Universal health insurance

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

I already debunked this one in my earlier thread. This report is wrong.

I would also argue that health care is NOT a “right”. It requires other people to do something, which our basic human rights do NOT require. They require others to leave us alone. Health care is NOT a right.

Perhaps not. But it is a DUTY! I am totally amazed that people don’t think that other people’s health, or lack thereof, actually affects them.

 

[Oscarthecat]

No. I think you are misunderstanding a bit.

It is not socialized medicine. It is medical insurance and part of the welfare program, called transitional assistance. Medicaide is a program to help assist people financially with their medical (and sometimes dental) costs. It’s not part of the Public Health Department. It’s part of Human Services or Social Services.

Medicaid is socialized medicine. I am very familiar with it. I don’t know how you define socialized medicine, but I define it as any medical services program operated by the government, funded by the redistribution of wealth, in order to provide medical care to those who are unable to afford it.

At this moment, while I am writing this I absolutely cannot believe the heartlessness and idocacy of anyone who would believe that childen or any poor person should not be seen by a doctor because they happen to be poor.

I get the feeling that you are calling me a heartless idiot, but I’m sure that is not your intent.

Like you, I believe it is wrong to allow others to go without necessary care. Unlike you, I believe that the government is not the best way to provide care to those in need.

I am disappointed that you have misunderstood my position that:
socialized medicine is a sickening distortion of our call to Christian Charity because it takes the authentic experience of living in community with one another, and of recognizing and responding to the needs of others through freely offered gift of human kindness and distorts it into something completely unrecognizable, wherein individuals with resources are compelled by government force to surrender their resources, wherein individuals in need are conditioned to believe that they are powerless over their own lives, that they are worthless in the eyes of other human beings to the point that the only way they can survive is to rely on the use of force by a governmental body to take from others and give to them, wherein what should be a mutually beneficial relationship based on compassion, humility and genuine concern for one’s fellow human being is replaced with manipulative politicians fostering class warfare.

with the notion that I simply hate the sick and the poor, that I care so little about people that I would rather they die than receive any help from me, and that our society so saturated with moral degenerates like me that the government is the last, best, and only hope for the sick and the poor.

I separated the lines of the following section to emphasize the tone with which you wrote about those who disagree with you.

What are you people doing now?

Eating chips and watching TV in a comfortable house,

reading this and then going about boasting how you are better

than anyone because you pay taxes and you are a better citizen

that anyone else or whatever.

I do not claim to be better than anyone in need.

Your tone, however, indicates that you believe yourself to be better than those who disagree with you.

We are all in need, because everything we have comes from God. What we have been given, we should share with others.

The government simply does not need to be a part of that process.

Sorry to shake you up but not everyone is well off like some of you.

I really doubt you have shaken anyone up with this, but I accept your apology nonetheless.

And I think some of the stuff I have read here is just plain sinful pride and that you should be ashamed.

What, specifically, are you referring to? I’m unclear on this point.

I cannot see how anyone who is a Catholic Christian can not believe that poor people deserve health care care without having to jump through hoops.

I completely agree with you on this point. It seems we have found common ground.

Let me now address this:
Abortions are not put at the “top of the list.”

Got it.

They just absolutely bump any case that an available worker is working on the moment they walk up to the reception counter and complete the initial form and state they are pregant and seeking benefits in order to have an abortion.

But you just said they didn’t…uh, I’ve lost you here. So, they don’t put them at the top of the list, but they “absolutely bump any case…”

Where do they bump them? I just assumed that it was to the top of the list, I guess.

Medi-Cal cases can take up to a month and a half to approve and sometimes the deadline can be extended. As it was explained to me, working the case right away would help to avoid a late term abortion. This is why they would call it “top priority”.

So “top priority” cases are or are not put at the top of the list?

The lobby reception calls you and tells you that you have just been assigned the case and the client is on their way up. You are already into a case on your desk, have calls to make, and whatever, but all other work is put on hold til you interview that client and work her case with her there.

All other work is put on hold, you focus all of your energy on the case at hand. But that case is not at the top of the list. Getting confused here.

I elected not to respond directly to any of your further comments out of respect for the personal issues you brought up.

Suffice it to say, I think you have jumped to the conclusion, and
went on the offensive based on that conclusion, that those of us who are opposed to UHC are heartless, and could not care less about those in need.

I recommend you revisit your conclusions on this point and reflect on the quote you ended your post with:

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philoshophy.”

