If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

[IndigoSensor]

Maybe we should just shoot anyone who emits carbon, in the head?
Sure, it's completely unconstitutionally and morally repugnant, but it sure would lower C02.

Actually, it wouldn't, because the amount of C02 humans emit isn't even 10% of that which comes from other sources.

How is that even a valid point? Of course we arent going to shoot people in the head.

It is better to do something, then nothing.

I'm beggining to notice that.

Agreed.

 

[mallory knox]

The truth is most of the countries with public health care are democratic countries.

In those countries, the public service and private co-exist.

And the people do not associate it with anything to do with socialism, to us it's just a right, like education, security, and all the essentials.

The people who benefit the most from it are the poor. The rich usually pay for private not so much for better service but for more choices and more comfort.

It seems to me that the most essential right a human being should have is health care. If not the well being of its people, what should be a goverments priority?

 

[Tamagochi]

So quietly as they always do they will just up the federal withholding taxes taken from the middle class paychecks, instead of paying 200 or 300 a week in medicare taxes we will pay closer to 350-400 and higher.

I don't know how it's going to be in US but in Europe we pay somewhere 5-20% from the income for the social insurance (that includes a pension plan, complete health insurance and various reliefs for unemployment, maternity leave, disability etc.).

The benefits are really outstanding because you don't have to worry about anything else: like which hospital to go to and other fine-print of private service. I've heard some horror stories from US where people got a terminal disease with crappy insurance and were forced out of their homes and other belongings just to stay alive. At least that will be prevented. And millions of people who did not purchase insurance because of carelessness or cash shortfall will also be protected.

And last but not least if you want a private insurance you can get it for lower price because it competes with public plans.

Calling it 'socialized medicine' and saying that the government will determine what doctors you see and what you do with your body is a fear tactic employed by opponents of public health care.

That's really not how it works Under 'socialized medicine' you can choose your own doctor and you can complain for inappropriate service to the authorities.

 

[mallory knox]

yes yes yes yes.

now to be fair, in some places you cannot choose your own doctor, i mean you can if you go somewhere else.

but if that bothers you so much, go private.

i've never heard a poor person complain.

 

[Tamagochi]

btw there's a really good documentary on the subject "Sicko" - it even compares the quality you get with private and public service.

And it's not just for the poor - most of the middle class here use it too.

 

[mallory knox]

I have seen Sicko. But then the americans will start going on and on about how bad Michael Moore is.

There has been a huge effort there to discredit him - even tho he's just a comedian - they do not like way he approaches things.

 

[Satya]

I can't simply be against it by a matter of principle? I have to care about the pragmatic side of it?
That doesn't seem fair.

What is the point of even discussing it if you are against it only by matter of principle? The principle isn't going to change and neither is your likelihood of believing in the principle. The only thing that can come out of such a discussion is arguments between principles, which ultimately boil down to value judgments.

 

[Faye]

That's really not how it works Under 'socialized medicine' you can choose your own doctor and you can complain for inappropriate service to the authorities.

I know, but most people in this country don't. They think that the moment anything gets socialized, it becomes hell on Earth. The word socialist carries such a negative connotation where I live that to call oneself a socialist is, to the average person, to say you support something akin to totalitarianism.

 

[Satya]

Well primarily i am against it because its cost is going to be gigantic, beyond anything we have ever spent before on a yearly basis.

And exactly how would the cost compare to if nothing were done? Do you even know how much it will cost if we do nothing? What if it costs more to do nothing? Would it be justified in that case?

I know I know Obambi said he is gonna stick it to the rich on this one, but heres the issue, the "rich" as he is saying dont make paychecks and dont pay taxes the way everyone else does. So there will be some sort of loop hole for them Obambi friends and family included who dont have to pay. But the billions upon billions will have to come from somewhere right? So quietly as they always do they will just up the federal withholding taxes taken from the middle class paychecks, instead of paying 200 or 300 a week in medicare taxes we will pay closer to 350-400 and higher. Imagine losing another 100 a week due to a new tax... another 400 a month out of your wallet, for some people who are living paycheck to paycheck thats thier car payment, or thier car insurance payments, or a portion of thier mortgage... this will do them NO good especially since car payments need to be made monthly, and most people are healthy and dont need health insurance until they are much much older. So basically thie is just going to make it harder and put MORE pressure on the shoulders of Average John and Jane Doe who goes to work every day and does the right thing. Juanita and her 12 children living illegally down the street on welfare will be able to get braces for her tax leeching family though, so yaaay!

