Universal Healthcare?

[Shogun]

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.

capitolism, bern. capitolism. When has deregulation ever caused the consumer price to drop on anything? Do you think it costs 800 bucks to make the drug you have to take? Do we really expect the pharmie industry to pass BACK savings to the consumer when we all know that the only goal in capitolism is profit margins? What, exactly, do you mean by deregulating insurance? What, exactly, are the regulations that you think are causing high insurance rates?

Indeed, is it not true that the only way to reduce the high price of health care is to introduce competition to the healthcare market that makes insurance companies compete for business? What competitive options do you have when paying for your meds? Doesn't this fly in the face of the usual excuses for capitolism?

Instead of taxes and co-pays I'm suggesting that we grow a Basic Health Care system from the tax deductable financial input of those who will partake of these services and donations from those who feel so passionately aobut universal health care. I fialto see how this hinders those who choose to pay for their own coverage.

Insurance is no less a product of capitolism than any other business looking to reduce cost while maintaining a very minimum of service. This system doesn't work for the rest of America who cant afford private health insurance and I don't see how the fear of becoming canada is applicable.

 

[manifold]

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?

Yes, it was. Many a private dirt road still exists today in northern New England for example. As for the second part, not necessarily government, but rather society collectively. I'm not convinced that a workable solution that guarantees basic healthcare to everyone must be administered by the government. However, it would certainly require at least minimal government oversight. The greatest road block to any such solution IMO is insurance companies. They're making a shit load of money right now and they spend a fair amount of their profit insuring (pun intended) that nothing happens to disrupt their gravy train. To be honest, I view the label "health insurance" to be a misnomer. Insurance has historically meant protection against severe financial loss, not getting a yearly checkup or teeth cleaning.

 

[Shogun]

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

yea... that wa the premise behind social security too.. but when insurance companies have a bottom line to contend with, not to mention profit margins like any other capitolist business, the result are the hoops you have to jump through in order to qualify for coverage. If a poor person had to pay for 800/month in meds on a wal mart wage how is it reasonable to expect that person to afford such an expense? Should the person just be stoic about their health and die since they can't afford the same things you can? Is this the America you want to live in? I'm not sure if a voting majority will make the same choice. Like I said, We the People have more stock in the Constitution than the guarantee of a free market.

 

[Shogun]

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.

At the same time he makes a valid point about line item objections regarding how taxes are spent. Blackwater employees might make the same kind of position against a federally funded military undermining their free market preogative. Would their objections be more or less valid than yours regarding UHC?

 

[bennylava]

To believe in universal healthcare, you have to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money that I earn. They do not.

To believe that the government should maintain the roads, distribute the mail, run a social security system, and provide for the common defense is to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money I earn. They do not.

 

[manifold]

To believe that the government should maintain the roads, distribute the mail, run a social security system, and provide for the common defense is to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money I earn. They do not.

God damn it, you just said in one short sentence what I've been trying, with limited success, to say in several posts.

 

[Shogun]

God damn it, you just said in one short sentence what I've been trying, with limited success, to say in several posts.

yea... but... the thinkg is, and he can correct me if Im wrong, Bern probably also doesn't think that the government should be responsible for those things (except for the military, perhaps) either. Which, kinda trumps the argument.

If I were taking his position I'd reply with Toll Roads, UPS/FEDEx and private 401k's which are dependant on investor returns.

 

[manifold]

yea... but... the thinkg is, and he can correct me if Im wrong, Bern probably also doesn't think that the government should be responsible for those things (except for the military, perhaps) either. Which, kinda trumps the argument.

If I were taking his position I'd reply with Toll Roads, UPS/FEDEx and private 401k's which are dependant on investor returns.

What about law enforcement? Enforcement of contracts? Courts? Dispute settlement? And your exception, the military, that sure isn't free. And I also don't hear people bitchin about how inefficiently it's being run in the hands of the government.

The bottom line is everyone acknowledges the need for at least some level of governance, even the most ardent libertarian. And since the government doesn't create it's own wealth, it needs to be funded. The debate then is largly what is the optimal level. That's why it puzzles me when people dismiss UHC on ideological grounds about their right not to pay taxes. It's just plain idiotic.

 

[Bern80]

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.

