that is one pitiful, and weak analogy... mansions are not a need, decent and affordable health care is an absolute need. step your game up ffg
you act as if universal health care is unheard of?
some personal experience. a close friend of mine owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAY too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still making payments. we are talking about a man that has a family, and works hard, 40+ a week in the "richest country in world history" yet he has to struggle and finance $10k to have a nail removed. i think that is bullshit, healthcare and insurance should not be too expensive FOR ANYBODY. especially a productive person working full time raising a family.
What level of healthcare is needed? Do we all pay to have a sliver removed from your finger? Do we all pay for a liver transplant that is required after you've destroyed your liver drinking? Do we pay to keep you hooked up to resporators and the like for 20 years because your family can't let go?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
that is one pitiful, and weak analogy... mansions are not a need, decent and affordable health care is an absolute need. step your game up ffg
No, healthcare is not an "absolute need" anymore than a mansion is. Food is an absolute need. Shelter is an absolute need. Water is an absolute need. Everything else is a conditional need, a whim, a desire, or a want.
you act as if universal health care is unheard of?
I certainly do not.
some personal experience. a close friend of mine owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAY too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still making payments. we are talking about a man that has a family, and works hard, 40+ a week in the "richest country in world history" yet he has to struggle and finance $10k to have a nail removed. i think that is bullshit, healthcare and insurance should not be too expensive FOR ANYBODY. especially a productive person working full time raising a family.
If you think healthcare should be less expensive, then provide it.
Europeans get UHC but they also pay about 50-55% income tax. Granted they get like 6-8 weeks of vacation. It's a tough call. I'm not sure I want to give up 50% of my income so everyone can have healthcare. That may be callous, but I'm just being honest.
I agree...and further where is this extra money going to come from? A majority of people in the US are now going to college and graduating with a lot of debt. so in addition to a car payment, house payment / rent, and college loan repayment, savings we're now supposed to find more money to pay for everyone to have healthcare? We'd end up bankrupting a lot of people and in turn a lot of business. Now, if the insurance companies could cut costs and cut profits, we might be able to do something...It's a great idea to have universal healthcare but the impact of paying for it would be much greater than we can imagine, imo.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
No, healthcare is not an "absolute need" anymore than a mansion is. Food is an absolute need. Shelter is an absolute need. Water is an absolute need. Everything else is a conditional need, a whim, a desire, or a want.
i disagree, i guess when you break your arm medical attention is not a need? or if you have a stroke, medical care is not a need? give me a break
If you think healthcare should be less expensive, then provide it.
your argument is getting weaker...
i would have no problem with helpng fund universal health care with my tax dollars.
What level of healthcare is needed? Do we all pay to have a sliver removed from your finger? Do we all pay for a liver transplant that is required after you've destroyed your liver drinking? Do we pay to keep you hooked up to resporators and the like for 20 years because your family can't let go?
you would figure after thousands of years, the human race would not mind providing each other with health care, whether small or large. but i guess some of us are "me, me, me" oriented and some of us are "us, us, us" oriented
See the article I just posted. I'd like to hear your critique of it.
Are you talking about the California proposal article?
Oh, I agree. Although, I really can't fathom why anyone would be against a proposed system that could potentially help so many.
I can't take much more of this logic....it's permeating this board lately worse than usual.
Something that "could potentially help so many" is not justified by that help. Help is not a moral standard. If I shoot you, it may certainly help someone else. If I rob your neighbor, it might certainly help you. Genocide can be very helpful to some. Those actions are not justified by whom they help. They are unjust because they are contradictory with the values they are meant to uphold.
Universal Health Care implies that society owns the services of its doctors and others in the medical profession, along with the property required to support the system. Through that implication and the force you'll apply to make it a reality, no one can own those services. People may only struggle over them.
And can you tell me why that is?
Because people have literally been inventing demand. We've invented new products and procedures and marketed the hell out of them. Many of those products and procedures are limited to a few places or providers. The basic rules of supply and demand apply just as much to healthcare as they do any other product or service.
Please explain your analogy here and how it applies.
UHC in other nations is typically marked by price fixing by the state and expropriation of wealth to support the system. It is direct action against the market. Comparing prices within a free or relatively free market to those in a controlled system is pointless and ridiculous. So, if I have a system where I simply steal cars or set their prices, telling someone that my cars are "cheaper" is meaningless. They aren't "cheaper" -- I'm simply forcing someone else to pay the cost.
I don't look at health care as a luxury item. I think you should consider separating the two.
