[ort888]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Would that be a society that doesn't tax its members to pay for a police?

We should be able to hire whatever police force we want. Rich people can have Robocop while poor people get an ex-con with an 8-ball in a sock.

If they see a crime being committed they would have to check the victims crime prevention insurance to determine wether or not they should be protected.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Would that be a society that doesn't tax its members to pay for a police?

That would a society in which the local State and County government controlled their police force -- not the Federal Government.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Sounds like the answer is clear: socialized medicine is A-OK if it's at the state level.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So the fat slob that drinks 2 cases of beer and smokes 6 packs of cigarettes every weekend ought to have his/her medical expenses paid for out of my pocket? The family that has a kid with diabetes -- but bought a $300k home when they should have rented -- should get their expenses paid by me? And so on and so on.

Things are rarely so black and white. You describe two circumstances where the victim has made very bad choices. What about the 25 year old kid whose just starting out, gets cancer, gets fired from his job as a result, and doesn't have money for food or medical treatments? Is getting cancer someone's fault?

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

But of course, I give roughly 25% of my before-tax income to charity to help those in need -- but I guess that's not quite good enough to some people.

And what if people can't afford to do that? Then yank it from their paycheck and force them to -- because Big Brother has a right to take my money? Piss.

If you give 25% of your income to charity that is indeed very generous of you. However, can we count on everyone to be so generous? I don't think so. If we didn't have government programs to help people out, we all would be in a precarious state. I for one, don't want to live in a third world country where there are kids on the street corners with one leg and a festering wound begging for money for food and bandages. Maybe that's the libertarian fantasy though--watching others suffer.

[Chuckit]

Has history shown us that socialism creates prosperous societies or "third-world countries"? (Hint: It's the second one.)

More government, even with good intentions, is usually harmful to society.

[hyteckit]

Socialize education seems to have create prosperous societies.

[hyteckit]

I guess a poor pregnant lady who can't afford health care should just let her baby die.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Things are rarely so black and white. You describe two circumstances where the victim has made very bad choices. What about the 25 year old kid whose just starting out, gets cancer, gets fired from his job as a result, and doesn't have money for food or medical treatments? Is getting cancer someone's fault?

Number 1, if he got fired because he had cancer, he has a suit to file.

Second, no, it's not his fault -- but why should I be forced to pay his bills? Because it's the happy-happy-joy-joy feel-good thing to do?

Third, a 25 yo isn't a kid by a long-shot.What's he been doing since he was 18? Going to school? On who's dime? Parents? Did he have a job? Did he save? Did he piss away his money? Does he have good credit by not pissing away his money? Can he get a loan to pay his medical bills and pay it off himself? blah blah blah blah -- there are SOOOOOO many variables. YES. So many.

But again -- why should I be the one responsible for filling the voids for this person?

If you give 25% of your income to charity that is indeed very generous of you. However, can we count on everyone to be so generous? I don't think so. If we didn't have government programs to help people out, we all would be in a precarious state. I for one, don't want to live in a third world country where there are kids on the street corners with one leg and a festering wound begging for money for food and bandages. Maybe that's the libertarian fantasy though--watching others suffer.

Who is suffering like that now in America? Yes, we have poverty -- but not like that. Your stretch was quote far-reaching, there. And no, most people aren't as generous as the top 5% of wage earners are -- but you must still answer why I should be responsible for these "needy" people insofar as taking my money away form me without my consent.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Number 1, if he got fired because he had cancer, he has a suit to file.

Second, no, it's not his fault -- but why should I be forced to pay his bills? Because it's the happy-happy-joy-joy feel-good thing to do?

Not necessarily. Let's say he's paid to move boxes. He gets cancer and is no longer able to do his job. He doesn't get fired, but is no longer able to show up and earn money. Therefore he is no longer able to pay into his jobs healthcare plan and therefore he ends up without insurance. What about that scenario? Who is at fault?

[Mrjinglesusa]

This is the typical conservative Republican viewpoint: because I did it, everyone can do it; I didn't need government help, and neither should anyone else; if you are in financial trouble, it's your own damn fault for not making good decisions; etc., etc., etc. There is no consideration given to someone's circumstances - everything is black and white.

