Why be against universal healthcare?

[Valjean]

But it doesn't necessarily equal co-operation, either, and if people start co-operating too much, well, you might wake up to find yourself living in a society, or even a country.

 

[Roadrider]

The United States "top hat" Canada can boast healthcare for all simply because they know the lower half spends a lot more on their military and will protect them if needed affording them the luxury of providing so-so care to everyone. I loved my work in the gun industry here in the U.S. I bought for starters 1,000 plastic magazines for AR15's from a Bushmaster contact, my supervisor had a fit but calmed down after I told him they were Canadian military surplus instead of some cheap mag-tech or another piece of crap and the Law enforcement salesman we had on hand showed him a bill of sale waiting for approval, It went on from there
What a wonderful world - LOUIS ARMSTRONG. - YouTube

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But it doesn't necessarily equal co-operation, either, and if people start co-operating too much, well, you might wake up to find yourself living in a society, or even a country.

I'm not exactly sure how much you push forward the promotion of co-operation, are you limiting it to Corporatism where society works as a whole but corporations range different markets, or are you pushing it to the top where even corporations work together?

If the latter, without competitive market, we're practically screwed.

Or are you just talking in terms of social, and let the market itself remain individualistic and competitive?

 

[Valjean]

I'm not exactly sure how much you push forward the promotion of co-operation, are you limiting it to Corporatism where society works as a whole but corporations range different markets, or are you pushing it to the top where even corporations work together?

If the latter, without competitive market, we're practically screwed.

Or are you just talking in terms of social, and let the market itself remain individualistic and competitive?

I'm saying socialize the commons and let other goods and services be privatized. Resume the practice of periodic charter reviews of corporations and revocation if they cannot show they're benefiting society.
And while we're at it we might as well resume enforcing Glass-Steagall and limit banks to single state institutions.

And don't get me started on labor unions, worker's co-operatives or the military-industrial complex... :fight:

 

[Roadrider]

If one cannot get along without their mommies tit feeding them on a regular basis then I'd say throw the towel in right now because you are dead already

 

[Riverwolf]

If one cannot get along without their mommies tit feeding them on a regular basis then I'd say throw the towel in right now because you are dead already

In that case, let's all tear down cities and go back to living in the woods with absolutely no tribe to help us along, no clothing whatsoever, and surviving as complete loners.

'Cause that's what true independence is.

 

[Alceste]

Should not all humans strive for independence. Why would one desire to rely on the assistance of others or worst of all their government. Dependence comes with a personal cost on the individual over time. What the government or others give they may also choose to take away. Social responsibility is a general and vague term that seems to be a reaction to a perceived injustice to the less fortunate. Those who are "well to do" are responsible for creating equality by paying there "fair share". Another words one who earns and keeps to much money is not showing social responsibility. Spending should be the decision of each individual. A person should decide what the majority of their personal money is used for, not their government or elected politicians. It is easy to be socially responsible with other's money.

Personally I think the world would be a better place without any "striving", and nobody is independent. "Independence" (shunning and banishing) used to be punishment for the worst crimes. That's what our psychologies have evolved with. Those who "strive for independence" these days are not any less dependent than the rest of us, they just want to take advantage of the collective benefits we all depend on without having to give anything back.

 

[Alceste]

The United States "top hat" Canada can boast healthcare for all simply because they know the lower half spends a lot more on their military and will protect them if needed affording them the luxury of providing so-so care to everyone. I loved my work in the gun industry here in the U.S. I bought for starters 1,000 plastic magazines for AR15's from a Bushmaster contact, my supervisor had a fit but calmed down after I told him they were Canadian military surplus instead of some cheap mag-tech or another piece of crap and the Law enforcement salesman we had on hand showed him a bill of sale waiting for approval, It went on from there
What a wonderful world - LOUIS ARMSTRONG. - YouTube

We actually pay half what you pay for health care, cover everyone and get better outcomes, so the claim that we can afford it but the US can't is not a very sound one.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The net beneficiaries of a program are generally happier about it than those who pay for it.
(My family will see tax increases, but no benefits from Obamacare.)
But the benefits which you & yours enjoy could be had from a simpler & better program.

What would you call "Simpler, better" and better yet (Affordable)?

I haven't seen anything like this out there. Simpler doesn't mean better coverage. I have first hand experience with that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The United States "top hat" Canada can boast healthcare for all simply because they know the lower half spends a lot more on their military and will protect them if needed affording them the luxury of providing so-so care to everyone. I loved my work in the gun industry here in the U.S.

Wow. You make it seem like Canada doesn't have their own Military and simply dependent on the US military...You're wrong but entitled to your opinion just not your own facts.....

