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

[m0tbaillie]

Proof?

And we are concerned more with the individual. That's called liberty. The problem with your idea is that even though it might make you feel good that people are contributing to our society as a whole singing kumbaya and such, there will still be individuals (lots...like, all the people that don't pay a dime worth of taxes today) that will reap the fruits of society's labors for their personal gain.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio07222009.html

It's not a matter of "what makes me feel good" it's the simply fact that as more and more people stop giving a shit about what's good for our society as a whole, rather than what's only good for them and their own, our society continues down the current path that it's on. That path being a loss of cohesion. Nobody needs to sit around a campfire holding hands and singing kumbaya but a little more humility and foresight would go a long way in our country where everybody's sue-happy, cynical, and out to make a quick buck by being a buddy-fucker.

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

The overarching problem that I see in our country today is, by and large, selfishness. People have this tendency to only think "me me me mine mine mine" and not "us us us, ours ours ours". Now, I wouldn't want to see us descend into full-blown "socialism" ala Scandanavia or central Europe, but basic socialized services are far more efficient and cheaper than their for-profit counterparts no matter how you spin it, so what's to complain about? Again, I reiterate my point: this country is too concerned with individuality and not what's good for the country as a whole. Whether you look at it on the person-to-person level or the overall "country-to-country" level, it's selfish at best.

In Britain, there are 1/4 as many CT scanners per person as we have here in the US. 1/3 as many MRIs. Only 5% of Americans wait more than 4 months for surgery while that number is 36% in Britain. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Socia...are+data+from+Britain,+Canada,...-a0199802195

you call that more efficient?

 

[scoolbubba]

http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio07222009.html

It's not a matter of "what makes me feel good" it's the simply fact that as more and more people stop giving a shit about what's good for our society as a whole, rather than what's only good for them and their own, our society continues down the current path that it's on. That path being a loss of cohesion. Nobody needs to sit around a campfire holding hands and singing kumbaya but a little more humility and foresight would go a long way in our country where everybody's sue-happy, cynical, and out to make a quick buck by being a buddy-fucker.

And you seriously think another entitlement program is going to fix the me me me mentality? You don't get it. The people who use the programs, and leech off of the rest of us have that very mentality!

Certainly, there are people who need help. We have programs for that already. They're called medicaid and medicare, not to mention social security. They need reformed, I don't disagree with this.

However, comma, the decision to force another program on the rest of us to take care of those who are unable OR UNWILLING to take care of themselves, both financially and health-wise, is one more step down the path of complete reliance on the government. A victory for the statists.

You and I have a fundamental difference on what is good for our society as a whole. Rational self interest vice collective equality of outcomes.

 

[m0tbaillie]

And you seriously think another entitlement program is going to fix the me me me mentality? You don't get it. The people who use the programs, and leech off of the rest of us have that very mentality!

Certainly, there are people who need help. We have programs for that already. They're called medicaid and medicare, not to mention social security. They need reformed, I don't disagree with this.

However, comma, the decision to force another program on the rest of us to take care of those who are unable OR UNWILLING to take care of themselves, both financially and health-wise, is one more step down the path of complete reliance on the government. A victory for the statists.

You and I have a fundamental difference on what is good for our society as a whole. Rational self interest vice collective equality of outcomes.

Medicaid and medicare don't cover nearly enough. I was standing at the optometrist's office yesterday and some old man next to me had to pay for his eye exam and eyeglasses out of pocket because neither medicare nor medicaid covered it. Eyeglasses!

In Britain, there are 1/4 as many CT scanners per person as we have here in the US. 1/3 as many MRIs. Only 5% of Americans wait more than 4 months for surgery while that number is 36% in Britain. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Socia...are+data+from+Britain,+Canada,...-a0199802195

you call that more efficient?

There's not a single reference or source in that article.

