The ease of government-run health care!

[FunkyTown]

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).

There are many countries with higher taxes than the US, Just_a_guy. Sometimes, people just need to budget accordingly. I've moved from Canada to the UK and am thus paying more taxes, but quality of life for me is actually better here than in Canada due to better labor laws and a better health system.

[Guest]

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.

I thought somebody in this thread already presented that... was it Maxel? Okay, I'm too lazy to scan through the how-many-pages there are in this thread.. But somebody in this here thread already stated that they do not have health insurance, they are in dire straits, and still against universal healthcare. So that's one example.

But, Funky, the real debate here is not that people need care. The real debate is the impact of nationalized healthcare to the American culture and ideology. America is founded on capitalism. The constituion is designed so that an American has an interest, a stake, in his own progress. This was the reason America seceded from the British. This was the reason the Civil War was fought. This is the reason why we have so many illegal immigrants forcing their way in here. It is the polar opposite of socialism. I'm not saying socialism is bad (that's for a different thread). I'm just saying that socialism is NOT the American way. Now, if America was going down the tubes - becoming a 3rd world country because of the "American way", then I would agree that it would be time to rethink that ideology. But, as it stands, America is still one of the most successful, if not THE most successful country in the world. The ideology works. A shift in ideology could be its downfall.

My husband asked this at one of his political discussions with his friends... name ONE American Federal Program that works better than its private or state counterpart. Just one. Nobody can answer. I, of course, answered the IRS... but they took it as a joke.

[Guest]

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.

Digital! C'mon man! I'm not American and I know this! Read Amendment 14 of your constitution. Anything not enumerated in the Constitution lies in the State. Anything not enumerated in the State, lies with the People.

By the way, pulling somebody out of a burning building is in the State...

Edited July 21, 2009 by anatess

[DigitalShadow]

Digital! C'mon man! I'm not American and I know this! Read Amendment 14 of your constitution. Anything not enumerated in the Constitution lies in the State. Anything not enumerated in the State, lies with the People.

By the way, pulling somebody out of a burning building is in the State...

First, I think you mean the 10th amendment. Second, I still don't see how that explicitly prohibits any type of health care program.

[bytor2112]

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.

but...does that mean that the government should "take over" the health care system? Couldn't the government assist and pass laws that would help uninsured citizens obtain insurance? Why are we so eager to turn control over to the government? Has anyone noticed that we really don't know who will be covered, who won't be, what coverage includes and how much will we all have to pay for it or who will pay for it? What will happen to private insurers? Why can't we cross state lines and shop for coverage? The idea that only the government can fix the problem and the best way is to completely take it over is ludicrous.

Some interesting facts:

* The Census Bureau estimates that 45.7 million lacked health insurance at any given time in 2007. But fewer lacked coverage for the full year, and more did without for one or more months during the year. All three numbers are likely to be higher for 2008 due to massive job losses.

* Twenty-six percent of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage but do not make use of it, according to The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. This is sometimes, but not always, a matter of choice.

* Twenty-one percent of the uninsured are immigrants, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that figure includes both those who are here legally and those who are not. The number of illegal immigrants who are included in the official statistics is unknown.

* Twenty percent of the uninsured have family incomes of greater than $75,000 per year, according to the Census Bureau. But this does not necessarily mean they have access to insurance. Even higher-income jobs don't always offer employer-sponsored insurance, and not everyone who wants private insurance is able to get it.

* Forty percent of the uninsured are young, according to KFF. But speculation that they pass up insurance because of their good health is unjustified. KFF reports that many young people lack insurance because it's not available to them, and people who turn down available insurance tend to be in worse health, not better, according to the Institute of Medicine.

[DigitalShadow]

but...does that mean that the government should "take over" the health care system? Couldn't the government assist and pass laws that would help uninsured citizens obtain insurance? Why are we so eager to turn control over to the government? Has anyone noticed that we really don't know who will be covered, who won't be, what coverage includes and how much will we all have to pay for it or who will pay for it? What will happen to private insurers? Why can't we cross state lines and shop for coverage? The idea that only the government can fix the problem and the best way is to completely take it over is ludicrous.

