"Can't afford to work"

[vf-xx]

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.

Oh sure it is!! I had the option for part of my life. What your suggesting is, that regardless of what I CHOOSE for MYSELF, I MUST support my neighbor.

For me it's all about choice. Don't choose for me.

[drg]

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

Walking into ERs for treatment in the absence of primary care leads to higher costs. This is one of the foremost issues reform seeks to address.

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.

Just because a program is large and therefore expensive does not mean costs cannot be reasonable on a per person basis. Government health programs run lower administrative overhead than private programs, and it's not the government bloating costs but the healthcare industry itself.

If you know anything about insurance, it's that the lowest per-person costs are realized with the largest pool of contributors, so the whole greater cost claim is dishonest to begin with. And cutting costs isn't a virtue if societal harm is greater than the value of the cuts, which in this case it is.

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

There is no plan, however access is an inextricable part of quality of care. After all, no care is the poorest quality.

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.

So in other words, you don't provide the benefit, exactly as I thought. You are fine with passing the cost on to the employers of your workers' wives ... very hypocritical, and no wonder your worldview doesn't match reality.

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?

No plan currently discussed forces anyone to do anything. However even if we did do single payer, financing is no problem. There is plenty of money out there and the upper classes are being significantly undertaxed as it is now. Fairly large increases to bring their contributions in line with their societal draw could easily be weathered with no reduction in quality of life. We can start by rolling back the Reagan tax cuts.

Money that goes to a government program is never removed from the economy -- the government spends 100% of the money it brings in. It is private profit that represents the removal of money from the economy.

But perhaps the most salient point is that we are lessening everyone's income as it is now. Wages stagnate or fall, and healthcare costs rise.

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.

Meaningless anecdote. Some of, if not the, most expensive medical treatments are for idiopathic or congenital diseases. Many, many diseases do not arise out of life choices and I speak from personal anecdotes on that.

[drg]

Oh sure it is!! I had the option for part of my life. What your suggesting is, that regardless of what I CHOOSE for MYSELF, I MUST support my neighbor.

For me it's all about choice. Don't choose for me.

Your neighbor supports you whether you know it or not. That's what society is about. Every day you don't get stolen from or shot at, for example, that is an effect of the general welfare of the nation, which everyone pays for. In fact there's a good chance that the majority of your existence is the responsibility of American society and the people who have contributed to it.

People like yourself want to enjoy the benefits of society but not pay your share ... there are few people who truly can make this argument and not be complete hypocrites. There is little way to make this argument in clear ethics while living in the US and holding US citizenship.

[vf-xx]

Your neighbor supports you whether you know it or not. That's what society is about. Every day you don't get stolen from or shot at, for example, that is an effect of the general welfare of the nation, which everyone pays for. In fact there's a good chance that the majority of your existence is the responsibility of American society and the people who have contributed to it.

People like yourself want to enjoy the benefits of society but not pay your share ... there are few people who truly can make this argument and not be complete hypocrites. There is little way to make this argument in clear ethics while living in the US and holding US citizenship.

Yes I know. And I turn around and support my neighbor. Riding out a hurricane together really brings that to a head.

But there's a difference between a local community and the 'community' that is a Nation.

[drg]

Yes I know. And I turn around and support my neighbor. Riding out a hurricane together really brings that to a head.

But there's a difference between a local community and the 'community' that is a Nation.

On the upside, the larger the pool, the lower the contribution. It really all comes down to whether you view decent healthcare as something that should be universal in a top-tier society, and I just do. Especially in a society like ours where you are encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks ... failure should not mean your health is at stake, or people will tend not to take those risks.

And with that, I must bow out of this. Thanks for a relatively civil (if ultimately inconclusive) discussion guys.

Insert last words here:

[Lohman446]

So in other words, you don't provide the benefit, exactly as I thought. You are fine with passing the cost on to the employers of your workers' wives ... very hypocritical, and no wonder your worldview doesn't match reality.

Not really, because very few programs are actually paid for in the entirety by employers. The fact of the matter is I take in XX amount of money. Benefit packages can be XX amount of money. My employees simply have decided they would rather have it as cash money. Their wives then pay a higher deduction from the paycheck they receive in order to cover the spouse as well. If I covered them the costs to them (including themselves and their wives) would be higher than covering through a single pool (largest pool and all). Since I have a fairly small work force (under 10 employees) each of them has a pretty strong say on the compensation package they receive. My world view matches a reality based on self sufficiency and person responsibility. Based on making ones own choices and being responsible. Your employer may cover part of your health care costs. Rest assured thats compensation your not getting in some other area. Books have to balance. Cash flow has to balance. Although some have used debt financing to ignore this it cannot last forever.

