Why America can't have nice things...

It'll take me forever to quote all of these replies individually, so I'll try to simplify my post as much as possible and respond to everything concisely.

BenW: Yes, its true, the money does come from the taxpayers. And I think this is the part where we disagree the most; I strongly believe that the rich is obligated to support the poor. They can get buy without the money others may need just to survive.

Not sure how private property works into all this though.

On the issue of America having a much larger population than the UK and Ireland, of course this is the case, but this is also why America has state governments. They have the freedom to define US wide incentives and procedures, but it will be up to each individual state to ensure the quality of the service that they can provide to the public.

I have two questions for everyone, to satisfy my own curiosity.

- Do you think America will ever have a complete public healthcare system?

- More importantly, do you think that it should have one?​


I hope I'm not derailing your thread too much, arbygil...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gloomy-optimist said:
One of the big problems, in my opinion: although many people do take care of themselves, there is a large number of people who really don't.

Why should we be obligated to take on the burden of caring extensively for someone when they will not take responsibility to care for themselves? When is it a societal obligation to take care of those who won't even put an effort to give back?

In other words, those who have health problems due to their unwillingness to put real effort into losing weight or stopping smoking or things of the like...well, I don't like the fact that a very good chunk of the healthcare will probably be going to them
Click to expand...

Thats taken care of in the UK by very high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, so they contribute far more in taxes (quite rightly too).

There will always be people who do (or are perceived to) abuse the system and obtain more than they are due, but to deny those without the ability to provide for themselves because of that is wrong.
 
Last edited:
errrrrrrrrrm said:
Thats taken care of in the UK by very high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, so they contribute far more in taxes (quite rightly too).

There will always be people who do (or are perceived to) abuse the system and obtain more than they are due, but to deny those without the ability to make the choice because of that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Heh. I think this would also work if we taxed junk food. Especially in the US since we're so addicted to it.
 
errrrrrrrrrm said:
Thats taken care of in the UK by very high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, so they contribute far more in taxes (quite rightly too).

There will always be people who do (or are perceived to) abuse the system and obtain more than they are due, but to deny those without the ability to make the choice because of that is wrong.
Click to expand...

That's true. However, the question lies in how to enforce that -- it's one of the things I can see wrong with the idea of federal healthcare in America. They would have to make a pretty complicated system to try to filter out those who take advantage of it. It's very possible that it would be a more effective to remain on a smaller scale.

But that's why there's so much debate...the massive reforms and possible downsides might cause more problems than is advisable at the current time.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
That's true. However, the question lies in how to enforce that -- it's one of the things I can see wrong with the idea of federal healthcare in America. They would have to make a pretty complicated system to try to filter out those who take advantage of it. It's very possible that it would be a more effective to remain on a smaller scale.

But that's why there's so much debate...the massive reforms and possible downsides might cause more problems than is advisable at the current time.
Click to expand...

There's a downside to every system of health care, and obviously you have to pay due attention to those that would abuse the system, but the bottom line is there are people who are dying in the richest country in the world because of the costs of health care.

My opinion would always be get them covered immediately by whatever means neccessary and deal with the other issues later.
 
Seriously. The junk food vending machines near my office are ridiculously priced at $1.25 for a can of soda, when you can get it comparatively for pennies at the local convenience store. But people still sell out the vending machines. Why? Because they want it.

Add an extra ten cents to every candy bar, every soda, every potato chip and every cookie in the United States and people will still pay for it. Heck, they probably won't even complain about it.

They haven't so far.

Then use that money to go to health care.

I can't say it will solve all the problems, but if you're unhealthy because you're eating junk food, then let's tax the junk food. Same as cigarettes, same as booze.

ETA:

How much junk food does the average American eat in a year?

Current estimates of amounts of particular junk foods consumed by each American yearly are as follows:

* 50 pounds of cookies and cakes
* 100 pounds of refined sugar
* 55 pounds of fat and oil
* 300 containers of soda
* 200 sticks of chewing gum
* 20 gallons of ice cream
* 5 pounds of potato chips
* 18 pounds of candy
* 2 pounds of popcorn
* unknown quantity of pretzels and a wide variety of snack foods.