BUT, when it comes to corporate tax breaks and tax breaks for the rich, they all over that like white on rice because it benefits THEM. If something benefits OTHERS, they are generally against it unless they also can get something (money) out of it.

[Mrjinglesusa]

One other thing, the U.S. is the ONLY industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have healthcare. I find it VERY hard to believe that EVERY OTHER industrialized nation in the world is doing something wrong.

http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

One other thing, the U.S. is the ONLY industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have healthcare. I find it VERY hard to believe that EVERY OTHER industrialized nation in the world is doing something wrong.

http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848

All citizens have access to health care. Some pay for it, and others don't.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Not necessarily. Let's say he's paid to move boxes. He gets cancer and is no longer able to do his job. He doesn't get fired, but is no longer able to show up and earn money. Therefore he is no longer able to pay into his job's healthcare plan and therefore he ends up without insurance. What about that scenario? Who is at fault?

Pull some money out of savings or take out a medical loan to keep paying for his insurance?

It has nothing to do with fault. Talking about whose "fault" it is implies that somebody is being punished. It's just life. Sometimes bad things happen. The government should not take the role of a parent, because that means that we take the role of children.

(BTW, I'm not rich. I guess I'm the proverbial "25 year old kid whose just starting out," coincidentally enough!)

[Big Mac]

Employer based health coverage is outmoded, anachronistic and on the way out. Unfortunately, it looks like Socialized medicine is in, rather than a vibrant, competitive national health insurance market.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Number 1, if he got fired because he had cancer, he has a suit to file.

Second, no, it's not his fault -- but why should I be forced to pay his bills? Because it's the happy-happy-joy-joy feel-good thing to do?

Third, a 25 yo isn't a kid by a long-shot.What's he been doing since he was 18? Going to school? On who's dime? Parents? Did he have a job? Did he save? Did he piss away his money? Does he have good credit by not pissing away his money? Can he get a loan to pay his medical bills and pay it off himself? blah blah blah blah -- there are SOOOOOO many variables. YES. So many.

But again -- why should I be the one responsible for filling the voids for this person?

I think Ort888 addressed your reply exactly as I would.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Who is suffering like that now in America? Yes, we have poverty -- but not like that. Your stretch was quote far-reaching, there. And no, most people aren't as generous as the top 5% of wage earners are -- but you must still answer why I should be responsible for these "needy" people insofar as taking my money away form me without my consent.

No one is suffering like that now--right now people are merely going bankrupt and losing their homes over medical bills. However, if we eliminated the sad stripped down programs we have now--which is what you seem to want we would certainly start seeing scenes like that. As for taking money from you without your consent I have a few things to say about that:

1. There are plenty of things a responsible society does without consent. If you held up a knife to stab someone and a police officer was present, he could take the knife out of your hand without your consent. I could go on and on.

2. You're not directly paying anyone's bills. It's not as if the 25 year old that I mentioned is gonna send you a $100K bill for his treatment directly to your mailbox. What you'll pay is a fixed amount like $100 or so for an insurance program that *you* also could use if you needed to. Just like taxes for road work which you already said you support.

3. If contributing to a national health plan is bad because its the "happy happy joy joy feel good" thing to do then why are you contributing 25% of your income to charity?

4. No matter what theoretical circumstance is presented, you always regurgitate it so that somehow it is the "fault" of the victim. This seems to be crux of your argument. Plenty of bad things have happened to you that I bet weren't your fault right? How would you feel if someone pointed their finger at you with a sneer and judged you?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

All citizens have access to health care. Some pay for it, and others don't.

And the vast majority of those who don't, can't. What's your point?

[Chuckit]

If the poor can't afford the healthcare, how are they going to pay for the tax? Is the answer by any chance "gouge everybody else"? Whether or not it's the fault of the poor person, their predicament is sure as heck not my fault. So why am I getting poked in the rear here? That is being punished.

