Universal Healthcare?

[jreeves]

There are tons of not for profit organizations that help the needy. I believe they could do things alot more efficiently than a government that has a 9.3 dollar defecit. This would allow the needy to recieve the help they need and still maintain the rights of the taxpayer.

9.3 trillion dollar defecit...

 

[mattskramer]

Society would be much better off without government run hospitals. Your implication is that poor people can only get help if it comes from the government. That is a very false assumption.

I did not imply anything. You inferred something. I asked you a very east to understand yes-no question and you have yet to give a straight answer.

 

[manifold]

LOL. This isn't hard -- it's all readily available information. Roads are paid for with gasoline taxes and other user fees. Not federal income tax. Schools are paid for using local property taxes, not the federal income tax.



Yes, but to say that without a federal income tax, we wouldn't have a civilization or property rights is painfully ignorant of history -- we didn't have an income tax until 1913. We did, however, always have property rights, protection and laws.

When did I ever bring up income taxes specifically? Oh yeah, I didn't. I'm not sure why you would try to twist the discussion to be one about the merits of various forms of taxes. The bottom line, as you apparently acknowledge in a round about way, is that some form of funding is necessary. What form that funding should take is an entirely different debate.

 

[manifold]

I think if we are to debate rights, we have to view this throughly. Ok, for one everyone has rights, under the preumbras of the Constitution. In other words, everyone has the right of speech, everyone has the right to bear arms, right to assemble in public places. Ok, yes no one should suffer without medical care so, I do believe in a theoretical sense you should have the right to healthcare. I mean it's a basic neccessity, healthcare. But as with other rights, they are your rights until they violate society's rights. For example you have the right of speech, but if you use that speech to encite violence then that is no longer a right of yours. Because you violated someone else's rights. Well the same could be said of universal healthcare, you have the right to healthcare, but when you violate the right's of another then that right is no longer yours. You would be taking another person's money, which is in and of itself stealing...... Governmental money is taxpayer money

I'm not sure I follow your logic. According to my interpretation of your statement, then a foot soldier in the Iraqi desert has violated my rights by taking my money. Afterall, governmental money is taxpayer money. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so insane as to really believe that, so please explain?

 

[manifold]

There are tons of not for profit organizations that help the needy. I believe they could do things alot more efficiently than a government that has a 9.3 dollar defecit. This would allow the needy to recieve the help they need and still maintain the rights of the taxpayer.

Can you explain what you mean by the phrase "the rights of the taxpayer?"

Are you suggesting that there is a relationship between the amount one pays in taxes and the level of rights they are entitled to receive?

 

[Bern80]

The use of the word 'right' distorts the debate. The question should be asked how does a society benefit if health-care is universal. The answer is simple, it functions better and allows every individual more freedom to pursue their dream of occupation, business, schooling, or entrepreneurial work. It's one of those infrastructure things like transportation or security that help everyone live a better freer life.

That's quite the contradiction you have there. More government control makes us freer? Oookkaay. Why am I responsible for your health, more so than you are?

 

[Bern80]

I guess it's all paid for with pixie dust then.

The bottom line fact is that if it wasn't for civilization, laws, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, you wouldn't be earning any money. You'd be too busy hunting and gathering food and trying to protect it from theives. Ignorance of this simple and obvious fact is astonishingly pandemic. To suggest that the civilization and society that affords you the opportunity to go out and make this money is owed nothing in return is mind-blowingly selfish...and decidedly ignorant.

Could you please count the unfounded assumptions in this post first? You seem to be substituting the word 'society' with 'government'. UHC would have to be run by government. Which they can only run by taxing us. So again why is taking care of your health my responsibility or obligation?

 

[Shogun]

Ok Bern lemme toss this at ya and see if it sticks...


A significant portion of America would like UHC and another significant portion doesn't want to pay for it. Melle see if I can figure out an acceptable alternative.



UHC - When we think UHC it's not really defined enough to convey the entire range of potential service and, thus, doesn't help us really understand the large quantities of money it would take. so, instead of using a blanket term that suggests who qualifies let's use a term that expresses the range of specific coverage - Like Basic Health Care. While the goal is still universal application, this gives up clear definition regarding what is being paid for. Also, we can then move to adding services available as they can be paid for. I'd suggest starting with basic screening and adding from there.


Funding - I understand the resentment involved in having your money taken to pay for something that isn't your personal fault to begin with. Ok. How about this: BHC can be funded by tax exempt donations, charitable contributions and pledge drives. Hillary can become the new Jerry and PBS can beg for money for something other than their yearly budget. This gives Americans who benefit and who believe in BHC the ability to invest in their cause and takes the boulder off of your shoulder. Voluntary taxes can be taken out of payroll wages and those who give money are those who are put at the top of the list when specific service is required.



how does that taste so far?

 

[Bern80]

UHC - When we think UHC it's not really defined enough to convey the entire range of potential service and, thus, doesn't help us really understand the large quantities of money it would take. so, instead of using a blanket term that suggests who qualifies let's use a term that expresses the range of specific coverage - Like Basic Health Care. While the goal is still universal application, this gives up clear definition regarding what is being paid for. Also, we can then move to adding services available as they can be paid for. I'd suggest starting with basic screening and adding from there.

