PDA

View Full Version : The Truth About Obama's Healthcare Plan...


revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 10:13 AM
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/48750442.html

Using a razor to dissect the president's health-care plan By George Will
Washington Post Writers Group

Published on Monday, Jun 22, 2009



WASHINGTON: To dissect today's health-care debate, the crux of which concerns a ''public option,'' use the mind's equivalent of a surgeon's scalpel, Occam's razor, a principle of intellectual parsimony: In solving a puzzle, start with the simplest explanatory theory.



The puzzle is: Why does the president, who says that were America ''starting from scratch'' he would favor a ''single-payer'' — government-run — system, insist that health-care reform include a government insurance plan that competes with private insurers? The simplest answer is that such a plan will lead to a single-payer system.


Conservatives say that a government program will have the intended consequence of crowding private insurers out of the market, encouraging employers to stop providing coverage and luring employees from private insurance to the cheaper government option.



The Lewin Group estimates that 70 percent of the 172 million persons privately covered might be drawn, or pushed, to the government plan. A significant portion of the children who have enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program since eligibility requirements were relaxed in February had private insurance.



Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless: If the public option conforms to the imperatives that regulations and competition impose on private insurers, there is no reason for it.


The president characteristically denies that he is doing what he is doing — putting the nation on a path to an outcome he considers desirable — just as he denies any intention of running General Motors. Nevertheless, the unifying constant of his domestic policies — their connecting thread — is that they advance the Democrats' dependency agenda. The party of government aims to make Americans more equal by making them equally dependent on government for more and more things.



Arguments for the public option are too feeble to seem ingenuous. The president says competition from a government plan is necessary to keep private insurers ''honest.'' Presumably, being ''honest'' means not colluding to set prices, and evidently he thinks that, absent competition from government, there will not be a competitive market for insurance. This ignores two facts:
There are 1,300 competing providers of health insurance. And Roll Call's Morton Kondracke notes that the 2003 Medicare prescription drug entitlement, relying on competition among private insurers, enjoys 87 percent approval partly because competition has made premiums less expensive than had been projected. The program's estimated cost from 2007 to 2016 has been reduced 43 percent.
Some advocates of a public option say health coverage is so complex that consumers will be befuddled by choices. But consumers of many complicated products, from auto insurance to computers, have navigated the competition among providers, who have increased quality while lowering prices.


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.

Up to 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.

Will is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at georgewill@washpost.com.

GBMelBlount
06-22-2009, 10:21 AM
Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless: If the public option conforms to the imperatives that regulations and competition impose on private insurers, there is no reason for it.

If there was much evidence that goods and services became better or less expensive once taken from a competitive, free market delivery system and put under government monopoly control, then perhaps I could better understand why people want this...unfortunately, I am not aware of anything off hand that gives me any confidence that this a good solution in any way.

Socialized medicine may be the nail in the coffin of our country's future......

The rest of the educated world, who has been through the difficulties of socialism, is watching in utter disbelief at what is happening to our country.

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 10:26 AM
Well, it WILL be less expensive if it's free...but that's just on the purchasing end.

BUT that just means that someone else ends up paying for it, and guess who THAT might be.

He makes my favorite argument again, though, and that's that many, if not most uninsured either CAN buy it but CHOOSE not to spend their money on it (thereby demonstrating through their choice that the demand for such a service is low), or already qualify for some form of aid and are too lazy or stupid to take advantage of it.

The proponents of this "plan" need to drop the 46 million number toots sweet...it's simply not accurate.

Dino 6 Rings
06-22-2009, 11:03 AM
If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until its "free".

Godfather
06-22-2009, 11:35 AM
The biggest fallacy in the health care debate is that insurance means having access to health care. Insurance is not the solution...insurance is the problem. Thanks to the HMOs we have higher bureaucratic costs than countries with socialized systems. Then you add in the fact that they don't want to pay healthcare providers a fair rate, so they have to raise out-of-pocket costs to make up for it. And there's the fraudulent denials of legitimate claims, which Big Insurance is notorious for doing. Society ends up holding the bag.

We have other issues like liability/defensive medicine, uninsured people using the ER as their general practitioner, and being a nation of lardasses, but insurance is the #1 problem. We need to eliminate the restrictions on HSAs and let people decide for themselves what's medically necessary. We also need to let doctors give the lowest rate to people paying out of pocket.

