Universal Health Care

[Thoth]

Again, another thread I just noticed. So, I'm going to go w/ random thoughts I had while reading this thread.

I have insurance as a safety net. Rarely do I use it & have to say I'm inspired by Denny forgoing it.

Examples of Gov't inefficiency; Post Office, IRS, Fannie Mae, & Freddie Mac. As Jefferson said, the government that governs best, governs least. As far as providing for the common good, the federal government should be IMO be there for big issues (National defense) & intrastate issues i.e the highways and resolving disputes.

Remember the 3 inalienable rights granted to us by our creator; Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself but the opportunity to chase it down.

I am against Gov't mandated health care. I heard that Massachusetts is slowly starting to hit the wall with their attempt @ UHC. Decouple it from business. Make it so individuals can get a the best plan (be it economic, coverage, etc...) from whatever carrier they can. Not only will this free up more money for business, it might even force the insurance cos to clean up their act.

I have no problem with those who can't get it on the free market getting a safety net/temporary assistance from the their state or local government but it would have to be as hard to get as welfare.

As far as paying for those who can't afford it, This is where a switch to a flat tax or national sales tax would come in to play. A lions share of the amount collected would go to the state and then there would be a little on top for the Feds. For example 28% (25 state + 3 federal) sales tax or 20% (17 state + 3% Federal)... the states would collect all and then distribute national amount to the Congressional Budget Office as the IRS would be abolished.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What opportunites are blocked by medical bills? If you truely make so little that you cant afford insurance, you can get medicaid, which will pay for your medical bills....in addition, all government affiliated hospitals, and there are tons of them, will not refuse stablizing care in the case of an emergency....</div>

People could pay for insurance (etc.), but the price is still ridiculous in various cases.

I'm not saying UHC is the end-all.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't at all suggest that people should forgo health insurance if they can afford it. Though I went without it and clearly the basic services were made cheaper for me, a catastrophic injury, even breaking a leg playing softball, is something I was pretty scared of.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 29 2008, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Again, another thread I just noticed. So, I'm going to go w/ random thoughts I had while reading this thread.

I have insurance as a safety net. Rarely do I use it & have to say I'm inspired by Denny forgoing it.

Examples of Gov't inefficiency; Post Office, IRS, Fannie Mae, & Freddie Mac. As Jefferson said, the government that governs best, governs least. As far as providing for the common good, the federal government should be IMO be there for big issues (National defense) & intrastate issues i.e the highways and resolving disputes.

Remember the 3 inalienable rights granted to us by our creator; Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself but the opportunity to chase it down.

I am against Gov't mandated health care. I heard that Massachusetts is slowly starting to hit the wall with their attempt @ UHC. Decouple it from business. Make it so individuals can get a the best plan (be it economic, coverage, etc...) from whatever carrier they can. Not only will this free up more money for business, it might even force the insurance cos to clean up their act.

I have no problem with those who can't get it on the free market getting a safety net/temporary assistance from the their state or local government but it would have to be as hard to get as welfare.

As far as paying for those who can't afford it, This is where a switch to a flat tax or national sales tax would come in to play. A lions share of the amount collected would go to the state and then there would be a little on top for the Feds. For example 28% (25 state + 3 federal) sales tax or 20% (17 state + 3% Federal)... the states would collect all and then distribute national amount to the Congressional Budget Office as the IRS would be abolished.</div>

Hmm, yeah I concur with you on this. The "as hard to get as welfare" is a good verbal flourish too.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't at all suggest that people should forgo health insurance if they can afford it. Though I went without it and clearly the basic services were made cheaper for me, a catastrophic injury, even breaking a leg playing softball, is something I was pretty scared of.</div>

I agree if you can afford it get it. But, mine is very minimal and tends to emphasis long term care and catastrophic events.

FWIW; I recently got my property tax bill. To me, the only value and cost effective services I get is the pittance that goes to the County Library system.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 29 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 29 2008, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Again, another thread I just noticed. So, I'm going to go w/ random thoughts I had while reading this thread.

I have insurance as a safety net. Rarely do I use it & have to say I'm inspired by Denny forgoing it.

Examples of Gov't inefficiency; Post Office, IRS, Fannie Mae, & Freddie Mac. As Jefferson said, the government that governs best, governs least. As far as providing for the common good, the federal government should be IMO be there for big issues (National defense) & intrastate issues i.e the highways and resolving disputes.

Remember the 3 inalienable rights granted to us by our creator; Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself but the opportunity to chase it down.

I am against Gov't mandated health care. I heard that Massachusetts is slowly starting to hit the wall with their attempt @ UHC. Decouple it from business. Make it so individuals can get a the best plan (be it economic, coverage, etc...) from whatever carrier they can. Not only will this free up more money for business, it might even force the insurance cos to clean up their act.

I have no problem with those who can't get it on the free market getting a safety net/temporary assistance from the their state or local government but it would have to be as hard to get as welfare.

As far as paying for those who can't afford it, This is where a switch to a flat tax or national sales tax would come in to play. A lions share of the amount collected would go to the state and then there would be a little on top for the Feds. For example 28% (25 state + 3 federal) sales tax or 20% (17 state + 3% Federal)... the states would collect all and then distribute national amount to the Congressional Budget Office as the IRS would be abolished.</div>

Hmm, yeah I concur with you on this. The "as hard to get as welfare" is a good verbal flourish too.
</div>

Anytime I get to quote Thomas Jefferson is a good thing. Further, the whole bit about inalienable rights is my favorite part.

 

[Hunter]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 29 2008, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as paying for those who can't afford it, This is where a switch to a flat tax or national sales tax would come in to play. A lions share of the amount collected would go to the state and then there would be a little on top for the Feds. For example 28% (25 state + 3 federal) sales tax or 20% (17 state + 3% Federal)... the states would collect all and then distribute national amount to the Congressional Budget Office as the IRS would be abolished.</div>


You see to me a national sales tax would ultimately hurt the poor more than the wealthy. A national sales tax would benefit those who could save money (middle class and wealthy) as they would only pay for what they spend. Having a national sales tax would hurt the poor and low income people considerably because they are not able to save money and would need to spend all the money they have to be able to live day-to-day.

 

[Denny Crane]

I prefer the original method of taxation in the constitution. The feds tax the states. Let the states figure out how to take our money.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hunter @ Jul 29 2008, 08:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You see to me a national sales tax would ultimately hurt the poor more than the wealthy. A national sales tax would benefit those who could save money (middle class and wealthy) as they would only pay for what they spend. Having a national sales tax would hurt the poor and low income people considerably because they are not able to save money and would need to spend all the money they have to be able to live day-to-day.</div>

I can see your point. Let me add the caveat that food is not taxed. Further, Luxury items (2nd home, fancy car, etc...) get a bigger surcharge.

I almost convinced an NST enourages savings but personally am more of a flat tax guy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ra_x8vBA5...1&ct=result

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 08:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I prefer the original method of taxation in the constitution. The feds tax the states. Let the states figure out how to take our money.</div>

I'm all for the most simple, practical, least bureaucratic method there is. But, I have issues w/ politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, accountants, lawyers, etc...

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Income tax is complete bullshit. They even apply it to lottery winnings!

 

[bbwchingy0007]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 30 2008, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 05:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was just wondering, why do you guys think that Universal Health Care is not the answer to health care problems in the USA. Yes, it is expensive, but surely it allows those who can't really afford private insurance to still get treatment for injuries. In the UK, yes, it is flawed but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have it. Anyone care to enlighten me?</div>

Has this discussion helped? I think it pretty well exemplifies the scope of the debate on the issue. Many people have a deep-rooted hatred and/or fear of the government and government run programs in the U.S., for better or worse, and would rather do things themselves. Many people also believe that the scope of government services should be limited to things like waging war and enforcing contracts.
</div>

It seems to me that what is really stopping it is the American Dream, or at least an interpretation of it. People seem to want to do things for themselves and it is that person's job to provide for them and their family. I don't really understand why you do not want Government-run services, but I accept that you don't.

Perhaps the problem is that the rich control the media and, indeed, the country. In the UK it is similar, but I think that the US might benefit from having more than two political parties, and hope to get people elected on what they stand for, rather than how much they can spend on their campaigns.

 

[TheBeef]

I support a national sales tax instead of an income tax....In my opinion, its just more fair to tax consumption than income....the more you consume, the more you pay....essentials would be excluded, luxary items would be more heavily taxed.....this system does reward those that save....it also elimanates the majority of the IRS, allows visitors to this country, like illegal aliens to assume their share of the tax burden, and assess taxes on money from illegal ventures, like drugs, that currently go untaxed....

 

[shookem]

UHC saved my life.
the access to specialists it granted me allowed me the oppurtunitiy to procreate.
at the time i needed it, i had to HI, no benefits provided by an employeer and was too old to use my parents.

i don't know what would have happened had i gotten sick in New York and not Toronto but i shudder to think.

is it cost effective? probably not.
does it have numerous flaws. you bet.
does it save lives? with out a doubt.