A Moral Question on UHC

[Harry Dresden]

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?

Midcant is missing because he ran out of quotes....
i have one though....."ahytr jiop hiydre nuio" Ozzy Osbourne....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

Rocks will never be truthful,just like Chris....be shot down and just keep repeating the same shit over and over....just like the life span shit he keeps on repeating.....

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Are you really saying that over 10% of the American Population will die each year without UHC?

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not going to answer a question that is based on hysterical nonsense..

How about 5% to save 12 children?

1,200?

12,000?

............?

Let me know if I hit a number that would be worth 5%.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

thank you Bern.....i have said this repeatedly....but i guarantee you Rocks will just say the same shit he has already said.....if Chris joins in we will then have a Duet.....

 

[Foxfyre]

I received the following in my e-mail late today - the source was not identified. I'm still checking to find something to authenticate it as valid.

But valid or not, it does point out an important component if we really are interested in morality in government.

If a majority of Congress were opposed to this healthcare bill and knew it was not right the way it has been written and gerrymandered and tinkered with and pockmarked with payoffs. . . .

. . . .would it not be considered immoral for those who were opposed to it to have caved in to bribes, under the table deals, etc. etc. etc.?

Who here thinks it is appropriate to sell your vote and conscience for an agreed payoff?

I hope Senator Coburn is doing this research. I think all Americans should know who voted their conscience and who voted to enhance their personal fame, fortune, or prospects.

Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, OK) announced today that he is forming a study group, whose specific function will be to identify every member of congress from both houses that has, or will change their vote on the healthcare bill from a "no" to a "yes".

The group will investigate why the members changed their minds, to see if they were offered any special deals for their districts or states, or ambassadorships, judgeships or other government jobs as a bribe to vote for the bill, positions that they can turn to in case they are voted out of office in November.

If it is found that they have accepted a bribe, the group will identify and publicly criticize them nation wide and specifically in their districts or states, on a regular basis between now and November, through press conferences, public statements, TV and radio talk shows, Tea Party type demonstrations and any other means available.

The group will also obtain Constitutional and governmental legal guidance in an effort to discover if any laws have been violated by the White House or Congressional leaders by offering bribes for votes, and if so, what legal remedies are available.

When the final healthcare bill is released, the group will go through it line by line to see if there are hidden offers of special "deals" for members or organizations. They will also maintain constant observation, if the bill becomes law, of additions or amendments that Congressional leadership might try to add afterwards to the bill secretly behind closed doors, and will announce publicly any that are found.

 

[code1211]

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.

Your premise is wrong. Nobody in the USA is denied healthcare. All emergency rooms are required by law to treat those who enter.

Here in Indianapolis, there is a huge Hospital that is aimed at treating those who cannot pay and are not insured.

The whole premise of your question and of the campaign for this swindle is incorrect and and a lie on its face.

If you cannot argue in terms that are truthful, you cannot be believed.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I received the following in my e-mail late today - the source was not identified. I'm still checking to find something to authenticate it as valid.

But valid or not, it does point out an important component if we really are interested in morality in government.

If a majority of Congress were opposed to this healthcare bill and knew it was not right the way it has been written and gerrymandered and tinkered with and pockmarked with payoffs. . . .

. . . .would it not be considered immoral for those who were opposed to it to have caved in to bribes, under the table deals, etc. etc. etc.?

Who here thinks it is appropriate to sell your vote and conscience for an agreed payoff?

I hope Senator Coburn is doing this research. I think all Americans should know who voted their conscience and who voted to enhance their personal fame, fortune, or prospects.

Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, OK) announced today that he is forming a study group, whose specific function will be to identify every member of congress from both houses that has, or will change their vote on the healthcare bill from a "no" to a "yes".

The group will investigate why the members changed their minds, to see if they were offered any special deals for their districts or states, or ambassadorships, judgeships or other government jobs as a bribe to vote for the bill, positions that they can turn to in case they are voted out of office in November.