 

[Visionary28]

Personally I think the world would be a better place without any "striving", and nobody is independent. "Independence" (shunning and banishing) used to be punishment for the worst crimes. That's what our psychologies have evolved with. Those who "strive for independence" these days are not any less dependent than the rest of us, they just want to take advantage of the collective benefits we all depend on without having to give anything back.

Is nearly half of one's income being taxed enough? Should it be 60%, 75%. I think your problem actually lies with our governments and politicians who are responsible for wasting and mismanaging billions of our tax dollars . Our governments already collect enough money to fund nearly every social welfare program and collective benefit there is. Yet government continues to grow and more continue to become dependent on it. Once something is given it becomes very difficult to take away thus creating a sense of entitlement within it's people.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I guess it all depends on if you think rebuilding people so they can live longer and be a burden on society is a good thing or not.

Giving folks new eyes, knees, hips and replacement organs should be a luxury not a right.

We all are going to die, living in a nursing home for ten years at the end of our lives is not desirable to me.

We should all live out our natural lives with basic health care and not fund extended life procedures.

It is selfish to do so expecting other to pay for this.

Would not this money be better spent on young families education or affordable housing?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I guess it all depends on if you think rebuilding people so they can live longer and be a burden on society is a good thing or not.

Giving folks new eyes, knees, hips and replacement organs should be a luxury not a right.

This is just horrible. This is a horrible way to think about your fellow man. I didn't know (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) could be considered a "luxury"..

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is nearly half of one's income being taxed enough?

Who's being taxed? 98% of Americans still reap the benefit of the old Bush Tax Cut. That hasn't changed for the majority of us. The payroll tax was a law set to expire and all parties did nothing to keep it low. We'll have to see what happens with the student loan interest rate considering it's going to double at the end of this month from (3.4% to 6.8%). You want to know where your taxes are actually being raised? Look to the states. They're raising taxes and it's happening in red states and blue states.

Our governments already collect enough money to fund nearly every social welfare program and collective benefit there is.

Yet there's a fight from one party to actually do this and a fight from another cut or abolish "social welfare"...

Yet government continues to grow

I completely disagree....

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html?_r=0

The Incredible Shrinking U.S. Government - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

Government Jobs Shrinking Even Before Budget Cuts - Real Time Economics - WSJ

February’s jobs report is one of the best of the recovery, driven by private-sector gains that put the total number of private payrolls at their highest since October 2008.

The public sector? Still shrinking, with more job losses likely ahead as government-spending cuts kick in.

Government payrolls fell by 10,000 in February, the fifth straight month of declines.

more continue to become dependent on it.

Unemployment Insurance Claims Continue to Trend Down in Week Ending May 4

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

Once something is given it becomes very difficult to take away thus creating a sense of entitlement within it's people.

Unfortunately for you the data says you're wrong......

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is just horrible. This is a horrible way to think about your fellow man. I didn't know (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) could be considered a "luxury"..

I'm sorry Penguin, I must have missed the part where I was required to fund other's pursuit of happiness.

Old folks draining the system is ruining other Americans pursuit of happiness, ever consider that?

What ever happened to retiring, buying a Cadillac and touring Europe for a decade and dieing while you still had something left and leaving it to your kids?

Please address the rest of my post, which do you see is a better way of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping Grandpa alive for 3 more months or spending these funds on a grand kid's education or their children's housing?

How can you justify a person receiving social security longer than they worked?

No society can support their children till they are 30 and turn around and give them another 40 years of retirement when they are only productive for 25 or 30 years.

Please show me how that math works? We need to get out of the way for the next generation and quit being so selfish.

I doubt our founding fathers ever envisioned old people living to be 100 years old at others expense. Pursuing happiness is not putting that burden on our young folks.

Just how happy is a person who does not even know their name crapping in their bed for years?

 

[Alceste]

Is nearly half of one's income being taxed enough? Should it be 60%, 75%. I think your problem actually lies with our governments and politicians who are responsible for wasting and mismanaging billions of our tax dollars . Our governments already collect enough money to fund nearly every social welfare program and collective benefit there is. Yet government continues to grow and more continue to become dependent on it. Once something is given it becomes very difficult to take away thus creating a sense of entitlement within it's people.

Nonsense. Benefits and public assets have been being cut or privatized in my country since the unholy trinity Mulroney / Thatcher / Reagan. It's not difficult at all.

 

[Alceste]

I guess it all depends on if you think rebuilding people so they can live longer and be a burden on society is a good thing or not.

Giving folks new eyes, knees, hips and replacement organs should be a luxury not a right.

We all are going to die, living in a nursing home for ten years at the end of our lives is not desirable to me.

We should all live out our natural lives with basic health care and not fund extended life procedures.

It is selfish to do so expecting other to pay for this.

Would not this money be better spent on young families education or affordable housing?

