the death of them. It is a right - and instinctual right.
However in organized society, with laws, and capitalist economies - it is legal for people to hoard and prevent access to things by way of economic coercion. We - us, modern day "civilized" human beings - have subverted the natural order of things and avoided our basic instinct of ensuring the natural rights of other humans (and other living things, by the way) by setting up a system where our natural rights must be taken away, and then given back to us as if they are presents from the Gods.
These rights are always there - they don't need to be granted from a government or corporation. -
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that no one can prevent us fro obtaining those things in the wild. Isn't that exactly how life works in the wild? If there's enough for everyone, everyone survives, and if there's not then the bigger animals slap down the smaller ones or the faster animals outrun the slower ones and someone is prevented from getting what they needed.
For that matter, the idea of a right to live is kind of silly--if such a right existed then our rights would be violated by automobile accidents and cancer and old age and meteors falling on our heads.
What we have is a societally created right to be free from other people interfering with our lives...which is VERY different from a "right to live". -
although healthcare might not be readily available in the wild, so might be the case of many man-made health hazards. just sayin... o_0
-
Sounds "fishy" to me Inclark.
But I agree with you, our only rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Someone posted that rights are being confused with moral obligations. I think that pretty much says it all. We (as a society) have a moral obligation to help those who are truly in need, whether that be with health care, food, shelter or Snickers candy bars.
Wait. Scratch that last item. -
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that no one can prevent us fro obtaining those things in the wild. Isn't that exactly how life works in the wild?
No, in the wild private ownership does not exist - therefore economic coercion cannot exist. No one can walk up to you, take the food from your hand, and say get off my property or I'll have you arrested for trespassing. No one can prevent you from living, eating, and finding shelter.
If there's enough for everyone, everyone survives, and if there's not then the bigger animals slap down the smaller ones or the faster animals outrun the slower ones and someone is prevented from getting what they needed.
Darwinism does come into play, yes - but even the animals do not act the way humans do to upset the balance of nature. They never take more than they need, they never prevent other animals from hunting. They kill only for survival, and only when it's needed.
For that matter, the idea of a right to live is kind of silly--if such a right existed then our rights would be violated by automobile accidents and cancer and old age and meteors falling on our heads.
The right to live is a right based on reasonable expectations of life. The taking of a life is - even in the animal kingdom - taboo save for two exceptions: self defense, and eating.
The right to defend yourself from harm is the right to life. it defines it. It means that no one can intentionally take your life away from you.
What we have is a societally created right to be free from other people interfering with our lives...which is VERY different from a "right to live".
In nature - all wild things us self defense. Why? because they have the right to live. In the wild, all animals in the pack are guaranteed food within reason (barring of course famine or natural catastrophes). Why? Because they have a right to live. -
I'm afraid that in the natural state, individuals are apt to be preyed upon by one another, as the ONLY law is that of coercion by the strong individual or group. For this reason individuals enter into civil society so that they may have certain civil rights protected by the collective whole, in exchange for the natural right to exercise their own unlimited discretion upon their fellows and vice-versa
-
I'm afraid that in the natural state, individuals are apt to be preyed upon by one another, as the ONLY law is that of coercion by the strong individual or group. For this reason individuals enter into civil society so that they may have certain civil rights protected by the collective whole, in exchange for the natural right to exercise their own unlimited discretion upon their fellows and vice-versa
Actually, that's not true Agit. Humans, and (most) animals form groups for survival through collaboration, not to create hierarchies to protect civil rights.
Although tribes and villages do at time go to war, very few primitive tribes did so for no reason (there were a couple tribes that were just downright nasty, but that was not common) - but history shows us that as societies became "westernized" for lack of a better term, they actually became more violent, and engaged in more warfare, and more brutal warfare at that.
However, that point is a side point. Humans band together not to prevent themselves from killing/preying on each other (why would banding together prevent them from doing so?) but to aid them in mutual survival through procreation, protection of the youngest, hunting, food preparation and etc...
Even in the animal kingdom flocks, packs, herds, murders, gaggles, parades and so forth band together for survival - not because the animals would otherwise prey on one an other. Animals - and primitive/indigenous humans kill only for two reasons - defense and to eat. To do otherwise is to upset the careful balance of things, and risk their survival. -
"No one can prevent you from living, eating, and finding shelter."
Really? In the wild no one can kill you? Knock you down and steal your food? Push you out of the way? Tear down your shelter? That's great news. What do we need government for at all? -
@Anok
"collective whole" = "hierarchies"? o_0
-
-
No offense Inclark 1950, but this is the kind of thinking I mentioned earlier. I experienced universal healthcare in the hands of a different government, and no one told me how many doughnuts I could eat, nor how many children I could have. I had the same freedoms that we have in America, along with the peace of mind that I would always have access to health care.
Universal Health Care does just fine in the hands of a government that isn't concerned about making a profit from it. -
Wrong spot.
-
"Many life-saving procedures are expensive. The government doesn't magically get such things for free."
@ Bullgrit
On the other hand, a band-aid in the emergency room shouldn't cost the unisured $200.
As for the government getting things for free, the war in Iraq wasn't free either, even though it was known that there were no weapons of mass destruction there. Universal healthcare is paid for through taxes, just like the war. -
Yep - and the taxes you pay into that are way cheaper than the premiums you'll pay individually with a for-profit insurance company!
-
1. PRobably not, Depending on what you make.
2. The premiums are voluntary. Taxes aren't. -
"Premiums are voluntary"
Sure - of course if you want (decent) medical care, or to not go bankrupt in case of an emergency health issue, then you need insurance. At which point those "voluntary" premiums become mandatory.
But trust me - the tax contribution of 98% of the country will be much lower than any premium they'll get from an insurer, lower deductible too, if there even is any. Oh, and no penalties.
The other 2% will get out of paying those taxes with loopholes and offshore accounts. -
"On the other hand, a band-aid in the emergency room shouldn't cost the unisured $200."
Hyperbole, also, does not help anyone make a point.
"As for the government getting things for free, the war in Iraq wasn't free either, even though it was known that there were no weapons of mass destruction there. Universal healthcare is paid for through taxes, just like the war."
And here is where the discussion takes a wild turn off into a ridiculous and unproductive terrain.
There's nothing of interest to me here, now. I'm out. -
"There's nothing of interest to me here, now. I'm out"
I enjoyed your contributions Bullgrit.
By the way, try to get a band-aid in an ER without insurance before you call it hyperbole. The point is, someone is making a hell of a profit in the healthcare industry.
-
-
"The premiums are voluntary. Taxes aren't."
This is what I mentioned earlier - some people would rather pay more for insurance or do without healthcare altogether than see some of their money going to help the poor. -
It's Funny, since when did we confuse right to access, with right to FREE Access.
Those that advocate this are the ones that are either never going to pay more than they use, or those that represent that group.
The rest get screwed.
If you get sick, you should have access to medicine, if it costs money, you should pay it.-
"f you get sick, you should have access to medicine, if it costs money, you should pay it."
What about those who cannot afford it? Should they just die?
"It's Funny, since when did we confuse right to access, with right to FREE Access"
I think it's the right to "affordable" access. As I mentioned earlier, the universal health care system that I lived under was paid for through taxes. The more you made, the higher your tax bracket. If you were poor or had a family, you got money back from the government every week in the form of tax credits. For the poor, the tax credits were often more than the taxes they paid. Therefore it was only free for those who couldn't afford it. But it was always there - if you became incapacitated, laid-off, whatever. -
oops
double post -
Great! Let's abolish the use of insurance altogether then.
