Obama Care

[Beemnseven]

Now, this is a excerpt from a recent George Will column. Dismiss it if you like, but just consider the facts about this figure we hear so much about: the 45 million uninsured -- the people for whom we have to create a massive new government program.

Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a "snapshot" of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs. If all the uninsured were assembled for a group photograph, and six months later the then-uninsured were assembled for another photograph, about half the people in the photos would be different.

Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states -- Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, all of which are entry points for immigrants. About 21 percent -- 9.7 million -- of the uninsured are not citizens. As many as 14 million are eligible for existing government programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, etc. -- but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance. Those last two cohorts are more than half of the 45.7 million.

Insuring the perhaps 20 million persons who are protractedly uninsured because they cannot afford insurance is conceptually simple: Give them money -- (refundable) tax credits or debit cards (which have replaced food stamps) loaded with a particular value. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent. Unfortunately, advocates of a government option consider that a defect. Which is why the simple idea of the dependency agenda cuts like a razor through the complexities of this debate.

This is something I've never heard addressed by those who favor a public option -- if you're so concerned about the cost of healthcare for those who cannot afford it, why not make the cost tax deductable just like it is for employers?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

If the answer is readily available it's not much of a philosophical question.

That's an "answer"?

[BleedBurgundy]

This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it. I'm not talking about breast enhancement, though I think we can all agree it would be money well spent. I'm not aware (maybe I'm just not that lucky) of any private plans, be they HMO or whatever, that fund such elective procedures anyway. If that is indeed the case, there's still a private market for those therapies/procedures, you just have to pay, as you currently do.

To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR hierarchy of needs does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it.
...
To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR hierarchy of needs does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.

Interesting way to frame the question. So healthcare is a right - but only when a nation has "the means to provide it". Does that mean that a nation with TRILLION DOLLAR Debt somehow has the means to afford it? At what level does it cease being a right? My understanding of rights is that they existed above a governmental level. Hence why Human Rights can trump governmental dictatorships and led to phrases like "inalienable" and "God-given"(Saden just insert naturally occuring for that one, no sense in re-hashing the "God" issue). Either Universal healthcare is a Right and a government should cover it regardless of having the means, or, it is an individual responsibility. I believe it is an individual responsibility.

in terms of the hierarchy of needs, you conveniently switch from an individual perspective to a governmental responsibility to a social structure. Our federal government is duly charged with protecting our borders, which requires a defense outlay. It is charged with providing a level of safety to ensure commerce and provide the populace with a general safety. To go any further than that is really a slippery slope. For example, I have no desire for the government to provide for my sex life, yet that is listed as a base need in your link.

Bottomline for me, just because something is important, does not mean it is a right, or something that the government is obliged to involve itself in.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it. I'm not talking about breast enhancement, though I think we can all agree it would be money well spent. I'm not aware (maybe I'm just not that lucky) of any private plans, be they HMO or whatever, that fund such elective procedures anyway. If that is indeed the case, there's still a private market for those therapies/procedures, you just have to pay, as you currently do.

To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR hierarchy of needs does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.

Alright, I'll play along. I don't think that any of the needs on Maslow's chart has anything to do with the role of the Federal Government. IMO the government has a very limited role. So when you say "as compared to other things they spend money on", then I'd be happy to cut a majority of those things.

There are a dozen ways to cut spending in the military without limiting it. Stop outsourcing it to outside contractors. When I was in we cooked our own food, pumped our own fuel, provided our own security details, etc. A lot of those things are done by contractors now. You can also stop enlisting women, cut down on the myriad of uniforms and non-essential equipment, and lower the education requirments for the Army.

I'd also be cool with rolling up all of the spy agencies into two arms, the FBI and the CIA. One for domestic and the other for foreign investigation. Seeing how many secrets the Chinese have stolen, I don't see what good all of these agencies are doing.

