The debate on healthcare

[dblack]

Hi. There are basically two competing schools of thoughts: one side says that healthcare is a personal responsibility, people should take care of their own health to avoid getting sick, and they should also work on obtaining coverage as well on saving money in the event they get sick. And more importantly, they believe that it is immoral for the state to coerce people to participate in healthcare decisions. The other school believes that healthcare should be a universal right, and the poor, those too sick to work, the young, the dependent, the uninsurable should not be denied care just because they don't have the financial means. And furthermore, when a society is healthy, everybody wins. I might have over-simplified these positions, but I think I got the gist of it right.


I have a tiny, humble little proposal, I would like to hear your thought on it. Basically, it works similar to Social security. Think of it as mandatory personal healthcare account. The government takes a portion of your paycheck and deposit it into this account. This account is entirely your own, it doesn't get mixed in with other people's. And then when you get sick, you can use the money in this account to pay for your doctor's visits, emergency visits..etc.

I think this idea could work, even though there is still an element of coercion (as in, government is making you save a portion of your pay), however, my reasoning is that something similar is already in place. So people cannot be for that but against this. Secondly, it gives ground to the folks who believe that healthcare should be a personal responsibility. Here we are using our own money to take care of our own healthcare needs, it goes along with the principle of it nicely. And in the event of an infant or young person who hasn't had the time to save enough, this is the only situation the government steps in, out of compassionate concern. And the care for such young individuals will come form taxes. Yes I realize that taxes carry the implication of coercion, which goes against people's principle, however, this is already a more moderate position. It walks the middle ground between two extremes, aka, complete and total no state coercion, which means some people who fall on hard times will get no help, and the other side which argues we owe everybody in society healthcare because it's a universal right, and so we should force people to pay for other people's healthcare.

Of course, there are other difficulties that I haven't thought of, which you are welcome to point out. I just think that my position is sound and philosophically consistent. And it seems to approach a happy line in the middle, where the two sides get a little bit of what they each want, and they also make a little bit of concession to get that which they want, which is how a society should work where there are lots of people with different and competing priorities.

I would love your thoughts.

No

 

[LibertyWeeps]

But where is the democracy as people vote after being lied too?

They sell it as a democracy the same way they sell their health care, they lie about it.

Basically, they win elections any way they can and then do whatever the hell they feel like doing once in office.

And to vote them out is harder than pulling teeth.

Being democratic about something is different from living in a democracy.
Yeah, I know..........doesn't make sense, but there it is.

Well, if you've ever paid attention to politics you know thats how its always worked.
Its just now, the corrupt politicians are owned by other countries instead of mega corporations.

And we do not need to "vote them out".........We The People can petition to have them thrown out of office, have all their assets confiscated, and have them imprisoned for life for NOT doing the job they were voted into office to do. Because the Constitution gives us that right, but NOBODY USES IT!!!

 

[Captain Caveman]

Hi. There are basically two competing schools of thoughts: one side says that healthcare is a personal responsibility, people should take care of their own health to avoid getting sick, and they should also work on obtaining coverage as well on saving money in the event they get sick. And more importantly, they believe that it is immoral for the state to coerce people to participate in healthcare decisions. The other school believes that healthcare should be a universal right, and the poor, those too sick to work, the young, the dependent, the uninsurable should not be denied care just because they don't have the financial means. And furthermore, when a society is healthy, everybody wins. I might have over-simplified these positions, but I think I got the gist of it right.


I have a tiny, humble little proposal, I would like to hear your thought on it. Basically, it works similar to Social security. Think of it as mandatory personal healthcare account. The government takes a portion of your paycheck and deposit it into this account. This account is entirely your own, it doesn't get mixed in with other people's. And then when you get sick, you can use the money in this account to pay for your doctor's visits, emergency visits..etc.