We'll see how long that lasts
By the way - since when is paying taxes into a program that one uses considered "free" access? -
Why abolish a choice? Makes no sense.
Those that can't afford it will have to either pay off over time, or do what they do now, declare bankruptcy. At which point the seller assumes the loss, not Joe Q.
The problem here is that people think they should have what they need, without giving up anything they want.
If your life isn't worth not having a nice house or a flat screen tv, then by all means don't get help. But it's your choice. -
Anok, I agree, it's not free.
And i'd support it if it meant people getting access to exactly as much as they've paid into the program. I don't want the gov't playing foot loose and fancy free with tax money, so no "risk assumptions" or simliar. Just what you've personally paid.
IF you want more than you've paid, go to a private institution that makes it's living on taking those risks. -
Erik, what you are proposing is akin to taking your premiums, and simply sticking them in a savings account.
No risk assessment, no risk pool - no insurance period. It's a nice idea, but with medical costs the way they are, it won't last long. All those bankruptcies where the seller assumes the loss will put medical industries flat out of business. And then no one will have medical care. Bye-bye hospitals! -
" I don't want the gov't playing foot loose and fancy free with tax money, so no "risk assumptions" or simliar. Just what you've personally paid."
So basically you're saying the rich should get everything and should give nothing to the poor, even though the poor support the rich. A rich person should get top quality medical care just because he can pay for it, while the poor who keep the country running should just die?
With this way of thinking, if someone is poor and gets back more tax money than he's paid in, does that mean that the police and fire departments shouldn't respond to his house? Should the municipal waste not pick up his trash? -
NT go back and read.
I said that they should pay for it too, through payment plans or similar.
If they don't want debt, they can choose to not recieve care. Funny thing is, that's how it is now. And most people choose care when they need it. Then cry about not being able to afford the new car and cool tv.
I agree, care should be available to all, I just think it should be available at their own dime, Whether that is up front or through payments is irrelevant. -
"If they don't want debt, they can choose to not recieve care."
So what you're saying here is that people living from paycheck to paycheck should just not get care and die. Comparing healthcare to a new car or a cool TV is unrealistic. Many people have to choose between necessary medical care for their children, heat in the winter, or food for their family.
-
-
A right is something that is unalienable and cannot be taken away. The government could repeal the 1st amendment and say that we no longer have freedom of religion, but since the right to believe whatever we want is an inherent right, it cannot truly be taken away. I can still believe in whatever God I want to believe in. The government might come and arrest me for believing in my religion but they still can't make me stop believing. The government can repeal the protection of a right but they can't abolish a right.
Forcing someone else to give me something is not a right, it is tyranny. Should we force farmers to give a portion of their crops to someone who has no ability to pay for them because food is a right? If I was a farmer I would believe that I have a right to my own property that I have earned through my hard work. So how could someone else claim that they have a right to my property (as in crops) to feed themselves? If they ask me for some food I would be willing to give what I could spare but they have no right to force me to give it to them. Should clothing stores be forced to give everyone a certain amount of clothing for free? Should construction companies be forced to build a certain number of houses for free? Would all of you who think health care is a right be willing to work 3 days a week for free so other people can confiscate what you earn because they have a right to it? This is tyranny.
Socialists/Communists believe that the state should provide everyone with food, clothing, shelter and medicine. It has been proven not to work. Capitalism and free markets historically benefit the entire population and raise the standard of living for the entire population. Socialism does makes everyone equal... equally poor and equally enslaved to the state!
This cartoon from 1948 lays it out perfectly,
forgottenliberty.com/2009/08/make-mine-freedom-1948-cartoon-applies-to-obam...-
who said the word socialism? It didn't appear in the OP.
-
By your example - the farmer has no right to privately own property, either. Private ownership of property is an entirely made up concept by humans - it is not innate or natural.
The right to live by means of eating, receiving medical care, having water, defending oneself, and having some sort of shelter IS natural, intrinsic, and inherent.
If animals and primitive tribes can understand the concept, I'm sure we can, too. -
"Capitalism and free markets historically benefit the entire population and raise the standard of living for the entire population"
First, I think you're confusing Socialism with the USSR. Keep in mind that here in the USA we also have a degree of Socialism too. The key to benefitting the population comes from a proper balance of Capitalism and Socialism.
Iceland, Norway, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, etc all have higher standards of living that the USA www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html and all have universal healthcare. -
If you go back and read some of my older posts, you'll find out I lived the first 29 years of my life in Sweden, and the "standard of living" is a load of crock.
Wait times, can't choose your own doctor, can't get to see a specialist in less than 90 days, most of the time much longer.
Can't discuss what medicine to get, generic or brand, can't get preventative care, can't get ...
HOw long have you lived in one of these countries? -
"HOw long have you lived in one of these countries?"
Three and a half years in the UK. Very high standard of living in general. Very little poverty in most parts and far less homelessness than in the USA.
I was able to choose my own doctor (within a 10 mile radius), had no problem getting a doctor appointment the same day I called, and was able to see a specialist within a week. The longest wait I had was 30 days for an endoscopy, which was a preventive procedure (which you claim was missing in Sweden). My doctor always discussed my medication with me, and often gave me choices, explaining the differenced between the different ones.
** Britians feel free to join me here in defending your NHS **
As for the poor standard of living in Sweden, I find that shocking. I have a friend in Norway who lives quite well and is very proud of the Norwegian system - including universal health care. Perhaps you should have just moved a litte to the west. -
Very interesting NPR interview with TR Reid on health care systems in various countries: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939
-
LMAO,
Ask your friend what they pay for food, for instance...
Standard of living is a skewed system, it measures the DIFFERENCE between top and bottom, in other words, a country that has nothing, and therefore no one has anything, everyone is equal and they get a disproportionately high score.
Ask your friend how many cars they have, ask them what a pizza costs..
The "standard" is pretty low if you take choice and freedom into consideration. most people have the same because anything above the norm is expensive. -
Oh, and why did you move back if it was so great there?
-
"Standard of living is a skewed system, it measures the DIFFERENCE between top and bottom, in other words, a country that has nothing, and therefore no one has anything, everyone is equal and they get a disproportionately high score."
Exactly. And in America we have the ultra rich and the ultra poor. The poorer on the scale work to keep the rich rich, but sadly the rich often disagree with paying a proportional percentage for the better of the entire society. I'm assuming by your arguments that you're well off and do not know what it's like to want for anything.
As for why I moved to the USA, I have multiple citizenships and move around as I please - but what does that have to do with this discussion? -
LOL, the term "proportional percentage" is not what they are opposing, they are opposing a DISPROPORTIONATE percentage"
If I make 10 bucks, and you make 100 bucks, and we both pay 15% taxes,
You'll still pay 10 times more than I do, but people like you think that you should pay an increasingly disproportionate percentage.
We already have progressive taxation, that's bad enough. Let's not make it worse. Punishing the successful is never a good way to get ahead in anything. -
"Punishing the successful is never a good way to get ahead in anything"
Then can you explain why under Clinton, with a tax scheme very similar to Obama's initial proposal, unemployment dropped significantly and we made progress toward reducing the national debt for the first time in years? -
Yes, Fiscal Policy Lag.
-
"If I make 10 bucks, and you make 100 bucks, and we both pay 15% taxes,
You'll still pay 10 times more than I do, but people like you think that you should pay an increasingly disproportionate percentage."
If I make 10 bucks and pay 15% and you make 100 bucks and pay 50%, you still have 6 times more than me. Usually the ones making the high incomes do so at the cost of the ones making the low incomes. Let all the CEOs stay home for a day and the business goes on as normal. Let all the workers stay home and nothing is produced.
