Obama '08?

okie wrote:

I think preconditions beyond our control should be accepted. However, I do think insurance companies could reward people that do not smoke or are not overweight better rates. Those are essentially lifestyle choices. I realize I am entering troubled waters here, and perhaps I would need to get into that deeper to see all the ramifications of making it practical, but I do think we need to retain as much personal choice and competition in the market as possible, and lower rates for healthier choices of lifestyle seems reasonable at first glance. It would serve also as a huge motivator to better health and lifestyle among people throughout the country, and would improve our health as a country. I think the lifestyle choice issue would have to be limited to only the very obvious and provable however, the only two I mention now as obvious is smoking and obesity.

Agree 100% with the smoking and weight control = better rates.

But the insurance companies, you must realize, scream bloody, bloody murder at the idea that they must accept those with conditions even if they are beyond their controls.

I think you will note that Obama has not proposed doing away with the insurance companies, or nationalizing the industry... I understand that you are reluctant to look at a Dem favorably on this issue, but what he is proposing is not 'socialized medicine' by any means. The free market will still be the primary driver of health care in America.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I am 100% opposed to the government requiring somebody to buy insurance for solely their own benefit. I have no problem requiring insurance to do certain things: i.e. liability insurance if you are going to drive on public roads; work comp insurance if you hire employees etc. But what Constitutional authority is there to require somebody to insure their property or their persons when they put nobody at risk but themselves?

There is one problem with what you say there, Foxfyre. I almost always agree with your opinions, but I would like to point out that hospitals or emergency rooms are obligated by law to treat anyone that comes through the door I think. So in effect if you use your driving analogy, in regard to health care, everyone is driving on the public road, so everyone needs to show or demonstrate that they either A: have insurance, or B: have the personal ability to pay for their health care in the event of an accident or health event, this being the case regardless of their good or bad health, it makes no difference. We all know that if someone thinks they are healthy and does not need insurance, but has no money, if they get sick, they will expect treatment and the rest of us to essentially pay for it. We also know that many hospitals do not collect very high percentages of what they bill out, thus the price of services is elevated significantly above what they would otherwise be if everyone paid for the services received. Sort of like stores raising prices to cover shoplifting losses.

If hospitals or emergencey rooms could turn away anyone that came there with an illness or accident or something, then I would say you would be correct, however we are not that kind of society.

So I think I favor some kind of mandatory insurance system, whether it is self insured or insured through a third party. I also think that only catastrophic health insurance should be required for most of us, because if we all paid for smaller office visit costs, which I do, I think medical costs would drop dramatically because of more self discipline and accountability. That would eliminate much going to the doctor for a runny nose, which only serves to clog waiting rooms with minor stuff, while bigger problems are overlooked.

There is one thought I have in regard to this issue though. I am not sure you are not correct about not making insurance mandatory, because it could well be the case that the cost of a bureaucracy to oversee mandatory insurance would cost the rest of us more than what we are currently paying for increased medical costs due to non-payers. That being in regard to hospital and emergency room treatment.

We allow abortion because the majority feels that no woman should be forced to bear an unwanted child. The large majority of us believe it should be the right of the individual to refuse treatment and be allowed to die if that is what he or she wants. So why should it not be the right of the individual to not have health insurance if the person doesn't want it? And why should other tax payers be required to provide services to somebody who chooses not to buy health insurance?

These are all issues that the government can address with legislation without requiring anybody to do anything. All they have to do is to make it possible for the private sector to provide affordable insurance/health care and then we focus on the more efficient, effective, and affordable way to take care of the truly helpless. Perhaps the government could underwrite emergency services which would take pressure off those services but give both the hospitals and the government the clout to require payrment and go after those who could have insurance but prefer to have a new car or big screen plasma TV instead or who could pay something but choose not to because they don't have to.

The government doesn't buy anybody's line that they are too financially strapped to pay their taxes. Why should the government buy anybody's line that they are too financially strapped to pay at least something for the health care they need?

That is the way it once was and we had an excellent health care system that was affordable for just about everybody. The very day that the government got involved with its one-size-fits-all health care programs and entitlements however, the costs began to escalate out of reach for all but the most affluent. Government is rarely the best arbiter or provider of basic services of any kind if such services can be provided by the private sector.

0 Replies

Quote:

And why should other tax payers be required to provide services to somebody who chooses not to buy health insurance?

