Someone pays
 

If this continues along with companies like GM paying less and offering less benefits (health insurance being the primary cut in most companies because they can't afford it) we will soon have the very few paying for the very many because we will lack the ability for preventive doctors visits.

I will not be surprised if we see a massive decline in the age expectations and far more sick.

I do not see how anyone can argue against universal healthcare because we are going to have it one way or another we may as well pay taxes for it otherwise only the rich will have insurance and even then the burden of their insurance will be far more than their taxes would be.

States and localities are already at bankrupt levels trying to pay for the uninsured. The Feds is soon going to be hit hard.

Hell, a month ago I posted an article that the fed planned to pay billions for the illegals healthcare...... and yet we keep having to hear the GOP and healthcare industry tell us we can't afford universal healthcare while we go broke paying for it anyway.

Of course, let's hear from those who say if people who can't afford healthcare they should lose all they have and if they still can't afford it well then too bad.

======================================================
LINKS: (I used the CNN story but I have also linked to more "conservative" sources also.... the stories are pretty much the same.....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...s_x.htm?csp=34

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aj6M8rPP1GHM

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/a...6-101052-2922r

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/08...ion=cnn_latest
=======================================================
Study: Uninsured cost insured $900 more
48 million Americans will lack health insurance in 2005
Wednesday, June 8, 2005 Posted: 1:26 PM EDT (1726 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Health insurance premiums will cost families and employers an extra $922 on average this year to cover the costs of caring for the uninsured, according to a report released Wednesday.

With the added cost, the yearly premiums for a family with coverage through an employer will average $10,979 in 2005, said the report from consumer group Families USA.

By 2010, the additional costs for the uninsured will be $1,502, and total premiums will hit $17,273. In 11 states, the costs of the uninsured will exceed $2,000 per family.

For individuals, the extra charge this year is estimated to be $341 on average, rising to $532 in 2010. Total premium charges for individuals will be $4,065 in 2005, and $6,115 in 2010.

"The stakes are high both for businesses and for workers who do have health insurance because they bear the brunt of costs for the uninsured," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

Nearly 48 million Americans will lack health insurance for 2005, the report said.

Uninsured patients pay about one-third of the costs of their care provided by doctors and hospitals, the report said.

The remaining costs -- more $43 billion in 2005 -- are considered "uncompensated care." The government picks up part of the tab and most of the rest is added to insurance premiums for people with health coverage, the report said.

"Ironically, this increases the cost of health insurance and results in fewer people who can afford insurance -- a vicious circle," the report said.

The costs for people with insurance vary by state based on a number of variables, including the percentage of uninsured in a state and the amount local, state and federal governments contribute.

The report was based on data from the Census Bureau, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Center for Health Statistics and other sources.

Small business is getting eaten alive with this. Even Republicans have to admit that for the health of corporate america we need to get this burden thinned out across our society. A big part of the incentive for companies to move manufacturing overseas is because of healthcare costs. Unless you are so die-hard that you believe companies shouldn't offer benefits to employees, we are saddling a burden on them that is rising at 10 - 15% a year. We can kill that rise today if people are covered for preventative care without lapses.

I've said it before, ensuring the basic well-being of the whole population is the first measure of quality of life for all of us, and the only thing I am sure that government should be doing. The rest of it is all secondary...

Excellent topic, Pan, and one that strikes very close to home for me. My little business currently insures five individuals (no dependents) and the cost per month is remarkably close the figure cited in your article.

The service industry is the first to be hit in an economic down turn and the last to recover so this little business is teetering on the brink. We've raised prices to the extent that we think the market will bear, and cut costs that are within our control. We have refused to put our medical insurance for employees on the table, but with premiums increasing dramatically every year I don't know if we can justify it for much longer.

It will be a difficult decision if we are forced to make it, and it will likely cost us the quality people we hope to employ. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

this presupposes that those who cannot afford a certain level of healthcare are entitled to it via redistribution of resources by way of taxes or by insurance premiums, a premise i'm not willing to agree upon.

I haven't done my research but how come United States chose not to go with a public health care system that alot of European countries, even Canada is working under?

Everybody gets free health care, the government picks up the tab and in order to pay for the funding, some of the tax money (GST in Canada) is used toward to paying for it. By going with this kind of system, insurance companies can avoid having to force customers who are paying for health insurance to pay for those who do not have any health care insurance. Families and individuals can save thousands, especially if they don't often make a visit to the local hospital or paramacies (sp)

So in the end you would rather that only the people paying for healthcare get healthcare and/or we continue this system until all companies are bankrupt and the rich pay for everyone's healthcare anyway?

You take away people's healthcare and eventually there will be a revolution the likes this country has never seen or is prepared for.

You truly believe the GOP will continue to win when the coddle the healthcare industry and keep allowing this bullshit to continue?

You may not have a choice soon as to whether or not you agree to it.

Because the Right feels that profits of the healthcare industry are far more important than people's health???? Just a guess from the rights past arguments over universal healthcare.

Very true Elphaba, wish the Right would open their eyes to the dilemma and the coming destruction caused by the healthcare industry. Instead they will continue to cater to them and allow prices to skyrocket.

This is the typical response from the right. It's shallow and disturbing.

When irateplatypus talks about "entitlement" to a "certain level of health care", it most certainly begs the question of healthcare as a fundamental human right, especially in a first-world country such as mine. Although there are certain levels in healthcare now, my guess is that the greatest gap is between the insured and uninsured, and emergency room care is the 700-pound gorilla on the back of health care providers such as HMOs.

I'm presently uninsured, for the first time in my adult life, and it makes me very uneasy.

i'm sorry my canadian friend... but this is precisely the mentality that i detest among my own countrymen.

let's just re-iterate...