I hardly think that asking the rich to pay according to their means is punishment. -
Let all the CEO"s stay home, and the workers will have nowhere to go or nothing to do.
Yes, you are absolutely right, a good CEO should be largely unseen, when things are good. They are there to make sure things stay on track.
But i get it, you don't think anyone should be allowed to have more than someone else.
Wonderful, I see you left russia because it was the END of the soviet era. -
That statement is perfect proof of the concept.
Obama, and those that promote his plans are largely like you.. Socialist / Communist at heart. -
"But i get it, you don't think anyone should be allowed to have more than someone else."
That's not exactly what I said. I merely said that those who have more should contribute accordingly. This still allows them to have far more in the long run, and it helps society support the poorer percentage who keep them rich anyway. In the end, the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor, but at least the poor will have access to health care which may save their lives.
"Wonderful, I see you left russia because it was the END of the soviet era."
This is a rather petty attach for a discussion, is it not. I said I lived there for 6 months, which also means I arrived at the end of the Soviet era too. -
Guess it just didn't live up to expectations.
The weak will always moan about the rich, if CEO's are so useless, why don't workers just go out and start successful businesses and make millions?
The CEO"s may make their money because they have workers to do the work, the workers however have ANYTHING because there are CEO's making jobs available to them.
And here is the kicker, no one is forcing you to work anywhere. YOu could start a company of your own and be that great benevolent CEO who makes less than the workers etc.
Why don't you? -
"Obama, and those that promote his plans are largely like you.. Socialist / Communist at heart."
Erik, this is a place for a civilized discussion. If you want to resort to petty attacks we can exchange email addresses.
And yes, I do support Socialism, but the kind which is present in Canada and Western Europe. You seem intelligent to understand that we already have a degree of Socialism now in the USA. Don't try to confuse the Socialism of which I'm speaking with the USSR. -
You admit that you support socialism, albeit your percieved version of it. Then you call it an attack when i say you do...
Brilliant! -
"And here is the kicker, no one is forcing you to work anywhere. YOu could start a company of your own and be that great benevolent CEO who makes less than the workers etc.
Why don't you?"
Listen Erik, I'm sorry if you feel you're losing this argument and therefore have to resort to personal attacks. The discussion is whether or not health care should be a right - not whether or not I should become a CEO.
If you want to continue this discussion in a civilized manner, I'm willing to go on. If you've run out of argument and continue on your present track, I'll just sign off. -
You seem convinced that others have to pay for you, yet there is no one saying that you can't go out and do it for yourself.
Asking why you don't can hardly be considered a personal attack. -
You admit that you support socialism, albeit your percieved version of it."
My "perceived" version is doing quite well for the 450 million people of the EU. -
"You seem convinced that others have to pay for you, yet there is no one saying that you can't go out and do it for yourself."
The discussion is neither about me nor you. It's about whether or not health care should be a right.
Many cannot afford medical care . . . . . didn't we already discuss this? -
In your perception yes,
I chose to move out of the EU because i don't agree.
Why did you leave if you prefer that system? -
"I chose to move out of the EU because i don't agree.
Why did you leave if you prefer that system?"
Because I have the freedom to do so and I chose to use it. And if I feel like it, I'll move back.
Among my citizenships is American, and it was this country's Armed Forces that I served in and left with an honorable discharge. As an American (a protected veteran even), I have a right to voice my opinion if I disagree with something. Right now I'm voicing my disagreement with America's health care system. I believe that everyone should have the right to health care.
And also, what makes you think that I think people should support me? Is it not obvious that I have enough money for my own healthcare if I have the resources to move between the USA, UK, France and Russia at will? -
how would i know, I've moved several times across borders, and all but the move to the U.S. was paid for by my employers.
The only good thing I can see in this debate is that your side is losing. -
"how would i know, I've moved several times across borders, and all but the move to the U.S. was paid for by my employers."
It must make things so much easier to have others take care of things for you. Perhaps that's why you have a difficult time seeing things from the point of view of those who struggle to care for themselves.
"The only good thing I can see in this debate is that your side is losing"
?!
A rather interesting assumption on your part -
How about i've worked hard enough to make it to where it's worth it for companies to pay me to be where they need me? Even if that includes international re locations.
I know, such a notion is probably hard for you to envision. But it happens quite frequently.
And when i see support numbers dropping, and those against growing, it gets pretty obvious that Forcing it through would accomplish what they want, and be a death sentence to the administration for the next election. There isn't a politician up for re-election in 2010 that doesn't have that in mind.
Personally, I am enjoying the fallout from this debacle. It's killing Obama's political capital completely. -
If you guys just want to talk shop, that's what shoutboxes are for
-
Erik your response isn't even coherent. Sorry to bust your bubble there, kid - didn't mean to blow your cover and all.
-
"comment removed by the community."
(I didn't want Anok and csi to feel left out.)
-
-
Ok so here is a link to the health townhall from last night. Glad to see that the BC community has not changed at all.
www.ustream.tv/recorded/2043116 -
I work for an airline and fly to Europe quite often. The standard of living over there is not as high as it is here, plain and simple. We are much wealthier in this country. Even our poor, who are living on welfare (our tax money) still have cable/satellite hooked up to all 3 of their flat screen TVs and a $2000 sound system in their cars. Most middle class Europeans don't have half of that. The average European lives in a very small flat and if they have a car, it is usually only 1 car per family, not 2 or more like this country.
Anok, you said;
"Private ownership of property is an entirely made up concept by humans - it is not innate or natural."
Prove it.
I believe it's natural. John Locke (who was a huge influence on our Founding Fathers) said we all have the right to life, liberty, and property. Can you prove that it is not innate or natural. If I give a little kid something and tell him it belongs to him, he understands that and will be upset if someone takes it from him. That seems pretty natural to me. By the way, I'm in need of some money, so I'm claiming a right to a portion of yours. You believe your money is not really your property because owning something is unnatural so why don't you give it to me and relieve yourself of the made up concept. I need it more than you so I'm entitled to it. It's my right now give it to me!-
"Even our poor, who are living on welfare (our tax money) still have cable/satellite hooked up to all 3 of their flat screen TVs and a $2000 sound system in their cars."
I'm very curious about the welfare recipients you know. The ones I've worked with (and there have been many, in three different states) tend not to have cars at all. Many of them do have televisions, but they're certainly not new, flat-screen, or hooked up to cable. -
"Most middle class Europeans don't have half of that. The average European lives in a very small flat and if they have a car, it is usually only 1 car per family, not 2 or more like this country."
Perhaps in Albania. If you fly to Western Europe however, the standard of living is quite high. In addition to the 3 1/2 years that I mentioned spending in Britain, I also lived for 6 months in France and 6 months in Russia at the end of the Soviet era. The small flats and lack of cars that you mentioned are more like life was in the USSR.
In Britain I made a modest salary yet lived in a 4 bedroom house with a garage. I had 2 cars and satellite TV, as did most people in my working class neighborhood. In France I had a three bedroom house and 2 cars, and I was one of the poorer people in my neighboorhood.
Now that I'm back in the USA, I have a 3 BR apartment and 2 cars, but even though I'm above the welfare level you mention, I can only afford one flat screen TV. I have two cars, one with a cheap CD player and one with a broken radio. I think someone owes me a $2000 sound system and a couple of TVs. -
Anok, you said;
"Private ownership of property is an entirely made up concept by humans - it is not innate or natural."
Prove it.