If it is found that they have accepted a bribe, the group will identify and publicly criticize them nation wide and specifically in their districts or states, on a regular basis between now and November, through press conferences, public statements, TV and radio talk shows, Tea Party type demonstrations and any other means available.

The group will also obtain Constitutional and governmental legal guidance in an effort to discover if any laws have been violated by the White House or Congressional leaders by offering bribes for votes, and if so, what legal remedies are available.

When the final healthcare bill is released, the group will go through it line by line to see if there are hidden offers of special "deals" for members or organizations. They will also maintain constant observation, if the bill becomes law, of additions or amendments that Congressional leadership might try to add afterwards to the bill secretly behind closed doors, and will announce publicly any that are found.

It sounds like a nobel strike at the heart of corruption in Washington, D.C.

The cynic in me though, sees the stage being set for a partisan hatchet job whether the bill passes or not.

Not to mention the simple fact that even if we find and vote out Porky and Petunia, until We, The People storm the K-Street Castle with torches and pitch-forks and start liberally* applying the guillotine to the well paid profession of Lobbyist For Hire, it won't matter who we replace them with.


* Note the proper use of the word 'liberal' in a sentence - it's strange around here, that's what makes it noteworthy

 

[midcan5]

A few answered. Thanks. It amazes me how many gyrations the right-wing conservative and libertarian types go through to claim healthcare is a privilege and not a right in a just, and fair well functioning society.

Would the same people argue that constitutional government is a privilege and as such since it comes with costs (taxes) then let's not do that either. Admittedly today this seems an exaggeration but many years ago it was not.

Society functions for order peace and prosperity - or you can keep it.

The author wants honest answers on a dishonest question. If 35 million are to die without health insurance this year, virtually all those without coverage will be gone and the rest of us are covered. Problem solved.

The figures come from medical sources and government studies. The question is a moral thought experiment, and cannot be a lie as the concept of lie here is irrelevant. So even if a mere thousand die that is OK.

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;

We already have a government that benefits the few - too often only the rich The Conservative Nanny State - but that said it serves a purpose similar to UHC, so in a sense you agree. I have read much about the founding and after reading much you assume less_mind reading.

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.

Almost everyone agrees it will save lives, so this puts you on board and in agreement. You do have a vein of morality, just hard to get to.

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?

You are then in agreement with the ad in which the doctor calls the patient and instructs him to start the incision with a sharp sterile knife? You forget all the medical treatment you have already had in life. You guys are funny as those of us who grew up with Polio etc have different views of the real value of good healthcare.

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.....

None of that follows. Why would it be immoral to tax citizens who benefit from living in this society? And these taxes help all. And taxes do not cause depressions, that should be evident to even you.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.
The rich get rich because of their merit.

Foxfyre,

Please stop swearing at liberals with words like responsibility. You're going to offend them.

Nah, we are liberals, we are the tolerant ones who believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility, it has always been the right which wants to manage the lives of others. Think gay marriage abortion military service....

Their goal is not to fix health care - it's to control people.

Sure, having the freedom not to worry if you get sick, or not go broke when cancer strikes, or not to hire because you cannot afford health insurance, or on and on, controls people? I used to give you more credit than that.

Midcant is missing because he ran out of quotes...

No way, I started collecting quotes when autoexec.bat started your PC. Have several compiled basic programs, hardly touched.


America can do it, can move forward and give people the freedom not to worry because dad died at 45 or mom has breast cancer in the family or little Joanie had a bad accident. Time this nation moved forward. Someday as I wrote above, UHC like constitutional government will be givens and we can worry about if anyone can really break Maris' HR record.


