Why Am I for nationa healthcare?

[Charlotte408]

I have several problems with the healthcare bill. I think, yes, we need reform, but,

1.) I dont want to be REQUIRED to buy this healthcare. If I’m healthy and dont want/need it, and/or if I want to spend my HARD earned money on what I want, I shouldnt be punished. We will be required to purchase it, its not the FREE universal healthcare that everyone thinks it is. And if you dont, you will be penalized with a fine and/or imprisioned. Scary if your poor huh? Or want to make a choice for yourself.

2.) Language has been included to make decisions ‘unrepealable’. That means that if they decide that you cant have an operation, you cant have it. No appeals. Thats it. How is that any different from your insurance before, who may or may not have approved certain procedures? Except now you just have to live (or die) with the consequences, no appeal.

This bill is not about healthcare reform, its about power. Even the constitution can be amended, yet they are working on making this healthcare bill more permanent than the constitution- Once its in place, it will be there to stay. My mom recently said, " I dont care what the original bill says, it will take people like us, over time, to pick thru the fine print and only over time will we reach a healthcare that is not flawed- at the beggining there will be a lot of debate and controversy, but I have faith in the american people to weed out all the bad stuff "…

What she doesnt understand is, once its done, its done. There will be no backtracking. Obama said he would sign no earmarks. He’s had to bribe how many of his OWN party members to get them to sign this bill that even they dont support. He said there would be transparency, it would all be on the internet for us to read, covered on C-SPAN-

Where is it Obama? All this was done behind closed doors with bribes, and you refused to let our congressmen go home for Christmas until the vote went through…This is the way you do business?

 

[Fran65]

I think England and Europe don’t know much about liberty or freedom.

I find it astonishing that anyone could seriously say this!

I’ll just point out that England is a democracy and was such before the ‘US’ even existed - 1295 if you’re interested. I’ll further point out that it was the English who invented the idea of a political party - the Conservative party. Over the last thousand years we have fought multiple wars both on our own soil and in the rest of Europe to defend our liberty; and whatever you happen to think about our present government we still have a strong and active system of political protest, activism and representation. We also have more than two mainstream political parties - a little more choice than some countries.

.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I find it astonishing that anyone could seriously say this!

I’ll just point out that England is a democracy and was such before the ‘US’ even existed - 1295 if you’re interested. I’ll further point out that it was the English who invented the idea of a political party - the Conservative party. Over the last thousand years we have fought multiple wars both on our own soil and in the rest of Europe to defend our liberty; and whatever you happen to think about our present government we still have a strong and active system of political protest, activism and representation. We also have more than two mainstream political parties - a little more choice than some countries.

.

I find it strange that England isn’t even included as part of Europe!!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I respectfully disagree that my question is moot. As Christians or as just good, responsible people, it is our duty to take care of those who are ill and that has a direct bearing on whether national healthcare is a good idea. If people are actually helping those who are ill then having national healthcare (or state-run programs or any other programs for that matter) may not even be necessary.

I think we need to have all the data before we can come to a consensus about this problem. Hence, my question.

Peace to you,
Christina

You’re missing my point. We are in agreement that Christians should do these things – it is a moral obligation. However, the problem with a government taking these services over is that it enables (in fact, encourages) people to abdicate their responsibilities.

In short, having a government that REQUIRES us to contribute our money to the benefit of others encourages people to stop there and do no more.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Lesser of 2 evils. Governement 1 st circle of Hell, insurance companies too evil for the 9th circle of Hell! Now do you get the picture?

My goodness, your bitterness toward private insurance companies is getting as out of hand as your metaphors!

Please remember that your opinion (which, by the way, has not yet been substantiated by anything remotely resembling evidence) is not an appropriate basis for determining whether our healthcare system ought to be nationalized. I (and many others) have provided facts that show that you are mistaken, and you are merely regurgitating these unsubstantiated condemnations of the insurance industry.

If you want people to believe you when you say that business is more “evil” than government, then SHOW US – don’t just make wilder and wilder claims, or your “argument” will have no credibility.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Fran65]

I have to say that even our own politicians and media refer to ‘Europe’ as a distinct entity from the UK. I think that being an island is partly responsible. I also have the impression that some in the US trust the UK a little more than they do the rest of Europe hence the distinction. It is still inaccurate.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I find it astonishing that anyone could seriously say this!