Because the health of individuals in society affects the larger group to a great extent, and we have an interest in ensuring that people remain healthy.

Sick workers produce nothing and can drag down entire families and companies with them. There is no real financial gain for our society to allow this to happen, when it can be prevented in most cases at a low cost.

Heaven forbid that some of our tax dollars go to saving lives, instead of taking them. I note that you have little problem forcing me to pay to kill, yet you complain that others force you to save life?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Please post any evidence in which I 'force you to kill'. The last I looked any occupations that might include that (law enforcement, military etc.) are purely voluntary. If you are referring to the U.S. military and national defense, these are Constitutionally mandated. If you are referring to Afghanistan and Iraq, take that up with U.S. Congress that authorized it.

There is no Constitutional mandate for health care or anything else that benefits the individual rather than the whole. If lost time due to illness can be the concern of the U.S. government re health care, then the government should have equal interest in banning smoking, alcohol, failure to exercise, McDonalds, protected or unprotected sex or anything else that might be a factor in losing time from work.

There is a role for government in maintaining an orderly society and in necessary or mutually beneficial things that cannot be achieved more efficiently and effectively in the private sector. The government should restrict itself to those things necessary to defend unalienable rights (of which the right to not have health care should be one), maintain an orderly society and what is mutually beneficial.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So why should it not be the right of the individual to not have health insurance if the person doesn't want it?

This makes sense as long as the individual doesn't get sick or is involved in an accident and can't pay for it out of his own pocket.

At this point, you're only left with two options:

- refuse to help him
- have others pay for his treatment

Foxfyre wrote:

And why should other tax payers be required to provide services to somebody who chooses not to buy health insurance?

That's exactly the point.

Under the current system, tax payers are forced to pay for those who choose not to pay for health insurance.

In a mandatory system, everyone would have to pay for their own health insurance.

Foxfyre wrote:

These are all issues that the government can address with legislation without requiring anybody to do anything. All they have to do is to make it possible for the private sector to provide affordable insurance/health care

I don't see how this would solve the problem. Somebody could make enough money but spend it all on, say, trips to Las Vegas.

If he were to get involved into a traffic accident, he wouldn't be able to pay the hospital, and there would be no insurance to cover it.

You would, again, be left with the option of either forcing tax payers to pay for his treatment, or refuse treatment.

Foxfyre wrote:

and then we focus on the more efficient, effective, and affordable way to take care of the truly helpless. Perhaps the government could underwrite emergency services which would take pressure off those services but give both the hospitals and the government the clout to require payrment and go after those who could have insurance but prefer to have a new car or big screen plasma TV instead or who could pay something but choose not to because they don't have to.

Interesting concept. However, this would seem to be a rather intrusive scheme, and one that hands over more aspects of the health care system to the government than simply making health insurance mandatory.

okie's mandatory plan would simply achieve universal health care by regulating certain aspects of an otherwise privately run sector.

Your plan would socialize large parts of the system.

Foxfyre wrote:

The government doesn't buy anybody's line that they are too financially strapped to pay their taxes. Why should the government buy anybody's line that they are too financially strapped to pay at least something for the health care they need?

Exactly. This is perfectly in line with the reasoning for mandatory health insurance.

Foxfyre wrote:

Government is rarely the best arbiter or provider of basic services of any kind if such services can be provided by the private sector.

There you go. Going by those statements, it seems you are in fact for a scheme that would privatize even more aspects of the health care system, and then simply make health insurance mandatory for everyone.

0 Replies

The health of the members of our society benefits the whole, in the same way that healthy cells in your body benefit you.

I said that you have no problem forcing me to PAY to kill, by which of course I mean our foreign military adventures.

We're going to pass some sort of universal health care soon, and if you have a problem with that, I'll tell you the same thing: take it up with the U.S. Congress that will authorize it sometime in the next 3 years.

I haven't seen much evidence that the private sector is more effective at providing health care to society then the public one. It is more effective at making a profit, for sure, and for providing for the rich; but not for people as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no Constitutional mandate for health care or anything else that benefits the individual rather than the whole.

In that case, there's also no reason to mandate liability insurance if you are going to drive on public roads. It's your free choice to use public roads. You do so knowing that you might get involved in an accident caused by somebody else. So why mandate liability insurance?

Foxfyre wrote:

There is a role for government in maintaining an orderly society and in necessary or mutually beneficial things that cannot be achieved more efficiently and effectively in the private sector.

