WingColors

fuck Poor Bob, he should get a job.

Would it make you feel better if it was Silent Bob? What about Sponge Bob?

as long as he's Has A job Bob I don't care.

And what if Bob has a job, but, like so many, simply can't afford health care? (Don't know if you noticed, but companies are giving less and less in the way of health care to their employees, and for good reason: health care costs keep soaring, and they simply can't afford it anymore. Heck, in my company Blue Cross/Blue Shield jacked up our rates 40% in the past 2 years. How's that for inflation? I'm honestly surprised the company I work for still pays 100% of the insurance. I can't think of another company that does that.)

I have contributed to the NHS here in the UK (it's mandatory) for decades but I have never been sick. It's nice to know if I do get sick then it's there. There are problems, mostly down to poor management rather than lack of money, that mean wait times can be absurd and those issues need to be addressed.

However, paying National Insurance Contributions is the same as paying for Health Insurance with the main difference being the amount of money you pay. The NHS doesn't try and make a profit so costs are far lower than the insurance route. You can get private health insurance if you want/can afford it but other than wait times and private hospitals perhaps being slightly more like hotels, the difference is negligible.

A system of mass contribution makes the service cheaper and more accessible to everybody.

The "get a job" mantra is nonsensical since even if you do have a job there is no guarantee that you can afford or will get health insurance, especially if you have a pre-existing condition. Universal health care systems make no such arbitrary judgments.

Yes, there are people who suffer from self inflicted illness (smokers with cancer for example) but the very idea of me, or anybody else, saying "f*ck you it's your fault, go die in agony where I can't here you" is abhorrent.

For me, it comes down to what kind of society you want to live in. The "f*ck you" society or the nicer more human society where everybody contributes and everybody benefits.

It works for the postal service, no reason it shouldn't work for health care.

And what if Bob has a job, but, like so many, simply can't afford health care?

Then Bob should get another job, or maybe a second one. Instead of hoping for a government handout maybe Bob should take some personal responsibility for his life.

yes, but it's Bob's government too, so doesn't Bob get a say?

Yes, usually once every couple years in November.

yes, convincing argument, with any luck Bob and his 60 million friends will show the right the door and say yes to Universal Health Care and you know what, that will save you money!! cool huh?

Seems all we hear is the emotional side of the argument, 40 million without medical benefits. What I want to see is the breakdown of that number. How many of those folks are our down on his luck friend, Bob?

How many are retirees who CHOSE not to accept medical benefits or medicaid? How many are lackies which just expect the system to take care of them? How many illegal aliens are included in that number?

If we're going to do these studies and best practice exercises, let's deal w/actaul facts and not emotional pleas spun from a political agenda.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm

to see one has only to look!

of course the numbers are three years behind because BushCo™ doesn't believe in, you know, numbers and stuff!

yes, convincing argument, with any luck Bob and his 60 million friends will show the right the door and say yes to Universal Health Care and you know what, that will save you money!! cool huh?

unlikely, I work for the government and pay next to nothing for my coverage.

Thanks for the link. The section in that report on citizenship is interesting. Twenty one percent of the 47 million folks without healthcare aren't even legal citizens of the US.

Seems before we start flying off to Norway to study how to best take from their system, we should probably first spend time fixing our illegal immagration and border security issues.

Seems all we hear is the emotional side of the argument, 40 million without medical benefits. What I want to see is the breakdown of that number. How many of those folks are our down on his luck friend, Bob?

So life has no intrinsic value past money, gotcha. If you haven't been able to succeed enough in the capitalist system to take care of yourself then no matter how much good you can do the world in other areas it doesn't matter. I guess in my mind, if even ONE person can't afford health care who wants and needs it that's too many.

The section in that report on citizenship is interesting. Twenty one percent of the 47 million folks without healthcare aren't even legal citizens of the US

What's 20% from 47,000,000? About ~40,000,000 (37,600,000 is about the right number). It's why I used that number. As for how many don't WANT health care... let's presume it's 1/2. So in the end we have 20,000,000 American citizens (sorry, 18,800,000) not covered by insurance who would like to be but are for one reason or another unable. I guess that's why in a recent study we ranked worst when it came to preventable deaths from treatable conditions.

You know, it's easy to prove your point with cold, hard logic. The problem, of course, is that you can justify just about ANYTHING with cold, hard logic. But when you're (and I pray you never are) the one in the position of needing the help becacuse all avenues have closed down to you, cold, hard logic doesn't mean jack. You just want to live.