SteelCurtain
06-23-2009, 12:56 PM
He makes my favorite argument again, though, and that's that many, if not most uninsured either CAN buy it but CHOOSE not to spend their money on it (thereby demonstrating through their choice that the demand for such a service is low), or already qualify for some form of aid and are too lazy or stupid to take advantage of it.


So a family of 4 with an annual income of $65,000 can afford $400 plus a month for health care, while they have to provide the necessities of life for them self, their spouse and their children? Maybe they DECLINE the insurance because they can not afford to pay for it, while they put a roof over their heads and food on the table. But hey they were offered it and could of afforded it if they lived out of a tent and scavenged for food...

revefsreleets
06-23-2009, 01:06 PM
So a family of 4 with an annual income of $65,000 can afford $400 plus a month for health care, while they have to provide the necessities of life for them self, their spouse and their children? Maybe they DECLINE the insurance because they can not afford to pay for it, while they put a roof over their heads and food on the table. But hey they were offered it and could of afforded it if they lived out of a tent and scavenged for food...

Yes. If Insurance is a PRIORITY, they will pay for it. That may mean driving one car instead of two. Or one less plasma TV. Or buying food at the dollar store instead of Giant Eagle. If it's a true priority, it will be paid for. Point is, it's NOT a priority.

steelreserve
06-23-2009, 01:07 PM
If there was much evidence that goods and services became better or less expensive once taken from a competitive, free market delivery system and put under government monopoly control, then perhaps I could better understand why people want this...unfortunately, I am not aware of anything off hand that gives me any confidence that this a good solution in any way.

Oh, it'll be less expensive, just not better. The government can cap costs and what it's allowable to charge at whatever level it wants.

But what they find in other countries with socialized medicine, like Britain or Canada, is that after about a generation, you end up with less-qualified doctors because most of the best candidates decide to go into some other line of work -- no sense going to the trouble and expense of medical school when you're locked into a mediocre salary at the end of it. The severity of the defections depends on how steep the pay cuts are.

So if you did it right -- capping costs somewhere reasonable, but not so low that you make medicine an unattractive profession -- you could conceivably make it work, saving money for everyone and maintaining decent quality. Now, what are the odds that the government will actually pull that off correctly? Just about zero.

SteelCurtain
06-23-2009, 01:31 PM
Yes. If Insurance is a PRIORITY, they will pay for it. That may mean driving one car instead of two. Or one less plasma TV. Or buying food at the dollar store instead of Giant Eagle. If it's a true priority, it will be paid for. Point is, it's NOT a priority.

Let us take a young family of 4, both of the parents being recently graduated from college. Let’s say about 26 years of age. They both make about $32,500/year for $65,000 annually. Here’s a breakdown of their bills…

Rent/Mortgage: $700/month conservatively
New low cost fuel efficient Suzuki SX4 car: $275/month or $16,000 total
Required car insurance: $80/month
Student loans (say $30,000/each): $400/each or $800 total/month
Groceries: $500/ month conservatively
Electric: $100/month
TV basic cable: $30/month
Phone: $80/month
Heating: $500/month
Daycare: $100/week or $400/month
Gas: 2 tanks/week or $160/month conservatively
Random/maintenance expenses: $200

That totals $3825/month or $45,900/year, which is about what they will net after taxes. So where do you fit in that $400/month for healthcare?

SteelCurtain
06-23-2009, 02:00 PM
Oh, it'll be less expensive, just not better. The government can cap costs and what it's allowable to charge at whatever level it wants.

But what they find in other countries with socialized medicine, like Britain or Canada, is that after about a generation, you end up with less-qualified doctors because most of the best candidates decide to go into some other line of work -- no sense going to the trouble and expense of medical school when you're locked into a mediocre salary at the end of it. The severity of the defections depends on how steep the pay cuts are.

So if you did it right -- capping costs somewhere reasonable, but not so low that you make medicine an unattractive profession -- you could conceivably make it work, saving money for everyone and maintaining decent quality. Now, what are the odds that the government will actually pull that off correctly? Just about zero.

