Why be against universal healthcare?

[Alceste]

Do you not understand that not everyone wants the government interfering with their lives to the same degree? I don't want the government controlling my freaking health care at all. I abhore large government. I don't consider it constitutional. Now, perhaps you better understand where I'm coming from.

I favor a free market with GRASS ROOTS community efforts to solve our nation's problems. There you go. I don't want your health care system. It's great that it works for Canada and other countries but that's not what I want for America.

The government "intervenes" in Canada when it's time to pay the bill. That's it. We do not deal with them at all. The doctors, specialists, labs, hospitals, etc send the government a bill, and the government pays it out of our income taxes.

I understand what you favour, but it's unreasonable to expect anyone else to respect your opinion if it's based on nothing but libertarian ideology, and is disastrous in practice (IOW, your current gong show of a profit driven health care system). Most people are pragmatists. Most people just want to help the most sick or injured people for the lowest cost. That's why 60% of Americans want a system like ours.

I understand it's painful when society is drifting in a direction we disapprove of, but in this case you will probably have to come to terms with universal health care sooner or later, given the huge amount of public support it has. So look on the bright side: you will be making sure everyone is getting superior health care services for half the price you are currently paying. You might be disappointed that it isn't "libertarian", but that stuff doesn't matter, really. Not in comparison to a functional health care system.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The government "intervenes" in Canada when it's time to pay the bill. That's it. We do not deal with them at all. The doctors, specialists, labs, hospitals, etc send the government a bill, and the government pays it out of our income taxes.

I understand what you favour, but it's unreasonable to expect anyone else to respect your opinion if it's based on nothing but libertarian ideology, and is disastrous in practice (IOW, your current gong show of a profit driven health care system). Most people are pragmatists. Most people just want to help the most sick or injured people for the lowest cost. That's why 60% of Americans want a system like ours.

I understand it's painful when society is drifting in a direction we disapprove of, but in this case you will probably have to come to terms with universal health care sooner or later, given the huge amount of public support it has. So look on the bright side: you will be making sure everyone is getting superior health care services for half the price you are currently paying. You might be disappointed that it isn't "libertarian", but that stuff doesn't matter, really. Not in comparison to a functional health care system.

This. :clap

Listen with an open mind, dawny! And thank you for your service.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

So because I think the man who was going to die should not have received the eye surgeries I want to push grandma off the cliff or do not support make a wish foundations? I contribute every year to that.

My issue is rebuilding people who have worn out their bodies or spending vast amounts of money on unhealthy people who don't listen to the doctor and take their advice.

Does this have to be an all or nothing deal?

Health procedures are expensive. Yes we should have compassion but there should be limits or we all will go broke.

The rich do not have enough money to pay for all of this if you take every penny they have!

Does it have to be an all or nothing deal? Not at all. I've been saying that safety net programs should only go to those who need them, and not those who just want a free ride. The system needs to be tightened up in order to keep as much of the riff-raff out as possible.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Does it have to be an all or nothing deal? Not at all. I've been saying that safety net programs should only go to those who need them, and not those who just want a free ride. The system needs to be tightened up in order to keep as much of the riff-raff out as possible.

Agreed but the scale of that problem pales in comparison to the scale of the "free ride" the private health industry has been getting.

Insurance companies profit from covering the healthy and wealthy, but the risk is socialized, taxpayers cover the disabled, the poor, and the elderly. Drug companies make exorbitant profits partly because, by law, Medicare cannot negotiate lower drug prices. Predatory private ambulance and emergency care providers charge whatever they feel like, because their customers are in no position to shop around for the best price. The head of MD Anderson Cancer Center makes millions of dollars and is allowed to own millions worth of stock in drug companies he started whose products are being tested on cancer patients at MD Anderson. The taxpayers of the state of Texas provide something like $30 million a year in research grants to develop fancier drugs (because, you know, we are losing the war against restless leg syndrome) and two-thirds of that essentially is a gift to the private sector for its R&D. I went to a seminar in the medical center of Houston about commercializing your academic research (you know, the research funded by the taxpayers: NIH, NSF, DOD, NASA, DOE) you would not believe how many different ways this guy came up with to say the word "money" ("rivers of green", "insane piles of cash", "billions of dollars", "this guy now has more money than he knows what to do with", etc.)

This is the riff-raff that is truly costing us! It's the well-organized, rich and powerful, highly class conscious health industry riff-raff.

 

[Copernicus]

This is the riff-raff that is truly costing us! It's the well-organized, rich and powerful, highly class conscious health industry riff-raff.

Except that, when you say something like this, you are engaging in class warfare. When Romney says it, he always does it behind closed doors so that there is never a public record of it. I've seen wealthy people go on and on about all the "entitlements" we give to the poor. But that doesn't stop them from explaining why their lucrative stock options should be taxed at 15%, if at all.

 

[Alceste]

Except that, when you say something like this, you are engaging in class warfare. When Romney says it, he always does it behind closed doors so that there is never a public record of it. I've seen wealthy people go on and on about all the "entitlements" we give to the poor. But that doesn't stop them from explaining why their lucrative stock options should be taxed at 15%, if at all.

Yeah, it's always other people's entitlements they want to eliminate, isn't it. Never their own.

 

[Alceste]

Does it have to be an all or nothing deal? Not at all. I've been saying that safety net programs should only go to those who need them, and not those who just want a free ride. The system needs to be tightened up in order to keep as much of the riff-raff out as possible.

Not really relevant concepts when it comes to health care. In a universal system, apart from annual check-ups, people only use it when they're sick. Even the "riff raff". And nobody gets a " free ride" - we all pay income tax. Even the people who fall below the minimum income and don't have to pay this year probably have paid before or will pay in the future. Also, we not talking about a cheque that you can spend on cigarettes and beer, we're talking about access to life saving surgery that would bankrupt any hard-working middle class family if they had to pay for it out of pocket. Consider Rick's half a million dollars he's had to spend because, as an American sick person, he is insurable. Do you have that kind of pocket money lying around?

In Canada, I'd have chipped in for that treatment, along with everybody else, and Rick could have spent his half a million of spare pocket money on something else. Maybe he would have invested it in his company, creating more jobs, or donated some of it to charity, or gone out for dinner more, or taken the holiday of a lifetime. Half a million bucks has an incredible economic impact no matter how you spend it. In this case he contributed to the Pfizer executive yacht fund, basically. What a waste!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

because americans are crazy

This.....:yes:

 

[Musty]

This is a stance I have never understood. Why would anyone be against the concept of making sure everyone in the country has equal access to quality healthcare? I mean unless you run or work for a health insurance company and thus worry about losing your job, what reason could anyone have to be against it? You'd think healthcare would be considered a universal right that everyone should have access to rather than having a good chunk of the country live in constant fear of bankruptcy should they ever get sick or injured because they either can't afford insurance or the only insurance they can afford is so **** poor that it doesn't do them much good anyway. So why is it? Why is anyone against universal healthcare?

Coming from a country with universal healthcare it's frustrating seeing billions being poured into treating disease which is ultimately self inflicted through substance abuse, poor diet, and a lack of exercise. I don't know whether having to pay for your healthcare acts as an incentive to be more careful about maintaining your own health.

 

[Falvlun]

Coming from a country with universal healthcare it's frustrating seeing billions being poured into treating disease which is ultimately self inflicted through substance abuse, poor diet, and a lack of exercise. I don't know whether having to pay for your healthcare acts as an incentive to be more careful about maintaining your own health.

If the measure of the unhealthiness of Americans is an indicator, not even paying twice as much is enough of an incentive.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Except that, when you say something like this, you are engaging in class warfare. When Romney says it, he always does it behind closed doors so that there is never a public record of it. I've seen wealthy people go on and on about all the "entitlements" we give to the poor. But that doesn't stop them from explaining why their lucrative stock options should be taxed at 15%, if at all.

You are so right, Copernicus. Unfortunately I know all too well what the 1% says about the rest of America behind closed doors, because I grew up in that sector of society.

The cutoff for being in the top 1% is an income of around $350,000. Most people who earn that, or even more, don't feel like they are actually rich oligarchs who've got it made. That's probably because they aren't. It's really the top 0.1% who have it made. If you earn $350,000 per year you probably work very hard, are very talented, very driven. You do laundry, cook dinner, shop for deals, just like everyone else. You probably don't see about half the money you earn, because it goes to federal and state taxes, and you can't hoard your money overseas like the super-rich do. Your kids, unlike say George W. Bush, have to compete fiercely to achieve that dream of getting into an Ivy League school, and then pay dearly for it. Many kids in this socioeconomic class do not achieve what their parents achieved--they take a step down as often as they step up when they go out on their own.

The point here is not to complain about how tough it is to be in the 1%. The point is to contrast that experience with a guy like Mitt Romney, who earns $21 million per year in capital gains and therefore is not subject to income tax, but only capital gains tax at 15%. Mitt Romney even joked that he was unemployed for a year, which is technically true: he just sat back and let the cash roll in.

So the 0.1% have their allies in the larger group of the 1%, who have internalized the interests and prejudices of the 0.1%. For many people in the 1%, the rhetoric is accurate: they did work their butts off to be successful, they do get taxed a lot on their hard-earned success, and they didn't get all that much assistance from the government. What we should really do, i.m.o., is not raise taxes on the 1% if at all possible, but instead create new tax brackets to raise taxes on the 0.1%. There's a huge disparity between earning $250,000 and $21 million per year, and yet both incomes are in the same income tax bracket!

 

[Musty]

If the measure of the unhealthiness of Americans is an indicator, not even paying twice as much is enough of an incentive.

Seems to be the case that attitudes aren't changing even with financial incentives. Personally I'd rather that everyone had access to healthcare but a stronger emphasis needs to be put on ensuring individuals take care of their health.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You are so right, Copernicus. Unfortunately I know all too well what the 1% says about the rest of America behind closed doors, because I grew up in that sector of society.

The cutoff for being in the top 1% is an income of around $350,000. Most people who earn that, or even more, don't feel like they are actually rich oligarchs who've got it made. That's probably because they aren't. It's really the top 0.1% who have it made. If you earn $350,000 per year you probably work very hard, are very talented, very driven. You do laundry, cook dinner, shop for deals, just like everyone else. You probably don't see about half the money you earn, because it goes to federal and state taxes, and you can't hoard your money overseas like the super-rich do. Your kids, unlike say George W. Bush, have to compete fiercely to achieve that dream of getting into an Ivy League school, and then pay dearly for it. Many kids in this socioeconomic class do not achieve what their parents achieved--they take a step down as often as they step up when they go out on their own.

The point here is not to complain about how tough it is to be in the 1%. The point is to contrast that experience with a guy like Mitt Romney, who earns $21 million per year in capital gains and therefore is not subject to income tax, but only capital gains tax at 15%. Mitt Romney even joked that he was unemployed for a year, which is technically true: he just sat back and let the cash roll in.

So the 0.1% have their allies in the larger group of the 1%, who have internalized the interests and prejudices of the 0.1%. For many people in the 1%, the rhetoric is accurate: they did work their butts off to be successful, they do get taxed a lot on their hard-earned success, and they didn't get all that much assistance from the government. What we should really do, i.m.o., is not raise taxes on the 1% if at all possible, but instead create new tax brackets to raise taxes on the 0.1%. There's a huge disparity between earning $250,000 and $21 million per year, and yet both incomes are in the same income tax bracket!

:clap Thank You Spinks. You expressed this quite well. Another thing about these folks are they care about their community where the ultra rich many times are too disconnected to care.

Now and then I attempt to ground them and ask them for a donation to a cause I really care about. To them, it is not about money any more, it is about power. I see it very clearly.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You are so right, Copernicus. Unfortunately I know all too well what the 1% says about the rest of America behind closed doors, because I grew up in that sector of society.

The cutoff for being in the top 1% is an income of around $350,000. Most people who earn that, or even more, don't feel like they are actually rich oligarchs who've got it made. That's probably because they aren't. It's really the top 0.1% who have it made. If you earn $350,000 per year you probably work very hard, are very talented, very driven. You do laundry, cook dinner, shop for deals, just like everyone else. You probably don't see about half the money you earn, because it goes to federal and state taxes, and you can't hoard your money overseas like the super-rich do. Your kids, unlike say George W. Bush, have to compete fiercely to achieve that dream of getting into an Ivy League school, and then pay dearly for it. Many kids in this socioeconomic class do not achieve what their parents achieved--they take a step down as often as they step up when they go out on their own.

The point here is not to complain about how tough it is to be in the 1%. The point is to contrast that experience with a guy like Mitt Romney, who earns $21 million per year in capital gains and therefore is not subject to income tax, but only capital gains tax at 15%. Mitt Romney even joked that he was unemployed for a year, which is technically true: he just sat back and let the cash roll in.

So the 0.1% have their allies in the larger group of the 1%, who have internalized the interests and prejudices of the 0.1%. For many people in the 1%, the rhetoric is accurate: they did work their butts off to be successful, they do get taxed a lot on their hard-earned success, and they didn't get all that much assistance from the government. What we should really do, i.m.o., is not raise taxes on the 1% if at all possible, but instead create new tax brackets to raise taxes on the 0.1%. There's a huge disparity between earning $250,000 and $21 million per year, and yet both incomes are in the same income tax bracket!

Very well said. :yes:

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Agreed but the scale of that problem pales in comparison to the scale of the "free ride" the private health industry has been getting.

Insurance companies profit from covering the healthy and wealthy, but the risk is socialized, taxpayers cover the disabled, the poor, and the elderly. Drug companies make exorbitant profits partly because, by law, Medicare cannot negotiate lower drug prices. Predatory private ambulance and emergency care providers charge whatever they feel like, because their customers are in no position to shop around for the best price. The head of MD Anderson Cancer Center makes millions of dollars and is allowed to own millions worth of stock in drug companies he started whose products are being tested on cancer patients at MD Anderson. The taxpayers of the state of Texas provide something like $30 million a year in research grants to develop fancier drugs (because, you know, we are losing the war against restless leg syndrome) and two-thirds of that essentially is a gift to the private sector for its R&D. I went to a seminar in the medical center of Houston about commercializing your academic research (you know, the research funded by the taxpayers: NIH, NSF, DOD, NASA, DOE) you would not believe how many different ways this guy came up with to say the word "money" ("rivers of green", "insane piles of cash", "billions of dollars", "this guy now has more money than he knows what to do with", etc.)

This is the riff-raff that is truly costing us! It's the well-organized, rich and powerful, highly class conscious health industry riff-raff.

Good points. And it goes along with this:

Except that, when you say something like this, you are engaging in class warfare. When Romney says it, he always does it behind closed doors so that there is never a public record of it. I've seen wealthy people go on and on about all the "entitlements" we give to the poor. But that doesn't stop them from explaining why their lucrative stock options should be taxed at 15%, if at all.

We talk about why we pay for the poor to have the basic essentials, yet we never talk about all the "entitlements" given to the rich, simply because they are rich. And let's not forget, they have their ways of avoiding taxes, like sending their money to offshore accounts just to avoid paying taxes on their money. It seems that the rich have all kinds of ways of avoiding their duties to society. And let's not forget this: if we were to screw up, and get in debt, we can face paying even more money, and possibly even jail time. If a rich CEO does the same, they get government money to fix their problem. This culture favors the rich. It worships money. This is one of my major hang ups with capitalism.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is one of my major hang ups with capitalism.

I believe we all have played monopoly some time in our life. You know how the game ends. This is where we are with capitalism. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big in the first place.

Corporate bailouts, Super Clean up funds and the like is corporate wellfare and needs to stop.

The problem as I see it is companies have gone global, so they don't care about how their decisions affect any certain country any more.

 

[Falvlun]

:clap Thank You Spinks.

Very well said. :yes:

Is it bad that the fact that you two both liked the same post makes me nervous?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Is it bad that the fact that you two both liked the same post makes me nervous?

Not at all.

I've brought up before that it isn't so much the top 1% in the country, but the top 0.1% of the wealthy. In my youth, which included my family's experiences in poverty and in the upper middle class, we rubbed elbows with many in the top 1% as well as those on welfare and the homeless throughout our lifetimes. Heck, we as a family can tell stories about living out of a car AND about monthly vacations to London and tropical paradises while flying first class.

The very top top top on the food chain are in a whole other class by themselves. It's a teensy weensy number. And what I've seen and what others has seen is that many people tend to lump the upper middle class and those earning a six figure income with the billionaires. Even the millionaires in the country don't have nearly the same political pull or the market share to be able to avoid paying the taxes in the way much of the country wants the "rich" to provide. What might very well happen is that we'll continue to see the erosion of classes to the point that the upper middle class and the top 1% will struggle mightily along with everybody else.

Dang, and I'm still a newer business owner, too. I gotta stop posting in some of these threads. It gets me depressed.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

I believe we all have played monopoly some time in our life. You know how the game ends. This is where we are with capitalism. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big in the first place.

Corporate bailouts, Super Clean up funds and the like is corporate wellfare and needs to stop.

The problem as I see it is companies have gone global, so they don't care about how their decisions affect any certain country any more.

RR you seriously figured out monopoly and related it to our modern day existence?

You won't believe me but I feel really happy about that.

Can you extrapolate from there? Are you going to be the local hardware store owner I visit to this day who always complains about obama phones and how some people need to work for a living and its just not fair that these people get food stamps and obama phones while others are working 9-7 to make ends meet?

Are you awkwardly going to stand there next to me protesting walmart because your 80 year old family business that provides 9 jobs and the minimum wage you pay is $15 an hour is going to go under if walmart comes to town and you dont really know what to do with your life or what the people who depend on you will do when this happens while also thinking poor people who get food stamps are somehow a threat to your existence?

This is basic whining. Yes some people are eating and using cellphones while looking for a job that will never pay as well as the job you have and you think they should not even have that opportunity? What should they have?

We are at like just under 50% of the country have 0 or less net worth. At what percentage will you stand up and defend your people? When 60% have 0 net worth and 5,129 people have 94% of the country's wealth and consequently and obviously its power will you then speak out for the majority or just for the minority because your glorify wealth and equate it to success?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is a stance I have never understood. Why would anyone be against the concept of making sure everyone in the country has equal access to quality healthcare? I mean unless you run or work for a health insurance company and thus worry about losing your job, what reason could anyone have to be against it? You'd think healthcare would be considered a universal right that everyone should have access to rather than having a good chunk of the country live in constant fear of bankruptcy should they ever get sick or injured because they either can't afford insurance or the only insurance they can afford is so **** poor that it doesn't do them much good anyway. So why is it? Why is anyone against universal healthcare?

It's all about money. Many of our congressmen/women are most likely in the pockets of the Insurance companies and Big-Pharma....