My position, all along, has been that UHC is bad because of all the reasons I posted above. I have also submitted in previous posts that our current system of healthcare is grossly insufficient and inequitable, and requires significant reform at the level of the individual.

I will say again: I am disappointed that, despite your insightful quote, you seem to be so critical of those who want to avoid UHC and seek a better solution that doesn’t involve government force.

 

[cynic]

Then you need to review previous posts.

I was talking about my country. Although the quality of the health system is always up for debate, the rationing you describe doesn’t happen.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Perhaps not. But it is a DUTY! I am totally amazed that people don’t think that other people’s health, or lack thereof, actually affects them.

Correct, it is a duty. In Catholic Social Teaching, what you are calling a “duty” is called a “responsibility.” We operate in society according to the balance of our rights and responsibilities.

CST is also very clear that we are to fulfill our responsibilities in community with one another, through organized, structured efforts when that is the most expedient manner. However, at the same time, CST warns that these organized, structured efforts to fulfill our responsibilities to the poor and the needy should not be allowed to violate the principle of subsidiarity.

UHC violates the principle of subsidiarity, and it does it with bells on.

 

[cynic]

socialized medicine is a sickening distortion of our call to Christian Charity because it takes the authentic experience of living in community with one another, and of recognizing and responding to the needs of others through freely offered gift of human kindness and distorts it into something completely unrecognizable, wherein individuals with resources are compelled by government force to surrender their resources, wherein individuals in need are conditioned to believe that they are powerless over their own lives, that they are worthless in the eyes of other human beings to the point that the only way they can survive is to rely on the use of force by a governmental body to take from others and give to them, wherein what should be a mutually beneficial relationship based on compassion, humility and genuine concern for one’s fellow human being is replaced with manipulative politicians fostering class warfare.
.

And it’s this kind of extreme hyperbolic statement that polarises people. Are recipients of taxpayer funded healthcare *supposed *to believe they are worthless? Does everyone paying tax resent it simply because it doesn’t count as Christian Charity?

 

[Oscarthecat]

I was talking about my country. Although the quality of the health system is always up for debate, the rationing you describe doesn’t happen.

Are you from Canada?
If not, then my comments at least still apply to one country with UHC-

articles have been posted repeatedly citing recent occasions when one of the founders of the canadian health system specifically referred to rationing as a means of reducing costs.

source:
ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

 

[BamaRider]

UHC will both save money,* since it reduces bureaucracy*, and be better for the common man

Will you listen to what you just said??

I don’t know why you find it objectionable. Universal health care is cheaper and better for most people.

I find it objectionable because I wanna ride my motorcycles, buy big screen TVs, eat out, and take vacations, and give my money to who I see fit to, none of which I can do if we go like Canada to a heavy tax burden. Now I enjoy a 17% tax rate, and have BCBS provided to me via my agency. One fo the reasons I joined the fire dept all those years ago,* the benefits*. My plan was nothing special.

“Most people” these are the people with cable tv, 2 cars, big house, private schools, lawn care etc but for some reason have no health insurance. And we all KNOW there are millions of them, and I’m gonna tell these people what they don’t wanna hear. Get rid of some of that stuff and buy ya some health insurance, because turning it over to the govt you’re gonna be having a yard sale becaue your tax rate is not gonna allow ya keep alot of it.

Now I’m gonna be villifed for saying that, but its true, Now go back and weed those people out, who just have messed up priorities and then come back and I might listen.

The man who dessigned the health care system said the system is broke and every year its a struggle to keep afloat. Only 2 options, reduce service, jack up the taxes. And in a few years they’ll be taxing us just like the Canada and the UK, nearly 50% of what ya make. Heck, that is downright crimminal. I don’t know how they get up and go to work everyday,

 

[Oscarthecat]

And it’s this kind of extreme hyperbolic statement that polarises people. Are recipients of taxpayer funded healthcare *supposed *to believe they are worthless? Does everyone paying tax resent it simply because it doesn’t count as Christian Charity?

No one is supposed to believe they are worthless.No one is worthless.

But people certainly begin to feel that way when they are made to believe that they are completely dependent upon the government for their basic needs, and are told by those running for office that no one but the government cares enough to help them, and that the only way people will hand over the money to help them is in response to the threat of government force.

 

[BamaRider]

Many of y’all fail to see how such a huge Govt Program will rob you of your economic and healtcare freedom. Will it give you some security? Probably, but at a very steep price.

