The ease of government-run health care!

[Moksha]

... America's population is not charitable enough to give the money freely enough that it would count as a blessing to the giver.

You have made an important point. Sorry to hear your mother is ill and cannot afford health care. That sucks to be sick yet unable to get a treatable ailment treated.

[Maxel]

You have made an important point. Sorry to hear your mother is ill and cannot afford health care. That sucks to be sick yet unable to get a treatable ailment treated.

It does. However, my whole family has been blessed by the Lord to be able to survive (and for some of us, thrive) despite an abysmal financial situation. There have been enough private charities and missions that have helped us get through.

If we are to act wisely, we cannot allow circumstances and emotions to trump correct principles. I would rather live without health insurance my entire life than see nationalized health care because it would be such a horrible thing to do, in my opinion.

[Moksha]

I would rather live without health insurance my entire life than see nationalized health care because it would be such a horrible thing to do, in my opinion.

Sort of like cutting off your nose, so as to not spite conservative thought. For what it is worth, the insurance industry would heartily concur.

[Guest]

Why if our current system is so good is HMO's and insurance companys paying billons of dollars to fight any positive change ... because they are motivated by greed. They are looking at their profits instead of good health care , affordable healthcare. We have no insurance because it is too expensive.....

Speak for yourself. If you would but do a bit more research you will find more options. I specifically opted out of my company's insurance plan because I found a cheaper alternative.

That's the beauty of PRIVATE insurance. I am only limited by the choices available in the market. For example, there is no reason why I would need maternity insurance because I cannot have children anymore. So, I took it out of my coverage. Nobody in my family smokes or drinks - another drop in my insurance rate. Nobody in my family has any chronic health issues. Another drop in insurance rate. We are not obese. Another drop in insurance rate. So much so that I ended up with $135 per month of healthcare insurance for a family of 4. That's the cool thing about finding your own private insurance. You can tailor it to just the stuff you need without the stuff you don't. Add to it the Health Savings Account which I am using heavily, then I could potentially have enough money to cover my private insurance without having to rely on medicare when I retire.

And when you make the health insurance companies compete for your service, you can improve on the quality.

You nationalize insurance and all those choices are removed from those like me.

But, for you guys who have chronic illnesses, or even just those who do not take good care of your health, then yes, nationalized health insurance is good for you - because you are the "takers" of the system. And for you, it is easier to take from the government than actually think about the net-effect of such a system to the American ideology. You don't think about how the money actually flows and how a dependent-culture is fostered... and how it snowballs into a mammoth, unsupportable program such as Social Security and Public Education. You don't care. As long as your needs are met.

By the way, my insurance is covered by a NON-PROFIT organization, even if I have no problem with profit - only those who are engaged in class warfare have an issue with profit.

And for you British folks maligning the American hospitals without proper information. Stop. I can give you as many bad things about British healthcare as you can about your limited American experience. Gosh, you're like Baptists calling LDS a cult! So, let's not muddy up this discussion with "your hospital is better than mine" because THAT IS COMPLETELY NOT THE ISSUE HERE!

[Maxel]

Sort of like cutting off your nose, so as to not spite conservative thought. For what it is worth, the insurance industry would heartily concur.

Or walking the walk, not just talking the talk; living according to one's principles and not just talking about them. Of course, one man's integrity is another man's foolishness.

[Just_A_Guy]

Come on, Moksha. He's sacrificing his own interests for the greater good. Where's that selfless, collectivist spirit liberals always claim to have?

[Guest]

Sort of like cutting off your nose, so as to not spite conservative thought. For what it is worth, the insurance industry would heartily concur.

No, it is a STAND against the rape and pillage of the rich to support the poor using the police-power of government. But, I guess, that concept is foreign to you.

[Maxel]

But, for you guys who have chronic illnesses, or even just those who do not take good care of your health, then yes, nationalized health insurance is good for you - because you are the "takers" of the system. And for you, it is easier to take from the government than actually think about the net-effect of such a system to the American ideology. You don't think about how the money actually flows and how a dependent-culture is fostered... and how it snowballs into a mammoth, unsupportable program such as Social Security and Public Education. You don't care. As long as your needs are met.

anatess, I agreed with your post except for the tone of this quoted paragraph. There are those who have chronic illnesses who are also poor and, despite hard work (the best they can do), are still dirt poor and can't afford health insurance of any kind. There are people who dild the right thing all or most of the time and didn't try to trick the system or take advantage of anyone, but life has dealt them such a hard hand that they don't see a way out of it except for someone coming in to help them.

