"Can't afford to work"

[grEnAlEins]

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

OR deliberately set it up that way. I was amused by the fact that the party pushing Obamacare refused to accept it as their primary care. It is good enough for the average Joe, but not for the lawmakers? And does anyone ask why? HA! I guess in their eyes we are all equal, but some are more equal than others... Maybe Orwell was right

[Lohman446]

OR deliberately set it up that way. I was amused by the fact that the party pushing Obamacare refused to accept it as their primary care. It is good enough for the average Joe, but not for the lawmakers? And does anyone ask why? HA! I guess in their eyes we are all equal, but some are more equal than others... Maybe Orwell was right

I would be more worried about the rise of a ruling class (and the fact it is becoming a trend on both sides) in the US than the income gap. How many of the current leadership have had a relative serving in the Senate or Congress (or Presidency). What about as governor or on some state level? What about the advisors etc.? What if we include links to those advisors etc from the past? I think it would be surprising, and alarming. We the people is far different than it was in times past.

[vf-xx]

I don't remember who said this, so I can't vouch for original source, but it sounds about right to me:

Democracy only works as long as people don't realize that they can vote themselves whatever they want. After that everything is downhill towards dictatorship

[Lohman446]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

I am finding several references to your quote you provided. but they don't date back as far as I originally thought so I am not calling them legit. The sources I find give credit to Alexis De Tocqueville http://www.knowprose.com/node/11747 . Again I thought it went back to a Greek philosopher - I thought Socrates (who was known to be critical of democracy)

I love how much the "bread and circus" argument of the ancient greeks can be used here though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

[drg]

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.

Any assessment based on the status quo is invalid.

[Lohman446]

Any assessment based on the status quo is invalid.

Why? Because it highlights the reality of the situation rather than the worst case scenarios that play more often in peoples mind than in actuality?

[drg]

OR deliberately set it up that way. I was amused by the fact that the party pushing Obamacare refused to accept it as their primary care. It is good enough for the average Joe, but not for the lawmakers? And does anyone ask why? HA! I guess in their eyes we are all equal, but some are more equal than others... Maybe Orwell was right

Well the main reason they don't "accept" anything is there is no healthcare bill so there is nothing to accept. But hey, there's also this:

Q And what about yourself and Congress? Would you abide by the same benefit package?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I would be happy to abide by the same benefit package.

Of course most people making this argument also conveniently ignore the fact that Obama's original healthcare proposal was to allow everyone access to the congressional healthcare package. That is not possible because of obstructionism and opposition, not because Obama doesn't want it that way. So that line of argument doesn't hold water.

The irony of course is that the congressional healthcare system is essentially the kind of system you would get with single-payer. So those OPPOSING healthcare reform should be the ones to give it up. It is great hypocrisy for Republicans to oppose improving healthcare for average people while benefiting from such a system.

[drg]

Why? Because it highlights the reality of the situation rather than the worst case scenarios that play more often in peoples mind than in actuality?

Anyone who doesn't see the deterioration in the healthcare picture in this nation is divorced from reality.

[vf-xx]

Anyone who doesn't see the deterioration in the healthcare picture in this nation is divorced from reality.

I still don't buy in to 2 assumptions built in to this argument:

1) Health care does NOT equal health insurance. One is an action, the other is a money making bureaucracy.

2) That the federal government has any business providing health insurance to the nation, backed on tax payer money.

I'm not saying that the system isn't broken, I'm just saying that this isn't fixing it either.

[Lohman446]

Anyone who doesn't see the deterioration in the healthcare picture in this nation is divorced from reality.

Seriously - show me. These vague doom and gloom predictions have less credibility than the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Again, I realize there are issues - but they are not issues resulting in the doom and gloom that is being eluded to but not actually demonstrated.

Come to think of it "the great plan" addresses providing health care (the financial aspect), not the quality aspect.... so the problems that you argue are so apparent in quality of care are not even going to be addressed.

[drg]

I still don't buy in to 2 assumptions built in to this argument:

1) Health care does NOT equal health insurance. One is an action, the other is a money making bureaucracy.

It's disingenuous to make this distinction in this context. A huge component of healthcare is access and that is inextricable from financial considerations. One way or another that means insurance of some type.