For people like ME, Oscarcat, Vern, goin down to statehouse, signing up to have our checks garnished, and surrendering my healtcare over to the govt goes against every fiber in our being. I’d feel like I was signing a confession of some sort. But then I’d look at those rushing down there thinking they were were gonna be saved, and shake my head.

No thanks I prefer to keep as much of the money I earn as possible to spend, save, give away as I see fit. I see that notion upsets a few people.

 

[EphelDuath]

Many communities have volunteer fire departments. Many communities don’t compel citizens to pay for, or consequently benefit from, fire control services.

“Many”

Also, the federal government doesn’t control all fire control services in a “universal” fashion throughout the country.

Who says UHC has to be managed at a federal level? The federal government mandates that insurance must be provided for all people – but the details can be left up to the states, or even the cities.

Public water? My in-laws own their own well-as does everyone else in their middle-income neighborhood.

Does this imply that the poor don’t get water unless some charitable organization is nice to them?

Public education is a socialist endeavor. Always has been- and look at the state of public schools. Hey, maybe after you institute UHC you could follow up with a “NO PATIENT LEFT BEHIND” act. That would be just super.

Failing education is unique to the U.S. Public education works excellently in many European countries.

UHC think that what they are doing is a “benefit” to everyone. But you’re forgetting that many people in the US are happy with their healthcare choices, or are happy to have healthcare choices rather than have the government control their healthcare for them. What you want to do is “benefit” a small portion of society to the detriment of the rest of society.

Who says that my health care must be forced upon you? If you want free health care, fine; if you want private health care, fine. But you still have to pay for the health care of other peoples.

I am not suggesting that nationalizing private industry is a socialist action.
I am declaring it.

Then roughly every one of the Founding Fathers was a socialist.

As far as the rest of what you said, I’m going to assume you don’t know what you’re talking about unless you are able to provide a list with the name of every american who has ever existed, the name of the industry they advocated nationalizing, and a primary source to support your claim.

National defense is a “socialist” business by your standards. Therefore, save for anarcho-capitalists, everybody else is a socialist. Meaning that Rothbardians (or other forms of anarcho-capitalists) are the only people not socialists.

This aspect of this discussion has already been addressed in previous posts. Please find and read them before rehashing an old argument.

Can you simply quote the posts in mention? There’s 55 pages in this thread and I don’t have the time to go through them all.

In short, if our founding fathers had taken your advice, and simply moved to another country rather than protesting unfair taxation, then we’d all be subjects of the United Kingdom right now.

The unfair taxation from Britain was so they could fund their empires overseas. Not exactly something the Americans enjoyed. There’s nothing unfair about taxing to provide health care for the needy, just like there’s nothing unfair about taxing to provide national defense.

Taxes are a violation of my rights when they are used to fund anything that I find morally objectionable. Your criteria for what is morally objectionable might begin at “absolute persecution,” but I set the bar a little higher.

Your taxes are paying for public education. I guess you better move to Hong Kong or stop earning money, lest you fund something you find morally objectionable.

 

[BamaRider]

This is what they don’t tell ya

In 2006, the average Canadian family earned an income of $63,001 and paid total taxes equaling **$28,311 **-- 44.9 per cent of its income.

That is staggering. My tax bill in Alabama is 17% of my income, and my family income is more than 63k. So yeah I paid about 20k less in taxes on more money. And that is why I have more toys, do things, go places, and do more then a Canadian with the same income. Simply a case of numbers.

I’m much more free to spend my money how I want to. I can spend that difference on housing, cars, boats, big screens, Direct TV LOL. But hey, he’s govt healtcare! LOL., and I can STILL get my hernia fixed in 2 weeks, and he can’t!

My tax situation is not unusual, I take the standard dedcutions, and don’t itemize.

For sure there are some states in the U.S. that are punishing people near the rate of the Canadians so it depends on where ya live.

How about this tidbit-

By 2006, the average family was giving 44.9 per cent of its income to governments for taxes while using 35.6 per cent of its income to buy the necessities of life – food, clothing and housing.

The number one expense for a Canadian is the govt take. More then housing, food, clothing, COMBINED. Awesome. The average Canadian after he pays taxes, and the necessities of life, has about 20% of his money left for transportation, charity, and having fun. Ugh. The quotes come from this link-

fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.web/newsrelease.aspx?nid=4179

In Alabama a family with a income of 60k a year lives pretty dang good. Two cars, boat, large brick home, on a huge lot, all the toys, I can fill up this forum with such people.

It is all in what ya like. If you want security the Canadian system will work, it will be a trade off. My experience in the 2 countries is vast and thorough. What you have in Canada is a large middle class, with very few in the 2 extremes. You wont find the level of poor in Canada you will find in the deep south where I come from, but you also wont find the huge upper middle class the south has. It wasn’t long ago, a family in Alabama with a 100k income would “rich” (well the dems still call a welder making 50k with a waitress wife making 30k rich) now they would be put in the upper middle class ranks, and that rank is growing.

There is a huge class swing in Alabama. But for those with a steady job, life is pretty good.

So given these numbers, cradle to grave govt, which the people up there demand, is expensive. In that system you may not ever dip into poverty with so many safety nets, but it is virtually impossible to break out of the middle class, to the high echelons.

People land on the shores of America every single day, and become millionares, that doesn’t happen anywhere else. Because to do that the govt has to get out of your way.

UHC is product of the nanny state mentality. I won’t know part of it. The system here needs fixing, but it ain’t broke enough to where I’m willing to give up my freedom, and that is what makes Americans so unique in the world.

 

[BamaRider]

This is what they don’t tell ya

In 2006, the average Canadian family earned an income of $63,001 and paid total taxes equaling **$28,311 **-- 44.9 per cent of its income.

That is staggering. My tax bill in Alabama is 17% of my income, and my family income is more than 63k. So yeah I paid about 20k less in taxes on more money. And that is why I have more toys, do things, go places, and do more then a Canadian with the same income. Simply a case of numbers.

I’m much more free to spend my money how I want to. I can spend that difference on housing, cars, boats, big screens, Direct TV LOL. But hey, he’s govt healtcare! LOL., and I can STILL get my hernia fixed in 2 weeks, and he can’t!

My tax situation is not unusual, I take the standard dedcutions, and don’t itemize.

For sure there are some states in the U.S. that are punishing people near the rate of the Canadians so it depends on where ya live.

How about this tidbit-

By 2006, the average family was giving 44.9 per cent of its income to governments for taxes while using 35.6 per cent of its income to buy the necessities of life – food, clothing and housing.

The number one expense for a Canadian is the govt take. More then housing, food, clothing, COMBINED. Awesome. The average Canadian after he pays taxes, and the necessities of life, has about 20% of his money left for transportation, charity, and having fun. Ugh. The quotes come from this link-

fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.web/newsrelease.aspx?nid=4179

In Alabama a family with a income of 60k a year lives pretty dang good. Two cars, boat, large brick home, on a huge lot, all the toys, I can fill up this forum with such people.

It is all in what ya like. If you want security the Canadian system will work, it will be a trade off. My experience in the 2 countries is vast and thorough. What you have in Canada is a large middle class, with very few in the 2 extremes. You wont find the level of poor in Canada you will find in the deep south where I come from, but you also wont find the huge upper middle class the south has. It wasn’t long ago, a family in Alabama with a 100k income would “rich” (well the dems still call a welder making 50k with a waitress wife making 30k rich) now they would be put in the upper middle class ranks, and that rank is growing.

There is a huge class swing in Alabama. But for those with a steady job, life is pretty good.

So given these numbers, cradle to grave govt, which the people up there demand, is expensive. In that system you may not ever dip into poverty with so many safety nets, but it is virtually impossible to break out of the middle class, to the high echelons.

People land on the shores of America every single day, and become millionares, that doesn’t happen anywhere else. Because to do that the govt has to get out of your way.

UHC is product of the nanny state mentality. I won’t know part of it. The system here needs fixing, but it ain’t broke enough to where I’m willing to give up my freedom, and that is what makes Americans so unique in the world.

 

[BamaRider]

This is what they don’t tell ya

In 2006, the average Canadian family earned an income of $63,001 and paid total taxes equaling **$28,311 **-- 44.9 per cent of its income.

That is staggering. My tax bill in Alabama is 17% of my income, and my family income is more than 63k. So yeah I paid about 20k less in taxes on more money. And that is why I have more toys, do things, go places, and do more then a Canadian with the same income. Simply a case of numbers.

I’m much more free to spend my money how I want to. I can spend that difference on housing, cars, boats, big screens, Direct TV LOL. But hey, he’s govt healtcare! LOL., and I can STILL get my hernia fixed in 2 weeks, and he can’t!

