Why Am I for nationa healthcare?

[DanteAlighieri]

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.

You didn’t answer my question: do you think that the government programs that ARE under consideration will NOT raise taxes? If so, you are mistaken. The Senate plan will call for tax increases that begin this year, while the actual “benefits” do not kick in for four more years.

In addition to that is the real possibility that, faced with either paying for insurance for their employees or paying a fine, business may opt for the fine if it is cheaper. Thus, many workers will likely flood the national insurance “exchanges”, bloating the system further and raising costs.

Furthermore, the stated preference of the President, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Majority Leader is a “public option” – in fact, the President is on record as ultimately favoring a “single payer” system (e.g., a system fully run by the government). It is inaccurate to say that we are not faced with this possibility, even if the final bill that reaches the Oval Office does not explicitly state it.

Additionally, the UK situation is relevant because it demonstrates what happens when the government takes a heavy hand in social programs: taxes go up. They HAVE to – no government can provide “free” services; the money HAS to come from somewhere. The UK and any other government-run system is proof of that.

Finally, my example is not “exaggerated” as you claim. I used real numbers from reputable sources to come to my conclusion. Perhaps my methodology was not ideal; I’m no statistician. Nonetheless, if you believe the example to be exaggerated, then please show me how it is so.

Peace,
Dante

 

[HisWill777]

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.

Ah…but this is only a precursor of things to come. The Dems want an NHS, this is only step one. Even so, taxes will be raised if this passes, you really cannot be so naive? The Dems will not pay for this by cutting Medicare or by hurting Unions w/ Cadillac plans. They will say these things, but look at the Dems history, they love to raise taxes on all whenever, wherever they can. Slowly they move towards a socialist state. They look at all things that control our lives, and they want control (energy, via the environment, healthcare, banking, automotive industry, etc). look at their actions, not their false words.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

Do you really think that if we had a government that REQUIRES us to contribute our money to the benefit of others, that people would be encouraged to stop there and do no more?

What do you base this theory on? How do you know what would happen? You can present a theory - I have no problem with that, but you appear to be presenting a conclusion without any data to back it up (unless I missed it which is entirely possible).

Would you please provide the post number where your data appears? If you don’t have any data then you really don’t know if your theory is supported or not. In fact, the only way to really show if your theory is supported is to put the government to the test. Otherwise you are making broad assumptions that may have no basis in fact.

Or else you are a seer or a reincarnation of Nostradamus or something like that…

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

This is an extremely weak analogy. You’re comparing apples and kangaroos. There are a plethora of differences between bidding on auctions and a complicated issue like nationalized health care (which has an enormous number of contributing and confounding factors). You’re also making broad assumptions (such as that “people purchase as much as they can”).

 

[tjm190]

This is an extremely weak analogy. You’re comparing apples and kangaroos. There are a plethora of differences between bidding on auctions and a complicated issue like nationalized health care (which has an enormous number of contributing and confounding factors). You’re also making broad assumptions (such as that “people purchase as much as they can”).

The issue I was getting at was that whenever the quantity demanded exceeds the quantity supplied with no price controls in place, you get high prices and people not getting as much as they want. As much as they can was the wrong phrase- they continue to purchase so long as they are willing and able.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Do you really think that if we had a government that REQUIRES us to contribute our money to the benefit of others, that people would be encouraged to stop there and do no more?

What do you base this theory on? How do you know what would happen? You can present a theory - I have no problem with that, but you appear to be presenting a conclusion without any data to back it up (unless I missed it which is entirely possible).

Well, let’s look at it using a little math and common sense:

Johnny makes $10 a day from his lemonade stand, from which he must buy $4 a day in lemons, sugar, and water. In addition, he must pay his parents $3 for living in their house and using their yard for business purposes. This leaves him with $3 take-home.

Johnny has a friend - Timmy - who cannot run a lemonade stand because he is wheelchair-bound. So Johnny buys Timmy a snack at break time during school each day – costing Johnny $.50 a day.

One day, Sally forgets her lunch money, so Johnny helps her out because he has an extra dollar or two.

Later that week, his parents decide that he needs to start paying $5 a day instead of $3. He now only has $1 a day in take-home.

If Johnny decides to continue helping Timmy, he now only has .$50 a day to himself. Furthermore, he would no longer be able to help out poor, forgetful Sally when she leaves her money at home.

The point is that, if the government takes a bigger slice through higher taxes, there is less money for the taxpayer. Either the taxpayer will choose to do without (which some will, no doubt), or the extra money will come out of money that is or could be used for charity.

This, of course, means that many people who currently do give may be less likely to give more than they already would (the blog I link below goes into that in more detail) even if they did continue to give.

Now, let me ask you: on what do you base the assumptions that a) people who have more money are not likely to be **even more **charitable, and b) just because the government takes more money from you that it’s being used the way they said it would?

Would you please provide the post number where your data appears? If you don’t have any data then you really don’t know if your theory is supported or not. In fact, the only way to really show if your theory is supported is to put the government to the test. Otherwise you are making broad assumptions that may have no basis in fact.

Or else you are a seer or a reincarnation of Nostradamus or something like that…

Your tone is rude and uncalled for.

One does not need data to support simple economics and common sense. If you like, however, here’s at least one blog that supports my point.

And “put the government to the test”? That idea is absurd, with all due respect. We do not give power and money to a government to see how it’ll do! Governments do not relinquish power that they have obtained! The onus is on the government to show US how its plan would work – and so far, our government officials have tried very hard to hide that information from us.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Fran65]

The problem as I see it in the US is that people are already paying as much tax as in the UK, plus thewy have to buy health insurance on top (unless they have an occupational plan). They are now being asked to fund increased coverage. It strikes me that whatever is thought of the UK’s NHS, costs in the US to the individual are higher and likely to increase.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The issue I was getting at was that whenever the quantity demanded exceeds the quantity supplied with no price controls in place, you get high prices and people not getting as much as they want. As much as they can was the wrong phrase- they continue to purchase so long as they are willing and able.

Thank you. I would tend to agree with you here.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The problem as I see it in the US is that people are already paying as much tax as in the UK, plus thewy have to buy health insurance on top (unless they have an occupational plan). They are now being asked to fund increased coverage. It strikes me that whatever is thought of the UK’s NHS, costs in the US to the individual are higher and likely to increase.

In the two states I have lived in in my entire life (California and Oregon) there have been revolts against tax increases. The revolts appear to have worked - taxes haven’t been raised so much and were actually lowered in some cases (property taxes).

So now, instead of having higher taxes we have what are called “fees.” These fees show up all the time. They aren’t taxes - they are fees.

It’s exactly the same thing as far as my bank account is concerned. The government gets its money.

There has also been at least one case when I lived in California where the state government illegally confiscated funds collected for a license renewal which I was required to have in order to work. But that doesn’t surprise me because the County I was working for did exactly the same thing - they took funds paid for health licenses, appropriated them (illegally) and put them in the general fund.

Taxes are high. Add in all the fees and the cost to taxpayers is even higher.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The bill as written is unconstitutional

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html

I’m sorry but the Constitution is dead. It has been for quite awhile. GW Bush stated the following:

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face!! It’s just a gd*** piece of paper!!”

homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitution-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

heartcom.org/Bushit.htm

This seems to be the prevailing belief although I haven’t heard of Obama saying anything like this (yet).

It’s a shame.

 

[Fran65]

Regarding your license renewal ‘fees’, a similar scandal is brewing in the UK. The government is looking at ‘nationalising’ the funds raised by charities for the NHS. The local charities, hospitals and clinics would no longer be able to spend charitable donations as they see fit. The government’s argument is that this is necessary because of accounting regulations. The rest of us see it as an opportunistic theft by the government and a way of hiding financial cuts. If it goes ahead then there is no doubt in my mind that there will be a big fall in donations.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’m sorry but the Constitution is dead. It has been for quite awhile. GW Bush stated the following:

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face!! It’s just a gd*** piece of paper!!”

homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitution-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

heartcom.org/Bushit.htm

This seems to be the prevailing belief although I haven’t heard of Obama saying anything like this (yet).