- no one gets free healthcare
- while you pay taxes, YOU are the government. ergo, YOU pick up the tab.
- ok, so the insurance companies are off the hook because everyone gets healthcare, now you're stuck paying it directly.

in an aggregate sense, no one saves money. the only difference is the redistribution of wealth to provide a flatter net wealth curve.

*************************
people go round and round on this issue, but often fail to see the very fundamental worldview issue at stake. it all boils down to a single problem "is it just for the government to force you to pay for the healthcare of another?"

or its variant "is it just to force another to pay for your own healthcare needs?"

that's it. that's all there is to it. you have to answer both "yes" to be an intellectually honest proponent of such a system. i'd like to hear any poster justify such a position.

The uninsured add $922 to your health insurance premiums every year
 

You're paying $922 a year for them now and by the end of the decade you'll be paying $1,502 in extra health insurance premiums every single year just to cover the healthcare costs of all the uninsured people in America. That's a month's pay before taxes for some working class people.

So who needs socialized medicine after all? We've already got a welfare-style socialized medicine program run by private insurance companies and the costs they're laying on you are spiralling so far out of control that they look every bit like an inefficient government bureaucracy run amok. So much for the great and powerful free market's ability to miraculously solve all problems just through supply and demand. Here's to a future where each and every one of us coughs up thousands of dollars a year to pay for all those millions of uninsured people. Hope you enjoy signing that check.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...H-COSTS-DC.XML

===================================================

See but your side offers no solution and in the end the wealthy pay for it anyway and we bankrupt society.

I find it a pathetic and selfish display of ego to say that people who cannot afford healthcare do not deserve it, and that is what you are indeed saying.

And by your example it is ok to pay billions to a company like Haliburton for military supplies that our military never recieves or recieves late, or to allow them to overcharge for fuel?

I have a feeling if we asked Americans to vote where their taxes would go ..... far more would vote for universal healthcare than for any other purpose.

It is becoming a serious issue and the Right cannot keep hiding from it much longer, it is on it's way to becoming THE biggest issue. If the GOP leaders show the compassion and care towards others that your post displayed..... then they will lose. They had better come up with a plan because in '06 and '08 this issue will be what drives Americans to the polls.

BTW I pay taxes, and I would have no problem with a healthcare system based on ability to pay or a universal system. I do however have problems with my money going to companies that rip off the US military in times of war, or a government that closes VA Hospitals and cuts veteran benefits promised to them, while giving themselves pay raises and making sure they get the best healthcare on my tax dollars.

Already covered in this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=90400

1) It is already a socialized system administered by insurance companies with undue burden placed on your employer which in turn is paid by you out of salary you would have gotten. Taxed is actually the best chance you have to pay only your share.
2) You are already paying the cost, plus additional expense because about 35% of adults cannot go for regular visits to the doctor for preventive care. The high cost of healthcare arises from calamity disease, such as cancer, strokes, heart attacks etc. that could have been prevented or caught early.
3) If you have a major need we cover you as thanks for your generosity of being in the system. It will take about 20 families a whole year of paying premiums in order to cover your short stay at the hospital.
4) You benefit from a healthy population with reliable transportation, goods and services, and entertainment. If you don't believe me you should travel the world and see the quality of life where people don't get healthcare.
5) Who knows what you might catch from one of the "undesirables"??
:)

Reforming bankruptcy laws, something that was very important for the financial sector, was done because of the huge numbers of medical defaults in this country.

That would only increase as our babyboomers have more and more bills. Now we just grow our debtor society.

We're crumbling america at her foundation with the crushing medical debt that our legislature, in their infinte wisdom, has sought to maintain.

not supporting your solution isn't the same thing as not having one at all. i'm unsure why you try to call conservatives out, but didn't bother to respond to the questions i posed before.

i feel there are too many institutionalized people in our society. somehow they are convinced that if the government (via our tax dollars, something that is often overlooked), doesn't provide a service... it won't be available.

the solution to this whole problem is for everyone to pay for the healthcare they receive via their own insurance policies or out of pocket. what isn't covered there would have to come from their local charity or place of worship.

i'm sick of people who suck off the government's (our) teat yet buy a new car. guess what? if you have a computer, if you go out to eat regularly, if you own a car, if you have cable television... YOU CAN AFFORD HEALTHCARE.

all this whining about 15% of Americans without healthcare, all the while the automobiles in this country outnumber the drivers.

no, they don't deserve it. as men and women of compassion we should aid those who cannot help themselves. however, it's immoral to have the government force that upon us.

...no

that doesn't make it just.

no one is hiding. it's just that they don't agree with you. the day a sense of entitlement is the major issue that drives my countrymen to the polls will be the day we've lost a big piece of what made us what we are.

...you're out in left field with the haliburton thing. no one will argue the point.

chickentribs,

i've seen the world, probably more than you. if not, then more than 95% of people have.

lets keep discussing this without getting personal. it's a battle i don't want to fight even though it's a battle i'm confident i'd win.

Irateplatypus, I am sorry, in no way did I mean that as a jab. I honestly tried to come up with the words to describe the social cost of disease, but I am sure you understand that if somebody hasn't travelled outside of the U.S. it can be a little hard to explain, yeah? No hard feelings...

Aside from that point, though, I would be interested in your thoughts on the other ideas I listed. I think even Ayn Rand would have to agree with #1. Thanks!

As a doctor who would not be personally effected by socialized medicine were it to come to the US, I have to say, it sucks.

If it wasn't late, if we didn't do this already 100 times on the pb, and if my wife wasn't about to give me a BJ I might say for the umpteenth time on this board what sucks about it.