Source: Elkort, Martin. The Secret Life of Food, 1991, p. 125.
 
Last edited:
errrrrrrrrrm said:
There's a downside to every system of health care, and obviously you have to pay due attention to those that would abuse the system, but the bottom line is there are people who are dying in the richest country in the world because of the costs of health care.

My opinion would always be get them covered immediately by whatever means neccessary and deal with the other issues later.
Click to expand...

Well, calling America the richest country in the world is a bit of a generalization; the spread of wealth is not so even, if only because of the geographical and demographic factors. Most Americans are better off, comparatively, but there are many who have much more wealth and many who have very little.

The "other issues" are not negligible. In fact, that sort of thinking may trigger some very disastrous things in the future. The healthcare system at the moment is not terrible; it may not be best, and it definitely needs improvement, but it's not so bad that we can't take time to really consider the best way of handling the situation first.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
Well, calling America the richest country in the world is a bit of a generalization; the spread of wealth is not so even, if only because of the geographical and demographic factors. Most Americans are better off, comparatively, but there are many who have much more wealth and many who have very little.
Click to expand...

I was talking generally, overall the us is the richest country in the world and overall has the ability to provide at least adequate health care to everyone by progressive taxation

The "other issues" are not negligible. In fact, that sort of thinking may trigger some very disastrous things in the future. The healthcare system at the moment is not terrible; it may not be best, and it definitely needs improvement, but it's not so bad that we can't take time to really consider the best way of handling the situation first.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean the other issues were negligible, just that they are/should be secondary to people's lives.

I obviously will have inferior knowledge of the health care situation than a US citizen so I'll bow to your knowledge of the current situation although the reports I've read from a variety of sources implied the situation was rather urgent.
 
arbygil said:
Seriously. The junk food vending machines near my office are ridiculously priced at $1.25 for a can of soda, when you can get it comparatively for pennies at the local convenience store. But people still sell out the vending machines. Why? Because they want it.

Add an extra ten cents to every candy bar, every soda, every potato chip and every cookie in the United States and people will still pay for it. Heck, they probably won't even complain about it.

They haven't so far.

Then use that money to go to health care.

I can't say it will solve all the problems, but if you're unhealthy because you're eating junk food, then let's tax the junk food. Same as cigarettes, same as booze.

ETA:

How much junk food does the average American eat in a year?

Current estimates of amounts of particular junk foods consumed by each American yearly are as follows:

* 50 pounds of cookies and cakes
* 100 pounds of refined sugar
* 55 pounds of fat and oil
* 300 containers of soda
* 200 sticks of chewing gum
* 20 gallons of ice cream
* 5 pounds of potato chips
* 18 pounds of candy
* 2 pounds of popcorn
* unknown quantity of pretzels and a wide variety of snack foods.

Source: Elkort, Martin. The Secret Life of Food, 1991, p. 125.
Click to expand...

Damn good idea that. It'd make more money than oil tax.
 
Political correctness has allowed the bullies and liars and thieves in America to take advantage of those reluctant to call them what they really are, allowing them to get away with it. People have become accustomed to holding in their anger for fear of appearing politically incorrect.

It is normal to have anger when being lied to, ignored and misled by those who are supposed to be representing you. Those in Congress should not be surprised that Americans are angry. The recent health care debate is only the straw that has broken the politically correct back of the citizens of the United States. In this case, it is healthy for Americans to be angry.

We are sick of taking care of those that despite being able bodied, won't do anything to take care of themselves or at least try to live a productive life that betters society.
The government has encouraged it. Both parties especially the Democratic party rely on it.
Keep a segment of people dependent on the programs the party puts in place to ensure these loyal customers come back the next election cycle.

The healthcare program will most likely become more of the same elixir.

In between election cycles, you hear chants of "Throw the bums out!"
"Remember in November!"
But what happens when election time rolls around and they go to the polls?
They elect the same glad handing liars from the same 2 parties!

Then, the chanting begins again.

After reading this thread, I am beginning to think Americans have a different definition of the word 'Rights' than those in other parts of the world has.
 
MindYourHead said:
After reading this thread, I am beginning to think Americans have a different definition of the word 'Rights' than those in other parts of the world has.
Click to expand...
Yes. What you call "I know my rights", we call; "self-entitled babies".
 
MindYourHead said:
Political correctness has allowed the bullies and liars and thieves in America to take advantage of those reluctant to call them what they really are, allowing them to get away with it. People have become accustomed to holding in their anger for fear of appearing politically incorrect.

It is normal to have anger when being lied to, ignored and misled by those who are supposed to be representing you. Those in Congress should not be surprised that Americans are angry. The recent health care debate is only the straw that has broken the politically correct back of the citizens of the United States. In this case, it is healthy for Americans to be angry.

We are sick of taking care of those that despite being able bodied, won't do anything to take care of themselves or at least try to live a productive life that betters society.
The government has encouraged it. Both parties especially the Democratic party rely on it.
Keep a segment of people dependent on the programs the party puts in place to ensure these loyal customers come back the next election cycle.

The healthcare program will most likely become more of the same elixir.

In between election cycles, you hear chants of "Throw the bums out!"
"Remember in November!"
But what happens when election time rolls around and they go to the polls?
They elect the same glad handing liars from the same 2 parties!

Then, the chanting begins again.

After reading this thread, I am beginning to think Americans have a different definition of the word 'Rights' than those in other parts of the world has.
Click to expand...

was that meant to be sarcastic?

I honestly can't tell anymore, I'm beginning to think americans are a different species.
 
errrrrrrrrrm said:
I was talking generally, overall the us is the richest country in the world and overall has the ability to provide at least adequate health care to everyone by progressive taxation
Click to expand...

We are in an economic depression. In the future, we will hardly be able to pay for social security because of population growth. And healthcare is by no mean cheap. I think you greatly underestimate the cost of this project.

It will likely be one of the most costly reforms in American history. Plus, remember that people don't like taxes to begin with -- but it's going to cost the American people a very pretty penny, and it won't be a small change in that.

I didn't mean the other issues were negligible, just that they are/should be secondary to people's lives.

I obviously will have inferior knowledge of the health care situation than a US citizen so I'll bow to your knowledge of the current situation although the reports I've read from a variety of sources implied the situation was rather urgent.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but people die. People will die on healthcare. People will die while waiting. It's a fact of life; you can't change that. To put rational decision-making on the back burner will not help -- you will be forever delaying the onset of death and never making the system as good or as effective as it could be. In this situation, effectiveness and rational, objective decision making is very important BECAUSE human lives are at stake; the best system would do the most humanitarian good in the long run. And you have to include economics, politics, etc in that mix, because all of those affect the quality of people's lives and their ability to live prosperously and happily. You must address that, and it's better to do that sooner rather than later.

America is, by itself, the size of Europe, and just as economically and geographically diverse. Politically so, as well. It's not easy to come up with a system of that caliber that will work well. And Americans are not dying that quickly -- in some areas, the healthcare is worse than in others, and to certain groups of people. But overall, we're not in any sort of crisis. A good part of that sense of urgency comes from the over-dramatization of the polarization in the political arguments. But it is not nearly so urgent as to allow us to succumb to passion and lose site of the rational side.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
We are in an economic depression. In the future, we will hardly be able to pay for social security because of population growth. And healthcare is by no mean cheap. I think you greatly underestimate the cost of this project.

It will likely be one of the most costly reforms in American history. Plus, remember that people don't like taxes to begin with -- but it's going to cost the American people a very pretty penny, and it won't be a small change in that.