It’s a shame.

That the Constitution is dead is your opinion, and the quote you attribute to President Bush is dubious at best. See below:

factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

Peace,
Dante

 

[LittleSoldier]

That the Constitution is dead is your opinion, and the quote you attribute to President Bush is dubious at best. See below:

factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

Peace,
Dante

Actually I was being a bit facetious when I stated that the Constitution is dead, although it doesn’t seem to be respected as much as it should be. Of course it’s my opinion - that’s all I can offer. I can provide another link (not about what GW Bush said but what a member of the Supreme Court said) about how he [paraphrasing] cringes whenever anyone says the Constitution is a living entity. But I’ll have to find it.

However, your second point troubles me. Have I been the victim of an internet urban legend?? Oh, no, how can that be?? How embarrassing!! But I hope you are right because I would much rather be a fool who fell for a story than to have the story be true.

Thanks for the clarification. I really do appreciate it!!

Peace to you back atcha,
Christina

 

[LittleSoldier]

Regarding your license renewal ‘fees’, a similar scandal is brewing in the UK. The government is looking at ‘nationalising’ the funds raised by charities for the NHS. The local charities, hospitals and clinics would no longer be able to spend charitable donations as they see fit. The government’s argument is that this is necessary because of accounting regulations. The rest of us see it as an opportunistic theft by the government and a way of hiding financial cuts. If it goes ahead then there is no doubt in my mind that there will be a big fall in donations.

That is very frightening. What a mess!!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Actually I was being a bit facetious when I stated that the Constitution is dead, although it doesn’t seem to be respected as much as it should be. Of course it’s my opinion - that’s all I can offer. I can provide another link (not about what GW Bush said but what a member of the Supreme Court said) about how he [paraphrasing] cringes whenever anyone says the Constitution is a living entity. But I’ll have to find it.

I think you may have misunderstood his statement. Generally, people who claim that the Constitution is a “living document” believe that its meaning should be reinterpreted based on current circumstances – as opposed to being adhered to by the letter. People who “cringe” at this notion – myself included – believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to what it says, not according to whatever arbitrary or subjective standard people wish to apply to it 200 years later.

To say it is not a living document is to say that the Framers meant what they said, and if you want to change it, you have to amend the Constitution. It’s not the same as saying that it is “dead”.

Just wanted to clarify that.

However, your second point troubles me. Have I been the victim of an internet urban legend?? Oh, no, how can that be?? How embarrassing!! But I hope you are right because I would much rather be a fool who fell for a story than to have the story be true.

Thanks for the clarification. I really do appreciate it!!

Peace to you back atcha,
Christina

You wouldn’t be the first! I always check claims like that – even if they are emailed to me. Would you believe I had someone forward me a claim that was just that inflammatory, but which they had found on a website for a conspiracy-theorist radio jock whose site carries ads for documentaries that claim such things as a link between 9/11, Nostradamus, and the Illuminati!

Peace,
Dante

 

[aspawloski4th]

That the Constitution is dead is your opinion, and the quote you attribute to President Bush is dubious at best. See below:

factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

Peace,
Dante

1933 War Powers act made the constitution null and void.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Now, let me ask you: on what do you base the assumptions that a) people who have more money are not likely to be **even more **charitable, and b) just because the government takes more money from you that it’s being used the way they said it would

Your tone is rude and uncalled for.

Peace,
Dante

I had to delete most of your post because of space constraints. Sorry.

I am sorry that you believe my tone is rude and uncalled for. That is not my intent and if you and I were sitting in front of a fireplace, drinking coffee, and discussing this issue I am fairly certain that we would actually agree on just about everything. One of the problems with “conversing” using the internet is that body language is gone completely and speech inflections disappear. And then there’s that nasty little 20 minute rule for editing or deleting posts. All we have to go on is the actual printed word and some little emoticons which help a bit, but not very much.