I don't believe the government should completely "take over" health care, but I do believe it should contribute to maintaining the health of citizens.

[Just_A_Guy]

There are many countries with higher taxes than the US, Just_a_guy. Sometimes, people just need to budget accordingly. I've moved from Canada to the UK and am thus paying more taxes, but quality of life for me is actually better here than in Canada due to better labor laws and a better health system.

But apparently, the UK government has its own financial problems.

[Elgama]

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?

its simple American's have less people with shaky tins and no Comic Relief^_^ its interesting that when the conservative leader here talked about ring fencing budgets health, education and foreign aid were his choices. And their charity shops are less business like

-Charley

[Elgama]

But apparently, the UK government has its own financial problems.

I'd rather have financial problems in the UK than the US - however there has been bad management over recent years sadly aided by making the mistake of joining the US in pointless wars. Prior to present government taking over the economy was in good and very stable shape, so having a good standard of living and a welfare state is not a barrier to good standard of living. I am very fortunate in that the area of the UK I live in has one of the best standards of living in the world according to the UN, and its even better than where FunkyTown lives.

That standard of living has come as a result of having Socialists in charge for 30 years

-Charley

[Just_A_Guy]

I'd rather have financial problems in the UK than the US - however there has been bad management over recent years sadly aided by making the mistake of joining the US in pointless wars. Prior to present government taking over the economy was in good and very stable shape,

Per your own liberal theorists (Keynes), the Iraq War couldn't have harmed your economy (unless your workforce was decimated by a catastrophic loss of life, which has not been the case); because it caused an increase in government spending which should have helped your economy.

What it did do was increase your government debt, and I'd be interested to see some solid statistics on that. However, it looks like (at least as a proportion of GDP) the UK's national debt was already trending upwards prior to 2003.

so having a good standard of living and a welfare state is not a barrier to good standard of living.

Over the short term, yes.

That standard of living has come as a result of having Socialists in charge for 30 years.

We'll see if it lasts (see also California). If it doesn't--that, too, will be a result of having Socialists in charge for 30 years. And I suspect that, like California, the socialized nations of western Europe will be seeking bailouts from other state actors who have managed their affairs more (dare I say it?) conservatively.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Hemidakota]

Coming from the TARP chief, the worst case scenario is our total bailout, including health care initiatives will be around 24 Trillion Dollars. Yes! That was reported at 24-TRILLION....I wish I had a printing press that can help every poor person in the world. Maybe that is why I am not a billionaire...like Gates, it would all go to the poor and needy.

[Guest]

First, I think you mean the 10th amendment. Second, I still don't see how that explicitly prohibits any type of health care program.

That too! But... more importantly the 14th Amendment under Personal Liberty.

9th and 10th Amendments introduces the premise that rights not enumerated in the constitution nor states is reserved by the people.

But, the 14th amendment specifically deters the state from infringing on personal liberty - that in itself is what prohibits the government from my freedom of choice for a healthcare program.

9th and 10th amendments was not enough to protect a womans' choice from performing an abortion. The 14th amendment is what made it possible. This succinctly exemplefies that the RIGHT TO LIFE rests with the PEOPLE.

Remember, we started this discussion on constitutionality of the government being responsible for LIFE.

Edited July 21, 2009 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

You're forgetting the Interstate Commerce Clause.

For better or for worse, the Bill of Rights protections are not absolute.

[Hemidakota]

I found this interesting statement within your link:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. "Gonzales V. Raich". Straylight.law.cornell.edu. GONZALES V. RAICH. Retrieved on 2008-09-06.

[Guest]

I don't know.. National Education limits your access to a school within your district. You may go to another school (magnets) as long as it is in the same county. Across state lines would be a far stretch. What would make healthcare any different?

[DigitalShadow]

That too! But... more importantly the 14th Amendment under Personal Liberty.

9th and 10th Amendments introduces the premise that rights not enumerated in the constitution nor states is reserved by the people.

But, the 14th amendment specifically deters the state from infringing on personal liberty - that in itself is what prohibits the government from my freedom of choice for a healthcare program.

9th and 10th amendments was not enough to protect a womans' choice from performing an abortion. The 14th amendment is what made it possible. This succinctly exemplefies that the RIGHT TO LIFE rests with the PEOPLE.

