Great Proposal For Obama's Healthcare System

According to Obama and most Democrats, healthcare is a basic necessity that everyone deserves. I agree with this, no one should be forced to die. The real question is, why should the rich be forced to pay for them? This is why I have come up with the following proposal.

In order to qualify for free healthcare:

• There should be a salary cap
• You can't own a car - Public transportation
• You can't own a cell phone - Home phones and public phones are cheaper
• You can't pay for television service - Antenna is free, and not a necessity to begin with

As these are not basic necessities, it would make sense that health care should be the first way for people to spend their money. If they still don't own any of these, and can't afford health care, then I feel that we should help them.

 

In the UK we have the National Health Service into which everyone pays through taxes/national insurance.

The UK's National Health Service is the World's third largest employer after the Chinese Army and The Indian Railway system.

Nobody in the UK is denied health service for free if they need it.

Q. What if a Billionaire is found naked barely alive with a cellphone in his hand washed up on the shore of Manhattan Island and noone knows who he/she is or that he/she is a Billionaire.

Should said person be denied mecical care because he/she has a cellphone in their hand?

 

How did you come under the conclusion that the rich are going to be forced to pay for the new health care that the democrats are proposing ?
Did you read the bill ?
My guess is that your conclusions are based from the brain washing propaganda of FOX News Channel and the scumbags like Rush Limbaugh, Oreily, Glenn Beck and Hannity .

 

But they should be forced to starve? If you're not in favor of food as a human right, why not?

You didn't address who pays for it if not the rich. You only stated who qualifies.

 

national health care is something every civilized country should have.

 

Food and Shelter first I'd say. What is the point of treating someone for disease related to malnutrition, when they will return to the street to live in a cardboard dwelling and eat from a garbage can. Certainly we can feed and house everyone as well. I would say universal housing is something every civilized country should have.

 

I am arguing with your grunt, but let me pose a question.

Everybody pays for salt (excise duty or VAT depending on where you live) but look at the burden.

Assuming the rate of duty is 2% on salt for the purposes of this argument, look at the burden of this duty on a man who earns $100 a month and $1000 a month.

For the first, it is $2 and for the latter it is $20.

Now the point is, for a man who earns only $100, loss of $2 cuts into his basics---probably his food but for the man who earns $100, loss of $20 is a little less of a strain.

Also, just a bit of background, which I will connect next: the taxes that governments collect go towards building infrastructure for us, such as schools, roads, maintenance of law and order, administration (important when everyone is looking to the government for jobs these days!) etc etc

I am not from the US, so perhaps there may be some errors in the above argument (such as salt is duty free etc), so please bear with me there--- but the point I am making is that unknown to most of us, the poor in all our countries carry a proportionately higher burden of taxation (if you view any tax from the point of view of a person's ability to pay) as compared to the rich.

Such taxes are used to build roads, parks, airports, water supply, power stations (where government still runs such facilities), maintain law and order etc.

So in a way, the poor sacrifice more to pay for our shared facilities as compared to the rich.

But the best part is, most poor people don't even know this---otherwise they would protest. Neither do we---otherwise we would not protest that much!

The same is equally true for the rich. Most don't know the level of sacrifice that poorer people make (I am not talking of people on doles but the millions of single mothers, etc) but the best part, if they did, they would not resent doles to the poorer sections that much.

Still, having said that, it is not a good idea for governments to get into healthcare.

Instead, I would think it is better to give poor people (selected on any acceptable parameters) health stamps, which people can use to avail a health service at a privatge hospital like any other citizen, or exchange them for other things they need. There are two advantages to this. People will try to lead healthy lifestyles, as there will be an incentive to be healthy, since the stamps can be traded to monetize good health!

The other is that at least, the government would not incur the administrative costs of running a healthcare service directly or indirectly!

That's my two-bit.

 

Your list is completely Pathetic, I do agree with the Salary cap but your other points are ridiculous.

 

Health stamps like food stamps eh? I was listening to the radio the other day and I heard the most amazing commercial. It was paid for by the State of California, advertising the state's new food stamp initiative. The narrative basically went like this:

Are you a middle class family having a hard time getting by? Food assistance in California is easier than ever. No more messy coupons. Just get apply for your food assistance card and use it almost anywhere you shop for food.