Funding - I understand the resentment involved in having your money taken to pay for something that isn't your personal fault to begin with. Ok. How about this: BHC can be funded by tax exempt donations, charitable contributions and pledge drives. Hillary can become the new Jerry and PBS can beg for money for something other than their yearly budget. This gives Americans who benefit and who believe in BHC the ability to invest in their cause and takes the boulder off of your shoulder. Voluntary taxes can be taken out of payroll wages and those who give money are those who are put at the top of the list when specific service is required.

how does that taste so far?

What I don't want is government running our healthcare. It would be an absolute mess for all kinds of reasons. I oppose for two very basic reasons, one I have stated is that paying for your health is not the responsibility or obligation of anyone else. It goes back to my argument in other threads that others should not be responsible for providing people what they have the ability to provide for themselves. Two is that there is nothing government does efficiently and I would think healthcare would be something we would want to have run efficiently.

The extent of government's involvement in healthcare should be essentially supplying care to those that need it who have no other payment options. I know firsthand that medical services cost far more than most anyone could afford w/o insureance providers and on top of that insureance providers are signifcantly reducing what they will cover. these are things that need to be worked on, but the solution is not a government takeover of the industry.

 

[manifold]

Could you please count the unfounded assumptions in this post first? You seem to be substituting the word 'society' with 'government'. UHC would have to be run by government. Which they can only run by taxing us. So again why is taking care of your health my responsibility or obligation?

It isn't, unless and until we decide collectively that it is. Just like we've already decided that it is when it comes to matters of national security, law enforcement, roads, bridges, education, etc. You're welcome to argue as passionately as you like that we shouldn't make such a decision, but just don't try to paint it as something for which there is not ample precedent.

 

[Shogun]

What I don't want is government running our healthcare. It would be an absolute mess for all kinds of reasons. I oppose for two very basic reasons, one I have stated is that paying for your health is not the responsibility or obligation of anyone else. It goes back to my argument in other threads that others should not be responsible for providing people what they have the ability to provide for themselves. Two is that there is nothing government does efficiently and I would think healthcare would be something we would want to have run efficiently.

The extent of government's involvement in healthcare should be essentially supplying care to those that need it who have no other payment options. I know firsthand that medical services cost far more than most anyone could afford w/o insureance providers and on top of that insureance providers are signifcantly reducing what they will cover. these are things that need to be worked on, but the solution is not a government takeover of the industry.

NO one would force you to participate or contribute with the above so it would not be YOUR health care if you choose not to participate. If you can afford better health care then kudos to you. Those who cannot afford even the most basic of service can have an option for the most basic services. It's a win, win, win.

I;ve addressed your concern regarding taxes being used to fund it. Thus, your concern about whose role it iis to pay for someone else's health care is moot. If you think you can pay for better service then you are free to do so, thus your concern about efficiency and govt responsibility is moot as well. If you are given an option not to participate then what is your main objection?


Indeed, it's easy to SAY that the issue needs to be worked on and SAY that the gov is not the solution but that doesn't really meet me in the middle anywhere, does it? It sure doesn't offer any alternative, does it? I respect your OPINION and thus I offer a compromise but we all have opinions and i'll remind you that the majority has more say in this nation than does the claim of a free market economic standard.

 

[Bern80]

It isn't, unless and until we decide collectively that it is. Just like we've already decided that it is when it comes to matters of national security, law enforcement, roads, bridges, education, etc. You're welcome to argue as passionately as you like that we shouldn't make such a decision, but just don't try to paint it as something for which there is not ample precedent.

There isn't really. All of those things you listed are things that we can't reasonably expect someone to provide for themselves. It is reasonable however for me to expect you to take care of your healthcare needs as oppossed to me being expected to pay for it.

 

[manifold]

There isn't really. All of those things you listed are things that we can't reasonably expect someone to provide for themselves. It is reasonable however for me to expect you to take care of your healthcare needs as oppossed to me being expected to pay for it.

At one time all those things were considered reasonable for one to provide for themselves. Why do you think that has changed? The advancement of civilization perhaps?

 

[Shogun]

There isn't really. All of those things you listed are things that we can't reasonably expect someone to provide for themselves. It is reasonable however for me to expect you to take care of your healthcare needs as oppossed to me being expected to pay for it.

How do you reconcile the above bolded with the bolded below?


I know firsthand that medical services cost far more than most anyone could afford w/o insureance providers and on top of that insureance providers are signifcantly reducing what they will cover.


which is it? is it reasonable to expect people to pay for services that cost more than anyone could afford or should we all redefine our common understanding of "law enforcemnt" to reflect a personal effort that nixes the need for publicly funded cops?