Most of what you said I completely agree with. What you failed to mention is that the best candidates, in Canada's socialized health care system, don't always decide to go into some other line of work, many stay in medicine. They just leave the area and move to the US where they can make tons of money. It is called "Brain Drain" my friends, which is a huge part of the reason that Canada's system isn't as good as it should be. Take a sociology class in college and you will learn about it. This is partially the reason why, if we do move to a socialized health care system like the one Steelreserve mentioned, the quality of care will not deteriorate. Ours will stay about the same, while Canada's will improve, since Doctors will get similar wages in the US and Canada. Which will keep them from defecting to the US. I do not agree that the government can't pull it off correctly. They do other things perfectly well, such as managing the best Military in the world....

steelreserve
06-23-2009, 03:00 PM
Most of what you said I completely agree with. What you failed to mention is that the best candidates, in Canada's socialized health care system, don't always decide to go into some other line of work, many stay in medicine. They just leave the area and move to the US where they can make tons of money. It is called "Brain Drain" my friends, which is a huge part of the reason that Canada's system isn't as good as it should be. Take a sociology class in college and you will learn about it. This is partially the reason why, if we do move to a socialized health care system like the one Steelreserve mentioned, the quality of care will not deteriorate. Ours will stay about the same, while Canada's will improve, since Doctors will get similar wages in the US and Canada. Which will keep them from defecting to the US. I do not agree that the government can't pull it off correctly. They do other things perfectly well, such as managing the best Military in the world....

All good points. I have my doubts, however, about the last part, because I cannot possibly imagine a more inviting target for all kinds of PC bullshit than a government-run healthcare system in the U.S. The very day it started, people would be lining up to sue, and advocates for this group or that group would be screaming that it isn't FAIR. Pretty soon the whole thing would be so entangled with all kinds of competing interests trying to get their own way that it would be a slow, expensive, grinding mess.

Don't get me wrong: We probably could've handled this somewhat intelligently if it was the 1950s, 60s, 70s, maybe even the 80s. But once we started down the path we've been on since the early '90s -- where political correctness and fear of liability are the major determining forces in how larger corporate or government entities are forced to operate -- there's not a chance of pulling off something like this.

I guess this is more of a reflection on how Americans have become, more than the government's competence to handle something of that scale. I have no doubt whatsoever that even though we've been asking for some form of government-assisted health care for 20 years, if they gave it to us, we'd immediately shove it away, spit in their face and say it was terrible, and probably bankrupt the whole thing in the process.

T&B fan
06-23-2009, 09:17 PM
Let us take a young family of 4, both of the parents being recently graduated from college. Let’s say about 26 years of age. They both make about $32,500/year for $65,000 annually. Here’s a breakdown of their bills…

Rent/Mortgage: $700/month conservatively
New low cost fuel efficient Suzuki SX4 car: $275/month or $16,000 total
Required car insurance: $80/month
Student loans (say $30,000/each): $400/each or $800 total/month
Groceries: $500/ month conservatively
Electric: $100/month
TV basic cable: $30/month
Phone: $80/month
Heating: $500/month
Daycare: $100/week or $400/month
Gas: 2 tanks/week or $160/month conservatively
Random/maintenance expenses: $200

That totals $3825/month or $45,900/year, which is about what they will net after taxes. So where do you fit in that $400/month for healthcare?

a few of your #s are off .. lets start with a famly of 4 getting healthcare at $400 /month. I pay $380 just for me ,none smoker -43 -in good health . and it dos not cover teeth or eyes ..

your car payment is off i think it would be higher more like $400
Electric ( like to live near you if ou got that low a bill ) lets say more like $210
if rent is only $700 then they most likly live a ways from work so gas is more and 2 cars not 1
daycare I was just talking to a friend of mine with 3 kids in it .only 5 hrs a day in the summer $225 week
TV free . no need for cable it comes acrosst the air for free
and heating my part of the world in the winter easy $700

Godfather
06-23-2009, 09:53 PM
It seems to me that the couple you mentioned would be just fine and not dependent on the rest of our money if A. they waited until they could afford two kids, or B only have had one child seeing that two is such a financial burden on them that it means we have to pay for them, or C. get a better job or raise (either one) before hammering out another rug rat.

It doesn't matter to me how many kids someone has, it's their right to have as many as they want but don't expect me/us to foot the bill. I have enough of my own taxes and bills to pay without having to worry about someone elses. My parents couldn't afford three kids, so they stopped at two. Problem solved.

I hate to sound like an insensitive prick (because I'm not) but the majority of us are doing it right but will forever have to pick up the slack of Tawanda and her litter of 9 children.