Remember, we started this discussion on constitutionality of the government being responsible for LIFE.

That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. No matter what government health care plan is put in place, there will always be private providers and options to take care of yourself. For example, even though the government runs the educational system, if you really don't like it there are still privately run schools that you can send your child to.

How exactly would the government providing a minimum amount of health care to people infringe on your personal liberty?

[Guest]

That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. No matter what government health care plan is put in place, there will always be private providers and options to take care of yourself. For example, even though the government runs the educational system, if you really don't like it there are still privately run schools that you can send your child to.

How exactly would the government providing a minimum amount of health care to people infringe on your personal liberty?

Digital, we're mixing discussions... let's bring it back to track.

Discussion 1: Government is not responsible for keeping people alive.

This started with my premise that government may be responsible for education but not for healthcare. That's how we got into the constitutional stuff.

Discussion 2: Government is responsible for providing healthcare insurance.

Note, healthcare insurance is not the same as healthcare, so let's keep the discussion within those bounds to make it simpler.

So, in response to your post quoted above - if you read all 1018 pages of the healthcare bill... actually, you only have to read up to page 16, I think (the thing changes almost everyday!)... you will see that the bill as it is drafted makes it impossible to keep a Private Insurance unless your private insurance plan DOES NOT CHANGE - which is impossible because, for example, you get older, so you start to need more coverage, or your circumstances change, or you change employers, etc. etc.

In addition, around page 935 or so, you will see that with this bill, it gives the government the power to dictate life choices in the guise of keeping the population healthy. Therefore, the government can easily impose a ban on fat consumption past 50 grams per day, or ban consumption of more than 3000 calories per day, or even just put a ban on cigarettes, pain killers, whatever.

That is completely anti-14th ammendment.

Digital, I just want to let you know that I truly enjoy pinging ideas with you. I love the way you present your side.

Edited July 21, 2009 by anatess

[Guest]

Interesting thing I got on my email from a financial adviser:

Canadian healthcare

[FunkyTown]

But, Funky, the real debate here is not that people need care. The real debate is the impact of nationalized healthcare to the American culture and ideology. America is founded on capitalism. The constituion is designed so that an American has an interest, a stake, in his own progress. This was the reason America seceded from the British. This was the reason the Civil War was fought. This is the reason why we have so many illegal immigrants forcing their way in here. It is the polar opposite of socialism. I'm not saying socialism is bad (that's for a different thread). I'm just saying that socialism is NOT the American way. Now, if America was going down the tubes - becoming a 3rd world country because of the "American way", then I would agree that it would be time to rethink that ideology. But, as it stands, America is still one of the most successful, if not THE most successful country in the world. The ideology works. A shift in ideology could be its downfall.

All right, Ana: Quote source.

"America is founded on capitalism."

Well, let's look at the Declaration of Independance.

The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That's interesting. Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, one of which is Life. That seems to be a very important argument for universal health care.

It seems that one of the founding principles of the US was that.

I'm more than willing to listen to your argument using the Declaration of Independance. Can you point to where in the Declaration it suggests that the US can't provide a promise of health? That capitalism overrides the right to life?

Also, I would like you to quote source that the Civil War was fought over Capitalism.

Southern slave owners - Die hard capitalists using cheap labour to farm their wealth - lost out to people arguing that all men being created equal was important enough to turn away those arguing for pure capitalism. It would seem pure Capitalism lost out bigtime in that war.

Can you point out where pure capitalism was the major reason the North fought in the war? Any respected scholars?

I will grant you, however, that the success of a capitalist paradigm has made the US very powerful and has resulted in many illegal Mexican immigrants.

Part of that may be due to corruption and poverty in their nation, however. Mexico is hardly the ideal of the socialist nation, and there aren't a bunch of illegal Canadian immigrants sneaking across the border stealing your jobs.

[DigitalShadow]

Digital, we're mixing discussions... let's bring it back to track.

That is probably a good idea :)

Discussion 1: Government is not responsible for keeping people alive.

This started with my premise that government may be responsible for education but not for healthcare. That's how we got into the constitutional stuff.