 

[manifold]

The idea that it is so offensive to have one's taxdollars used to provide basic healthcare for someone else seems a bit silly to me, at best. It's not as if we currently enjoy an individual line item veto with respect to how our tax money gets used. I'm sure there are a lot of people that aren't terribley ecstatic over aid sent to Israel for example. Or what about the bucketfuls of money being spent occupying a foreign land for which the benefits to us are dubious at best? The list goes on and on. The only logical arguments against UHC are the one's centered around feasibility, efficiency and the magnitude of the cost. Of which there are many and they should certainly be addressed before some half baked plan gets foisted on everyone. But this idea that it is offensive on the basis that I shouldn't have to pay for you, is not only ignorant, it's intellectually offensive.

 

[Bern80]

NO one would force you to participate or contribute with the above so it would not be YOUR health care if you choose not to participate. If you can afford better health care then kudos to you. Those who cannot afford even the most basic of service can have an option for the most basic services. It's a win, win, win.

I;ve addressed your concern regarding taxes being used to fund it. Thus, your concern about whose role it iis to pay for someone else's health care is moot. If you think you can pay for better service then you are free to do so, thus your concern about efficiency and govt responsibility is moot as well. If you are given an option not to participate then what is your main objection?


Indeed, it's easy to SAY that the issue needs to be worked on and SAY that the gov is not the solution but that doesn't really meet me in the middle anywhere, does it? It sure doesn't offer any alternative, does it? I respect your OPINION and thus I offer a compromise but we all have opinions and i'll remind you that the majority has more say in this nation than does the claim of a free market economic standard.

I don't think private contributions are very realistic for one thing. And I'm not oppossed to be taxes to help people that can't help themselves. So I don't think you're compromise is too far off from what I would like to see.

Another rason UHC is being suggested and form it would take is something closer to what Canada has. It isn't being propossed just for those that can't afford it. It's being propossed as way to reduce healthcare expenses for everyone. Instead of paying premiums, co-pays, etc. you'd just pay taxes and that would be that. As I alluded to, that applies to our system because even with insureance companies health care costs to the actual patience is still going through the roof. Believe me, no ones more than me what an absolute pain the ass our insureance system currently is. What do they cover? What don't they cover? What asanine condition do I need to meet to grant an asanine prior authorization? It's all so insureance companies can avoid paying out as much as possible.

My suggestion then is to fix that. One step that could be taken is to reduce government regulation of insurance companies which is a significant expenditure to them and as we all know extra expenses on anything almost always get based on to the consumer. Yes I know I'm just saying some things, that is mainly because I don't really know where the cost for certain services or drugs come from. For example one drug I have to be on if I had to pay for by myslef, no insureance, would cost $800 a month. I would love to know what goes into makeing it cost that much.

 

[Bern80]

How do you reconcile the above bolded with the bolded below?


I know firsthand that medical services cost far more than most anyone could afford w/o insureance providers and on top of that insureance providers are signifcantly reducing what they will cover.


which is it? is it reasonable to expect people to pay for services that cost more than anyone could afford or should we all redefine our common understanding of "law enforcemnt" to reflect a personal effort that nixes the need for publicly funded cops?

Because the idea is the premiums that I pay I will eventually get back when I use services.

 

[Bern80]

The idea that it is so offensive to have one's taxdollars used to provide basic healthcare for someone else seems a bit silly to me, at best. It's not as if we currently enjoy an individual line item veto with respect to how our tax money gets used. I'm sure there are a lot of people that aren't terribley ecstatic over aid sent to Israel for example. Or what about the bucketfuls of money being spent occupying a foreign land for which the benefits to us are dubious at best? The list goes on and on. The only logical arguments against UHC are the one's centered around feasibility, efficiency and the magnitude of the cost. Of which there are many and they should certainly be addressed before some half baked plan gets foisted on everyone. But this idea that it is offensive on the basis that I shouldn't have to pay for you, is not only ignorant, it's intellectually offensive.

It's only offensive if you assume those things are okay. Since we are talking about precedent, just because there is precedent for how government has spent our money doesn't mean we've accepted it as okay. Our taxes are ridiculous because they are paying for a war and wars in the past that have no real benefit for us. We pay for congresses pet projects. Our taxes go to all kinds of crap that are just that, crap.

I am not ignorant about what our taxes get spent and it is intellectually offensive that you took the easy road and assumed my position on government spending.

 

[Bern80]

At one time all those things were considered reasonable for one to provide for themselves. Why do you think that has changed? The advancement of civilization perhaps?

It was reasonable for people to provide themselves roads and bridges? Your argument then is that as civilization advances we should let government do more things for us?

 

[manifold]

It's only offensive if you assume those things are okay. Since we are talking about precedent, just because there is precedent for how government has spent our money doesn't mean we've accepted it as okay. Our taxes are ridiculous because they are paying for a war and wars in the past that have no real benefit for us. We pay for congresses pet projects. Our taxes go to all kinds of crap that are just that, crap.

I am not ignorant about what our taxes get spent and it is intellectually offensive that you took the easy road and assumed my position on government spending.

You have misinterpretted my position, which is probably my fault. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I've assumed you're a-ok with current tax and spend policies and precedent. In fact I implied that most people, like me, are not. My point is that to simply dismiss UHC on the grounds that it violates your right to keep what you earn is to be ignorant, or intellectually dishonest, about how society, civilization and government works.