Why am i a liberal l.d.s?

[MsQwerty]

Is it really free? Have you compared the value in services you've received to the value you've paid in? How does Medicare-Australia invest its funds to ensure long-term growth? Are you sure you aren't really just bullying someone else into paying for it?

It's relatively 'free' in that we do contribute 1.5% of our taxes once a year to the Medicare system. How does Medicare invest its funds? No idea really, but you are welcome to read their budget info if you want to look it up: Medicare Australia. The only people in this country who feel 'bullied' into paying their 1.5% are the exceptionally wealthy who would never use a public hospital and feel they should be exempt from the tax.

Everyone else is more than happy to pay the 1.5% tax, as most of the population will use public health care services, as well as access what are known as Medicare 'rebates' (where if you go to a private provider, Medicare will basically refund you much of what you paid).

Frequently because (to paraphrase scripture) "they know not where to find it". Also because--frankly--they fear the bankruptcy system, which is designed exactly for people like them and (while indeed laborious, and ruinous to one's credit) isn't nearly as bad as it's cracked up to be.

Bankruptcy is not so bad. Ok. Got it.

CNN ran a story about three individuals like this just last week--but when you looked closely: every one of them could have walked into an ER and gotten treatment; but for various reasons chose not to.

Having not seen the program you are referring to, I can't comment too much. They could have walked in and gotten free treatment if they wanted it?

She is getting what she "needs" - delivery of the baby, and any appurtenant emergency services as required. More time in the hospital to recoup from a standard, problem-free delivery would be nice--but a luxury; one I would not force someone else to subsidize for my own family.

Wow. Recovery from childbirth is not a "luxury", it is a RIGHT in a civilised society. If we don't take care of women and babies at their most vulnerable then what kind of people are we?

Even 'standard' childbirth is not easy to recover from. From your comments I'm assuming you are a man - I just wish you could try giving birth one day and see how you feel about how 'standard' it is then . And what if it isn't 'standard'? What about her baby who might need care? What if she develops complications as a result of being moved too soon after giving birth? What if the hospital just took care of her instead? What if it were your wife, mother or sister who had no insurance and needed the care that was denied her?

And most importantly, what would the Saviour have us do for a woman who is giving birth to a child?

Because government-run health care runs an enormous risk of simply changing "discrimination against the poor" to "discrimination against the poorly connected". My chances of becoming rich over the next ten to twenty years are exponentially higher than my chances of becoming connected with someone in bureaucracy that will ensure my family gets care above the regular standard (which we have no reason to believe will exceed that set by the Medicaid and Medicare programs our government currently runs).

That sounds silly and paranoid. No-one in this country gets better care in the public system because their Uncle Bob works for a particular hospital. There are checks and balances in place to ensure such things don't happen.

And also because we're not convinced we can afford it. True, profligacy is a fact of American political life--but this is exponentially bigger than anything we've been asked to swallow during our lifetimes. In the meantime we're printing money that isn't backed by anything meaningful; the Chinese own us, and the rest of the world is talking about ditching the dollar. I think we're right to be skittish.

Of course you can afford 1.5% tax - imagine spending a few hundred dollars a year for your health care instead of a few hundred every month? How can that not seem like a good thing?

So do we. It's called Medicaid (and Medicare). And it stinks. Yet our leaders want us to believe that when the same people who run Medicaid and Medicare run Obamacare, it somehow won't stink.

I've lived in both the US and Australia and I can tell you now that US Medicaid/Medicare is not similar to Aus. Medicare in any way. With Aus. Medicare - EVERY Australian regardless of what they earn or what their age, has the right to free or heavily subsidised doctors visits, hospital care, emergency room treatment, surgery of most kinds, pharmaceutical benefits (although there is now a small charge for some tests), x-rays, diagnostic tests, childhood immunisation and organ transplants. In addition, Australians who want more choice of doctor or hospital or shorter waiting lists, can pay for private health insurance.

Medicaid, in my understanding is only available to some people and difficult to access as well. The problem with the US system is, I suspect, far more to do with the differences in state-run health care than anything. What is available as Medicaid in one state may be different to that of another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seemed to be the case for many church members I knew there who fell on hard times. Losing one's job and health insurance caused tremendous fear because people knew that it would be difficult to get adequate medical care.

It will not be a "very small amount". Congrats to you Aussies if you've come up with a fiscally efficient way to do it. Here's an explanation of an analysis from our Congressional Budget Office, and here's the analysis itself. Basically, over the next ten years you've got about three hundred million people each paying $330 per year. Sounds like a sweet deal--until you realize that only about 40 million people are actually being insured with that money, and the rest are basically paying five or six times that amount over again in order to insure themselves.

