"Can't afford to work"

[drg]

But what are the fixes for those? Theoretically social security is supposed to guarantee one the ability to support oneself if employment is unattainable due to a physical issue, or guarantee retirement. Yet both these government programs seem to fail to provide those who rely on them adequate resources to live on. Both are backed by the authority of the federal government. Neither function well as an interest bearing savings account. How do you keep a health care system from having the very same shortcomings if handled by the federal government?

Checked how much interest savings accounts get lately? We won't even get into retirement accounts.

Financial inability would be solved by any universal healthcare system but especially a single-payer one. Once that is taken care of, education becomes easier as a lot of the indignant ignorance about things fades away without the misinformation being spread by vested interests, lobbyists and the like. The rise to prominence of nonpartisan scientific guidelines and a general move to a more health-conscious culture is a major sea change that eliminating the profit motive in healthcare can accomplish.

[Lohman446]

Checked how much interest savings accounts get lately? We won't even get into retirement accounts.

Financial inability would be solved by any universal healthcare system but especially a single-payer one. Once that is taken care of, education becomes easier as a lot of the indignant ignorance about things fades away without the misinformation being spread by vested interests, lobbyists and the like. The rise to prominence of nonpartisan scientific guidelines and a general move to a more health-conscious culture is a major sea change that eliminating the profit motive in healthcare can accomplish.

10K balances long term CDs (60 month) 3% - I would have guessed 4-5% but obviously I have not shopped one lately. Government control however will not cause a rise in non partisanship, if anything it will create a larger degree of it. Lets take this example: I need gall bladder surgery - fact of life. Its roughly a 4K operation. Over half of this is paid to the hospital (the doctors are paid seperately) for use of the room essentially. For my own reasons I am not doing it now - it would put a crimp in my running and I am preparing for a couple events this year. I will pay for this out of pocket. Frankly if I have to have this done once a year its cheaper than one of the "great we pay for everything" insurance policies.

It can be dealt with: cope with stress well, avoid fatty foods, avoid large amounts of dairy, eat certain fruits on a daily basis. It flares up about once a month. I will tell you during an attack it is about impossible to do anything else, however they last about half an hour. There are things that I can try that may avoid surgery all together.

In a government run program do I have the right to receive alternative care? Sure, out of my pocket, but I am already paying for it. I run a slight risk of complicating things by waiting and causing a very expensive surgery (though multiple doctors have told me it is very minor), in a government program do I have the right to take this risk?

The point is in a pay to play system we make choices and stand behind them. The current insurance system is broken, frankly the isolation of the payer from the bill (your the payer, through your insurance or whatever you pay in the end) has been a main reason for the increases in cost. When I question the value of a government run system it is not in defense of the current system. Frankly I think any system should require you to pay for anything not major (say under 5K) out of pocket. Giving you the ultimate choice in selection of health care. Insurance (or government) should only be available for major costs.

[drg]

10K balances long term CDs (60 month) 3% - I would have guessed 4-5% but obviously I have not shopped one lately. Government control however will not cause a rise in non partisanship, if anything it will create a larger degree of it. Lets take this example: I need gall bladder surgery - fact of life. Its roughly a 4K operation. Over half of this is paid to the hospital (the doctors are paid seperately) for use of the room essentially. For my own reasons I am not doing it now - it would put a crimp in my running and I am preparing for a couple events this year. I will pay for this out of pocket. Frankly if I have to have this done once a year its cheaper than one of the "great we pay for everything" insurance policies.

It can be dealt with: cope with stress well, avoid fatty foods, avoid large amounts of dairy, eat certain fruits on a daily basis. It flares up about once a month. I will tell you during an attack it is about impossible to do anything else, however they last about half an hour. There are things that I can try that may avoid surgery all together.

In a government run program do I have the right to receive alternative care? Sure, out of my pocket, but I am already paying for it. I run a slight risk of complicating things by waiting and causing a very expensive surgery (though multiple doctors have told me it is very minor), in a government program do I have the right to take this risk?

The point is in a pay to play system we make choices and stand behind them. The current insurance system is broken, frankly the isolation of the payer from the bill (your the payer, through your insurance or whatever you pay in the end) has been a main reason for the increases in cost. When I question the value of a government run system it is not in defense of the current system. Frankly I think any system should require you to pay for anything not major (say under 5K) out of pocket. Giving you the ultimate choice in selection of health care. Insurance (or government) should only be available for major costs.

A CD is not a savings account. i don't know what world you live in but very few people I know could afford decent medical care out of pocket. Pay out of pocket would lead to a health disaster in this country, and when you play with people's lives like that, you get a lot of desperate people. That threatens the very rule of law. No thanks. That's the direction we're headed now and everyone considers it a bad thing.

