A Moral Question on UHC

[saveliberty]

since Midcan is MIA in his own thread (probably because it has been pointed out by many what a ridiculous premise he has made), I'm thinking perhaps we should try a different 'thought exercise'.

Taxing everyone for the benefit of the few. That's essentially what mid says we should do. Still Mid's rules though. Only thoughtful, logical answers allowed;

Why did the framers feel it necessary to include the general welfare clause? Why was it important to them that if the federal government was going to tax everyone, the benefit must be for everyone? What are the repercussions of not having this clause?

Bern80, your just a bit confused. Tariffs are mentioned in the Constitution, but taxes, particularly income tax was a much more recent misinterpretation of the Constitution. General welfare is usually mentioned in the same breath as defense in the Federalist Papers. We have a govenment way off base with what it has attempted to do with taxation and the general welfare. The repercussions of not having the clause would be no military period.

 

[California Girl]

I can, with hand on heart state one fact. All Americans will die. Scary thought but it is a fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

Yes I would pay 5% more; in fact everything I have to save 35 million Americans or 35 million people anywhere.

But before I do, YOU will have to show that my sacrifice will save a single life.

Until you do, I will have to assume that my supporting myself and paying my own way and having the means to voluntarily help out others here and there on a regular basis helps far more people than can be accomplished by me paying more taxes or by me impoverishing myself.

 

[xotoxi]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

Under these assumptions, it means that there will be no one left in America in ten years.

Are they planning on gassing people?

 

[boedicca]

Under these assumptions, it means that there will be no one left in America in ten years.

Are they planning on gassing people?

The plan is to prevent people from exhaling so that we don't produce the Evul CO2 which is destroying the planet. If one can't exhale, one can't inhale - two problems solved at once.

Less people clogging up the health care system and less people killing the planet with their evul breathing out.

 

[Bern80]

since Midcan is MIA in his own thread (probably because it has been pointed out by many what a ridiculous premise he has made), I'm thinking perhaps we should try a different 'thought exercise'.

Taxing everyone for the benefit of the few. That's essentially what mid says we should do. Still Mid's rules though. Only thoughtful, logical answers allowed;

Why did the framers feel it necessary to include the general welfare clause? Why was it important to them that if the federal government was going to tax everyone, the benefit must be for everyone? What are the repercussions of not having this clause?

Bern80, your just a bit confused. Tariffs are mentioned in the Constitution, but taxes, particularly income tax was a much more recent misinterpretation of the Constitution. General welfare is usually mentioned in the same breath as defense in the Federalist Papers. We have a govenment way off base with what it has attempted to do with taxation and the general welfare. The repercussions of not having the clause would be no military period.

Believe me I'm aware there can be a fairly nuanced debate when it comes to what all the framers intended when it came this clause. Some Framers like Madison had a very narrow view, saying that the clause referred specifically to the enumerated powers following. Hamilton's view was bit broader, but whatever taxes were levied still had to be for the general welfare.

 

[Old Rocks]

Seems to me that the real question here ought to be why we are paying so much more for our health care, and not covering all of our citizens. We pay more per capita for health care than any nation on earth, yet many of our citizens have no access to health care. And hundreds of thousands of families go bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none do in other industrial nations like Canada, Germany, France, or Japan.

And, in spite of paying far more than other nations, our life spans are shorter, and our infant mortality closer to a third world nation than a modern industrial nation.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me that the real question here ought to be why we are paying so much more for our health care, and not covering all of our citizens. We pay more per capita for health care than any nation on earth, yet many of our citizens have no access to health care. And hundreds of thousands of families go bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none do in other industrial nations like Canada, Germany, France, or Japan.
And, in spite of paying far more than other nations, our life spans are shorter, and our infant mortality closer to a third world nation than a modern industrial nation.

"The last (3rd) on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems."

Causes of bankruptcy in Canada

 

[Bern80]

Seems to me that the real question here ought to be why we are paying so much more for our health care, and not covering all of our citizens. We pay more per capita for health care than any nation on earth, yet many of our citizens have no access to health care. And hundreds of thousands of families go bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none do in other industrial nations like Canada, Germany, France, or Japan.

Our costs are high becuase the bulk of the R & D in medicine is done in this country. And what people don't like to point out in that WHO report is that America was FIRST in terms of health care responsiveness. It seems relatively obvious to me that the system that provides the best resources is probably going to be the one that costs the most. Call me crazy, but it seems appropriate to me that those that reap the direct benefits of that research probably ought to be paying for it.

Being the typical whiny lib you are you refuse to address the easiest solution to reducing your health care costs. YOU. Take care of yourself. THAT is why we have a short life expectancy in this country. Not because of poor resources but because of the poor health habits. health care resources didn't make over half of this country obese. Statistically speaking it's more likely than not that I'm talking about you. So before you go piss and moan about what others have to do for you, get off your ass and do something for yourself. That's step one in lowering the cost of health care.



Would I like health care to cost less? Of course. But you make the silly presumption that affordable or free health care equals access to health care.

And, in spite of paying far more than other nations, our life spans are shorter, and our infant mortality closer to a third world nation than a modern industrial nation.

Presuming of course it's doctor's and treatments that control your life expectancy and not YOU of course. Why do people bring up such easily debunked presumptions, like life expectancy?

 

[Ame®icano]

The OP is nonesense, 35 million to die because of no insurance?

More people die because they don't have thier priorities straight, should we legislate that too?

 

[Avatar4321]

Not sure how you have no BS in a thread that started off with BS.

However, ill play your game.

It would be immoral to raise taxes 5% to pass the so called health care reform bill. Here's why:

1) The reforms would not save 35 million lives. In fact, more lives will be lost than with the current system.

2) And increase of taxes to that magnitude in this economy will create a depression causing:

Massive unemployment increases
Mass starvation
Scarcity of goods
More home forclosures
People dying from freezing and heating.
Rises in interest rates

In general, the benefits will mean nothing to people who are homeless, dead, and dying because of careless spending.

3) It's irresponsible and immoral to spend money you don't have like it will never end. The massive debts owed to other countries will:

Collapse our already fragile country
Destroy our Trust with the rest of the world
Cause War, Famine, Bloodshed, and make the world a very unpleasant place to be.

4) It's immoral to lie to people and give them false hope by suggesting that the government will somehow keep them from dying. It's immoral to pretend to be charitable while actively destroying people's lives for power.

5) It's immoral to take someones liberty away for your own personal power grab.

6) It's immoral to usurp authority that was never given to you to provide a service no one wants.

7) It's immoral to make the people who still do have jobs work until april to pay off the government for the year.

8) It's immoral to force people to labor for you against their will without just compensation.

So yes, you are immoral. You are sleeze. And I hope you change your ways before you end up suffering from your own inability to comprehend life.

 

[Avatar4321]

A thought exercise is self contained. It stands as is, the answer has to be within its logic. You are blind to all else and the answer is based on your moral framework.

So far no answers.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100438-which-is-which.html

So in other words, the only way you can do this execise to your satisfaction is to ignore reality.

 

[Avatar4321]

Glad to see some answered even if I disagree with the reasoning.

The question is a moral question, not sure how many here have ever read Derek Parfit but it falls into the area of how we should live and how we want our world to be. If it were our child in need, we would willingly pay much more than 5% percent for good healthcare. Well most of us would.

I think the golden rule answer would be 'yes' as I would expect the same treatment as any American would get. Karen Armstrong: Let's revive the Golden Rule | Video on TED.com Would the modern American libertarian answer be 'no?' And please emergency room service is not healthcare, we need to be honest here. Any answers?


"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit


"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist’s [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs." Colin McGinn

The golden rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that it?

I dont expect/nor want strangers taking care of my health or making my choices. That perogative lies for me and my family and for no one else. I want them to respect me in my decisions, and so I will respect them in theirs. It would be immoral to do otherwise.

Taxes affect real people. Why do you think we rebelled against England over taxes? We don't want to be taxed. We can take care of ourselves. So leave us alone.

 

[boedicca]

How moral is it to expect people to work to pay for the health care of people who abuse themselves via overeating, smoking, drugs, alcohol, and sloth?

 

[Foxfyre]

How moral is it to expect people to work to pay for the health care of people who abuse themselves via overeating, smoking, drugs, alcohol, and sloth?

And how moral is it to decide that health care is a fundamental right whether or not one pays for it himself/herself, but food, clothing, shelter, etc. isn't? Food and shelter are even more critical as issues of life and death than healthcare is.

And where is the line drawn?

Should anybody, whether or not they can afford to pay for their own health care, housing, food, clothing, etc. be entitled to demand that others furnish it for them? Or be required to have it?

Why should employers be required to provide healthcare insurance for their employees but not housing, clothing, food?

