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

[Random8145]

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.

President Bush did not spend more than in World War II, we ran a deficit something like 2/3 of the economy at that time. And President Bush was not "conservative" in the fiscal sense, he was a compassionate conservative.

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?

Do you have any idea what the minimum wage is? It's a price control on the cost of labor to businesses. Something like 80% of America is employed by SMALL BUSINESSES. Artificially increasing the minimum price of labor is like artificially increasing the price of gasoline. What happens? People buy less of it.

Same with businesses. You raise the minimum wage into the range of wages made by regular workers, small businesses are forced to hire less workers, which means less jobs. Or they can cut pay. Or cut working conditions. Or raise their prices. Or turn full-time jobs with benefits into part-time jobs (two part-time jobs for each former full-time job, as businesses do not have to pay benefits for part-time jobs).

Or some combination of the above. People such as yourself seem to think you can just magically raise the minimum wage for people and have no after-effects. You yank up the minimum wage, you increase unemployment.

In particular, you increase it for young people (as most minimum wage workers are the youth), and of them, among inner-city poor. A minimum wage hurts the poor, not helps.

Wal-Mart supports a minimum wage increase. Why? Because they know that it will hurt all of those other businesses that compete with them. Wal-Mart can easily absorb a minimum wage increase. They might need to raise their prices by a fraction of a cent to cover it.

Your local Mom and Pop outfits, however, really are getting the boot as they must raise prices, cut benefits, cut jobs, etc...

Wal-Mart also supports this carbon tax/cap-and-trade legislation, even though the National Retailer's Association is against it. Why? Likely again, because Wal-Mart knows it will hurt their competitors.

This isn't about giving free hand-outs to people,

Yes it is.

it's about raising the standard and quality of life for *everyone*.

You do that through the PRODUCTION of goods and services, NOT by taxing the producers to give hand-outs. America, in a very short time, has created the greatest country in the history of civilization.

All the goodies, from the best healthcare, to shopping malls, to the best universities, to computers, laptops, cellphones, Six Flags, NONE of it came from government or taxes.

Furthermore, IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO IMPROVE PEOPLE'S STANDARD OF LIVING AND QUALITY OF LIFE. That's the private sector.

THAT'S HOW YOU GET RICH AS AN ENTREPRENEUR. Fill needs. Solve problems. Make things easier for people. Streamline systems better than your competitors. And if someone else is already doing it, find a way to do it better.

In America, we encourage entrepreneurship a great deal, we have a highly-developed financial system that allows far more entrepreneurs to get financing than in other countries, this leads to jobs and wealth creation.

It's government's job to provide for the national defense, regulate commerce, protect our freedoms, and various local government issues like firefighters, policing, and schools.

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".

Yes, the bar is raised by the PRIVATE SECTOR.

You know one of the big problems among our "poor?" Obesity. You've got to be one heck of a rich country when your poor are over-fed.

Joe Schmoe who lives in a double-wide and drives a used pickup still likely has computer, high-speed Internet, at least basic cable, air conditioning, heat, refrigerator, electric lighting, stove, etc...in other words, he's very wealthy compared to how the average American lived in the 19th century and the billions who live on less than $1 a day in the world today.

Capitalism is what raises the bare minimum. Where will the bare minimum be 100 years from now? Two-hundred years? What products and services that we cannot even imagine right now will the "poor" of the future have?

Thanks to the private sector, the average kid today alone lives in a virtual utopia. I mean jeez, laptops, cellphones, high-speed Internet, modern videogame systems, you can compose music, websites, make movies, etc...all on your laptop with software you can download from the Internet, SIMPLY MIND-BOGGLING!

Government is not what improves people's standard of living. If that was the case, then the Soviet Union would have been a paradise.

One other thing, the more the people come to rely on the government breastmilk, the more baby-like they become. When the government "pays" for your healthcare, childcare, schooling, university, and the care of your parents, and your retirement, adulthood essentially becomes one long form of adolescence, which means a weak and sheep-like, needy people.

 

[SkywardET]

Threadjack, but raising the minimum wage does not raise the quality of life for everyone. Everyone who still has their minimum wage job, maybe, but those whose employers can no longer afford wouldn't consider their lives improved. And more importantly, if some loser still has a minimum wage job beyond the age of about 18, I could give a flying F about if he can afford hospital bills. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to support families, or to be able to afford massive hospital bills (or massive car payments, mortgages, etc. etc. etc.). They are meant for those with very little skills or experience to offer, normally teenagers. As they gain experience/go to school/move up within some company, they no longer have that minimum wage job.