I still believe government should be reasonably responsible for health care, similar to the extent that it is responsible for education. I don't necessarily believe that the government should "run" either of those institutions, but I think it is for the better as a society if the government helps out with those things even if people can't normally afford them.

Discussion 2: Government is responsible for providing healthcare insurance.

Note, healthcare insurance is not the same as healthcare, so let's keep the discussion within those bounds to make it simpler.

I think it is reasonable for the government to provide a minimal health care insurance, or at least some mechanism of funding the health care of people who can't afford it.

So, in response to your post quoted above - if you read all 1018 pages of the healthcare bill... actually, you only have to read up to page 16, I think (the thing changes almost everyday!)... you will see that the bill as it is drafted makes it impossible to keep a Private Insurance unless your private insurance plan DOES NOT CHANGE - which is impossible because, for example, you get older, so you start to need more coverage, or your circumstances change, or you change employers, etc. etc.

In addition, around page 935 or so, you will see that with this bill, it gives the government the power to dictate life choices in the guise of keeping the population healthy. Therefore, the government can easily impose a ban on fat consumption past 50 grams per day, or ban consumption of more than 3000 calories per day, or even just put a ban on cigarettes, pain killers, whatever.

That is completely anti-14th ammendment.

I don't really have time to read 1018 pages of a health care bill, so for the sake of argument, I'll take your word on the things it says. Also, to clarify, are all these things you mention simply possible conditions of getting this "free" coverage? If so, that still doesn't infringe on your personal liberty because even if you don't follow those, the worse case is ending up having to completely pay for your own health insurance, just like you do now.

If that plan does give the government the power to limit things like that for everyone, even people opting out of its coverage, which I find unlikely, I would also say it is anti-14th amendment.

I would also like to point out though that it is very unlikely that the government could mandate things like calorie or fat limits. It's difficult enough for people to accurately monitor calorie and fat intake even when they are trying, I can't even imagine trying to enforce something like that and if the government really wanted to ban extremely unhealthy products, couldn't they already (theoretically) do that through the FDA?

Digital, I just want to let you know that I truly enjoy pinging ideas with you. I love the way you present your side.

The feeling is mutual.

[Maxel]

I just wanted to say some things that I find funny. I make no claim that anyone else will think they are, but this is one of those times I do something for my own sake (and I'm celebrating the 100th+ post on this thread! Woohoo!)

And I suspect that, like California, the socialized nations of western Europe will be seeking bailouts from other state actors who have managed their affairs more (dare I say it?) conservatively.

Oh... I see what you did there!

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).

That would be one of the few times in history where class lines were divided along personal health instead of economic, social, or political status.

"She turned me into a newt! I'm off to join the Sickees!"

"Wait... I got better... Nevermind, I'm back with the Healthees."

Hehe... Monty Python needs to do a skit of that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I'm done.

[Bob_Blaylock]

America is founded on capitalism. The constituion is designed so that an American has an interest, a stake, in his own progress. This was the reason America seceded from the British. This was the reason the Civil War was fought. This is the reason why we have so many illegal immigrants forcing their way in here. It is the polar opposite of socialism.

The American way:

“A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.”

—Thomas Jefferson—

The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик way:

“From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

—Karl Marx—

O course, we've just recently elected a President whose philosophies would be more in place in the Союз Советских Социалистических Республик than here in the United States.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Bob_Blaylock
A man without a forklift is nothing.

[Bob_Blaylock]

Digital! C'mon man! I'm not American and I know this! Read Amendment 14 of your constitution. Anything not enumerated in the Constitution lies in the State. Anything not enumerated in the State, lies with the People.

Actually, that's the Tenth Amendment, not the Fourteenth.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Bob_Blaylock]

First, I think you mean the 10th amendment. Second, I still don't see how that explicitly prohibits any type of health care program.

It prohibits the federal government from claiming or exercising any powers not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution. Nowhere, in the Constitution, is the federal government authorized to Sovietize the health care industry.

Of course, about 99% of what the federal government now does to is us equally a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

[FunkyTown]

EDIT: (Double post, my bad)

Edited July 22, 2009 by FunkyTown