If in the discussion we do away with access being the real problem and turn to cost denying access we can sort out issues. I mean to separate these for a reason. I don't believe the problem is a shortage of availability of health care options. Now, we can discuss this point but lets make certain that when we say access we don't mean cost.

If we accept that quality of care will be no different in a government run program (again, not counting not going) we can then discuss other issues. I think this gives a major benefit of the doubt to the supporters of the government run programs. Keeping quality of care, and advancement of care, on level with today in a government run program would be a MAJOR task. I think you would suffer heavily on the innovation side.

So now we run to the issue of cost. Most of the argument is that people do not see a doctor because it is too expensive. Seeing a doctor is expensive, and you are paying far more than it seems the service is worth. I am sure the question can be asked - 'what is your life and health worth?' but we need to step away from that question to examine it. I go and see my family doctor for a yearly check-up. $150 - routine physical, cardio gram (because of my running he insists its worth doing), etc. Normally he does not check cholesterol because it is a rather moot point considering my exercise and diet. Thats a $200 test. So, routine physicals, while expensive, are likely not prohibitive.

I'm lost onto the draw on society that the rich are... though I am concerned that you are asking for better benefits for you, not by paying more, but by having someone else pay. Thats a world view that concerns me. Then again I assume you are not in the category that would be taxed more. Its one thing to ask for more benefits while paying your share of the benefits. This goes back to bread and circus politics.

But, you have brought up the issue of congenital diseases and defects. Remember when I said part of being rich (and I'm not by the definition you use) was being lucky - this is called being unlucky. However, lets separate this out and discuss it as a problem in todays health care that does in fact need to be dealt with. Leave the other trappings behind as agreeing to disagree or as moot to the matter at hand and actually discuss this. What is the best way to address this. Part of me says force health care companies to accept all (even with preexisting conditions)- and perhaps in a hybrid situation where government funds are even used to assist those who cannot afford it to find health care.

The issue: It really doesn't address costs, it shifts them from the private individuals. As long as I have someone else paying for me - I really don't care what it costs. I think its one of the reasons for ballooning health care costs now. If the government is involved can government inefficiency overcome private profits? If private profits are lost do we lose innovation? Interesting - my kids have insurance - because if they are sick I don't care what the cost is. I don't but I guess I do care what the costs are if its me. Brings to mind some interesting thoughts.

I'm thinking, so bear with me if I have to back out of ideas after I write them, or don't make a ton of sense.

[maniacmechanic]

Your neighbor supports you whether you know it or not. That's what society is about. Every day you don't get stolen from or shot at, for example, that is an effect of the general welfare of the nation, which everyone pays for. In fact there's a good chance that the majority of your existence is the responsibility of American society and the people who have contributed to it.

People like yourself want to enjoy the benefits of society but not pay your share ... there are few people who truly can make this argument and not be complete hypocrites. There is little way to make this argument in clear ethics while living in the US and holding US citizenship.

I think the things that " most " of us reading this thread are concerned about are this ;
The fact that the government is talking about taking away our freedom to choose , this time its about healthcare , next time it may be about , abortion , freedom of speech , the right to bear arms , manditory miltary enlistment , making paintball illegal ( like Germany is trying to do ) , add to the list as you see fit

The fact is " most " of us don't worry about carrying our neighbor , poviding health care for our veterans . helping the handicapped & disabled , what we are concerned about is the generations of Americans that live off the " system " and never contribute & the Illegal immigrants that come to this country & never contribute a red cent to " our neighbor " , yet cross the border every day to have children that " our neighbor " will feed & give free medical care to ( even the Mob pays taxes nowdays )

one other statement , I loose about 1/4 of my payroll to taxes , ssi , medicare , then take almost 100$ a week for health ins. for my family , then on just about every other dollar I spend probley 5 to 7 % gets ate by additional taxes , my electric gets taxed , my phone gets taxed , my cable gets taxed , my car gets taxed ( when I buy it & every year after ) , my house gets taxed ( when I buy it & every year after ) , if I save too much money it gets taxed , If I inherit something it gets taxed ( & it was taxed when the person that originally bought it ) so you can take this statement & stuff it ;
People like yourself want to enjoy the benefits of society but not pay your share ... there are few people who truly can make this argument and not be complete hypocrites. There is little way to make this argument in clear ethics while living in the US and holding US citizenship
And don't just say you were refering to Lohman , because you are actually refering to every bussiness owner that has employees on thier spouse's insurance ( like my wife is on mine ) I mean really , how many are going to pay premiums on 2 health policies

