C
Caesar517
Guest
No. It’s wrong to say that millionaires absolutely have to pay for it. It is more Christian, I think to give them the option of contrubiting to charity in a effort to help the poor and needy.
- Status
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Why? They get to live in a free, safe society, and the cost for that is they have to pay taxes for health care, police and national defense. Every developed nation in the world has socialized medicine, even Saudi Arabia and Brazil – the U.S. is the only country that does not have it.
C
Caesar517
Guest
As set in the US Constitution, the “cost” is to pay property and sales tax (income taxes since the 16th amendment) to have the government function enough for it to do what it’s supposed to do and no more. The Constitution explicitly says what the government is supposed to do, UHC is not there.
And the US is the best country in the world!
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I’m not a strict constructionist. I don’t let the Constitution stand in the way of what’s morally right. But regardless: we’ve already over-stepped that line many times. I don’t think social security is what’s necessary. I don’t think invading countries that have a threat of becoming communist was necessary.
Certainly not in terms of health care. There’s still several million Americans without health insurance; many of them are too poor to afford it.And the US is the best country in the world!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If you took every penny every millionaire has, it wouldn’t pay for healthcare for all. The Middle Class pays the freight in this country.
There is such a thing as supply and demand – if you reduce the apparent price to zero, then you will be able to sell all you can produce – and that’s as true for medicine as anything else.
Medical Savings Accounts, with help for the poor, is the way to go to make health care affordable for everyone. Government paid health care is the way to get substandard health care for everyone.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
The richest 2% of this country plays something like 90% of our taxes. (Don’t quote me on that, it’s straight from my memory.)
Is there any evidence that this works better than universal health care? I’m not fanatical about my beliefs: if you can sufficiently prove me wrong with real data, I will concede.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Actually, they are the reason you can live in a free, safe society. They create the jobs the rest of us depend on, and produce the low-cost, high-quality goods we need.
Why they do that is beyond me, considering the way everyone damns and blackguards them and keeps insisting they should pay for everything so the rest of us can have a free ride.
They also amputate thieve’s hands in Sauda Arabia - should we do that?
E
EphelDuath
Guest
And if it were not for workers, they wouldn’t be able to do that. I’m not damning rich or poor people. I’m just saying that it’s legitimate to weigh small levels of taxes for the welfare of the whole country. We do it for national defense and internal police, but it’s somehow unfair to do it for health care too.
I don’t know what this was a response to. I don’t think I ever advocated adopting anything Saudi Arabia does. I just point out that universal health care is not some far-left position (because even ultra-conservative governments utilize it) and it’s not impossible to do for large populations (because even Brazil implemented it).
C
Caesar517
Guest
Sometimes people can’t afford things. If that something is very important (like food or healthcare) I think other people should do the Christ-like thing and contribute what they can. I don’t think it’s at all Christ-like to force people to be charitable, though.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
It’s not forcing people to be charitable, it’s forcing people to contribute to society just like the rest. That argument might work for things like welfare or social security, but the right to receive medicine is a fundamental human need that cannot be denied to anybody.
Besides, there are estimates that universal health care could save up to $280 billion in paper work and administration: citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
The Constitution, strictly speaking, applies to the limits on the Federal (central national) government.As set in the US Constitution, the “cost” is to pay property and sales tax (income taxes since the 16th amendment) to have the government function enough for it to do what it’s supposed to do and no more. The Constitution explicitly says what the government is supposed to do, UHC is not there.
And the US is the best country in the world!
According to the 10th Amendment, everything else is the duty of the individual STATE governments.
Individual states can make it easier or harder for their residents to get universal health care. Where I live, the state makes it illegal to purchase health insurance from out of state companies. In addition, certain types of health insurance are also prohibited.
AND, restrictions on doctors are so draconian that many doctors have quit and either left the state or have gone into other lines of work such as real estate. OBGYN has been hard hit. Some other places have run out their neurosurgeons. Other specialties as well.
C
Caesar517
Guest
I will go back to the Constitution here. The Constitution clearly states that the government should provide national defense and internal police. UHC is not there. The Constitution is a set of rules for our government. If there is a problem with the rules, you should change them, not disregard them. It is disregard for the Constitution that has let the government usurp the amount of power it has today.
UHC is a socialist idea. Just because a country is mainly conservative doesn’t mean all of it’s policies are. Many countries have socialist tendencies (all governments seem to end up here eventually).
C
Caesar517
Guest
:tsktsk:
Once you say that it is a right, or that it cannot be denied to anybody you open up a huge can of worms. It means that if somebody doesn’t recieve it, someone else has done something wrong to violate their rights. The things that cannot be denied to any US citizen are in the Bill of Rights.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Sometimes, people CHOOSE not to get medical insurance even when they can afford it. It’s their choice.
In addition, hospitals are required by law to treat everyone who shows up. So people do have universal health care; they just don’t have universal insurance.
It’s important to make a distinction between health care and medical insurance.
Some places, the states require that medical insurance be so comprehensive that the cost becomes prohibitive.
I can choose any level of coverage I want for car insurance, liability insurance, house insurance, etc … but in some states, I can’t choose the level of coverage that I want for medical insurance.
If I’m a single person, I should be able to exclude coverage that excludes obstetrics, if I want to. I should be able to buy a policy that only covers major medical and not sniffles. I should be able to buy “layered” insurance. I should be able to buy an HSA or MSA for a single individual, but often I’m not allowed to.
I can buy life insurance for non-smokers; why can I not buy medical insurance for non-smokers?
Why can I not custom design my own medical insurance?
The insurance companies are more than willing to provide customized medical insurance, but the state governments won’t allow it in some or many cases.
C
Caesar517
Guest
Yay, someone else has read the Constitution! If state governents wanted to adopt some form of a healthcare system, that would be a Constitutional approach. It would also solve the problem, I think. Liberals/Socialists would move to those states and Conservatives would move away from those states. Everyone could be happy.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And if it weren’t for them, there wouldn’t be any workers.
“The rich,” whom we all envy and hate are not a bottomless pit. They are a blessing to the rest of us, and we should understand that. Or as a fellow once said, “If you don’t like the rich, ask a poor man to give you a job.”
Except that defense is in the Constitution, and health care is not. And there are better, less costly ways to get health care than by turning it over to the government.
Remember, someone must pay. And there aren’t enough millionaires to pay for all of it. Therefore those of us who can pay, should pay. Those who can only pay part of their health expenses should pay what they can. We can give them some assistance, and that will leave us enough to care for those who can pay nothing at all.
It was in response to this:
The point I’m making is, even my mother wouldn’t except the old, “Well, Johnnie does it” plea. Not everything Johnnie does is a good idea.
Health care in Brazil is a loooooong way below what we would consider minimal here.
S
Sailka
Guest
Lets get real. Are you not aware that jobs in USA have disappeared, to other countries and cheapest labor here? We are Millions of decent jobs short in the USA. Most everyone Wants to work, but the Jobs are not here.
Medical Savings accounts are fine for wealthy people. But National Insurancde is the only Proven ideal way, so everyone can have the Right to Health, recovery. All European countris and canadian provinces have universal health care, at less than half the per capita cost.
Code:
And are you aware of the leading reason for individuals (And auto manufacturers)bankruptcys in USA? Medical crisis costs individually, Auto manufacturers paying medical insurance.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That’s what we get for over-regulating the economy – we price ourselves out of the market.
Let us not add another crushing burden to our economy and make things worse.
I have, in earlier posts, demonstrated how Medical Savings Accounts will be workable for everyone.
Then you should have no difficulty offering that proof.
Which is why so many doctors have fled Canada to work in the US. And why the border is lined with clinics where Canadians – who have already paid taxes for health care – come to pay again for the health care they cannot get in Canada.
Where will we go for health care if we imitate Canada?
I’m not sure what you mean by that – I thought the leading cause for individuals was pregnancy. (Although I don’t know the leading cause for Auto manufacturers, I expect they are born like anyone else.)
If you are discussing bankruptcy, give us a cite.
And remember, the way to hold down the excess cost of medical care is through Medical Savings Accounts.
C
Caesar517
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by that – I thought the leading cause for individuals was pregnancy. (Although I don’t know the leading cause for Auto manufacturers, I expect they are born like anyone else.)
Thanks for helping interpret thet, I couldn’t figure out what he was trying to say.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
personalinsure.about.com/od/health/a/aa042206a.htm
hsatrusteeservices.com/
There’s TONS of web sites that discuss HSA and MSA types of accounts.
It’s important for folks to check them out.
AND if your state forbids them, then call your state senators and state representatives and ask them why.
[In some case, some of our Federal U.S. Senate brethren have outlawed them … if I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy was always a major opponent. By the way, when he needed neuro-surgery, Ted got his work done here in the US of A …]
hsatrusteeservices.com/
There’s TONS of web sites that discuss HSA and MSA types of accounts.
It’s important for folks to check them out.
AND if your state forbids them, then call your state senators and state representatives and ask them why.
[In some case, some of our Federal U.S. Senate brethren have outlawed them … if I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy was always a major opponent. By the way, when he needed neuro-surgery, Ted got his work done here in the US of A …]
- Status