This again, seems to counter the point you make above. In that sense, mandatory liability insurance makes sense. And so does mandatory health insurance.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So why should it not be the right of the individual to not have health insurance if the person doesn't want it?

This makes sense as long as the individual doesn't get sick or is involved in an accident and can't pay for it out of his own pocket.

At this point, you're only left with two options:

- refuse to help him
- have others pay for his treatment.

Or let him pay if off in installments - or look to private charities to help - or conduct fund raisers to help him out--all common practices before the government got involved in this country and all possible before government meddling sent medical costs spiraling out of reach of most. To liberals, not having the government do it is 'uncompassionate'. To conservatives, true compassion is to enable people to provide for themselves rather than enslave some for the benefit of others.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And why should other tax payers be required to provide services to somebody who chooses not to buy health insurance?

That's exactly the point.

Under the current system, tax payers are forced to pay for those who choose not to pay for health insurance.

In a mandatory system, everyone would have to pay for their own health insurance.

In a truly free system a person has the right to decide for himself what is necessary and what is not. I am all for those who can pay for their own insurance to pay for it. I am opposed to the government telling me that I MUST purchase insurance that benefits nobody but me and further dictating to me how much and what kind of insurance I must purchase.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
These are all issues that the government can address with legislation without requiring anybody to do anything. All they have to do is to make it possible for the private sector to provide affordable insurance/health care

I don't see how this would solve the problem. Somebody could make enough money but spend it all on, say, trips to Las Vegas.

If he were to get involved into a traffic accident, he wouldn't be able to pay the hospital, and there would be no insurance to cover it.

You would, again, be left with the option of either forcing tax payers to pay for his treatment, or refuse treatment.

It should not be the role of government to require people to be responsible, nor should it be the role of government to relieve anyone of the consequences of irresponsibility. Such only enables and encourages more irresponsibility. And as I already posted above, the only option is not for the government to provide assistance.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
and then we focus on the more efficient, effective, and affordable way to take care of the truly helpless. Perhaps the government could underwrite emergency services which would take pressure off those services but give both the hospitals and the government the clout to require payrment and go after those who could have insurance but prefer to have a new car or big screen plasma TV instead or who could pay something but choose not to because they don't have to.

Interesting concept. However, this would seem to be a rather intrusive scheme, and one that hands over more aspects of the health care system to the government than simply making health insurance mandatory.

Not at all. It would not be that much different that government guaranteed student loans or government guaranteed FHA loans that help people who otherwise couldn't afford it to buy a home. It relieves the lender of some of the risk so that the loan can be made, but it in no way relieves the borrower from his/her obligation to repay the loan.

Quote:

okie's mandatory plan would simply achieve universal health care by regulating certain aspects of an otherwise privately run sector.

Your plan would socialize large parts of the system.

My plan would include no mandates of any kind. What is socialism other than government control of means of delivery of goods and services? I don't want the government controlling health care at all other than universally beneficial oversight to ensure safe practices, and even that should be at the state or local level.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The government doesn't buy anybody's line that they are too financially strapped to pay their taxes. Why should the government buy anybody's line that they are too financially strapped to pay at least something for the health care they need?

Exactly. This is perfectly in line with the reasoning for mandatory health insurance.

Nope, because if you have no income or sufficiently little income, you owe no taxes and you can choose that. Mandatory taxes should be collected for mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial infrastructure such as roads, sewer, police and fire protection, etc. and for Constitutionally mandated government functions. In my view taxes collected for any other purposes are not a legitimate function of government. There is no Constitutional provision for the property to be confiscated from Citizen A who earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't for any reason including health care.

If it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to me what I must eat in order to be healthy and/or how much I must exercise or what risky behavior I may not participate in that could be anything from mountain climbing to water skiing or roller blading, then it is not appropriate for the goverment to tell me what kind of insurance and how much of it I must purchase.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Government is rarely the best arbiter or provider of basic services of any kind if such services can be provided by the private sector.

There you go. Going by those statements, it seems you are in fact for a scheme that would privatize even more aspects of the health care system, and then simply make health insurance mandatory for everyone

Wrong again. As I previously posted, there are several things government can do to help make health care affordable for everybody. But I am opposed to government making it either mandatory or a one-size-fits-all deal.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

We allow abortion because the majority feels that no woman should be forced to bear an unwanted child.

WTF?????????????????????????????????????????

Foxfyre wrote:

My plan would include...

Just shoot me!!! This person can't even keep a thread from going off-topic and she is devising a health care plan?

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no Constitutional provision for the property to be confiscated from Citizen A who earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't for any reason including health care.

Complete and utter bullshit since you define any tax that YOU don't agree with as income redistribution. What I wouild like to know is how you even have time to earn any income given all the time you spend here posting complete nonsense.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Or let him pay if off in installments - or look to private charities to help - or conduct fund raisers to help him out--

Well, paying off in instalments is paying out of his own pocket, and have charities or fundraisers pay for the cost is the same as having others pay for him.

The exact same argument can therefore be made for liability insurance. Yet you seem to support mandatory insurance for people driving on public roads.

Foxfyre wrote:

all common practices before the government got involved in this country and all possible before government meddling sent medical costs spiraling out of reach of most.

By all means, if you have conclusive evidence that it is government involvement that is responsible for spiralling health care costs, present it.

The comparison with other countries - with quite a range of universal health care systems, from almost exclusively private systems where health insurance is merely mandatory to completely state run single payer systems - doesn't seem to suggest that it is government involvement that is responsible for the high costs in the United States.

Even assuming this was the case: you have made no suggestion that would have the government less involved than it is now.

Foxfyre wrote:

To liberals, not having the government do it is 'uncompassionate'.

If you can't make a coherent argument, resort to ideology.

See: I doubt that okie is a "liberal" who wants "the government do it". He has outlined the situation in a very good way, and was at no time calling for a single payer, government run health care system. Yet those suggestions stand a rather good chance to transform the current system into a system with universal health insurance.

Your problem is that you confuse universal health care with a single payer health care system.

Foxfyre wrote:

To conservatives, true compassion is to enable people to provide for themselves rather than enslave some for the benefit of others.

Well, sure. If it's not all just ideology and empty retoric to you, then, by all means, make a suggestion of how you would have all those who now end up in the emergency room without health insurance taken care for - without using tax payers money, solely relying on "true compassion". Go ahead.

Foxfyre wrote:

In a truly free system a person has the right to decide for himself what is necessary and what is not. I am all for those who can pay for their own insurance to pay for it. I am opposed to the government telling me that I MUST purchase insurance that benefits nobody but me and further dictating to me how much and what kind of insurance I must purchase.

See above (mandatory liability insurance). The discrepancy is that you promote the government "dictating to me how much and what kind of insurance I must purchase" in the one case, and fiercely oppose it in the other.

Okay, if you explain why. I haven't seen that so far. Only lots of ideological talk about "freedom", "liberals" and "compassion".

Foxfyre wrote:

It should not be the role of government to require people to be responsible, nor should it be the role of government to relieve anyone of the consequences of irresponsibility. Such only enables and encourages more irresponsibility. And as I already posted above, the only option is not for the government to provide assistance.

So you are against providing emergency health care if people have no insurance and cannot pay for it, right?

Foxfyre wrote:

Not at all. It would not be that much different that government guaranteed student loans or government guaranteed FHA loans that help people who otherwise couldn't afford it to buy a home.

Got it. So you have government regulation to forcibly bring down health insurance rates, provided by private health insurance companies, to make health insurance affordable to those who otherwise cannot afford it.

Good.

Two question here:

- Contrary to all the ideological talk above, you suddenly seem to be in favour of government interference rather than relying on charities and fundraisers to help those who cannot afford health insurance or treatment. Don't you see this as a contradiction?
- What about those who still do not want to pay for very affordable, government regulated health insurance rates? Do you refuse treatment in case of an accident or illness?

Foxfyre wrote:

My plan would include no mandates of any kind.

Okay. So again: what do you do with those people who still refuse to pay for health insurance? Refuse treatment?

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope, because if you have no income or sufficiently little income, you owe no taxes and you can choose that. Mandatory taxes should be collected for mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial infrastructure such as roads, sewer, police and fire protection, etc. and for Constitutionally mandated government functions. In my view taxes collected for any other purposes are not a legitimate function of government. There is no Constitutional provision for the property to be confiscated from Citizen A who earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't for any reason including health care.

That may the case. However, the argument was not for taxes.

The argument made was for a mandatory insurance, payable to a private insurance company - much like liability insurance.

Maybe you can argue against that instead of arguing against something that was not proposed.

Foxfyre wrote:

If it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to me what I must eat in order to be healthy and/or how much I must exercise or what risky behavior I may not participate in that could be anything from mountain climbing to water skiing or roller blading, then it is not appropriate for the goverment to tell me what kind of insurance and how much of it I must purchase.

If it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to you to buy health insurance as a member of society, then it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to you to buy liability insurance for using public roads.

Foxfyre wrote:

Wrong again. As I previously posted, there are several things government can do to help make health care affordable for everybody. But I am opposed to government making it either mandatory or a one-size-fits-all deal.

You have brought up exactly one thing: government guaranteed health insurance rates.

That's not necessarily a bad idea, but still doesn't answer the question what to do with people who refuse to buy health insurance at even to low rates, and how you would solve the problem of having others pay for their treatment.

0 Replies

All three of the electoral vote websites I monitor are finally consistent. They all show Obama in the 300-310 range. The three sites are use different approaches. The conservative Election Projection uses a combination of polls, past elections and demographic data, the left leaning Electoral Vote is strickly poll data driven and Five Thirty Eight.com uses Monte Carlo simulations based on poll data and margins of error.

0 Replies

If it aint one thing it's another. "Obama Is A Hawk" By John PILGER
The New Statesman 15 June,2008

In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.

The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. Actually, it just seems new. Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating what can only be described as bulls**t on a grand scale. Race, gender, appearance, body language, rictal spouses and offspring, even bursts of tragic grandeur, are all subsumed by marketing and "image-making", now magnified by "virtual" technology. Thanks to an undemocratic electoral college system (or, in Bush's case, tampered voting machines) only those who both control and obey the system can win. This has been the case since the truly historic and exciting victory of Harry Truman, the liberal Democrat said to be a humble man of the people, who went on to show how tough he was by obliterating two cities with the atomic bomb.

Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game.

For example, since I compared Obama with Robert Kennedy in these pages, he has made two important statements, the implications of which have not been allowed to intrude on the celebrations. The first was at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Zionist lobby, which, as Ian Williams has pointed out, "will get you accused of anti-Semitism if you quote its own website about its power". Obama had already offered his genuflection, but on 4 June went further. He promised to support an "undivided Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city.

His second statement, largely ignored, was made in Miami on 23 May. Speaking to the expatriate Cuban community - which over the years has faithfully produced terrorists, assassins and drug runners for US administrations - Obama promised to continue a 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year.

Again, Obama went further than Bush. He said the United States had "lost Latin America". He described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as a "vacuum" to be filled. He raised the nonsense of Iranian influence in Latin America, and he endorsed Colombia's "right to strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders".

Translated, this means the "right" of a regime, whose president and leading politicians are linked to death squads, to invade its neighbours on behalf of Washington. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the "Colombian solution" to Mexico. He did not stop there. "We must press further south as well, " he said. Not even Bush has said that.

It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged.
http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article17077

0 Replies

blueflame, Raises more questions than answers. I wonder what Obama supporters think?

0 Replies

cicerone, I'm an Obama supporter myself. But I never expected to agree with him on everything. His Jerusalem comments were troubling because they went against every credible solution around. I wondered where his advisers were or that he even needed advisers on that particular issue. And he did revise his comments sensibly. Anyway a President Obama will need scrutiny as much as any American President. I have great hopes despite the legit issues raised in the article.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

We allow abortion because the majority feels that no woman should be forced to bear an unwanted child. The large majority of us believe it should be the right of the individual to refuse treatment and be allowed to die if that is what he or she wants. So why should it not be the right of the individual to not have health insurance if the person doesn't want it? And why should other tax payers be required to provide services to somebody who chooses not to buy health insurance?

These are all issues that the government can address with legislation without requiring anybody to do anything. All they have to do is to make it possible for the private sector to provide affordable insurance/health care and then we focus on the more efficient, effective, and affordable way to take care of the truly helpless. Perhaps the government could underwrite emergency services which would take pressure off those services but give both the hospitals and the government the clout to require payrment and go after those who could have insurance but prefer to have a new car or big screen plasma TV instead or who could pay something but choose not to because they don't have to.

The government doesn't buy anybody's line that they are too financially strapped to pay their taxes. Why should the government buy anybody's line that they are too financially strapped to pay at least something for the health care they need?

That is the way it once was and we had an excellent health care system that was affordable for just about everybody. The very day that the government got involved with its one-size-fits-all health care programs and entitlements however, the costs began to escalate out of reach for all but the most affluent. Government is rarely the best arbiter or provider of basic services of any kind if such services can be provided by the private sector.

I think I understand what you are saying now a little better. I agree in principle that anyone that can't buy insurance can be treated through a Medicaid system, that perhaps needs some reform to improve it. Others who can afford insurance should do so. And if they don't, then what happens when they show up with an unexpected catastrophic illness they cannot afford to pay for? We won't turn them away, because we are a compassionate society.

I come back to the idea that you either must have insurance or qualify for medicaid. Sort of like liability insurance to drive a car.

I agree I don't see why we should have to pay for abortions. There are alot of thorny issues that need to be addressed differently.

0 Replies

Hannity is just now pointing out, if Obama is so attractive of a candidate, how come some politicians are running away from the vp slot?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Or let him pay if off in installments - or look to private charities to help - or conduct fund raisers to help him out--

Well, paying off in instalments is paying out of his own pocket, and have charities or fundraisers pay for the cost is the same as having others pay for him.

The exact same argument can therefore be made for liability insurance. Yet you seem to support mandatory insurance for people driving on public roads.

Paying off in installments is absolutely him paying for it out of his own pocket if he chose not to get insurance. I have absolutely no problem with paying for what I need. No responsible person should have a problem with that.

And surely you can see the difference between the government forcibly confiscating wealth from me or others to give to somebody else and my helping out somebody else voluntarily. Please tell me you do see a differenc ein those two things.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
all common practices before the government got involved in this country and all possible before government meddling sent medical costs spiraling out of reach of most.

By all means, if you have conclusive evidence that it is government involvement that is responsible for spiralling health care costs, present it.

Proof? Just check the costs of things before Medicare and Medicade and the cost of things after these two programs got rolling pretty well. Before Medicare - the average hospital room cost about $25 per night. After Medicare the cost almost doubled within a short period of time and has been increasing steadily since. I have posted the stories several times on several different threads about all that. If I thought you were genuininely interested, I might be inclined to do so again. But since I doubt seriously that you are. . ..

Quote:

The comparison with other countries - with quite a range of universal health care systems, from almost exclusively private systems where health insurance is merely mandatory to completely state run single payer systems - doesn't seem to suggest that it is government involvement that is responsible for the high costs in the United States.

There is no comparison between a country of the size and population and diversity and type government of the United States and anybody else you want to compare it with. What works in Borger TX, population 14000, very well isn't workable in a city the size of Albuquerque. What Albuquerque can do is likely to be very different than what is effective in New York City. What works in Germany or Canada with populations less than 20% of ours is not a valid comparison.

Quote:

Even assuming this was the case: you have made no suggestion that would have the government less involved than it is now.

Yes I have. I do accept that you don't see that.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
To liberals, not having the government do it is 'uncompassionate'.

If you can't make a coherent argument, resort to ideology.

What argument other than ideology are you going to make that it is moral to confiscate property from Citizen A who earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't?

Quote:

See: I doubt that okie is a "liberal" who wants "the government do it". He has outlined the situation in a very good way, and was at no time calling for a single payer, government run health care system. Yet those suggestions stand a rather good chance to transform the current system into a system with universal health insurance.

Your problem is that you confuse universal health care with a single payer health care system.

Universal health care in the way you describe it makes it a mandate. I have no problem with universal health care and in fact absolutely support the concept so long as it is voluntary. If Okie has a different point of view, good for him. I simply don't share it in that case (but I bet Okie and I are closer in concepts on this than you and I are.)

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
To conservatives, true compassion is to enable people to provide for themselves rather than enslave some for the benefit of others.

Well, sure. If it's not all just ideology and empty retoric to you, then, by all means, make a suggestion of how you would have all those who now end up in the emergency room without health insurance taken care for - without using tax payers money, solely relying on "true compassion". Go ahead.

Thank you I will. I believe it is safer for all to allow the private sector to handle everything that it can handle effectively and efficiently rather than hand more and more power to the government. Is that ideology? You bet. And I have a whole lot of conviction about that.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
In a truly free system a person has the right to decide for himself what is necessary and what is not. I am all for those who can pay for their own insurance to pay for it. I am opposed to the government telling me that I MUST purchase insurance that benefits nobody but me and further dictating to me how much and what kind of insurance I must purchase.