Seems before we start flying off to Norway to study how to best take from their system, we should probably first spend time fixing our illegal immagration and border security issues.

You talk as if the two are mutually exclusive. (And yes, I'm very much on your side of the fence on this point, no pun intended. Illegal imigration should be adressed, at least in this context, before something like this is implemented.)

i think the healthcare issue is one of emotion, humanity and practicality. it is damning that health care treatments exist but are unavailable to many because we can't agree who should pay for it.

get a job (x2 x3, etc) and get insurance is not a solution.

get a job (x2 x3, etc) and get insurance is not a solution.

If you want/need something you should have to pay for it, this isn't a new or strange concept.

it does not, once again, address the issue of how you pay for a $40,000 treatment when your insurance company weasels their way out of paying for it or what you do if you don't have or can't get insurance.

you seem remarkabley light on answers to those points. but of course, the big fat government pays for your healthcare, so why should you care. a tad hypocritical no?

it does not, once again, address the issue of how you pay for a $40,000 treatment when your insurance company weasels their way out of paying for it

How often does that happen though? I'm betting not often.

or what you do if you don't have or can't get insurance.

Then oh well, I shouldn't be made to pay for it if you can't.

the big fat government pays for your healthcare, so why should you care. a tad hypocritical no?

I didn't always for work the government, and I always paid for my insurance at any job I've ever been at before my current one.

So if ONE is too many, then how is moving a few million off the list a bad or insignifiant move? Realistically even the best UH program out there isn't going wipe the list clean in one swoop. Why not take victories (even the small ones) where we can find them?

I don't think the door is ever completely closed as ya'll are arguing. They are countless stories out there of communities and corporations, groups of doctors and (yikes) even community organizers who VOLUNTEER to help or even pick up the tab for the health concerns of folks out there who can't afford it.

How often does that happen though? I'm betting not often.

I'm betting often enough that it's become a major political issue.

Then oh well, I shouldn't be made to pay for it if you can't.

You already are. It's called the Emergency Room. (I thought we covered that?) And try tell that to someone who's considered "uninsurable." If you have a pre-existing condition, you can't get insured. The only other option is to go ahead and pay for the services yourself ($100 for a checkup, $1500 for an MRI, $1200 for an EGD, $15,000 for a broken leg, $25,000 for a cholecystectomy, $20,000 A TREATMENT for chemotherapy...) and if you're not rich enough for that then... die. Of course, maybe that'll help us reduce the surplus population.

Your answers have been nothing more than pithy, "well if they can't its their fault, and I shouldn't be made to pay for nothing of theirs!" can you come up with an argument more substantial than that? Or are you content to blame the individual when a system has been set up which essentially excludes the individual due to profit margin?

The only other option is to go ahead and pay for the services yourself ($100 for a checkup, $1500 for an MRI, $1200 for an EGD, $15,000 for a broken leg, $25,000 for a cholecystectomy, $20,000 A TREATMENT for chemotherapy...) and if you're not rich enough for that then... die. Of course, maybe that'll help us reduce the surplus population.

Oh the horror of actually having to pay for services you received, what monsters we are!

But anyway, your lie/exaggeration doesn't take into effect the myriad private organizations that will help individuals with their medical care.

Considering most of you here either believe in big government or tiny government, we're probably never going to land on the one answer to rule them all. Healthcare costs money so funding it nationally will require taxpayer money.

But even as a taxpayer, I love the NHS. I've only really had to use it once for an appendectomy - but there are various vaccinations, check-ups, prescriptions and my birth that it's also helped with over the last 24 years.

It's much more than a government-backed insurance scheme. I know that if I'm in an accident, nobody has to worry about the money it'll cost to make me better. I just can't imagine the fear Americans go through if they, or a loved one has to visit the ER or needs major surgery.

Even the insured ones can face being turned down if the insurance company finds they haven't told them everything before taking out the premium, or if they deem the procedure or drugs unneccessary.

If I think there's something wrong and I'm not insured, I don't have to worry about making ends meet. I can go to a doctor and either set my mind at rest or get the early treatment that heads the problem off before it escalates into a much more life-threatening and expensive issue.

This in itself is the major argument: it keeps the whole population as healthy as possible. It's good for the country and it's great for the people within it.

I know there are drawbacks and there are people who abuse the system but just knowing that my health is covered for my country is something so significant for wellbeing.

I understand the less-tax argument. Nobody likes being forced to give money to other people when there's no need but I really thought it was those same people who claim to have patriotism by the shedload. I don't know how they can keep up that façade while they're happy to let fellow citizens suffer.

"Get a job" is a really useful sentiment to somebody who can't work because of their illness. It's just a great for the people who find themselves out of work because of their illness. But I don't understand why good health should be dependant on somebody's circumstances. I really find it unconscionable.

"Get a job" is a really useful sentiment to somebody who can't work because of their illness. It's just a great for the people who find themselves out of work because of their illness. But I don't understand why good health should be dependant on somebody's circumstances. I really find it unconscionable.

This is the crux of the opinion difference here.

I find it unconscionable to force someone to give away their earnings to support another. That is theft, even if it is government sanctioned. I believe in charity, and I give as I can, both time, money, and property.

it's not theft (don't be so hysterical), it's called a society, if you want to live on your own, foraging for food and by your own laws then I think there are some folks in a Montana forest that will be happy to welcome you in.

Is all tax theft? Should you just be allowed to donate to what you like?

So I'd like to hear what the problem with LESS taxes are. I mean, if Bob had less taxes to pay, he might be able to afford to pay his medical bills. On the same had, if corporations had less taxes to pay, they'd have more to spend on Bob's benefit package.

I don't see how raising taxes, or adding new taxes helps anyone, really. And yes Oli, I think when you look at it from that perspective, it's equivalent to theft.

But anyway, your lie/exaggeration doesn't take into effect the myriad private organizations that will help individuals with their medical care.

The sad part is that I do take that into consideration. But it's not enough.

Sadly, this brings our tete-a-tete to a stop. I don't take kindly to being called a liar.

I'm sorry, I must have missed all those people dying because they had a broken leg, as you claimed.

And I hope you have a nice life TJenkins. I'm sure your sarcasm will be missed.

Haha, I won't miss it but maybe someone will.

Deuce.

Wtf is that? What rule did I break to justify the ban?

You're so predictable, I was waiting for it...and that is something I don't understand. If someone bans you why on earth would you create another account?

So let me be very clear before I start blocking IPs: you're not going to agree with what I'm saying because your mind is shut.

You cannot come to THIS SITE and call people liars.
You cannot come to THIS SITE and toss sarcasm around like people change their clothes.
You cannot come to THIS SITE and be disrespectful to others.
It is OKAY to disagree on THIS SITE but it does matter HOW it is phrased.

Again, you're not going to see yourself being offensive, abrasive, irritating, annoying (insert adjective here) but it isn't that people didn't try politely to point it out. You don't see it.

That's not my problem or anyone participating here. Heated debates have happened here but we do try to maintain respect.

Have a good one. I'm sure you'll be just fine not posting here. Life goes on....

And do not try to pressure me into doing a damn thing (I deleted that new thread - don't try me). Do I make myself VERY clear? You're messing with the wrong one....

Bringing things back on topic - to me I don't mind paying moderate taxes. I do not mind helping others that are less fortunate than me. What I do have a problem with is that the monies collected from taxes aren't spent irresponsibly. And I wonder if that is the root problem that everyone has.

Realistically saying the amount we don't spend in taxes is enough to have hospitalization and pay for medical bills across the board....it's not realistic. Saying everyone should have a job is unrealistic because the jobs aren't there. I live in an area where people would love to work and can't - no jobs. So they relocate and what happens? The place they move to ends up getting messed up in time. The problem isn't being resolved - it's just a bandaid.

Would you guys have a problem with paying a moderate tax IF the money was spent responsibly? And yes, getting the government to spend responsibly might be like taking a trip to Oz...

The government(s) has to make money to maintain things - there is no getting around that. Military has to be paid. State/city workers have to be paid. Incentives for businesses to stay in areas must be given...there are tons of things these funds go to outside of hospitalization. Without taxes, where does it come from?

Yes, I do mind -- at this juncture.

Here's why. As I think we have proven, there are a myriad of things which are contributing to the healthcare crisis we find ourselves in today. To raise taxes even slightly to address this is merely throwing hard earned money at the problem to float around uselessly in the wind.