[Lohman446]

A CD is not a savings account. i don't know what world you live in but very few people I know could afford decent medical care out of pocket. Pay out of pocket would lead to a health disaster in this country, and when you play with people's lives like that, you get a lot of desperate people. That threatens the very rule of law. No thanks. That's the direction we're headed now and everyone considers it a bad thing.

Everyone? I highly doubt that. I better jump onto that bandwagon. As to CDs not counting as savings account - they are far more accessible than government benefits to individuals. Hospitals already are required to provide care - even to those who cannot afford it. Simply make billing more realistic - collection more likely to get somewhere and allow billing. Out of pocket may have been a poor term, but make people responsible for the care they are given.

The sense of entitlement is a far greater threat than people being forced to be responsible for themselves. I'm sorry that ______________ can't or won't afford medical care, but its not my problem as a tax payer.

As much as I am being told what I think (wrongly) I worry about your lack of acknowledging the pitfalls of a government program. So I am going to assume you are of the belief that everyone will get whatever they want, whenever they want under a government program

[drg]

Of course it's your problem, and everyone's problem, not just as taxpayers but as citizens of a leading first-world nation. Allowing health crises and the deterioration of health of the nation as a whole is not the way forward. It's the way backward and will lead to a deterioration of civil society. Hopelessness and desparation leads to social dysfunction and eventually unrest.

Long ago we learned this lesson, back in the early days of industrialization. People without much to lose are free to turn to violence and lawlessness.

[Lohman446]

Of course it's your problem, and everyone's problem, not just as taxpayers but as citizens of a leading first-world nation. Allowing health crises and the deterioration of health of the nation as a whole is not the way forward. It's the way backward and will lead to a deterioration of civil society. Hopelessness and desparation leads to social dysfunction and eventually unrest.

Thats pretty bleak. Is there an honest fear that if we don't give health care as a basic right through taxpayer supported programs (I think we kind of do considering the people who don't pay or have insurance) that we will fall into chaos? The system is broken, I don't think the fix is to give it to the government.

[maniacmechanic]

Thats pretty bleak. Is there an honest fear that if we don't give health care as a basic right through taxpayer supported programs (I think we kind of do considering the people who don't pay or have insurance) that we will fall into chaos? The system is broken, I don't think the fix is to give it to the government.

I'll 2nd that

[Lohman446]

Of course it's your problem, and everyone's problem, not just as taxpayers but as citizens of a leading first-world nation. Allowing health crises and the deterioration of health of the nation as a whole is not the way forward. It's the way backward and will lead to a deterioration of civil society. Hopelessness and desparation leads to social dysfunction and eventually unrest.

Long ago we learned this lesson, back in the early days of industrialization. People without much to lose are free to turn to violence and lawlessness.

Maybe desperate people would work and contribute to the system rather than just seeking to take from it? Obviously not being desperate is not working for some people.

[grEnAlEins]

Maybe desperate people would work and contribute to the system rather than just seeking to take from it? Obviously not being desperate is not working for some people.

That's Useful posts 9: by my count...

People only act out of motivation. If people are not motivated to progress they will not. If they are not motivated to be productive, they will not be productive. What the modern liberal is trying to do is remove prospect of failure, a genuinely good notion. The problem is that in doing so the motivation for success (or at least sufficiency) is also removed. Without failure there can be no success, especially when you punish success in order to reward failure. If you are not free to fail you cannot possibly be free to succeed. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can move on to bigger and better things.

[drg]

Maybe desperate people would work and contribute to the system rather than just seeking to take from it? Obviously not being desperate is not working for some people.

It works everywhere else and throughout history, right? I mean what could be better to motivate the working class than to increase class inequality, especially by directly attacking the most basic human needs. Right?

Wrong. That is the formula for social breakdown, particularly in an ostensibly free society. Inequality on this level is incompatible with our way of life and in the absence of reconciliation will lead to revolution. It's happening peacefully for now, but if the superrich keep stymieing peaceful progressive change, the country will eventually face violent radical change.

[teufelhunden]

the country will eventually face violent radical change.

not if your ilk has anything to say about it! we wont be allowed to have anything that could be used in a violent manner

[Lohman446]

It works everywhere else and throughout history, right? I mean what could be better to motivate the working class than to increase class inequality, especially by directly attacking the most basic human needs. Right?

Wrong. That is the formula for social breakdown, particularly in an ostensibly free society. Inequality on this level is incompatible with our way of life and in the absence of reconciliation will lead to revolution. It's happening peacefully for now, but if the superrich keep stymieing peaceful progressive change, the country will eventually face violent radical change.

