Socialized healthcare

  • Thread starter Thread starter COPLAND_3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Al_Masetti said:
Getting back to socialized healthcare, Mark Steyn was on www.booktv.org

In the thread on what television programs folks are addicted to, no one has yet confessed to being addicted to BookTV.

Anyway, Steyn brought up an interesting point: there are riots by Muslim youth in prominent European cities … Steyn frequently visits and has roots in the Flemish cities and towns. While the Muslim population of Europe is at around 10%, the youth of Europe are (according to Steyn) up around 45% of the youth population.

And this is because the “mainstream Europeans” have almost stopped having babies.

And the reason for not having babies … is that taxation is so high and that the social welfare programs … such as socialized medicine … are so extensive and so expensive that high taxation is necessary to support them.

The perception of the “mainstream Europeans” is that people cannot afford to have children.

Either that, or the socialized healthcare and other programs are basically smothering the instinct to procreate.

Except for the Muslims who operate on informal Sharia Law.

Very soon, they will be voting and Steyn is pretty sure that they will end up voting in Sharia Law throughout Europe.

And that will be the price paid by the Europeans for socialized healthcare.

The price of socialized healthcare apparently is MUCH higher than the numbers being bandied about in terms of percent of GDP.

Anyway, Steyn is interesting … his Web site is www.steynonline.com and his interview(s) are on www.booktv.org
Click to expand...
But the Church continues to insist that healthcare must be a guarantee for all. Now I in no way support the socialization of it, But it seems to me like those who are disabled or temporarily unemployed have the same right to the same healthcare as the those fortunate enough to have jobs have. I don’t see any charitable organizations providing health insurance and unless the providers then provide their services free of charge to those who can’t pay then we are restricting healthcare to the fortunate only. This would also be a broken system.
 
goofyjim said:
But the Church continues to insist that healthcare must be a guarantee for all. Now I in no way support the socialization of it, But it seems to me like those who are disabled or temporarily unemployed have the same right to the same healthcare as the those fortunate enough to have jobs have. I don’t see any charitable organizations providing health insurance and unless the providers then provide their services free of charge to those who can’t pay then we are restricting healthcare to the fortunate only. This would also be a broken system.
Click to expand...
How can the government guarantee healthcare?

It cannot force people to enter the medical profession.

But the government can and does provide disincentives that force people to leave the medical profession.

[Please show where the Church continues to insist that healthcare must be guaranteed for all.]

There are people who are self-employed who have to provide their own medical insurance … they don’t have an “employer” in the accepted sense of working for some big company that provides medical benefits.

Self-employed people have to find HSAs or MSAs or some other vehicle. But in too many situations, state and Federal rules prohibit self-employed persons from purchasing those benefits.

Basically what you have is the government (our Congress) legislating rules that set up the situation causing the failure of the medical profession … and then saying, " See … the medical profession is broken". When all along they, the government, is the agent that deliberately caused the non-government medical segment of our society to break.
 
Al_Masetti said:
How can the government guarantee healthcare?

It cannot force people to enter the medical profession.

But the government can and does provide disincentives that force people to leave the medical profession.

[Please show where the Church continues to insist that healthcare must be guarantee for all.]
Click to expand...
If it doesn’t it should. It’s as much a basic right as clothing , food, shelter, education, need I go on.
 
goofyjim said:
If it doesn’t it should. It’s as much a basic right as clothing , food, shelter, education, need I go on.
Click to expand...
Yet … there is a distinction that needs to be made between rights and obligations.

And also a distinction between active voice and passive voice.

In other words, we … each of us … has an obligation to love one another.

But we can’t force someone to love us.

And we can’t decide for someone else how that act of love is to be carried out.

Nor can we define the word love.

We can give examples and tell parables. But defining love is very difficult.

I like to use the word “help” as a synonym for love.

But helping someone can take different forms.

And there are those who refuse to accept help … because of pride. They make demands for certain kinds of help while rejecting others that are just as effective.

Some people can provide effective help, but if they are restricted in what is acceptable to the recipient, then there may not be much more that can be done.

I know people who rejected working for salaries that they considered too low … they called it “chump change” … and yet I was making less than that. So, they were rejecting jobs that paid more than what I was making and yet they were demanding I provide them with job assistance. What kind of situation is that?

And the same thing applies to food, medical care, shelter, clothing, water. Some folks demand bottled water … at horrendous cost …, even when the tap water is perfectly fine.

Some folks demand that the government provide free education even when the quality is spotty at best and execrable at worst.

Some folks demand help with living expenses, and they spend huge amounts on cigarettes and liquor.

Where does that leave the folks who want to help but cannot accommodate the demands?

The other discussion point is that health CARE and health INSURANCE are two different things. And some folks prefer to blur the difference.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Yet … there is a distinction that needs to be made between rights and obligations.

And also a distinction between active voice and passive voice.

In other words, we … each of us … has an obligation to love one another.

But we can’t force someone to love us.

And we can’t decide for someone else how that act of love is to be carried out.

Nor can we define the word love.

We can give examples and tell parables. But defining love is very difficult.

I like to use the word “help” as a synonym for love.

But helping someone can take different forms.

And there are those who refuse to accept help … because of pride. They make demands for certain kinds of help while rejecting others that are just as effective.

Some people can provide effective help, but if they are restricted in what is acceptable to the recipient, then there may not be much more that can be done.

I know people who rejected working for salaries that they considered too low … they called it “chump change” … and yet I was making less than that. So, they were rejecting jobs that paid more than what I was making and yet they were demanding I provide them with job assistance. What kind of situation is that?

And the same thing applies to food, medical care, shelter, clothing, water. Some folks demand bottled water … at horrendous cost …, even when the tap water is perfectly fine.

Some folks demand that the government provide free education even when the quality is spotty at best and execrable at worst.

Some folks demand help with living expenses, and they spend huge amounts on cigarettes and liquor.

Where does that leave the folks who want to help but cannot accommodate the demands?

The other discussion point is that health CARE and health INSURANCE are two different things. And some folks prefer to blur the difference.
Click to expand...
I’m willing to accept a low paying position if it offers health insurance because without the insurance I would be unable to set any aside in a medical savings account and therefore denied proper health care. But everyone fails to address the issue of a preexisting condition being excluded from coverage. We worship the almighty dollar so we are afraid to require that these things be equally covered whne one attempts tog o back to the workforce. So the individual with the disability is faced with two options work and still be bankrupt paying for expenses that aren’t covered or remain on disability and be told he’s lazy or have the government assistance taken away. We can do better without having outright socialized healthcare. There must be some middle ground somewhere.
 
goofyjim said:
I’m willing to accept a low paying position if it offers health insurance because without the insurance I would be unable to set any aside in a medical savings account and therefore denied proper health care. But everyone fails to address the issue of a preexisting condition being excluded from coverage. We worship the almighty dollar so we are afraid to require that these things be equally covered whne one attempts tog o back to the workforce. So the individual with the disability is faced with two options work and still be bankrupt paying for expenses that aren’t covered or remain on disability and be told he’s lazy or have the government assistance taken away. We can do better without having outright socialized healthcare. There must be some middle ground somewhere.
Click to expand...
goofyjim,

You make several valid points as to why the current implenation of healthcare is broken.

However, I don’t think blowing up the current system and starting over is the solution to the problem.

I would love to see some legislation and other changes to the current system.
 
Al_Masetti said:
How can the government guarantee healthcare?

It cannot force people to enter the medical profession.

But the government can and does provide disincentives that force people to leave the medical profession.
Click to expand...
The problem stems from trying to assign a “right” or a “garuntee” to some tangible object or service. For example, there are a fixed number of MRI machines and people that know how to operate them.
 
I’ll throw a couple of rhetorical questions for discussion:

If a government provides food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment and education for all of it’s citizens, what would the burden be on the average tax payer?

If said goods and services were provided for free, or for very low cost to you, what would be the purpose of going to work every day? If most people’s basic needs were provided, what do you think would happen? I tend to think that nothing would get done…
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
I’ll throw a couple of rhetorical questions for discussion:

If a government provides food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment and education for all of it’s citizens, what would the burden be on the average tax payer?

If said goods and services were provided for free, or for very low cost to you, what would be the purpose of going to work every day? If most people’s basic needs were provided, what do you think would happen? I tend to think that nothing would get done…
Click to expand...
Bingo!

If the government gives me food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment, and so on, why should I work at all?

Now, some people may not realize the validity of this argument – those persons should go to any inner city and see how there are families that have been on welfare for generations.

With the greatest of intentions, we locked people into the poverty cycle. And if we continue what we’ve been doing – and doing it harder – we will lock more and more people into the poverty cycle.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Bingo!

If the government gives me food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment, and so on, why should I work at all?

Now, some people may not realize the validity of this argument – those persons should go to any inner city and see how there are families that have been on welfare for generations.

With the greatest of intentions, we locked people into the poverty cycle. And if we continue what we’ve been doing – and doing it harder – we will lock more and more people into the poverty cycle.
Click to expand...
Or. to some extent, the former Soviet Union for that matter…
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
I’ll throw a couple of rhetorical questions for discussion:

If a government provides food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment and education for all of it’s citizens, what would the burden be on the average tax payer?

If said goods and services were provided for free, or for very low cost to you, what would be the purpose of going to work every day? If most people’s basic needs were provided, what do you think would happen? I tend to think that nothing would get done…
Click to expand...
This is an excellent question.

Consider that the threshold for receiving government stuff can be high.

And the taxation can be extracted from low-income workers.

So, what you end up with is low-income working people “subsidizing” people with more money than the poor people.
 
Al_Masetti said:
This is an excellent question.

Consider that the threshold for receiving government stuff can be high.

And the taxation can be extracted from low-income workers.

So, what you end up with is low-income working people “subsidizing” people with more money than the poor people.
Click to expand...
See, this is where I will agree with you guys. I know I sound like a broken record continually using my own situation, but I dislike it when politicians always bring forth this anonymous story of some random family from some unspecific spacetime.

I could get health care very easily. If I were to quit my job and go on disability, which would be easy as cake really given how sick and crazy I am! I would get better benefits and healthcare than I would working the job I do now. I probably would even get more money through welfare than I have after I pay all my medical bills every month.

Why don’t I? I don’t know, I just couldn’t stand doing that. It would make me feel bad.
 
pathia said:
See, this is where I will agree with you guys. I know I sound like a broken record continually using my own situation, but I dislike it when politicians always bring forth this anonymous story of some random family from some unspecific spacetime.

I could get health care very easily. If I were to quit my job and go on disability, which would be easy as cake really given how sick and crazy I am! I would get better benefits and healthcare than I would working the job I do now. I probably would even get more money through welfare than I have after I pay all my medical bills every month.

Why don’t I? I don’t know, I just couldn’t stand doing that. It would make me feel bad.
Click to expand...
And we appreciate your contributions to society and pulling your weight, to the best of your ability… That’s all we can ask of you…
 
pathia said:
See, this is where I will agree with you guys. I know I sound like a broken record continually using my own situation, but I dislike it when politicians always bring forth this anonymous story of some random family from some unspecific spacetime.

I could get health care very easily. If I were to quit my job and go on disability, which would be easy as cake really given how sick and crazy I am! I would get better benefits and healthcare than I would working the job I do now. I probably would even get more money through welfare than I have after I pay all my medical bills every month.

Why don’t I? I don’t know, I just couldn’t stand doing that. It would make me feel bad.
Click to expand...
I wish more people felt that way. I sold Long Term Care Insurance for a brief stint (I will never do that again 😛 ), and what I found is that people would use all sorts of legal loopholes to make themselves “poor” according to goverment standards, so they could receive Medicaid. It takes some advanced planning, but there are people who help put the right things in place to make it happen. So, rather than just helping people who are truly poor, we are helping people with resources that have moved them to their heirs.

Btw, this is not the “rich” who are doing it. Most of them buy Long Term Care to protect their assets and pay for better facilities. It is elderly in the “Middle Class” - homes paid off, retirement accounts, etc. - who primarily do this. Their reasoning is that they paid taxes, and they should get benefit.
 
rlg94086 said:
I wish more people felt that way. I sold Long Term Care Insurance for a brief stint (I will never do that again 😛 ), and what I found is that people would use all sorts of legal loopholes to make themselves “poor” according to goverment standards, so they could receive Medicaid. It takes some advanced planning, but there are people who help put the right things in place to make it happen. So, rather than just helping people who are truly poor, we are helping people with resources that have moved them to their heirs.

Btw, this is not the “rich” who are doing it. Most of them buy Long Term Care to protect their assets and pay for better facilities. It is elderly in the “Middle Class” - homes paid off, retirement accounts, etc. - who primarily do this. Their reasoning is that they paid taxes, and they should get benefit.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of why we fix the system we currently have. If we lowered taxes (however we do that at this point beats me) and attempted to clean up the current healthcare system, that would go a long way. I don’t think having a 100% single-payer system is the answer, nor is free-for-all unregulated capitalism in this instance.
 
So how come they call ya the putergeek?? Does this mean I can send ya PMs to find out why my puter is running slooooooow nowdays?
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
I’ll throw a couple of rhetorical questions for discussion:

If a government provides food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment and education for all of it’s citizens, what would the burden be on the average tax payer?

If said goods and services were provided for free, or for very low cost to you, what would be the purpose of going to work every day? If most people’s basic needs were provided, what do you think would happen? I tend to think that nothing would get done…
Click to expand...
Medical treatment and private education are outside of the means of a lot of people. Hence the desire to have the government tax business and wealthier citizens to provide those services. Right or wrong, it’s as simple as that.

Comparing food and shelter with healthcare is stupid. Most people can earn enough to afford food and shelter, However many have a hard time affording insurance, and certainly many could not privately educate several children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top