Study indigenous tribes. Study animals. There you have it. Private property is NOT a concept that is a part of basic instincts. In fact - staying in one place (non migratory) isn't even natural. It's something we made up. -
made up or not, private property is expedient. And it was seen as so by one branch of our founding political thought, even as they invisioned a nearly CLASSLESS, nearly STATELESS society.
for more on the nature of the "property" they acknowleged, see my most recent blog entry
-
-
When I was younger I used to work at a warehouse located next to a public housing project. Every single house had a satellite dish and most had cars with rims that costs several thousand dollars, with sound system that could be heard from blocks away. When it was trash pickup day there were always several empty beer boxes out at almost every house's trash can. I was working 10-12 hours a day and had a set of rabbit ears on top of my 19" TV and almost never ate out or got a 6 pack because I didn't have the money.
My wife's job is similar to that of a social worker and she see's the same thing on a daily basis. We just recently got cable yet all of her clients have cable or satellite and multiple TV's. We have two TVs in our house and both are 20 something inches, but most of her clients have either big screen TVs or flat screens. Some have jobs but choose to only work a few days a week because if they work more they might lose their food stamps or some other entitlement. If we subsidize poverty we encourage poverty. If we tax working and making an income then we get less working and income. It's as simple as that.
Ben Franklin said it best when he said,
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”-
Well, obviously, the people about whom you speak are not poor. I don't deny that some game the system, but poor means something very specific...and that's not it. Believe me, there are many people in the United States working full time, perhaps even two jobs, and making daily determinations about things like whether they should pay to keep the utilities from being disconnected or buy groceries.
-
"If we subsidize poverty we encourage poverty"
I'm not saying that the system can't be abused. The British NHS which I've been defending here had its share of abuse too. That's why we have laws against such abuse and prison time for those caught. As you mentioned in Franklin's quote, if you give someone something for nothing, they'll continue to do nothing.
But the discussion here is about health care and should it be a right. Many people who work hard are without it. I'm not advocating giving them welfare so they can get out of work; I'm saying that I believe the government should ensure that medical care is affordable or available to everyone, regardless of income level.
BTW, I've spent a lot of time driving for a living in the poorer areas of Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles, and I've never seen such affluent public housing projects as the ones you mention.
-
-
You have to go inside someones house who lives in a public housing project. They don't take care of the outside of the building because they didn't have to pay for it. If you go inside, that is where you will see the flat screen TV with the X-box and Play Station hooked up to it. I'm not saying that every single person who is poor is like this but a sizable portion are.
NT77, you said "I'm saying that I believe the government should ensure that medical care is affordable or available to everyone, regardless of income level"
Shouldn't the government also ensure that there is affordable and available food for everyone? Shouldn't the government ensure that there is affordable and available housing for everyone? Shouldn't the government ensure that there is affordable and available clothing for everyone? What about a job? What about transportation? When does it stop? If health care is a right that the government must provide to everyone then why is food, clothing, and shelter any different? Whatever happened to the individual liberty that the United States was founded on?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.."~Thomas Jefferson-
ForgottenLiberty, I've been inside many public housing projects, over a period of more than twenty years, in three states and numerous cities, and I have never seen anything remotely like what you are describing.
-
I live three blocks from a Section 8 housing, Now, i haven't been IN them, but i can see the quality of their garbage.
Unless they are masters at getting empty PS3 boxes, Aquos 42 inch tv boxes, etc. They must be buying the products.
There's something like that almost every time i drive by it. And the Garbage station is right next to where I park to go into the local 7/11 -
Do you look that closely at the garbage everywhere you go? I must admit that I don't, and that I have no idea what my former clients had in their garbage. I know what they had in their houses, though.
-
If i walk next to a garbage container and it contains stuff that stands out, yes, I guess I'm pretty observant in general.
I just don't think that it's that likely that these people keep getting old leftover clothes packaged in LCD tv boxes.
1. The boxes are pretty pristine when i see them
2. They aren't very useful for things that aren't in that shape.
I don't know, maybe you have another explanation for it then. -
Of course - the families could also be getting these items at cost, used, resold, from a one time influx of money (cash gift) or as gifts from others.
Ever heard of a birthday party?
Oh, I forgot. I'm talking to people who think that if you're poor, you should never have anything nice - not even as a treat once in a while.
*rolls eyes*
The incredible amount of assumptions and stereotypes here are making me nauseous. -
"If health care is a right that the government must provide to everyone then why is food, clothing, and shelter any different? Whatever happened to the individual liberty that the United States was founded on?"
I agree that the government should ensure that its citizens have all the basics they need to survive. The EU has rights to health care and housing, and why shouldn't we too? Are the Europeans better than your own countrymen?
I'm not saying that the government should buy everyone a mansion, gourmet meals and silk gowns. I'm just saying that everyone's basic needs should be provided for. In my opinion, everyone deserves shelter, heat, food, clothing, and of course medical care. That's not saying that the government should provide it all directly, but they should have some system in place to ensure that it's available to all. It's bad enough that members of the general population must do without, but in this country the families of our servicemen live in poverty as well. To quote you, When does it stop?"
How much of our taxes have been spent on unnecessary wars? If you have no problem with that, why do you have a problem with taxes being spent on people in need?
And as for this quote: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.."~Thomas Jefferson
Things were different 200 years ago. The government is already big enough to give us everything we want, and try not paying your taxes and you'll find that it's strong enough to take away everything you have too. And that can be done without even involving the military. -
I'd be interested in the source for that Jefferson quote... o_0
I should also note that nobody is saying that the government should PROVIDE the basics of subsistence to EVERYONE, but rather that it should GUARANTEE a minimum, a la:
"...there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and capacity to work, can be assured to everybody." -- F.A. Hayek; "The Road to Serfdom" (1944)
-
-
How about instead of government regulation or mandate if government absolutely has to be involved keep it to start up only. For one we cant afford single payer. Though this is likely not going to happen I am simply just stating the case. We can't afford the multi trillions for social security and medicare costs so not like adding another expense will some how take a negative in reverse.-$$$ + -$$$ somehow equals -$$$ - -$$$?????????
Single provider has major faults and I think many will agree with that. However many are still convinced that when bureaucrats say single payer is the only way I'm sure those people don't really look into its saving graces either.
Reference:
www.pjtv.com/video/Louder_With_Crowder/_PJTV_Undercover:_Steven_Crowder_Inv...
That's just one nice example.
As for government being regulating and mandating non profit coops. ... For one I thought we had a right to life not the right to be forced how to live it? Hmmmm sounds a bit unconstitutional to me. Also besides that point. It simply won't work. Once someone sees the government pocketbook is involved the buck gets passed on. This idea is simply stupid and will be just as effective Bush's prescription plan. Don't see how? Well how about again realizing the buck will get passed on? And no economies are not black and white and we are already passed the insurance point. If hospitals are stuck with specified insurance policies that doesn't mean who they do business with are in that same boat. In other words... Medical suppliers and medical services will see consumers get a discount and if they can continue to pass the buck onto a form of public policy it WILL happen. So if they do business with a business that deals with insurance they will raise their prices. Which obviously means as in the example of hospitals go they have to charge more because they are being charged more. And if they can't charge more? Well that sounds a lot like the problems with certain states having problems charging certain peoples without insurance for emergency visits and end up going out of business.
But we are the infinite pocketbook (the FED makes sure of that) so I'm sure we can handle it. Or at least our kids can handle it.
Collusion only makes things worse.-
unfortunately, many of the plans being batted about by either party involve a "private" carrot, and a "public" stick
-
-
NT77,
"I agree that the government should ensure that its citizens have all the basics they need to survive. The EU has rights to health care and housing, and why shouldn't we too? Are the Europeans better than your own countrymen?"