That is a beautiful example of a hyperbole. What evidence do you have that "Obama and friends" will have some sort of loophole? What evidence do you have that the tax burden will shift to the "average joe"? What evidence do you have that the average family living on welfare is "tax leeching"? Out of curisity, do you even know what TANF is and what the requirements to be on it are? The problem with hyperboles is they are pretty useless in an intellectual discussion.

No telling how much longer this will and can go, you can only steal from the rich to give to the poor so much until the rich decide to move to a new more rich friendly niehborhood. Far from the rich bashing taxes they put up with here.

What evidence do you have that they aren't already doing so? In some countries the taxes are virtually 0. Why haven't all the companies moved there already?

I know several millionaires who recently moved to South America to an American Ex Patriot community fit with gucci stores, jamba juice and the works. How long before that becomes the new norm? Then where the hell will we be?

Nice incidental evidence. What evidence do you have that they wouldn't have moved there regardless of the situation at home? There are good markets all over the world. Just because some groups of the rich invest overseas doesn't mean that America's market is horrible.

Sigh...you are definitely one of those types who argues on principle rather than practically. Your value judgments shine right through and it destroys the credibility of your entire argument.

 

[Faye]

I'm beggining to notice that.

You probably haven't seen any of the propaganda commercials where the couple is sitting at a dinner table discussing their options under the new public health care system, and they come to the conclusion that they don't have any options at all because the government is telling them what to do.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ulMj3SNtMI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ulMj3SNtMI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

This wasn't the commercial that I had in mind, but it gets the point across.

 

[mallory knox]

I know, but most people in this country don't. They think that the moment anything gets socialized, it becomes hell on Earth. The word socialist carries such a negative connotation where I live that to call oneself a socialist is, to the average person, to say you support something akin to totalitarianism.

except that it has nothing to do with socialism.
unless you're talking about Cuba.
but honestly i think the word socialized became associated with this just to scare people.

Oh no I haven't seen those comercials, I am not american. My system would probably try and get rid of my dinner out of horror and perhaps laughter at how patronizing it is.

 

[Tamagochi]

You probably haven't seen any of the propaganda commercials where the couple is sitting at a dinner table discussing their options under the new public health care system, and they come to the conclusion that they don't have any options at all because the government is telling them what to do.

wow I've almost cried a tear here

If you're really worried that some day you will get into a coma and the government will pull the plug after 6 months you can purchase additional insurance. And because it's such an unlikely event it will cost really cheap.

 

[mallory knox]

the funniest thing about that video:

as if private insurance companies don

 

[Ketsugi]

I hope we get national healthcare. I am now uninsured because I chose to leave an abusive relationship and am now divorced. I have an autoimmune diesease that can potentially kill me, but I couldn't afford to see a doctor for a sore throat let alone for all the blood workup and MRIs that are due. I can't buy my own insurance because I have a pre existing condition.Thank you, USA for helping me out.

I don't have any kids, I'm not an alcoholic or drug addict, I'm working my way through college, yet I see women with eight kids and people that look like they haven't showered in a month at the local SRS office getting plenty of incentives to spread their legs again. Why don't we have mandatory birth control for these women? They've already exercised their right to have kids and the taxpayers' duty of paying for them.

Um, I could go on for hours, but I've probably already made someone angry...

We need a health care system like Japan's. It's even better than England's NHS.

What's with this fear of socialization?? It's ridiculous. Most of the world has these programs and they haven't turned into communist dictatorships yet.

RANT

 

[mallory knox]

I agree with most of the above, but mandatory birth control? what is that, china?

why not education and free birth control like in a lot of countries?

 

[Ketsugi]

Well, first of all, I firmly believe education is the solution to many problems.