And my point is just because it's happenned before doesn't mean we should keep doing it. As far as government taking what I've earned again I have no problem government taking it for the purpose of helping people that can't help themselves or for providing things that I can't find better ways to provide for myself. Yes you are right that as civilization advances some things will become more diffiuclt to provide, but I think we've both agreed that that doesn't inherently mean government is the solution

 

[Bern80]

yea... that wa the premise behind social security too.. but when insurance companies have a bottom line to contend with, not to mention profit margins like any other capitolist business, the result are the hoops you have to jump through in order to qualify for coverage. If a poor person had to pay for 800/month in meds on a wal mart wage how is it reasonable to expect that person to afford such an expense? Should the person just be stoic about their health and die since they can't afford the same things you can? Is this the America you want to live in? I'm not sure if a voting majority will make the same choice. Like I said, We the People have more stock in the Constitution than the guarantee of a free market.

Of course it isn't. What I'm saying is I think there is a way to find a happy medium that makes healthcare affordable, maintains quality, but does not involve the government taking it over.

As I said one step would be to deregulate insureance companies. On top of that I would start strongly pushing HSA's. That would put pressure on insureance companies to figure out ways to cut cost.

 

[manifold]

1. Relegate insurance companies to the business of insuring against severe financial loss rather than meddling in basic health maintenance. Perhaps an annual deductable of say...$5,000. For those that can afford it, you pay a premium to the insurance company just like you do for auto, home, life insurance etc. And you also pay your own healthcare related costs up to the deductable. Costs exceeding your deductable are picked up by the insurance provider. So for example if you get cancer and require $200,000 for chemo, it's covered. You also allow the free markets to dictate pricing.

2. Those that can't afford to pay get subsidized by the government.


I know it's a bit oversimplified, but why can't a concept like this work?

 

[manifold]

And my point is just because it's happenned before doesn't mean we should keep doing it. As far as government taking what I've earned again I have no problem government taking it for the purpose of helping people that can't help themselves or for providing things that I can't find better ways to provide for myself. Yes you are right that as civilization advances some things will become more diffiuclt to provide, but I think we've both agreed that that doesn't inherently mean government is the solution

No disagreement here.

 

[Bern80]

yea... but... the thinkg is, and he can correct me if Im wrong, Bern probably also doesn't think that the government should be responsible for those things (except for the military, perhaps) either. Which, kinda trumps the argument.

If I were taking his position I'd reply with Toll Roads, UPS/FEDEx and private 401k's which are dependant on investor returns.

Actually we would have to start with Benny's premise first, which doesn't really jive. Why government can collect for roads has nothing to do with some moral right to my money. The basic idea - and I use the term basic loosely because are tax system isn't so basic anymore - is that we need roads, I (along with others) will most likely be using said roads, they also provide non-quantifiable benefits such as allowing free flow of commerce which is in everyone's best interest (God, I can't even use that term w/o hearing GW saying it my head). Since I will be using it I believe government than does have the right to stick me with part of the bill (in the form of taxes) in building and maintaining it.

 

[Shogun]

What about law enforcement? Enforcement of contracts? Courts? Dispute settlement? And your exception, the military, that sure isn't free. And I also don't hear people bitchin about how inefficiently it's being run in the hands of the government.

The bottom line is everyone acknowledges the need for at least some level of governance, even the most ardent libertarian. And since the government doesn't create it's own wealth, it needs to be funded. The debate then is largly what is the optimal level. That's why it puzzles me when people dismiss UHC on ideological grounds about their right not to pay taxes. It's just plain idiotic.

enforcement of contracts, courts and dispute settlement (im assuming you mean civil court) are the product of the state not the fed. While I live in Missouri I don't pay for any of this happening in your state.


And I agree about the military. If you scroll up you'll see that I asked the very same question regarding the free market prerogative of Blackwater.


But, you know what? even the first libraries and fire protection districts in America were based on a subscription rather than taxes.

 

[Shogun]

Of course it isn't. What I'm saying is I think there is a way to find a happy medium that makes healthcare affordable, maintains quality, but does not involve the government taking it over.

As I said one step would be to deregulate insureance companies. On top of that I would start strongly pushing HSA's. That would put pressure on insureance companies to figure out ways to cut cost.

I hope you'll agree that Im making an effort into finding a viable middle ground. I'm just curious as to why this MUST be the product of theprivate secotr when, clearly, there is no hisotry of the private sector handing saving backs to the consumer when the "investor returns" excuse is the next viable step in rationalizing profit margins despite consumer cost.

As I said, what exactly are you looking to deregulate? HSA? personal savings accounts? How is that supposed to work when poor people don't have the money to put towards health insurance to begin with? How long would it take you to keep your account at at least 800 bucks per month? I don't think that it would put pressure on insurance companies because I don't think that enough people have enough cash flow to create significant competition.

 

[Shogun]

Actually we would have to start with Benny's premise first, which doesn't really jive. Why government can collect for roads has nothing to do with some moral right to my money. The basic idea - and I use the term basic loosely because are tax system isn't so basic anymore - is that we need roads, I (along with others) will most likely be using said roads, they also provide non-quantifiable benefits such as allowing free flow of commerce which is in everyone's best interest (God, I can't even use that term w/o hearing GW saying it my head). Since I will be using it I believe government than does have the right to stick me with part of the bill (in the form of taxes) in building and maintaining it.

You use every road in your state? Every road benefits the free flow of commerce? Was commerce the concern behind We the People anyway? We can all rationalize our positions as sound and logical. There are a LOT of roads that I'd rather not pay for when Iknow that I'll never use them. I COULD argue that THOSE roads should be given to private DOTS and maintained by tolls coming from those who choose to use them by citing better private maintenance among a myriad of other reasons not to participate in a road tax. How is this any different from applying the same to rejecting UHC? I will never set foot on a road in soutwestern missouri. why should I pay for their roads and commercial vectors?

 

[midcan5]

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?

No contradiction at all, consider if I don't have to worry about building 'roads' then I am free to do other things. That's the way society functions for itself. If healthcare (HC) is not an issue I am free to change jobs etc. I know many people who remain in jobs they would give up in a minute except they have HC there. Same with some working wives/husbands who could have more freedom if they didn't have to worry about HC. This is the first election in which hc has become an issue, what that means is it is becoming acceptable and once business starts prompting it it will be fact. Conservatives can remain behind in their cave but ideas grow and eventually are accepted. It's coming no doubt about it.

 

[Bern80]

You use every road in your state? Every road benefits the free flow of commerce? Was commerce the concern behind We the People anyway? We can all rationalize our positions as sound and logical. There are a LOT of roads that I'd rather not pay for when Iknow that I'll never use them. I COULD argue that THOSE roads should be given to private DOTS and maintained by tolls coming from those who choose to use them by citing better private maintenance among a myriad of other reasons not to participate in a road tax. How is this any different from applying the same to rejecting UHC? I will never set foot on a road in soutwestern missouri. why should I pay for their roads and commercial vectors?

What does We the People have to do with roads in the first place? Our system of taxing for roads is the most efficient one there is regardless of how often you use them. Your tax dollars aren't going to pay for every road so that argument is moot. That is why we have country roads, state roads, and federal roads. Federal taxes pay for the federal roads, the interestates which yes are vital to commerce. Your state taxes or possibly gas taxes are used to fund your state roads. since it would be silly to have a toll on every little road to get them paid for that is the next best option.

 

[Bern80]

No contradiction at all, consider if I don't have to worry about building 'roads' then I am free to do other things. That's the way society functions for itself. If healthcare (HC) is not an issue I am free to change jobs etc. I know many people who remain in jobs they would give up in a minute except they have HC there. Same with some working wives/husbands who could have more freedom if they didn't have to worry about HC. This is the first election in which hc has become an issue, what that means is it is becoming acceptable and once business starts prompting it it will be fact. Conservatives can remain behind in their cave but ideas grow and eventually are accepted. It's coming no doubt about it.

Yes you are so far ahead of the curve. 'Progressive' is it? I agree whole heartedly that something needs to be done about health care expenses and how there paid for, but if you think government will be this great solution you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Bern80]

I hope you'll agree that Im making an effort into finding a viable middle ground. I'm just curious as to why this MUST be the product of theprivate secotr when, clearly, there is no hisotry of the private sector handing saving backs to the consumer when the "investor returns" excuse is the next viable step in rationalizing profit margins despite consumer cost.

No, what I've said is governments involvment should be limited to providing for those that have no means of providing for themselves. that leaves everyone else whos healthcare is generally paid for partially by their employer and through premiums. Think of how productive we could be if one of a companies expenses wasn't healthcare or if it was significantly reduced.

As I said, what exactly are you looking to deregulate? HSA? personal savings accounts? How is that supposed to work when poor people don't have the money to put towards health insurance to begin with? How long would it take you to keep your account at at least 800 bucks per month? I don't think that it would put pressure on insurance companies because I don't think that enough people have enough cash flow to create significant competition.

We shouldn't even be haveing a debate about the poor anymore. I've stated several times now I have no problem with government taxing to help people that can't help themselves. There will always be a need for that level of government involvment. As for everyone else you know my position is that those who are capable should pay. However our medical industry as gotten so out of whack that almost no one can afford it on their own. In that sense the medical profession is kind of anomoly in that it is something we need but almost none can afford. that needs to be addressed no doubt, but government takeing over doesn't do that. If we want to fix the problem let's fix it, not come up with some solution that doesn't even address it.