Although the NHS has a high level of popular public support within the country, the national press is often highly critical of it. An independent survey conducted in 2004 found that users of the NHS often expressed very high levels satisfaction about their personal experience of the medical services they received: 92% of hospital in-patients said they were satisfied with their treatment; 87% of GP users were satisfied with their GP; 87% of hospital outpatients were satisfied with the service they received; and 70% of Accident and Emergency department users reported being satisfied. [7] However, only 67% of those surveyed agreed with the statement "My local NHS is providing me with a good service?, and only 51% agreed with the statement ?The NHS is providing a good service.[8] Satisfaction in successive surveys has noted high satisfaction across all patient groups, especially recent inpatients, and user satisfaction is notably higher than that of the general public. The reason for this disparity between personal experience and overall perceptions, and the difference in perceptions between recent users of the health service and the public at large is not clear. It is also apparent from the survey that most people realize that the national press is generally critical of the service (64% reporting it as being critical compared to just 13% saying the national press is favourable), and also that the national press is the least reliable source of information (50% reporting it to be not very or not at all reliable, compared to 36% believing the press was reliable). [8] Newspapers were reported as being less favorable and also less reliable than the broadcast media. The most reliable sources of information were considered to be leaflets from GPs and information from friends (both 77% reported as reliable) and medical professionals (75% considered reliable).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...rceptions_and_reporting_of_the_NHS_in_England

Here's some Canadian anecdotal support: http://blogs.e-rockford.com/sweenyr...t-of-canadians-like-their-health-care-system/

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

Medicaid and medicare don't cover nearly enough. I was standing at the optometrist's office yesterday and some old man next to me had to pay for his eye exam and eyeglasses out of pocket because neither medicare nor medicaid covered it. Eyeglasses!

Oh my God! He had to pay for his own eyeglasses?!?! We should immediately raise my taxes so I can pay for them!

I have car insurance, but I have to pay to put gas in my tank. I had to drop 700 for a new exhaust system. Cry me a river. Why do we think insurance, or medicaid/medicare in this case, should cover EVERYTHING?

 

[Jynx]

We won't mention that few, if any, transportation agencies so much as break even.

Incorrect. They don't make a profit back for themselves, but many that I can think of provide immeasurable externalities and probably enhance tax revenues through the businesses that can depend on their delivering customers or supplies. EX: The NYC Subway loses money at $2 per ride, but every morning everyone from janitors to teachers to financiers gets to work and makes the city run.
The City eating $1(estimated) each way on a ride surely gets recouped elsewhere from all that happening. Though I'm sure there are bad transit decisions made, could you imagine a private company raising all the capital towards building and maintaining the local roads in a community at a price you'd enjoy paying?

I'm against the government running health care because of the bang-up job they've done with the post office, Amtrak, etc...

Yes, the government is bad at making a profit. The only service they provide that does is the park service.
However, so far in this country, the jobs we invite Big Gov't in to do are neccesary, but private businesses haven't had much sucesses in either. (Disclaimer, I KNOW there are plenty of cases of intrusion) For example, few people ride trains nationally in this country, but we need a rail system preserved for shipping internally, and in case few prices spike again, so people can still have labor mobility. Thus create Amtrak out of the remains of private and bankrupt companies to preserve the rail network. Remember, ridership did spike during the high prices a summer or two ago, so the idea has merit. Similarly, we pay farmers not to grow food to keep market prices. If we didn't have the feds paying those farmers, prices would drop, farmers would have to sell, and land would be developed into something else. But then in 30 years when there's not enough food developed in this country to feed ourselves, we'd have to import it. Taking a loss on that program is actually a probably gain to the country in the long run, but what private progam could make a profit from it?

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

Similarly, we pay farmers not to grow food to keep market prices. If we didn't have the feds paying those farmers, prices would drop, farmers would have to sell, and land would be developed into something else. But then in 30 years when there's not enough food developed in this country to feed ourselves, we'd have to import it. Taking a loss on that program is actually a probably gain to the country in the long run, but what private progam could make a profit from it?

I don't see how this is a good thing. First, who says we will run out of food in 30 years. Second, if we do, what's wrong with importing it? Let prices drop. People get food cheaper. More money to spend in other places. Like on those evil insurance companies. Good for other business. Some farmers will go out of business. They can go into another business. If food does become scarce in 30 years, prices will rise and more farmers can farm.

 

[Jynx]

First, who says we will run out of food in 30 years. Second, if we do, what's wrong with importing it? Let prices drop. People get food cheaper. If food does become scarce in 30 years, prices will rise and more farmers can farm.

I'm not saying that we will run out of food, I'm saying that forcing farmers to compete themselves out of business will hasten the day when we have to start importing food.
Second, if we import it, it's one more facet of foreign policy to consider without independence, or another entangling alliance. We already produce some of the cheapest stuff around, except for certain fruits and veg.
Lastly, cleaning up land after it's been used for manufacture or residential is not a short term thing. Meaning prices would have to rise and stay risen for some years minimum to clear the construction, clean and ready the land, and start getting crops off of it. And that's if you find people willing to sell at a price any but big food corps like ConAgra could afford.

 

[bert]

So we cut the F22 to pay save money because we don't need the F22. The JSF will fill the same role. But now we find out that JSF is pushed back two more years.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003175295

The F-22 is not being "cut". The contracted-for number of aircraft are being bought. Not continuing production of the F-22 saves no money because we never obligated any funds past the current number. There is no connection between the F-22 and JSF programs except in political rhetoric.

Edit: As a side note, the report they reference is old news - been out since at least last year and was even referenced in the last GAO report.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Oh my God! He had to pay for his own eyeglasses?!?! We should immediately raise my taxes so I can pay for them!

I have car insurance, but I have to pay to put gas in my tank. I had to drop 700 for a new exhaust system. Cry me a river. Why do we think insurance, or medicaid/medicare in this case, should cover EVERYTHING?

Hey smartass, you wanna know why I remembered the little encounter yesterday? Because the old man had one of these on:

And yes, I do think medicare/medicaid *should* cover something as simple as eyeglasses and hell yes I think your and my taxes can be utilized to pay for simple necessities such as eyeglasses for the elderly. But, then again, it's all about you, you, you.

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

Hey smartass, you wanna know why I remembered the little encounter yesterday? Because the old man had one of these on:



And yes, I do think medicare/medicaid *should* cover something as simple as eyeglasses and hell yes I think your and my taxes should go to pay for simple necessities such as eyeglasses for the elderly. But, then again, it's all about you, you, you.

seriously dude? A negative rep just because I disagree with you? You better grow some thicker skin buddy.

I am a heartless conservative. I am greedy. It's all about me me me. Grow up.

 

[wlawr005]

Hey smartass, you wanna know why I remembered the little encounter yesterday? Because the old man had one of these on:

And yes, I do think medicare/medicaid *should* cover something as simple as eyeglasses and hell yes I think your and my taxes can be utilized to pay for simple necessities such as eyeglasses for the elderly. But, then again, it's all about you, you, you.

The point is that our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on the elderly due to healthcare, social security, or any other reason. The problems with today's economy are systems that use work-force tax dollars to support those that DON'T or CAN'T work. We cannot do much about those who CANT work, but we sure as hell shouldn't be responsible for those who DON'T.

Today's retired and elderly deserve to benefit from the systems that they paid into during their working years, but we sure as hell shouldn't continue the same practice in the future. Social Security (and soon health care) become economic toilets that Americans flush their tax dollars down.

Restructuring how tax revenues are collected and spent and allowing more Americans to become financially responsible for themselves is the answer for tomorrow's economy.

Before you reply, ask yourself this: What is reforming healthcare going to CHANGE? nothing...it will still be a government handout. It can be called healthcare, social security, welfare or free lunch...it's still the American work force supporting the sick, lazy, and poor.

 

[m0tbaillie]

seriously dude? A negative rep just because I disagree with you? You better grow some thicker skin buddy.

I am a heartless conservative. I am greedy. It's all about me me me. Grow up.

No, I gave you a negative rep for scoffing at something like eyeglasses as if they're some sort of forbidden luxury and then trying to make a non-analogous comparison between that and your exhaust for your car...as if the two have anything to do with one another. And being smug about it the whole time.

