|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 28, 2009 21:47:10 GMT -8
Bush tried to propose a universal flat tax, or at least he championed it in the debates. The Democrats are vehemently against this. Then, on this issue, I agree with Bush.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Oct 28, 2009 21:48:03 GMT -8
All I know is my best friend's mom got laid off and not far after had a heart attack which resulted in a $50,000 bill. Needless to say, they can't pay that. So I'm hoping them politicians do -something- really, really soon. I see problems with every plan out there, but the fact is too many people are dying or going bankrupt to not do anything. So they can talk about fiibustering all they want, but it's frankly shameful.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 28, 2009 21:53:05 GMT -8
Brendan, he stated that its "national insurance," not just health care. So it seems it goes to a lot of public services, however it would be interesting to know what other taxes there are besides this. I assume there are more. Actually, we have just three standard deductions from our paychecks - income tax, council tax and national insurance. I can't remember what the income and countil tax rates are (they keep changing), but national insurance is 17.5%. Income tax and National Insurance, combined, pay for the nationwide services: the National Health Service, the armed forces, social security for the elderly, and any other Governent-run programe like unemployment benefits, and so on. The council tax pays for everything provided by the local authority in which you live: the police service, the fire department, trash collection, that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Oct 28, 2009 22:02:57 GMT -8
Personally, I don't have much to add to Brendan and Craig's insightful discourse. I find myself falling somewhere in the middle towards Craig. I have health insurance. One can say that it's a handout, since my employer pays for it. ;D Luckily, I am pretty healthy (or I think I am), so, I guess I'm satisfied with my current health care situation. However,if I were to get seriously hurt or develop a major illness, I'd be down the tubes even with insurance. Then there's also the rising copays, the slashing services, the limited number of doctors, the expensive specialists, and yada, yada, yada... Jon, nowhere did I say we need to eliminate ALL government health care services. The U.S. should absolutely be helping the legitimately poor and destitute who are making responsible choices just as the unemployment system assists the unemployed who are taking responsibility and in good faith looking for a job. I'm right there with you. Brendan how should the government help the poor, the destitute, and the elderly who have low fixed incomes? Are you supporting some form of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security? A government hand-out is when you receive money/services from a government program to which you paid a lesser amount into. Over my lifetime, say I've paid $15,000 into the social security system - and let's say tomorrow I'm run over by a bus and my arms and legs are all amputated resulting in me having to live off of social security disability funds of $400/month (what I'm currently qualified for). Given that I'll probably live for another 50 years, I would collect $240,000 of social security funds - far more than I ever paid in. That's a handout. Again, I'm not saying all hand-outs are bad - they are a great tool for helping people to get back on their feet - but handouts provided unchecked are not a healthy thing for a free society... So, in your hypothetical situation what would happen to you? Would your private health care insurer continue to cover you and provide you with treatment options? Would your 401K plan, or pension plan, from work allow you to retire after you have reached the age, ie point, where you can no longer drive or work? How would you, and your children, survive without some kind of government assistance, assuming that SS office approves your disability claim? Granted, 400 bones a month might not be enough to live off of 50 years into the future, but it is something right? Also, you did remember to set aside $4000 a year for an IRA, right? Brendan, I'm curious to know how would you change (and fund) the current "unchecked" Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security programs? Hopefully, you'll be able to land a job, with your hypothetical disability, even with the intrusive American Disabilities Act. So, my SS tax helps to support you and your family... I just don't see what is wrong with that. Btw, if one makes more than $107,000 in 2009, they do not pay SS taxes on that income... Tj, rejoice! Still, I'm interested in knowing how you would fix Social Security (a conservative article is below). Brendan, is SS even necessary? money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/economy/fixing_social_security.fortune/index1.htmOn a more serious note, why are you lauding government programs that are either failures (Amtrak assistance hasn't served to make Amtrak any more of a success) or soon-to-be bankruptcies (U.S. Post Office lost $2.8 billion last year)? People, allowing a program to operate in the red year after year is not a solution...it's a fast-track to devalued currency and a loss of wealth for your citizens. Could a private company satisfy the USPS obligation to "serve all Americans regardless of geography, at uniform price and quality?" Could a private company sustain a passenger rail system in