And someone should come in and help them- but it shouldn't be the government. Just wanted to point that out.

[Guest]

The root of our disagreement is whether the government is responsible for maintaining the health of its population or not. We can agree to disagree there. Your example, while emotionally compelling, could also just as easily be applied to government funding education which you seem to support. In your mind is it alright to put a gun to the head of a single neurosurgeon and ask for money to educate your 10 kids, but not alright to do the same for a medical procedure?

There is a GIGANTIC difference here. EDUCATION is required for government to function. If you take out Education, you take out a VOTE. Before emancipation, only LEARNED individuals can vote. Women, slaves, they don't vote. Only 18+ can vote. There was a reason for that. It is because in a democratic voting system your intelligent vote can easily be cancelled by an ignorant fool. Of course, we know now that women and blacks are not ignorant fools like the old people thought they were. But, the point of the exercise is the same - EDUCATION IS A NECESSARY REQUIREMENT FOR GOVERNMENT. It is not charity.

[Guest]

anatess, I agreed with your post except for the tone of this quoted paragraph. There are those who have chronic illnesses who are also poor and, despite hard work (the best they can do), are still dirt poor and can't afford health insurance of any kind. There are people who dild the right thing all or most of the time and didn't try to trick the system or take advantage of anyone, but life has dealt them such a hard hand that they don't see a way out of it except for someone coming in to help them.

And someone should come in and help them- but it shouldn't be the government. Just wanted to point that out.

Maxel, I apologize if it sounded sarcastic. What I was trying to come across is that, those with chronic illnesses can easily think of national health insurance as their "WAY OUT" if they don't look at it past their own self-interests. This goes for all those who are in dire straits, no matter how they got there. Because, just like I said in the post, they would end up to be the "takers" in this system and it is very easy to gain comfort in that.

[Guest]

That reference to my values being satanic is way off base. Don't know if I am taking the higher road when I advocate adequate health care for all. It is merely a value I have. The Bible is probably replete with instances of looking out for number #1. I assume many conservative religionists can readily quote them. Go with what works for you and quit frothing.

:)

Moshka, taking care of your brother is well and good. It is an ideal to strive for. But, what I don't understand is why you think anybody who doesn't agree with nationalization is anti-charity. I don't understand why you think it is necessary to FORCE people to do it? That is the problem here. Conservative religious people do not say no to charity. They say no to FORCED-charity. Because, it removes the blessings that are due the giver.

[Maxel]

Maxel, I apologize if it sounded sarcastic. What I was trying to come across is that, those with chronic illnesses can easily think of national health insurance as their "WAY OUT" if they don't look at it past their own self-interests. This goes for all those who are in dire straits, no matter how they got there. Because, just like I said in the post, they would end up to be the "takers" in this system and it is very easy to gain comfort in that.

No need to apologize. My mom's in that boat- beaten down by chronic illness and desperately hoping that nationalized health care will help ease the hardships- but I know that if my Mom wasn't trying to raise a child by herself, deal with a deadbeat ex-husband, go to school full time, renovate a 160-year old house, and hold a job than she would be in the position to think more on the subject.

I feel the need to defend my mom...

[Guest]

No need to apologize. My mom's in that boat- beaten down by chronic illness and desperately hoping that nationalized health care will help ease the hardships- but I know that if my Mom wasn't trying to raise a child by herself, deal with a deadbeat ex-husband, go to school full time, renovate a 160-year old house, and hold a job than she would be in the position to think more on the subject.

I feel the need to defend my mom...

I see where you're coming from Maxel. It is difficult for this situation which completely illustrates the challenges of nationalization.

Because, here is exactly the complete picture:

As a case study, we have your mother. As options we have Palerider vs. Moshka. Unless the entire voting population of the United States can tune in to the discussion about your mother's case between Palerider and Moshka, they are in danger of only seeing one side of the story. Because, the media sure can't help straighten it out, and neither will Congress. I mean, the bill changes almost everyday that I have a very strong suspicion Congress has no clue on what the impacts of this thing is either! I would think they would also need to tune in to Palerider vs. Moshka discussion before they render a vote!

[DigitalShadow]

There is a GIGANTIC difference here. EDUCATION is required for government to function. If you take out Education, you take out a VOTE. Before emancipation, only LEARNED individuals can vote. Women, slaves, they don't vote. Only 18+ can vote. There was a reason for that. It is because in a democratic voting system your intelligent vote can easily be cancelled by an ignorant fool. Of course, we know now that women and blacks are not ignorant fools like the old people thought they were. But, the point of the exercise is the same - EDUCATION IS A NECESSARY REQUIREMENT FOR GOVERNMENT. It is not charity.

And living breathing human beings are not a necessary requirement for government? Uneducated individuals may very well cast an uneducated vote, but a dead person, educated or otherwise, doesn't cast any vote. I know you disagree, but in my opinion, spending tax money to keep your citizens alive and well is just as necessary as spending tax money to educate them.

[Maxel]

And living breathing human beings are not a necessary requirement for government?

No! Now you know the evil conservative plot... Slowly kill off everyone until we become a nation of zombies! Zombies without health care! Mwahahaha!!!

[Guest]

And living breathing human beings are not a necessary requirement for government? Uneducated individuals may very well cast an uneducated vote, but a dead person, educated or otherwise, doesn't cast any vote. I know you disagree, but in my opinion, spending tax money to keep your citizens alive and well is just as necessary as spending tax money to educate them.

Digital, you are truly not understanding the point. Dead people CAN'T vote. They don't CANCEL a vote. Death is a natural progression of humanity far removed from government!

You don't want to spend tax money to keep people alive. You want to keep their incentive to stand on their own two feet! And quality of life, Digital, is the biggest incentive of all!

[Moksha]

No, it is a STAND against the rape and pillage of the rich to support the poor using the police-power of government. But, I guess, that concept is foreign to you.

Sounds theoretically possible. Just that it has been occuring the other way around for so long that it does seem a bit foreign. Definitely not Albanian, perhaps Neverlandish.

:)

[Elgama]

Maxel, I apologize if it sounded sarcastic. What I was trying to come across is that, those with chronic illnesses can easily think of national health insurance as their "WAY OUT" if they don't look at it past their own self-interests. This goes for all those who are in dire straits, no matter how they got there. Because, just like I said in the post, they would end up to be the "takers" in this system and it is very easy to gain comfort in that.

very brotherly of you, your concern and love for those less fortunate than yourself is amazing - however those with chronic illnesses are not all complete takers - highly doubt Montel Williams would need to constantly take. And what about children with chronic illnesses how silly of them to require healthcare, how silly of Heavenly Father to give us such burdens. Some of our wealthiest branch members are the ones that have used the NHS the most and required help for various chronic conditions they have paid their taxes. I don't take that much from our system well except my pregnancy with my middle son but not sure pregnancy is a chronic illness lol

I have no guilt for mine - my Grandfathers, Husband and Father have paid into the system at high enough level to more than cover my care. Lets hope you never find yourself with no health insurance and a chronic illness. Mine was diagnosed 9 days before I came off my Dad's private health insurance would never have got cover for it independently thank goodness I had a safety net

-Charley

[DigitalShadow]

Digital, you are truly not understanding the point. Dead people CAN'T vote. They don't CANCEL a vote. Death is a natural progression of humanity far removed from government!

You don't want to spend tax money to keep people alive. You want to keep their incentive to stand on their own two feet! And quality of life, Digital, is the biggest incentive of all!

Whether a vote is silenced because the person died or cast by an uneducated person, either way you are messing with the democratic process. If death is a natural process with nothing to do with government, why does government get involved public safety, or do you think the government should stay out of that too? Why do we have a tax funded police force and firefighters that save lives if it is so far removed from government?

[FunkyTown]

Moshka, taking care of your brother is well and good. It is an ideal to strive for. But, what I don't understand is why you think anybody who doesn't agree with nationalization is anti-charity. I don't understand why you think it is necessary to FORCE people to do it? That is the problem here. Conservative religious people do not say no to charity. They say no to FORCED-charity. Because, it removes the blessings that are due the giver.

Hmm... Interesting theory. The US has the highest contribution to charity than any other country, with $300 billion. Compare that to the second highest contributor at $100 billion (United Kingdom) and you see the following:

UK population: 60 million.

US population: 303 million.

Well that... Oh, darn it. I just realized that the US has 5 times the population, but only 3 times the charitable donations. And US taxes are much lower than the UK. Hmm... I'm sure that must be a mistake. What do you think about that, Anatess? Doesn't that kinda blow our theory that low taxes=much higher contributions to charity out of the water? Doesn't that kinda suggest that it isn't low taxes that allow us to care for our brother?

Cause it kinda seems to me that if the per capita contributions are higher in a country with much higher taxes, that this theory of yours wouldn't hold water. Just seems that way. Wouldn't you think?

[Guest]

Moshka, taking care of your brother is well and good. It is an ideal to strive for. But, what I don't understand is why you think anybody who doesn't agree with nationalization is anti-charity. I don't understand why you think it is necessary to FORCE people to do it? That is the problem here. Conservative religious people do not say no to charity. They say no to FORCED-charity. Because, it removes the blessings that are due the giver.

Hmm... Interesting theory. The US has the highest contribution to charity than any other country, with $300 billion. Compare that to the second highest contributor at $100 billion (United Kingdom) and you see the following:

UK population: 60 million.

US population: 303 million.

Well that... Oh, darn it. I just realized that the US has 5 times the population, but only 3 times the charitable donations. And US taxes are much lower than the UK. Hmm... I'm sure that must be a mistake. What do you think about that, Anatess? Doesn't that kinda blow our theory that low taxes=much higher contributions to charity out of the water? Doesn't that kinda suggest that it isn't low taxes that allow us to care for our brother?

Cause it kinda seems to me that if the per capita contributions are higher in a country with much higher taxes, that this theory of yours wouldn't hold water. Just seems that way. Wouldn't you think?

Funky, here we go again... another discussion where you are talking about something completely different as a response to something completely different that I said!

The amount of Charitable Contributions between one country and another is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

The point of the post was that if you FORCE charitable contribution, it CEASES to be charity. Therefore, the blessings of charity is removed from the giver.

And, the statement that people who are against universal healthcare being anti-charity is still FALSE regardless of the "per country" data you provided. See statement above.

Your data just means that there are more charitable people in the UK than in the US. Which could be because there are more needy people in the UK than the US. Or maybe because the US culture is not conducive to charitable people. Or maybe because Americans are selfish. Whatever reason there is, it still doesn't mean that with the addition of universal healthcare Americans would become more charitable. Doesn't compute, Funky.

[Guest]

Whether a vote is silenced because the person died or cast by an uneducated person, either way you are messing with the democratic process. If death is a natural process with nothing to do with government, why does government get involved public safety, or do you think the government should stay out of that too? Why do we have a tax funded police force and firefighters that save lives if it is so far removed from government?

Digital, over-reaching now.

What you're saying is it is the responsibility of government to keep people alive. Okay, point it anywhere in the constitution and I'll agree with you.

[DigitalShadow]

Digital, over-reaching now.

What you're saying is it is the responsibility of government to keep people alive. Okay, point it anywhere in the constitution and I'll agree with you.

I'm saying that in my opinion it is the responsibility of a government to spend tax money to attempt to keep people alive, whether that means pulling someone out of a burning building or treating cancer in someone who couldn't otherwise afford it.

Show me where in the constitution it says the government shouldn't help out with health care and I'll agree with you. The constitution is a wonderful framework, but it does not go into detail on what tax dollars should or should not be spent on.

[FunkyTown]

I agree wholeheartedly, Ana! The addition of universal health care wouldn't make the US any more charitable.

Of course, the removal of taxes wouldn't necessarily make them any more charitable, either. What universal health care would do... Would be to help those people who need health care when they need health care.

And you're right: The blessings of charity are removed from the giver if taxation forces you to do so. However, the blessings of universal health care are removed from the receiver if universal health care is not implemented.

What are the blessings of universal health care? Health. And care.

Want the blessings associated with giving? Continue to give. Most people want the blessings of being able to go to the doctor, though I'll tell you what: If you can convince the poor of your nation that they would rather you have the blessings of charitable contributions than have the ability to send their child to the dentist, I will admit you have a point.

Funky, here we go again... another discussion where you are talking about something completely different as a response to something completely different that I said!

The amount of Charitable Contributions between one country and another is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

The point of the post was that if you FORCE charitable contribution, it CEASES to be charity. Therefore, the blessings of charity is removed from the giver.

And, the statement that people who are against universal healthcare being anti-charity is still FALSE regardless of the "per country" data you provided. See statement above.

Your data just means that there are more charitable people in the UK than in the US. Which could be because there are more needy people in the UK than the US. Or maybe because the US culture is not conducive to charitable people. Or maybe because Americans are selfish. Whatever reason there is, it still doesn't mean that with the addition of universal healthcare Americans would become more charitable. Doesn't compute, Funky.

[Just_A_Guy]

What are the blessings of universal health care? Health. And care.

Over a few decades, maybe. But there's only so many accounting gimmicks you can use to make a country appear solvent, and we're already using many of those.

Over the long term, either government will run out of money (and all those people on government health care will be left hanging), or government will be forced to raise tax rates to a point where the healthy revolt and overthrow the government (again, leaving the people on government health care hanging).

Edited July 21, 2009 by Just_A_Guy