I think this idea could work, even though there is still an element of coercion (as in, government is making you save a portion of your pay), however, my reasoning is that something similar is already in place. So people cannot be for that but against this. Secondly, it gives ground to the folks who believe that healthcare should be a personal responsibility. Here we are using our own money to take care of our own healthcare needs, it goes along with the principle of it nicely. And in the event of an infant or young person who hasn't had the time to save enough, this is the only situation the government steps in, out of compassionate concern. And the care for such young individuals will come form taxes. Yes I realize that taxes carry the implication of coercion, which goes against people's principle, however, this is already a more moderate position. It walks the middle ground between two extremes, aka, complete and total no state coercion, which means some people who fall on hard times will get no help, and the other side which argues we owe everybody in society healthcare because it's a universal right, and so we should force people to pay for other people's healthcare.

Of course, there are other difficulties that I haven't thought of, which you are welcome to point out. I just think that my position is sound and philosophically consistent. And it seems to approach a happy line in the middle, where the two sides get a little bit of what they each want, and they also make a little bit of concession to get that which they want, which is how a society should work where there are lots of people with different and competing priorities.

I would love your thoughts.

Whether someone believes healthcare is a Right and that they're responsible for their health is irrelevant. It's about the access to, availability, and cost of healthcare that's important.

Theres no harm in the US in setting up a state healthcare system like most countries, and it runs alongside private healthcare. If you feel state healthcare is not going fast enough, nudge it along by paying for bits of it. I've done that, from 3 months waiting to being seen next day.

 

[LibertyWeeps]

Whether someone believes healthcare is a Right and that they're responsible for their health is irrelevant. It's about the access to, availability, and cost of healthcare that's important.

Theres no harm in the US in setting up a state healthcare system like most countries, and it runs alongside private healthcare. If you feel state healthcare is not going fast enough, nudge it along by paying for bits of it. I've done that, from 3 months waiting to being seen next day.

Thats what I've been saying all along! And everybody gets their panties all knotted up over it.

WHY can't we have both?

I mean, we already have "free" health clinics. All that would happen is they would expand into more than clinics.

Hell, here in Dallas we have Parkland Hospital where all the illegals, poor, and ghetto gangs go for "free" healthcare.
There is also UT Southwestern ran by the state.

So it's not a far flung thought to have BOTH available to EVERYBODY!!!

 

[Seymour Flops]

But I believe the voluntary-ness about it makes it problematic. Some people will simply not save for their own health unless made to. And then they get sick, they turn to the government for help, which puts pressure on the folks who resent being coerced by the state to pay for others' healthcare.

Correct, except that the voluntary-ness itself is not actually the problem. The problem is that if part of that equation is voluntary, all of it should be. Or if part of the problem is involuntary, all of it should be.

In other words, if someone voluntarily chooses not to have healthcare coverage or savings and gets sick, then wants to turn to others for help, that's just fine. If giving the help is voluntary. But no coercion of taxpayers to pony up even more.

No reason that it couldn't be. It was for well over a century and a half of our existence as a nation. This idea that "we all" have to pay for healthcare for "everyone" is a fairly recent one. Charities, including charity hospitals, used to provide voluntary care for people even if they were stupid not to save. Just like they set up soup kitchens for people who put themselves in a position not to be able to feed themselves.

But, if we say, no, we have to help people through coerced taxes even if they made poor decisions, then we have to mandate good decisions. Don't want to work a job that pays into Mayor Quimby's mandatory personal healthcare account, or run a business that makes enough to do so? Too bad, because nobody wants to pay for your dumbass when stay broke and get sick.

The government assigns you work, pays you for it and takes the money for your future medical care (and your current welfare benefits). That is also a helpful idea for the farmers who are (supposedly) crying about not having illegal aliens to work slave wages anymore. Or they could be contracted out to business who need labor. Maybe we could call customer service and not talk to a guy named "Hank" with a heavy Indian accent.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thats what I've been saying all along! And everybody gets their panties all knotted up over it.

WHY can't we have both?

I mean, we already have "free" health clinics. All that would happen is they would expand into more than clinics.

Hell, here in Dallas we have Parkland Hospital where all the illegals, poor, and ghetto gangs go for "free" healthcare.
There is also UT Southwestern ran by the state.

So it's not a far flung thought to have BOTH available to EVERYBODY!!!

In Houston we have Ben Taub. Have for years.

That's why I don't get why we think we have to tax the middle class to provide Cadilac healthcare to the poor, when Ben Taub is a solid Ford healthcare system.