See above (mandatory liability insurance). The discrepancy is that you promote the government "dictating to me how much and what kind of insurance I must purchase" in the one case, and fiercely oppose it in the other.

Okay, if you explain why. I haven't seen that so far. Only lots of ideological talk about "freedom", "liberals" and "compassion".

Liability insurance provides protection for other people that you put at risk in the course of a lawful activity. I put nobody else at risk by having no health insurance; I only put myself at risk. If I do not intend to use insurance, I should not have to buy it any more than I should be required to purchase liability insurance on a car that I do not drive on public roads.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It should not be the role of government to require people to be responsible, nor should it be the role of government to relieve anyone of the consequences of irresponsibility. Such only enables and encourages more irresponsibility. And as I already posted above, the only option is not for the government to provide assistance.

So you are against providing emergency health care if people have no insurance and cannot pay for it, right?

I'm not opposed to providing emergency health care to anybody who needs emergency health care at all, nor have I even so much as slightly suggested that I am opposed. I do believe people who choose not to have health insurance however are obligated to pay for whatever health care they receive. Again there is a huge difference between what I am saying and what you are attempting to imply that I am saying.

Foxfyre wrote:

Not at all. It would not be that much different that government guaranteed student loans or government guaranteed FHA loans that help people who otherwise couldn't afford it to buy a home.

Got it. So you have government regulation to forcibly bring down health insurance rates, provided by private health insurance companies, to make health insurance affordable to those who otherwise cannot afford it.

Good.

Two question here:

- Contrary to all the ideological talk above, you suddenly seem to be in favour of government interference rather than relying on charities and fundraisers to help those who cannot afford health insurance or treatment. Don't you see this as a contradiction?
- What about those who still do not want to pay for very affordable, government regulated health insurance rates? Do you refuse treatment in case of an accident or illness?

Foxfyre wrote:

My plan would include no mandates of any kind.

Okay. So again: what do you do with those people who still refuse to pay for health insurance? Refuse treatment?

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope, because if you have no income or sufficiently little income, you owe no taxes and you can choose that. Mandatory taxes should be collected for mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial infrastructure such as roads, sewer, police and fire protection, etc. and for Constitutionally mandated government functions. In my view taxes collected for any other purposes are not a legitimate function of government. There is no Constitutional provision for the property to be confiscated from Citizen A who earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't for any reason including health care.

That may the case. However, the argument was not for taxes.

The argument made was for a mandatory insurance, payable to a private insurance company - much like liability insurance.

Maybe you can argue against that instead of arguing against something that was not proposed.

Foxfyre wrote:

If it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to me what I must eat in order to be healthy and/or how much I must exercise or what risky behavior I may not participate in that could be anything from mountain climbing to water skiing or roller blading, then it is not appropriate for the goverment to tell me what kind of insurance and how much of it I must purchase.

If it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to you to buy health insurance as a member of society, then it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to you to buy liability insurance for using public roads.

Foxfyre wrote:

Wrong again. As I previously posted, there are several things government can do to help make health care affordable for everybody. But I am opposed to government making it either mandatory or a one-size-fits-all deal.

You have brought up exactly one thing: government guaranteed health insurance rates.

That's not necessarily a bad idea, but still doesn't answer the question what to do with people who refuse to buy health insurance at even to low rates, and how you would solve the problem of having others pay for their treatment.[/quote]

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Hannity is just now pointing out, if Obama is so attractive of a candidate, how come some politicians are running away from the vp slot?

Not everyone is looking to be the VP, of course.

Not to mention that Bush and the current crop of Republicans have sunk us into quite the hole, which will not be pretty to climb out of. There are plenty who don't wish to deal with the stress of making tough decisions.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So when Obama bombs out when he is elected, if he is elected which I doubt, but if so and when he bombs out, it will still be Bush's fault? Are you already starting to form your alibis for the expected result?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So when Obama bombs out when he is elected, if he is elected which I doubt, but if so and when he bombs out, it will still be Bush's fault? Are you already starting to form your alibis for the expected result?

No, I expect he will be elected and do a fine job. I also expect he will propose, and we will pass in the Congress, many programs which you will bitch to no end about, but which will be the right thing for America at this time. I have no problem with this at all.

But many are afraid of the right wing and don't want to deal with the constant scurrilous attacks that will come the way of the VP candidate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know