Universal health insurance

[goofyjim]

The net cost of healthcare must still be paid. If you only pay $5 a month for it, you can only recieve $5 a month worth of medical care. There is no magical source of extra money. The taxes necessary to support everyone’s medical procedures would be enormous. The cost of the procedure will only increase.

That’s not how insurance works. You pay a premium to get better coverage than you could afford on your own income. They invest it and make it grow to stay profitable and in return pay your bills should a catastrophe hit. If there are absolutely no inurance companies willing to cover the disabled someone’s got to do it.

 

[Verisimilitude]

And the social security disability I get as income was funded by my payroll taxes and noone else’s. It’s an insurance program for those who don’t have it on the job. Therefore it shouldn’t be taken away. The same can be said for medicare which is funded through my own payroll tax and medicaid is paid for by a premium I pay to the state. How am I not paying my way?

Unfortunately it is not funded by your deductions because SS is broke/stolen/borrowed to fund the entitlements. We (collectively, but specifically our government) has indoctrinated generations of people to rely and become dependent on such programs and I agree, it would be a travesty to cut off those who have become reliant on them now. A solution I heard that I agree with to maintain the commitements and entitlements promised by the government to you and many others is to cut spending in order to pay those obligations and ween future generations away from it and allow the private sector control over how best to meet those needs. To fund the obligations we are speaking of is to cut our foreign policy commitments like the 700 military bases outside the US, the foreign aid packages to dictators, and to stop wars in places that have not attacked us or pose no threat to us. Freedom, fair trade and entangling alliances with none would be a better path to helping more people.

 

[cynic]

Me.
.

and Caeser 517, and several others.

First thing is the federal government owns nothing that is not already owned by ‘the People’. The government has no resources. It does not own the oil off the coast or in the mountains. It doesn’t own the sun and wind used to create alternative energy. The US Navy ships are owned by the People, held in trust and used by the military for the common defense. It does not own the waterways, the land highways are built on, or the national parks- nothing. Because it has nothing it has nothing to give to others without taking it from someone first. It is a simple concept. Governments own nothing. We, the People do and contrary to popular belief the People is not the government, but is made up by a representative and elected group of people. The government has limitations and guidlines as prescribed by our law to protect the People.

Second thing is the false idea that the government is mandated to provide services for all the People in the form of healthcare, welfare, employment, housing, transportation, or food is just that- a false idea. Don’t think this position lacks compassion. It doesn’t. It is just the simple truth. The governmet has no resoiurces and also has no compassion because it is an entity not a person. Stop looking to the governemnt for help.
.

Ah the classic libertarian philosophy. Thank you for posting that.

The government is a broker. It takes resources it does not have from those who do and redistributes it to those who need it, or for some great collective goal- or at least that is the idea. Whole generations have been brought up to believe the government is something we must believe and accept and trust without question. The Founders would be horrified with such a notion.
.

I’m not American and I don’t have a problem with some degree of wealth redistribution. The great collective goal is really a series of smaller goals - education for all children, life saving treatment for those on low incomes, oh but the market will take care of all that… or we can leave it up to chance (cough charity cough)

What is funny in a sad sort of way is the many arguments I have read here. Vern argues that the people are responsible for themselves and should not look to government for handouts whether deserved or not, yet he won’t even discuss the billions forced from the People for a unjust and unwise foreign policy.
.

He agrees with a very limited amount of government ‘handouts’ for those who genuinely cannot pay their way, as far as I can tell.

Cynic argues for the compassion of needy and wants to force more from the Peoples pocket without accounting for the billions already are out there for just such a purpose.
.

I don’t want governments to take more.

I , and probably most people that have some means are not opposed to helping others that do not have the means, even by way of a tax as it were but I challange anyone to say they trust the federal government with their money to spend it wisely and for the intended purpose. An endless stream of examples of watsed and inappropriate use of tax payer funds could be found in things from NASA to the military, to other things.

No, I’m not willing to give the federal government $15 more.

It sounds like you’d rather not give your government $15 in total.

 

[goofyjim]

Unfortunately it is not funded by your deductions because SS is broke/stolen/borrowed to fund the entitlements. We (collectively, but specifically our government) has indoctrinated generations of people to rely and become dependent on such programs and I agree, it would be a travesty to cut off those who have become reliant on them now. A solution I heard that I agree with to maintain the commitements and entitlements promised by the government to you and many others is to cut spending in order to pay those obligations and ween future generations away from it and allow the private sector control over how best to meet those needs. To fund the obligations we are speaking of is to cut our foreign policy commitments like the 700 military bases outside the US, the foreign aid packages to dictators, and to stop wars in places that have not attacked us or pose no threat to us. Freedom, fair trade and entangling alliances with none would be a better path to helping more people.

I’m actually beginning to agree with you. But many other comments in this thread have been so callous it makes me physically sick.

 

[Verisimilitude]

It sounds like you’d rather not give your government $15 in total.

Not $0.01 from my income.

 

[Caesar517]

That’s not how insurance works. You pay a premium to get better coverage than you could afford on your own income. They invest it and make it grow to stay profitable and in return pay your bills should a catastrophe hit. If there are absolutely no inurance companies willing to cover the disabled someone’s got to do it.

I know how insurance works, but it would be different if the government ran it. Taxes would drastically raise because the money has to come from somewhere.

An insurance company can make a profit precisely because they don’t insure the people who are unable to pay or are prone to medical needs (or at very high rates if they do). The government’s system couldn’t turn anyone away, thus they would not make a profit. When they can’t do that, they have to extract the money from somewhere to continue to pay the bills (raising taxes again).

The government has proven that they cannot manage money efficiently. I don’t trust them to run a system like that.

