Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Ragoczy]

Health care isn't a natural resource floating around accessible to everyone -- it's not air, water, whatever. In order for someone to be provided health care, someone else has to do something -- there's a cost involved in that, either the time of the health care provider or money to compensate for that time.

The problem with "universal" health care is that people don't make that connection or understand the implication. It means the police-power of government, the government's unique power of acceptable lethal force, must be used to take from one citizen and give to another -- either by forcing the health-care provider to use his/her time or to take money from someone else to compensate.

I think I'm a generous person. My family gives quite a bit to charity -- more than Joe Biden does, despite the fact that he makes tens of times more than I do. I might donate to someone who needed an operation they couldn't afford or to an organization that provides health care to those who don't have insurance and can't afford it -- but I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

[icey]

double post!

[icey]

it's always amazed me that the richest most powerful country in the world charges everyone for medical help even those that cant afford it!

I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

ok, i can appreciate what you're saying but and here's hoping it will never happen, you hit on hard times you have zilch and one of your loved ones or yourself needs treatment? perhaps serious and costly treatment, would you still have the same opinion?
and rather than argue that that would be different because you've previously always worked payed taxes etc therefore you've earned it...imagine you've been brought up in a life/world that never gave you any chance, born disabled or a million other things and you never had chance to earn a living pay taxes etc...then what? would you be less deserving simply because of circumstances? or would you be glad of that ''lethal government''
hell our nhs system may be under funded and might f**k up sometimes but if we didnt have it then my sister would have died when she was 11 and a few other people i know would either be dead or extremely ill (myself included lol) oh and yep my family have always worked and paid their taxes and ni!
im sorry but thats something i think the US does need to seriously think about and update.
at the risk of causing an uproar, im curious and this is a serious questionas i really dont know how the system works, do those who choose to join forces and fight in wars and get injured have to pay for their own medical care?? and please note i say those who CHOSE ...because i will be totally honest in my book it s sooo wrong and unjust if people CHOOSE to physically or mentally endanger themselves for a living and get paid pretty well for doing so get free healthcare in a system that doesnt normally work that way.

[bellelapine]

One of the massive problems that come from programs such as this is that people who are in true need are often the first ones denied such. It goes to those who never attempt to make out a living, who never try to scratch a way out of the gutter simply because they don't make any money nor ever have.
Case in point. My mother had a stroke last year. She has busted her ass for years (as has my father), paid her taxes and I had thought maybe paid her dues. She is disabled on her right side and has numerous other health issues now that prevent her from working. It took A YEAR for them to achieve any help whatsoever. And even then she had to take a psychiatric evaluation, a physical, a second opinion, a physical therapist's opinion, a 'work-ability' evaluation, ect. Now tell me why is it that programs that are put into place to help those in these dire situations get told things like "Oh I'm sorry your husband makes 1200 a month, your income is too high." Yet those who have never contributed a dime to society get handed money and a place to live (my parents were evicted the month after my Mother's stroke) because they opened their legs or because they were born in a bad area?
Why should my taxes go to people who depend on the altruistic beliefs of the populace when I can better put that money to those who get shafted? Or a savings account to prepare for my own illness or disability in the future?
If you're going to have programs to 'save the poor' why not have the programs be spread equally across the people who need it? Not tell them that I'm sorry Divorice your husband of 24 years and we'll talk. Not tell them, I'm sorry you're the wrong colour for assistance (My mom heard that one too).
This is very obviously a touchy subject to me.

[DuncanONeil]

Y'all do realize that the current plan of "Universal Health Care" is not really "Universal Health Care". It is more like "Universal Triage". An analysis will be made of the cost of the treatment versus the value of the patients remaining life expectancy.
One could claim that this is "Universal Kevorkian Care"

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Y'all do realize that the current plan of "Universal Health Care" is not really "Universal Health Care". It is more like "Universal Triage". An analysis will be made of the cost of the treatment versus the value of the patients remaining life expectancy.
One could claim that this is "Universal Kevorkian Care"

I'd like to research this some. Can you tell me where you found the information on triage-type analysis? I would appreciate it.

[Losalt]

Health care isn't a natural resource floating around accessible to everyone -- it's not air, water, whatever. In order for someone to be provided health care, someone else has to do something -- there's a cost involved in that, either the time of the health care provider or money to compensate for that time.

The problem with "universal" health care is that people don't make that connection or understand the implication. It means the police-power of government, the government's unique power of acceptable lethal force, must be used to take from one citizen and give to another -- either by forcing the health-care provider to use his/her time or to take money from someone else to compensate.

I think I'm a generous person. My family gives quite a bit to charity -- more than Joe Biden does, despite the fact that he makes tens of times more than I do. I might donate to someone who needed an operation they couldn't afford or to an organization that provides health care to those who don't have insurance and can't afford it -- but I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

No.
The need of that force is only required if people don't agree about the government providing for people, that is everyone agreeing on helping each other in a more vide sweeping way then the charities that can only handle fashion problems anyway..
If people don't agree to the governmental way of doing it it's unlikely that universal healthcare would get enough public support to be accepted as law in the first place.
What could be seen as strange from an european point of view is that the US choose to use more then half it's tax money on an army, instead of on it's own citizens in the form of a welfare state..
But again, that is your choice..
But I know one thing, I'd never want to actually live in your country for long enough to allow my own nations healthcare to stop apply to me, despite enjoying visiting the US..
(our national insurance only apply to a few american hospitals)

[steelish]

If people don't agree to the governmental way of doing it it's unlikely that universal healthcare would get enough public support to be accepted as law in the first place.

