Universal Healthcare - Where you getting the $$ from?

A doctor's "pitiful stance"? It's amazing how low you will go with insults GTech. The man has a distinguished service in medicine and in the military as a physician, and you mock it?

Is this how you treat all veterans?

What you're arguing for is not the American way, of independence, self-reliance and charity. You're basically arguing for socialism, which is not American.

 

you will pay for it using the private insurance money you already spend or you could pay for it by cutting your military expenses. That's how a public healthcare system works: you all contribute to it and you use it whenever you need it. Maybe a some years from now you will be the one who needs to go to the doctor 3 times a week and won't be able to work

you seem to hate everything about "socialism", but do you think nothing in a state should be socialised? How about roads? Should roads all be private? how about water resources? Should the water resources be privatised? How about education? Should the state not provite any education for it's people? How about the police? Should it be privatised and only the people who pay a fee should be protected? How about the firefighters department? If you can't afford paying a fee to a private firefighters company should they just let you house burn?

 

Right, but who will protect us from Al Queda and the French? j/k

No, not YOU ALL contribute. The workers contribute.

Why do you think we fought the Cold War? Sure I hate socialism. Traditionally, it has been the governmental structure of tyrannies.

I like the Constitution. Very few services are Federal. Defense, Judiciary, Treasury, and not much else.

States.

Not the water, but the frontage, sure.

Do you think that only the state can provide education? What about homeschoolers? What about private schools?

The enforcement arm of the judiciary.

I'm ok with stuff like Fire service, at the municipal level. But it should be user pays. I don't believe in people without houses paying for people with houses. I mean really, how ludicrous is that idea? You gunna tax the bum on the street to help pay for fire service on a mansion?

 

If we pull our troops from unnecessary conflicts, cut all the crap spending (ie, bridge to nowhere), fix our tax code, snip the bureaucracy a bit, close our borders, and cut off all the outsourcing, I think we could afford it without raising any taxes at all...

 

true, still they would easily cover the costs for everyone

isn't that still socialism on a state level?

why not the water? It's SOCIALISED!! Public money are "wasted" trying to manage the water supplyes. Money is wasted ! It's inefficient ! Why should people who don't use water from those resources and use rainwater they collect be forced to pay for it.

How about sewage systems for the cityes? Why should people who collect their shit and make fertiliser out of it be forced to pay for the creation of a sewage system ?

How about the environment? Why should people who don't go to national parks or forests or whatever be forced to pay for their preservation?

I didn't say only the state can provide education. What I'm asking if you think the state should provide no education whatsoever for it's citizens and all educational matters should be left to the private sector and whoever whants to use it without even being mandatory for parents to get education for their kids?

who would pay for it? wouldn't it still be a "socialised" system?

then the state would have to track whenever everyone has a property and when they don't to see if they payed their firefighters tax or not. Doesn't that create even more bureaucracy?

 

legalize and tax most drugs, the money saved on enforcement plus the new sin taxes would amount to a pile of money

 

I love Canada!

You guys should move over here.

 

Yeah, it's also a form of slavery. One class works to support other classes.

Not necessarily. It can be paid for with user fees, either tolls, or gasoline taxes. The drivers pay for the roads to drive on.

So who owns water vapor in the air? Would rain be the equivalent of "mining for water"? It's ludicrous to use water as an example.

lmao

Well, now you're thinking like me!

Yeah, but you're always looking at the social benefit, not the social cost. What people get, not what people have to pay to have that service, and who is paying the lion's share.

There is nothing wrong with local parents getting together and creating a school system, or even local mandates, provided that one does not have to pay for education if they have no children, or if they want to educate their children outside of a public system.

Not necessarily. The fines could pay for the enforcement. User fees etc.

Maybe it creates more bureaucracy but how can anyone endorse a system that arbitrarily taxes everyone, regardless of the benefit, service level or availability? Do we hand out our money to everyone who asks for it?

You have to remember, the government has the coercive power of taxation. You don't pay your taxes, you can go to jail or have your property seized. Surely under these circumstances, there must be some accountability to the individual taxpayer. What they are paying for, how much is being spent, how it is being spent, and the quality of the service.

The problem with socialism is that it views everything from the perspective of the macro. The good of the whole, at the expense of the individual. But who decides what the good of the whole is? And who is responsible for executing the efforts to serve the greater good?

The reason why socialist systems eventually collapse is that you have to tax the working class to facilitate such a system. And you have to enforce the tax law through threat of legal action. Eventually, people lose their desire to work, and productivity suffers. Then the country has to create more socialism, in the form of welfare to accommodate the popular will. But without the tax revenue on productivity from a declining worker class, they resort to debasing the currency.

The USSR folded because it went bankrupt, not because someone attacked or invaded them. Sure, it's extreme socialism, but history has shown that government never gets smaller, it always tries to grow, and assimilate more of the functions of a free market and a free society.

People argue, a little bit of socialism is ok. Sure, that's how America got to where it is today. First we had income tax. Then we had social security. Then we new Departments and Ministries cropping up for all sectors, such as Health, Energy, Education, Commerce, Transportation, Communication, Arts, Humanities, bla bla bla. We're at the point where millions of Americans don't have health insurance, but illegal aliens get free education and health care. Our Department of Education (created in 1980) is a massive failure, as all of the money has gone to the Federal government, that previously was kept local, and blanket standards have seen American education slip far from where it used to be.

Today, we have NO money in the Social Security fund, but $60 Trillion dollars in entitlement obligations. This is what happens when the government gets into the habit of promising the people goods and services, for the purpose of re-election. Everyone in the Nanny State is looking for a handout, or a payback from the taxes. The people who do not produce, expect their "FAIR SHARE" as well.

It all starts with a little bit of socialism. The greater good. Compassion.

The right to take the fruits of my labor, and give them to someone else. Maybe it's Pakistan. Maybe it's illegal immigrants. Maybe it's someone who didn't save for their retirement.

When you remove the incentive for people to work hard, work smart, sacrifice and save to get ahead, you destroy free will, because the people on the receiving end of socialism are beholden to the people who dole the socialism out. Not the working class, the bureaucrats.

 

Illegal aliens receive billions of dollars in benefits from the government. Without the subsidy many would not come.

Illegal aliens get free medical treatment just by going to an emergency room. If their kid gets sick they take the kid to the emergency room rather than spending $100 to see a doctor. The taxpayers get hit with the $3000 emergency room bill.

'Hillary Care' is not the answer. We have to look at it like a business and start providing insurance. The American Medical Association and the trial lawyers have rigged the system. The only way to make health care affordable is to get to the root of the problem. Increase the supply of doctors and reform malpractice are the first steps.

Health insurance for a family of four costs $13,000 a year. Most people can not afford it.

Our healthcare system is an 'employer based' system. That's why employers are either 1) hiring illegal aliens 2) offshore outsourcing 3) moving manufacturing offshore.

The US has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 1997 and there are only 13 million manufacturing jobs left.

A ggod example is state universities and colleges. They are not free but are subsidised. Without a system of public higher education many could not afford to go. Also state universities have some of the best education available.

 

Many of the great Universities in America were founded by churches.

It's a known fact, that if you subsidize housing, housing costs go up. You subsidize education, educational costs go up. You subsidize medicine, medical costs go up. You have more dollars chasing the same services, and naturally, prices will increase.

I mean, how crazy is it that with all of the innovations in medicine, and pharmacology, costs continue to rise? Our care is better than it was 20 years ago, we can treat more ailments faster, and yet we don't see the same economies of scale we see in the private sector with technology, software, investment brokerage, courier services etc.

Some of this is regulation, much of it is waste. When there is a need in the society for more of a service or a higher level of service, and the government subsidizes it, the answer is always more subsidies, not innovation, deregulation, lower taxation. We don't stimulate the free market anymore, we simply throw money at it, and expect more from a system that is inherently flawed and delivers diminishing returns.

People talk about the poor and uninsured. Why the hell do we still have these problems, 70 years into the welfare state experiment? Why is it that the Democrats run on a platform of giving more to the people, but the only way they can conceive of delivering more, is to take more in taxes? That's what is known as a trade-off. And a losing one from all anecdotal evidence.

 

The poor are already getting healthcare at the taypaper expense.

We need a system for the middle class. The employer based system of health care is failing.

Rome wasn't built in a day. One step at a time. To me educating more doctors and having more general practioners available at a reasonable price is good.

With the current system we have emegency rooms are acting as a public health care system and it is a very expensive system.

 

isn't slavery forced labour?

how do you measure how much each driver used his car? What if some people buy gasolene for other purposes than driving? Should they be taxed too?

I didn't express myself correctly. I meant why should people who use rainwater pay for the management of rivers, lakes and other such water resources. Do you think there should be a water management tax and only those who use water from those sources should pay for managint it?

I'm serious here. How do you think sewage systems should be funded?

You actually believe that's how things should be?

You're avoiding answering my question. Do you think the state should provide absolutely no public education for it's kids?

user fees? So you're saying the law should protect only those who can afford it?

it's called living in a society. If you don't like socialistic systems why do you support having a national army? Shouldn't only those who want to be protected by it pay for it?

that's what a society is. You can't just think about yourself and that's it. The benefits towards the society outweigh the expenses for the individual. The citizens decide what the good of the majority is (at least in theory, in practice the politicians do)

every kind of system taxes the working class

please stop giving USSR as an example. I'm not supporting communism. I'm supporting liberal social democracyes. If you want to give examples you can use France, Italy, Sweden, Norway etc.

so you're against federal spending right? But isn't state spending socialist too? What's the difference between state run education or federal education? It's just the size of the socialistic system.

the problem there is the politicians

yep, again, that's what a society is. You can move to an isolated island and live there by yourself if you think living in a society doesn't fit your needs because you have to share the fruits of your labor with others. But until you do that, remember, every time you flush the toilet you do it to a socialistic sewage system which would have most likely be non-existent if it wasn't built by the state. Do you think your life would have been better if you had a few hundred bucks more in your pocket instead of a sewage system?

again, I'm not talking about communism. I'm talking about liberal social democracyes. In those kind of states you have incentives for people to work too

 

IMO, giving healthcare is conceptually similar to giving education. If public schools are OK, why not universal healthcare?

 

Because knowing about sines, cosines, and tangents is more important than being alive and healthy... Duh...

 

What do you call working the first 4 months of the year to pay your taxes, before you can take home all of your income?

Nit picking. Gasoline is a pretty good indicator of usage.

I believe in privatization of utilities.

I know, but what you wrote was pretty funny. If people crap, they should probably pay to have it disposed of. It' a private property issue. If I want to crap in my yard and not in my toilet, that's my problem.

More or less.

Who is paying for it? Parents? Or every working citizen of age?

Because I want to know whose responsibility it is to raise Bogart's or TarponKeith's kids. Is it mine?

Not at all. I am saying that licensing fees, fines, penalties etc can be used.

You get a speeding ticket, that money goes to law enforcement. Seems logical to me.

Well technically, the Founders were against a standing army. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment. No motherf**ker is going to invade a country with 100 million heavily armed cowboys.

Is the next part of your statement, "We are Borg, you will be assimilated."?

Right, but if the services are universal, what is the incentive to work then?

I don't support liberal, social democracies. They are about 3 steps closer to communism than I want to be. Remember, government always trends towards growth. Communism is the uber-socialist system.

That's true. But socialism morphs into communism when it becomes federal and centrally planned. That's why I believe that any amount of socialism must be dealt with locally.

BS. The system enables the politicians. When you promise everyone social services, regardless of whether or not you can pay for them, you have to deficit spend. That's economic reality.

I don't have a problem sharing the fruits of my labor. I am a generous guy. But I don't believe in subsidizing bureaucracy, or special interests, or people who take advantage of a mandated system. I'm from the "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" school of thought.

Look, if you think a society is defined by broad access to flushing toilets, then we have a big ideological gap.

What are the incentives?

 

being part of a society and contributing to it's good

I'm pretty sure my renault clio consumes significantly less than a huge SUV

even water resources? Or should they be SOCIALISED ?

OK, but do you think cities should not build socialised sewage systems?

can you please be more specific?

every working citizen. I think you think that if you don't have kids of your own but pay for education you waste money because it's not bringing you any benefit. But it does bring you benefits. What I think you on't realise is that one of the most important thing we each have is the quality of the societys we live in. Think about it, a person earning 10k/month living in congo, in the middle of a civil war will obviously have a lower standard of life than a guy earning the same amount living in Swizerland. Money isn't the only indicator of one's quality of life. Giving kids education is what increases their chances of actually becoming honest working citizens instead of abusing the system or shooting you to get your wallet. That's a good thing isn't it? You benefit from education's effects too even though you might not have any children of your own don't you?

licensing fees? Who would pay them? Why isn't law enforcement supported by fines now? Because you can't get enough of them for it.

True, but why do you support having an army?

good one

services are not universal. You can get services from the private sector if you want. No one forces you to use the public system

I can put myself in your shoes and see why you don't like a social democracy but what the hell is wrong with liberalism?

not true, socialism doesn't necessarily become communism specially if you only have some socialistic elements and not the whole package. I'm completely against a socialistic economy too

the US can easily afford a public healthcare system. The money you now spend on insurance would probably be enough. If it wouldn't be then you could save some money from military expenses for example

far from it and I don't think I suggested that anywhere. But you haven't answered my question. Do you think you would have a better life if you had a few hundreds bucks more in your pocket instead of a sewage system in your city?

the same as in pure capitalism. You will probably earn less than in a purely capitalist state but that is still enough of an incentive for people to start their own businesses. you can see it in Europe. People start their own businesses here too

 

If the US does not reform the current healthcare system the US will eventualy turn into a third world country.

There is no way an average family of 4 can afford to pay health insurance of $13,000 a year.

Employers are dropping healt coverage of their employees or outsourcing / moving offshore?

What is the average American going to do?

 

I call it BS. Taxes are not due until the end of the year. Being forced to pay your withholding taxes before they are due, at the expense of your take home income is morally corrupt. It sets the precedent that your income is tax, and whatever is left over is yours.

And there you go. The free market cost efficiency of a smaller car not only reduces your tax burden, it also leaves a smaller environmental footprint. Win, win.

I believe they should be privatized.

It's a private property rights issue. If the city wants to provide sewage treatment, and people make use of it, they should pay for it. If they do not, they shouldn't. Believe me, you will sell a lot more houses, and rent a lot more apartments that have sewage treatment, than without.

I don't buy the "Great Society" argument. If someone of modest means, or modest motivation has 6 kids, and I have more ambition, or greater means, do these children become my dependents? Am I obligated to educate other people's children? If I have 1 child, and someone else has 4, don't I compromise the quality of my own child's education when our two combined families are subsidizing 5 children between us?

Again, I don't accept the idea that every burden is shared equally, regardless of who creates it. That creates a massive inequality in the system, as the people who create a greater burden don't have to bear it. It discourages personal responsibility.

That's an argument for the reduction of enforcement costs and resources then. Less crime, less police.

I live in an empire. Not my choice, but an empire requires a standing army, because we are constantly invading, occupying, and defending the provinces like Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Iraq, Germany etc.

In a different paradigm, we wouldn't need a standing army.

Thank you for having good humor.

Universal in availability. You can't develop a free market if a socialized and subsidized universal service is available. Impossible to realize economy of scale. Everyone will trend towards the system they are already paying into. The one that has less restrictions with regards to cost/usage.

If I pay say, $100/mth in taxes to have universal health care, but I want or need greater care, I have to pay up and above my $100. That $100 I have paid to the universal system isn't applicable as a credit to my free market expenses.

So what you end up with is "minimum care", and only the wealthy can afford alternatives. Class medicine.

I am a liberal. I'm for civil liberty. Not the sort of liberalism that today that is pseudo-socialism.

One of my civil liberties, along with free speech, must be the right to own property, which includes the fruits of my labor. I can't be free, if everything I own has a communal claim on it. Then my existence is dependent upon the will of the majority.

Just as you make a strong moral argument for compassion, I'm trying to impress on you that there is a very strong moral argument for freedom. Being in a state of constant interdependence is not healthy, particularly when it becomes full blown dependence or co-dependence. The argument that I cannot exist without you is false. We know that.

Can we co-exist and even collaborate? Surely. If I grow apples, you grow oranges, and your crop is destroyed, I can share my crop or surplus with you. But that has to be a free will decision. You cannot come and take a portion of my crop if you were too lazy to farm, or you are a bad farmer. In fact, if you are my trading partner for oranges, and your crop is destroyed, it is in my best interest to help you, so that I do not lose my supply of oranges in the next growing season, because without a trading partner, my surplus apples are worthless.

The US can easily afford charity and private healthcare as well. But until we address the waste of the warfare state, and the inefficiency of the welfare state, we'll never come close to achieving it. You cannot progress individually, if the working class has to subsidize people who did not manage their health, manage their finances, work and save, etc. That is socialism.

It's this sort of thinking that we have to give services, without considering who actually has to pay for them. Everything has a cost, and it is being borne by someone.

Let me flip that around. I don't have a few hundred bucks, because I don't work. So, yes, please give me a sewage system. Get someone else to pay for it.

Capitalism restrained by private property rights and contract enforcement can thrive. It's a more moral system than socialism, where you don't own your house because you have a tax lien on it, you don't own your car because you have a personal tax lien on it, your savings devalue with constant inflation by a bad monetary system (socialism requires a fiat currency for deficit spending) etc.

Your argument has one flaw. If the only way to get ahead is to start a business, we end up with a nation of private contractors. Which in and of itself is not so bad, except that you're back to another level playing field, because anyone who is unsuccessful in business, will be subsidized by those that are.

You have to recognize that free services paid by others do not encourage hard work, sacrifice, ambition and success. It's much easier to take what you cannot afford once it has been called "a right", than to go out and earn it yourself.

 

I've heard a lot of people say this ... but in comparison with our own health care system is that really true? The numbers I've seen say it is not. Beyond the 50 million Americans who have no health insurance there are also many people who have health insurance and yet are still not covered. I will agree that we have good health care for those that can afford to pay for it. That's the crux of the problem though, many people cannot. I'm not sure what the answer is to the health care problem in America but I am certain it is not staying on the course we are currently on.

 

Well ... We need a solution. An average American can not afford to pay $13,000 in insurance per year for a family of four.