 

[boedicca]

Why should employers be required to provide healthcare insurance for their employees but not housing, clothing, food?

Health care is Phase III. We've already seen Housing and Education be declared as rights (and looks where that has gotten us) - as well as a certain amount of Food.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should employers be required to provide healthcare insurance for their employees but not housing, clothing, food?

Health care is Phase III. We've already seen Housing and Education be declared as rights (and looks where that has gotten us) - as well as a certain amount of Food.

Yup. And everything the government has touched has taken away some of our rights while significantly increasing the bureaucracy and cost of government as well as the direct costs of products and services to the people.

But they want to keep taking more and more control.

 

[Old Rocks]

Seems to me that the real question here ought to be why we are paying so much more for our health care, and not covering all of our citizens. We pay more per capita for health care than any nation on earth, yet many of our citizens have no access to health care. And hundreds of thousands of families go bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none do in other industrial nations like Canada, Germany, France, or Japan.
And, in spite of paying far more than other nations, our life spans are shorter, and our infant mortality closer to a third world nation than a modern industrial nation.

"The last (3rd) on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems."

Causes of bankruptcy in Canada

What they list as medical cause are the resulting lack of income from being unable to work, not the cost of the medical procedures or pharmecetucals.

Causes of bankruptcy in Canada

The last on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems. Fortunately, in Canada most of our medical expenses, such as hospital care, are covered by the government, unlike in the United States where medical bills for uninsured Americans are a leading cause of bankruptcy in America.
However, if you get sick or injured, and you are off work for a number of months, even with medical insurance your income is reduced, and that makes it more difficult to service your debts.

Again, note, not the medical costs, but the resultant loss of income from illness. Unlike here in the States where you are not only sick or injured, but also have a mortgage worth of medical bills coming down on your head, sometimes even when you supposedly have Health Insurance. 75% of those in the US that go bankrupt because of medical bills, not the illness, but medical bills, actually had insurance.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not sure how you have no BS in a thread that started off with BS.

However, ill play your game.

It would be immoral to raise taxes 5% to pass the so called health care reform bill. Here's why:

1) The reforms would not save 35 million lives. In fact, more lives will be lost than with the current system.

2) And increase of taxes to that magnitude in this economy will create a depression causing:

Massive unemployment increases
Mass starvation
Scarcity of goods
More home forclosures
People dying from freezing and heating.
Rises in interest rates

In general, the benefits will mean nothing to people who are homeless, dead, and dying because of careless spending.

3) It's irresponsible and immoral to spend money you don't have like it will never end. The massive debts owed to other countries will:

Collapse our already fragile country
Destroy our Trust with the rest of the world
Cause War, Famine, Bloodshed, and make the world a very unpleasant place to be.

4) It's immoral to lie to people and give them false hope by suggesting that the government will somehow keep them from dying. It's immoral to pretend to be charitable while actively destroying people's lives for power.

5) It's immoral to take someones liberty away for your own personal power grab.

6) It's immoral to usurp authority that was never given to you to provide a service no one wants.

7) It's immoral to make the people who still do have jobs work until april to pay off the government for the year.

8) It's immoral to force people to labor for you against their will without just compensation.

So yes, you are immoral. You are sleeze. And I hope you change your ways before you end up suffering from your own inability to comprehend life.

Ah, once again kissing the asses that are shitting on you.

Oh, we really saw what a depression it caused in 1993 when President Clinton raised the taxes on the wealthy. Such a terrible period between 1993 and 2001.

And when Bush gave the very wealthy a massive tax cut, the economy just soared, right? I mean, didn't the Dow hit 20,000 in 2008 on Bush's great economic policy? Didn't we see numerous articles on how we have too few workers for the good paying jobs available?

You sleaze jobs let 3000 people get killed in spite of over 50 explicit warnings prior to 9-11. You lied us into a war that cost another 4500 American lives, and a debt of three trillion. You deregulated the banking industry, and damned near created another world wide depression. In fact, we are not out of the woods yet, and your obstructionist tactics may yet lead to the Second Great Republican Depression.

After eight years of total incompetance and abject failure, you want us to believe you have the answers to anything?

 

[Immanuel]

Based solely on the assumptions of the OP, I would have no problem increasing my taxes 5% (or more) to save the lives of one person or 35 million. However, as has been pointed out in this thread the second assumption is fallacious.

Also, as Avatar4321 pointed out, the reform being discussed has other consequences. The question is which would do more damage.

Immie