And then came then came the testimonials. "My wife and I thought we would never qualify for food assistance. After all we own our own house and have a small business. We called the information hotline and it couldn't have been easier".

In summary:

• We spend the tax payer dollars to advertise the program and recruit new people to use the program
• We qualify people who are clearly already able to pay for their own food
• We employ pensioned govt workers to answer toll free(taxpayer paid for) phone lines to get (recruit) people into the program

I'm not sure where you hail from, but here in the states we call that socialism. Given that kind of idiocy, it is no wonder California's economy is in the crapper. You should check out the Individualism score the USA picks up from Hofstede. USA ranks in first place, followed closely behind by Australia. It is part of our culture. People take care of themselves. It is one of many ways why the USA has always been the land of opportunity. There is also an interesting correlation between a country's individualism score and its wealth (go figure).

I actually agree with your rant about how the poor pay an inordinate percentage of their income in taxes after you take into account consumption taxes, and I think that is something to be worked on. It doesn't make the health care proposal being voted on today any less of a turd.

 

True, we need to nail this problem from the source. Less people will get sick = less money that goes into medicare/medicaid.

 

Because the top 1% in the US holds nearly 50% of the nation's wealth.

Even if there are higher taxes for upper social classes, it will not result in a noticeable change in lifestyle. And I think it's very cold of you to say that the poor shouldn't have a cell phone or cable TV if they want healthcare. You are pretty much saying that the wealthy's ability to buy a Ferrari is more important than keeping the less fortunate healthy.

 

Obviously you hail from ignorance town. It is funny that so many Americans so much talk about and are afraid of Socialism and Communism without even knowing anything about it.

 

FACT ---> Your post consisted of an insult and an allegation without facts.

I figured I'd add something to the conversation.

 

Just the minority Republicans talking to themselves....the nation as a whole has matured beyond adolescence.

 

FACT ----> Just posting some words like Socialism that you have no idea what it means, adds nothing to the discussion.

 

Fact--> Your "Fact" is based on another allegation without evidence!

At least you didn't try and do something truly ignorant like dispute my fact. Now I've provided you with two facts you can use at a later time! Get a few of those under your belt and I'll show you how to present an argument! Always glad to help.

 

It is a simple redistribution of wealth. The healthcare will broaden the gap between the wealthy and the poor. The Democrats are always lining the pockets of big business.

 

The Federal Reserve gets 50 cents on every USD spent. All income tax goes to interest payments on Federal Reserve loans.
Lincoln during the civil war turned down loans from private banks, decided to print more money and after the war there was an inflation, but the country got through that interest free.

Now the situation is that a mountain of unrepayable debt has built up.

What I am saying is that instead of forcing small businesses down by doubling their premium, eliminating the middle class and establishing only 2 major classes (rich and poor), find a solution that works and target the source for the financial dilemma rather than hurting the economy from within.

 

Any argument or statement founded on the idea that taxation is spent on what the government says or what we 'need', such as civics, is inherently flawed considering a minute fraction of virtually all government funding comes from debt and a centralised bank, controlled by international bankers and globalists.

I've read a lot of the healthcare bill and it seems abhorrent, worse than the NHS here in England! Why, at least, didn't they just copy our model?

The US government now forces people to buy insurance they deem fit. The insurance companies helped to write the bill and declared they would only oppose it if it had a public option, which it does not.

When the establishment involves itself in any market on any level, whether it be healthcare or transport, quality lowers while efficiency of cost is prioritised.

Also, having politicians make any decision which requires medicinal background and professionalism is absurd. Our socialised healthcare system here isn't too bad, but people denied a certain operation, drug etc and long waiting lists aren't uncommon.

Glenn Beck, Limbaugh & Co. are nothing more than establishment puppets, deceiving those unsettled with the government in order to control dissent. They twist the truth and never talk about certain important issues.

 

“if the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts.”

-George H.W. Bush

This is where the money goes:

[video=youtube;_dmPchuXIXQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ[/video]