Back to your orginal arguement. You seem to have a totally different opinion on what the role of the government is than I do. You want a Democracy with Socialist aspects and I want a Republic with Democratic principles. Don't get all upset either. When a government controls industry, and has its hand in every other aspect of your life that's socialism.

Just because we have the money to do something, doesn't mean it should be done. Please tell me where all of that money is. If we cut spending we also need to start paying back debt too.

The government has in the past checked people coming into this country for disease. That's a role they are obligated to serve. They don't check illegals because they chose not to stop them. That's playing politics with a nation's health. The Fed also puts on commercials about AIDS and smoking, both being for the most part people's stupid choices. When it comes to the real role of government the politicians just play politics with other people's lives and money (livelihood). Why do you trust those worms?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Interesting way to frame the question. So healthcare is a right - but only when a nation has "the means to provide it". Does that mean that a nation with TRILLION DOLLAR Debt somehow has the means to afford it? At what level does it cease being a right? My understanding of rights is that they existed above a governmental level. Hence why Human Rights can trump governmental dictatorships and led to phrases like "inalienable" and "God-given"(Saden just insert naturally occuring for that one, no sense in re-hashing the "God" issue). Either Universal healthcare is a Right and a government should cover it regardless of having the means, or, it is an individual responsibility. I believe it is an individual responsibility.

in terms of the hierarchy of needs, you conveniently switch from an individual perspective to a governmental responsibility to a social structure. Our federal government is duly charged with protecting our borders, which requires a defense outlay. It is charged with providing a level of safety to ensure commerce and provide the populace with a general safety. To go any further than that is really a slippery slope. For example, I have no desire for the government to provide for my sex life, yet that is listed as a base need in your link.

Bottomline for me, just because something is important, does not mean it is a right, or something that the government is obliged to involve itself in.

I think a society that can ensure that it's citizens are provided for heathwise, must. For me, it goes back to how you define your level of civilization. What makes one country "third world" while another is first? A large component of the answer to that question is the quality of life of its citizenry. There is no more important issue than health, and there is absolutely no good reason that a society as advanced as ours should have a segment of the population without access to healthcare. In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

That's an "answer"?

No, that's philosophy. If you want the answer go get it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

When the response, such as this one from Desmond Tutu, is complete and utter bullshit, it's not much of a philisophical answer.

I'm sure the nation's doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals will snap-to and offer themselves up as slaves after reading this crap from Tutu.

See my response above. Why ask a question when all it takes is a little research to arrive at the answer?

Ubuntu is not bulshit but a way of life. It is a philosophical answer if you understand it. You clearly don't understand it or have it. You are Ubuntuless!

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Alright, I'll play along. I don't think that any of the needs on Maslow's chart has anything to do with the role of the Federal Government. IMO the government has a very limited role. So when you say "as compared to other things they spend money on", then I'd be happy to cut a majority of those things.

There are a dozen ways to cut spending in the military without limiting it. Stop outsourcing it to outside contractors. When I was in we cooked our own food, pumped our own fuel, provided our own security details, etc. A lot of those things are done by contractors now. You can also stop enlisting women, cut down on the myriad of uniforms and non-essential equipment, and lower the education requirments for the Army.

I'd also be cool with rolling up all of the spy agencies into two arms, the FBI and the CIA. One for domestic and the other for foreign investigation. Seeing how many secrets the Chinese have stolen, I don't see what good all of these agencies are doing.

Back to your orginal arguement. You seem to have a totally different opinion on what the role of the government is than I do. You want a Democracy with Socialist aspects and I want a Republic with Democratic principles. Don't get all upset either. When a government controls industry, and has its hand in every other aspect of your life that's socialism.

Just because we have the money to do something, doesn't mean it should be done. Please tell me where all of that money is. If we cut spending we also need to start paying back debt too.

The government has in the past checked people coming into this country for disease. That's a role they are obligated to serve. They don't check illegals because they chose not to stop them. That's playing politics with a nation's health. The Fed also puts on commercials about AIDS and smoking, both being for the most part people's stupid choices. When it comes to the real role of government the politicians just play politics with other people's lives and money (livelihood). Why do you trust those worms?