Like RAILhead said, the more of my money you waste on expensive government programs, that's less that will go to people who need it.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I think Ort888 addressed your reply exactly as I would.
No one is suffering like that now--right now people are merely going bankrupt and losing their homes over medical bills. However, if we eliminated the sad stripped down programs we have now--which is what you seem to want we would certainly start seeing scenes like that. As for taking money from you without your consent I have a few things to say about that:

1. There are plenty of things a responsible society does without consent. If you held up a knife to stab someone and a police officer was present, he could take the knife out of your hand without your consent. I could go on and on.

2. You're not directly paying anyone's bills. It's not as if the 25 year old that I mentioned is gonna send you a $100K bill for his treatment directly to your mailbox. What you'll pay is a fixed amount like $100 or so for an insurance program that *you* also could use if you needed to. Just like taxes for road work which you already said you support.

3. If contributing to a national health plan is bad because its the "happy happy joy joy feel good" thing to do then why are you contributing 25% of your income to charity?

4. No matter what theoretical circumstance is presented, you always regurgitate it so that somehow it is the "fault" of the victim. This seems to be crux of your argument. Plenty of bad things have happened to you that I bet weren't your fault right? How would you feel if someone pointed their finger at you with a sneer and judged you?

1. Spare me. That's not even in the same country as the ballpark we're playing in.

2. Why should I? It's my money, and I'll do so as I please in relation to my STATE and COUNTY government -- NOT Federal. Maybe I don't want that coverage. Maybe I want more. Maybe I want less. Maybe I want private. Maybe I want none. Then what? Take my money regardless?

3. I contribute to charity because I know exactly where it's going, 100% of the time. I know, dollar for dollar, what and who is being helped with my contributions.

4. Call me existentialist. I have PLENTY of poor choices, poor circumstances, yaddah yaddah yaddah -- but at the end of the day, when I was broke, poor, and could only buy groceries on the Diamond Shamrock card I lied about to get a $300 limit, who did I call? Who bailed me out? No one. Who lived for 3 weeks with no electricity? Me. Who got it turned back on? I did, by getting a crappy job that helped me scrape enough change together to pay a sodding $43 electric bill.

So no, don't hear what I'm not saying. Fault isn't the issue, what you do with the circumstance you're in IS the issue.

Yes, there is a SMALL fraction of the American populace that literally cannot work -- but that percentage of people that LITERALLY cannot work is so small and minute, there's no reason to make everyone else foot the bill across the board.

The issue is that people don't want to do "crappy jobs" or feel like they're being demeaned doing something "beneath them."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I wonder on those healthcare costs ebuddy. That might be what it costs out of pocket if your employer picks up the rest, but actual costs of healthcare is more along the lines of $12000 per year.

With all due respect andi*pandi, I wasn't sure where to start with this.

- Your own costs below are lower than the national average I cited from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Your cited link affirms the figures I gave you for the rest of us.
- Your cited link assumes unemployment;

The average family policy in the United States now costs about $12,000, of which the average employer contributes about 75% ($9,000). Thus, if they could find comparable insurance in the individual market, that coverage would cost families losing employer-sponsored insurance $4,000 more than they previously paid ($9,000 minus $5,000).

- Even though unemployment is 6.1%, the unemployment assumption does not surprise me. The title of the article was The McCain Plan for Health Insecurity and the crux of the article is declaring why McCain's $5,000 tax credit will not suffice.
- Again, the overwhelming majority of people are employed. Certainly, they aren't all providing superior coverage, but most help pay health care costs.
- Far be it from me to educate others on forum etiquette, but it's kind of faux pas to post such shamelessly partisan material as an appeal to authority.

By this standard, John McCain emerges not as a maverick or centrist but as a radical social conservative firmly in the grip of the ideology that animates the domestic policies of President George W. Bush.

Maybe it's just me. I appreciate a drier read.

I pay $2016 per year, my employer picks up $16264 per year for family health, dental, and life.

I pay $1172 per year, my employer picks up $10,632 per year for family health, dental, optical, and life.

I have excellent health insurance.

I prefer mine. I consider it part of my compensation package when I'm looking for work. I would strongly recommend this to others because the government cannot afford to care more for you than you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I for one, don't want to live in a third world country where there are kids on the street corners with one leg and a festering wound begging for money for food and bandages. Maybe that's the libertarian fantasy though--watching others suffer.