Therein lies the problem. Over 65% (a majority) of the American citizens are AGAINST the health care bill, yet our government is still moving forward with trying to pass it. They are not listening to their citizens. Even though, in America, the politicians WORK FOR US, they act as if we are not part of the equation.

What could be seen as strange from an european point of view is that the US choose to use more then half it's tax money on an army, instead of on it's own citizens in the form of a welfare state..
But again, that is your choice.

Because that is one of the roles of our government. Providing for it's citizens in the form of a service is NOT the role of our government. Europeans call it a welfare state, most Americans view is as a NANNY state. America was formed on a "can-do" attitude, not a "what can you do for me" attitude. It is not the role of our government to "take care of us" and be providers. When our government concentrated on it's role and allowed the free market to work, we became the strongest, richest nation on earth. But a nanny...oops, sorry, welfare state type of nation (Europe) is your choice to live in.

Think of it this way, if that healthcare bill passes, and Obama cuts spending to NASA, and cuts spending to our self defense, eventually America will no longer be able to run to the rescue during natural disasters and when other nations call for help.

But I know one thing, I'd never want to actually live in your country for long enough to allow my own nations healthcare to stop apply to me, despite enjoying visiting the US..
(our national insurance only apply to a few american hospitals)

Okey dokey!

[SadisticNature]

Because that is one of the roles of our government. Providing for it's citizens in the form of a service is NOT the role of our government. Europeans call it a welfare state, most Americans view is as a NANNY state. America was formed on a "can-do" attitude, not a "what can you do for me" attitude. It is not the role of our government to "take care of us" and be providers. When our government concentrated on it's role and allowed the free market to work, we became the strongest, richest nation on earth. But a nanny...oops, sorry, welfare state type of nation (Europe) is your choice to live in.

If this were actually the problem, it wouldn't be the 'welfare' state type of nations that are catching up to the US. What actually happened is there were this thing called World War II and during this event there were big planes called bombers, that dropped things called bombs on places called factories where stuff is made. Not only were lots and lots of people killed, but the European and Asian economies were ravaged. In America, the factories were untouched and most of the war casualties were soldiers rather than civilians. The labor force expanded and the economy was strong. As a result America was the dominant market force for the 50's,60's and 70's while the rest of the world rebuilt and recovered. Even in the 70's and 80's the rest of the world was catching up with many countries experiencing much faster GDP growth than the US. In the 90's it was much the same. Now, the economy is seeing the consequences of other countries growing their economies faster for a period of 40 years.

Also, during the heyday of the United States, the top tax bracket paid over 67% taxes, now that number is well under 50%. So if you believe that was the heyday of the free market you shouldn't accuse the government of market interference for trying to raise taxes on the rich.

[steelish]

If this were actually the problem, it wouldn't be the 'welfare' state type of nations that are catching up to the US. What actually happened is there were this thing called World War II and during this event there were big planes called bombers, that dropped things called bombs on places called factories where stuff is made. Not only were lots and lots of people killed, but the European and Asian economies were ravaged. In America, the factories were untouched and most of the war casualties were soldiers rather than civilians. The labor force expanded and the economy was strong. As a result America was the dominant market force for the 50's,60's and 70's while the rest of the world rebuilt and recovered. Even in the 70's and 80's the rest of the world was catching up with many countries experiencing much faster GDP growth than the US. In the 90's it was much the same. Now, the economy is seeing the consequences of other countries growing their economies faster for a period of 40 years.

Also, during the heyday of the United States, the top tax bracket paid over 67% taxes, now that number is well under 50%. So if you believe that was the heyday of the free market you shouldn't accuse the government of market interference for trying to raise taxes on the rich.

America's rise to world power began long before WWII!

As for your information on taxes, I would love to see your sources on those figures. Feel free to provide them.

As to a rebuttal, I will return at a later time for that. Right now I am so offended by the tone you took with me it is taking every bit of will power I possess not to take the same snide condescending tone with you. Good day to you.

[SadisticNature]

Please feel free to elaborate on when you feel America was a world power and support it with facts/arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

Note: Section 3.1 history of top US tax rates.

From 1932 to 1981 the tax rate was 67% or higher for the top bracket.

Likewise for 1917-1921.

The only periods with tax rates lower than present were:

Pre-1913 (no federal income taxes),1925-1931 and 1988-1992.

Before 1913 the US was not a major international power, and from 1925-1931 you see the fiscal policies that shaped the great depression in action.

In 1988-1992 you have a brief dip below present day rates, that lead to a soaring national deficit which was brought under control by Clinton before again spiraling out of control under Bush (and likely getting even worse under Obama).

[SadisticNature]

As for the tone some of your tones have been similarly offensive.

You take specific opinion positions and trumpet them as if anyone who disagrees you has no understanding of the world. I responded with that tone because I felt talked down to. I don't believe I initiated it.