Be that as it may, if you find fault with my tone, I offer a sincere apology as I don’t mean to be rude. The point that I am trying to make (and I agree I could have worded it better - my references to being a seer or Nostradamus were certainly uncalled for) is that we really have no way of finding out what will happen when a government takes a certain action. We can predict to a certain degree, but we do not know. The only way we can know for certain is if the government actually does what it does and we can then observe the results.

I’m not saying that it’s wrong to make predictions. I’m saying that predicting is well, just that, predicting. Saying “If the people allow the government the power to do “A”, then “B” will occur” is rife with problems. (I’m not saying you said that - it’s my own example). That’s because we really don’t know. There are so many factors that confound the issue and that’s one reason why it’s such a volatile issue. Most of us look at nationalized health care from a very personal, subjective way. For example, I don’t pay income tax so I guess I could say that I don’t care if income tax rates go right through the roof because I don’t pay them and why should I care if you have to pay an exorbitant amount? It would have no effect on me. I don’t say that for two reasons: (1) it *would * have an effect on me because it would trickle down until I would have to pay higher prices; (2) my own experience is unusual and I don’t believe it is fair to anyone to have to pay exorbitant taxes just on the principle alone. It isn’t ethical.

When you say “people may be less likely to give”, you are absolutely correct. In fact, they may very well be less likely to give. The impression I got from the post I replied to is that people will give less and it isn’t possible to know that (which is why I brought up seers and Nostradamus).

I’ve gone back and reread your post and I find that you didn’t say what I thought you said. I misread your post and I am very sorry. I shouldn’t have done that. I should have been absolutely 100 percent sure that I knew what you were stating.

No wonder you found me to be rude!! I didn’t mean to be but I was because I didn’t take the time to attempt to thoroughly understand your position.

I am very, very sorry, both for misreading your post and for letting that misreading lead me to assuming other things that you didn’t say. I certainly apologize for calling you a seer or Nostradamus, etc.

This whole issue of nationalized health care is very frightening to me. Right now I pay for insurance that I can’t use because of a $5,000 a year deductible. So I pay for my premiums and on top of that I pay for 100 percent of my medical expenses, which has thrown me into debt.

I really don’t have a coherent idea of what the answer is. I posted a few items at the beginning of this thread and I still support what I stated then. My major fear is what will happen if the government decides that tax payers have to fund abortion on demand. I am scared of what Catholic hospitals and clinics will do and I am worried for physicians and hospital and clinic personnel who are prolife (as I am) yet who may be told by the federal government that they had better provide this service or lose their licenses. The idea of a government telling people that they must fund murder is so abhorrent to me that it makes me physically ill. And if this happens, I “predict” (sorry) that prolife physicians and hospital and clinic personnel are going to refuse and the end result may be a loss of health care to a large segment of society.

I hope this clears up my position, such as it is (kinda in its infancy right now) and again, I apologize and hope that you will accept my apology. I will try to be a better poster and a better Catholic. Right now I’m not doing a very good job at either.

Peace in Christ,
Christina

 

[LittleSoldier]

1933 War Powers act made the constitution null and void.

Now I’m *REALLY *confused!!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

1933 War Powers act made the constitution null and void.

That’s poppycock. All it did was make it possible to wage war without a formal declaration under certain circumstances. Please note: the President must still obtain congressional approval to continue such actions.

Besides - this is food for a completely different thread.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I am sorry that you believe my tone is rude and uncalled for. That is not my intent and if you and I were sitting in front of a fireplace, drinking coffee, and discussing this issue I am fairly certain that we would actually agree on just about everything. One of the problems with “conversing” using the internet is that body language is gone completely and speech inflections disappear. [snip]

…I offer a sincere apology as I don’t mean to be rude.

Apology accepted - and I agree: the internet is a tricky place when it comes to reading someone’s “tone”.