Nobody said anything about liberalism versus conservatism so if you're resorting to that ridiculous black-vs-grey mentality then just stop. This doesn't have anything to do with being liberal or conservative: in the last 8 years a conservative president spent more money than any other president in history, even World War II, but I digress, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Before you reply, ask yourself this: What is reforming healthcare going to CHANGE? nothing...it will still be a government handout. It can be called healthcare, social security, welfare or free lunch...it's still the American work force supporting the sick, lazy, and poor.

50 million people in this country are without healthcare in a country of just over 300 million and you don't think that's a big deal? Do you know what federal minimum wage is? Do you know how many times a raise to the federal minimum wage was shot down under the previous POTUS? Have you ever tried to pay hospital bills on minimum wage? This isn't about giving free hand-outs to people, it's about raising the standard and quality of life for *everyone*. That's how countries evolve, the bar that is bare minimum is continuously raised so that even the poorest of the poor enjoy some quality of life than simply being written off as "poor, lazy, or sick".

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

No, I gave you a negative rep for scoffing at something like eyeglasses as if they're some sort of forbidden luxury and then trying to make a non-analogous comparison between that and your exhaust for your car...as if the two have anything to do with one another. And being smug about it the whole time.

If I can't drive my car, I can't go to work. If I can't go to work, I can't pay for your glasses. So they do have something in common... ok that was a little smug. But also true.

We obviously just disagree about a pretty fundamental role of the government. That's fine. I don't think eyeglasses are a forbidden luxury. I just don't see a problem with people having to pay for them out of pocket. If healthcare is already bankrupting our economy, I fail to see how giving it for free to more people is the answer.

 

[phrogpilot73]

No, I gave you a negative rep for scoffing at something like eyeglasses as if they're some sort of forbidden luxury and then trying to make a non-analogous comparison between that and your exhaust for your car...as if the two have anything to do with one another. And being smug about it the whole time.

First, you're going to have to take these arguments to PM pretty soon, or this thread will be locked and you may or may not receive an infraction. Second, I think you missed his point. He's not arguing that eyeglasses are a forbidden luxury. He was arguing that at some point, the government handout has to stop. It was a very valid comparison. He probably pays insurance in case of catastrophic issues (an accident) and a warranty in the case of routine issues. Guess what, neither covers everything. Is a car a forbidden luxury? Sometimes, yes - but sometimes, no.

Also, I had a VERY good dental plan through my employer (as a dependent, I opted for TriCare for medical). Yet, I still had to pay for half of my crown. Which was $500. So, if some old fart who may or may not have served honorably in Korea has to pay for his glasses than oh well. I'm a veteran of OIF, so therefore I shouldn't have to pay shit. Is that your agrument?

Nobody said anything about liberalism versus conservatism so if you're resorting to that ridiculous black-vs-grey mentality then just stop. This doesn't have anything to do with being liberal or conservative: in the last 8 years a conservative president spent more money than any other president in history, even World War II, but I digress, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And his successor is spending money like a drunken sailor in a liberty port.

50 million people in this country are without healthcare in a country of just over 300 million and you don't think that's a big deal? Do you know what federal minimum wage is? Do you know how many times a raise to the federal minimum wage was shot down under the previous POTUS? Have you ever tried to pay hospital bills on minimum wage? This isn't about giving free hand-outs to people, it's about raising the standard and quality of life for *everyone*. That's how countries evolve, the bar that is bare minimum is continuously raised so that even the poorest of the poor enjoy some quality of life than simply being written off as "poor, lazy, or sick".

I was reading on the internet the other day that 30% of those without coverage are those who opted out with their employer. Then there's always those Mafioso, drug dealers, and other career criminals that aren't offered it through their employers. But I guess it's worth those of us who work our ass off to pay for criminals to get health care - because EVERYONE is ENTITLED to it.

Countries evolve through the hard work of those who are productive members of society. When you start taxing their work in order to provide for the collective good, then you're starting to sound a lot like the Marxists. You know what? Sometimes, not everyone has value.

You want healthcare for all kids? I have no problem with that. However, someone who's been on welfare their whole life, and is exploiting that program (where I grew up, there were a number of girls in my HS that continually got pregnant at 16, 17, 18 after they already had a kid so they would get more money) - it's time for Darwin to take over.