HC and christians

Sojourners : Faith in Action
Truth-telling and Responsibility in Health Care - Jim Wallis - God's Politics Blog
Dan Nejfelt: Christians Weigh In On Health Care Reform
Rob Warmowski: Christians, Please Report to the Health Insurance Reform Debate

health and children

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/magazine/04anxiety-t.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/29brod.html?em

U.S. State Health Systems Performance
The Sorry States of Health Care

tort reform
A Look At GOP Tort Reform And Its Consequences | FDL News Desk

 

[AVG-JOE]

[size="-12"]a few answered. Thanks. It amazes me how many gyrations the right-wing conservative and libertarian types go through to claim healthcare is a privilege and not a right in a just, and fair well functioning society.

Would the same people argue that constitutional government is a privilege and as such since it comes with costs (taxes) then let's not do that either. Admittedly today this seems an exaggeration but many years ago it was not.

Society functions for order peace and prosperity - or you can keep it.

the author wants honest answers on a dishonest question. If 35 million are to die without health insurance this year, virtually all those without coverage will be gone and the rest of us are covered. Problem solved.

the figures come from medical sources and government studies. The question is a moral thought experiment, and cannot be a lie as the concept of lie here is irrelevant. So even if a mere thousand die that is ok. [/size]

[SIZE="-12"]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'.
[/SIZE]
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;

we already have a government that benefits the few - too often only the rich the conservative nanny state - but that said it serves a purpose similar to uhc, so in a sense you agree. I have read much about the founding and after reading much you assume less_mind reading.



[SIZE="-12"]Almost everyone agrees it will save lives, so this puts you on board and in agreement. You do have a vein of morality, just hard to get to.



You are then in agreement with the ad in which the doctor calls the patient and instructs him to start the incision with a sharp sterile knife? You forget all the medical treatment you have already had in life. You guys are funny as those of us who grew up with polio etc have different views of the real value of good healthcare.



None of that follows. Why would it be immoral to tax citizens who benefit from living in this society? And these taxes help all. And taxes do not cause depressions, that should be evident to even you.

"there is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in u.s. History (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the u.s., and they are growing faster as well."
tax cuts spur economic growth
the idolatry of ideology-why tax cuts hurt the economy by russ beaton
spending cuts vs. Tax increases at the state level, 10/30/01
myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.
the rich get rich because of their merit.



nah, we are liberals, we are the tolerant ones who believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility, it has always been the right which wants to manage the lives of others. Think gay marriage abortion military service....

their goal is not to fix health care - it's to control people.

[/SIZE]

[SIZE="-12"]sure, having the freedom not to worry if you get sick, or not go broke when cancer strikes, or not to hire because you cannot afford health insurance, or on and on, controls people? I used to give you more credit than that.

midcant is missing because he ran out of quotes...

[/SIZE]

no way, i started collecting quotes when autoexec.bat started your pc. Have several compiled basic programs, hardly touched.


[SIZE="-12"]america can do it, can move forward and give people the freedom not to worry because dad died at 45 or mom has breast cancer in the family or little joanie had a bad accident. Time this nation moved forward. Someday as i wrote above, uhc like constitutional government will be givens and we can worry about if anyone can really break maris' hr record.


Hc and christians

sojourners : Faith in action
truth-telling and responsibility in health care - jim wallis - god's politics blog
dan nejfelt: Christians weigh in on health care reform
rob warmowski: Christians, please report to the health insurance reform debate

health and children

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/magazine/04anxiety-t.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/29brod.html?em

u.s. State health systems performance
the sorry states of health care

tort reform
a look at gop tort reform and its consequences | fdl news desk[/SIZE]

&

That's why I'm glad I drive a MAC!

 

[saveliberty]

midcan,

You need better sources. 35 million will die this year because they don't have health insurance? Just stop and thing about that. One in ten Americans would have to die without health insurance this year plus a certain portion of the insured would die too. Eighty percent of us have health insurance. Did over one in five people you know die last year? Proof of intellectual lacking or dishonesty.

You set up a moral question that is not accurate or fair to begin with. Then you apply your moral set to render the truth. Proof of bias.

You assumed the new system will give us better health care, will not produce rationing and reduce costs. Not including all costs, made apples to apples comparisions or considered how data was collected in other countries.
Example: Europe has a 79% breast cancer survival rate. The US has 90%. Here we have more frequent screenings and are more aggressive in treatment. When you add government to th eequation, getting access to screenings and quick approvals on treatments will not happen.

People die worldwide under universal health care. In many cases they might have faired better (much better) under our system. Your just trading who gets saved. No moral high ground there.

Personal responsibility includes a person's health care. How you can say that government has no control over our lives when they create, maintain and fund the system under which you obtain health care is completely dishonest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Get help.

 

[midcan5]

C-SPAN2 Live Stream - C-SPAN


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/us/politics/30mcallen.html


Turn on cspan 2 - listen to early part when you have a chance - spells out clearly why HC is win win.

 

[Truthmatters]

There were some decent responses but not many.

Most of the right seems unable to discuss moral obligation to there fellow man as opposed to political ideals.

To the ones on the right who did answer this question I thank you.

To the ones on the right who valued human life over political ideal I thank you doublely.

 

[Bern80]

The figures come from medical sources and government studies. The question is a moral thought experiment, and cannot be a lie as the concept of lie here is irrelevant. So even if a mere thousand die that is OK.

Bullshit. Come on Mid YOU exercise a little intellectual integrity for once. 35 million dead a year in a country of 350 million? Most of us are okay at basic math and you wonder why people are calling bullshit on your ridiculous scenario? It's easy to make a case on bullshit number but it has nothing do with reality and get's us no closer to solving the problem. Libs like you like to deal in vagueries and hypotheticals like this to guilt people into doing something. As I said before drop the act and get to your ******* point.

We already have a government that benefits the few - too often only the rich The Conservative Nanny State - but that said it serves a purpose similar to UHC, so in a sense you agree. I have read much about the founding and after reading much you assume less_mind reading.


Almost everyone agrees it will save lives, so this puts you on board and in agreement. You do have a vein of morality, just hard to get to.

So predictable. Kinda like when conservatives complain about the money Obama spends the first thing out of liberals mouths is, 'but Bush spent tons too'. As if pointing to someone elses poor behavior somehow justifies continuing that poor behavior. The general welfare clause states that federal taxes must benefit EVERYONE. Yes both sides of the aisle have trampled that idea. Continuing to do so no matter who does it, doesn't make it right. Using that as an excuse to keep doing so is even worse. Either you agree with the intent of the constitution or you don't. Pick.


My morality is fine, thank you. And it isn't difficult to get to at all. Obligating someone else to your well being, when you have more control over that then someone else, is not moral. Period.

You are then in agreement with the ad in which the doctor calls the patient and instructs him to start the incision with a sharp sterile knife? You forget all the medical treatment you have already had in life. You guys are funny as those of us who grew up with Polio etc have different views of the real value of good healthcare.

You are again being intellectually dishonest, and you know it. The question really is do YOU believe that the over half of this country that is obese is in no way responsible for their obesity? Only a fool would think that and that is why I can't give you direct answer on your original premise. This is the central problem with every problem that liberals try to solve. YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO PUT ANY LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE INDIVIDUAL. You try to fix problems with solutions that do everything but address the individuals role in their own position and then have the nerve to wonder why things don't change.

Nah, we are liberals, we are the tolerant ones who believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility, it has always been the right which wants to manage the lives of others. Think gay marriage abortion military service....

Flat out lie. No liberals do not believe in personal responsibility the policies you advocate simply do not reflect that.

Sure, having the freedom not to worry if you get sick, or not go broke when cancer strikes, or not to hire because you cannot afford health insurance, or on and on, controls people? I used to give you more credit than that.

Please explain how government requiring people to make a private purchase is NOT controlling them. Please explain how giving people only one coverage option (single payer) is not controlling people.

 

[Bern80]

Most of the right seems unable to discuss moral obligation to there fellow man as opposed to political ideals.

Because I have no moral obligation to you you idiot. Your problems are not my problems. I value human life plenty. Enough to see that giving everything and expecting nothing of them does not benefit at all. You do not get to obligate your well being. Period. I am not your slave.

 

[Foxfyre]

There were some decent responses but not many.

Most of the right seems unable to discuss moral obligation to there fellow man as opposed to political ideals.

To the ones on the right who did answer this question I thank you.

To the ones on the right who valued human life over political ideal I thank you doublely.

You're wrong. All those on the right have been discussing in one way or another moral obligation to their fellow man and as a citizen of this great nation. I think I'm fairly safe in saying that any one of us would in different ways risk or surrender our persons and our treasure on behalf of other human beings. Many have already done so.

The difference between most on the right and at least many on the left is that those on the right want real solutions and real help for people and in a way that does not create more problems and more hardships than existed before. It isn't enough that something just sounds really good and humane and compassionate while unintended negative consequences are ignored. For most on the right, it has to have a decent chance of producing more good results than bad or they will will see it as the hollow rhetoric that it is.

 

[Truthmatters]

I saw only a couple who answered the question.

I saw even fewer put human life over politcal ideals

 

[Foxfyre]

I saw only a couple who answered the question.

I saw even fewer put human life over politcal ideals

Conservative political ideals are uniformly and without exception personally involved with human life and welfare.

 

[midcan5]

Conservative political ideals are uniformly and without exception personally involved with human life and welfare.

You can't be serious. A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla Was Iraq an example. Or Reagan with AIDS. Cons have always opposed human progress.


As far as the arguments go, this piece is excellent. From around minute 12 or so the Mass and national systems are reviewed.

Health Care Reform - C-SPAN Video Library

 

[Bern80]

Conservative political ideals are uniformly and without exception personally involved with human life and welfare.

You can't be serious. A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla Was Iraq an example. Or Reagan with AIDS. Cons have always opposed human progress.


As far as the arguments go, this piece is excellent. From around minute 12 or so the Mass and national systems are reviewed.

Health Care Reform - C-SPAN Video Library

Mid you're hypocrite. It's that simple. You claim you want logical, intellectually honest discussion, but fail to possess any of those characteristics yourself. A critique of conservatives by a liberal? Gee whiz I wonder if I can expect an objective, open minded critique there.

Then when an actual argument is made you hide behind excuses. You and truth are the same. When REAL arguments are put forth. You simply ignore them and make ridiculous attacks. You continue to ignore personal responsibility in this or any other problem.

There are a wide variety of variables to any issue that need to be accounted for in any problem you may face. You may feel your health care is too expensive. You may feel you have to much credit card debt. You may feel you don't have enough job stability in this economy. All kinds of factors contribute to those issues. But the one factor - the one that is easiest to manipulate and the one that holds the highest probability of putting you in a better position than you were before - is the one liberals ignore and refuse to acknowledge, YOU.

Can't you objectively see how incredibly simplistic and unrealistic you had to make your thought experiment in order for you to make your case? If you want an honest discussion then it must start with an honest premise. 35 miillion dead a year if taxes don't go up? First of all, again that's some pretty interesting math. You really want us to believe we will have depopulated the U.S.A. in 11 years or so if you don't swallow this tax hike hook line and sinker? Secondly it forces me to assume to many things that are simply not realistic in order to consider it moral to do so.

It assumes that this extra money in the ONLY thing preventing people from getting care. That if not but for a bill to pay all of these people would live. Well that's crap and you know it.

It assumes that all of these people are blameless in their condition. Also crap. Again half of this country is obese and obesity causes health complications one otherwise might not have. If that's you, you have to own that and get you don't have the right to morally obligate me to a problem you caused for yourself.

So again make your point instead of using this wholly unrealistic thought experiment. Ask what you really want to ask. Is it moral redistribute wealth to save lives? That's really the question isn't it?