I’ll just point out that England is a democracy and was such before the ‘US’ even existed - 1295 if you’re interested. I’ll further point out that it was the English who invented the idea of a political party - the Conservative party. Over the last thousand years we have fought multiple wars both on our own soil and in the rest of Europe to defend our liberty; and whatever you happen to think about our present government we still have a strong and active system of political protest, activism and representation. We also have more than two mainstream political parties - a little more choice than some countries.

.

You have not responded to my post demonstrating that folks in the UK pay much higher taxes to support their socialized healthcare system. Care to comment?

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

OK, I am going to post this ONE more time.

The Catholic Church roundly condemns rampant capitalism, but she also roundly condemns “socialism in all its forms”. That in and of itself is an argument against this healthcare legislation. The following is a post with which I opened a previous thread:

Subsidiarity is a principle of governance which holds that matters should be settled by the most local competent authority. We see it all the time. For example, it would be absurd for the US Congress to pass a law raising the speed limit on Main Street in City Town, as this is more appropriately handled by the city’s government.

The Church teaches that subsidiarity should be the principle by which man governs his societies. From the Catechism (all emphasis added):

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

If you would like more Church teachings from the Catechism that relate to the topic, check out the section on the Seventh Commandment, which in addition to teachings about social justice and the universal destination of goods, we see an acknowledgement of the right to private property.

The Church, though not a supporter of unfettered, dog-eat-dog capitalism, condemns socialism. And that would be enough to end the discussion, even if we were NOT facing a healthcare bill that might fund abortions.

Peace,
Dante

 

[d97c]

The best reason NOT to be in favor of the Obama health Bill is that it is unconstitutional !!

heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm0049.cfm

 

[Ella]

You have not responded to my post demonstrating that folks in the UK pay much higher taxes to support their socialized healthcare system. Care to comment?

Peace,
Dante

If the US was contemplating an NHS like the UK has then the UK tax rate would be relevant. But we are not contemplating such a thing.

 

[pathia]

Please bear in mind that the debate is about everyone – and decisions that affect everyone cannot be made based on extreme and rare circumstances.

Peace,
Dante

I am in constant unending agonizing pain. It never stops. I can’t think about anything else. I’ve had a stroke. I’m only 29 and I’ve had a stroke, I can no longer walk properly. I hurt. I hurt so much. It never stops. If I didn’t consider it giving up I would have killed myself already. My entire lower body always feels like it is on fire, it never stops. Never. I wake up and I hurt. I go to sleep hurting. Now I can’t even work anymore.

The reason why I focus on myself so much, is because I literally have nothing left anymore. I have no family, I have very few friends, those that I do are as poor as I am. My credit is ruined for life. I will likely never work again.

This is my now. This is my existence. It has been completely ruined by the situation in the US with health care. I can’t even leave, because my debt is so high and now I can no longer work, I have no choice but to file a third bankruptcy as soon as I can, assuming I live that long.

Yes, it is all about me, because every day is a struggle just to bother continuing living. The only thing that keeps me going is spite now, I must admit. If I lost that, I’d probably die in my sleep. Nothing else keeps me around.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

If the US was contemplating an NHS like the UK has then the UK tax rate would be relevant. But we are not contemplating such a thing.

A. The OP was about national healthcare – a program that WOULD raise taxes.

B. Even leaving that aside, do you really think that the programs under consideration will NOT raise taxes?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Fran65]

I currently pay @25% of my gross salary in tax and NI. This compares favourably to the US system (depending on the costs of health insurance). I would rather be contributing to education, healthcare, defence, the legal system, roads, the fire service, care for the elderly, care for the poor and needy, the police etc than buying stuff I don’t need that will end up in landfill. The main problem I have is that the wealthy can avoid taxes by employing an expensive accountant and manipulating their income and estate. I had an acquaintance who was on 100 times my income and paid less tax than I did.

The reality is that in the UK there are private healthcare plans available and well used and we have more choice than some seem to realise as a result. Just the same as in the US, people can buy enhanced private health care cover that means choice of dates, doctors and treatment in a private hospital or ward. For example, some of my healthcare is provided by the NHS, but I see one of Cardiac Clinicians privately as he does not have an NHS list. He is employed as a Professor in Cardiology, but is the chairman of a large and busy teaching and research department. I pay him $226 per visit, he then tells my NHS doctors what I need. I also have a private dental plan that costs $12 per month - my choice because I wanted a particular private dentist.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I currently pay @25% of my gross salary in tax and NI. This compares favourably to the US system (depending on the costs of health insurance). I would rather be contributing to education, healthcare, defence, the legal system, roads, the fire service, care for the elderly, care for the poor and needy, the police etc than buying stuff I don’t need that will end up in landfill. The main problem I have is that the wealthy can avoid taxes by employing an expensive accountant and manipulating their income and estate. I had an acquaintance who was on 100 times my income and paid less tax than I did.

