I
Irish_Catholic_1
Guest
Well said!!
It is already law that no person can be turned away from the emergency room. So thats that.
But a socialist government takeover of healthcare? The Church never addressed THAT!!
- Status
It is already law that no person can be turned away from the emergency room. So thats that.
But a socialist government takeover of healthcare? The Church never addressed THAT!!
R
royal_archer
Guest
It doesn’t seem to be a problem with people comming to America many of whom don’t have much of anything. Is it that these other countries are discriminating against these people?
S
St_Francis
Guest
RA,
I am sure that for every deadbeat you are personally acquainted with, others are personally acquainted with people who would find it very difficult to pay for health insurance if they didn’t get it through their jobs. I know people who are out of work and not happy about it. I know people who, gasp!, don’t have parents who can pay for their college. In fact, I know parents who *are *paying for their children to go to college, but who *therefore *would not be able to afford health insurance.
I know young people who work full-time who have to share living expenses and still barely make ends meet. I know people whose wives have left them, taken the children to another state, get child support, and then the husband doesn’t have any money left over.
You act as if everyone who doesn’t have health insurance is just some kind of slothful person who could easily make the extra money to pay for it. This is simply not the case. Once they get themselves through college, they have student loans to pay off, so getting an education is not necessarily the answer.
The reality is that insurance for a family costs $6,000–$12,000 a year, and that is quite a chunk of money, *especially *for a family that spends only a couple of hundred dollars a year for health normally. And as our population ages and more move into retirement, the costs are only going to spiral upwards at an alarming rate.
R
royal_archer
Guest
I don’t disagree that there are those who just can’t find jobs ven though they are trying. I just don’t think that number represents the full 47 Million.
I think we need to help these people base on the four groups they represent,
- the disabled,
- the between jobs (but covered by unemployment),
- the under employed,
- and the unemployable.
Most of us went through that stage and realize we need to better help these young people to not take on more responsibilities than they can afford given their income and savings.
off topic but the whole theory of you have to go to college to get a good job is irritating in that why aren’t our government run schools good enough for people to get a decent job in 12 years?
The problem is the current administrations efforts are not aimed at reducing costs they are aimed at playing shell games moving the cost TO those that did not vote for them FROM those that did.
We also have a moral dillema where available health care keeps rising and taking over a larger and larger portion of our society. We are meant to be mortal and trying to fight off the innevitable at the latter point in our lives is like trying to break the light barrier. It will consume infinate resources. At some point in time we have to say we are willing to trade length of life for quality of life. I am perfectly happy with a 72 year average life expectancy; Maybe we need to concentrate more on quality of life?
W
wabrams
Guest
Proof?
Then why not expand Medicaid to close the gap and be done with it?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I agree with you! As much as I would like (and need) better health coverage than what my pathetic plan covers, I would rather give it up completely than agree to subsidize abortions. It is absolutely unacceptable. It’s like publicly subsidizing murder. No, I’m sorry, I take that back. It *is *publicly subsidizing murder.Hi texan77. I’m not american but I’m interested in this health care reform debate.
I believe the reason why the Catholic Church continues to call on these “catholic” politicians is because it is our duty to defend those innocent lives. Once we stop to fight against abortion in this health care reform, we may be guilty of the sin of omission. Our God-given consciences are telling us to fight for those unborn people. If this reform gets approved, then atleast we have showed God that we have done something for Him at that debate. May God bless you!
God bless you!
A
Aboveallbereal
Guest
I am not American so I’m on the outside looking in on this one.
It is I think important to argue the toss on all of this healthcare stuff if only because Obama and his allies are having to use time and political capital trying to smugle abortion funding into the system and all the time November 2011 moves closer and a Democrat retreat in the Congress moves nearer
It is I think important to argue the toss on all of this healthcare stuff if only because Obama and his allies are having to use time and political capital trying to smugle abortion funding into the system and all the time November 2011 moves closer and a Democrat retreat in the Congress moves nearer
S
St_Francis
Guest
Well, the administration has already admitted that 15 million of them are illegal immigrants. In his speech to Congress, he used the number 30 million.
What do you think the government should get in return?
Used to be that we helped young people to have families, not postpone them.
How much are we going to ask people to postpone marriage? First we made them wait til they finished high school, then college, then getting a few years working under their belts, and now until they can afford health insurance no matter what? Sheesh, no wonder the rate of illegitimacy is so high.
Life is not perfect, You seem to expect it to be like a computer, someone does all that right things and then Ding! all the right stuff comes out. We have totally messed up priorities and so things are a mess. We discouraged people from having an “irresponsible” number of children and in 2 generations went from having 13 people supporting those on Social Security to *3. *
Because the more people get educated, the higher the requirements become. As above, used to be you had to finish 8th grade, then high school, After WW2, a college education became more and more essential. Now you can get a Master’s in running restaurants–the whole thing is insane, I totally agree with you.
However, I have to mention that it should give people pause that every time people try to “fix” our schools, they get worse. Every single time.
No. the government is currently on the hook for the health care of retirees. In a few short years, we have going to have a massive entry of people into the Medicare system as the Baby Boomers retire. The government wants to change the way things are done before that happens.
This is why a free market/charity way of doing this would be better. Then people will have options; they just can’t have their cake and eat it too.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You know, a lot of the people I deal with in the US having health care problems DO have health insurance through their jobs, or have jobs that don’t offer health insurance.
In the case of the latter, I don’t think it is reasonable to say “well, they need better jobs”. For one thing, they are doing jobs that need to be done, that other people (with good insurance often) want done. If everybody could get a better job, then who would fufill such functions? I suppose they could go to illegal immagrrints who could then “legitimatly” be denied any health care or social security, but it seems to me that there is something very fishy/morally questionable about a system that requires people with no rights to care by society to function.
And in fact many are not poorly trained or in “bad” jobs - but they work independently or for small business. Is there really a desire for everyone to work for large corporations and have them dominate business entirely? (More than they already do.) We know that small business has many direct benifits to communities that big business does not, and it seems to me that having one’s own small business or working for oneself is a rather bigger part of the “American Dream” than working in a factory or a big-box store.
In the case of those who have jobs with insurance but find it inadequate, it often isn’t that they have poor skills, or are frivolous with their money. I know people who struggle to pay the cost for employer provided insurance but can’t afford to use it. Reasons are diverse - debt from education, they have made the decision to have a parent home with kids, they are caring for a parent, their insurance is just so expensive it is unrealistic, housing costs have made things impossible.
In other cases, the care the insurance allows is not actually helpful. Their insurers have decided what they can get based on costs, not on good health care. They are restricted to certain hospitals or doctors, not the best ones. Or they even insist on the most invasive forms of treatment. (Or, less medically sound but cheaper for them versions.) While insurers (or governments in that kind of system) are not required to pay for anything - the autonomy of a patient with the kind of care or health choices made is also very important. A patient requiring surgery should not be forced to take the more invasive version because an insurance company says so.
I think it is very natural for people in such situations to feel desperate, angry, and helpless. And saying they need better jobs is really avoiding the situation, because someone will have to do the ****** jobs. (And more and more employers, “ggod” ones, are offering less and less health insurance.)
If a nation is going to rely on employers to be an important part of the health insurance programs, they need to make it really work, and I don’t see that at all.
In the case of the latter, I don’t think it is reasonable to say “well, they need better jobs”. For one thing, they are doing jobs that need to be done, that other people (with good insurance often) want done. If everybody could get a better job, then who would fufill such functions? I suppose they could go to illegal immagrrints who could then “legitimatly” be denied any health care or social security, but it seems to me that there is something very fishy/morally questionable about a system that requires people with no rights to care by society to function.
And in fact many are not poorly trained or in “bad” jobs - but they work independently or for small business. Is there really a desire for everyone to work for large corporations and have them dominate business entirely? (More than they already do.) We know that small business has many direct benifits to communities that big business does not, and it seems to me that having one’s own small business or working for oneself is a rather bigger part of the “American Dream” than working in a factory or a big-box store.
In the case of those who have jobs with insurance but find it inadequate, it often isn’t that they have poor skills, or are frivolous with their money. I know people who struggle to pay the cost for employer provided insurance but can’t afford to use it. Reasons are diverse - debt from education, they have made the decision to have a parent home with kids, they are caring for a parent, their insurance is just so expensive it is unrealistic, housing costs have made things impossible.
In other cases, the care the insurance allows is not actually helpful. Their insurers have decided what they can get based on costs, not on good health care. They are restricted to certain hospitals or doctors, not the best ones. Or they even insist on the most invasive forms of treatment. (Or, less medically sound but cheaper for them versions.) While insurers (or governments in that kind of system) are not required to pay for anything - the autonomy of a patient with the kind of care or health choices made is also very important. A patient requiring surgery should not be forced to take the more invasive version because an insurance company says so.
I think it is very natural for people in such situations to feel desperate, angry, and helpless. And saying they need better jobs is really avoiding the situation, because someone will have to do the ****** jobs. (And more and more employers, “ggod” ones, are offering less and less health insurance.)
If a nation is going to rely on employers to be an important part of the health insurance programs, they need to make it really work, and I don’t see that at all.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Anything of equivalent value.
Postponing marriage is only one option, the other is allowing young couples to live at home untill they are financially secure.
Part of the break down in the Social Security pyramid scheme is the unplanned reality that life expectancy has been increasing and has outpaced the SS retirement age.
This is something that has to be a grass roots effort to increase expectations at the local level.
If we raise the retirement age we could head off that problem. Unfortunately senior citizens supported Obama.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Even mediocre jobs can generate good wages if you work hard at them.
Many of those jobs don’t actually need done or could be done in less labor intensive ways. If less people were willing to do those jobs, the cost of that labor would go up.
What government needs to do is to allow those small companies to band together and buy insurance at larger group rates.
S
St_Francis
Guest
What, their first-born child? If they had something of equivalent value, they probably would not need government help.
There’s a law against this?
True, but another part is the decrease in the number of children people had, a decrease directly brought about by the changes in our culture during the 1960s.
This can no longer be dealt with at the local level. In fact, it has been decades since the local level really had power over the schools. In The Underground History of American Education, John Gatto, twice awarded the NYS Teacher of the Year, documents how local people fought against what was happening in their schools and lost.
I am not sure that raising the retirement age would help all that much–middle-aged people are already having trouble finding jobs as the pyramidal shape of businesses squeeses them out. Our unemployment rolls would just increase.
R
royal_archer
Guest
What about time, physical labor, and non physical work?
I was meaning parrents. Although society should be more open to this than we have been. People should turn to family first, then friends, then community and government last.
That is the problem with racking up a massive debt obligation and expecting future generations to pay for it. The people who are retired now and about to retire have noone but themselves to blame for theis predicament.
It can be dealt with at the local level if people were willing. local communities around a school system just have to put their feet down and prevent that school from passing kids who don’t meet a higher standard. The problem is that the schools are run by teachers and parrents and the community at large has not taken a more active roll in overseeing the schools.
The big strike against older workers is the fear they will retire in a few years. What ever squeeze is there would be raised to an older point if the retiremetn age was raised. On a separate note, buisness has such a hard time finding good workers that they tend to promote young tallented people too quickly. These people climb the ranks the first few years till they are equal in pay with much older workers and then max out 10-20 years into a 40-50 year carreer and spend most of their lives stuck at that same level thinking management is trying to shut them out since they are no longer getting the promotions they used to get.
S
St_Francis
Guest
BTDT.
I was meaning parrents. Although society should be more open to this than we have been. People should turn to family first, then friends, then community and government last.
You think they don’t?
And…?
You do not understand the education system in our country. Read this and then this about riots over dumbing down, and this for the control the educational establishment wields.
You didn’t understand my point. My point is that middle-aged people are forced out because there isn’t room for them, and there are therefore too many people searching for that type of job. Putting off the retirement age will only exacerbate this problem.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I don’t really think this addresses what I said at all. You have indicated repeatedly that people should get good health insurance by getting better jobs or skills. But it isn’t that simple.
For one thing I think your idea that the less well remunerated jobs could be passed off or removed is questionable, especially given some other comments I have seen you make.
As well, business, and as a result government do not want to change the way things are done now. They want cheap labour, jobs that have poor remuneration and benefits, and a working underclass. It is good for business.
Imagine, for example, that every illegal worker in the US was somehow sent home. Well, in some cases there would have to be higher wages and benifits to attract people to necessary jobs (meaning less profit for the business owner.) Some businesses might not be able to make a go of it. Other positions people might do without - most don’t have to have a cleaning lady. Or some really required jobs might go unfilled, which would also put a stall on production.
But production would go down no matter what (and some people would really miss their maids
).THe thing about business is that it is amoral - it really has no way integral to it’s process to concider morality - it depends on the people who run it, or use it, to provide morality. But in big business, especially when it is publicly owned, that becomes much more difficult. The responsibility of a company to it’s shareholders is to bring profit - not being a person, it has no responsibility to God. That being the case, how can one expect business to really do the right thing about caring for its workers?
The primary responsibility of government,OTOH, is to it’s citizens. That includes business, but is not meant to be primarily towards business. So caring for the health of citizens is a much more natural responsibility of government than of business. I don’t see any reason it couldn’t be delegated, but it would still have to provide accountability.
One interesting thing I have noticed in this and other discussions is the deep distrust, and I’d even say moral loathing that many Americans seem to have for their government. It seems to me this is a major obstacle in allowing government any real responsibility. I have seen some interesting analysis of why this is so - some reasons seem historical, but OTOH distrust of government has grown hugely in the US since the 1950s. This correlates with some other stats, which may or may not be related - the rise of television; a sharp reduction of people involved in civic activity and other organizations outside of the home.
But this is markedly different, I think, than other Western countries. Although there is recognition of corruption and people joke about the type of people who enter politics, there is actually a general feeling that the government tries to serve the people, and if it doesn’t, we can at least monitor what they are doing through the processes that are built in. (The same cannot be said of big business.)
I guess I wonder - why do many Americans think there government is so incompetent and immoral that they cannot trust their welfare to them in the least? Not in “what evidence is there of this” but as in “what has caused this, especially since the government is made up of citizens?”
S
St_Francis
Guest
I would venture to suggest that the difference is that what we are against *comes from *Europe, so they are happy with it and we are not.
We were not part of the French Revolution (which to me was kind of the beginning of the collapse, with the so-called Enlightenment being the foundation for the FR). That was a horrendous event which was completely disrespectful and totally destructive of religion. Altho we are not a Catholic nation, our culture maintained respect for religion for a long time, while European nations seem to have sliced religion out of their culture altogether. We are quite a ways along that path ourselves, but this is due to the influence of European thinkers who came here during WW2 rather than an internally organic development.
Unfortunately, it seems that these European thinkers have had way too much influence on our colleges and universities, and all too many of these people get involved in left-leaning politics. And from what we have seen, and insofar as we have gone down there, it is not a good way to go.
R
royal_archer
Guest
The government may be made up of citizens but it is controlled by one corporation the Democratic National Committee. This single entity has submerted the natural process and the intended separation of powers. It is interesting that you mention a growing distrust since the 1950’s in the error o f stalin and immediately after the world discovered the evils of Nazi Germany. Further Government does not serve people it serves 50%+1 of them. We are in a situation where the majority is abusing the power of government to harm the minority. The founders of our country tried to prevent this by setting up the Constitution to only give the federal governmet a very small set of powers. unfortunuately they have ignored the constitution and have been grabbing more and more power. Coincidentlay when the government takes more power from the people the people distrust the government more.I don’t really think this addresses what I said at all. You have indicated repeatedly that people should get good health insurance by getting better jobs or skills. But it isn’t that simple.
For one thing I think your idea that the less well remunerated jobs could be passed off or removed is questionable, especially given some other comments I have seen you make.
As well, business, and as a result government do not want to change the way things are done now. They want cheap labour, jobs that have poor remuneration and benefits, and a working underclass. It is good for business.
Imagine, for example, that every illegal worker in the US was somehow sent home. Well, in some cases there would have to be higher wages and benifits to attract people to necessary jobs (meaning less profit for the business owner.) Some businesses might not be able to make a go of it. Other positions people might do without - most don’t have to have a cleaning lady. Or some really required jobs might go unfilled, which would also put a stall on production.
But production would go down no matter what (and some people would really miss their maids
THe thing about business is that it is amoral - it really has no way integral to it’s process to concider morality - it depends on the people who run it, or use it, to provide morality. But in big business, especially when it is publicly owned, that becomes much more difficult. The responsibility of a company to it’s shareholders is to bring profit - not being a person, it has no responsibility to God. That being the case, how can one expect business to really do the right thing about caring for its workers?
The primary responsibility of government,OTOH, is to it’s citizens. That includes business, but is not meant to be primarily towards business. So caring for the health of citizens is a much more natural responsibility of government than of business. I don’t see any reason it couldn’t be delegated, but it would still have to provide accountability.
One interesting thing I have noticed in this and other discussions is the deep distrust, and I’d even say moral loathing that many Americans seem to have for their government. It seems to me this is a major obstacle in allowing government any real responsibility. I have seen some interesting analysis of why this is so - some reasons seem historical, but OTOH distrust of government has grown hugely in the US since the 1950s. This correlates with some other stats, which may or may not be related - the rise of television; a sharp reduction of people involved in civic activity and other organizations outside of the home.
But this is markedly different, I think, than other Western countries. Although there is recognition of corruption and people joke about the type of people who enter politics, there is actually a general feeling that the government tries to serve the people, and if it doesn’t, we can at least monitor what they are doing through the processes that are built in. (The same cannot be said of big business.)
I guess I wonder - why do many Americans think there government is so incompetent and immoral that they cannot trust their welfare to them in the least? Not in “what evidence is there of this” but as in “what has caused this, especially since the government is made up of citizens?”
W
wabrams
Guest
This country was founded on the idea that government, esp. Federal government, should not be very powerful. The Federal government was given a small list of things they could; all else is delegated to the states. Many checks-and-balances were built in, up to and including the 2nd Amendment. Our own Founding Fathers were leary of what government does and what our government could do if left unchecked; the main idea was teh government should state out of as much as possible.
You ask why we think the government is incompetent? Name one thing they do well.
- Status