Why don't you look at health care as a luxury item? It has all the makings of a luxury item. It is provided by skilled workers. It is highly desired.
It's easy to say that health care fulfills a basic desire (the desire to live), and that is partly true. But that doesn't mean it isn't a luxury item. Caviar fulfills basic desires too.
I know this may sound like a stupid question but can Universal Healthcare be provided without government involvment or at the least minimal government involvment. I ask this because I would love nothing more than to see affordable healthcare coverage for all but I don't want any government involvment simply because the government is a fiscal blackhole, money gets sucked in and nothing comes out the other end.
So I guess it was a stupid question since I didn't get any answers
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
i disagree, i guess when you break your arm medical attention is not a need? or if you have a stroke, medical care is not a need? give me a break
Absoulte need, as you said, presupposes an absolute condition. Without food, I cannot live. Without water, I cannot live. Without shelter, I cannot live. Without healthcare, I can most certainly live in many conditions.
your argument is getting weaker...
i would have no problem with helpng fund universal health care with my tax dollars.
Then fund it. I would never suggest you have no right to fund universal health care.
So I guess it was a stupid question since I didn't get any answers
Hehe...it wasn't a stupid question.
Universal health care cannot be provided absent "government" so long as the will of the desirer and the will of the provider do not agree. Government is in quotes there to represent social force, since that could come in forms not necessarily referred to as government.
The bottom line is that UHC, as people use the word, is only accomplished via charity, or via force. UHC, as I would use it, is accomplished via a market wherein anyone may exchange a value for an equal value of healthcare. But that's not a UHC system wherein people have a "right" to healthcare.
Universal health care cannot be provided absent "government" so long as the will of the desirer and the will of the provider do not agree. Government is in quotes there to represent social force, since that could come in forms not necessarily referred to as government.
The bottom line is that UHC, as people use the word, is only accomplished via charity, or via force. UHC, as I would use it, is accomplished via a market wherein anyone may exchange a value for an equal value of healthcare. But that's not a UHC system wherein people have a "right" to healthcare.
Thank you. I merely thought that instead of running around in circle debating a topic to death, government funded UNC which will probably never happen in our lifetime, we could look to alternative way of providing the same benefit without having it forced on all.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Thank you. I merely thought that instead of running around in circle debating a topic to death, government funded UNC which will probably never happen in our lifetime, we could look to alternative way of providing the same benefit without having it forced on all.
UHC will be a reality in this country in the next 15 years or so. There's very little standing in its way.
Europeans get UHC but they also pay about 50-55% income tax. Granted they get like 6-8 weeks of vacation. It's a tough call. I'm not sure I want to give up 50% of my income so everyone can have healthcare. That may be callous, but I'm just being honest.
Income tax in the UK (income after deduction of allowances)
0 - £2,230 - 10%
£2,231 - 34,600 - 22% (your average worker)
Over £34,600 - 40%
(note that if you earn £60,000, the 40% is applied the income over the £34.600 and not to the whole income as some countries do).
So not as bad as the 50%+. Personally, I think it is worth it. The NHS (as it is called here) certainly has flaws and not enough funding but.. as an example, I was hospitalized a few years back as an emergency with chest pains. It was pulmonary embolism... I was in the critical care unit (more expensive obviously than normal wards), scans, etc. and under constant care for days... What did it cost me? Nothing!!!!!(well not directly... paid through my taxes obviously) Did I even have to think about going to the emergency room (after all, chest pains could have just 'passed') because I may not have been able to pay? No... How does this compare to:
......owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAY too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still making payments.
If it costs $10.000 to remove a nail from a big toe, I would hate to think what the medical bill would have been for me. As said, as flawed as one may find the NHS, knowing that I can be treated without concern is a big relief.
UHC will be a reality in this country in the next 15 years or so. There's very little standing in its way.
I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.
There is a lot of opposition to it. I was shocked the other day when my roommate (who is very liberal) was reading a speech by Obama wherein he mentioned UHC and she literally recoiled at the language and justifications.
That said, the opposition is vastly outnumbered by the people who want "free" health care. People like Obama are going to be able to frame the issue such that the vast majority of people will see that they'll receive services greater than any value they have to pay. Plus, many corporations are going to start getting behind this. And that's about all it takes anymore.
I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.