Who pays for all of this? If you are willing to have your taxes doubled and have most of your tax money wasted by the inefficient bureaucracy then why are you not willing to keep your own money, provide for yourself, and give some of whats left over to a charity?
Our government either needs to drastically reduce it's size and costs or it needs to drastically raise taxes on everyone. It's current spending level is unsustainable. If health care is added to that it will cause our debt level to go even higher. Check out usdebtclock.org/ It is very sobering. The amount of money our government is spending this year on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid combined is almost twice as much as the entire Defense budget including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Take a look at the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Medicaid. It's almost 40 TRILLION dollars. How much more will it cost if a medicare/medicaid style program is enacted to include every single American? It is unsustainable. Many European countries are finding this out and are trying to re-privatize segments of the Health industry and are being forced to shut down smaller hospitals.
I would rather have more of my own money in my pocket and provide for my own food, shelter and health care, then to have the government take most of my money and provide everything for me. I guess I'm weird because I would rather be an independent citizen then a dependent subject of the government.-
"Who pays for all of this? If you are willing to have your taxes doubled and have most of your tax money wasted by the inefficient bureaucracy then why are you not willing to provide for yourself and give some of the money left over to a charity?"
@Forgotten Liberty.
As mentioned earlier, I lived in Britain where I was covered by their universal health care system (NHS). True, the percentage that was taken from my paycheck for the NHS were far higher than any taxes I've ever had taken from an American paycheck. But when I considered the amount that I pay here in the USA from my paycheck each week for health insurance, coupled with co-pays each time I or one of my family members visits a doctor or has to buy a prescription medication, I was actually paying less under the British system. And in Britain I never had to worry about the pharmacist telling me that my insurance wouldn't cover the medication that my doctor prescribed for me.
Also, under the British system, those with low incomes or raising children got money from the government every week (not once a year) in the form of tax credits. This helped to offset the higher taxes.
It is true what you say about talk of privatization of segements of some European health systems, and in Britain I did see the closure of some smaller hospitals. The NHS was far from perfect, and was criticized frequently in the media for being run inefficiently (millions of pounds sterling being spent on potted plants. But whatever happens in regard to its inefficiency and the talk of some privatization, it will remain available to everyone. No one in Britain will have to make a decision between medical care and food.
As to donating money to charity, although it may provide short term relief to a few, it will do nothing to end the problem of the uninsured and underinsured in America.
"I would rather have more of my own money in my pocket and provide for my own food, shelter and health care, then to have the government take most of my money and provide everything for me. I guess I'm weird because I would rather be an independent citizen then a dependent subject of the government."
Like I said earlier, the British government didn't take most of my money. They took taxes for health care, the same way my American employer takes a portion of my check for health insurance. The difference was that in Britain the doctors decided what treatment I got. In America, my doctors' decisions can br overridden by my insurance company. sure, I can still get the treatment, but for an outrageous cost from my own pocket. As for food, clothes, shelter, etc, I paid for that myself as do most Europeans.
I'm not suggesting that we all become dependent on the government. I'm just saying that I believe that the government has an obligation to provide basic necessities for those who can't provide them for themselves. -
"coupled with co-pays each time I or one of my family members visits a doctor or has to buy a prescription medication"
yeah, god forbid you need some lab work -
Yeah but under the not-so-nice British system if you are 65 with terminal cancer and treatment could extend your life so you could spend more time with your family you also get returned A LOT less as well. Being that you are already dead you are nothing at that point but wasteful spending...
And pardon any misunderstanding but if you have the government "provide" anything then don't you learn to expect that to be provided and therefore become dependent upon them to provide it? -
son of a motherless f....
Dammit
Try again
yay! -
"if you have the government "provide" anything then don't you learn to expect that to be provided and therefore become dependent upon them to provide it?"
I really can't understand how people confuse universal healthcare with being completely dependent on the government. It's like saying if my house catches on fire, I must put it out myself or I'll be dependent on the fire department for every little fire. Or if I've been robbed I must solve the crime myself or I'll be dependent on the police department for every little crime. Or I must take my own trash to the dump or I'll be dependent on the garbage company to take it away.
With the system America has in place now, unless someone is extremely well off financially, we're dependent on the insurance companies for our medical care. We pay thousands of dollars a year for our premiums and the insurance companies do as they wish with the money. They can refuse to pay for medications that our doctors have prescribed, they can refuse treatment for reasons such as pre-existing conditions, and they kick our children off when they reach a certain age, with no reductions in premiums if we still have other children insured. If you change jobs, you must pay high rates for COBRA while you wait to be insured at your new company, and if you lose your job, you find yourself without care altogether (unless you can afford your own policy). On top of this, we're still expected to pay deductibles and co-pays which can cost additional thousands of dollars a year, especially if you have children. Many people have insurance but can't afford some medical care or medications because of the co-pays and the deductibles.
With universal healthcare, again you pay the same thousands of dollars for coverage, this time in taxes. It works out the same because now you're not paying premiums. You won't be turned down for treatment (the rulings of the British NICE {65 year old with terminal cancer} are often overruled, and ignored completely in Scotland), your medication will be paid for, your children will be covered regardless of their ages, and you'll be covered between jobs, during unemployment, in retirement, whatever. All with no co-pays nor deductibles (in most cases - yeah, I know countries like France have very small co-pays).
There is less dependency on the government in the universal system then our current dependency on insurance companies. No list of participating doctors. No list of participating pharmacies. No worries about pre-approvals or what hospital you can use while on vacation or visiting relatives on the other side of the country.
-
-
It is also a human right to not help out your fellow neighbor. We have the right to not do it. Forcing the people to pay for each others health care just will not work. Most people work hard for their money and they would rather not pay for other people's health care.-
Then I suggest they stop using insurance companies altogether, particularly group insurance policies provided by employers. The group risks are paid for by pooled premiums - so every time you pay your premium, you are contributing to the medical expenses of others.
-
Yeah, but its VOLUNTARY!
-
Like I said above, "voluntary" should be used loosely here. Sure, it's voluntary - so long as you agree to go bankrupt in case of medical catastrophe, and don't want to receive medical treatment.
Otherwise, it's mandatory. And either way - the company uses your premiums to pay for other people's medical care - did you volunteer for that? After all, that is what all the hubub is about, isn't it? Paying for other people's medical care?
Well that's what you're doing! -
Really,
Narrowminded as usual.
how about taking that money and instead investing it, create your own medical fund..
There are those that do that as well you know. -
Odd for an anarchist to be for oppressive government intervention.
-
"It is also a human right to not help out your fellow neighbor. We have the right to not do it."
So you'd rather help the rich who have investments in the health insurance indusrty become even richer, than help a fellow American who is less well off than yourself. If that's your way of thinking, why don't you write to the IRS and tell them you refuse to pay any more social security. Tell them that you can't tolerate the thought of your money going to help others who have worked all their lives and possibly served in our armed forces. Because you do understand that the money you're paying now is going to help those already retired. Your contributions are not being set aside in a fund just for you. And since you're only 19, you have an awful lot of social security to still pay before you see any of it. -
"how about taking that money and instead investing it, create your own medical fund..
There are those that do that as well you know."
And how many people can afford to do that? If the whole population could afford that, there'd be no need for this discussion. -
Antics - how do my above comments reflect my desire for oppressive government action?
I'm merely pointing out that the notion of "voluntary" premiums and self sufficiency in using private insurance (VS "paying for other people's medical care") is an illusion.
Every time you pay your premium, you are funding other people's medical care. It's all based on the same principle - only one is not for profit, and one is for profit.