The blazing irony is, most third world hellholes have government nanny states that operate straight out of a leftwinger's ultimate fantasy. Hence, the oddball spectacle of liberals who buy the fiction that places like Cuba aren't festering third world hellholes, and are in fact, shining examples of what should be emulated. Why? Because the head nanny-state honco told them so, and one of his old pals looks cool to them on a t-shirt.

What the third world lacks is actually not plenty of people with great ideas, who would create companies and employ lots of other people, what they lack is the economic freedom to do so.

It's the worst forms of nanny-state government that produce the worst of the world's hellholes, not governments that stay out of their citizens' way and that promote individual liberty and freedom.

When left alone, people can and do take care of themselves much better than they do under the thumb of nanny-state nitwits, all of whom by the way, THINK they are doing wonderful things for the people they oppress.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

All citizens have access to health care. Some pay for it, and others don't.

All citizens DO NOT have access to regular, preventative health care. What all citizens do have access to is their local emergency room as health-care-provider-of-last-resort. And that is not an optimum solution, either in terms of health-care efficacy or financial accountability.

It would be both better for the individuals and our national health-care costs* if every citizen had access to regular preventative health-care (at a minimum one doctor and two dental visits per year for a check-up). Think about how much money could be saved if the people who now go to the emergency room for minor problems got to go to a primary care physician. And from the stand-point of prevention, think about how much money could be saved if patients saw their local doctor when a health-care issue arose instead of waiting until the condition reaches crisis levels necessitating a trip to the emergency room.

*Right now the US government spends approximately 20% of its annual budget on Medicare and or Medicaid--In the FY2008 budget the total figure is almost $600Billion. I am pretty sure that with a nationwide universal plan with the basic coverages outlined above would cost the US government (and us the taxpayers who fund the government) less than $600 Billion per year.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Like RAILhead said, the more of my money you waste on expensive government programs, that's less that will go to people who need it.

Do you think the $600 Billion the US government spent this year on Medicaid and Medicare is wasteful? I do. That works out to roughly $2000 per citizen yet the expenditures don't cover every citizen. So, imagine a system whereby the government mandates and provides for a basic minimum level of care for everyone and then allows individuals to choose to pay for extra care out of their own pocket. I bet we could provide that basic minimum level of care for far less than $2000 per person because the government can use economies of scale to drive down costs. Instead of the government providing health care for just a segment of the population they could provide it for all the population thus minimizing the overall costs through preventative care and less funds expended to cover the current population without coverage that goes to the emergency room for their health care needs.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With all due respect andi*pandi, I wasn't sure where to start with this.

- Your own costs below are lower than the national average I cited from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Your cited link affirms the figures I gave you for the rest of us.
- Your cited link assumes unemployment;
- Even though unemployment is 6.1%, the unemployment assumption does not surprise me. The title of the article was The McCain Plan for Health Insecurity and the crux of the article is declaring why McCain's $5,000 tax credit will not suffice.
- Again, the overwhelming majority of people are employed. Certainly, they aren't all providing superior coverage, but most help pay health care costs.
- Far be it from me to educate others on forum etiquette, but it's kind of faux pas to post such shamelessly partisan material as an appeal to authority.

Maybe it's just me. I appreciate a drier read.

With all due respect eBuddy, I think there's a misunderstanding. Shameless? I wouldn't call NEJM partisan, nor shamelessly so, they have responses to Barack's plan that are critical also. They are a medical journal covering the issue on both sides, based on what each campaign showed them. Can you agree that The New England Journal of Medicine might know a little something about medicine? Might be a useful reference?

http://content.nejm.org/misc/electio...source=e08home
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0806561

We are both lucky to have employers who shell out for health insurance. I believe the point was, if our employer wasn't paying, could we afford it with just the McCain handout? Unemployment isn't the issue, my understanding was McCain's plan was a move to an INDIVIDUAL insurance freemarket to replace EMPLOYER subsidy.

Anyway, could go on, but time this week is limited.