I haven't looked deeply into how Obama plans to implement universal health-care, but will take a look at your link when I have more time later on, thanks. I still remember the hysteria that resulted when Hillary Clinton dared to broach the subject although nowadays I think more Americans seem ready for a change.

I have, however read the President's address on health care reform, and while the details seem foggy at this point, he seems to be on the right track and claims that it will actually help to decrease the deficit over time:

"Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

Transcript: Obama's Health Care Speech - CBS News

Edited September 20, 2009 by MsQwerty
to add quote...

[MsQwerty]

Again, my objective is human life.

On his official website, Obama's address on health care clears up several misconceptions, one of them you might be interested in:

"And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions..."

Organizing for America | OFA Blog: The President's Remarks to a Joint Session of Congress: "Stability and security for all Americans"

[MsQwerty]

Set the example, before asking the rest of us to add to the kitty.

Apparently they have set the example for the rest of us to follow.

It just amazes me how many out there want to demonize the Obamas, who by all accounts are honest, decent, hard-working, god-loving and idealistic people.

[Gatorman]

Apparently they have set the example for the rest of us to follow.

It just amazes me how many out there want to demonize the Obamas, who by all accounts are honest, decent, hard-working, god-loving and idealistic people.

I don't want to demonize them. Just see them act according to what the preach. And, good people can make bad leaders.

[Elphaba]

It's relatively 'free' in that we do contribute 1.5% of our taxes once a year to the Medicare system. How does Medicare invest its funds? No idea really, but you are welcome to read their budget info if you want to look it up: Medicare Australia. The only people in this country who feel 'bullied' into paying their 1.5% are the exceptionally wealthy who would never use a public hospital and feel they should be exempt from the tax.

>snip<

"Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

Transcript: Obama's Health Care Speech - CBS News

Thank you for pulling all of that together.

Elphaba

[annewandering]

So now it is ok to complain that anything we might be asked to spend for health care is wrong because it is forced charity but now you are demanding that the obamas just give their hard earned money up to charity to make you happy?

So what it boils down to is that you deserve all of your money no matter what, but the obamas are bloodsucking leaches so have to give all theirs up just to prove they can wear sackcloth and ashes?

Hypocrisy anyone?

The obamas can spend their money anyway they want, same as you can. If you had the money to do it you would too. Its called the American Dream isnt it?

President Obama said once that he would be one of the people under his tax plans to PAY MORE taxes and he said he is glad to do it because it is right.

How about you?

[Gatorman]

So now it is ok to complain that anything we might be asked to spend for health care is wrong because it is forced charity but now you are demanding that the obamas just give their hard earned money up to charity to make you happy?

So what it boils down to is that you deserve all of your money no matter what, but the obamas are bloodsucking leaches so have to give all theirs up just to prove they can wear sackcloth and ashes?

Hypocrisy anyone?

The obamas can spend their money anyway they want, same as you can. If you had the money to do it you would too. Its called the American Dream isnt it?

President Obama said once that he would be one of the people under his tax plans to PAY MORE taxes and he said he is glad to do it because it is right.

How about you?

Well, I don't believe it is right. But, what is stopping President Obama from doing it today? That is my point. If he believes it is the right answer, why isn't he already paying extra taxes and setting the example? I am not suggesting that we should be paying more taxes, I am suggesting that the Obama's and anyone else who believes in these actions, should be voluntarily doing what they believe should be forced on the rest of us.

[FunkyTown]

Well, I don't believe it is right. But, what is stopping President Obama from doing it today? That is my point. If he believes it is the right answer, why isn't he already paying extra taxes and setting the example? I am not suggesting that we should be paying more taxes, I am suggesting that the Obama's and anyone else who believes in these actions, should be voluntarily doing what they believe should be forced on the rest of us.

In defense of Obama, his plan wasn't "My plan is to have the greatest good possible: Everybody paying more taxes!"

His plan was to provide better health care for the majority. If that passes, he will pay more taxes just like everyone else.

Paying more taxes now would not help the health care of the poor. Therefore, telling them to pay more taxes isn't exactly relevant to the argument.

Again, his plan is not, "Hey, everybody! Wouldn't it be great if we all paid more taxes?" and instead his plan is to initiate a universal health care plan. Simply paying more taxes would not bring to fruition that plan.