Higher taxes are never popular but if you know where your taxes go and what benefits you may get from them, you can live with it. Unfortunately, If a government puts up the taxes by, say 2%, because it wants to invest in heath care, we believe this money earmarked for health could really go anywhere. I think there was a survey recently done in the UK about the state of the NHS and the extra funding it needed and a majority did not have problems taxes being increased provided it WAS spent on the NHS (and not redistributed for other purposes).
Higher taxes are never popular but if you know where your taxes go and what benefits you may get from them, you can live with it. Unfortunately, If a government puts up the taxes by, say 2%, because it wants to invest in heath care, we believe this money earmarked for health could really go anywhere. I think there was a survey recently done in the UK about the state of the NHS and the extra funding it needed and a majority did not have problems taxes being increased provided it WAS spent on the NHS (and not redistributed for other purposes).
You are probabaly right but our government doesn't have the best track record in regards to spending our money.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.
We are already paying for emergency and catastrophic care for the uninsured through our tax dollars. We are paying for those who go bankrupt or who simply can't pay their medical bills through our insurance premiums, or through our own medical costs when we pay them directly, since they are inflated to cover those losses. That's where the $5 band-aids and cotton balls come from. Under a universal system we wouldn't be paying the hundreds of dollars per month that most of us are spending on insurance premiums. I'm not at all convinced that UHC would cost any more money than what we're spending now ... in fact, if we could phase out the insurance industry, we'd be saving billions each year in unnecessary administrative costs and would actually SAVE money.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
So is he saying it was good when he was President and now its "immoral" but his wifey poo is going to fix it? Give me a break. I like Bill and I don't disagree that there is a lot of room for improvement of the healthcare system but Billy boy was President at one time and I don't see any universal healthcare system him implemented.
how do you feel about turning around good statements and truth... and a search for something better.. into your statement?
i do not support a man cheating on his wife. but that doesnt take away the fact that he is right
I don't care if he cheated on his wife it was the lies he told a Congressional hearing. I think he's right as far as healthcare goes, but given he was President for 8 years of prosperity and did nothing about it it's pure politicking for Clinton to now call it immoral. He's not in politics anymore, he should pretty much shut up on subjects that existed when he was in power and did not address.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I don't care if he cheated on his wife it was the lies he told a Congressional hearing. I think he's right as far as healthcare goes, but given he was President for 8 years of prosperity and did nothing about it it's pure politicking for Clinton to now call it immoral. He's not in politics anymore, he should pretty much shut up on subjects that existed when he was in power and did not address.
1. I think cheating on your wofe is worse that lying to congress, but i dont supprt either
2. he attempted to reform healthcare, prehaps you remember Hillary spearheading that agenda. but he was defeated by congress. he tried dude, no revisionist history please
I don't care if he cheated on his wife it was the lies he told a Congressional hearing. I think he's right as far as healthcare goes, but given he was President for 8 years of prosperity and did nothing about it it's pure politicking for Clinton to now call it immoral. He's not in politics anymore, he should pretty much shut up on subjects that existed when he was in power and did not address.
1. I think cheating on your wofe is worse that lying to congress, but i dont supprt either
2. he attempted to reform healthcare, prehaps you remember Hillary spearheading that agenda. but he was defeated by congress. he tried dude, no revisionist history please
Please he gave his wife a keep busy project so he could fuck interns. He has this issue that if it's not resolved is immoral and he leaves it to his wife, an unelected person with zero accountability to the public. Why didn't he just give it to Chelsea to handle?
He didn't have the political gonads to take it on himself or to assign to an elected official. He was never committed to UHC and bailed on it. Using the "but my wife said whe was gonna do it for me" excuse ranks right up there with my dog ate my homework.
It's not revisisionist history, it's reality.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I've been trying to find the full-text of the original HillaryCare plan. It was such an entertaining read back in the day, particularly the $25,000 fine it would have levied on anyone who purchased medical services outside of the government's plan......
Please he gave his wife a keep busy project so he could fuck interns. He has this issue that if it's not resolved is immoral and he leaves it to his wife, an unelected person with zero accountability to the public. Why didn't he just give it to Chelsea to handle?
He didn't have the political gonads to take it on himself or to assign to an elected official. He was never committed to UHC and bailed on it. Using the "but my wife said whe was gonna do it for me" excuse ranks right up there with my dog ate my homework.
It's not revisisionist history, it's reality.
No, it's revisionist history, and you're ignoring it because you don't like Bill Clinton. The truth is, in 1993 and 1994 he didn't have the congressional support necessary to pass UHC, and by 1995 he had even less due to the Republican takeover of Congress. For a current events comparison, see George Bush's attempt to reform Social Security.
I suppose it's unfortunate we don't live in a dictatorship, but as it turns out, many, if not most, presidents leave some of their biggest ideas on the drawing board because Congress simply won't have it.
No, it's revisionist history, and you're ignoring it because you don't like Bill Clinton. The truth is, in 1993 and 1994 he didn't have the congressional support necessary to pass UHC, and by 1995 he had even less due to the Republican takeover of Congress. For a current events comparison, see George Bush's attempt to reform Social Security.
I suppose it's unfortunate we don't live in a dictatorship, but as it turns out, many, if not most, presidents leave some of their biggest ideas on the drawing board because Congress simply won't have it.
Actually I liked Clinton as a leader. Sure he was devious but all leaders are andat least he had the good sense to pretty much not get caught.
But on the healthcare he blew it. If it really was this big moral issue for him he would have staked his 2nd term presidency on it. He didn't. He loved the power more than the issue.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
as soon as clintons name is mentioned people loose the original conversation.
we have a poor health care system for such a rich country. period. thats the issue here folks. and i am persoanlly happy someone in the political arena has the balls to say it.
people dont have a problem funding $1 trillion a year for the military, but when it comes to UHC they see it as a hassle, unfair, or fundamentally wrong.
the thing that few conservatives can understand is that it will ACTUALLY BE CHEAPER, even with government involvement.
Actually I liked Clinton as a leader. Sure he was devious but all leaders are andat least he had the good sense to pretty much not get caught.
But on the healthcare he blew it. If it really was this big moral issue for him he would have staked his 2nd term presidency on it. He didn't. He loved the power more than the issue.
Meh...RainDog is pretty much right here. There was no way UHC was getting passed in the second term. He had a shot at it in the first term, but couldn't get Congressional Dems to come to a consensus on the competing plans that were out there.
Comments
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
No, healthcare is not an "absolute need" anymore than a mansion is. Food is an absolute need. Shelter is an absolute need. Water is an absolute need. Everything else is a conditional need, a whim, a desire, or a want.
I certainly do not.
If you think healthcare should be less expensive, then provide it.
I agree...and further where is this extra money going to come from? A majority of people in the US are now going to college and graduating with a lot of debt. so in addition to a car payment, house payment / rent, and college loan repayment, savings we're now supposed to find more money to pay for everyone to have healthcare? We'd end up bankrupting a lot of people and in turn a lot of business. Now, if the insurance companies could cut costs and cut profits, we might be able to do something...It's a great idea to have universal healthcare but the impact of paying for it would be much greater than we can imagine, imo.
your argument is getting weaker...
i would have no problem with helpng fund universal health care with my tax dollars.
you would figure after thousands of years, the human race would not mind providing each other with health care, whether small or large. but i guess some of us are "me, me, me" oriented and some of us are "us, us, us" oriented
Are you talking about the California proposal article?
I can't take much more of this logic....it's permeating this board lately worse than usual.
Something that "could potentially help so many" is not justified by that help. Help is not a moral standard. If I shoot you, it may certainly help someone else. If I rob your neighbor, it might certainly help you. Genocide can be very helpful to some. Those actions are not justified by whom they help. They are unjust because they are contradictory with the values they are meant to uphold.
Universal Health Care implies that society owns the services of its doctors and others in the medical profession, along with the property required to support the system. Through that implication and the force you'll apply to make it a reality, no one can own those services. People may only struggle over them.
Because people have literally been inventing demand. We've invented new products and procedures and marketed the hell out of them. Many of those products and procedures are limited to a few places or providers. The basic rules of supply and demand apply just as much to healthcare as they do any other product or service.
UHC in other nations is typically marked by price fixing by the state and expropriation of wealth to support the system. It is direct action against the market. Comparing prices within a free or relatively free market to those in a controlled system is pointless and ridiculous. So, if I have a system where I simply steal cars or set their prices, telling someone that my cars are "cheaper" is meaningless. They aren't "cheaper" -- I'm simply forcing someone else to pay the cost.
Why don't you look at health care as a luxury item? It has all the makings of a luxury item. It is provided by skilled workers. It is highly desired.
It's easy to say that health care fulfills a basic desire (the desire to live), and that is partly true. But that doesn't mean it isn't a luxury item. Caviar fulfills basic desires too.
So I guess it was a stupid question since I didn't get any answers
Absoulte need, as you said, presupposes an absolute condition. Without food, I cannot live. Without water, I cannot live. Without shelter, I cannot live. Without healthcare, I can most certainly live in many conditions.
Then fund it. I would never suggest you have no right to fund universal health care.
Hehe...it wasn't a stupid question.
Universal health care cannot be provided absent "government" so long as the will of the desirer and the will of the provider do not agree. Government is in quotes there to represent social force, since that could come in forms not necessarily referred to as government.
The bottom line is that UHC, as people use the word, is only accomplished via charity, or via force. UHC, as I would use it, is accomplished via a market wherein anyone may exchange a value for an equal value of healthcare. But that's not a UHC system wherein people have a "right" to healthcare.
Thank you. I merely thought that instead of running around in circle debating a topic to death, government funded UNC which will probably never happen in our lifetime, we could look to alternative way of providing the same benefit without having it forced on all.
UHC will be a reality in this country in the next 15 years or so. There's very little standing in its way.
Income tax in the UK (income after deduction of allowances)
0 - £2,230 - 10%
£2,231 - 34,600 - 22% (your average worker)
Over £34,600 - 40%
(note that if you earn £60,000, the 40% is applied the income over the £34.600 and not to the whole income as some countries do).
So not as bad as the 50%+. Personally, I think it is worth it. The NHS (as it is called here) certainly has flaws and not enough funding but.. as an example, I was hospitalized a few years back as an emergency with chest pains. It was pulmonary embolism... I was in the critical care unit (more expensive obviously than normal wards), scans, etc. and under constant care for days... What did it cost me? Nothing!!!!!(well not directly... paid through my taxes obviously) Did I even have to think about going to the emergency room (after all, chest pains could have just 'passed') because I may not have been able to pay? No... How does this compare to:
If it costs $10.000 to remove a nail from a big toe, I would hate to think what the medical bill would have been for me. As said, as flawed as one may find the NHS, knowing that I can be treated without concern is a big relief.
I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.
There is a lot of opposition to it. I was shocked the other day when my roommate (who is very liberal) was reading a speech by Obama wherein he mentioned UHC and she literally recoiled at the language and justifications.
That said, the opposition is vastly outnumbered by the people who want "free" health care. People like Obama are going to be able to frame the issue such that the vast majority of people will see that they'll receive services greater than any value they have to pay. Plus, many corporations are going to start getting behind this. And that's about all it takes anymore.
Higher taxes are never popular but if you know where your taxes go and what benefits you may get from them, you can live with it. Unfortunately, If a government puts up the taxes by, say 2%, because it wants to invest in heath care, we believe this money earmarked for health could really go anywhere. I think there was a survey recently done in the UK about the state of the NHS and the extra funding it needed and a majority did not have problems taxes being increased provided it WAS spent on the NHS (and not redistributed for other purposes).
You are probabaly right but our government doesn't have the best track record in regards to spending our money.
how do you feel about turning around good statements and truth... and a search for something better.. into your statement?
i do not support a man cheating on his wife. but that doesnt take away the fact that he is right
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
1. I think cheating on your wofe is worse that lying to congress, but i dont supprt either
2. he attempted to reform healthcare, prehaps you remember Hillary spearheading that agenda. but he was defeated by congress. he tried dude, no revisionist history please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan
read up good friend
He didn't have the political gonads to take it on himself or to assign to an elected official. He was never committed to UHC and bailed on it. Using the "but my wife said whe was gonna do it for me" excuse ranks right up there with my dog ate my homework.
It's not revisisionist history, it's reality.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I've been trying to find the full-text of the original HillaryCare plan. It was such an entertaining read back in the day, particularly the $25,000 fine it would have levied on anyone who purchased medical services outside of the government's plan......
I suppose it's unfortunate we don't live in a dictatorship, but as it turns out, many, if not most, presidents leave some of their biggest ideas on the drawing board because Congress simply won't have it.
But on the healthcare he blew it. If it really was this big moral issue for him he would have staked his 2nd term presidency on it. He didn't. He loved the power more than the issue.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
we have a poor health care system for such a rich country. period. thats the issue here folks. and i am persoanlly happy someone in the political arena has the balls to say it.
people dont have a problem funding $1 trillion a year for the military, but when it comes to UHC they see it as a hassle, unfair, or fundamentally wrong.
the thing that few conservatives can understand is that it will ACTUALLY BE CHEAPER, even with government involvement.
Meh...RainDog is pretty much right here. There was no way UHC was getting passed in the second term. He had a shot at it in the first term, but couldn't get Congressional Dems to come to a consensus on the competing plans that were out there.