[snip] …we really have no way of finding out what will happen when a government takes a certain action. We can predict to a certain degree, but we do not know. The only way we can know for certain is if the government actually does what it does and we can then observe the results.

True – but we also have the benefit of history. If we look at the history of human government, even just in the 20th century, we see example after example of what happens when a government obtains too much control over its people – even when such is done with good intentions. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Nazi takeover of Germany, the Cuban Revolution, the socialist regime in Argentina, just to name a few, indicate that the more control a government has, the harder it is to get that government to relinquish control. Truthfully, once the government has such control, it is far easier for nefarious elements – such as opportunistic would-be dictator-types – to nudge themselves into the picture. It just isn’t a risk worth taking in order to give government a “try”.

[snip] Most of us look at nationalized health care from a very personal, subjective way. For example, I don’t pay income tax so I guess I could say that I don’t care if income tax rates go right through the roof because I don’t pay them and why should I care if you have to pay an exorbitant amount? It would have no effect on me. I don’t say that for two reasons: (1) it *would * have an effect on me because it would trickle down until I would have to pay higher prices; (2) my own experience is unusual and I don’t believe it is fair to anyone to have to pay exorbitant taxes just on the principle alone. It isn’t ethical.

Agreed. The flip side, though, is that people who do pay taxes tend to be at least a little resentful of endlessly having to bear the burden of those who don’t instead of finding a way to help those people set themselves up on firmer ground.

When you say “people may be less likely to give”, you are absolutely correct. In fact, they may very well be less likely to give. The impression I got from the post I replied to is that people will give less and it isn’t possible to know that (which is why I brought up seers and Nostradamus).

[snip]

I am very, very sorry, both for misreading your post and for letting that misreading lead me to assuming other things that you didn’t say. I certainly apologize for calling you a seer or Nostradamus, etc.

Again, apology accepted.

This whole issue of nationalized health care is very frightening to me. Right now I pay for insurance that I can’t use because of a $5,000 a year deductible. So I pay for my premiums and on top of that I pay for 100 percent of my medical expenses, which has thrown me into debt.

I personally do not have insurance, and I’m terrified of what might happen if the current plans – or, God forbid, a public option – become law. What am I going to do if the government “fines” (i.e., taxes) me for not purchasing insurance? What am I going to do if I have yet another (twice last year) hospitalization? I’m cruising toward bankruptcy, and it’s not entirely the insurance industry’s fault.

And yet, I must stand on the principle that the government has no business sticking its nose into this. It (by which I mean our government as well as Government in general) has a long track record of NOT being able to do such things effectively or ethically. I’m not willing to see what will happen if we let it try again!

[snip] I am scared of what Catholic hospitals and clinics will do and I am worried for physicians and hospital and clinic personnel who are prolife (as I am) yet who may be told by the federal government that they had better provide this service or lose their licenses. The idea of a government telling people that they must fund murder is so abhorrent to me that it makes me physically ill. And if this happens, I “predict” (sorry) that prolife physicians and hospital and clinic personnel are going to refuse and the end result may be a loss of health care to a large segment of society.

The fact that there is any attempt at all to allow federal funds to pay for abortions proves that this entire circus is politically motivated and NOT a sober, sincere attempt to reform anything. The strings that are being pulled, the closed-door meetings, the deals that are being struck – all of this smells of typical corrupt political machinations, and if there is an area in which such shenanigans do NOT belong, it’s something as personal as healthcare. And I feel that your prediction is dead on: we will probably lose doctors and hospitals who would rather throw in the towel and their licenses rather than provide abortions. And guess which hospitals frequently waive their costs for people who can’t afford to pay (like me)?

Catholic hospitals, for one.

I hope this clears up my position, such as it is (kinda in its infancy right now) and again, I apologize and hope that you will accept my apology. I will try to be a better poster and a better Catholic. Right now I’m not doing a very good job at either.

Peace in Christ,
Christina

No harm, no foul.

Peace,
Dante