[Elphaba]

Well, I don't believe it is right. But, what is stopping President Obama from doing it today? That is my point. If he believes it is the right answer, why isn't he already paying extra taxes and setting the example? I am not suggesting that we should be paying more taxes, I am suggesting that the Obama's and anyone else who believes in these actions, should be voluntarily doing what they believe should be forced on the rest of us.

I have no idea what this even means.

Doing what . . today? Set an example . . how? Voluntarily doing . . . what?

What are they not doing that is going to be forced on us?

Elphaba

[MrsAri]

On his official website, Obama's address on health care clears up several misconceptions, one of them you might be interested in:

"And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions..."

Organizing for America | OFA Blog: The President's Remarks to a Joint Session of Congress: "Stability and security for all Americans"

Another lie...yep, he's a liar!

[Guest Godless]

Another lie...yep, he's a liar!

Can you prove that it's a lie without citing a pro-life source?

[MrsAri]

Can you prove that it's a lie without citing a pro-life source?

Can you prove that it's not a lie citing a pro-abortion source?

[Guest Godless]

Can you prove that it's not a lie citing a pro-abortion source?

You're the one making a claim that he's lying. You need to back it up with something. And no, I would never quote a pro-choice source.

[MrsAri]

You're the one making a claim that he's lying. You need to back it up with something. And no, I would never quote a pro-choice source.

We've been there and done this. Think Mexico City Policy.

And nope, I don't need to do anything...it's all out in the open...no conspiracy.

And Obama is a liar.

[annewandering]

grandma do you want anyone to take you seriously? you are not God so we dont just believe you because you say so. Obama has explained why his plan will not cost us in the end. In fact why it will save. So now you not only do not think he is right you think he is a liar. Well give us the reasons, other than that you are you and that you are against abortion. Those are not pertinent to the question.

[MrsAri]

grandma do you want anyone to take you seriously? you are not God so we dont just believe you because you say so. Obama has explained why his plan will not cost us in the end. In fact why it will save. So now you not only do not think he is right you think he is a liar. Well give us the reasons, other than that you are you and that you are against abortion. Those are not pertinent to the question.

Obama isn't God. And I don't believe his lies. And I've already discussed this issue. Hint: Mexico City Policy.

[annewandering]

Sooo you are saying if he lied once, and I am not saying he did, he lies about everything.

[MrsAri]

Sooo you are saying if he lied once, and I am not saying he did, he lies about everything.

No, that's what you said.

[annewandering]

Obama, oops Elphaba we really have no idea what they are getting at either. Other than that Obama is supposed to give away all his money for some reason.

[Gatorman]

Obama, oops Elphaba we really have no idea what they are getting at either. Other than that Obama is supposed to give away all his money for some reason.

Obama believes that the Government is better suited to use our money for...Not just healthcare, but many things. Ergo, to set the example, why is Obama not providing more of his income, voluntarily, to the government?

My objection is not to people getting health care. Or access to insurance. Or, whatever. My objection is to me being forced to pay for it for them. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need health care. It is to the Federal Government doing something else that is in excess of the powers granted unto them in the Constitution. I have said I am for some of the insurance reforms. I am absolutely for tort reform. I am absolutely for getting government influence out of the pricing structures and allowing the people to set the prices again, like in other businesses. So, please stop the discussion about us not wanting Bob, Mary, or Grandma Jo to get health care. I have not seen ANY of us ever say that.

[annewandering]

So how do you plan to have people in the situation I was in to get health care?

[FunkyTown]

Let's use this same argument for any government service and see if it sounds okay:

"I have never had my home invaded by a foreign power, so I don't think the government should raise taxes for the military. My objection is not to the military. Or access to the military, if we're ever invaded. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need a military."

"I believe every road should be a toll road, rather than taxes to upkeep those roads. My objection is not to people driving on a road, or people having access to a road. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need that road. I don't like having to spend money on roads that I might never even see."

"I have never voted, so I don't think the government should get paid. My objection is not to a government, or people having access to a government. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need a government."

The argument that you're using works within your circle of friends and family because they all agree with your stance. If anyone used that same argument for aspects of the government that you believe in, you would call it absurd. Your reasoning, in this case, is absurd: If anyone in the US said to you that you could certainly provide more funds to the government voluntarily to pay for the military, for instance, but that they didn't want to be forced in to it, you would most likely laugh.

It's just not a good argument to make, Gator.