Once people get that, then we can move on to more important aspects of the debate.
Erik - if you want to gamble your health insurance on the market, that's your right to. I wouldn't, but then again I don't gamble. -
That's funny, you're saying it's not my right, because you want me to take that money and pay for others insurance.
-
technically your dollars are funding lobbyists healthcare (and other things) by paying private health premiums. just sayin'
-
You didn't read the premise did you?
-
It does seem wrong to coerce people into buying private insurance (despite the fact that the same occurs when you own a car) but this doesn't necesarily mean it won't work. I was just adding perspective. It is also worth noting that the bipartisan (and budget nuetral) Wyden-Bennett plan makes insurance manditory, as does Judd Gregg's proposal.
-
Erik, you already pay for other people's insurance through private companies whether you want to or not. Unless you're uninsured, of course.
Get it now? You already DO. -
1. IF i paid insurance, i would be doing so Voluntarily
2. If i had investments set aside as a medical emergency fund, that would be voluntary as well.
Get it now? -
but you're still paying a portion of those who don't pay their hospital bill, currently...
-
Yep, thats true. That doesn't mean it should go to whatever extremes.
Oh, you're bleeding a little from that mosquito bite. So cutting your arm off won't make a difference.
They should include medical bills into the same category as Student Loans, or "stuff you can't get out of in a Bankruptcy"... -
actually, I was referring to the nominal subsidy paid to hospitals to compensate for care that they are not allowed to refuse, even though the patient can't pay.
-
CAN"T pay.. is an interesting notion.
If you make that debt perpetual, (it should however not carry interest above adjusting for inflation.. up OR down) Most people will be able to pay. Over whatever time that takes.
Those that pass away without having paid it, despite this. Will make up such a small percentage that the loss would be able to account into normal CODB. -
i won't evaluate the ethical implications of such measures, but rather will simply examine the practical. if a person is under such a debt and subsequently becomes disabled, is incarcerated, or owes other court mandated debts (child support payments, etc) they may actually not be capable of making payment.
-
You are right, there will be some that won't be able to make that payment. But the majority will.
The hospitals will simply have to adjust their pricing to cover that.
And in all honesty, there is PLENTY of room for those adjustments. Go search for something like what a hospital charged a patient for a box of Kleenex, and you'll see that there is lots of room to remove crazy prices and apply it to where it should be.
I'd have very little problem with making two major changes, 1. Making all hospitals "not for profit", and 2. making them tax exempt. -
Still from a practical perspective, i'd say that the portion of those who "can't" pay for care has a disporportionate number of criminals and dead beat dads (though not all... I'm still gonna get flamed here) the rest likely would draw more social services, or be more likely to recieve incarceration services for things like petty theft, armed robbery, identity theft... whatever else might help free them from their indentured servitude sooner. Thus still there would be a draw on government at some level.
-
I think some criminals would be more criminal beause of it, yes, I don't think that people who aren't criminals already would suddenly turn to crime.
Especially if the debt is paid off over longer time, with smaller installments. Like i said, make it perpetual.
That someone would consider Jail or prison over debt, Then i say put them there, and make sure that they work for their room and board. Putting their income towards their debt. -
I'm saying that human frailty being what it is, that some would risk incarceration given that their health-induced servitude presented not so attractive an argument as to discourage such activity.
-
I think you need to read the bottom of this page, I spelled out the problem there.
-
@Anok...I took it that you were advocating for single payer, thus the oppression. If that was not your intent, my apologies.
-
-
anticsrocks - sorry for being technical but really right wing extremes are more oppressive while left wing extremes are suppressive. They both achieve the same goals really just through different means. Still doesn't make either one less WRONG though.
-
hmmm, lol. Okay. Suppressive then.
-
-
Obama is saying that the public option will be voluntary, but how can it be voluntary when it eliminates insurance companies?
-
Voluntary by El Presidente's standards mean that the SEIU goons won't show up at your door with a pen and contract saying, "Sign here!"
-
"Obama is saying that the public option will be voluntary, but how can it be voluntary when it eliminates insurance companies?"
The insurance companies don't necessarily have to be eliminated; they just need to be regulated to care more about people's health than about their own profits.
The Netherlands have univeral health care with insurance companies like American HMOs. They are forbidden to refuse to pay for treatment or deny coverage for reasons like pre-existing conditions. If an insurance company has the misfortune of covering more than their share of people needing treatment, they goverment provides a subsidy so the company will not take a loss. -
It can't be voluntary when everybody is forced to pay into it through taxes...
-
Obama is saying that the public option will be voluntary, but how can it be voluntary when it eliminates insurance companies?
*rolls eyes*
Can you show me exactly where in the draft bills it outlines insurance company elimination?? Can you provide ANY media where the administration talks about eliminating private insurance companies as part of the current health care bill??
Why do opponents of health care reform lie to themselves and others? If reform is SO horrible, why is there SO much misinformation coming from opponents?? -
since SUCH a VAST majority prefer private insurance, how could the private companies go out of business?
-
-
The question is at what point do we tell the government to stay out of lives.
The "right" has yet to state how much Government they really want in their life.
Public roads are ok public transportation is ok. Social Security is ok.... where does the "right" want it to stop?
Listen I was sold a bag of goods that my car insurance rates would go down because it was mandated that everyone would pay.... then the insurance companies found a way to increase rates but basing insurance on a credit rating. listen I am all for capitalism, but damn.-
When do they stay out? When it is not neccesary for them to be "in".
I Don't get it when people say that not wanting mandated healthcare is the same as police and fire departments.
Police, military, courts, all of these things are better to be run by a central system.
They should stay out when it comes down to me paying for other peoples stupidity.
No, i don't like people suffering from Cancer and getting into financial trouble for it. But i Like it even less to think that every person who takes no personal responsibility should be able to just keep being ignorant and have others pay for it.
99% of all hospital visits are based on some kind of decision the injured or sick person took. Wether that is Smoking, Drinking, being overweight, not looking before crossing the street. Doing drugs, Not checking to see that their Bike had the tires screwed on.
"No, i didn't use safety goggles when i used the nailgun, but you should pay for my dumbness"
"Yes i know I shouldn't eat McDonalds when i weigh 400 pounds, but i don't have to pay for the bypass, it's YOUR problem... "
We are promoting lack of personal responisbility, lack of accountability and sticking those that take care of their own business with the bill.
Find me a bill that covers children, and the true sufferers that have done nothing to create the problem. And i'll be happy to support that plan.
Until then, learn that stupid hurts and take care of your own business. -
does your swine flu mask get sweaty during the office day? o_0
-
"The hospitals will simply have to adjust their pricing to cover that.
I'd have very little problem with making two major changes, 1. Making all hospitals "not for profit", and 2. making them tax exempt."
Erik, for once I have to agree with you. Hospitals overcharge tremendously. But making the price realistic on a box of Kleenex,as you mentioned (or a band-aid, as I mentioned earlier) would only encourage the hypochondriac to tie up the ERs. The real problem is the high cost of many surgical procedures. It's not possible to make the cost of those available to the average citizen while still maintaining high quality.
"They should include medical bills into the same category as Student Loans, or "stuff you can't get out of in a Bankruptcy"
I won't go into free education as exists in many European countries, such as Sweden. This is not the place for it. But comparing student loans and medical bills is unfair. People enter into student loan contracts voluntarily because they want to better themselves. Although it's commendable, it's not necessary for survival. Medical cost are often a matter of survival. Their medical conditions are usually not something they brought on themselves.
"99% of all hospital visits are based on some kind of decision the injured or sick person took. Wether that is Smoking, Drinking, being overweight, not looking before crossing the street. Doing drugs, Not checking to see that their Bike had the tires screwed on."
I won't argue that many medical conditions are the result of poor decisions on the patients' fault. However 99% seems like an awful high percentage and I'd really be interested to know where you got that figure from. Personally I believe the figure to be much lower. I agree that we as a whole should not be obligated to pay for cosmetic surgeries or any other that a patient doesn't need to survive. But people do make mistakes and I disagree that even the "stupid" should be left to die.
"If you make that debt perpetual, (it should however not carry interest above adjusting for inflation.. up OR down) Most people will be able to pay. Over whatever time that takes."
I question your use of the word "most." Many people live from paycheck to paycheck, and to repay a cost in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars is simply unrealistic.
-
-
AAh, perfect example,
Do you know anything you can do to reduce your risk of getting the Flu?
If you don't then why is it my fault you can't read on your own.
If you DO, then why is it my problem when you gamble and lose?-
the question is can you eliminate the risk of catching the flu.
can you be sure tomorrow that you will not be grieviously injured during commute.
Can you be sure that you are not the victim of random violence by a perpetrator that cannot be identified.
If you can go about life smug that no harm will befall you, god bless you. Just don't cry if nobody shows such concern as befits humanity, if something terrible occurs. -
Most and highest hospital costs start in the Emergency room. People call them "Accidents"... when most of the time, they're a direct result of stupidity, or failure to stop and think.
Can i prove 99% no, but if you think about it, You'll get pretty close.
The main killers in this country all come from being fat. And i'm sorry, i don't want to pay your bill because you can't stop chewing on those twinkies. -
well then, I hope you never have a bad day
-
Me too, but if i do, you can bet your @ss i'll pay for it. Just like i have in the past.
Don't worry, i won't come and take the money out of your wallet. -
so if it cost $150,000, you'd be ok with that?
wait, wait... you could negotiate it down to $85,000, my bad -
Lets see now,
Being DEAD.. or owing 85k.. or 150k... Which would you prefer?
I know my answer to that. -
what do you mean by "DEAD"?
-
Well, that depends, CSI...what happens when you owe $85k and you have no means to pay it? Do they take your house? Your car, so that you can no longer earn a living? Make calls twenty and thirty times a day and harass your friends and family like many collection agencies do? Or is this an imaginary debt that simply sits there quietly if you never have any disposable income?
Surely you are aware that many people have committed suicide when faced with insurmountable financial problems? That makes it a bit less clear which people would choose, doesn't it? -
Oh my god, Are you related to Bill Clinton> He didn't know what IS meant..
Death. To die. To expire. To pass on. To perish. To peg out. To push up daisies. To push up posies. To become extinct. Curtains, deceased, Demised, departed And defunct. Dead as a doornail. Dead as a herring. Dead as a mutton. Dead as nits. The last breath. Paying a debt to nature. The big sleep. God's way of saying, "Slow down." -
since you advise all of those lovely corpoate boards, perhaps you have an extra 150k laying around. for the majority of the population, it would equate to ruin or near to it. In your utopia, it would spell a lifetime of servatude for many. Tough beans for them. Such is the price of living in "freedom" *rolls eyes*
-
-
Here's my biggest problem with the whole debate over what causes the high cost of medical care: medical facilities bill insurance companies at a rate many times lower than they bill individual humans. If I go in for an MRI without insurance, I might be billed $1800 for that test. If it's billed to my insurance company, the insurance company simply "disallows" $1000 or more of that cost, and the bill magically becomes $700 or 800. The insurance company then pays a portion of that, so that I only actually pay perhaps $100 of the cost. But the big difference, the really significant difference, between what I pay with insurance and what I pay without insurance isn't based on what the insurance company pays--it's based on what the insurance company simply makes disappear by saying, "No, that's too much". If hospitals and testing facilities can afford to go along with insurance companies (which are involved in the vast majority of billing for most facilities) paying $700-800 for a procedure, why "must" they charge individual people $1800?
-
They don't have to.
I negotiated my medical bill from 16500 to just under 8000.
Most people just accept it, but so far, i haven't head of a single person I KNOW, that can substantiate being unable to negotiate costs.
But i'm sure someone will have some story about how it's impossible that we'll just have to take their word for. -
I think it's more about the fact that most people simply don't know it's an option. And the hospitals know they don't know, so they just pile up the bills and pass them on to collections. I agree that it's likely that most bills could be negotiated, but that isn't really responsive to the question, is it? The question related to why we keep cooking up all these reasons that hospitals "have" to charge so much, when they quite obviously don't since they charge far less to insurance companies. In fact, your assertion here actually supports the idea that hospitals "having" to charge so much is a crock.
-
"If hospitals and testing facilities can afford to go along with insurance companies (which are involved in the vast majority of billing for most facilities) paying $700-800 for a procedure, why "must" they charge individual people $1800?"
Doctors claim that insurance companies underpay them. Insurers claim that doctors charge too much and they can't afford the full price. Therefore doctors and hospitals "balance bill" patients when possible (see this article: www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/August/19/out-of-network.aspx ).
And so I'm saying the government should step in with some sort of regulations. It doesn't necessarily have to be the government running the health care system, but if not, then they should do something to protect the consumers.
I'm not really for government involvement in our lives any more than necessary. But something definitely must change in our current system. The government is going to involve itself in our lives to an extent anyway - they might as well do something good for us. -
Of c ourse it's a crock, which is why i support hospitals being Not for profit organizations with higher insight.
But the fact that people don't KNOW is hardly a defense to have a centralized gov't system.
We really have to stop babying people, if you don't KNOW, then why should everyone else have to pay for your lacking abilities?
When did we decide to reward ignorance. -
But they choose it, NT. They enter into preferred provider agreements and such with the insurance companies and AGREE to those rates and adjustments. If they think it's not enough, they should be negotiating there, or declining to enter into the agreement, not expecting uninsured Americans to take up the slack for their bad bargains.
-
CSI, you're always putting words in my mouth. I didn't say a word about centralized anything. I said I thought "hospitals have to charge this much" and all of the justifications people were always cooking up to support that idea were lies. Period.
-
"Most people just accept it, but so far, i haven't head of a single person I KNOW, that can substantiate being unable to negotiate costs.
But i'm sure someone will have some story about how it's impossible that we'll just have to take their word for."
No, I know it's possible. Most debts can be negotiated down, and medical bills are no exception. There are also agencies who will negotiate with hospitals on behalf of patients who have medical bills that they can't afford to pay.
But your $16,500 bill was minor as compared to some. Some bills go into millions of dollars, and patients and their families have no hope of paying them off.
No one is suggesting that you pay from your own wallet for any individual's medical. All a tax based system would do is require you to pay according to your means for health care for all - you included. I'm assuming that you already pay social security although you're not retired, school tax regardless of whether or not you have children, etc. -
"If they think it's not enough, they should be negotiating there, or declining to enter into the agreement, not expecting uninsured Americans to take up the slack for their bad bargains."
MadameX, I agree. But they stick it to the uninsured (or underinsured) because they can. Because there is no one stopping them.
Someone needs to step in and do something about it. If not the government, who will? -
Erik, if not a centralized system, then allow the states to control it themselves. Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont have already taken steps in that direction. Even if you want to keep the insurance companies, at least do something to mandate that everyone be covered fairly (I already explained how the Netherlands does it).
And I would hardly consider helping those lacking in education or intellect, "rewarding ignorance." How many times in any given week do you rely on the services of those whom you consider "ignorant?" -
What do you mean rely on them?
I try not to rely on the ignorant, it tends to bite you in the ass. -
make sure you secure those jack-stands while you're changing your oil
we wouldn't want anything "stupid" to happen -
YEs i pay taxes, because i HAVE To, that doesn't mean i wouldn't rather keep that money and pay for it myself.
I don't expect to get a dime from SS, it's already bankrupt, so in essence, I'm not getting SH-t for that money. I'm paying for someone else and that's it .
If i don't have kids, i don't see why i should be paying for education.
I think we should pay for things as we use them. Through point taxes.
Then people like you scream about police and fire, we pay them to do completely different things. They are hardly ever a service that one consumes. But relies on as a service> healthcare, education, etc. are services that are consumed, and should be taxed accordingly. -
rather that police and fire, I like to bring up the Wal-Mart parking lot, and the industrial park...
-
please.. bring it up, what about them?
-
"They are hardly ever a service that one consumes. But relies on as a service> healthcare, education, etc. are services that are consumed, and should be taxed accordingly."
So you're saying that we'd profit from a population that's uneducated and in poor health. Or really you're saying that such "luxuries" should only be for the rich.
Perhaps we should tax people by the contributions they make for society as a whole, with those who make the least valuable contributions paying the most taxes. Teachers, police, military, etc should therefore be practically exempt from taxes as these are professions that we cannot do without. As far as Marketing and Management solutions however . . . . well, I don't think it would have a major impact on America if they all closed down tomorrow. Maybe they should be taxed higher. -
I'm saying that when you use a service you should pay for it.
Maybe we'd be better off if people who can't afford to take care of their kids stopped having them until they can. -
"I'm saying that when you use a service you should pay for it."
I agree. Your problem is that you're confusing services with necessities. -
NO, i think you are confusing wants with needs. Which is the reason this country is in such a mess to begin with.
-
"i think you are confusing wants with needs"
Concerning medical care - a 'want' is cosmetic surgery / a 'need' is a lifesaving operation -
AAH,
1. we were discussing schools and fire..
2. A lifesaving operation could be considered a need for sure.
So could water and food, should we just pay taxes and then be allowed to go pick out what we need from the store?
I'm all for providing a lifesaving operation to anyone, as long as they agree that they are responsible for paying it back to the best of their ability. -
"So could water and food, should we just pay taxes and then be allowed to go pick out what we need from the store?"
Water and food are reasonable priced so this is hardly necessary. However, a portion of your taxes does go to whatever Food Stamp program your state has.
"I'm all for providing a lifesaving operation to anyone, as long as they agree that they are responsible for paying it back to the best of their ability."
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the first time you've mentioned that the repayment should be to the best of one's abilities. I still support a universal, tax-based system, but I can accept repayment of medical costs to the best of one's abilities.
But since many procedures are extremely expensive, how would this help? If someone making $15,000 a year were to incur medical expenses exceeding $250,000, it would never be paid off. The hospital would be lucky to collect $1,000 a year. Such loses would only drive up costs. -
Well i happen to believe that debt should sting. So someone making 15k would be driven to take care of their responsibilities.
Just like people are punished for not taking care of child payments for instance.
So yes, the payments should drop you down to a minimum standard. not keep you in your 4 bedroom house with a pool.
Like i said, this should be to the BEST of your abilities, which doesn't mean what YOU consider your ability to be. That means selling off assets and taking a hit in your living standard if necessary. -
Sting or cripple?
Child payments are different. People have children voluntarily and I agree that they should be responsible for them. But medical emergencies do not come about voluntarily.
If people in Florida can afford a 4 bedroom house and a pool on 15k a year, then I'm living in the wrong state. In other states though, many people live in poverty and have no assets to sell off. Bankruptcies do not allow a person to consider what they think is the best of their ability to repay, but if the court approves the bankruptcy, it does little to help the creditor. -
"please.. bring it up, what about them?"
Industrial subsidies seldom pay for themselves. Retail subsidies actually hurt local micro-economies. They are the stuff of aesthetic socialism -
Yeah but if you stipulate a maximum, and then take the rest. People will be more inclined to pay off their debts because it's the only way to get to a better position.
-
"Yeah but if you stipulate a maximum, and then take the rest. People will be more inclined to pay off their debts because it's the only way to get to a better position."
Some debts can put people in a hole from which they can never get out of. Bankruptcy in the USA is designed to give people a second chance. The debt usually must be paid back, but not in its entirity. In all honesty, I don't know all the rules concerning it, but I'm assuming that debts can be liquidated only if the person did not act stupidly (gambling, etc) or if there was no fraud involved.
If you set a maximum for bankruptcy and then take assets such as houses and cars, you'll drive people into the streets with no chance of recovering. And some people have no assets. What could people in rural poverty stricken areas or the ghettos do to pay off medical debts? Such a policy would encourage them to give up all together and live off of welfare. -
@NT77
It's pretty clear that he as never thought this out in any depth. It is historically significant that feudal countries are prone to revolutions, from which no property is safe. Social services are a prophilactic for social unrest.
-
-
Exactly, Wouldn't you consider crawling under a car without securing it stupid?
-
How wonderful Erik! You're completely independent. You take your own garbage to the city dump; you grow your own food so you won't have to rely on the "ignorant" delivering it to the supermarket or stocking the shelves. You probably have your own well to pump water and windmill to generate electricity so you wont have to rely on utility workers.
I could go on, but it's pointless -
My goodness you're behind the dragcurve.
A Utility worker provides a service that i pay for.
When he gets stupid changing oil, and his car falls on him, what service did he provide me with during that little adventure? -
"A Utility worker provides a service that i pay for."
You actually pay for utilities?! But even though you pay depending on what you use, don't you understand that a portion of your money goes to maintaining the grid for your whole city? Does it not bother you that a portion of your hard earned money is used to maintain the pipes and wires for others in Ft Lauderdale? Others who may be "ignorant" by your standards, and may never have done anything for you.
And if we really want to get carried away with this conversation, what if one of those ignoramuses stupidly sticks a fork in an outlet and needs medical attention? Did you not contribute to this hypothetical "accident" by paying a portion of the upkeep on the power grid that provided the electricity that shocked him.
(rolls eyes and sighs) -
No i did not contribute to their stupidity any more than me breathing contributed to the tree growing that they fell out of.
And yes, i pay the company what i consider a fair price to provide me with electricity, HOW they do that, is up to them, having a grid is needed for them to get it. And if you don't pay your bill, you don't get electricity, so the grid doesn't help you much then.
That means that everyone that pays, gets a service, and those that don't pay don't get that service.
See how that works? -
So, CSI, is your position that any person who is unable to earn a living--say, someone who is disabled--should simply starve to death in the street?
-
AAh, no that is not my position at all.
The ones that are truly unable to care for themselves such as handicapped people should recieve the help they need.
That would not tip the nations economy down the deep dark hole a government healthcare plan would.
All i'm saying is take care of your own, those that need help should get it, with stipulations placed on what they can get and for how long.
Not instill a system that makes personal achievement something that should be taxed so that those who achieve nothing can keep on doing it.
It means that you shouldn't be expecting people who make different choices than you do pay for your choices.
-
-
wp
-
*wrong spot*
-
Before Bismark (i.e Government) stepped into health care, charity and philanthropy went a long way to help those in need. Taxpayers and health bureaucracies have taken over. I'm not certain that those who are unable to care for themselves have gained from this.-
perhaps you could articulate what you mean?
-
I guess liberty means dependency on paternalistic charity? Maybe some edifying and obligatory time in a workhouse too?
-
the First Estate of the Realm will set you free
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