I think there is a happy medium between free health care for everyone and nobody having it.

That couple would also be OK if the government would get its hand the hell out of their pockets but naturally you don't want to talk about that.

SteelersinCA
06-24-2009, 12:07 AM
I'll be cool with discussing government run health care if someone can point out to me just 1 thing the government runs well. I cannot honestly think of one thing.

SteelCurtain
06-24-2009, 06:29 AM
That couple would also be OK if the government would get its hand the hell out of their pockets but naturally you don't want to talk about that.

For there to be a civilized society you must have a government. To have a government you must have taxes. Without a government or with one that is powerless there is mass chaos. Take the many countries in Africa as examples. Taxes are a necessity of life. What the government does with those taxes is what you should be worried about. We can provide a good socialized healthcare system, but we should use the money that is already there without raising taxes. This means taking money allocated to something of less importance and reallocating it to health care. Personally, I would cut off all funding for relief to other countries. We don't need to be sending $350 billion dollars to Africa for AIDS relief every few months. We have enough problems here. I would immediately get rid of "Free Trade" and tariff the hell out of imports. Then we could afford, what should be, without hitting the citizens of the US in the pockets anymore than what they currently do.

Godfather
06-24-2009, 07:35 AM
I'll be cool with discussing government run health care if someone can point out to me just 1 thing the government runs well. I cannot honestly think of one thing.

World's best military.

World's best university system.

GBMelBlount
06-24-2009, 08:16 AM
World's best military.

World's best university system.

I am all for military...but are you saying it is run well from a cost and efficiency stand point?

SteelersinCA
06-24-2009, 08:36 AM
World's best military.

World's best university system.

You equate best with run well? Also which Universities are the best in your book? Because the vast majority of the ones I see at the top of any list are private schools. In fact, according to US news and World report, you may agree or disagree but they are the most common ranker of schools, the top 21 schools are privately run. Berkeley at #21 is the top public school, followed by Virginia at #23 and UCLA at #25. So 3 of the top 25 schools are "government run."

Does that qualify as well run to you? That pretty much belies my point. 88% of the top 25 schools are privately run, 100% of the top 20, the BEST schools are private institutions.


My first instinct was the military, as well, then I remembered all the troops we sent to Iraq without body armor and things like that. Or the debatable fact that our intel community said there were WMDs and there weren't, You can pick but that doesn't scream well run to me.

revefsreleets
06-24-2009, 08:55 AM
OK, If I was in that boat concerning affordable health insurance, here's what I would do.

I'd get a high deductible healthcare plan, something with a 5k deductible. I found a plan that covered a family of 4 that had a $90 a month premium. True, you have to pay for preventative care, but I also believe you'll be able to get a tax break for this stuff, and start a healthcare savings plan as well which is taken on a pre-tax basis. But, for simplicities sake, we've already chipped it down for $400 to $90, so you at least have catastrophic coverage (would you rather be socked for $500,000 or $5000?). If something catastrophic DOES happen to one of the two adults, and you have no health insurance, you're literally looking at financial ruin. I may even go as far as saying that it's irresponsible to run a household without healthcare, at least some kind of minimal coverage.

Looking at the finances:
Rent/Mortgage: $700/month conservatively
New low cost fuel efficient Suzuki SX4 car: $275/month or $16,000 total
Required car insurance: $80/month
Student loans (say $30,000/each): $400/each or $800 total/month
Groceries: $500/ month conservatively
Electric: $100/month
TV basic cable: $30/month
Phone: $80/month
Heating: $500/month
Daycare: $100/week or $400/month
Gas: 2 tanks/week or $160/month conservatively
Random/maintenance expenses: $200

I have some suggestions for ways to prioritize the health insurance:
A) Put one or both the student loans into either deferment or
forbearance. I'd also consider looking into additional consolidation. $800 a month at that income level is a prohibitive expense. There is wiggle room to be found there.
B) As taxpayers, you should look into any kind of assistance that may be available, be it food stamps, heating assistance, any and every option available. The income level is high, but with all the applicable deductions, there is probably some program or other that will help.
C) I've read several articles about how big families can eat for only a couple hundred dollars a month (In fact, one article was about a couple who only made 32k a year TOTAL!). It takes discipline, but it's achievable. Curtailing that one expense alone can make enough room to afford insurance.

Not sounding cruel or cold here, but not having any kind of health insurance is a VERY dangerous game to play for people in this situation.