the US? Could a private company sustain a huge "pension" burden? Could a private health care insurance company provide (and sustain) service for the poor, the chronically ill, and so forth? To me, the answer to all of these questions are no. Market forces would say that none of these options are profitable. Remember that Amtrak was created by President Nixon, due to the failures of private rail companies. So, Brendan, the market would say, hey you can only get rail service from Boston to DC? Hey, you can't fly commercially, because it's not profitable? Hey, you can't get mail today... Hey, you can't retire... Hey, you lost your arms and legs, you can't get medical insurance. I'm not lauding government programs that are failures. I'm just under the impression that some kind of government assistance is needed because of market forces. The government has run things sucessful... Look at the national park system... but the examples you provide (like the Post Office) have inherent "market" difficulties. How can one sell an American car without a tax break, ie. Cash for Clunkers? (that was only an attempt at humor) How can a private company sustain Military Research...? Call me a liberal, but I'm just not willing to put all of the responsibility solely onto the individual. Education costs. Retirement Costs. Transportation costs. Health Insurance costs. The list goes on and on. Btw, do you support education handouts, also know as Tuition Aid Grant's (TAG), and do you receive a tax credit (gov't assistance) from your current Health care plan? -CG
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Oct 28, 2009 23:13:55 GMT -8
Then they shouldn't get knocked up in the first place? Why would anyone ever think of bringing a child into this world if they can't properly take care of it? It's not like buying a pet---shoot, people are irresponsible enough with pets they can't afford. Tj, you support abortions? Please don't be so quick, to tell someone to terminate a life. I have to say that if I were a woman, I would consider "bringing a child into this world, even if I couldn't properly take care of it" rather than have it suffer the fate of an aborted fetus... but that is just my view. As far as the "knocked up" comment goes. Cue the "Lion in the Winter." We are Jungle Creatures. ;D Also, condoms aren't 100 % effective against preventing pregancies... To steer this back on topic, I don't think we should have a universal heath care system that doles out free birth control, or a tax system that encourages adoptions and foster care. I am strongly against any political agenda that punishes people just because they happen to be better off financially. The government already takes 25% from most people, they don't need any more, and they take significantly more from those with higher incomes. It's bad enough as it is. Tax = Punishment? I'm in the minority (with Jon and Craig), but I have no problem with paying taxes for income, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security. For myself, I think it's over 25%. Of course, I'm not counting taxes levied by companies or the state for everything else (phone service, sales tax, yada, yada, yada.) Do you give 10% of your income to charities? Do you take out a charitable deduction on your tax return? Honestly, I pay taxes and I give a little to charities. It's not that difficult to do... Granted, market-wise there is no incentive for charitable giving, outside of tax credits... You do realize that even with a higher income (and tax burden), the higher income itself provides an unsurpassed benefit... How does the government help the "legitimately poor?" Social Security, Medicare, Tuition Aid Grants, tax credits. Is paying 25% of your income for services like these "bad enough?" How much should you pay for taxes? The problem with Liberals is they seem to want to spend everyone else's money for them. Once again, what motivation whatsoever is there for one to strive to better oneself if they can get a free ride?Whatever happened to working hard for what you have? I'm all for working hard even though I'm a liberal. I should just leave it at that before I get silly. Sorry about the phone number thing. Too bad we didn't met up in CA... -CG
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Oct 29, 2009 5:35:28 GMT -8
I don't make anywhere close to that, but I'm sure they still pay it on income up to that level---I don't have a problem with SS tax, its relatively small.
I'm not sure there IS a law in place that says you must offer flights to a specific destiination?
This isn't about abortion, if people didn't have sex like it was a bucket of KFC, then there would be far less improperly-cared-for children.
Tax in itself isn't punishment, but when you heavily tax the better-off, redistribute the wealth equally, you're basically punishing someone for being successful. I was just talking about 25% on the income tax, I don't know therest of hte numbers, I think 10% to the state, and then smaller % to SS and medicare, but those aren't two aren't too bad (it all adds up, but still), At least the my health care $$ is deducted pre-tax...
I've only been working for a few months, but yes when I am on my own and not in saving-mode to move out, I will donate to charities, basically the idea instilled in me is 10% donations, 10% savings, rest to pay for all your various crap and live off of..And yes. I would take advantage of tax credits for donations, but that doesn't stop me from helping out a friend who can't afford to go out to eat or whatever, there's no "credit" for that.
Not if Obama has its way and goes sociaism on us.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Oct 29, 2009 8:21:38 GMT -8
Brendan - Craig, I already addressed this in an earlier post - individuals cannot on their own defend against other nations. If the million-man Chinese army decides to invade my town, no amount of my personal responsibility or liberty will be able to prevent it. But individuals can absolutely take responsibility for their own health. It's a huge difference! This is why the defense of the country is a government mandate as provided by the U.S. Constitution. Providing health care is not mandated by the constitution. Your 'logic' does not apply because, again, you're not comparing apples to apples.
Brendan, I cannot agree. Citizens pay for government to protect them. Since bacteria and disease kill more each year than any enemy nation has in our history, it is indeed thematic for citizens to pay for universal health care. In each case we pay for a service;
Tax + Government = National Defense from enemy nations Tax + Government = Health care Defense from disease
By logic, A + B = C or Tax + Government = Defense. The premise, the variables A and B are identical as is the resultant. The equation holds. The logic holds.
Now personal responsibility is indeed important, but be advised that it does not in and of itself provide you protection from either disease or accidents! The Flu, pneumonia, genetic based diseases, child delivery complications, car accidents, sports accidents, and the body's failure as we age happen to both the irresponsible and responsible. Work a shift in the ER with me and you will see. It is not as black and white as you see it. Unlike people, disease does not discriminate.
Granted providing health care is not mandated by the constitution, but neither was equality for blacks and women! My God, governments like people must evolve as civilization evolves.
You believe if we went to a direct consumer purchase of services that costs would come down. Wrong! Segundo grew up in poverty in the Philippines. He lost all hearing in his right ear and most in his left. Why? His parents could not afford the antibiotics for his ear infections. In capitalism, if you cannot afford a service or product, too bad. Perhaps his parents who worked two jobs should have just worked harder? This is not my vision of a modern and humane society.
It would be no different here your way. Perhaps a read of British and American history (and Dickens) would reveal to you that this was the modus operandi of capitalist societies before the rise of the socialist movement. A movement that arose to address the injustice, inequity and poverty created by capitalism. In life, there is cause and effect. Movements arise when human beings suffer injustice, deprivation and inequality. The movement in our country toward universal health care finds its genesis in these factors.
Now I know you are dismissive of data that shows single payer systems out perform us, have better outcomes and cost half as much as our system. The data is sound, not anecdotal and is corroborated in respected medical journals. As a practitioner of the art of debate from my high school and college days, I fully understand that if the debaters cannot agree on the facts, then resolution is impossible.
So I think we have reached a dead end. I believe Government has a role here in facilitating universal health care. You believe in market forces and direct citizen purchase, a method history shows failed.
So accepting the reality that we cannot agree on the facts, I believe it time for closure. We agree to disagree.
A final note my friend, you at times seemed defensive. So let me be clear. When I affirm my belief system, it has everything to do with me, and nothing to do with you. My statement for example that I believe in a humane society means exactly that. It should not be construed to mean that I believe you do not! I do not believe you are heartless nor have I said so. I do not personalize debates as I believe this degrades the experience.
I believe your a fine young man and I wish you well.
p.s. I do have a child of sorts, Segundo's relatives in the Philippines are very poor. I am paying for the catholic education and health care of my 'nephew' Chad Eric. I will help to ensure that he escapes from poverty and secures a better life.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Oct 29, 2009 9:01:19 GMT -8
Brendan, I cannot agree. Citizens pay for government to protect them. Since bacteria and disease kill more each year than any enemy nation has in our history, it is indeed thematic for citizens to pay for universal health care. In each case we pay for a service; Tax + Government = National Defense from enemy nations Tax + Government = Health care Defense from disease By logic, A + B = C or Tax + Government = Defense. The premise, the variables A and B are identical as is the resultant. The equation holds. The logic holds. That equation and logic makes does not hold and makes no sense whatsoever. The top 2 diseases that kill in this country are Heart Disease and Cancer. There are several types of heart disease and cancer that can be sudden and incurable, in which no amount of universal health care is going to make a lick of difference. However, a person can educate him or herself on becoming more aware of the various diseases and choose to live a healthier life, and thus reduce the risk of heart disease and certain kinds of cancer, and thus expensive medical treatment and procedures. By your logic, I should be able to do the same thing for an invading foreign army. Nothing I do personally can prevent a foreign army bent on attacking America from attacking other than the US Military. I can't go to the emergency room, or do more military equivalent of exercise and eating better to reduce the risk of the army invading. Or, if I took your logic working the other way, and indeed I am totally reliant on the military for defense, then I shouldn't be able to make personal choices to lead a healthier life to reduce the risk of heart disease or cancer, and must totally rely on the government. Yet, the fact remains that I can. I can personally make a difference in the health of myself and make intentional efforts to better equip myself to fight against disease. Your comparison is ludicrous. While you bring up some good points here, if you want to get technical, many accidents can be avoided. Don't drive in a car, don't play sports, don't have children, etc. Obviously, that would be a ridiculous request, however it's not unreasonable that say, if you choose to go into sports, that might behoove you to get proper insurance that falls in line with that choice. Also, you might forget that the US isn't Japan, or Germany, or the UK. Those countries are tiny compared with the US, and have entirely different work ethics, education, cultures, amount of physical land, etc. Let me point you to why I think education should be a higher priority than a universal bandaid that is health care plan. www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/subsidized_health_care_a_view_1.html
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Oct 29, 2009 10:07:45 GMT -8
Hi Chris,
My Friend personal responsibility is not the issue. Universal coverage is the issue. Private insurance cannot provide it and using a free market direct consumer purchase of services cannot provide it as most of the working class and poor could never afford to purchase it. The system that provides universal coverage is a single payer system funded by a tax on the citizenry; health care for all, paid for by all. That system performs better and has better outcomes.
Do you know that people with insurance do not use it unless they are injured or sick? Why? The deductibles and co-pays. They cannot afford to use it and they are afraid using it will lead to cancellation. With single payer, people are not punished financially from routinely seeing a doctor and getting routine check-ups. As such, they do go to the doctor more often, are diagnosed earlier and so have better longevity and outcomes. It really is that simple.
Do you know how many patient's I have seen and treated in 30 years that have come in too late? Why? Lack of money! In medicine the prime directive is early diagnosis and intervention = better outcomes. The reason we have higher mortality and morbidity rates in the US is people, unlike their cars, do not partake of routine preventative care. We lost a couple thousand of our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan last year, but we lost 44,000 citizens because of lack of or deferral of health care. How is it that 40% of prescriptions go unfilled as people cannot afford them? Where is the outrage?
How is it that the richest country in the world cannot provide for the health of its citizens? The UK does, France does, Spain does, Japan does - do you feel embarassed as I do that the US does not? Shared burden, shared benefit is the only way.
Conclusion: adopt what works, what cost less - a single payer health care system for all paid for by all - shared cost and shared benefit.
All the best.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Oct 29, 2009 10:25:33 GMT -8
Hi Chris, My Friend personal responsibility is not the issue. Universal coverage is the issue. Private insurance cannot provide it and using a free market direct consumer purchase of services cannot provide it as most of the working class and poor could never afford to purchase it. The system that provides universal coverage is a single payer system funded by a tax on the citizenry; health care for all, paid for by all. That system performs better and has better outcomes. Do you know that people with insurance do not use it unless they are injured or sick? Why? The deductibles and co-pays. They cannot afford to use it and they are afraid using it will lead to cancellation. With single payer, people are not punished financially from routinely seeing a doctor and getting routine check-ups. As such, they do go to the doctor more often, are diagnosed earlier and so have better longevity and outcomes. It really is that simple. Do you know how many patient's I have seen and treated in 30 years that have come in too late? Why? Lack of money! In medicine the prime directive is early diagnosis and intervention = better outcomes. The reason we have higher mortality and morbidity rates in the US is people, unlike their cars, do not partake of routine preventative care. We lost a couple thousand of our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan last year, but we lost 44,000 citizens because of lack of or deferral of health care. How is it that 40% of prescriptions go unfilled as people cannot afford them? Where is the outrage? How is it that the richest country in the world cannot provide for the health of its citizens? The UK does, France does, Spain does, Japan does - do you feel embarassed as I do that the US does not? Shared burden, shared benefit is the only way. Conclusion: adopt what works, what cost less - a single payer health care system for all paid for by all - shared cost and shared benefit. All the best. Based on your response, it seems you didn't even read what I wrote, nor read the article I linked to, but rather spouted out the same spiel you've been going on and on about without actually responding to points and criticisms of what you've been saying. How am I supposed to respond to you if you completely ignore the points I brought up (along with pretty much proving your "equation" as ludicrous), and then further going on to talk about things as if I didn't say anything at all. This is what you've been doing the whole time, you respond to every criticism and point of discussion with "We must have healthcare for all!" "We agree to disagree!" or some BS. You say "adopt what works, costs less." I already brought up how the US is vastly different than the UK, France, and Japan, a point which you ignore, and you are apparently so certain that universal healthcare "will work." How are you so sure about that? What about Canada, and the fact that its unsustainable system is consiberably relieved each year by the hundreds of thousands that come to the US for care because it's available here, but either not in CA, or not without ludicrous waiting lists.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Oct 29, 2009 11:09:56 GMT -8
Thank you, Chris, for addressing Craig's post - I'm in full agreement with you there (though not quite with the same kind of tact... ). Now, on to Christian Kühn: Don't confuse an individual's responsibility with the government's responsibility. I absolutely agree with you that having a personal stance that this world is merely 'every man for himself - screw you all' is wrong. We should all strive to help our fellow man as much as we possibly can! But government's job is to ensure that all people have the freedom and liberty to decide how they want to go about that, not to make our decisions for us. Why is the U.S. Constitution set up this way? Because our founders knew from history that governments, no matter how well-intentioned, are very poor at remaining benevolent the more power they are given. And now, onto my dear Carlton. How come your posts are always the ones that make me stop and say....'um...wait...what?' But I appreciate the thought you're always attempting to provoke. Brendan how should the government help the poor, the destitute, and the elderly who have low fixed incomes? Are you supporting some form of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security? Some form of Medicare/Medicaid, sure. Like I've said, the current system is wracked with mis-management and fraud so it needs an overhaul. But preferably, we would have a limited government safety-net that could assist in health care funding for people who have a legitimate need similar to our unemployment benefits. Why do I have to be a jerk and throw in 'legitimate need'? Because of the reality of our self-absorbed, backwards-priority, entitlement society...if you don't believe me, just read this article (Chris linked to it earlier). Well, first of all, my wife and I have a modest disability insurance policy bundled with our life insurance (which, by the way, also serves as a retirement investment account to supplement my Roth IRA...check it out folks, it's not hard to set up!). This insurance will make sure that I have income whether I'm able to work or not. My health insurance policy would continue to provide the coverage I currently have as long as I continue to pay the premiums of course....which I could seeing as how I've made arrangements to do so. Here is my take on Social Security: it's the government's way of saying, "We don't trust you to save for your own retirement, so we're going to force you to do it whether you want to or not." It sends the wrong message to people - it says, 'eh, don't worry about it. Don't worry yourself about your own future. Trust us. We're the government! We'll take care of you." Those two factors really turn me off. The other problem is that we've now created a whole generation (baby boomers) who are planning on and in many cases relying on social security because it's all they've known - it will be exceedingly difficult to reform/change/end the system because of that. Conservative conspiracy theorists would tell you that it was all part of FDR's liberal agenda to use social security make the U.S. society forever dependent on government and in turn keep electing democrats who would enable them. I wouldn't go that far. Again, I'm all for a limited government safety net for people who are legitimate victims of circumstance through no fault of their own. The key word is LIMITED. No one should be relying on social security as their sole source of retirement income! To do so is putting your life in government's hands - a dangerous proposition. Carlton, show me the place where I said we need to eliminate all government programs - I didn't. You're absolutely right that some government programs are necessary. But the more government gets involved in enterprise, the more convoluted it gets. Take Amtrak and the airlines. Why use Amtrak when it's almost as cheap or many times cheaper to fly? Well, first we have to ask why is air travel cheaper? Certainly the cost of running a train from New York to Chicago would be cheaper than all the expenses going into the same flight, right? Probably (if not, then why have train travel at all? We should let that industry go the way of horse and carriage). But the government has subsidized the airline industry, thus allowing them to keep their prices artificially so low, Amtrak can't compete....so then the government subsidizes Amtrak and we're back on the slippery slope because subsidies screw up the market and we have to keep subsidizing and subsidizing. However, if the true cost of a flight from NY to Chicago was charged, it might be something like $1,000 instead of $200 - then, demand for train travel would go up, thereby legitimizing the rail system and helping with their costs. This is over-simplification (especially since Southwest Airlines has proven that with the right business model, you can indeed make a profit while still keeping fares low). But the danger of subsidies is clear. If the post office suddenly closed, would we be no longer able to send each other things? No. We would use a combination of new technology (internet) and businesses that provide the same services (FedEx, UPS, DHL). Sure, we'd have to pay for it, but we already pay for the post office in the form of taxes and stamps. If the post office is losing money, then perhaps change the management structure - raise the price of postage (not taxes, postage) - let people and businesses decide how much they really want to send that piece of mail instead of using the alternatives. It's not the end of the world if we have to present people with the true cost of something, as long as that true cost hasn't been unfairly manipulated by government intervention... I'm rambling now. I need to get back to work so I can make my IRA contribution this quarter! -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Christian K on Oct 29, 2009 13:06:13 GMT -8
There's one thing about this discussion (and the other one we had back around Obama's election) that astounds me: comments and suggestions by, say, Jon and Craig, who have been working in or for health services for many years and know what they are talking about are being brushed aside or deemed irrelevant by people who have not. Why is it that whenever there's something one doesn't or doesn't want to agree with, one tries to disprove that opposite opinion, or, if that doesn't work, one simply ignores it. That's the easy way out. And the easy way usually is not the right way. OK, back to bed, before the room starts spinning again.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Oct 29, 2009 13:18:44 GMT -8
All counter points have been addressed and dismissed by your side.
"Based on your response, it seems you didn't even read what I wrote, nor read the article I linked to, but rather spouted out the same spiel you've been going on and on about without actually responding to points and criticisms of what you've been saying."
Every point has been addressed in the response to you and Brendan.
"I already brought up how the US is vastly different than the UK, France, and Japan, a point which you ignore, and you are apparently so certain that universal health care "will work."
I disagree. We are more populous, have more doctors, more nurses, more technical specialists as myself, more hospitals and more health care facilities. Vastly different? No. We are another western style democracy, technologically advanced and literate. Unlike you, I see more in common.
I am confident it will work because we are more advanced than the other countries, have a superior health care infrastructure and, we are Americans. Perhaps my generation has greater pride and confidence in our ability to solve problems.
"How are you so sure about that? What about Canada, and the fact that its unsustainable system is considerably relieved each year by the hundreds of thousands that come to the US for care because it's available here, but either not in CA, or not without ludicrous waiting lists."
Canada has some non-emergent care waits due to a lack of health care infrastructure - doctors, health care workers etc. The UK also had this problem but solved it by 2004 by an infusion of more money to increase facilities, health care workers and access. Today, their waiting times are comparable to ours. The problem in Canada is structural, not conceptual. The system will work well as it does in the UK if sufficient human, technological and physical resources are dedicated. Does this cost money, yes, but society will benefit, be more productive and healthier.
I know it works because medical outcomes for seniors have improved dramatically since Medicare was instituted. At town halls time and time again you had seniors shouting "Do not take away my Medicare." Government financed health care works. I am in the field, I have seen it all. Experience matters and trumps ideology - one of life's laws.
We have tried your free market approach and it does not work. Einstein said insanity may be defined as repeating the same failed method and expecting another result. Chris, it is time to change.
Take care.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Oct 29, 2009 13:48:51 GMT -8
I know it works because medical outcomes for seniors have improved dramatically since Medicare was instituted. At town halls time and time again you had seniors shouting "Do not take away my Medicare." Well of course they do. And if the government had been providing free cheeseburgers to seniors for the last 20 years and then decided to stop the program, seniors would be furiously shouting, "You can't take away our cheeseburgers - we'll starve to death!" This is the problem with government playing the role of sole-provider of anything. Also, we've been over how Medicare is much different from Universal Health Care on a level of scale and the additional complications that presents. Waaaaait just a second here. Let's say I'm a poor white person living in the worst part of Compton, rated as the 4th most dangerous city in America. The vast majority of people I would encounter on the streets would be Latino and many of them involved in illegal activity, high crime rates, and the like. If I relied only on my experience, I would be led to the conclusion that Latino people in general are bad or dangerous. So your 'life law' would make me a raging racist. And what about other people's experience that directly conflicts with yours? Did you read the article Chris linked to yet? What about that doctor's experience? The point is, experience alone cannot apply to a complex, large-scale system such as universal health coverage. Does it need to be a part of the discussion? Absolutely. Just like statistics, history, governmental comparison and the like need to also be a part of it - but relying on any one of those things alone to create a solution would be an exercise in ignorance. No we haven't - government and insurance companies have perverted any kind of market forces on health care. Free market systems are most certainly not the main cause of our current health care troubles. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Jangles on Oct 29, 2009 14:53:15 GMT -8
Well - no one mentioned anything I said in their subsequent replies. Back to posting cat pictures...
|
|