Healthcare reform

[alyssamma]

Bacho, you're killing me. I really hope you are trying to wind me up

Most stuff I'm not going to comment on because either you are joking, or we are so far apart ideologically that we'll never meet However, there is some factual stuff that needs to be addressed...

First, Germany was a monarchy and then a *democracy* after WW I. Right before Hitler took power it was socialist. I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but Germany was not communist before Hitler. Not even close.

People from other countries aren't coming to America for healthcare. In fact, we have a Canadian member here who posted on this subject. He made it quite clear the people there are very happy with their health care. Also, what you need to understand is that many of these countries - England and Canada for example, still have *private* care. So anyone with $ who wants to jump to the beginning of the "line" can easily do so w/o coming to a different country.

You can find people in any country who are unhappy with their healthcare, or go to other places - there are people who leave America to get healthcare in other countries. But those are outliers and are not statistically significant.

Kevin

[whaletail116]

I spend most of my days reading, Jim, and I'm still several years away from ever really learning the issues.  Educating myself on the issues cannot, unfortunately, be on my list of priorities at the moment.  I like to think that I'm 50% conservative and 50% liberal but there is just way too much D vs. R crap going on with too many people nowadays.  Any right wing extremist will bash any idea, even great ones, if they come from the right.  You don't care what the issues are, Jim.  If Obama says it, you're ready to bash it.  If someone starts bashing Bush, you'll defend, defend, defend, no matter how valid their argument.  Same with the liberals, they all hate Bush.  Some hate him for specific reasons, some hate him because he is conservative, and some just hate because they enjoy hating.  Some may throw some numbers at you but just about anybody can toss numbers around.

Jim, how can you claim that FDR was the start of our country's downturn?  He is arguably one of the greatest Presidents of all time.  He saved this country from our worst depression ever.  Oh wait, he was a democrat.

The two-party system is good that it keeps one another in check but you still have to be able to see when it is being counterproductive.

Quit being such a scrooge.  No, I don't mind paying a little bit more or waiting a little bit longer in line for emergency rooms (I spent exactly zero seconds waiting in ERs the past 10 years) if I know millions of other Americans are being helped.  But maybe, just maybe, Obama knows what he is talking about and this bill actually lowers costs and saves people money.  Have you read the entire 2,000 page bill?  

[bacho]

Kevin

You are right. We are too far apart. I beleive in smaller government. You believe in larger. I believe in providing for myself. You believe in redistribution of wealth.

The majority of the country is waking up. You just keep sleeping.

Even Clinton listened to the people when they spoke.

November will be very interesting to see how Obama reacts. He make calm down or get even more arogant.

[whaletail116]

It's too bad that so much preconditioning has to affect so many preceptions.  Be creative and welcome new ideas. 

P.S.  Kevin is one of the most intelligent and respectful members on this forum.

[alyssamma]

Whale, thanks

Bacho, you are incorrect in your assessment of me. I don't believe in larger gov. I also don't believe in redistribution of wealth. I'd like you to point out anyplace in my posts where that is implied. I am trying to argue facts with you - not make personal attacks. I am also giving specific examples instead of making general sweeping statements - e.g., "the majority of the country is waking up"...what does that even mean?

Do you still think Germany had a communist government? I ask that because you seem to have a slightly skewed sense of history. I am wondering if you fully understood history if your current views would be different.

In re-reading this I see I accused you of making personal attacks and then this post sounds like a personal attack It isn't meant to be that way. I am truly sincere in what I said above about history. There are many who have a great understanding of American history and base their beliefs on that - Ethical Locator is one. Although we differ in what we think, we've had some great discussions (via PM) and I can tell his beliefs are not based on what is said on TV (CNN or Fox) but actual facts.

So, again, I repeat, I am sincere in my question about history.

Thx.

Kevin

[alyssamma]

Oh, and Bacho, one thing we *do* agree on is that the HC Bill is bad. We disagree on *why* it is bad and what an acceptable reaction to it is, but we can at least agree on that

[bacho]

Kevin

I apologise if you took my comments the wrong way. I am not making this a personal attack on you.

You made the statement that you don't mind paying your fair share to help other people out. I don't either. However, I am not for government telling how much and to whom I have to pay it to. That's called freedom of choice. Their way is redistribution of wealth. Maybe I took your comment as a misunderstanding of what you really meant.

I admit my history is a little on the rusty side. My blood pressure rises when I talk politics and sometimes say something wrong without really doing the research on it.

Here's a link to the House Ways and Means Committee. It gives you a breakdown on all that will take place in the next ten years. Take notice at all the medicare cuts each year. This is how the democrats look out for the best interest of the people?

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/WM_hcr_timelinel.pdf

[alyssamma]

Bacho, np

Again, let me reiterate - I do *not* like the HC bill. Not at all. So we definitely agree on that.

As for redistributions of wealth, the connotations there are ones that relate to communisism. I am 100% against communisim - I don't think it is a viable form of government. If people were diffferent, then maybe, but basic human nature seems to mean communisism will fail in the long run.

That being said, understand I am a business owner. I've worked for myself for 15yrs. I firmly believe a company's main mission is to make a profit. I don't believe companies should hand over their wealth to others (except their shareholders...hehe).

Where I differ with some on the "right" is that I think companies, like people, do have some type of social responsibility. For example, I don't think companies should polute the environment - but trust me, I am so far from a tree hugger...I eat meat, don't care about how animals are treated, and could care less about where we drill for oil. I just think things that are bad for *people* shouldn't be dumped into the environment.

I also think that people who have benefitted from living in this country have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. Note, I am firmly against helping those who are lazy. But there are many who have just fallen on hard times for whatever reasons, and need to be helped. I think this is just basic human decency.

The problem is once you put a program in place to do that, the ones who are lazy jump on the bandwagon and take advantage of things. IMHO, this doesn't mean the programs should be scrapped. It is just the cost of doing business.

Hopefully this explains my position somewhat more.

WRT healthcare, I believe every person in America deserves free (or at least affordable) healthcare. Period. I don't believe this bill does anything to provide that.

Kevin

[bacho]

Basically we agree to disagree on certain issues. You have potential. 

That's a joke. LOL

[bacho]

It's too bad that so much preconditioning has to affect so many preceptions.  Be creative and welcome new ideas. 

P.S.  Kevin is one of the most intelligent and respectful members on this forum.

Whale, I'm sorry you took my comments as being disrespectful. I respect everyone's view points on this forum. I may disagree on some items but my intentions are not disrepectable. But on the other hand, I expect the same in return. 

[alyssamma]

Basically we agree to disagree on certain issues. You have potential. 

That's a joke. LOL

Now that was funny

[jb5580]

WRT healthcare, I believe every person in America deserves free (or at least affordable) healthcare. Period. I don't believe this bill does anything to provide that.

Kevin, somebody has to pay for the "free" healthcare one way or another. Who should pay for it?

I think all Americans deserve to eat and don't think there should be starving homeless people in America either. Maybe the Government should take over all the food distributors and grocery chains and give out free food to everyone. And while they are at it, they can take over the housing industry and give out free houses to all the homeless people. But the problem is, who is going to pay?'

Also, has anyone looked at our deficit lately? We are in some serious trouble. I know Kevin and the other supporters of free healthcare for everyone are going to jump on my post, but these are my 2 cents And no matter how you slice and dice it, if you take money from one person(ie taxes) and give it to another(ie. free healthcare) it IS redistribution of wealth.

[coinvestor]

The problem is once you put a program in place to do that, the ones who are lazy jump on the bandwagon and take advantage of things. IMHO, this doesn't mean the programs should be scrapped. It is just the cost of doing business.

Hopefully this explains my position somewhat more.

WRT healthcare, I believe every person in America deserves free (or at least affordable) healthcare. Period. I don't believe this bill does anything to provide that.

Kevin

I have been following this topic, and promised myself I would not post anything:)

Kevin, your previous post made me realize what bothers me so much about the ideas behind the healthcare reform. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, or right, but would make you think that everyone is entitled to healthcare? I understand that the current reform does not do this, but this seems to be the mentality that is driving it. I see the humanity behind wanting people to not go without healthcare, but this is not the place for government. This is what churches, charities and other social organizations are for. If I don't work or have any money should the government supply my food, clothes, and healthcare........ FOREVER! Are not all three of these equally important to live a decent life?

I would like to also add that there is no such thing as affordable healthcare for everyone. Whats affordable for you and me won't be for others. So the only way to provide healthcare to everyone is to provide it free (at least below a certain income level).

[coinvestor]

Sorry JB for making some of the same points. This topic is moving faster than I type.

JD

[alyssamma]

JB, I'm not going to jump on your post

Let me say a few things...first I stated the *connotations* of redistribution of wealth. The problem with much of the debate in our country is that both sides use words designed to inflame the argument. Charity is redistribution of wealth. If you did a survey and asked people if they believe in charity and did the same survey but asked if they believed in redistribution of wealth, you would get different answers.

So, I disagree with the phrasing that is used in arguments. But only because it is used to influence the argument instead of using facts to do the same thing.

But let's get to your point. First, universal health care does *NOT* mean the only option available to the public is government controlled healthcare. Again, I've pointed out 2 countries very similiar to our own - England and Canada - that have UHC. They also have private insurance for those who want that.

So, your analogy about the gov taking over the grocery stores is not apt. It is more appropriate to talk about how things are today - government run food banks that give food to the poor along with for profit, private, grocery stores. I still think that is a weak analogy, but I think it is more appropriate.

Ditto for homes. There are shelters for the homeless that are gov run, alongside privately owned houses. Again, a poor analogy, tho.

Still, you are correct, somebody does have to pay for it.  And you are also correct that our deficit is high. But that has nothing to do with the merits of UHC. Simply because we can't afford to do something doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to do. It means we either have to be more creative, or we need to wait. Or perhaps it means we need to sacrifice something else.

I don't have an answer for how to pay for it. I'll freely admit I don't understand economics on the scale that our country runs. I doubt more than a dozen people in the world do.

I also won't be the type of person who says that Clinton came in with a surplus and Bush turned it into a deficit. To be honest, I have zero clue how the accounting was done for any of that - and it doesn't really matter. We are where we are and we need to deal with the realities of now and not the past.

So, to end this long winded post, are you saying that if we could pay for it, you would be for UHC?

Kevin

[alyssamma]

Coin, good post. Yes, you are correct - that is a fundamental difference in many of the supporters and detractors of HC. I do believe people are entitled to HC - along with food and shelter. I don't think these things should be free. I think you should work for them. I think if you work hard, you should be able to afford them. And I also think that there are some - for no reason of their own, that can't afford it. Perhaps they are unable to work because of a disability. Perhaps they are children. Whatever the reason, they can't.

There are also people who work very hard and still can't afford these things. I personally know several people like that.

In this case I do believe the gov should step in. I think it is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint to say that is the role of churches and other social organizations, but it isn't one I agree with Or, rather, I think those orgs should be the first line of defense and the gov should be the safety net. And I have zero problems paying a little more to support that. I have a very comfortable life and I've been able to take advantage of a lot this country has to offer. I feel I have a social responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.

And I don't think it should be forever (except perhaps for disabled people). The problem is that, by their very nature, people abuse the system. But I don't think the system should be scrapped because of that. I think it should be tweaked. I think people should be educated. However, regardless of what is done, there will still be abuses. But that is simply the cost of doing business. Similar to our justice system - better to let 100 guilty men go free rather than convict 1 innocent man.

Kevin

[whaletail116]

Well, this country sure is in a mess, and I'm sure we can all agree on that.  Bacho, my apologies if I came across as disrespectful.  Jim, you too.  I don't know as much as I should when it comes to this stuff and I've appreciated everyone's input.  No, I don't want to pay for my lazy co-worker's food stamps (he could certainly manage without if he wanted to) but I definitely don't want anybody to suffer either.  I can't imagine how difficult and painful Kai's experience has been, but I'm sure there are several other Americans going through the same thing, and without proper insurance.  That makes me sad and I am willing to do what I can to help.

[jb5580]

Charity is redistribution of wealth. If you did a survey and asked people if they believe in charity and did the same survey but asked if they believed in redistribution of wealth, you would get different answers.

Kevin, there are huge differences between charity and redistribution of wealth. One is voluntary and one is forced on the people by the gov. through higher taxes.

Also, if you are going to say that food banks and homeless shelters are sufficient for the hunger and shelter needs of the less fortunate in our country then why aren't health clinics and social services offices sufficient for the health care needs of these people rather than a $900 million  government run health plan?

[kai1836]

   I don't want others to have to pay for me, that's the point. I have gone without for years. Its not my right to healthcare........Yes back in the day I got booted from my family company health plan and after cobra ran out went onto medicaid.....very briefly. I left that due to being denied surgery and basically doped up and shoved out the back door of an ER.  I'm responsible for me, end of story. 

[whaletail116]

And I'm responsible for me.

[alyssamma]

JB, you missed my point entirely. You keep using the phrase "redistribution of wealth". My point is that using phrases like that do nothing to further the debate. You stated, "no matter how you slice it, taking $ from one person and giving it to another is redist of wealth." My point was that charity falls under that category.

To be fair, you gave an example of taxing one person and using it to pay for healthcare for another - but that isn't redist of wealth. Or, if it is, then when I pay my prop taxes it is also since that goes towards paying for some other kid's education.

And that is the real point. Why use a phrase like that that has such a negative connotation? Just state that facts - you don't want your personal taxes going to pay for someone else's healthcare. And that is a perfectly valid position. No reason to use infamatory speech.

Also, go back and read my post carefully. I said the opposite of what you think I said. I never said food banks, etc. were sufficient to help the hungry/homeless/etc. I said gov should do these things. Then I further said food banks, etc. could be the first line of defense, but gov should be the safety net. Here are the exact words I used:

In this case I do believe the gov should step in. I think it is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint to say that is the role of churches and other social organizations, but it isn't one I agree with  Or, rather, I think those orgs should be the first line of defense and the gov should be the safety net. And I have zero problems paying a little more to support that. I have a very comfortable life and I've been able to take advantage of a lot this country has to offer. I feel I have a social responsibility to help those who are less fortunate

[jb5580]

JB, you missed my point entirely. You keep using the phrase "redistribution of wealth". My point is that using phrases like that do nothing to further the debate. You stated, "no matter how you slice it, taking $ from one person and giving it to another is redist of wealth." My point was that charity falls under that category.

Kevin, do you really think charity falls under the same category as forcing people against there will to pay higher taxes? Really? You don't see the glaring difference in these two? Isn't giving to charity voluntary?

I am just using the phrase "redistribution of the wealth" because thats what it is: Taking one persons money and giving it to another.

To be fair, you gave an example of taxing one person and using it to pay for healthcare for another - but that isn't redist of wealth. Or, if it is, then when I pay my prop taxes it is also since that goes towards paying for some other kid's education.

This I agree with you and it is an issue that burns me up in my local city. 51% of every tax

dollar in my city goes to public schools. The other 49% run everything else: Police, Fire, water, trash, etc. My children are private schooled so I get no benefit from this.

I like you Kevin and hope I am not offending you with my opinions (thats what makes America great is our ablility to have debate and different ideas), but we are definately on two different sides on this topic.

[kai1836]

  This is my last post here as this is sort of a mute point until November but .........the only good that may come of any increased involvement of our gov't in our health care system is this. After I lost my insurance for awhile I was a cash " private pay" patient. This isn't a good option as most hospitals and doctors will charge you more than they would a patient with private insurance. Insome cases 4 or 5 times as much!! Now how is that fair??  I think the gov't should fine the %%$^ out of hospitals and doctors that do this. I think its a very discriminatory practice.  My cash should be the same value as an insurance companies.  That's the only good thing gov't intervention could accomplish in my eyes.

[kai1836]

  Patients with private insurance always pay less per procedure due to the insurance companies having negotiated specific rates with the provider.  In the case of medicaid and medicare the price is even less. Cash procedures are always more expensive. As far as hospitals wanting to keep you longer, when you have insurance they always do this as they know they will be paid.

[alyssamma]

Kai is 100% correct, you are always screwed w/o an insurance company. The insurance companies reprice the doc's bills according to negotiated rates. The same is true w/auto insurance and getting your car fixed. Many docs offer a cash discount, but this is nothing compared to negotiated insurance company rates.

JB, no you aren't offending me in any way And I agree that there is a *huge* difference between charity and taxes. And that was sort of my point. You are trying to say that because there are higher taxes, we are in a situation of redist of wealth. Technically that is correct, but only in the same way that technically charity is also redist of wealth.

We live in a society where we pay taxes. People always pay taxes for things they don't agree with. You mentioned prop taxes. There are probably other things tax $ goes to that you also don't agree with. And the same is true for me - there are many things my tax $ goes to that I don't agree with.

However, when you use words like "redistribution of wealth", unless you are an economist, the phrase has certain negative connotations. It isn't fair to say this healthcare program is a form of redist of wealth simply because taxes may or may not go up because of it. And that was really the only point I was trying to make.

Simply say, you don't want your tax $ going to fund healthcare for someone else. That is much less inflamatory than saying redist of wealth.

If you have a good, logical and reasoned argument, there is no reason to use specific words and phrases to get your point across. Although this is one area where I admire the Reps. Coming up with phrases like "death tax", "socialist", etc. was brilliant on their part - seriously. The avg. American doesn't fully understand what a socialist is. They just think it is something "bad". So when that term is thrown aroung a few things happen...

1) They don't know enough to know if it is even true or not. This is because they don't really know what it means.

2) They don't know enough to evaluate whether or not, even if true, it is a bad thing for the country.

3) The word has become so bad as to take on a life of its own. And now you need to defend against the *word* rather than the original topic.

This was what I was trying to avoid. The phrase "redist of wealth" fits into that category.

So, let's argue the facts of healthcare reform with neutral words that everyone understands

Kevin