But since it is late, I've said it before, and I am about to get a BJ, I'm not going to bother...again.

chickentribs,

no harm done. i'll attempt to answer your points as best as i am able.

1. this seems to assume that i am in favor of maintaining the status quo as a measure to address the arguments for universal healthcare. i am not. changes must be made for our system cannot support this curious sort of prolonged privatized socialism that you alluded to.

the solution isn't to federalize the hemorrhaging already in place... it's to throw a dang turniquet around the whole idea. we live in a society that lives beyond our means. social programs have coddled us, shielded us (for now) from the consequences of our actions. in a nation of so many televisions where 10 lane highways are jam-packed with automobiles transporting a single person and food is dumped into the trashcan by the pound... there is no reason why people can't assume responsibility for their own healthcare. we can't have it all, or rather, we aren't entitled to it all.

i love that our country is an unrivaled economic titan. but, we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of our blessings. that includes helping those who cannot help themselves. when government assumes that role, only fraud and corruption will ensue. we have an obligation to ourselves to be disciplined enough to make the right choices with our resources. we must fashion our society in a way that rewards those who make good decisions. giving people free (and by free i mean "not necessarily earned) will only bring our society to a more depraved sense of personal entitlement.

2. again, i choose not to pay for those preventable maladies. if someone was convinced that the government would bail them out of any medical crisis, would they be more or less likely to get regular checkups versus having to pay the chemo bill out-of-pocket? how many cars would have their oil changed regularly if the government decided everyone "deserved" a car?

you mentioned rand... you won't find me defending her strict objectivist philosophy. however, she does have some valid things to say about human nature.

i think my sig makes me a bit of a lightning rod at times.

I want to give a special shout out to irateplatypus and chickenribs for keeping it civil and "self-monitroring". I wanted to let you guys know I really appreciate that. I believe that's what TFP is all about and makes it a great place to be again.

Your behavior is exemplary of how to disagree and keep the debate engaging without getting personal.

Thanks again.

Oh yeah, I'll be back later to contribute to this thread and fascinating topic. Must get back to writing paper....*gulp* Can't help myself...

The problem is in the system. We are leading the world in healthcare spending but lacking behind in results. Clearly throwing money at the issue isn't solving anything. Almost all the countries at the top of the WHO list spend a fraction of what we spend, yet we were in 76th place the last time I checked.

The problem isn't that American's are getting too much healthcare - we arn't. Nor that American's arn't paying enough for their healthcare - we pay more then anyone. The problem is that our healthcare system is in shables and it will take some strong reforms to even beggin to set it back on track.



irateplatapus,

You make some rather odd statements.

The govenment is not our oppressor, they are hired by us to run this country. We give them taxes so that they can do their job.

You asume that every one in the states has such luxuries. I know a couple of people who are just out of college, are debt and cannot afford cable never mind a couple of cars. You provide the statistics yet asume that those people are living in luxury and just happen to leech off the rest of us. This simply isn't the case. In fact when it comes to the majority of the population your theory of self-ufficiency works well until a familly is hit by a major illness. Medical insurance often dosnt cover all the costs. With the high cost of treatment for illnesses such as cancer any percentage one has to pay can become a financial disaster. Most "middle class" families are one major illness away from being sent to the gutter.

You are arguing for and against the same concept.

The point is do you either do or do not want every citizen in this country to have access to healthcare. If you do then one way or another we will need to take resources from those who have them and give them to those who don't and lets face it with the way the economy is going there are allot of people who don't.

If we are to look at ourselves as a nation we have to run ourselves as a nation. In order for that to happen taxes are a necessity. How else do we address national issues such as infrastructure, education and health? But thats a topic for a whole other debate.

I'm not going to go on a major rant. I might get a time out so here's my answer....

Short version: Because Bush is in office and the pharmaceutical companies have him in their back pocket. Plain and simple.

I agree we should reward hard work and initiative, I think our country already does that very well and to use economic status as a way of judging who gets medicine and who doesn't seems like a bit of playing God to me.

I understand your point, but I think that most people's health is more important to them than a car. Maybe many wouldn't go in for regular check-ups, but how long will the older gentleman on a fixed income put up with the nagging cough if he can't afford the extra $50 for a doctor's visit? If he waits until he is coughing blood it is too late.
Yeah - but that's what a good sig does! I am a fan of hers, I just approach her as a philosophy to be considered instead of a "How to" book like friends of mine have done. Thanks for your ideas...

mantus,

i believe the government becomes an oppresive force when it mandates that citizens are required to underwrite the health and well-being of others. my statements are not incongruent... i believe the government has a role to play (heck, i swore an oath to uphold and defend the darn thing), but the role has limits.

also, i'm under no illusion that all are swamped in luxuries. your example, however, furthur illustrates my point... this bizarre sense of entitlement. why on earth should i pay your friends medical expenses just because he has college debt? on what grounds do you say it is just? maybe the cards life dealt him forced him to make a choice: pay for college or get medical insurance. he isn't ENTITLED to either... why should i pay to let him have both?

most of those same middle class families who can't afford to treat a major illness would have $15,000 in the bank accrueing interest if they hadn't spent the last 30 years subsidizing the rest of the country's medical expenses. that is, unless they didn't blow it on a new minivan.

to answer you directly, every citizen should have access to the healthcare they can afford. if this means choosing between college and medical insurance, so be it. no one deserves either.

To all TFP,

if you're trying to convince me or the few who share my position of the efficacy and justice found in universal healthcare... i would appreciate if you would answer the following questions directly.

1. is it right to demand that another person pay for your medical expenses? if so, how is this justified?