When I start seeing some measurable action toward actually solving even one of the issues contributing to the mess, then yes I might be a little more open to the idea. But for right now, even the mere suggestion of raising taxes (even for corporations) feels like some bureaucrat is reaching in to my pocket and tossing my money out in to the street.

Frankly, whenever I hear about how Obama's plan is going to cut taxes for "95% of the middle class" but raise taxes on corporations, I feel like I'm being spun on high cycle right into the money pit. Corporations are legally required to protect the financial interests of their investors. You start taking away more and more of their income in the way of taxes, guess what? They're going to start shipping off more and more jobs offshore, and taking away more and more of your benefits -- which includes reducing your healthcare benefits to make up for their losses.

That's when you come to this state of affairs --

Saying everyone should have a job is unrealistic because the jobs aren't there. I live in an area where people would love to work and can't - no jobs. So they relocate and what happens? The place they move to ends up getting messed up in time.

Throwing money at the wind...thanks but no thanks.

I wasn't thinking of raising taxes. Instead paying a moderate tax with the foundation of reasonable spending in place (and I realize that is playing pretend at the moment). I do not agree with raising taxes because I feel it will just be thrown away. I can burn my own money more effectively. :) My initial reasoning was if responsible spending was in place the need to pay high taxes would not be there.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. From the quote below this could cost taxpayers an additional $25B. Realistically, it doesn't matter what McCain or Obama says about what they are going to do about taxes - they can't accurately speak on the matter until after Bush is out of office. When they made their plans this latest move (article) wasn't in the picture. In the short time Bush has left in office between the weather, banks closing up, etc. the government can take on billions that were completely unexpected. Honestly, the promises they make today might not (most likely cannot be) withheld.

The government is expected to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as soon as this weekend in a monumental move designed to protect the mortgage market from the failure of the two companies, which together hold or guarantee half of the nation's mortgage debt, a person briefed on the matter said Friday night.

Critics say the open-ended nature of the rescue package could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars of potential losses.

Supporters, however, argue the Bush administration had little choice but to support Fannie and Freddie, which together hold or guarantee $5 trillion in mortgages — almost half the nation's total.

A government takeover could cost taxpayers up to $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Regarding corporate taxes being business focused I cringe when I hear that but the plan is also to stop offshore incentives so companies stay in the US. That combination will lead to companies closing up period yet people are struggling (overall) and the funds cannot come from them either.

The problems are so deep-rooted I don't see them being resolved in our life times. Yet I see sites like AfriGadget and become inspired.

quote from Obama 08 Fiscal Policies:

End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.

Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

It's not just about blanket tax increases it's also about closing loopholes, which is also a big problem here in the UK that the Government has failed to address.

If that first policy in the quote is successful and just $100billion is re-directed toward healthcare then that goes a long way to fixing a lot of problems. Gnorb has also pointed out that allowing the government funded health care system in the US to negotiate drug prices would bring down costs massively for Medicare/Medicaid.

Making the system more efficient and cheaper will mean the the actual service doesn't suffer, the treatment is available to the poorest and most in need of care.

With regard to jobs being shipped overseas. Here in the UK there is a backlash against customer service jobs being shipped out. So much so that some banks are even boasting about the fact there customer service centers are in the UK in advertisements.

A company shipping jobs out may save money in the short term but there will be push back eventually and that might cost them a lot more money. It's not a simple black or white issue (no pun intended).

The ONLY problem I have with that is that it sounds all well and good coming out of his mouth... but based on what the "change" Democrats have done since 2006 when they took control of Congress it is laughable to even remotely think that that will actually take place.

The American public voted in a wave of replacements into congress on a tide of "hope and change" very similar to that which Obama is riding now and they have failed miserably to enact this "change" they spoke of.

I will be shocked if more than a quarter of either parties election rhetoric comes to pass.

i think the main problem is voters and activists backing off when the election is over. if you want them to keep their word, then keep on them. there are a lot more voters than there are politicians.

Tyme --

I just ran across this article from Alan Greenspan, which I believe addresses your scenario to some extent.

Article19... I completely agree, and that goes right along with the PILE of response letters I have in the filing cabinet under my laptop.

I write and call those representing me constantly.

Problem is, I feel the machine of Washington seems to put blinders on these people who have made a career out of this "civil servant" responsibility.

Honestly, I think the BEST way possible to "change" the machine would be to slap tight restrictions on how long someone can represent the people... and restrict the abilities of ALL the branches of government to those granted to them by the Constitution.