Universal health care

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Pew poll has 65% support, 30% oppose.

I bet it didn't mention numbers.

Yeah, I suppose if they had mentioned cost compared to the current system, it would have done even better.

[AkSaber]

Hell no.

[Harry]

Yes. The government should provide health care for all.

[Tory]

It kills me to say I support universal healthcare, because it's such a left-wing thing in an American context. I would keep the private sector legal and not allow people making over a certain amount access to the government run health system(without any tax break).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It kills me to say I support universal healthcare, because it's such a left-wing thing in an American context. I would keep the private sector legal and not allow people making over a certain amount access to the government run health system(without any tax break).

Don't worry, 65% of Americans favor it.

[KEmperor]

I would keep the private sector legal and not allow people making over a certain amount access to the government run health system(without any tax break).

This part of your statement takes you beyond left wing into the far loony left.  You are not only forcing people to pay for other's bills, but on top of that you are prohibiting certain people from participating in a system that they are being forced to pay for.

Why don't you just walk into their houses, steal their money, and be done with it?

[opebo]

I would keep the private sector legal and not allow people making over a certain amount access to the government run health system(without any tax break).

This part of your statement takes you beyond left wing into the far loony left.  You are not only forcing people to pay for other's bills, but on top of that you are prohibiting certain people from participating in a system that they are being forced to pay for.

Why don't you just walk into their houses, steal their money, and be done with it?

Kemperor, we are talking about the owners and ruler of our society here, not someone being taken advantage of.  In other words, this 'robbery', as I'm sure you would call it, represents just a tiny percentage of that which they take by force every day.

[Tory]

I would keep the private sector legal and not allow people making over a certain amount access to the government run health system(without any tax break).

This part of your statement takes you beyond left wing into the far loony left.  You are not only forcing people to pay for other's bills, but on top of that you are prohibiting certain people from participating in a system that they are being forced to pay for.

Why don't you just walk into their houses, steal their money, and be done with it?

They get to pay for thier own healthcare, which is what they want. In exchange for taking advantage of the poor by getting better healthcare they have to pay the penalty.

[A18]

What? How are they taking advantage of the poor? They're not doing anything to the poor.

[opebo]

What? How are they taking advantage of the poor? They're not doing anything to the poor.

Certainly they are.  They are ruling over them and extracting their production.  The owner is born into his position, and the poor into his.  The latter labours for the former, and the State make sure the labourer does not rebel.  And so on, generation after generation...

[A18]

Uh, no. The poor are not forced to do anything by the rich.

And I already posted the social mobility statistics.

[opebo]

Uh, no. The poor are not forced to do anything by the rich.

Certainly they are, Philip.  They are forced to toil for them.

And I already posted the social mobility statistics.

Yes, it does seem odd that anyone lives in the ghetto at all considering!  Perhaps it is occupied only by ex-millionaires who 'lost their shirts'. 

[A18]

No, they're not.

You don't seem to understand what social mobility means.

[opebo]

No, they're not.

Sure they are.  They'll starve otherwise.

You don't seem to understand what social mobility means.

Yes, I understand it to mean becoming better off, so I thought it might be useful to ask you - explain why the ghetto is full of people descended from people who are also descended from people who have lived there? 

If social mobility were in fact occuring, there should be black people in your neighborhood, and ex-millionaires on skid-row, and other such fanciful things, Philip.

[A18]

Your second sentence does not support the first. The fact is you've got things exactly backwards. The rich do not harm the poor, they help them. No exchange ever takes place in the free market unless both parties believe they benefit.

The fact that there is social mobility does not mean there aren't counterexamples.

[opebo]

Your second sentence does not support the first. The fact is you've got things exactly backwards. The rich do not harm the poor, they help them. No exchange ever takes place in the free market unless both parties believe they benefit.

There is no 'free market' in the rigid social heirarchy of capitalism, Philip.

The fact that there is social mobility does not mean there aren't counterexamples.

The counterexamples are, of course, nearly everyone.

[A18]

Free market = no coercion

The counterexamples are, of course, nearly everyone.

The statistics show otherwise.

[memphis]

An important aspect of the health care debate that is often overlooked is the impact of health care costs on American businesses. Companies like GM can't keep up with foreign competitors, who don't have to provide healthcare to their employess because their governments take care of this. I don't have a perfect solution to this, but we have to do something or all of our companies are going to go under because of health care costs.

[David S]

Before we adopt a 100% government run healthcare system we should look at some facts about the two healthcare programs currently run by government, Medicare and Medicaid.

In 1967, the first full year for Medicare the combined cost of Medicare and Medicaid together was $4.4 billion. By 2004 the cost had risen to $473 billion, a 100 fold increase. That’s far in excess of inflation. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table9

In terms of cost as a percentage of GDP, in 1967 the two programs took 0.5% of GDP. But in 2004 they took 4.1%. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table10
 That’s eight times as much, in only 37 years. If the costs were to continue growing at that rate for the next 37 years Medicare and Medicaid would be consuming nearly 1/3 of our GDP.

The governments past performance on estimating future costs is poor at best as illustrated in this article by  Michael F. Cannon:

“Despite official projections in 1965 that hospital insurance under Medicare would cost only $9 billion in 1990, actual spending in 1990 was $66 billion. Medicare payroll taxes are now nearly double what supporters promised would be necessary, having been raised most recently in 1994, and the program consumes a growing share of general revenue.”
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cannon-040326.html

As I have said many times before, a competitive free market is the best system for providing quality goods and services at the lowest prices. The rest of our economy operates that way successfully. Why can’t healthcare? Cars, food, clothing, housing, televisions, and PCs are all provided by an essentially competitive free market and we don’t have a crisis in those things.

Medical care, on the other hand, does not operate as a competitive free market and we do have a crisis there. Maybe there’s a connection.  Do we really want to abandon the free market and have the government running 100% of our healthcare system?

[KEmperor]

I would keep the private sector legal and not allow people making over a certain amount access to the government run health system(without any tax break).

This part of your statement takes you beyond left wing into the far loony left.  You are not only forcing people to pay for other's bills, but on top of that you are prohibiting certain people from participating in a system that they are being forced to pay for.

Why don't you just walk into their houses, steal their money, and be done with it?

In exchange for taking advantage of the poor by getting better healthcare they have to pay the penalty.

This sentence makes no sense.

[??????????]

If we start with Universal health care, what's next? Does the government then determine what we can eat and what we can't, etc based on government savings?

[dazzleman]

I don't support universal health care supplied by the government.

First of all, the government supplies nothing in essence.  Fellow citizens supply things, with the government as their means of delivery.

And government has proven to be an incompetent, ineffective, and inefficient means of delivery for most of the services it provides.

I would fear that with government as the means of delivery, overall quality would fall, and those with money would opt out of the government system and obtain private health care, effectively paying twice.  That is how it works with education in many areas, and I have no reason to believe that government health care would be any better in general quality than inner city education.  Government reduces things to the lowest common denominator, and seeks to equalize inequality by pulling down those who are doing better.  This is not in the interests of the vast majority of people. 

There could perhaps be piecemeal programs to help those without health care, as we have now, but I'd go no further than that.  I don't want government controlling such a large segment of the economy, and I don't want government directly involved in things like medical school admissions, etc.  I still remember that Hillary's health care plan required admissions quotas for medical school to "ensure balance and diversity."  I am completely against that, and I don't trust government with that kind of power.

[memphis]

I don't support universal health care supplied by the government.

First of all, the government supplies nothing in essence.  Fellow citizens supply things, with the government as their means of delivery.

And government has proven to be an incompetent, ineffective, and inefficient means of delivery for most of the services it provides.

I would fear that with government as the means of delivery, overall quality would fall, and those with money would opt out of the government system and obtain private health care, effectively paying twice.  That is how it works with education in many areas, and I have no reason to believe that government health care would be any better in general quality than inner city education.  Government reduces things to the lowest common denominator, and seeks to equalize inequality by pulling down those who are doing better.  This is not in the interests of the vast majority of people. 

There could perhaps be piecemeal programs to help those without health care, as we have now, but I'd go no further than that.  I don't want government controlling such a large segment of the economy, and I don't want government directly involved in things like medical school admissions, etc.  I still remember that Hillary's health care plan required admissions quotas for medical school to "ensure balance and diversity."  I am completely against that, and I don't trust government with that kind of power.

I've never heard anybody suggest that the government provide healthcare. Instead, some have suggested that the government pay for healthcare. The difference is enormous.

[David S]

If we start with Universal health care, what's next? Does the government then determine what we can eat and what we can't, etc based on government savings?

That's a good point States. My own brother who happens to be a Liberal Democrat seems to believe that government should have some control over what people eat since government pays healthcare costs for the poor.
(To avoid fatalities my brother and I don't discuss politics much anymore.)

Anyways, in a broader sense, when we turn over our responsibilities to government we also turn over some of our freedom.

[dazzleman]

I don't support universal health care supplied by the government.

First of all, the government supplies nothing in essence.  Fellow citizens supply things, with the government as their means of delivery.

And government has proven to be an incompetent, ineffective, and inefficient means of delivery for most of the services it provides.

I would fear that with government as the means of delivery, overall quality would fall, and those with money would opt out of the government system and obtain private health care, effectively paying twice.  That is how it works with education in many areas, and I have no reason to believe that government health care would be any better in general quality than inner city education.  Government reduces things to the lowest common denominator, and seeks to equalize inequality by pulling down those who are doing better.  This is not in the interests of the vast majority of people. 

There could perhaps be piecemeal programs to help those without health care, as we have now, but I'd go no further than that.  I don't want government controlling such a large segment of the economy, and I don't want government directly involved in things like medical school admissions, etc.  I still remember that Hillary's health care plan required admissions quotas for medical school to "ensure balance and diversity."  I am completely against that, and I don't trust government with that kind of power.

I've never heard anybody suggest that the government provide healthcare. Instead, some have suggested that the government pay for healthcare. The difference is enormous.

First of all, government pays for nothing.  Citizens pay for it through their taxes, and government is the transfer agent.  Second, the person who writes the checks calls the shots, and since government would be writing the checks, it would be calling the shots.  I don't think too many people would like the result, honestly, based upon other areas where government has controlled things.  I have no faith.