Political Beliefs 101: Who should pay for Health Care?

[dblack]

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay".

Yeah?

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin.

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care in general. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay". We all pay through our taxes. "Free" is a right wing myth to stir up people like Ray who resents his taxes helping people.
I have paid around 40 years of taxes and have seen myself and my family well looked after.It doesnt bother me if my taxes help others because they are helping me. Its just an insurance scheme.

And the first point you make isnt chiming with me. By providing insulin we are implicitly helping people. Nobody should have to pay for it at point of delivery primarily because it has been proven that you do not have to There is a better way..

What about people with arthritis? What about people with heart conditions? What about people with depression? Do we just pay for the medication of all people?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

I don't find it reasonable at all. WTF is everybody so concerned about the poor?

Because most people have a sense of empathy and compassion for those less fortunate than themselves. I think that's a good thing. It's what community is all about. What I have a problem with is expressing that empathy via government. We can care for the poor without forcing it on people with legislation.

Well I have the "poor" living right next door to me in the HUD house, and let me tell you, I have no empathy for them because they have no concern for me.

They come home all hours on a work night, laughing their asses off and yelling at each other, slamming car doors and setting their ten dollar car alarm so nobody steals their three hundred dollar car. In the summer time they throw parties with the food they get from food stamps where at least two dozen or more show up. The music is blaring until I get the cops here.

This time of year is cleanup time. I usually don't mind the sticks, the pinecones, the leaves. But now I have to clean up all the garbage that flies into my yard from theirs, and that kind of cleanup I don't appreciate. Nor do I appreciate them leaving their trash cans on the curb for four or five days after the trash is collected.

If that's what a community is all about, I want no part of it. If I have to support them, fine. I'll support them over there--not over here. Here we wake up early in the morning to generate tax money for them to live off of.

 

[22lcidw]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care in general. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay". We all pay through our taxes. "Free" is a right wing myth to stir up people like Ray who resents his taxes helping people.
I have paid around 40 years of taxes and have seen myself and my family well looked after.It doesnt bother me if my taxes help others because they are helping me. Its just an insurance scheme.

And the first point you make isnt chiming with me. By providing insulin we are implicitly helping people. Nobody should have to pay for it at point of delivery primarily because it has been proven that you do not have to There is a better way..

Medical care is a topic that needs to be explored. But truthfully it all depends on what side of the ledger you are on when it comes to benefits. The crzy thing is there are tens of millions of Americans who have medical problems who do not use the medical system. Imagine the costs exploding even more then.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care in general. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay". We all pay through our taxes. "Free" is a right wing myth to stir up people like Ray who resents his taxes helping people.
I have paid around 40 years of taxes and have seen myself and my family well looked after.It doesnt bother me if my taxes help others because they are helping me. Its just an insurance scheme.

And the first point you make isnt chiming with me. By providing insulin we are implicitly helping people. Nobody should have to pay for it at point of delivery primarily because it has been proven that you do not have to There is a better way..

What about people with arthritis? What about people with heart conditions? What about people with depression? Do we just pay for the medication of all people?

Yes, that is what the rest of the world does.

 

[Mac1958]

What a shame that health care, like everything else, has become poisoned by partisan politics.

You can't solve complicated issues when everyone involved refuses to collaborate & innovate.

Since we no longer possess those basic skills, we'll just keep mangling everything we touch.
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay".

Yeah?

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin.

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

 

[JWBooth]

Given Beliefs being argued that Health Care is a Right,
who should pay for it?

1. It is a Church Duty: The Churches/religions have a duty as part of charity they preach and teach
2. It is Govt Duty to provide: The Govt has the duty to protect public health and safety and promote general welfare
3. It is Govt Duty to remain neutral - The Govt should protect the right of people to practice this belief, but not establish it.
(ie not violate due process, equal beliefs and liberty/free choice of others who may not share this belief it is a right, or may believe in Constitutional limits on govt that would be violated by federal management of health care choices)
4. It is up to Free Choice: People have free choice to believe and pay for health care as they wish
5. States should manage this democratically to protect public health
6. Parties that advocate Health Care as a Right should provide for their members
7. Companies or Organizations should provide for their Workers or Members
8. Combination of the above or Other (please specify)

Bullshit poll that does include the correct answer, the consumer.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What a shame that health care, like everything else, has become poisoned by partisan politics.

You can't solve complicated issues when everyone involved refuses to collaborate & innovate.

Since we no longer possess those basic skills, we'll just keep mangling everything we touch.
.

Is it partisan politics or corporate greed ?

 

[Mac1958]

What a shame that health care, like everything else, has become poisoned by partisan politics.

You can't solve complicated issues when everyone involved refuses to collaborate & innovate.

Since we no longer possess those basic skills, we'll just keep mangling everything we touch.
.

Is it partisan politics or corporate greed ?

It's partisan politics.
.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Is it partisan politics or corporate greed ?

It's bi-partisan corporate greed

 

[dblack]

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Yeah. I'm only good at English.

Try this. ...

You keep going on about "free" (something I've not mentioned) and how providing diabetics with insulin can be accomplished. This has nothing at all to do with my question. You claimed that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin, and I'm curious where that comes from. Why shouldn't they? What's wrong with people paying their own way?

 

[dblack]

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

I haven't been using that word. You have.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Yeah. I'm only good at English.

Try this. ...

You keep going on about "free" (something I've not mentioned) and how providing diabetics with insulin can be accomplished. This has nothing at all to do with my question. You claimed that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin, and I'm curious where that comes from. Why shouldn't they? What's wrong with people paying their own way?

They do pay their own way. I have taken some trouble to explain that to you. I apologise if it isnt the answer that you want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What a shame that health care, like everything else, has become poisoned by partisan politics.

You can't solve complicated issues when everyone involved refuses to collaborate & innovate.

Since we no longer possess those basic skills, we'll just keep mangling everything we touch.
.

I think I presented a solution that was pretty bipartisan involving both government and insurance companies. The problem is who will listen to you when government made our healthcare political?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care in general. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay". We all pay through our taxes. "Free" is a right wing myth to stir up people like Ray who resents his taxes helping people.
I have paid around 40 years of taxes and have seen myself and my family well looked after.It doesnt bother me if my taxes help others because they are helping me. Its just an insurance scheme.

And the first point you make isnt chiming with me. By providing insulin we are implicitly helping people. Nobody should have to pay for it at point of delivery primarily because it has been proven that you do not have to There is a better way..

What about people with arthritis? What about people with heart conditions? What about people with depression? Do we just pay for the medication of all people?

Yes, that is what the rest of the world does.

Well our founders didn't design our country that way. They didn't want the federal government to be looked on as our proxy parents once we became adults. When you rely on an entity for survival, you are cast into servitude of such entity.

When it comes to healthcare among many things, Ronald Reagan said it best. "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

 

[dblack]

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Yeah. I'm only good at English.

Try this. ...

You keep going on about "free" (something I've not mentioned) and how providing diabetics with insulin can be accomplished. This has nothing at all to do with my question. You claimed that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin, and I'm curious where that comes from. Why shouldn't they? What's wrong with people paying their own way?

They do pay their own way. I have taken some trouble to explain that to you. I apologise if it isnt the answer that you want.

No, you've described how the responsibility for paying can be spread amongst all taxpayers. You specifically claimed individuals should NOT have to directly pay. But you haven't said why. Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

 

[Moonglow]

Political Beliefs 101: Who should pay for Health Care?

God.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Given Beliefs being argued that Health Care is a Right,
who should pay for it?

1. It is a Church Duty: The Churches/religions have a duty as part of charity they preach and teach
2. It is Govt Duty to provide: The Govt has the duty to protect public health and safety and promote general welfare
3. It is Govt Duty to remain neutral - The Govt should protect the right of people to practice this belief, but not establish it.
(ie not violate due process, equal beliefs and liberty/free choice of others who may not share this belief it is a right, or may believe in Constitutional limits on govt that would be violated by federal management of health care choices)
4. It is up to Free Choice: People have free choice to believe and pay for health care as they wish
5. States should manage this democratically to protect public health
6. Parties that advocate Health Care as a Right should provide for their members
7. Companies or Organizations should provide for their Workers or Members
8. Combination of the above or Other (please specify)

Nearly 1/3 of the U.S. population is here by illegal means...most here with illegal roots suck the taxpayer tit dry and drive up all healthcare related costs.
Amend the 14th and make it retroactive...Start rounding up wetbacks and their silver tooth anchor babies by the millions...send them all to Mexico...Only then can we start to bring down the cost of healthcare and help REAL Americans with legitimate subsidization.

Illegals do play a part where there are many. But there are other ways to decrease costs. For one, government needs to pay the full bills for their patients. Currently (and for some time) government only pays about 2/3 of the cost for their patients. Providers have to increase the costs of care so they can recoup some of that lost money. Our private insurance companies pay that cost, and up goes our premiums.

Immediately, we should increase Medicare payroll deductions by at least three times, and increase it as care becomes more expensive.

If .GOV pays the full bill they simply raise taxes to cover the costs...either way America’s Best takes the hit. Some may also say .GOV is the healthcare industry’s best customer...they’d say .GOV deserves a volume discount which obviously leads into the single payer debate.
The real solution is in reducing the number of takers at the bottom...plain and simple.

 

[emilynghiem]

Given Beliefs being argued that Health Care is a Right,
who should pay for it?

1. It is a Church Duty: The Churches/religions have a duty as part of charity they preach and teach
2. It is Govt Duty to provide: The Govt has the duty to protect public health and safety and promote general welfare
3. It is Govt Duty to remain neutral - The Govt should protect the right of people to practice this belief, but not establish it.
(ie not violate due process, equal beliefs and liberty/free choice of others who may not share this belief it is a right, or may believe in Constitutional limits on govt that would be violated by federal management of health care choices)
4. It is up to Free Choice: People have free choice to believe and pay for health care as they wish
5. States should manage this democratically to protect public health
6. Parties that advocate Health Care as a Right should provide for their members
7. Companies or Organizations should provide for their Workers or Members
8. Combination of the above or Other (please specify)

Bullshit poll that does include the correct answer, the consumer.

Thank you JWBooth

And what is the best way the CONSUMER should pay through health care:
Through churches, charities nonprofits?
Through Govt, which level? Federal or State?
Since people obviously have political beliefs and preferences for health care,
should the PARTIES be used as the collective systems for managing terms of health care and payments by their members?

What do you think of THAT way of separating two choices
for consumers/taxpayers to pay for health care:
Using Parties so members can separate their terms, beliefs and choices
between "govt mandated programs" and "free market programs."

Instead of arguing politically to force choices one way or another,
could dividing groups by parties allow each one to fund and follow their own beliefs without conflict?