Godfather
06-24-2009, 09:09 AM
I am all for military...but are you saying it is run well from a cost and efficiency stand point?

I can't complain about the cost. Efficiency is more of a problem--some of the money goes to the wrong things like no-bid contracts, contractor fraud, pork, etc. but that's unavoidable. Plus wasteful spending is rampant in the private sector since the CEOs personally benefit and they know they'll get a bailout.

Godfather
06-24-2009, 09:14 AM
Does that qualify as well run to you? That pretty much belies my point. 88% of the top 25 schools are privately run, 100% of the top 20, the BEST schools are private institutions.


Well, two points. One, the Ivies are grossly overrated. George W. Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry got degrees from Yale and all three are morons.

Plus, a school doesn't have to be in some subjective top 25 to be a good school. Michigan and Texas are world-class schools. LSU is one of the biggest rising stars in higher education. A lot of the good vet schools are at public universities. A lot of students from other countries come to the US to go to public universities, and there's a reason for that.

Godfather
06-24-2009, 09:17 AM
Not sounding cruel or cold here, but not having any kind of health insurance is a VERY dangerous game to play for people in this situation.

Not sounding mean at all. That's good financial advice.

The part that irks me is their tax burden is over $10K--a lot more than enough to get insurance. And that's just SS and Medicare, plus employer matching, FUTA, SUTA, etc. Those don't all come off their gross pay but it's still a burden on them because it raises their employer's costs.

SteelCurtain
06-24-2009, 10:03 AM
[QUOTE=revefsreleets;619476]OK, If I was in that boat concerning affordable health insurance, here's what I would do.

I'd get a high deductible healthcare plan, something with a 5k deductible. I found a plan that covered a family of 4 that had a $90 a month premium. True, you have to pay for preventative care, but I also believe you'll be able to get a tax break for this stuff, and start a healthcare savings plan as well which is taken on a pre-tax basis. But, for simplicities sake, we've already chipped it down for $400 to $90, so you at least have catastrophic coverage (would you rather be socked for $500,000 or $5000?). If something catastrophic DOES happen to one of the two adults, and you have no health insurance, you're literally looking at financial ruin. I may even go as far as saying that it's irresponsible to run a household without healthcare, at least some kind of minimal coverage. - You are right that is a legitimate option, but why not provide them with a better healthcare plan by utilizing the tax money that they already pay? Instead lets have them pay $90/month for some shitty bogus health care. We don't have to raise taxes on citizens to have a socialized health care system. Like I said before:
1) Quit providing aid to countries who do nothing for us in return.
2) End "Free Trade" and tariff the hell out of imports, which will make US companies more competitive and also bring more companies and jobs to the US. There is a reason tariffs were created, and I just can't for the life of me understand why we don't use them.

SteelCurtain
06-24-2009, 10:05 AM
I have some suggestions for ways to prioritize the health insurance:

A) Put one or both the student loans into either deferment or
forbearance. I'd also consider looking into additional consolidation. $800 a month at that income level is a prohibitive expense. There is wiggle room to be found there.
- There are things they could do to lighten the load of their student loans, but will they ever have them payed off?

B) As taxpayers, you should look into any kind of assistance that may be available, be it food stamps, heating assistance, any and every option available. The income level is high, but with all the applicable deductions, there is probably some program or other that will help. - I'm confused. Isn't this the exact thing you are arguing against? Aren't you against socialized programs? So lets give them every kind of assistance possible so they can afford to pay for health care, instead of just providing helath care for them anyways. Don't really understand the logic behind your argument on this one.

C) I've read several articles about how big families can eat for only a couple hundred dollars a month (In fact, one article was about a couple who only made 32k a year TOTAL!). It takes discipline, but it's achievable. Curtailing that one expense alone can make enough room to afford insurance. - I've read many things too, but that does not mean I believe them. This is no insult to you. But I just don't believe that at all. If it is true they must eat saltines and drink water.

Not sounding cruel or cold here, but not having any kind of health insurance is a VERY dangerous game to play for people in this situation. - I can't really say much about that because I completely agree....
[/QUOTE]

revefsreleets
06-24-2009, 10:07 AM
Not sounding mean at all. That's good financial advice.

The part that irks me is their tax burden is over $10K--a lot more than enough to get insurance. And that's just SS and Medicare, plus employer matching, FUTA, SUTA, etc. Those don't all come off their gross pay but it's still a burden on them because it raises their employer's costs.

This is what troubles me. They are both working. Paying taxes. Contributing. But there's no help for them, and little relief. They have to pay (in this case, $90 a month for inferior and inadequate coverage), while those who abuse the system and milk it for every penny, people producing zero but simply leeching off the system get not only coverage, but top-of-the-line coverage. I was talking to a guy I know who's wife had two babies, one on really good private insurance, and one on welfare (when times were tough for them). He said the private insurance was semi-private room, deductibles, generic drugs, out-of-pocket expenses, and just general second class treatment. The WELFARE provided child birth was top-flight, first class, private room, best of everything, and 100% FREE!

THAT is a problem. Things are turned on their head in this country. Obama's plan sound like it adds problems, not solves them. People on the government teat should get JUST ENOUGH coverage, and taxpayers should get the royal treatment, not the opposite.

Things have gone on the wrong way for too long. We need a REAL change.

I come back to this suggestion from George Will. It makes a LOT of sense. It's simple. It solves problems. He said:

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.

revefsreleets
06-24-2009, 10:16 AM
Curtain, I'm not against government giving assistance, I'm against the government creating generational dependence, against abuses in these systems, against peple who DO nothing, produce NOTHING, getting treated better than honest tax paying citizens. Notice how I qualified my statement with the words "AS TAXPAYERS" before I suggested looking at aid. YOU pay into the system, you deserve to get OUTPUT from that system. Otherwise it's simple wealth redistribution from productive members doing as they should to non-productive members who are robbing the system by contributing ZERO.

SteelCurtain
06-24-2009, 10:42 AM
Curtain, I'm not against government giving assistance, I'm against the government creating generational dependence, against abuses in these systems, against peple who DO nothing, produce NOTHING, getting treated better than honest tax paying citizens. Notice how I qualified my statement with the words "AS TAXPAYERS" before I suggested looking at aid. YOU pay into the system, you deserve to get OUTPUT from that system. Otherwise it's simple wealth redistribution from productive members doing as they should to non-productive members who are robbing the system by contributing ZERO.
-I agree with you to a certain point. How do you classify someone as a productive member? There are plenty of people like your friend who "were productive members, but 'ran into tough times'." This is from fox news(which I don't agree with the majority of the time, but this is a rare instance):

"The United States is the only developed nation that does not have a comprehensive national health care plan for all its citizens.

About 50 million of America's 300 million people are without health insurance. The government provides coverage for the poor, disabled and elderly, but most Americans rely on private insurance, usually received through their employers. However, not all employers provide insurance and not everyone can afford to buy it on their own. With unemployment rising, many Americans are losing their health insurance when they lose their jobs."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/white-house-pushes-bipartisan-health-plan/

So are those people who lost their health insurance due to losing their jobs not productive members of society, even though they may have been the brightest and hardest working?

With any system there are going to be people who leech off of it, but that doesn't mean this will only benefit those people. You have to take the good with the bad.

revefsreleets
06-24-2009, 11:20 AM
There is a HUGE difference between someone who has a tax history and a systematic abuser of public welfare. And that would relatively easy to determine. We are the most advanced country in the world and you're telling me we can't determine the difference?

Also, concerning our hypothetical couple, they have a tax burden (as was pointed out) of 10k. THEY deserve some kind of comprehensive coverage if the government is going to offer it FAR more than some lifelong welfare cheat.

Indo
06-24-2009, 12:42 PM
Otherwise it's simple wealth redistribution from productive members doing as they should to non-productive members who are robbing the system by contributing ZERO.


"From Each according to his Ability, to Each according to his Need"

---Karl Marx

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2009, 01:02 PM
I have a brother-in-law who is currently in med school and he brought up and interesting point.

When he gets out of med school he wil be in debt somewhere to the tune of about $200,000 dollars. His statement was that very few people will want to go into a field with "capped salaries" if they are going to be that far into debt. Our brightest minds will go into another field, thereby making our healthcare system sub-par by attrition.

Lets try and forget about the beauracratic and administrative ineptness that follows anything the government manages....Having sub-par doctors should scare the hell out of all of us.

Godfather
06-24-2009, 01:18 PM
There is a HUGE difference between someone who has a tax history and a systematic abuser of public welfare. And that would relatively easy to determine. We are the most advanced country in the world and you're telling me we can't determine the difference?

Also, concerning our hypothetical couple, they have a tax burden (as was pointed out) of 10k. THEY deserve some kind of comprehensive coverage if the government is going to offer it FAR more than some lifelong welfare cheat.

Yep, and that tax burden assumed they had enough deductions to eliminate their income tax liability.

I was in a similar situation when I was in my 20s. My biggest monthly expense was taxes--the one you can't do anything about. I had a critical illness policy but not comprehensive coverage (which I could have gotten for a fraction of my tax burden). I also cut a lot of expenses--took public transportation to work, grabbed any free meal I could find, etc. Not much in the way of luxuries.

That's why I had no qualms about taking FEMA money after Katrina. I'd been a taxpayer for 10 years...to me, it was just reparations for a crushing tax burden.

SteelersinCA
06-24-2009, 01:29 PM
Well, two points. One, the Ivies are grossly overrated. George W. Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry got degrees from Yale and all three are morons.

Plus, a school doesn't have to be in some subjective top 25 to be a good school. Michigan and Texas are world-class schools. LSU is one of the biggest rising stars in higher education. A lot of the good vet schools are at public universities. A lot of students from other countries come to the US to go to public universities, and there's a reason for that.

Good points, but he basic premise was private can do it better and I stand by that.

steelwall
06-24-2009, 08:23 PM
Perhaps off subject....but when the heck is this stimulus package supposed to save us? I just got cut down to part time work yesterday.... I'm screwed.....

revefsreleets
06-25-2009, 08:03 AM
Looks like you got banned, but I'll answer.

I'm sure, according to Obama, your job was saved due to the stimulus and spending bills...otherwise you'd have just lost it altogether. All hail Obama!

Fire Haley
06-25-2009, 09:55 AM
President Obama Defends Right to Choose Best Care

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7919991&page=1

-----------------------------

Translation:

Obama: "My family deserves better healthcare than you peasants".

revefsreleets
06-25-2009, 10:16 AM
By the way, he's taking a good hard look at McCain's health care tax.

If you recall, he originally called that plan "radical", said that it would force 20 million people to lose their insurance, that it would run up the deficit another 1.3 trillion, and that it would force many employers to simply stop offering coverage altogether. In fact, his quote was that McCain's plan is: "so radical, so out of touch with what you're facing, and so out of line with our basic values."

But now he's going to give it consideration?

SteelersinCA
06-25-2009, 11:07 AM
Why'd Steelwall get banned, did I miss something?

Godfather
06-25-2009, 11:55 AM
Translation:

Obama: "My family deserves better healthcare than you peasants".

Sad but true. So much for change.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
06-25-2009, 03:39 PM
Perhaps off subject....but when the heck is this stimulus package supposed to save us? I just got cut down to part time work yesterday.... I'm screwed.....

I just got cut down to 10 hours a week, join the club... :drink:

tony hipchest
06-25-2009, 06:39 PM
Why'd Steelwall get banned, did I miss something?yeah, he flipped his lid over a sympathetic and apolitical post i made in the "Iranian Leaders...." thread about the lady who was shot and killed and her death was seen all over the internet. :noidea:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
06-25-2009, 10:52 PM
yeah, he flipped his lid over a sympathetic and apolitical post i made in the "Iranian Leaders...." thread about the lady who was shot and killed and her death was seen all over the internet. :noidea:

Wow, really? Which thread was it? I am a nosy S.O.B.!

SteelersinCA
06-26-2009, 01:40 AM
Wow, I didn't think he'd get banned over that, oh well sucks for him.

HometownGal
06-26-2009, 07:57 AM
Wow, I didn't think he'd get banned over that, oh well sucks for him.

He'll be back in short order - just needed a little break.

Godfather
06-26-2009, 07:58 AM
yeah, he flipped his lid over a sympathetic and apolitical post i made in the "Iranian Leaders...." thread about the lady who was shot and killed and her death was seen all over the internet. :noidea:

You sure that was it? I just checked that thread and I've seen far worse :noidea:

X-Terminator
06-26-2009, 08:38 AM
You sure that was it? I just checked that thread and I've seen far worse :noidea:

Some of the more offensive posts were deleted.

Godfather
06-26-2009, 08:42 AM
Some of the more offensive posts were deleted.

Ah, OK. That makes sense :drink: