The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[UMichfly]

Crap, we are living in a communist nation if a judge can just terminate
(theoretically) God given parental rights. There is not way on earth that such a law is moral. Parents are the first and primary caregivers of their children and no law can change that. Granted there are some cases when the community must intervene to save the life of a child ; however, this doesn't relieve the parents of there duties.

Are you fvcking serious? It doesn't take a communist to see that this is not a picture of a deserving "first and primary caregiver".

(that's God's gift to trailer trash a.k.a. Britney Spears for those of you who think this is a picture of a dude)

For those of you whose retinas I just accidentally scarred, my apologies. Good luck with NAMI.

 

[insanebikerboy]

What do you mean by "will not take care of himself?" Do you mean someone who participates in high-risk activities such as drinking, smoking, and eating fatty foods all the time? If so, you already are paying for these people who are insured under your health plan. Granted, they pay higher premiums, but do you really think that their premiums are going to pay the entire bill for that chemotherapy?

If you mean people who do not work, that is such an extremely small percentage of our society that it won't even matter. Your healthcare would still be cheaper and more comprehensive under a well conceived single-payer system, even with the occassional leeches.

I'm quite baffled by people's stances that they should not pay for another's health care when that is exactly what insurance serves to have you do. It banks on the fact that the majority of people insured will not need care so that it can afford to pay for those who do, all while making a healthy profit.

I think you are completely missing the point here. I think most people who are against a UHC are comfortable buying insurance from a company with the knowledge that the rest of the people WHO ALSO BUY INSURANCE from that company may benefit from the contributions. That's because everyone who is buying insurance is proactively taking a stance to protect themselves. I'm not comfortable with a program that gives people said coverage with no type of contribution needed or required.

Taxes don't count as payment in my opinion because if that logic is used, then the government should provide everything....a.k.a., socialism.

 

[Spekkio]

If there is a deduction on your paycheck for healthcare, be it public or private, how does that not count toward paying the premium? That's a big dismissal right there.

Furthermore, the government takes taxes out of your paycheck with a relatively clear understanding where it's going to use that money. It produces a federal budget every year that is made public and approved by Congress. The fact that healthcare could or would be part of that tax money in no way necessitates that the government provide everything like a socialist society. It simply means either that the government can provide a public service better than a private company, or that people would be too unwilling to contribute to payment of a service without taxation. This is why we pay taxes for roads, schools, defense, etc.

I understand the concern about paying for freeloaders, but unemployment in the U.S. as of Nov 2007 is at 4.7%. Over 95% of the population will be paying into the system. It really just boils down to paranoia, as it would be cheaper for the other 95% to carry the 5% under a single-payer system than it is now for us to go through the current private insurers. And if you really wanted to be picky about it, you could make a provision that if you do not pay into the healthcare system (or are dependent upon someone who does), then you do not get it.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

An analogy: If an O-6 is being a piss poor leader can a well-qualified civilian just walk in and take over? No, that O-6 has authority over his men until some authority (i.e. the same authority that granted him his power) over him relieves him of his command. In the same way a parent is responsible for their child as long as that child is under his/her care (the kid grows up and leaves home). As the General gave the Col. men and authority so does God give children and authority. God didn't create a middle man (i.e. an O-7 or the government) between himself and parents. Even if a parent looses his/her child to the government because of abuse he/she still has a moral responsibility to the child. If a parent is a failure then it makes him/her no less responsible, just culpable for their failure. Britney is responsible for her kids, not the state. If she had chosen to not make love then she wouldn't have the responsibility; however she did and now she must do her job or suffer God's just punishment.

 

[Harrier Dude]

..., you already are paying for these people who are insured under your health plan. Granted, they pay higher premiums, but do you really think that their premiums are going to pay the entire bill for that chemotherapy?

They pay their premiums and they are as entitled to the benefits as I am.

If you mean people who do not work, that is such an extremely small percentage of our society that it won't even matter. Your healthcare would still be cheaper and more comprehensive under a well conceived single-payer system, even with the occassional leeches.

What I'm talking about is people who CHOOSE not to provide for their own health care. This includes the perpetually unemployed, the uneducated (by their own choice), and billionaires who don't need the help. There are plenty of people who spend their money on other things. Some are worthy (food, shelter, etc) and some are debatable (Camaros, smokes, malt liquor, NASCAR tickets, potpourri, cable TV, pets, scented candles, and trips to the local day spa). What a person does with their own money is not for me to decide. When they CHOOSE to live without health insurance, then it is NOT my job to help them deal with the consequences. If they are physically UNABLE to provide for their own needs (orphans, truly mentally/physically disabled people, etc) then I can see a collective need to provide for them.

I'm quite baffled by people's stances that they should not pay for another's health care when that is exactly what insurance serves to have you do. It banks on the fact that the majority of people insured will not need care so that it can afford to pay for those who do, all while making a healthy profit.

That is NOT "exactly what insurance" does. Individual people purchase coverage at a rate deemed profitable by actuaries and private companies. You pay your money, you get your benefits.

 

[eddie]

Crap, we are living in a communist nation if a judge can just terminate
(theoretically) God given parental rights. There is not way on earth that such a law is moral. Parents are the first and primary caregivers of their children and no law can change that. Granted there are some cases when the community must intervene to save the life of a child ; however, this doesn't relieve the parents of there duties.

(If you care to respond, I'd rather take this tangent topic to PM, but you are free to do as you like)

Some thoughts:

1. Learn the difference between morals, a legal system, and ethics; it will help with argumentation in general. You won't look ignorant by arguing one for the other.

2. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn how to NOT crux all of you arguments on fear of Communism; it cheapens your point if you only know of one kind of "evil" that you are forced to compare everything to. And yes, the Axis powers, while quite evil, are the most over-used, and dishonestly used examples.

3. A Communist state has NEVER existed in the history of man kind. There may have been some Communistic societies, but they were not what one would call states. Most of them were wiped out small pox and the 7th Cav between the 1600s and late 1800s. They functioned OK in their own isolated context, but once capitalism showed on our Eastern Seaboard, they became defunct and were quickly (and literally?) rail-roaded out of existance. That's what usually happens when economic models compete; lots of people die, or are enslaved.

Socialist states HAVE existed, many of which were designed to transition to Communism. Lenin was probably genuine in his Communism. China pre-Great Leap Forward was pretty genuine in it's Communism. Even the Sandanistas were genuine in their desire to "do good" (even if they were totally incompetent). Well-meant greater good and all that crap. These experiments turned into messes, were co-opted by thugs, and quickly became Authortarian regimes. Socialist regimes have often gone Authortarian (the real evil we need to focus on, in ALL of its forms), THIS is true, but that does not EQUATE them.

The way you seem to present things, Catholocism must be as "evil" as Communism/Socialism, if body counts, corruption, a singular set of rules to live by, and mis-appropriated idealism are indicators. But really, that's not an intelligent argument to make.

Catholocism is NOT evil even if it has been used to justify many heinous things. Communism is not evil (even if it is lame and stupid) simply because it often becomes Authortarian. I don't like to see EITHER thing forced on people, but if someone WANTS to live in a commune with a bunch of smelly hippies, or say the Rosary for the rest of time, more power to them.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Socialism; you know what it is at it's worst. At it's best, nobody really gets left behind,but everyone ends up living an OK-to-mediocre life of little-to-no consequence in Scandanavia.

But there are bigger things to worry about than "Communism..."

 

[Spekkio]

What I'm talking about is people who CHOOSE not to provide for their own health care. This includes the perpetually unemployed, the uneducated (by their own choice), and billionaires who don't need the help. There are plenty of people who spend their money on other things. Some are worthy (food, shelter, etc) and some are debatable (Camaros, smokes, malt liquor, NASCAR tickets, potpourri, cable TV, pets, scented candles, and trips to the local day spa). What a person does with their own money is not for me to decide. When they CHOOSE to live without health insurance, then it is NOT my job to help them deal with the consequences. If they are physically UNABLE to provide for their own needs (orphans, truly mentally/physically disabled people, etc) then I can see a collective need to provide for them.

Yes, under our current system, one could choose, like myself, to not invest in an insurance plan. However, I do not look at it as a choice between having health insurance or not; I look at it as a choice between having affordable healthcare and not. I made my choice because the cost vs. benefit of paying for insurance on my own is out of balance for me at this point in my life. Most people with insurance have it because their employers subsidize the costs, thus making it much more affordable. However, companies are continually repealing these benefits and subsidies as time goes on. If this trend continues, it will eventually get to a point where health insurance becomes completely unaffordable for most people to get it, which will create a rippling effect in our economy and generally won't be good for society at all.

(Random added conspiracy sidenote which I don't necessarily buy into: some people claim that such a system is liked by big business because it keeps their workers tied to a company. Much easier to step on your workers when they can't leave due to unaffordable health care)

Really, the choice of having affordable healthcare is no choice at all. At least, I haven't spoken to any reasonable-minded person who would say no to it. If I were a billionaire, and someone presented me with two options:

A) Your healthcare plan is optional, but expensive
B) Your healthcare plan is mandatory, but cheap

I would take option B in a heartbeat. The fact that some of my money might go to a freeloader (assuming there is no provision that those who aren't working due to reasons other than medical disability don't get benefits) doesn't concern me as much as the fact that the money in my pocket, and thus the ability to spend it wherever I want, increases.

That is NOT "exactly what insurance" does. Individual people purchase coverage at a rate deemed profitable by actuaries and private companies. You pay your money, you get your benefits.

Tell me how you can pay less money than your benefits will pay out in the case of a serious illness while the company still makes a profit if other people aren't footing your bill? It doesn't matter if you have a minimal plan with the highest deductable because your premium is still paying someone else's medical bills.

 

[The Chief]

.....But there are bigger things to worry about than "Communism..."

The UN?

 

[Spekkio]

lol

 

[Red Anjin]

Of course not

If I was in favor of UHC I'd surrender all of my wages and not just the part they force from me. The government's job isn't wealth redistribution. And its sure not the average citizen's responsibility to make sure thier neighbors have health care. Do I think everyone should have healthcare? Of course. Do I think they should pay for it on the back of the profits I make in the stock market, real estate and my 7+ month deployments? Of course not.

If the government wants to provide UHC they need to find a way to do it without taking more money from its citizens. Its not our job to pay for handouts.

Red Anjin

 

[Harrier Dude]

Yes, under our current system, one could choose, like myself, to not invest in an insurance plan. However, I do not look at it as a choice between having health insurance or not; I look at it as a choice between having affordable healthcare and not. I made my choice because the cost vs. benefit of paying for insurance on my own is out of balance for me at this point in my life. Most people with insurance have it because their employers subsidize the costs, thus making it much more affordable. However, companies are continually repealing these benefits and subsidies as time goes on. If this trend continues, it will eventually get to a point where health insurance becomes completely unaffordable for most people to get it, which will create a rippling effect in our economy and generally won't be good for society at all.

So is your beef with the cost of health care overall, or just as it affects availability to everybody?

If it is the cost overall, then there are a myriad factors that contribute. Lawsuits, drug development, insurance scams, and a host of others. If you are arguing that everybody has a "right to healthcare", then that's an entirely different matter.

Really, the choice of having affordable healthcare is no choice at all. At least, I haven't spoken to any reasonable-minded person who would say no to it. If I were a billionaire, and someone presented me with two options:

A) Your healthcare plan is optional, but expensive
B) Your healthcare plan is mandatory, but cheap

I would take option B in a heartbeat. The fact that some of my money might go to a freeloader (assuming there is no provision that those who aren't working due to reasons other than medical disability don't get benefits) doesn't concern me as much as the fact that the money in my pocket, and thus the ability to spend it wherever I want, increases.

This is an unrealistic example because it does not address benefits. If the exact same benefits were available for two different prices, obviously the rational consumer would choose the less expensive. A more realistic choice is:

A) Cheap and shitty.
B) Expensive and comprehensive.

Obviously, there are options in between. Which should I choose? THAT is the crux of the matter. The answer is ......whichever the hell I want to choose that fits my needs as I see them. I just can't buy "cheap" and demand "comprehensive".

Tell me how you can pay less money than your benefits will pay out in the case of a serious illness while the company still makes a profit if other people aren't footing your bill? It doesn't matter if you have a minimal plan with the highest deductable because your premium is still paying someone else's medical bills.

If I buy an insurance policy (and it doesn't even need to be medical. It could be auto or home as well), and the day after I pay for it and begin coverage I break my leg, I'm covered. The fact that I paid $1000 premium and my leg costs $5000 to fix is immaterial to me. The $4000 delta is made up from other CUSTOMERS who did not get hurt, but paid their premiums. Insurance companies do LOTS of research to determine amounts of premiums and benefits in order to ensure that benefits do not exceed premiums. That's where the profit gets made. Are "other people footing my bill? Yes, but only those who paid in and therefore are in position to gain the same benefits.

It's analagous to a game of craps at a casino. Even though a few winners get big money, the house still wins eventually. Nobody gets too pissed because we all took risks for expected rewards and known consequences. What is being proposed with UHC is a bunch of people standing at the craps table, some putting down chips and others just watching, and EVERYBODY gets paid on 11 out of the same pot. Get it? Would you want to play that game? I don't.

 

[The Chief]

The UN General Assembly has justed voted to abolish the death penalty.

http://english.nessunotocchicaino.i...=9334073&srcday=0&srcmonth=0&srcyear=0&mover=

There are General Assembly committees working to:

1. Ablolish private gun ownership
2. Identify Universal Health Care as a Human Right (as proposed herein)
3. Reparations for harmed minority groups who have been denied human rights.

The Global Warming Committee is working on a system of heavy fines for developed countries contributed to Global Warming.

And of course the Standing War Crimes Tribunal that would love to get their hands of USA War Criminals in Iraq' and elsewhere.

The beat goes on.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

Honest question: why would a sovereign nation submit to a committee of other sovereign nations?

 

[Spekkio]

The UN General Assembly has justed voted to abolish the death penalty.

http://english.nessunotocchicaino.i...=9334073&srcday=0&srcmonth=0&srcyear=0&mover=

There are General Assembly committees working to:

1. Ablolish private gun ownership
2. Identify Universal Health Care as a Human Right (as proposed herein)
3. Reparations for harmed minority groups who have been denied human rights.

The Global Warming Committee is working on a system of heavy fines for developed countries contributed to Global Warming.

And of course the Standing War Crimes Tribunal that would love to get their hands of USA War Criminals in Iraq' and elsewhere.

The beat goes on.

I laughed cuz I got the joke, not because I disagree with your disdain for the UN. Much of what the UN does is laughable.

Although I must say that while I'm not morally opposed to capital punishment, the death penalty system in the U.S. needs a serious looking at. It's applied way too arbitrarily, and much of it hinges upon whether or not you can afford adequate representation.

 

[Spekkio]

So is your beef with the cost of health care overall, or just as it affects availability to everybody?

If it is the cost overall, then there are a myriad factors that contribute. Lawsuits, drug development, insurance scams, and a host of others. If you are arguing that everybody has a "right to healthcare", then that's an entirely different matter.

I would say that the cost is my main beef. We are at a point where healthcare is simply unaffordable for anything more than an occassional doctor's visit if paid out of pocket. As I said previously, in an ideal world I would be able to go to the doc and get the care I need by just paying him, not a middle man who takes his cut first. I'm not saying that surgeory should cost $10, but when you're getting bills of over $100k for care, something is wrong.

Now, it would take a committe of intelligent, open-minded, reasonable individuals to iron out a plan where we can streamline medical costs in order to reduce them. That, in itself, is a fantasy. But if one of the ways that I can reduce the cost of MY healthcare by a significant margin while keeping the benefits constant is through adopting a single-payer system, and the cost is that I'm required to pay into it and 4.7% of the population MIGHT freeload off me, then I'd be willing to make that trade.

This is an unrealistic example because it does not address benefits. If the exact same benefits were available for two different prices, obviously the rational consumer would choose the less expensive. A more realistic choice is:

A) Cheap and shitty.
B) Expensive and comprehensive.

Obviously, there are options in between. Which should I choose? THAT is the crux of the matter. The answer is ......whichever the hell I want to choose that fits my needs as I see them. I just can't buy "cheap" and demand "comprehensive".

Actually, my example is more realistic than yours. Americans pay the highest % of earnings toward healthcare, yet we rank #37 among industrialized nations in healthcare. Simply put: we are not enjoying more benefits by paying more money; we're just paying more money to support our current healthcare-as-a-business model where people are making a ton of money off us.

Also, a UHC model that fits what you're describing is a mandatory primary care system with optional supplemental insurance. That way you get the best of both worlds: everyone is covered to an extent at a streamlined price, and if you want to get added benefits for the really heavy stuff you can pay extra if you choose.