Honestly... we have a support system in place for those who truly cannot afford things. One of my friends ten years ago son had cancer. I know my friend, he makes less than 30K a year. His son received cutting edge treatment, in fact a procedure that is only now starting to become the "standard". Treatment that would have cost myself or an insurance company literally millions of dollars. He was not turned away, and yet had no means or intention of ever paying for that treatment. He did not have to declare bankruptcy. The social support system already in place from the government handed it to him.

These nightmare scenarios you describe are not the norm in the current system. Indeed it seems that while working "to help the poorest" most people are really just helping themselves. The inequality that you talk about exists, but not like you think. Yes, the rich are getting richer. However, the poor in America, most of whom have good and adequate food (this same friend receives a card for food that is more than my monthly grocery budget), shelter, vehicles, and more often than not as good healthcare as I do.

The social break down you fear is not those who refuse to do work and be responsible for themselves that you should worry about. Its the people who are getting sick of supporting those who will not work or do anything for themselves. We are pretty understanding, we understand some people cannot be expected to work for legitimate medical reasons. We are even ok with people who retire at a reasonable age. However, we are not stupid - thats the unfortunate thing for much of the liberal agenda.

I do love the threat of those who oppose the things that would make radical change possible (like firearms) that if they don't get the "progressive" changes they call for people will turn to violence. I love the term progressive they try to use. Making people more dependent on the government and less dependent on themselves is not progressive.

I will take care of me and mine, I expect the same out of others - if you try and need help I will help you. I hope for the same but do not depend on it. This is called community, not government.

[grEnAlEins]

It works everywhere else and throughout history, right? I mean what could be better to motivate the working class than to increase class inequality, especially by directly attacking the most basic human needs. Right?

Wrong. That is the formula for social breakdown, particularly in an ostensibly free society. Inequality on this level is incompatible with our way of life and in the absence of reconciliation will lead to revolution. It's happening peacefully for now, but if the superrich keep stymieing peaceful progressive change, the country will eventually face violent radical change.

Where else in history has capitalism/individualism ever been attempted and really given a sporting chance? Forget where else, show me where to begin with? Where has socialism ever worked? Show me a socialist nation that is in good financial standing and not on the capitalist teat (i.e. not taking American money to fund their failing programs) or even a socialist institution here that is financially salient. That rules out all of the EU and the American super-continent.

No, it was right. In an ostensibly free society people are free to fail too. People need to be able to choose their own path in life, even if it is one that you do not approve of. People need to be able to reap what they sow. You cannot remove natural consequence from the equation and expect a positive result.

Yes, let us worry about those that are too lazy to provide for themselves revolting They would never do it because it requires effort The people that tend to revolt are those that feel burdened; lazy people do not do this. You need to worry about those who are being screwed over by the system revolting, meaning those whose combined tax rate is going to climb significantly over the next few years.

Also note that most of the "superrich" are not conservatives by any stretch. Gates, Buffet, Trump, Jobs, Eric Schmidt, etc. Also note that these evil "superrich" are also the most likely to engage in philanthropic efforts to help the poor. The "superrich" are not a burden, but an asset to the poor.

[Lohman446]

Violence to the liberal crowd is the disorganized looting and rioting that happens from time to time. I hope they don't consider the apathy of the government in allowing it to happen with an inability to stop it if push came to shove. The funny thing is that the liberal left and the anarchaists use the same type of civil disobedience (generally) to accomplish far different goals. The days of peaceful, quiet, and respectful protest are gone... no more singing kumbaya, now its throwing rocks the guys with guns. Eventually natural selection will help us out .

Before you add more taxes at least have the guts to let us pay them directly rather than employer witholding. Frankly too many who support government handouts don't have a real understanding of what it is costing them (not just the rich). How many people are grateful for the government money they get from tax returns, seemingly oblivious to the fact its money they already paid in. Let the American people see directly how much these programs cost them and see if they support it. Maybe then we (as a whole) will quit thinking that government = free. You do not get anything for free - THATS LIFE. The rich got there through sound fiscal practices of either themselves or parents, coupled with motivition, hard work, and some luck. I'm sorry - life is not fair - get over it. Trying to make it fair between the hard working and motivated and the not will only cause unrest among the hard working and motivated - who are far more likely to be able to do something meaningful than the not.

[Lohman446]

I also find it amusing the amount of people who vote in these rules to give out government money (on both sides of the aisles) who have "forgotten" or made errors that result in paying less than their share in taxes