2) That the federal government has any business providing health insurance to the nation, backed on tax payer money.

This is a question of basic ideology, so we will never agree on this point. I think, however, that the results are self-evident. Countries that do this have found healthcare success. America has not, and is experiencing underperformance and deterioration.

Seriously - show me. These vague doom and gloom predictions have less credibility than the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This shows you have no grounding the debate at all and have not done an ounce of real homework on the issue. I won't be doing any for you. There's nothing more I can do for you, but for those of us whose healthcare picture does include the reality of costs that outstrip inflation and far outstrip wage growth (which is actually wage loss for many people), we see the iceberg ahead. Those that understand the relationship between consumer spending and the economy understand that this is a dangerous downward spiral we are on.

I'm surprised that as an employer you have not seen the massive increase in healthcare costs. That tells me either you haven't been in business for long or you don't pay benefits that include good health coverage ... both of which explain the skewed perceptions.

[vf-xx]

It's disingenuous to make this distinction in this context. A huge component of healthcare is access and that is inextricable from financial considerations. One way or another that means insurance of some type.

Going with total disagreement on that. I grew up without healthcare and I was healthy and made all the Dr's visits I ever needed to. We paid cash.

Edit for further content:

Access can be made greater if direct healthcare costs are lowered. If you lower the overhead by reducing /streamlining Insurance paperwork, you can make savings there.

Again, Access does not equal insurance. Access can be made with a mentality and shift in behaviors. If people REALLY want healthcare, then they'll make it a priority and find a way (save for it, or something similar). Or they'll go visit the doctor when something is smaller and easier to deal with, instead of waiting till a limb is falling off and going to the emergency room. That also has a direct cost difference on healthcare.

[Lohman446]

Walk into an ER with no means to pay - you WILL receive care, the law has already addressed that.

So what is the big problem you are trying to fix? Costs - the government is not good at running things and getting costs down, the government can be somewhat successful through regulation but you are not for a moment discussing simple regulation.

Are we discussing quality of care? The plan does nothing.

The fact of the matter is when the flaws of the argument are exposed you have become dismissive. The more simple the questions and the less wiggle room for doom and gloom what ifs the less you wish to engage the points. Interesting, and not surprising. Dodging questions that actually ask for solid points is the mark of a very weak argument.

As to benefits offered my employees. About 15 years ago we first discussed health insurance and by vote took a raise instead (real world, I can either pay more or give more benefits, the fact is the money paid out has to come from somewhere). I have offered the option repeatedly over the years and since most of the guys have working wives who are already offered insurance they opt against it. I suppose I could tell them they are going to have it, pay them less, and use the difference to purchase it for them. So when I am telling you I do not want the government involved in my health care I am one of the millions of uninsured Americans the government insists needs help. For the record my children have health insurance.

The other point, if we force insurance on people through the government where is the money coming from? Are we removing it from the economy and lessening everyone's disposable income? How are we paying for it?

I exercise (devoted exercise, not just playing paintball, hiking, going for canoe trips, etc) near daily (5 times a week). I watch what I eat fairly closely. I don't smoke, I don't do drugs, I don't drink to excess. I get year physicals. Under the government program I would pay in my "fair" share the same as someone who sits around eating twinkies and watching television. I think you understand where I think there may be an issue.

[drg]

Going with total disagreement on that. I grew up without healthcare and I was healthy and made all the Dr's visits I ever needed to. We paid cash.

Yes, YOU did, for part of your life, and you were young and healthy at the time. Of course it's going to be cheap and affordable. That's not really a valid point when talking about the larger picture of nationwide healthcare.

[Lohman446]

What are the problems that the government being involved in are going to fix?

Quality? Nothing in the bill does that.

Cost? The government is very poor at managing cost. Very good at shifting it but very poor at managing it The cost is a major factor of health care in America today. It needs managed / controlled. However, the government is not going to be able to do this while maintaining accessibility and quality. Health care costs are not cheap anymore, not even for the young and healthy. Yes corporate greed played a major role in the problems we are at now - however the government is not going to fix it by taking over. Regulating perhaps... taking over no.

Accessibility? Again, walk into an emergency room you are going to be seen. Most states medicaid programs provide for doctor visits to those who truly cannot afford it. The people who don't have access do not have access not because of availability but because of costs.