I hate to say it, but people die. People will die on healthcare. People will die while waiting. It's a fact of life; you can't change that. To put rational decision-making on the back burner will not help -- you will be forever delaying the onset of death and never making the system as good or as effective as it could be. In this situation, effectiveness and rational, objective decision making is very important BECAUSE human lives are at stake; the best system would do the most humanitarian good in the long run. And you have to include economics, politics, etc in that mix, because all of those affect the quality of people's lives and their ability to live prosperously and happily. You must address that, and it's better to do that sooner rather than later.

America is, by itself, the size of Europe, and just as economically and geographically diverse. Politically so, as well. It's not easy to come up with a system of that caliber that will work well. And Americans are not dying that quickly -- in some areas, the healthcare is worse than in others, and to certain groups of people. But overall, we're not in any sort of crisis. A good part of that sense of urgency comes from the over-dramatization of the polarization in the political arguments. But it is not nearly so urgent as to allow us to succumb to passion and lose site of the rational side.
Click to expand...

I in no way meant to imply the US put rational decision making on the back burner, and I'm fully aware of the problems the US would have introducing a government health care plan.

As an outsider who has grown up in a country where the national health service is almost taken for granted, the debate on health care in the US seems almost humerous, like a debate about the cost of locking up mass murderers versus just letting them go.

I pay 9% of my income for the NHS, and I consider that a bargain, my father has required monthly medication for 17 years, has had 2 extended periods in hospital and the NHS have saved his life at least twice, while providing him and my mother the best emotional support imaginable.
 
errrrrrrrrrm said:
I in no way meant to imply the US put rational decision making on the back burner, and I'm fully aware of the problems the US would have introducing a government health care plan.

As an outsider who has grown up in a country where the national health service is almost taken for granted, the debate on health care in the US seems almost humerous, like a debate about the cost of locking up mass murderers versus just letting them go.

I pay 9% of my income for the NHS, and I consider that a bargain, my father has required monthly medication for 17 years, has had 2 extended periods in hospital and the NHS have saved his life at least twice, while providing him and my mother the best emotional support imaginable.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, if we could have that. But I'm somewhat skeptical as to how well it would work in America, as opposed to other countries...the systems are just so different.
 
Satya Eh? Are you kidding?

"First off, using the ambiguous term "the government" did this and that is rather hilarious considered this is a government for the people and by the people.We are the government!"

The government as it stands only represents who it chooses to right now. It's not for the people or even by the people it's for the highest bidder.efromm

" Second, who in "the government" messed up Social Security by borrowing from it? Ronald Reagan did! Let me know if you need help voting him out."

Ya know I am old but, not old enough to vote for Regan and I think he was a horrible president. As a matter of fact this country has been lacking leadership for as long as I can remember. But if memory serves me both parties dipped into the social security program. They are both corrupt.efromm

In fact, what people in "the government" led it for twelve years, cut back on regulations for insurance companies, and virtually designed the health care system we have now that is on the verge of failing? The Republicans! And what party has been voted a super majority so as to replace those particular individuals in "the government" who screwed up health care and social security? The Democrats! Guess what? The people who messed things up are not all the same people who are in charge now. We already voted in the last election to fix "the government" so that we would have a body of people more suited towards fixing health care.

And I agree with you that's why I will never vote Dem or Republican ever again. Both parties are screwed up. What I can't understand is why is everyone's getting so upset about people raising concerns? Why are we in such a hurry to fix it. I was able to go to the hospital and get taken care of the other day. And when I was there I asked every Doctor I could find if they supported the heath care bill and they all said no, they were against it. They agree that something has to be done not just the current plan. If this plan goes into law I will not be covered. I don't make enough money. And I will most likely go out of business because I won't be able to afford the taxes on my business. But hey someone will have health care. And for the record I never said anything about political parties or my affiliation with any party. Although you seem to think that I am a Republican. I take that as an insult.efromm
 
Has anyone considered how smoothly it'd run if they diverted 90% the funds from Military RnD, as well as 80% of the Nuclear System, and cut the foreign presence down by a third?

Everyone could have a good Health and Education system, and it would leave shitloads of money left to the government. It'd probably pay the debts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top