Obama believes that the Government is better suited to use our money for...Not just healthcare, but many things. Ergo, to set the example, why is Obama not providing more of his income, voluntarily, to the government?

My objection is not to people getting health care. Or access to insurance. Or, whatever. My objection is to me being forced to pay for it for them. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need health care. It is to the Federal Government doing something else that is in excess of the powers granted unto them in the Constitution. I have said I am for some of the insurance reforms. I am absolutely for tort reform. I am absolutely for getting government influence out of the pricing structures and allowing the people to set the prices again, like in other businesses. So, please stop the discussion about us not wanting Bob, Mary, or Grandma Jo to get health care. I have not seen ANY of us ever say that.

[MrsAri]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorman

Obama believes that the Government is better suited to use our money for...Not just healthcare, but many things. Ergo, to set the example, why is Obama not providing more of his income, voluntarily, to the government?

My objection is not to people getting health care. Or access to insurance. Or, whatever. My objection is to me being forced to pay for it for them. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need health care. It is to the Federal Government doing something else that is in excess of the powers granted unto them in the Constitution. I have said I am for some of the insurance reforms. I am absolutely for tort reform. I am absolutely for getting government influence out of the pricing structures and allowing the people to set the prices again, like in other businesses. So, please stop the discussion about us not wanting Bob, Mary, or Grandma Jo to get health care. I have not seen ANY of us ever say that.

__________________

This makes perfect sense to me.

[FunkyTown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorman

Obama believes that the Government is better suited to use our money for...Not just healthcare, but many things. Ergo, to set the example, why is Obama not providing more of his income, voluntarily, to the government?

My objection is not to people getting health care. Or access to insurance. Or, whatever. My objection is to me being forced to pay for it for them. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need health care. It is to the Federal Government doing something else that is in excess of the powers granted unto them in the Constitution. I have said I am for some of the insurance reforms. I am absolutely for tort reform. I am absolutely for getting government influence out of the pricing structures and allowing the people to set the prices again, like in other businesses. So, please stop the discussion about us not wanting Bob, Mary, or Grandma Jo to get health care. I have not seen ANY of us ever say that.

__________________

This makes perfect sense to me.

That's because you agree with him and don't want it. Do you think people should be able to opt out of paying for police or the military?

[Gatorman]

Let's use this same argument for any government service and see if it sounds okay:

"I have never had my home invaded by a foreign power, so I don't think the government should raise taxes for the military. My objection is not to the military. Or access to the military, if we're ever invaded. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need a military."

Except, the Constitution specifically grants them that authority. So, we did reassign that authority to the Federal Government.

"I believe every road should be a toll road, rather than taxes to upkeep those roads. My objection is not to people driving on a road, or people having access to a road. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need that road. I don't like having to spend money on roads that I might never even see."

Well, the Federal Government should only be funding interstate commerce cooridors, not state or local highways. And, the Federal Government should only be taxing us based on those roads. Further, excise and usage taxes ARE Constitutional.

"I have never voted, so I don't think the government should get paid. My objection is not to a government, or people having access to a government. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need a government."

Except, we did create the government in the Constitution. Now, if we could just reign in their pay so it was not a cushy job people wanted. Make it a true sacrifice to serve, like it was supposed to be.

The argument that you're using works within your circle of friends and family because they all agree with your stance. If anyone used that same argument for aspects of the government that you believe in, you would call it absurd. Your reasoning, in this case, is absurd: If anyone in the US said to you that you could certainly provide more funds to the government voluntarily to pay for the military, for instance, but that they didn't want to be forced in to it, you would most likely laugh.

It's just not a good argument to make, Gator.

Again, please show me where in the Constitution we specifically laid out the authority for the Federal Government to provide health care or health insurance for all people in the land?

And, yes, if I believed we should be spending more on our military and that our government was doing efficiently with the money it already has, I would consider putting more in. However, I have already pointed out that military is Constitutional authorized and, in fact, mandated. So, that really isn't a fair argument. Through our Constitution, we agreed to have our government levy tarrifs, duties, and taxes to raise and maintain an army. We have the power to raise a common defense between neighbors, etc. So, we can assign that authority to the government. But, do we have a right to walk into our neighbors house and take money from him, whether he wants to give it or not, to pay for another neighbors health care? If I don't have that ability without committing a crime, I can not assign that authority to the Federal Government. The Federal Government's power is not some creation of nothing. It is nothing more than the people, by contract, agreeing to allow the government to act as their agent, to excercise authority and power the people already have. If the people don't have it, they can't reassign it.