2. on what grounds do we "deserve" medical care? if we deserve medical care, what else are we entitled to? if nothing else, why not?

3. does your experience in dealing with government offices and your knowledge of how the government manages your tax dollars give you confidence in placing your healthcare in the same hands?

4. do you think fraud and corruption are better avoided in a universal government program or in the competitive market?

5. what will be the long-term impact of placing so many dollars that once flowed through the economy in the tax coffer?

1. is it right to demand that another person pay for your medical expenses? if so, how is this justified?

It's not a demand if we collectively decide to offer to do so. I for one, would be willing to pay to support a universal health care system.

2. on what grounds do we "deserve" medical care? if we deserve medical care, what else are we entitled to? if nothing else, why not?

my answer is the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. I won't quote it here, but i'm part of the humanist tradition of the Christian faith. Humankind is something worth caring about. We, as a people, are worth caring about. If we're not worth caring about, and if we don't back that conviction with action, our lives will be nasty, brutish and short. Care of the other is the mark of civilization, and for me, revelation.


3. does your experience in dealing with government offices and your knowledge of how the government manages your tax dollars give you confidence in placing your healthcare in the same hands?

To be honest, it does. I worked for US Senator Paul Wellstone for several years, and i dealt with every branch of government there was. And despite some real hassles and twits, those people were doing their best to do their jobs. With oversight, i'm willing to trust the corporate "us" of government.

4. do you think fraud and corruption are better avoided in a universal government program or in the competitive market?

trick question. is the current health care market competitive? in the small town where my grandfather used to be the doctor and surgeon, there are two major hospitals, each HMO trying to push the other out. That community is vastly over served, a piece of turf in a giant war. other communities go completely unserved. governments can be wasteful too. It's a trick question. The system, any system, is as good as we demand it to be.

5. what will be the long-term impact of placing so many dollars that once flowed through the economy in the tax coffer?

i don't know. but i think it's worth the risk. think of the small businesses and entreprenours who can compete and open when they don't have to offer health care. think of the young people willing to take a risk on a career or job becuase they know that they don't have to accept the first thing that offers benifits. health care is a restraint on labor. and that costs. i think it's time we did something to change that.

I thought this was going to be fixed by president whats his name?

You've said this repeatedly about several topics. Would you care to clarify, just for my sake, whether you're predicting or threatening revolution?
I pay less for an individualized plan than the quoted article claims I'm paying, so I have reason to doubt their numbers across the board. Even if I am paying more than I would under a socialized system, I currently get to choose my doctor, and he spends as much time as I need him to spend addressing whatever is wrong with me. I don't recall hearing anyone defend soicalized medical care by claiming that they get to do that.
I'm really not sure how to respond to this. Even if I did consider taxes to be a salary for the government, I'd still see them wasting money and abusing the power that the "right" to tax us gives them.

Does your employer contribute to your health plan? Most do because you have to have a certain percentage level of your eligible employees participate or you won't even get insurance as a company. Also, you are male and younger, which gives you the bargain price. Women pay about double, and children aren't far behind that. I found the numbers to be reasonable, cheap even.

As I understand it, the process would work much the same as what you are probably use to. A list of providers you can choose from by specialization with your care overseen by a General Practioner. The idea isn't to line everybody up at a VA Hospital and shut down clinics. The payments are administered by our government instead of a corporation and the cost supported through taxes. If there are hospitals and doctors that want to offer "premium care" you can cover the difference of services yourself. The system has been in place and running fine for years on a small scale because it is the FREE healthcare that federal employees including your congressman and senator have enjoyed their whole career.

The way I see it we already have universal healthcare. I don't have insurance at the time, yet I've never been denied any healthcare I've asked for. As stated earlier, the insured pick up the tab for the uninsured, how is that any different than a universal system, the haves are still covering the have-nots. So the permiums of the insured are expected to rise by an average of $922 this year - I wonder how much taxes would rise for the average person if we implemented a universal system.

I'm with irate on this one - esp the parts on entitlement and luxury. Like ustwo said, this topics been covered to death here.

if you want universal healthcare, vote hillary in 08. Its your best shot.

I for one would not, and why should the government make me?

It's my interpretation that the bible talks about individual giving and charity, not forced welfare through the government. Remember in Exodus when the pharoah took 1/7th of the income for 7 years, to be paid back for the following 7 years (I'm a little fuzzy on this haven't read it in awhile :P). It was called slavery, and that's my understanding of social services because it severly limits individual freedom. You go from the government needing you, to you needing the government.

Most everyday government workers are honestly trying to do the right thing, but it's the the few people at the top that are responsible for the evil and corruption that continues.

The thing you are missing is that there is 35-40% of workers that do not have insurance that can pay for it through a tax system. Maybe the company they work for couldn't afford it, maybe they started a new job and won't be eligible for 3-6 months, self-employed, laid off, whatever. What universal hc does is get those people to pay into the system so that corporations can stop picking up the extra burden.

I holding out that McCain will come around on this one...

Ok.....

Look at the high cost of medical care and how it surpasses inflation as though the rest of price increases were at a stand still.

Someone has to pay for other countries universal healthcare to the healthcare and pharm. industries, so who does it? The USA, we're unregulated and we pay it... in one form or another.

Do we have better healthcare because of this? I don't believe we do, we still rate very high in infant mortality, and among other industrialized countries or life expectancy is not as high. If we had the so called best healthcare system, we'd be leading the world in those numbers instead of trailing behind.