Regarding Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, i was referring to it in a very broad sense related to basic needs that everyone has and the associated responsibility (in my view) of a government to provide for as many of those needs as possible within reason. Regarding your stance on illegal immigration and the "disease" they bring with them, remember that there are millions of tourists who come to this country every year without being scanned for illness excepting special circumstances.

I'm not sure how you can realistically state that public education regarding real threats (i.e. aids, smoking) vs. largely exaggerated threats (terror level is orange, no red, ok blue) is a bad thing.

Lastly, i'm not getting "all upset" as there's been nothing here to be upset about. It's a discussion, one which we differ on but I enjoy the conversation. It'd be boring otherwise. And you're right, i have no problem with some aspects of socialism. I've said it previously, a good idea is a good idea, regardless of where/whom it comes from.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it. I'm not talking about breast enhancement, though I think we can all agree it would be money well spent. I'm not aware (maybe I'm just not that lucky) of any private plans, be they HMO or whatever, that fund such elective procedures anyway. If that is indeed the case, there's still a private market for those therapies/procedures, you just have to pay, as you currently do.

To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR hierarchy of needs does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.

Even if health care is a right why do we need to tear apart our current system to fix the problem for a small % that are uninsured? I'm self employeed and have to pay for my families health which is not cheap but thats what I have to provide as a husband and father for my family. I think we all agree that health ins. needs some reform I'm just do not feel the goverment is the solution. The programs they are currently running are a mess and I just see the cost going up not down if the goverment gets any more involved. Mandates by the goverment now make it tougher for people to obtain ins. in the private market today so they are adding to the problem.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I think a society that can ensure that it's citizens are provided for heathwise, must. For me, it goes back to how you define your level of civilization. What makes one country "third world" while another is first? A large component of the answer to that question is the quality of life of its citizenry. There is no more important issue than health, and there is absolutely no good reason that a society as advanced as ours should have a segment of the population without access to healthcare. In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.

so right now we are closer to 3rd world because we have private healthcare that provides above average healthcare to atleast 70% of the population, and emergency care to anyone who walks into an emergency room. In 1950s and 60s we were 3rd world?? what you speak of is madness sir. it is a failed philosophy that government can provide all. the backbone of america was in fact individuals holding their own responsibility for their needs, and the government providing an environment that allowed them to pursue it however they saw fit. as Trample said before, if you want to give your checks to the government fine, I prefer to give mine to charities and those in my area and my life who are needy. if we do that, those who are truly needy will certainly be cared for, even if they are reported as uncovered for the government's purposes.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

See my response above. Why ask a question when all it takes is a little research to arrive at the answer?

I love it when saden baits.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I love it when saden baits.

It is easy to trap the inexpert.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

... In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.

Short-sighted, in my opinion, is asking a government who:

a) has a debt and deficits that are ungodly and will be for a long time
b) already has a program - social security - which is in dire need of repair
c) has a strong founding principle of individual responsibility over communal property

to suddenly take over a system that substantially works for the vast majority:
-51% is a majority,
-70 % would be a solid majority
-by your numbers 47million out of 300+million or 80% qualifies as a super majority
-90+ % using George Will's 20million, would qualify as a vast majority


Let's get our deficit down, debt down, Social Security stabilized, reduce our overseas military, and generally live within our means as a country. Once that is done, then let's talk about it. of course, if we did all those things, I am willing to bet that we would be able to find other ways to resolve this than looking to a federal bureaucracy.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

When we can provide health benefits to 100% of our citizens for a fraction of our defense spending, yeah, I say do it. It's not ridiculous, it's enlightened. To that end, i'll leave this discussion with a quote.

“Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic” Fyodor Dostoyevsky

What do you mean by a fraction of our defense spending? If I'm correct we are already spending more on health coverages then defense and it sure will not be a fraction.

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia