The Pending Doom of Obamacare

[stcalixtus]

TropIKA: Malaria death rates still high but there is progress to report must I go on! all they need are mosquito nets and simple drugs. these are only malaria stats..millions more die from dysentary ECT.

[Dravin]

you are heartless to not care about others in Africa

And you gathered this from her statement that all lives are precious? Impressive.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Dravin

[Saldrin]

it is a fact that millions die from lack of basic health care, that is a flat fact that IS well documented

No its not. If it is you can put up your link to show proof and start being respectful instead of getting diarrhea of the keyboard.

and you are heartless to not care about others in Africa,Haiti ECT.YOU! have made a decision to ignore their plight..you are heartless:eek: need I round up the proof for you?the statistics?

Who are you to call call someone heartless. Before you point out the sliver in someone else eye maybe you should take the two x four out of yours. If you had proof and stats it would be no problem, but the fact that your argument is biased on a false premise you degrade to ad homonym attacks, mindless name calling.

I help those truly in need in other nations..how about you?

How did you help them by calling people names because they don't want government stealing from them?

let us redistribute the healthcare to all on a fair basis..that is the Christian way,

Health care is a product not a right. the Christan way is for us individually to help people, not theft by government or as it was called redistribute...

to call out the greedy who profit from healtcare and those that choose to ignore our fellow man in far away places.

to call out the greedy who take that profit that they use to come up with new cures to help those people you think you help by calling people names?

Please, we are not talking about the Nazis here:huh: guess your OK with the neonatalogist who makes a million a year and passes it on the government..and eventually the taxpayer, or the oncologist who makes that much and more.. or the pharmaceutical company pigs, wow they are incredible.

there is nothing wrong with someone making money whats wrong is someone saying they care so much they want to steal someone else's substance to redistribute it. If you really believe what you say and want to help go sell all your stuff and give the cash away. redistribute your wealth first.

get your facts together before you preach to me.

how can you know what facts are when all you spout is propaganda? Edited February 4, 2011 by Saldrin
Proof reading

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

it is a fact that millions die from lack of basic health care, that is a flat fact that IS well documented and you are heartless to not care about others in Africa,Haiti ECT.YOU! have made a decision to ignore their plight..you are heartless:eek: need I round up the proof for you?the statistics? I help those truly in need in other nations..how about you? let us redistribute the healthcare to all on a fair basis..that is the Christian way, to call out the greedy who profit from healtcare and those that choose to ignore our fellow man in far away places.Please, we are not talking about the Nazis here:huh: guess your OK with the neonatalogist who makes a million a year and passes it on the government..and eventually the taxpayer, or the oncologist who makes that much and more.. or the pharmaceutical company pigs, wow they are incredible. get your facts together before you preach to me.

Stcalixtus,

As a fellow Catholic, I would remind you that we are guests on this board. Civility is called for, not the drawing of battle lines; especially since you are representing the holy faith with me. Please take it easy here. These are good people with good hearts which you'll see if you give them a chance.

In the Sacred Heart of Christ

[pam]

it is a fact that millions die from lack of basic health care, that is a flat fact that IS well documented and you are heartless to not care about others in Africa,Haiti ECT.YOU! have made a decision to ignore their plight..you are heartless:eek: need I round up the proof for you?the statistics? I help those truly in need in other nations..how about you? let us redistribute the healthcare to all on a fair basis..that is the Christian way, to call out the greedy who profit from healtcare and those that choose to ignore our fellow man in far away places.Please, we are not talking about the Nazis here:huh: guess your OK with the neonatalogist who makes a million a year and passes it on the government..and eventually the taxpayer, or the oncologist who makes that much and more.. or the pharmaceutical company pigs, wow they are incredible. get your facts together before you preach to me.

How DARE you presume to know me and what I care about and don't care about. You get YOUR facts together before you publically chastise me in a chatroom. I never once said you were heartless but it didn't bother you one bit to call me names at all.

I called the scenarios you described as heartless. You stated I have ignored the plight of others. How in the heck do you know that?

So before you go spouting off your mouth how heartless I am...look at yourself and how you speak to people you know nothing about.

Edited February 4, 2011 by pam

[FunkyTown]

In no universe is this true. In fact, there is a thriving industry of referral businesses that coordinate health services in American border towns to the Canadians who cannot get these services in Canada. These same referral businesses have been urging us not to cast away the very system that has made our health care second to none.

Actually, in Canada it was a major source of contention that medicines that are much less expensive in Canada were being bought by many Americans swarming over and putting strain on the system, causing drug shortages.

I should also point out that medical tourism to Cuba is fairly high.

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cuba isn't exactly the high watermark of a die-hard free market.

The US has access to a lot of high technology in their hospitals, that much is true. It's also true that keeping those items high priced means that people will tend to lose out on things like early detection unless they're wealthy, which means that deaths will necessarily result from that. Would you agree that in the UK, where all I had to do was go talk about digestion problems and they had me tested for colon cancer, I have a better chance of early detection than I would have if I couldn't afford to go in for testing or that would have been a huge burden on me?

Now, on to being solutions oriented.

From what Conservatives state, the per-capita spending on Medicare works out to be about $6000. In the UK, the per capita spending works out to be about $2300. This fits in with the following:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=5&ind=596

If this is the case, then taxes are already going to provide a service that's actually far worse all around for those who need it for more than twice the cost.

If the numbers being reported by the Right are accurate, and I have no doubts they are, I don't understand why there isn't someone on the Right who says "Look. I'm not against providing health care for everybody, that's what the people voted for, but I'm not about to allow what is obviously gross incompetence and criminal negligence crush our national budget. I'm offering a plan now that eliminates Medicare effective immediately and implementing a simplified and streamlined two-tier system: Public clinics for those who need them and private clinics for those who don't want them. Doing this allows the development of new technologies, provides the health care the majority of Americans voted for and offers it at half the cost to the tax payer while providing a much higher quality than that offered by President Obama's stopgap measure."

Heck - Would you get angry if someone said 'Yeah. Medicare is an albatross. We're eliminating it and creating what we should have before. And we're implementing a bi-annual review of process with a group to make sure that this gross negligence never happens again. And we're cutting out a trillion dollar albatross with something that costs less than half of what it did before, so we're going to cut taxes a little and still have enough to put towards paying off the stimulus package. I believe in responsible government.'

I've looked at the numbers, SMDT. The painfully obvious question of why they don't strip it all to the start isn't being asked by either party. I don't know why and can't guess, but instead of slamming Obama's healthcare plan(Which certainly doesn't address the bloated nature of US public health care), wouldn't you be far better in offering an alternative solution and/or pushing a candidate who is willing to? I'm fairly certain such a man would be elected on both sides. Everyone wants to hear 'You can get more for less.' and, fortunately, in this case other countries have proven that's a possibility.

[Guest]

Actually, in Canada it was a major source of contention that medicines that are much less expensive in Canada were being bought by many Americans swarming over and putting strain on the system, causing drug shortages.

I should also point out that medical tourism to Cuba is fairly high.

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cuba isn't exactly the high watermark of a die-hard free market.

The US has access to a lot of high technology in their hospitals, that much is true. It's also true that keeping those items high priced means that people will tend to lose out on things like early detection unless they're wealthy, which means that deaths will necessarily result from that. Would you agree that in the UK, where all I had to do was go talk about digestion problems and they had me tested for colon cancer, I have a better chance of early detection than I would have if I couldn't afford to go in for testing or that would have been a huge burden on me?

Now, on to being solutions oriented.

From what Conservatives state, the per-capita spending on Medicare works out to be about $6000. In the UK, the per capita spending works out to be about $2300. This fits in with the following:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=5&ind=596

If this is the case, then taxes are already going to provide a service that's actually far worse all around for those who need it for more than twice the cost.

If the numbers being reported by the Right are accurate, and I have no doubts they are, I don't understand why there isn't someone on the Right who says "Look. I'm not against providing health care for everybody, that's what the people voted for, but I'm not about to allow what is obviously gross incompetence and criminal negligence crush our national budget. I'm offering a plan now that eliminates Medicare effective immediately and implementing a simplified and streamlined two-tier system: Public clinics for those who need them and private clinics for those who don't want them. Doing this allows the development of new technologies, provides the health care the majority of Americans voted for and offers it at half the cost to the tax payer while providing a much higher quality than that offered by President Obama's stopgap measure."

Heck - Would you get angry if someone said 'Yeah. Medicare is an albatross. We're eliminating it and creating what we should have before. And we're implementing a bi-annual review of process with a group to make sure that this gross negligence never happens again. And we're cutting out a trillion dollar albatross with something that costs less than half of what it did before, so we're going to cut taxes a little and still have enough to put towards paying off the stimulus package. I believe in responsible government.'

I've looked at the numbers, SMDT. The painfully obvious question of why they don't strip it all to the start isn't being asked by either party. I don't know why and can't guess, but instead of slamming Obama's healthcare plan(Which certainly doesn't address the bloated nature of US public health care), wouldn't you be far better in offering an alternative solution and/or pushing a candidate who is willing to? I'm fairly certain such a man would be elected on both sides. Everyone wants to hear 'You can get more for less.' and, fortunately, in this case other countries have proven that's a possibility.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

The inflated cost burden of healthcare in the US is contributed by 2 factors:

1.) Research and Development - patent protection

2.) Medical Liability - doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine.

There's nothing much you can do about the the 1st one. A lot of noise is being made by the 2nd one - but, let's face it, quite a number of people in Congress are a bunch of lawyers.

Until you solve those 2 problems, any solution is not going to work.

[FunkyTown]

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

The inflated cost burden of healthcare in the US is contributed by 2 factors:

1.) Research and Development - patent protection

2.) Medical Liability - doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine.

There's nothing much you can do about the the 1st one. A lot of noise is being made by the 2nd one - but, let's face it, quite a number of people in Congress are a bunch of lawyers.

Until you solve those 2 problems, any solution is not going to work.

So the reason nobody's talking about the elephant in the room is because the solution is too hard? That's more a reason to not support any existing party. As someone who strongly thinks a forced two-party system is undemocratic and doesn't serve the people, however, I may be a tad biased.

[Guest]

So the reason nobody's talking about the elephant in the room is because the solution is too hard? That's more a reason to not support any existing party. As someone who strongly thinks a forced two-party system is undemocratic and doesn't serve the people, however, I may be a tad biased.

The solution is hard but not too hard. The solution just affects too many of the people that are responsible for drafting the solution... and the culture has become such that now it will gain resistance with the people as well.

So yes, technically, there is a more-than-a-two-party-system... so, if the people are strong enough, they can dump both. But, FT, we both know American youth are not known much for their activism.

You know, for all of Romney's faults - I really liked his vision of "changing the culture"...

[Sali]

Just curious as to why my post seems to have been totally overlooked?

[Guest]

I agree that American health care is good, I really do. I have been treated in hospital here, treated well and there are more luxuries than in the UK.

I was born and brought up in the UK and it's really not as bad as the commercials on American TV want to make it out to be. It's saved a few of my family's lives as well as my own. I got very good treatment and so did my family. It's nice to be able to take a sick child to the doctor without having to worry about where the money is going to come from.

The problem I have atm is that my husband is unemployed. He and my children are covered by medicaid. I'm not so lucky. I'm a LEGAL immigrant and am not entitled to medicaid so I am left with no coverage whatsoever! How is this a problem? I need to see a specialist, yet not one will see me without paying a couple of hundred dollars upfront, which I don't have. My husband has paid American taxes for years. I am the mother and wife of American Citizens, but no medical treatment for me, unless it is life or death. So I stay living in pain. This is where this system lets people down.

Okay, Sali, I will reply...

The thing with America is that the system is designed so that people hold responsibility for their own lives. It comes with the freedoms it provides. For a free people to live free - they must be self-sufficient. Because, we all know, that the moment you put somebody else in charge of some iota of your life - they can control it. For example - if you let a bank pay for your car, you lose the freedom of "ownership", so much so, that if you don't pay the bank, the bank will take your car away from you. Therefore, Americans are expected (at least in the vision of the forefathers) to be self-sufficient using the ideals of government protection of personal property.

Therefore, to put it bluntly - your inability to prepare for the future and save $200 for your healthcare should really not be an excuse to take that $200 from somebody else's personal property. Make sense?

The taxes you paid was not intended for your health - it was intended for other stuff that is presented at the annual state and federal budget declarations - all the items in that budget are public information available for you to review so that if you don't agree with it, you can tell/write your senator/congressman to work on changing it - or, if your senator/congressman doesn't listen to you, you can vote a different senator/congressman. That's how the system is designed.

As it stands, your taxes pays for things like the public school, post office, amtrak, military, nasa, interstate roads, welfare, hud housing, etc. etc. etc... It doesn't pay your $200 to see a specialist.

There are several programs that your taxes do pay for in regards to your health - the Health Savings Account is one of them. It works like this - if you put your income into a health savings account (money in the bank that you can only withdraw to pay for health services - like your $200 for the specialist), you won't have to pay federal taxes on that income. There are other programs like that - but it all requires that you are first and foremost responsible for your own healthcare.

The reason why this system is in place in the USA is that - it gives you the freedom to be as healthy or unhealthy as you desire. The minute you let the government provide for the care of your health in exchange for your taxes, then you give them the power to control how you take care of your health. For example - if the government is paying for diabetes treatment, it can then put into law that "for the common good", it is now against the law to eat more than one slice of cake per day... or whatever. We don't want that. Or, at least, I don't want that. Because, I see all these unhealthy kids running around eating sugar cereals every morning and I don't agree with that. But at the same time, I don't want to dictate to their parents the wisdom of proper nutrition.

So, in summary... the system did not let you down. You let yourself down first.

And I'm completely ready to take the rotten tomatoes in the face for being "heartless" in saying that people need to save money for their healthcare before they spend it on things like... internet/tv/cellphones/car...

Edited February 4, 2011 by anatess

[dash77]

I do not have the time resources to respond back to every single comment by the differing people who oppose my thinking. So, I will simply make a few sweeping comments.

First, I will continue debating this issue when someone can go into the link below and share with me the flaws. This is not a mere opinion or something from Wikipedia (although Wikipedia does have its place) – it’s a true academic journal article. It is from the Open Medicine journal – which is an independent, international general medical journal that is peer review.

The link below is an extensive study that systematically reviewed 38 studies in a comparison manner between Canada and the United States. The universal care system in Canada (what Republications call the socialist system) was equal to American health care and in some cases, quite superior. The difference is no one is denied in Canada. See the link below.

A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array

Second, the thought that the free market system is always more effective and efficient than government is not true. In some places, free market can be better, in others it can be worse. If anyone is paying attention we just had the government bailout numerous private market agencies because of poor decisions and the greedy personalities that come when millions of dollars are on the line. Government saved free market! The study above clearly outlines that government run health care is equal or better than the United States and it denies no one and is cheaper because Canadian health care does not have to pay million on advertising to compete with other organizations. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, past editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, drug companies pay about 50% of their overall budget on advertisement. If they stopped competing, drugs would cost about 50% less than they do now.

Third, I have a personal value that health care should be given to all people – I think it’s the Christ-like thing to do. Would the Savior deny cancer treatment to someone who had a smoking addiction and send them off to die? Should we pass off our public and social responsibility for mega for-profit corporations? I have no problem with someone – a car salesperson – who makes profit on selling a care. But making a profit on someone dying – denying treatment to make millions of dollars – does not sound like something the Savior would support, so I do not either. Maybe some of you have a personal relationship with a Savior who would deny treatment to someone quite sick and ill to make money, but that is not the Savior I know and I have no problems paying higher taxes so that that people who suffer have remedy – even if that person suffering brought on the illness themselves.

[Sali]

Ok Anatess, I feel that you have judged me very harshly.

The reality is, people have hard times. I don't have a couple of hundred dollars, because I have to live from hand to mouth at the moment to feed my family. Hard times tend to sap every penny you may have put aside for future catastrophies. I could list many other reasons as to why I don't have the money but it's not really relevant, because with the attitude that you are talking about I still should be able to provide for myself, even though that's pretty much impossible atm.

I really am not of the opinion that the Government should pay for my healthcare, but I would hope that being human people have compassion that people do hit hard times and do need help.

I kind of look at it as far as food storage goes. I hope that if the time comes, I don't judge people who because of hard times have had to dig into the food storage and don't quite have enough. I hope I have enough compassion to understand their hard times and share what I have with them, without lecturing them on how they should be self reliant, even when their circumstances do not allow it.

Sorry the principles you talk about sound great in principle, but in practice, lack compassion IMO.

[Guest]

Ok Anatess, I feel that you have judged me very harshly.

The reality is, people have hard times. I don't have a couple of hundred dollars, because I have to live from hand to mouth at the moment to feed my family. Hard times tend to sap every penny you may have put aside for future catastrophies. I could list many other reasons as to why I don't have the money but it's not really relevant, because with the attitude that you are talking about I still should be able to provide for myself, even though that's pretty much impossible atm.

I really am not of the opinion that the Government should pay for my healthcare, but I would hope that being human people have compassion that people do hit hard times and do need help.

I kind of look at it as far as food storage goes. I hope that if the time comes, I don't judge people who because of hard times have had to dig into the food storage and don't quite have enough. I hope I have enough compassion to understand their hard times and share what I have with them, without lecturing them on how they should be self reliant, even when their circumstances do not allow it.

Sorry the principles you talk about sound great in principle, but in practice, lack compassion IMO.

Sali... you have judged ME very harshly. And this is what always happen. If I don't agree that the government should take BY LAW somebody else's personal property to pay for somebody else's healthcare you see me heartless and without compassion.

Sali, I really don't care what got you to that point that you don't have $200 to get rid of pain. The point I'm making is that - if you come to my door I will give you $200 to pay for your specialist. Heck, I'll probably give you $2,000 if I have it. But, I do not want to give the GOVERNMENT TWO CENTS to pay for your specialist. You get me?

[Guest]

Third, I have a personal value that health care should be given to all people – I think it’s the Christ-like thing to do. Would the Savior deny cancer treatment to someone who had a smoking addiction and send them off to die?

BALDERDASH!

DID JESUS CHRIST SAY GIVE TO CESAR ALL THE MONEY SO ALL THE POOR CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF??? NO. Not a single time.

Just because I don't want the GOVERNMENT to handle healthcare doesn't mean I want to deny cancer treatment to anyone and send them off to die.

I'm sick of this idiot argument. And it kills me that the gospel of Jesus Christ is sullied in such a manner. It's no better than spitting on the Scriptures you hold dear!

[Sali]

I do understand you and yes I do get you. All I am saying is that there has to be a provision in the Government to allow for people that are needy and there is, hence Medicaid etc. But where my problem comes in is that because I am a legal immigrant I am not entitled to it even though I live here and live the same life as any other regular American. If my family wasn't in such hardship and my husband found employment then we would be able to purchase insurance for myself, but as for now that is not possible. And I just cannot but feel that in humanities sake that is not good.

I don't agree with Obama's healthcare proposal. It's wrong on many counts and is targeting the wrong people. I'm not exactly sure that I agree with socialised medicine either. But I do feel that healthcare should be accessible to all, albeit, medicaid, medicare, insurance etc as it's a basic human need. And in my position right now, there is no accessibility for me.

Slightly off topic here, shouldn't the same be true for the elderly who are on medicare and Social Security. From the ideals that were written before, shouldn't they be responsible for their own medical needs and day to day living expenses? What is the difference?

Anatess, I wasn't saying you were heartless or incompassionate, I was talking about the principles and ideals you were putting across as far as how America works. Sorry if it appeared that I was aiming that at you. :)

[Guest]

I do understand you and yes I do get you. All I am saying is that there has to be a provision in the Government to allow for people that are needy and there is, hence Medicaid etc. But where my problem comes in is that because I am a legal immigrant I am not entitled to it even though I live here and live the same life as any other regular American. If my family wasn't in such hardship and my husband found employment then we would be able to purchase insurance for myself, but as for now that is not possible. And I just cannot but feel that in humanities sake that is not good.

I don't agree with Obama's healthcare proposal. It's wrong on many counts and is targeting the wrong people. I'm not exactly sure that I agree with socialised medicine either. But I do feel that healthcare should be accessible to all, albeit, medicaid, medicare, insurance etc as it's a basic human need. And in my position right now, there is no accessibility for me.

Slightly off topic here, shouldn't the same be true for the elderly who are on medicare and Social Security. From the ideals that were written before, shouldn't they be responsible for their own medical needs and day to day living expenses? What is the difference?

Anatess, I wasn't saying you were heartless or incompassionate, I was talking about the principles and ideals you were putting across as far as how America works. Sorry if it appeared that I was aiming that at you. :)

No, it's not heartless nor incompassionate - I already gave you the reason for the principle - freedom from government mandate of everyday life and seizure of private property.

And I am a resident alien as well. To gain that entry visa, I had to file an Affidavit of Support that names the person responsible for my care if something happens that I cannot support myself. That person (my uncle) had to prove that he has the financial means to support me before my visa can be approved. When I got married 6 years after I moved to the USA, my husband (an American citizen) took over the Affidavit. I am not an American citizen until today even if my husband and my children are. Therefore, if anything happens to me, my husband will remain responsible for my care - not the government. I am not eligible for any welfare programs of any kind. That's how the system works. It is designed so that people migrating to the States will not bring down the system.

And that's part of the problem of illegal immigration.

[Guest]

Slightly off topic here, shouldn't the same be true for the elderly who are on medicare and Social Security. From the ideals that were written before, shouldn't they be responsible for their own medical needs and day to day living expenses? What is the difference?

No difference.

Except that Social Security was instituted as a pension program. That is, old people receive what they give into the system plus the gains of the money. The corruption of Social Security makes it the big behemoth that it is now.

And that should give everybody pause in trying to let government handle healthcare. But, unfortunately, a lot of people don't see that.

[dash77]

Sali:

I am sorry I overlooked your past posts. I am empathize with you. It’s too bad that there are so many so-called Christians who can preach about personal responsibility, but can’t seem to act personally responsible in order to help the downtrodden. . People like Anatess, are rooted in a personal responsibility paradigm and can’t seem to link how personal responsibility can extend to social responsibility in literally helping those people who are good people, but have fallen on hard times (these are the so-called friends of Job in the Bible). They like to classify people into oversimplified categories – those who do not have medical insurance are all “bad” and “lazy” people (e.g., they can’t plan ahead) and it’s a sign that God has forsaken them and those people who have made it from rages to riches– like Benjamin Franklin – these are good people that God blesses.

The health care issue represents life – it’s a complicated issues that requires complicated and sophisticated thinking. In the end, I can’t see the Savior harping on a person because they did not “plan ahead” enough – even when people make honest human errors and even when people create their own problems, the Savior tries to help.

[Saldrin]

No difference.

Except that Social Security was instituted as a pension program. That is, old people receive what they give into the system plus the gains of the money. The corruption of Social Security makes it the big behemoth that it is now.

And that should give everybody pause in trying to let government handle healthcare. But, unfortunately, a lot of people don't see that.

The idea behind social security is that behind every retired person there are ten people to support the pay out, now there is like two people per retired person which part of the reason it is going insolvent. Also during a hearing of the supreme court, it was stated that social security is a general tax on the population, and it was only called insurance or a safety net to sell it to the people...

check it out.

[Saldrin]

Sali:

I am sorry I overlooked your past posts. I am empathize with you. It’s too bad that there are so many so-called Christians who can preach about personal responsibility, but can’t seem to act personally responsible in order to help the downtrodden. . People like Anatess, are rooted in a personal responsibility paradigm and can’t seem to link how personal responsibility can extend to social responsibility in literally helping those people who are good people, but have fallen on hard times (these are the so-called friends of Job in the Bible). They like to classify people into oversimplified categories – those who do not have medical insurance are all “bad” and “lazy” people (e.g., they can’t plan ahead) and it’s a sign that God has forsaken them and those people who have made it from rages to riches– like Benjamin Franklin – these are good people that God blesses.

The health care issue represents life – it’s a complicated issues that requires complicated and sophisticated thinking. In the end, I can’t see the Savior harping on a person because they did not “plan ahead” enough – even when people make honest human errors and even when people create their own problems, the Savior tries to help.

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

[Dravin]

People like Anatess, are rooted in a personal responsibility paradigm and can’t seem to link how personal responsibility can extend to social responsibility in literally helping those people who are good people, but have fallen on hard times (these are the so-called friends of Job in the Bible).

Actually Anatess spoke explicitly about rendering aid just not through the government. I'm getting a sense, but want to be perfectly clear, but you seem to imply that only through the advent of government redistribution of resources can social good come about. Which ignores that private redistribution can and does happen (look at the Church).

I can understand arguments about practicality but the position, "I'd rather give you $200 then give the government $200 dollars to then give to you (presumably with some used for administration costs)", doesn't fall under the rubric of un-Christlike.

[Sali]

And I am a resident alien as well. To gain that entry visa, I had to file an Affidavit of Support that names the person responsible for my care if something happens that I cannot support myself. That person (my uncle) had to prove that he has the financial means to support me before my visa can be approved. When I got married 6 years after I moved to the USA, my husband (an American citizen) took over the Affidavit. I am not an American citizen until today even if my husband and my children are. Therefore, if anything happens to me, my husband will remain responsible for my care - not the government. I am not eligible for any welfare programs of any kind. That's how the system works. It is designed so that people migrating to the States will not bring down the system.

.

So what happens if you hit hard times and your husband can no longer take care of you. What if you are not able to work, hit a recession like now, husband loses his job and health insurance and you spend all of your savings supporting yourself during this time, what will you do if you get sick and need to see a doctor? It's a reality that can happen to anyone, no matter how well they have prepared. And that is why I think the principle looks great on paper, but in reality lets a certain bracket of people down, (American Citizens included).

As far as being designed so that people migrating to the States will not bring down the system, well instead of the Government taking the costs of this, the hospitals suffer. As many immigrants and citizens alike use the ER for small complaints, because they can't afford a doctor and walk away leaving others hospital, doctor and insurance bills to rocket to cover the costs of them not paying.

[dash77]

Dravin:

Yes, in regard to health care I am argueing that government redistrubution of sources seems to be a more effective manner for public good than a free market model. The study with the link I provided provides academic and statistical evidence for this postion. Further, being that the comparision between American insured and Canadain insured is not even fair -- 20% of American's are not insured and are usually taken out of sample in compaision statistics, it further underscores that the Canada model of universal health care is superior to the American model of free market.

[dash77]

Sali:

In regard to your last post, when people do not have insurance in the United States (the Christain nation) and get sick, the collective will is to literally have them suffer and die because more profit can be gained this way rather than help.