My tax situation is not unusual, I take the standard dedcutions, and don’t itemize.

For sure there are some states in the U.S. that are punishing people near the rate of the Canadians so it depends on where ya live.

How about this tidbit-

By 2006, the average family was giving 44.9 per cent of its income to governments for taxes while using 35.6 per cent of its income to buy the necessities of life – food, clothing and housing.

The number one expense for a Canadian is the govt take. More then housing, food, clothing, COMBINED. Awesome. The average Canadian after he pays taxes, and the necessities of life, has about 20% of his money left for transportation, charity, and having fun. Ugh. The quotes come from this link-

fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.web/newsrelease.aspx?nid=4179

In Alabama a family with a income of 60k a year lives pretty dang good. Two cars, boat, large brick home, on a huge lot, all the toys, I can fill up this forum with such people.

It is all in what ya like. If you want security the Canadian system will work, it will be a trade off. My experience in the 2 countries is vast and thorough. What you have in Canada is a large middle class, with very few in the 2 extremes. You wont find the level of poor in Canada you will find in the deep south where I come from, but you also wont find the huge upper middle class the south has. It wasn’t long ago, a family in Alabama with a 100k income would “rich” (well the dems still call a welder making 50k with a waitress wife making 30k rich) now they would be put in the upper middle class ranks, and that rank is growing.

There is a huge class swing in Alabama. But for those with a steady job, life is pretty good.

So given these numbers, cradle to grave govt, which the people up there demand, is expensive. In that system you may not ever dip into poverty with so many safety nets, but it is virtually impossible to break out of the middle class, to the high echelons.

People land on the shores of America every single day, and become millionares, that doesn’t happen anywhere else. Because to do that the govt has to get out of your way.

UHC is product of the nanny state mentality. I won’t know part of it. The system here needs fixing, but it ain’t broke enough to where I’m willing to give up my freedom, and that is what makes Americans so unique in the world.

 

[EphelDuath]

That is staggering. My tax bill in Alabama is 17% of my income, and my family income is more than 63k. So yeah I paid about 20k less in taxes on more money. And that is why I have more toys, do things, go places, and do more then a Canadian with the same income. Simply a case of numbers.

This is misleading. Canadian taxes are higher, but they spend less on medicine than the U.S. does.

 

[mary_bobo]

Many of y’all fail to see how such a huge Govt Program will rob you of your economic and healtcare freedom. Will it give you some security? Probably, but at a very steep price.

It will give as much security as the government will allow. You will no longer be able to get your healthcare as most of us currently do. You will be confined to that care which the government chooses to grant you. I don’t think that will fly in this country.

For people like ME, Oscarcat, Vern, goin down to statehouse, signing up to have our checks garnished, and surrendering my healtcare over to the govt goes against every fiber in our being. I’d feel like I was signing a confession of some sort. But then I’d look at those rushing down there thinking they were were gonna be saved, and shake my head.

No thanks I prefer to keep as much of the money I earn as possible to spend, save, give away as I see fit. I see that notion upsets a few people.

 

[sodak]

Some random libertarian that I do not care about is not a higher authority than the World Health Organization, or basically any organization in the world that surveys health care.

You have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. They speak for themselves and debunk the WHO report. Dismissing them by attacking the messenger is a classic tactic that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny of any kind.

I don’t think it’s a right to let somebody die because they’re poor either.

You really don’t understand the use of the term “human right”. We have to get the definitions sorted out first before any meaningful discussion can take place.

 

[sodak]

Perhaps not. But it is a DUTY! I am totally amazed that people don’t think that other people’s health, or lack thereof, actually affects them.

I didn’t say that. Don’t put words into my mouth (or posts). First we need to agree on terms before we can have a rational discussion.

You’ve already noted that you’re too upset to discuss this. If that’s the case, we’ll note it and drop this. If you do want to discuss this, then we need to first agree on terms and definitions before we can move forward.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Christian centered psychology means they don’t accept alot of modern psychology and as for the charity part I have yet to see someone who will just pay the bills with no stipulations.

Do you think the government doesn’t have stipulations?

 

[BamaRider]

And I don’t know why it posted 3 times, and then timed out LOL… .

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is misleading. Canadian taxes are higher, but they spend less on medicine than the U.S. does.

That’s because they cheat, and throw the whole R&D cost back on the US taxpayer.

But generics cost more in Canada than in the US.