The implication of your response is that people will only contribute to such things if the government takes the money from them – effectively forcing them to be charitable. Perhaps if you had more of your disposable income (and 25% does compare favorably – I can only assume you fall into a lower tax bracket), you could do even more charitable work. Most important, however, is the fact that (as I’ve pointed out in other posts) government mandated “charity” is not charity at all. Yes, we ought to contribute to common needs, like roads and traffic lights, but looking after those in need is primarily the responsibility of you and me – not Uncle Sam (or Her Majesty).

Also troubling and inaccurate is the implication that the only thing to do with more disposable income is to buy “stuff I don’t need”. What about investing and otherwise preparing for the future, or providing for a family?

The reality is that in the UK there are private healthcare plans available and well used and we have more choice than some seem to realise as a result. Just the same as in the US, people can buy enhanced private health care cover that means choice of dates, doctors and treatment in a private hospital or ward. For example, some of my healthcare is provided by the NHS, but I see one of Cardiac Clinicians privately as he does not have an NHS list. He is employed as a Professor in Cardiology, but is the chairman of a large and busy teaching and research department. I pay him $226 per visit, he then tells my NHS doctors what I need. I also have a private dental plan that costs $12 per month - my choice because I wanted a particular private dentist.

But if one can’t afford $226 to see a cardiologist, what are one’s options? Wait and see?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Fran65]

That is the standard rate up to $65,000p.a. Once that income is reached so called ‘super tax’ begins. I’m in the top 10% income bracket in the UK and on the cusp of paying ‘super tax’ for the very wealthy. Not that I am very wealthy - mortgage, son at university and other family responsibilities take care of that! LOL. I must admit the prospect of paying the same tax rate as those on multimillions is quite a scary one to me. As to your other points, I agree entirely. Investment, preparation for the future, and care of the family are all important.

The problem with relying on charity is that we live in a secular society where not many people recognise their responsibilities to care for others. I heard yesterday that $6billion dollars was spent in Christmas and New Year sales last year (we have big discount sales after Christmas in the UK). According to the study this was on ‘stuff’ that people would not even use and would throw away eventually. I can’t cite the source, its methodology or its accuracy. It is something to consider though.

Regarding your last point, the NHS system is that you see your primary care physician who decides if you need a referral to a specialist. If you have private care then you ring the specialist’s secretary to organise an appointment. If you’re not then you wait for the clinic to contact you with an appointment. The pcp’s referral letter will indicate if it is an urgent referral. They can also ring the specialist on the same day and send you to the hospital on the same day with a referral letter. Waiting times vary, but cancer and heart disease have very tight targets to meet. For example, breast cancer patients have to be seen within a couple of weeks and often it is the same week. Psychiatry is the worst - if it is not urgent you can wait 6 months to see someone.

It has its strengths and weaknesses, but it certainly isn’t the third world, broken system that some portray it as - I don’t mean that you have by the way.

Happy New Year.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

That is the standard rate up to $65,000p.a. Once that income is reached so called ‘super tax’ begins. I’m in the top 10% income bracket in the UK and on the cusp of paying ‘super tax’ for the very wealthy. Not that I am very wealthy - mortgage, son at university and other family responsibilities take care of that! LOL. I must admit the prospect of paying the same tax rate as those on multimillions is quite a scary one to me. As to your other points, I agree entirely. Investment, preparation for the future, and care of the family are all important.

The problem with relying on charity is that we live in a secular society where not many people recognise their responsibilities to care for others. I heard yesterday that $6billion dollars was spent in Christmas and New Year sales last year (we have big discount sales after Christmas in the UK). According to the study this was on ‘stuff’ that people would not even use and would throw away eventually. I can’t cite the source, its methodology or its accuracy. It is something to consider though.

I’m not suggesting that we “rely” on charity – in other words, hope for everyone to be charitable. Unfortunately, though, enforced giving is devoid of charity – people do it because they have to. The result of this is very often a new problem with two heads and a divisive nature: the people from whom money is taken may both feel they’ve done “enough” and come to resent the folks who benefit from their “giving”, and the recipients of these benefits may come to expect it and/or rely on it, thus losing the impetus to better their situations so that they are better able to provide for themselves. It is the reality of welfare programs that, the more comprehensive they are, the more fraud and abuse of the system they see.

Furthermore, as Catholics, we are duty-bound to spread the truth. Thus, we ought to spread the truth that individual charity is the only way to solve any of the world’s problems. To support a system that is based on the assumption that people are inherently and irrevocably selfish seems to fly in the face of the truth, IMHO.

Regarding your last point, the NHS system is that you see your primary care physician who decides if you need a referral to a specialist. If you have private care then you ring the specialist’s secretary to organise an appointment. If you’re not then you wait for the clinic to contact you with an appointment. The pcp’s referral letter will indicate if it is an urgent referral. They can also ring the specialist on the same day and send you to the hospital on the same day with a referral letter. Waiting times vary, but cancer and heart disease have very tight targets to meet. For example, breast cancer patients have to be seen within a couple of weeks and often it is the same week. Psychiatry is the worst - if it is not urgent you can wait 6 months to see someone.

It has its strengths and weaknesses, but it certainly isn’t the third world, broken system that some portray it as - I don’t mean that you have by the way.

Happy New Year.

I don’t believe it to be broken or “third world”, your system – I merely believe that it is a bloated, inefficient, and hyperexpensive system built on the financial backs of the people so that the government can say, “Look what we’ve done for the people!” I suspect that part of the reason it hasn’t collapsed as yet is that the UK has a relatively small population and that the government has always had a large hand in the general economy.

Imagine what would happen in a nation of nearly 300 million people that is accustomed to less government intervention!

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ella]

A. The OP was about national healthcare – a program that WOULD raise taxes.

B. Even leaving that aside, do you really think that the programs under consideration will NOT raise taxes?

Peace,
Dante

You’re using the UK taxes as an example (an exaggerated example) of the taxes we would face in the U.S., but the UK taxes are irrelevant because we are not contemplating a huge gov’t healthcare system like the NHS.

 

[Ella]

The U.S. already spends more now on health care, per capita, than any other western country. Yet unlike every other western country we have people who are uninsured.

We spend more, and cover less people.

This op-ed:forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html
has some good quotes in it I would like for you to ponder:

"Americans widely believe that while the our health system is expensive it is nevertheless the best in the world. However, a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggests otherwise.

…despite spending vastly more on health than any other country, the U.S. has little to show for it in terms of key measures of health resources. For example, we have fewer physicians per capita than most other OECD countries: 2.43 per 1,000 population versus an OECD average of 3.1. Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway all spend at least a third less of GDP on health than the U.S. yet have almost four doctors per 1,000 population.Only four OECD countries have fewer acute care hospital beds per capita than the U.S. We have 2.7 per 1,000 population versus an OECD average of 3.8. Japan has 8.2 acute care beds per 1,000 population despite spending half as much of its GDP on health as the U.S. does."

Here is a list of the OECD countries.

"(some Americans)…fear that any further expansion of government involvement in the health care system will only make it more expensive. This is a key objection to the health care reform bill now working its way through Congress.

The international data, however, show no evidence that increasing government’s share of health care expenditures raises health spending as a share of GDP."

Read that again.

 

[d97c]

The bill as written is unconstitutional

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html

 

[tjm190]

Well let’s see- let’s say there are 10 Picasso’s up for sale at an auction. There are 10 people- one willing to pay 10 million, one willing to pay 9 million, and so on down to the one willing to pay one million.

In this scenario, there will be 55 million dollars spent and 10 people receiving paintings.
But let’s say an 11th guy comes along. He’s willing to pay 100 million and ten dollars. He’ll end up paying 10 million and 1 dollars for each painting to out bid the ten million dollar guy.
Now 100 million and 10 dollars will be spent and only one guy will get any paintings.
This is an exaggerated version of why healthcare in the U.S. is more expensive and not everybody is covered- because the demand exceeds the supply. People purchase as much as they can- but this means that others will be stuck with less, and in some cases be left out entirely.

There is no true solution aside from increasing supply or decreasing demand. Pseudo solutions include taking from those who are buyings lots and give to those who can’t afford any, or rationing.