You are pretty much right about the risk of job loss with raising minimum wage, but you should be very careful about characterizing the nature of minimum wage work.

Minimum wage laws have the effect of making jobs illegal. In Oregon and New Jersey, for example, they have laws mandating that people cannot pump their own gas into their cars. Why is it, then, that you see paid gas pump attendants virtually nowhere else? Because the services provided are usually not worth the minimum wage required to hire someone to provide them from a business' standpoint.

Further, take a look at who supports minimum wage laws. Specifically, I am speaking of unions who generally support said laws. Why would an entity that has zero members receiving minimum wage support those laws? Because minimum wage laws price out low-skilled workers, meaning a higher percentage of the remaining work force is the higher-priced, higher-skilled labor pool. In other words, unions know that minimum wage laws reduce the labor pool (i.e. make people unemployed) and they support the laws because they benefit from that reduced pool of employable people.

It is fully within anyone's right to remain unskilled labor, so do not patronize people for being unable or unwilling to make themselves more valuable to companies or starting their own. All ranges of labor skills are needed and have value. You are right, though, that the "entitlement" to health care is not justified.



Also, before it's too late, I would like to ask the original poster to correct the title of the thread if I may. Change it from "Cutting Defense to pay for health care" to "Cutting Defense to pay for health insurance" please. The bill in Congress is not really about health care, it's about health insurance. It makes new private health insurance illegal and mandates that everyone buy insurance, somewhat similar to the mandatory auto insurance mandate.

 

[Spekkio]

Also, before it's too late, I would like to ask the original poster to correct the title of the thread if I may. Change it from "Cutting Defense to pay for health care" to "Cutting Defense to pay for health insurance" please. The bill in Congress is not really about health care, it's about health insurance. It makes new private health insurance illegal and mandates that everyone buy insurance, somewhat similar to the mandatory auto insurance mandate.

This is an important distinction. As I've said earlier in this thread, too many people equate no health insurance to no health care, when that is not the case.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Piling on the minimum wage rant. When they raise the minimum wage my wage doesn't increase at my hourly job. You know what that means? That means I just lost however much they raised so the guy at Joe's Burger Shack gets a little extra money.

 

[Ajleger]

Further, take a look at who supports minimum wage laws. Specifically, I am speaking of unions who generally support said laws. Why would an entity that has zero members receiving minimum wage support those laws? Because minimum wage laws price out low-skilled workers, meaning a higher percentage of the remaining work force is the higher-priced, higher-skilled labor pool. In other words, unions know that minimum wage laws reduce the labor pool (i.e. make people unemployed) and they support the laws because they benefit from that reduced pool of employable people.

I agree with you completely. I know, for example, that a lot of cities have historically had minimum wage laws for construction jobs in the 10-20 dollar an hour wage, which a lot of unions and the like put in, while the average joe thinks it's a good thing. In reality, the black and hispanic construction workers get priced out of the market. They can no longer do the work for cheaper.

By the way, I've seen your views in a few other threads, and I like Ron Paul too. He's the only libertarian minded candidate that has gotten any exposure (though nowhere near as much as he should have). He's slightly out there on a couple issues, but especially his domestic policy is spot on.

And to keep this post on point, we don't need national healthcare.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Some very good suggestions on this topic:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/07/25/getting-better/#more-5230

 

[eddie]

Sorry, you're right. People would be forced to have insurance, whether they buy it from the government or pay more for it thru a private company is up to them...but with the option to pay less with a govt plan, where do you think they're going to put their money? Private insurance would be wiped out.

Private insurance will never go away. Even in a "semi-socialized" US system (which, really, is all that I can ever see happening), there will be plenty of people who will want to buy more coverage than what the government is willing to provide.

It screws upper class people because they can afford healthcare without insurance.

Why would anyone choose to consume healthcare without insurance?

 

[Spekkio]

Why would anyone choose to consume healthcare without insurance?

Because insurance is a gamble. You're electing to pay someone an affordable amount of money in the off chance that you need a service for an unaffordable amount of money. Insurance companies make profits because most people pay more into insurance than they use. This gamble is typically worth it for the middle class guy because even a minor surgery procedure can put him well into the red.

When you can afford said service, there's no reason to waste your money by giving it to an insurance corporation when you can invest it into something that will be there in case you need it AND make you more money.

We're talking about a small percentage of the U.S. population that could realistically afford to do this, but others people might want to take the gamble and hope they might never need a serious procedure done. That choice should be there.

EDIT: Advance apologies if my sarcasm meter was off.

 

[eddie]

We're talking about a small percentage of the U.S. population that could realistically afford to do this, but others people might want to take the gamble and hope they might never need a serious procedure done.

My point was, anyone taking that chance or making that choice when they have that much money to begin with is an idiot, policy aside; the risk to reward just does not make any sense at all. The utility you derive from the money you save on health insurance can never outweigh the potential costs you can incur from not having it, if you can "afford" it in the first place.

 

[Spekkio]

Strictly speaking from a monetary sense, the risk: reward for buying insurance makes no logical sense. As I pointed out, if most people cashed out more than they put in for insurance, insurance companies would be broke. You can crunch the numbers if you wish, or you can just believe me that it is -EV in terms of absolute dollars for the average individual to purchase insurance.

The only thing that makes it worth it for people is what they can afford now vs. what they can afford later. It's okay for most people that they put in $X over their lifetime but only use up $Y (with Y < X) because they can afford Z payments (with Z <<< Y) but can't afford Y lump sum.

Exactly what procedures are you thinking of that a wealthy individual wouldn't be able to afford that insurance companies would actually cover?

And sorry to say, if you have the money to cover the worst-case medical costs and decide to hand it over to some other company to handle instead of putting it in a safe place with a guarunteed interest rate, you, sir, are the idiot.

 

[eddie]

Strictly speaking from a monetary sense, the risk: reward for buying insurance makes no logical sense. As I pointed out, if most people cashed out more than they put in for insurance, insurance companies would be broke. You can crunch the numbers if you wish, or you can just believe me that it is -EV in terms of absolute dollars for the average individual to purchase insurance.

The only thing that makes it worth it for people is what they can afford now vs. what they can afford later. It's okay for most people that they put in $X over their lifetime but only use up $Y (with Y < X) because they can afford Z payments (with Z <<< Y) but can't afford Y lump sum.

Exactly what procedures are you thinking of that a wealthy individual wouldn't be able to afford that insurance companies would actually cover?

And sorry to say, if you have the money to cover the worst-case medical costs and decide to hand it over to some other company to handle instead of putting it in a safe place with a guarunteed interest rate, you, sir, are the idiot.

I cost something like 1.4 million dollars to bring home from the hospital when I was born.

Look, here is how I'm thinking about this. Your life is going to happen as it is going to happen. In once scenario, you have insurance, in one you don't. In both you are fabulously wealthy. If you have a catastrophic health issue, you pay less by having insurance (even over the long term) than you do by not. If you don't get sick, then you don't.

I guess if you are taking that risk over the long term, I would think you are an idiot (but I've been wrong before).

I would still bet that if you invested all of that money you didn't spend on insurance, what you made would not offset the incurred costs of care later in your ever-lengthening life, not even considering the afore-mentioned catastrophic hiccup.

If that weren't the case, all people would take out a loan every time they got sick, wouldn't they?

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

I cost something like 1.4 million dollars to bring home from the hospital when I was born.

Look, here is how I'm thinking about this. Your life is going to happen as it is going to happen. In once scenario, you have insurance, in one you don't. In both you are fabulously wealthy. If you have a catastrophic health issue, you pay less by having insurance (even over the long term) than you do by not. If you don't get sick, then you don't.

I guess if you are taking that risk over the long term, I would think you are an idiot (but I've been wrong before).

I would still bet that if you invested all of that money you didn't spend on insurance, what you made would not offset the incurred costs of care later in your ever-lengthening life, not even considering the afore-mentioned catastrophic hiccup.

If that weren't the case, all people would take out a loan every time they got sick, wouldn't they?

If they pay out of pocket they get to pick the doctor they want. They don't have a list that the insurance company provides. They can get the very best out there because they can afford to. Anyways it's probably easier to lay down the coin instead of jumping through hoops with the insurance company.

 

[wlawr005]

I cost something like 1.4 million dollars to bring home from the hospital when I was born.

What??

 

[MasterBates]

So what you are saying Eddie, is you are one of those people that society will never get their money's worth out of?

 

[Flash]

It makes new private health insurance illegal and mandates that everyone buy insurance, somewhat similar to the mandatory auto insurance mandate.

I think some of the information in that editorial is a bit suspect, including using information from the 'non-partisan' Lewin Group as a major source.

Some very good suggestions on this topic:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/07/25/getting-better/#more-5230

I find it ironic that a doc would place the burden on patients for unnecessary and futile services, since the most docs work on a fee-for-service model that encourages more procedures/services no matter their value to the health of the patient.