 

[goofyjim]

Goodbye all. I’m leaving because I see absolutely no compassion. Everyone is afraid to pay taxes as though it is an anitchristian thing. I seem to remember Jesus saying give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. I interpret this as an okay for government to charge taxes for certain items and one of those should be to take care of its less advantaged citizens. Can it be done more efficiently? Of course. But should we take all the programs away because it is not done to our liking? Well that would be like punishing all corporations for the actions of some foolish ones like Enron, which definitely was a case of the wealthy ripping off the small guy.

 

[Caesar517]

I seem to remember Jesus saying give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

Should I give you my mailing address, or do you use PayPal?

On a serious note, he didn’t say, “give to Caesar what belongs to you so that Caesar can give it to Bob as he sees fit even though it’s yours and not Caesar’s or Bob’s to begin with.”

I interpret this as an okay for government to charge taxes for certain items…

So do I.

…and one of those should be to take care of its less advantaged citizens.

The US constitution protects us against this (or wouold if anyone read it anymore). The Founding fathers forsaw this stuff and made sure the federal government didn’t have that power. That power has been unconstitutionally usurped.

Can it be done more efficiently? Of course. But should we take all the programs away because it is not done to our liking?

If it can be done more efficiently, I think we should go for it.

Well that would be like punishing all corporations for the actions of some foolish ones like Enron, which definitely was a case of the wealthy ripping off the small guy.

Enron is long gone. In addition, the people involved in that scandal will have a harder time finding work again (nothing says “hire me” like being involved in a corporate scam, lol).

 

[Oscarthecat]

Um that’s great for the other recommendations but I don’t live in a house and my apartment can’t get any smaller unless you suggest I move away from the 2 bedroom I share now and rent a single room. Would be foolish.

You could also try to find a job that pays more- I’ve heard that people do that sometimes when they can’t pay all their bills.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Should I give you my mailing address, or do you use PayPal?

HAHAHAHA!

 

[goofyjim]

Like I said. Callous responses.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When will you stop your false accusation that I don’t work hard. You don’t know me.

I’ve never accused you of not working as hard as you can, Jim.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Cynic argues for the compassion of needy and wants to force more from the Peoples pocket without accounting for the billions already are out there for just such a purpose.

Cynic begs the question. He wants us to agree with his premise that government-run programs are good things and that they work in order to prove to us that government-run programs are good things and that they work.

I , and probably most people that have some means are not opposed to helping others that do not have the means, even by way of a tax as it were but I challange anyone to say they trust the federal government with their money to spend it wisely and for the intended purpose. An endless stream of examples of watsed and inappropriate use of tax payer funds could be found in things from NASA to the military, to other things.

No, I’m not willing to give the federal government $15 more.

Some people think that being unwilling to fund wasteful, counter-productive government programs equates to being unwilling to help.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Some people think that being unwilling to fund wasteful, counter-productive government programs equates to being unwilling to help.

But Vern, you have said in previous posts your support for wasteful and counter-productive programs (war in Iraq, foreign aid, foreign US military bases) that are funded by income taxes taken from the unwilling- me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s not how insurance works. You pay a premium to get better coverage than you could afford on your own income. They invest it and make it grow to stay profitable and in return pay your bills should a catastrophe hit. If there are absolutely no inurance companies willing to cover the disabled someone’s got to do it.

No, Jim, that is how insurance works.

The insurance companies charge the average customer more than they expect to pay out on the average customer. They develop statistical profiles so that, while they may pay out more than a particular customer pays in, overall, they have a net surplus – and it is this surplus they invest.

 

[Peregrino]

But Vern, you have said in previous posts your support for wasteful and counter-productive programs (war in Iraq, foreign aid, foreign US military bases) that are funded by income taxes taken from the unwilling- me.

Ditto on this comment. I would be happy to scrap the $500 billion plus military budget and provide everyone with universal health care. It is not a matter of money, it is just a matter of who gets it.

Interesting note: the military provides its members with fairly universal (dare we say socialized) health care…

 

[vern_humphrey]

But Vern, you have said in previous posts your support for wasteful and counter-productive programs (war in Iraq, foreign aid, foreign US military bases) that are funded by income taxes taken from the unwilling- me.

Because I live in the real world. And I know what it’s like to command in combat.

Doctrinaire strategies don’t work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ditto on this comment. I would be happy to scrap the $500 billion plus military budget and provide everyone with universal health care. It is not a matter of money, it is just a matter of who gets it.

Scrapping the military would be like scrapping the police – the crooks and predators of this world would take everything you have.

Interesting note: the military provides its members with fairly universal (dare we say socialized) health care…

That’s because, prior to WW II, more soldiers died of disease than of wounds. It makes more sense to preserve the health of the soldiers, and to return the wounded to health than to continually replace losses with half-trained men.

 

[Peregrino]

Scrapping the military would be like scrapping the police – the crooks and predators of this world would take everything you have.

That’s because, prior to WW II, more soldiers died of disease than of wounds. It makes more sense to preserve the health of the soldiers, and to return the wounded to health than to continually replace losses with half-trained men.

I doubt that the canadians or mexicans or maybe even “the terrorists” are likely to invade anytime soon…

Since you want to reduce soldiers/people to some form of commodity, why not argue that “more workers die of disease than wounds” and argue that it “makes more sense” to preserve the health of the workers than continually replace their losses with less experienced people?

Would Jesus be in favor of universal health care? I think we all know the answer to this question…

 

[Caesar517]

Would Jesus be in favor of universal health care? I think we all know the answer to this question…

Jesus told us to take care of the poor and needy. He never told us how we should do it.

Charity seems more Christ-like to me than forced donation.