As for people voting for where their tax money would go...... I firmly believe that was the whole idea of TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION. I firmly believe our founding fathers developed our great ELECTED representative government for the purpose of allowing the PEOPLE the right to determine where and how the money is spent. Thus if the majority voted for universal healthcare paid for by our taxes then it should be done. Again, I reiterate, my belief is that if put to a vote those favoring universal healthcare would win IMHO by at least a 2-1 (66-34%) margin. So to keep saying people don't deserve it and the country can't do it is BS.

The problem is government is not responsive to what the people want anymore.

As for being in left field with my statement, I personally see that government is unresponsive to the people and that is the statement I am making there. I see the above as my argument that I am being taxed without representation and the fact polls show a vast majority want universal healthcare, and government won't offer any solutions whatsoever, shows me we have taxation WITHOUT representing what the majority want. Again, it's my argument that our founding fathers wrote the Constitution for us to have taxation with representation.... and since we don't have it and the GOP are ok with the healthcare system now (as they offer NO alternatives, no solutions just keep allowing the industry to bankrupt us), then the GOP is showing big business is more important that the Constitution.

When companies are showing losses at a great rate because of healthcare and your attitude is cut the healthcare, then who pays for it? People are not making the money to pay for healthcare, especially as prices keep going up and wages go down. The rich are going to keep paying and paying and paying.

The difference in a universal healthcare or regulated is that everyone pays taxes into it. Therefore everyone pays.

I am sorry you feel the rich are entitled to keep all they have and fuck everyone else because they weren't lucky enough to be born wealthy or to find that great paying job, or to be able to afford college, or to be smart enough or to have that drive..... sorry, it's bullshit to believe everyone can make the riches on their own, especially with wages going downward. Some can but the vast majority can't.

MrSelf: as for this:

Yes, the US has become a very selfish, wasteful country and we value our toys (but we put no value on the worker). You take away what a person works hard for and believes he deserves for working so hard, he's not going to sit back idly and say "ok, I take personal responsibility and I overspent and it caught up to me. So I don't deserve healthcare or a car or cable or whatever." Nor will that loss drive him to work harder. It's a loss of self esteem (rightfully or wrong it is the way OUR society has been brought up.

I argue an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, to me your argument is work your ass off and I'll tell you what you are worth.

You cannot all of a sudden expect all of a sudden everyone to change. It has always been about keeping up with the Jones' in this country. Unfortunately because of healthcare and our allowing of big business raping us by making sure we believe "we need this product or that" , we will not easily let go of the notion we deserve (**notice I said DESERVE not are entitled to BIG difference IMHO, see below) these luxuries we worked hard for and the taxes we pay are to protect us and help us. People by nature will fight to keep what they believe they deserve and hence, revolt..... and that is my prediction.

Is that right? No, but our spending and lifestyle is our country's addiction. I see it everyday and "Tough love" very, very rarely works. But that is your GOP's only solution. Tough love helps only those who are ready to TRULY accept responsibility, which is about 2-5% of addicts. The rest, tough love does nothing but force the addict to withdraw deeper into the addiction, have feelings of resentment, anger, hatred and 9/10 times they strike back with a vengence. For society that would be a revolution as they would blame their losses on government.

In reality, IMHO the truth and the solution lies in the middle..... however when your side refuses to even offer anything.... then there is no starting ground is there?

**To me entitlement says we are guaranteed this and we have a right to this(and there are no guarantees in life), deserve means "I worked hard for this and I should be able to have some comfort for my hard work".

- ah never mind - :p

But thats where you're wrong. I wasn't born into a wealthy family, far from it. My father was enlisted in the AF for 20 years. I had 4 brothers and sisters. We were not rich by any means. I remember nights when all we ate was rice and gravy. I drank powdered milk. I never had anything name-brand. My brothers and sisters and I got our clothes from the thrift shop. I bought my first car for $300 when I was 18 with money I saved myself.

I don't know what you mean by "afford college" I finished college, (BS & MS) and have $80,000 in loans to pay back. I didn't land a great paying job either, but I make enough to make ends-meet right now. After taxes and bills I've got just enough money to eat with. I save what I can when I can.

But do you hear me whining? Do you hear me saying I'm entitled to anything other than the money I work hard for? But I'm optimistic. I know that I will be wealthy one day. I know I've worked hard and will keep working hard so that my children will be better off than I was/am. I know that the money I get paid is directly related to the amount of money my company makes, and the more money I make for the company, the more money I make. Its that simple. So I work hard, set goals, and strive to do the best. and all I want out of it is the money I'm entitled to because I earned it.

Thats what the American Dream is about. The opportunity to work hard and better your life and your childrens' lives. period. Its not about universal healthcare or a high minimum wage. Its about opportunity. Its a shame though when one person's achievements go punished because someone else feels they are entitled to something because they got the short end of the stick. Well, hell, I got a short stick too. But I sharpened it to a point and used it to help me climb up.

The attitude that you are putting forth never got anyone anywhere.

I appreciate and truly respect what you have accomplished. Hard work does pay.

It is my belief though, that companies don't pay workers what they are worth. When you have CEO's loading up golden parachutes and destroying pension plans and paying their workers barely enough to live with no benefits, I just think it's wrong.

It's not about entitlement it's about maintaining a healthy and growing society. Without affordable healthcare we won't have either.

I just believe in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Unfortunately, I don't see that, part of the reason is healthcare bogs down what companies (those that provide it) can pay.

I think if EVERYONE pays into it and or we regulate costs then it benefits society far more efficiently, profitably and morally/kharmically, then the system we have now.

As I have stated, the rich are paying for the poor now with high costs and by premiums increasing, this burden will continue to increase as fewer and fewer companies offer health ins. and we have more uninsured.

NOONE SHOULD EVER BE DENIED HEALTHCARE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT....It's inhumane and not what the USA is about, IMHO. An example, a 30 yr old who has nothing of value and barely makes a living, say develops Hodgkins and is uninsured.