I was in full rant mode... I am very hurt and angry. When I am turned down for help and watch as someone with a pack of kids gets approved, it hurts a lot. I feel invisible and worthless in the eyes of my country.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

What is the point of even discussing it if you are against it only by matter of principle? The principle isn't going to change and neither is your likelihood of believing in the principle. The only thing that can come out of such a discussion is arguments between principles, which ultimately boil down to value judgments.

Excuse me? If Ben believes there is such a principle, it would not be in his interest to sway the opinion of peers? One would have to feel very strongly about a concept to call it a principle.

By the way, I enjoyed the fact that you can't possibly debate against the most important piece of this entire argument. Your attempt to pave over any attempt to bring up capitalist concepts was pathetic. It's basically an admission to defeat.

 

[Azure_Knight]

Since the point of the OP seems to already have been addressed, I would like to know what exactly don't you like about the plan?

You could address the OP as well; I would like to hear your answer.

I imagine you have all the same principled arguments against it. Namely, government involvement = bad, but rather than those old, tired arguments I would like to know what specific components of it are impractical or too costly in your opinion.

I don't have anything against the idea of universal health care (UHC). I have no problem with the government starting its own public insurance to compete with the private sector. This country was founded on competition; may the best party win.

What I do have a problem is with using additional taxes on households earning a certain amount of money to fund this program. I have a problem with more government healthcare oversight. I have a problem with the fact that discussion is being discouraged, and people that are voicing legitimate anger in town hall meetings are being called un-American. I have a problem with statements to the effect of 'we will push this piece of legislation through without [bipartisanship approval].'

In my own view, this latest foray into healthcare is just another expansion of government (that is too large and has too much power already) fueled by placing additional burdens on certain households because they can (basically a financial penalty on success). I am also concerned by the fact that other programs under the government (such as social security and Medicare/Medicaid) are/will run out of money. If the government cannot manage those very important programs with fiscal responsibility, then why should they be given more money from taxpayers to fund a questionable expansion into healthcare? Regardless if you think that government involvement=bad, there still remains justified concern regarding fiscal responsibility. Before arguing the specifics, how about addressing the general problems surrounding the issue first?

I would also like to point out that many of the hybrid economies that have been discussed elsewhere on the forum are different in two very important respects from the United States: population and military spending. The United States has a population of 300 million and spends one of the largest (if not THE largest) amount of money on its military in the world. To my knowledge, nations such as Norway, Japan, Sweden, and others do not have population levels AND military spending on par with the United States.

I also have a problem with it being called universal health care since, in countries that have it, coverage is not universal. I think there is a great disparity between what the public thinks that it is getting and what will actually be delivered. Besides, healthcare is already given to those without insurance in emergency situation. It seems a question of wanting more and better coverage at the expense of someone else who can pay for it. I also think there will be a significant reduction in the quality of care provided to individuals under a government healthcare plan.

There is also the issue of rationed healthcare. Take a look:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm


Finally, I have a problem with the entire thing being rushed. Decisions that will impact the American public need enough time to be properly discussed, debated, and thought over. I'm also quite shocked that AARP is screwing their membership over because they will benefit from this bill financially.

All too often I get into debates on these topics with people, only to find out they argue about it from purely an ideological point of view and that they know very little about what they are actually arguing against. For those types I would ask if they have read through the plan, know how much it will cost, know what the current problems are, and know any alternatives for the plan that they can substantiate would better solve the problems. Strangely enough, once I ask those kind of questions, people often disappear from the debate.

I intend to stay here regardless of the outcome of the debate. And as far as reading through the plan... have the voting members of Congress even read through the entire thing on their own yet?

 

[mallory knox]

I have no idea where you guys came up with the "hybrid economy" issue. That is not even a concept that I have ever heard it doesn't even exist outside the US?

Also, by saying all countries that have it have not universal coverage is just pure bollocks. Nobody that I have ever known got denied treatment of any kind.

It's quite typical of those who never really left the US to just simply buy everything that they're told.

There is no such thing as hybrid economy, most of these countries are capitalist democracies.

They just happen to respect their people.

When it comes to human lives and wellbeing, profit and competition shouldn't be main issues.

That article is pure speculation, I'm sure you can realize that.

 

[mallory knox]

also the idea that all countries with public healthcare work the same is insane, of course some are better than others and there are differences