 

[LibertyWeeps]

But I thought Obamacare fixed health care

What happened?

Not EVERYBODY has the money to save for ANYTHING.

If you're going to FORCE people to pay for their "free" healthcare, then you might as well just create a new tax.

But the ONLY people that will get screwed are those that DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO AFFORD IT.
Thats why it needs to be FREE. Or don't you comprehend what FREE is???

If poor people and the homeless could SAVE for their healthcare needs, then ALL of this talking about it being FREE would be a moot point.

 

[LibertyWeeps]

In Houston we have Ben Taub. Have for years.

That's why I don't get why we think we have to tax the middle class to provide Cadilac healthcare to the poor, when Ben Taub is a solid Ford healthcare system.

I think there should be 4 types of healtcare systems in this country.

1. "Free" government paid hospitals, clinics, and doctors.
2. Employer/Employee paid healthcare.
3. Private healthcare, paid for by private citizens' own money. I think the term now is "concierge" healthcare.
4. Self employed doctors who take whatever payment they want to take.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think there should be 4 types of healtcare systems in this country.

1. "Free" government paid hospitals, clinics, and doctors.
2. Employer/Employee paid healthcare.
3. Private healthcare, paid for by private citizens' own money. I think the term now is "concierge" healthcare.
4. Self employed doctors who take whatever payment they want to take.

I think that is what we have, except that Obamacare regulates numbers 2 and 4.

What do you think of the idea of requiring those who get number 1 to be required to work?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Thats what I've been saying all along! And everybody gets their panties all knotted up over it.

WHY can't we have both?

I mean, we already have "free" health clinics. All that would happen is they would expand into more than clinics.

Hell, here in Dallas we have Parkland Hospital where all the illegals, poor, and ghetto gangs go for "free" healthcare.
There is also UT Southwestern ran by the state.

So it's not a far flung thought to have BOTH available to EVERYBODY!!!

To have UK's NHS, raise tax on average per person per month £500, and scrap health insurance on average per person per month $1,000. As the figures are on average, there are winners and losers. And like I said, if a part goes to slow, pay for the scan etc..

All the types of tax goes into the big government pot, schools, roads, NHS etc.. are paid for out of it. So capital gains tax, income tax, vat, vehicle tax, inheritance tax, alcohol duty etc.. is what goes into the pot. So footing a USA NHS means little percentage increases to a broad range of taxes.

So would I rather pay £500 a month or $1,000

If I saved the spare $500 per month, a tidy sum would mount up, so if I decided to pay for an MRI scan!!

 

[LibertyWeeps]

To have UK's NHS, raise tax on average per person per month £500, and scrap health insurance on average per person per month $1,000. As the figures are on average, there are winners and losers. And like I said, if a part goes to slow, pay for the scan etc..

All the types of tax goes into the big government pot, schools, roads, NHS etc.. are paid for out of it. So capital gains tax, income tax, vat, vehicle tax, inheritance tax, alcohol duty etc.. is what goes into the pot. So footing a USA NHS means little percentage increases to a broad range of taxes.

So would I rather pay £500 a month or $1,000

If I saved the spare $500 per month, a tidy sum would mount up, so if I decided to pay for an MRI scan!!

There should be a "One Tax" charge for everybody...that can never be changed.

And under that "One Tax" system.....will depend on how much income that person makes.

Such as:
Anybody that makes under $500K a year is only charged 5%, which can never change.
$500K to $1M is charged 10% and never will change.
$1M and over is %15 and never changes.

This is MORE than enough for the government to use for ALL aspects of government funding.
INCLUDING "free" healthcare.

It also prevents corrupt politicians from hiking taxes to meet their greed and avarice wants.

 

[Captain Caveman]

There should be a "One Tax" charge for everybody...that can never be changed.

And under that "One Tax" system.....will depend on how much income that person makes.

Such as:
Anybody that makes under $500K a year is only charged 5%, which can never change.
$500K to $1M is charged 10% and never will change.
$1M and over is %15 and never changes.

This is MORE than enough for the government to use for ALL aspects of government funding.
INCLUDING "free" healthcare.

It also prevents corrupt politicians from hiking taxes to meet their greed and avarice wants.

I wouldn't bother with income tax, that just screws the employee. Monaco has no income tax and no national debt.

Have a pay as you go society. So alcohol, cigarettes, fuel etc.. attracts duty. The more you buy, the more tax you've paid.

A millionaire buys a painting for $100,000. Then 10 years later he gets it appraised and it's worth $5m. He donates it to a museum. He offsets the capital loss against his tax bill . Doesn't involve income tax.

If you're employed, you can't get away from employment taxes because your employer automatically deducts the tax (well, that's what happens in the UK).

Vat (sales tax) in the UK is 20%. Buy a car for £22k, that included £2k tax. A millionaire buys one for £84k, that included £14k tax.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Hi. There are basically two competing schools of thoughts: one side says that healthcare is a personal responsibility, people should take care of their own health to avoid getting sick, and they should also work on obtaining coverage as well on saving money in the event they get sick. And more importantly, they believe that it is immoral for the state to coerce people to participate in healthcare decisions. The other school believes that healthcare should be a universal right, and the poor, those too sick to work, the young, the dependent, the uninsurable should not be denied care just because they don't have the financial means. And furthermore, when a society is healthy, everybody wins. I might have over-simplified these positions, but I think I got the gist of it right.


I have a tiny, humble little proposal, I would like to hear your thought on it. Basically, it works similar to Social security. Think of it as mandatory personal healthcare account. The government takes a portion of your paycheck and deposit it into this account. This account is entirely your own, it doesn't get mixed in with other people's. And then when you get sick, you can use the money in this account to pay for your doctor's visits, emergency visits..etc.

I think this idea could work, even though there is still an element of coercion (as in, government is making you save a portion of your pay), however, my reasoning is that something similar is already in place. So people cannot be for that but against this. Secondly, it gives ground to the folks who believe that healthcare should be a personal responsibility. Here we are using our own money to take care of our own healthcare needs, it goes along with the principle of it nicely. And in the event of an infant or young person who hasn't had the time to save enough, this is the only situation the government steps in, out of compassionate concern. And the care for such young individuals will come form taxes. Yes I realize that taxes carry the implication of coercion, which goes against people's principle, however, this is already a more moderate position. It walks the middle ground between two extremes, aka, complete and total no state coercion, which means some people who fall on hard times will get no help, and the other side which argues we owe everybody in society healthcare because it's a universal right, and so we should force people to pay for other people's healthcare.

Of course, there are other difficulties that I haven't thought of, which you are welcome to point out. I just think that my position is sound and philosophically consistent. And it seems to approach a happy line in the middle, where the two sides get a little bit of what they each want, and they also make a little bit of concession to get that which they want, which is how a society should work where there are lots of people with different and competing priorities.

I would love your thoughts.

Bub, healthcare in the USA will never be fixed as it is. This is the best you could ever hope for...

Instead of squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on Ukraine and trillions of dollars on wasted garbage, our useless politicians could have given us a cheap, socialized healthcare plan; alongside with the standard healthcare we have in America. (The rich don't want socialized healthcare and the average person can't afford the system we have...so we need 2 systems.) People that can't afford America's unaffordable healthcare could get their appendix out before it bursts.

If they need a heart transplant, then go work 3 jobs and save up for 6 years to pay for it. The socialized plan would be for basics to keep it viable. But the American healthcare system is so greedy they don't want to lose a penny and would never accept a 2nd option. Plus, our politicians are absolute nincompoops and could never run a socialized healthcare system anyway.

 

[JohnDB]

This is wild.....

 

[JohnDB]

It's spreading faster than you think....

And it's going to become the standard of care.

Its not a complete cure for all cancers. But it will be effective for roughly 20% of current cancers.

Sure, if caught early most likely you will survive a cancer diagnosis. But you will be physically weak and financially bankrupt.

Now? Not so much.....

 

[Captain Caveman]

 

[dblack]

View attachment 1234451

Yep, insurance makes healthcare more expensive, not less.

 

[Captain Caveman]

How to get healthcare in the US? Rob a bank -

 

[JohnDB]

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

.

Yes.

I was overjoyed when I heard there might be a possibility that this administration could remove pHARMa ads from TV.

.