Now we can:

1) take all he owns, put him in debt for the rest of his and his child's life and give him no reason to work hard after he recovers, because even according to you, it is the ability to get ahead that drives people.

2) Not do a damned thing (he can't afford it aw well).

3) We can treat him with universal healthcare and when he does recover he'll become a more effective, harder worker who knows the system worked for him.

4) Or we can do what we do now and that is have the local, state, federal and ins. premium payers pay for it indirectly, while still taking everything he owns and putting him into massive debt and terrible credit ratings. Which again, cuts his desire to work since he makes nothing and will probably never catch up to the debt.

To me, I'd rather have my taxes directly pay, watch him recover and become a better member of society because he saw that the system does work. He has no debt and a newfound lease on life. He becomes a harder and healthier worker and member of society.

Perhaps, I have too much faith in mankind but I am an optimist that way.

I believe a person will live up to his potential and work harder if he is shown that his hard work is appreciated and he can move up the ladder.

Hey Stevo! You probably meant the attitude he is talking about not, put forth, because trust me, anyone out of Canton, OH who is as well thought out and articulate as pan has worked hard to get there! (pan knows my family is from Elyria around the corner and just as rough.)

Congrats on your education, stevo! Probably the proudest two days of your life was graduation 1 & 2. When you start your company, you will be glad that not everybody has your tenacity. We need people at every level of education and motivation because there are a lot of jobs at every level that need done. You will be rewarded for all of your hardship with money, authority, confidence, etc., and you will make money off of the people who will be happy just working for you instead of competing with you.

I don't want them to have the house you have, drive the car you have, or take the vacations you take. You deserve to get what you worked for.

But basic healthcare isn't something to deny a man or his family because he doesn't make the money you will. About half working adults don't have health insurance, and if their child gets sick, they go bankrupt, lose their house, and any minimal savings they have. I've seen it happen because of an 8 year old's appendix. man.

That may be, but a healthcare system run by the federal government isn't the answer. I can't see one being implemented without a major tax hike - at least 20%. I'm not saying the current system is perfect, it obviously isn't, perhaps reforming the system is a better idea than creating a whole new one that would no doubt be overpriced and incredibly inefficient.

I can live with the "may be" for now! I will let McCain know that if we can get it down to a 8% tax hike, stevo is on board...

A-B-C Always Be Closing :suave:

:eek: wait a minute I didn't say that :lol:

[QUOTE=chickentribs]Hey Stevo! You probably meant the attitude he is talking about not, put forth, because trust me, anyone out of Canton, OH who is as well thought out and articulate as pan has worked hard to get there! (pan knows my family is from Elyria around the corner and just as rough.)[QUOTE]

Actually, I moved to Canton for the ex-wife back when we were in love, engaged and were happy.

I'm originally a Lex. Ohio product, the great Mansfield, Ohio suburb and went to Hiram College till I gambled my way out, many years ago. Thanks for the great write up the check's in the mail. :p

As for Elyria..... well could be worse, you could be from Amrap :lol: .... (sorry had to get a Ghoul reference in). :thumbsup:

//end threadjack

The fact that so many believe that one person has a right to the property of another is far more disturbing.

How is it property if everyone is paying for it in taxes?

I'm sorry but the whole "taxes" are MY money and I pay too much is disturbing to me. The rich pay far less than ever and if the tax rate bothers you so much then get industry in here that will pay workers decent wages and increase the tax bases.

Oh I forgot that doesn't increase anything. Even though better paying jobs promotes more mom and pop shops which helps drive local economies, which helps the states which helps the Fed. but the Right doesn't seem to ever want to believe that.

Taxes are to move civilization and our country forward and to better ourselves. The right has proven they are no better at keeping a balanced budget and spending tax money as the left.

Both sides promote their own pork and free spending.

Seriously, the argument "it's my money" is thin. It's my money also, why should my tax dollars go to a war I don't believe in and not towards education or universal healthcare for which I do believe in?

It's all about who is in power as to where the money goes. We have to pay taxes, we may not like it, we may think we pay too much but I'm sure you use all the government programs and luxuries they provide without hesitation. It's just some people have other needs and use different programs. But we all use the programs out there in some fashion.

You don't want to pay taxes, then don't use any of the programs.

Grow your own food and make your own drugs otherwise you are using the FDA.

Don't drive on any roads or walk on any sidewalks because that was paid for by taxes and government.

Don't use any utilities because in some way they use government funding, make you own clothing from materials you make, as government programs helped the companies that do make those products.

Don't read or write, go to church or educate your children, because you're using freedoms that the government paid military protects.

Don't drink the water or breathe the air because the EPA keeps it clean....

See how ridiculous arguing how taxes are too high is?

One can argue the government is involved in too much, but that's politics one side cuts programs their constituency wants cut and increases the spending their side uses more of.

The idea that government burocracies are less efficient then private organization is a bit flawed. Most of the world's most healthy countries have universal healthcare systems and all of them manage to be do more with less.

Canada spends 9.6% of their $30,000 GDP while we spend 14.6% of our $36,000 GDP and has a better healthcare system.

Corruption is a given when it comes to the govenment but it's just as frequent in the corporate world. Govenment coruption usually leads to an increase in costs while in the corporate world coruption leads to decline in services.

Finally, it seems that privatization of any social service never works. The problem is very obvious: corporations are loyal only to the share holders, a stance which runs in direct conflict with social services.

Just some thoughts.

Canada has an abysmal healthcare system. Abysmal. Doctors and other health care professionals fleeing the country in droves, at their earliest possible opportunity, to practice, those who can afford it looking south of the 49th to stay alive and middle class taxpayers KEEPING 45 cents on every dollar they make (that's a 55% payroll tax)...and then paying 15-20 percent sales tax on everything they buy. People waiting six months to get an appointment, and every tom, dick and harry stressing the emergency rooms with the sniffles.

It is not cheaper and it is not better. Not by a long shot.

There is ONE place and only one place on this entire planet that is the envy of every health care professional, and patient in need of medical care...and it is right here in the good old US of A.

Please don't misunderstand me by assuming I don't think there is room for improvement..there is...there always is and there always will be.

I have some thoughts on these needed improvements...but must get home to the little one. A brief preview:

1. Lawsuit reform
2. Liabilty reform
3. Expectation realignment. Sorry but smokers, alchy's, obese, and other high risk life style choosers don't get to live like the rest of us who didn't abuse our temple, imho.
4. Pharmacuetical distribution changes.

Involving the government in some universal health care wealth redistribution ponzi scheme will compound the problem, vastly deteriorating quality of care and greatly increasing the costs of this care. Just like it has happened everywhere else this utopia scheme was perputrated.

I hear the flawed argument about superior health care in countries with socialized medicine...unfortunately I have never seen the argument have any validity. The poster I quoted above is no exception.

-bear

j8ear, I thank you for your coments. They prompted me to do more research on the mater which is proving quite enlightening. I will post back here when I am done.

All I know is that I had 4 wisdom teeth pulled about 3 or so months ago. Without insurance it would have cost me about 3,800 bucks. Without insurance they would still be in my mouth and I would still be popping motrin like candy to dull the pain. At least with some sort of centralized healthcare how dismal or bad it may be I would be able to get treatment. However long I had to wait or even if the service was sub par at least they would be out of my mouth. In the good ol' US they would still be in my mouth.

Wisdom teeth are very painful and very common. I wonder how many people suffer just because they can't afford to have the removed? I know there is people that suffer with a lot more but just some food for thought.

Bear,

Thank you for a well thought out post, some good arguments on the other side. :thumbsup:

See I like the idea of a sliding scale based on income and dependants for medical care, moreso than just a full fledged "free" healthcare.

The argument this takes away someone's desire to earn more to me is petty and flawed because most people are driven to buy products. This would allow more money in their pockets, to spend more freely.

With a universal healthcare system though, companies like GM and Ford could put the savings not only into payroll, but into badly needed R&D and help them compete against the imports.

Granted the rich will always pay more (but perhaps less of a %age of their income than they do now), no matter what system we have.... but as the Right loves to say life isn't fair.

As for your 4 proposals, 1,2 and 4 need to be done.

However 3, is a punishment, addiction is NOT a choice, nor is obesity and to continue to treat it as such is wrong.

What about the jogger who after years of running on asphalt blows his knee? We have been told for years studies show that jogging on asphalt can cause knee and joint problems.

Who determines what is high risk? That sounds like in the end an escape route to just scrap any reform.

At the very least, by putting any distinction on lifestyle and such, would allow more governmental control into our lives.


By your proposal in #3 people with hereditary problems such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and so on would be treated differently than those born perfect? Granted those aren't high risk lifestyles, but study after study shows most diseases are hereditary.

Besides smoking and alcohol taxes really help keep income taxes down. Tax them more, to help pay for their medical care, I could live with that, but to dictate that they wouldn't get medical care or less care, is just wrong. Just have them pay more for their vices/addictions/habits whichever you choose to call them.

given the size of our waistlines, the health of the average mouth in the United States is no cause for concern.

in response to the Gospel of Matthew cited above...

having the government force you to pay for someone elses medical bills is not the same as taking care of your fellow human beings in the model of Christ.

if universal healthcare were a true implementation of Christ's message, there would not be a need for laws... each would give what they could to those in need.

the ghost of Ayn Rand says "there is no morality at the point of a gun" :)

This is the scariest thing about a national healthcare system. The government will be able to dictate who does or does not get treatment and to what extent. I really shudder at the thought of that.

This thread is now about taxes ;)

Just because something is does not mean that it should be. Additionally, nobody is arguing that we should not pay taxes, just that they should pay for the minimal services necessary to keep things running. You admit that both sides are irresponsible once they are involved in government, so perhaps we should consider partial privitization with public regulation and oversight in the cases of things that can be done more efficiently and cheaply by private companies that don't have the same problems with waste and pork.

As for your examples, you offer the simplistic "love it or leave it" argument. The obvious solution is to fix problems, not to abandon the affcted systems entirely. The FDA needs to be rebuilt in a way that it works in favor of the public, not the big drug companies and food producers. A private company with its own researchers whose accounting and business practices are periodically reviewed and made publically available by a regulatory agency could have almost the same influence on sales of products as a government agency. If there were one central regulating body in the form of a private company that conducted business in the same way that the FDA does, no self-respecting pharmacy would sell unapproved and potentially unsafe drugs. Companies that wanted products reviewed for approval would pay the appropriate fees, prices would increase slightly, and the whole country would not have to pay for what only a small portion of the population uses.

Roads and sidewalks are one of the few areas that would be difficult to privatize. Adding service fees could pay for much of the cost of highway construction, for example a pass that allows you to use a reserved lane would probably be a high-demand item, and setting a high rice so that such a lane would not become another overused, clogged lane would make it a worthwhile investment for long-distance commuters and impatient jerks. Government ownership is necessary in order for society to function, but allowing contractors to bid on road construction, maintenence, and repair would bring prices down and speed up construction because of the competitive nature of the system. Current maintainence and repair systems are painfully slow and suffer from bloated costs (I-95 repairs in my area of CT is anticipated to be completed four years late at close to triple the projected cost.)

Utilities are another necessary recipient of minor government aid, as power lines, water pipes, and other utility systems are universally used, and individual use of the system cannot change the amount of repair and maintenence that the whole system needs. It is perfectly fair to charge small, universal fees based on teh number of connections to a particular utility system, but almost all utility systems are built and maintained by private companies, not government workers.

As cliché as it sounds, freedom isn't free. In the case of military and police, the inherent nature of their duties necessitates government ownership. The equipment for our civil servants who protect us is manufactured by private companies with government contracts that assure quality and reliability. For training, the government employees who have had first-hand experience in the field and in training are obviously the most qualified to train new recruits, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use tax money to pay them to train others to protect us.

As for your last point, politics, apathy, and ignorance have rendered ther EPA almost entirely poweless and ineffective. Agents find it nearly, if not entirely impossible to fine offenders for even serious infractions. In principle, damage to the environment is something that affects us all equally (except those few who are unfortunate enough to have to live in plastic bubbles and paranoid folks who order duct tape nad plastic sheeting by the truckload.) This is yet another of the few government programs that should be given more authority and funding, paid for paritally by taxes, but mainly by fees (a nicer name for fines) paid by those who do the most damage.


I hope that I can clarify the views of many of those who oppose high taxes and big government. We don't object to paying for services, we just want those services to be performed by those who are best able to do so and who can do it quickly and for a reasonable price.

it's not forced if it's offered. i for one, as a citizen, offer to do so. i'm not trying to be snappy here, but i'm really quite intent on getting this point across. if we believe that democracy ligitimizes anything, then it can legitimize a health care program, no?

i don't refer to that to say "God wants you to pay for a health care program."

I refer to it to say "this is why i think it's important to make health care accessible, and to pay my share of that responsibility."

I don't think taxes are much fun...but i'm willing to fund the social compact that makes this show a little more than a every person for themselves scrabble.

You spent a lot of time arguing against positions I never took.

I don't think that taxation should be eliminated. I just think we need to limit the things taxpayer money is spent on. We shouldn't eliminate fundings for the police/military/fire departments (these are used to directly protect the rights of citizens), or roads or power lines, etc. (used by police/military/fire departments to protect our rights).

What I do believe:

We need a flat tax.

The purpose of taxation is to provide the financial resources the government needs to protect our individual rights. It's not about compassion or the "common good".

Way too much money is spent on crap that has no direct relation to protecting the rights of Americans, and this needs to stop.

MrSelf,

Thank you, this was a very interesting read.

I rambled, I had a point in the back of my mind and couldn't get it out.... sometimes happens.

The highlighted portion of your post I agree with immensely. Some obscure programs need to be cut, but then again, whose to say those obscure programs are what they say they are? My favorite line in ID4 "you don't think they actually pay $1000 for a toilet do you?"

i had decided to stay away from this type of thread becaseu the arguments do not seem to move--the right rehearses its litany of more or less arbitrary assumptions about the irrationality of "the state" as over against the rationality of markets, individuals complain about not liking the fact of taxes and things move from there.
when things move to the level of example, it is almost inevitably the anglo-canadian model that gets bandied about, almost always framed in an anecdotal manner.
across this sequence of term substitutions, the central issues get obscured.

1. the consequence of the present privatized barbarism in the states is that the lives of the children of the wealthy are worth more than the lives of the children of the poor. the lives of the children of the insured are worth more than the lives of the children of the uninsured.

2. the hmo-dominated variant of the present prviatized barbarism is like some bad joke--ask anyone who has gone into--o, say--the mental health treadmill in hmo-land. across the board, in the cases of many many folk, psychotropics are handed out like pez within either adequate monitoring of dose levels and without the links to therapy that is presented as the necessary compliment to the psychotropics. which means, then, that in the interest of cost-cutting, psychotropoics are being administered arbitrarily.

3. on the rationality of capitalist markets.

consider this:

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...499143,00.html

the list of factoids at the end of this article is pretty amazing/shocking.
what is going on here?
well, it appears that these are among the consequences of the transformation/centralization of american agriculture around a primarily fast-food style model over the past 15 years or so.
or: these are among the consequences of extending a market "logic" into food production.
or: this is what happens when the ideology of markets lulls capital (and you) into thinking that all markets are equivalent.

there are alot of problems linked to the above--i woudl suggest looking at the cdc obesity map cited in the article for a better picture of the situation in general.
the centralization of agricultural production, the emphasis on lowering costs by diverting food production processes in such a way as to incorporate byproducts of other levels of food processing into the ingredients (transfats)--in short, i know of few examples that make the insanity masked by belief in the rationality of markets than this one.

it is also really clear that the worst consequences of this transformation in food production are bourne by the poor. the same people who are affected the most by the present system of privatized barbarism in health care. "the market" in food produces systematic health distortions: the health care system does not deal with its consequences unless insurance is involved: conservatives apply their tendency to blame the poor for poverty to the effects of poverty as well, and so manage to locate a position that amounts to the poor are poor, the uninsured are uninsured, through some moral failing of their own--they are extra people--let them die.

You make some very good points in this post and others in this thread. In a perfect world a competitive, capitalistic approach to healthcare would probably be the best solution.

However there isn't much competition involved in today's healthcare. I have yet figured out how to shop for a doctor,dentist or hospital on a price/service basis. As I have pointed out in other healthcare threads in these forums, this mostly libertarian has become convinced that healthcare like national defense would be better provided by the government instead of having prices dictated by insurance executives.

The nature of healthcare just doesn't seem to lend itself to competition like other industries.