wait i'm not done , you can blame whoever you want for the condition this country ( & healthcare ) is in , but i'll tell you who i'll blame ; the money givers , the people in government who " think " they need to save us from ourseles , the greedy companies that have taken our country & turned it into a third world manufacturing country , do you realize that at one point in time 95% of electronics were made in this country , crap at one point in time this country was the world market , everybody came here to buy products that were made here , I wonder how much of Mattel Toys line is made in this country , now as compared to lets say 1950

In my fathers generation ( he's 74 ) you could take a job fresh out of HS or the Military & retire from that job in 40 years , I wonder what the odds are of doing that now

[grEnAlEins]

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:



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.

There is indeed a healthcare bill, it is not a law yet (thank God) but it's certainly there. I am in the process of reading it in full, maybe you should consider the same...

That's all well and good, except obstructionism by Republicans does not exist in this congress. Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate and a vast majority in the House. The Republican party could not obstruct something even if they wanted to. Much of the opposition came from the Blue Dogs and moderate Democrats. There is not a Republican who opposes improving healthcare, there are Republicans who oppose to government healthcare. Also, just as a point of fact, the amendment proposed to the current bill to put congress on Obamacare was by an Oklahoma Republican and it was universally opposed by Democrats in committee. It is hypocritical of Democrats to oppose being on the same plan as they force everyone else into. There is no Republican hypocrisy as you point it out. The ones promoting Obamacare for me while keeping their better plan were all Democrats.

Obama's original plan was just as bad, as it removed choice and is fundamentally counterproductive if freedom is a goal.

[Lohman446]

In my fathers generation ( he's 74 ) you could take a job fresh out of HS or the Military & retire from that job in 40 years , I wonder what the odds are of doing that now

Considering your point about taxes: Double some of your taxes, because in addition to what you pay in your employer matches it. This is compensation for your work, its compensation that you stood a chance at receiving if the government did not. Again, I challenge the liberals to take away employer withholdings and allow everyone to write a check to the government for the share they are paying. Let's see then how upset we are.

I like that you bring up past generations. Let me add to that point:

If you had to explain this bill and why you supported it to your grandparents would you be embarrassed? Obviously you don't support it, but my grandfather would be appalled by this. The refreshing thing is I have actually now seen the idea that we should just take from the rich - because they are such a drain on societies resources. I still have not gotten an explanation on how that is, but it must be right? Because if I would question it I have no clue, no basis in reality, and operate from a skewed world view Its one of the fundamental principles of the the liberal agenda - that the rich somehow deserve to support society. Not just the "fair" share - you know everyone paying in XX percentage but more so, a graduated income tax system that taxes you extra for being successful.

Apparently also it is built on the premise that all business owners are rich. Need to support the new government programs just raise your rates and charge more - like duh, how come you don't get it, the person with absolutely no business experience or training knows it.

If we give government control of health care do they then control health care really? Health care is a personal responsibility, and some of us are luckier than others. However, most of us are responsible. We know a good exercise program promotes better health and serves the greater good, especially if the government is paying for care. Since not doing so would represent harming society we should do it, and it should be monitored to assure compliance. Read 1984 once and you will realize the "doom and gloom" picture in my mind. Hey, if you can raise a health care bill based on doom and gloom scenarios I can oppose it with the same right? Risky behavior causes higher costs in health care and should be restricted right?

Morality - I do not ask the government to force my neighbor to help me. I will provide for me and my own. I will help my neighbor who is trying. If we cannot be trusted to do what is right without the government forcing us to then we have issues as a society.

[teufelhunden]

did he really say undertaxed?

[Lohman446]

did he really say undertaxed?

Yeh, I think the whole argument is built off the idea of - I can get something for nothing, just tax the rich.

I suggest looking at what class had to do with the Roman civil wars.

I also suggest looking up the Greek term bread and circus politics.

The funny thing is somehow I'm hypocritical in the arguments. I don't make anywhere near the $55 an hour compensation considered "reasonable" in other arguments - so obviously I am not rich. I pay out of pocket for health care so I am one of the Americans who would be "given" something for nothing. And yet somehow there is no thought or reason behind my arguments?