Public health care is half the price of the US system. It benefits everyone, including young families. Imagine if you didn't have to budget for health insurance when you were starting a family, or worry about copays, limits and deductibles when your kids were sick.

My grandmother gets a tune up every year, like an old car. But she's 94 and still in her own house paying property taxes, income taxes, etc. The occasional tune up is cheaper than a nursing home, and the tune ups are not eating away at her estate, which is good for her kids.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm sorry Penguin, I must have missed the part where I was required to fund other's pursuit of happiness.

Who ever said you were "required to"..?

Old folks draining the system is ruining other Americans pursuit of happiness, ever consider that?

Technology changes which allows people to live longer. What would you have these "old folks" do.......die?

What ever happened to retiring, buying a Cadillac and touring Europe for a decade and dieing while you still had something left and leaving it to your kids?

Because the 1950's called and they want their era back. Most don't live like that anymore. I'm 42, a Grand Father of 2 (for now). A father to three grown children. While I'm not retired I do enjoy vacations and traveling. Because incomes have remained flat for years now..many "old folks" are still working even beyond their retirement years.

Please address the rest of my post, which do you see is a better way of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping Grandpa alive for 3 more months or spending these funds on a grand kid's education or their children's housing?

Both....

How can you justify a person receiving social security longer than they worked?

What would you do...cut them off? They would have no more SS then they'd have to seek public assistance, food stamps and medicaid.....

No society can support their children till they are 30 and turn around and give them another 40 years of retirement when they are only productive for 25 or 30 years.

Cut and/or eliminate a lot of corporate subsidies etc...and strengthen the social safety net for those who need it and qualify for it. Such as the elderly, the disabled, our veterans and children.

Please show me how that math works? We need to get out of the way for the next generation and quit being so selfish.

How am I being selfish. Your attitude on these matters is selfish. You're that way because you're in a position financially to be that way. None of what you have is 100% safe and you too can find yourself in a situation where you need assistance. What is your solution to the ills you're complaining about?

I doubt our founding fathers ever envisioned old people living to be 100 years old at others expense.

Of course they didn't but it hardly changes the reality of where we are.

Pursuing happiness is not putting that burden on our young folks.

Nor is it condemning "old folks"...

Just how happy is a person who does not even know their name crapping in their bed for years?

I don't know.....but what do you suggest we do with those who can't take care of themselves.

 

[Copernicus]

I guess it all depends on if you think rebuilding people so they can live longer and be a burden on society is a good thing or not.

Giving folks new eyes, knees, hips and replacement organs should be a luxury not a right.

All health care programs make decisions about the economics of coverage. You are not talking about old people here, but anyone at any age being deprived of needed surgery that could restore their quality of life to a productive level. Since society benefits from productive human activity, it may be more costly in the end to deny people the right to medical care that we can well-afford to give them. The problem in America is bringing the cost of such treatments more in line with those in other countries that support the same level of treatment.

We all are going to die, living in a nursing home for ten years at the end of our lives is not desirable to me.

Of course, this is not about how you wish to live. It is about providing options for those who might make other choices. If someone needs a nursing home, then that has an impact on more than just the individual. Surely, you understand that families often carry the burden.

We should all live out our natural lives with basic health care and not fund extended life procedures.

There is no reason to let people die earlier than they need to. Everyone's life is different. Some people take more, and others give more. What we are looking for is a reasonable balance. In other words, it all comes down to how we define "basic health care" and "extended life". Those concepts change over time, depending on the needs and abilities of societies.

It is selfish to do so expecting other to pay for this.

It is selfish to impose one's own choices on others. You can refuse to take medical benefits, if you want to, but it is selfish to deny others reasonable, cost-effective health care because you personally don't want to pay the taxes to make it available to others.

Would not this money be better spent on young families education or affordable housing?

Health care money is spent on those things. Health care is such a burden on the American people that it threatens to suck the life out of the economy. If we don't get its rising costs under control, then we won't have the money to afford better education and housing. The only way we know of that works to reduce the overall cost of health care is to move towards a national health care system such as "Medicare for all". That was the original idea of Medicare--to make it available to everyone. The Republicans managed to block that decades ago and limit coverage to retirees. Now we're back at the drawing board, and they are going for scorched earth to prevent even a modest improvement in the affordability of health care.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm sorry Penguin, I must have missed the part where I was required to fund other's pursuit of happiness.

Old folks draining the system is ruining other Americans pursuit of happiness, ever consider that?

Um, old folks paid Medicaid/Medicare taxes and insurance premiums their entire lives before they became old folks, right? Why don't we use that money to pay for old folks' health care costs? That way (1) people get decent health care in their old age, (2) they aren't draining society because they paid for it themselves. When the money runs out, it runs out. Fair, no?