Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Saheli]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?

Why is it that the worth of a US citizen can be measured in dollars, but not in generosity or humanity?

No-one chooses to be poor or a burden on society (ok - a few exceptions, but the general assertion holds good), and it is callous in the extreme, to my way of thinking, to allow an unfortunate person to suffer more when is is within my power to help him.

My husband works two jobs; I have one job and go to college full-time...we have two children. We can't afford health insurance and can barely afford the basics: food, electricity, gas, etc. Forget going out to eat (unless it's a birthday or something when sometimes we get money from relatives) or buying something we would like...or going out on a date where *gasp* we might need an extra twenty bucks.

Even so, I am not sure where I stand on this issue. I do not believe anyone is inherently entitled to healthcare. But I know I sure could use it! If my husband paid for health insurance for our family, we would not be able to afford our bills...and we do not have nice things. I mean, we don't have a fancy car or a nice house. We buy the cheapest, best-quality stuff we can and scrape by..it's not like we buy expensive things and then complain about upkeep. For families like mine, it would help tremendously.

We had to put our children on Medicaid, and I'm thinking about applying for food stamps. I would LOVE to get another job. I would LOVE to afford what I need. But I have no extra time to do it! It's either work my job and go to school or quit school and get another job...but if I do that, I have to start paying back all my lovely student loans because obviously, I've had to take those out.

The most frustrating thing is that everyone around us thinks that we are just blowing our money. My mother in law constantly says, "It isn't that you don't make enough money, it's just that you spend too much." Yeah, on bills! There's nothing left after that. Seriously, we have $17 in our bank account right now; it's not like I'm crying poor with a couple hundred in there. Our income is barely more than our expenses.

You may not believe it, but it actually IS possible to be working as hard as you can and still be poor.

I don't know what the answer is: some say health-care reform, others say charity. But you know, those people who think charity is the way to go here's an idea...do some yourself! It has to start somewhere...why wait around for the other guy?

Truly, what I want more than help is a little validation. You know, someone to say every now and then, "Damn you guys are doing the best you can," rather than just assuming that if you live in America you automatically will make a decent living. It's offensive...much moreso than not having insurance.

[MMI]

I think it's incredible that an ordinary family with three incomes still has to struggle to make ends meet, and still feel the need to apply for social benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps. It seems to me that the poorer you are, the harder you have to work, just to stop going under.

When I was young, my wife and I had two incomes - both relatively low, but enough to get by on. Had we had to put a significant monthly payment aside to cover our medical needs, we would probably have elected not to do so. We would probably, as a consequence, have had to forego medical treatment, if the need ever arose. We would have made a critical choice for purely economic reasons.

And if we had needed medical treatment, we would have become a burden on society.

However, in the UK, an employee has deductions made from his salary/wages according to the size of his income. These deductions entitle that person to receive any medical attention he needs. OK, no-one likes paying taxes, but if it's a choice between paying a health care tax or an insurance premium, where's the difference?

The difference is that you can't opt out, and later become a freeloader.

(Now I've put it that way, I'm surprised there's so much right-wing resistance to the idea)

[steelish]

(Now I've put it that way, I'm surprised there's so much right-wing resistance to the idea)

It has nothing to do with right-wing/left-wing. I am slightly to the right of center on my views. It has to do with my belief that the health care bill is a trojan horse of sorts.

Progressives have been taking baby steps in changing America for years. Oliver Wendell Holmes (during his time as a Supreme Court Justice) wrote an opinion for the Court upholding Virginia's compulsory sterilization law in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), where he found no constitutional bar to state-ordered compulsory sterilization of an institutionalized, allegedly "feeble-minded" woman. Holmes wrote, "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... three generations of imbeciles are enough." While his detractors point to this case as an extreme example of his moral relativism, other legal observers argue that this was a consistent extension of his own version of strict utilitarianism, which weighed the morality of policies according to their overall measurable consequences in society and not according to their own normative worth. Needless to say, Holmes was admired by the Progressives of his day.

I've italicized and made bold the text that applies to my viewpoint. He used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing. He was trying to use that case to introduce PERMANENT sterilization. Who is to say that the health care bill won't open the door for Progressives to impose restrictions and/or penalties upon the public? They might not, but chances are very likely that SOMEONE will. The people in power today that are assuring us that this will not happen are not the same people that will be in power when our children and grandchildren are older.

Those who insist that this will not happen and pish-posh the naysayers, can you with 100% CERTAINTY, guarantee that it will not happen? If you can't, why are you taking a chance with the future?

[oww-that-hurt]

an employee has deductions made from his salary/wages according to the size of his income.

First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.

Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway? To quell any naysayers, we don't have high-speed internet, or cell phones, or smoke, or have fancy cars, or go to movies, or any of the other stuff folks think they need. We butcher our own meat, too. The $ just aren't there for over $1,000 per month for insurance. We can cover the $300 if push comes to shove, such as no longer donating 400-600 pounds of food to the food bank each year. I like the idea of health-care tax, based on income. We would have insurance and the food bank would get donations (dropped off 37.4 pounds today).

[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)

[MMI]

[Holmes] used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing.

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.

You have now!

Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway?

No clue ... unless he feels that, if everyone does buy insurance, he won't have to fine anybody. I guess that comes down to an economic calculation: which is cheaper, the fine plus any emergency health bills you might have to meet, or the insurance premium.

I think he's taking entirely the wrong approach. There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

[Losalt]

My personal view is that health care should be available to everybody - irrespective of whether they can afford to pay for it or not. Our Natioanl Health Service in the UK caters for that although, as fetishdj says, "Our NHS is beleagured and underfunded at the moment"

From another personal perspective, if I'd had to pay for the treatment and medications I've received over the last 2 year, I'd have gone up in smoke out of the crematorium chimney a year ago!!

The problem with the national healthcare is that it's funding don't tend to increase at the same rate as both the new possible forms of healthcare (new drugs and treatment methods and so one) arrive and the increase in population size at the same time.. (in the case of nations with diminishing populations it's a labour problem, the workforce increasing in value causing healthcare to cost rate becoming horrible..
Something I think would be sensible in the US is something along the line of the school system in my own country..
Here public schools dominate most of the education but it is legal with private schools, in the sense that they're not allowed to earn money and that they're provided about the same amount of founding as a public school would pr student, they can however cover some additional costs with money from the students (generally payed for by cheap student loans granted by the government).
This system allows some variety in education as people with a different life stance get the chance to run their own schools and so can people that don't believe in the way the public schools try to teach away things and think other ways of teaching away things would be better..
Something like that would probably work as well for the hospitals as for the schools..
Off course all of this require people to actually trust the government, something that the people of the US don't seam to do at the moment.. or am I wrong?

[Losalt]

Hum, I have several pages worth that I'd like to say, but looking at my previous posts and my current time (in this timezone) I think I better head for bed and come back later with more constructive comments..

[Thorne]

[INDENT]There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

But you aren't forcing your opinions on anyone. If someone here doesn't like your opinions they don't have to read them. After all, it's not like you can shout them down.

And it's not like your right, anyway.

[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!

[Stealth694]

Insurance is needed, but not so much to "take care of us", but to keep hospitals open, how many hospitals get ER admisions who cannot pay? But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them? Dead beats, homeless, unemployed, when people need medical help they don't worry about bills... A govt health insurance bill is more for the hospitals than the people.

[Thorne]

Insurance is needed, but not so much to "take care of us", but to keep hospitals open, how many hospitals get ER admisions who cannot pay? But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them? Dead beats, homeless, unemployed, when people need medical help they don't worry about bills... A govt health insurance bill is more for the hospitals than the people.

Perhaps, but the people still have to pay for it, whether they want it or not. It's basically forced charity donations. Or penalties for not donating to charity.

[steelish]

But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them?

St. Mary's school of Law?

Or do you mean to say the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal act passed by Congress in 1986.

[steelish]

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

I am? How so. Please explain.

[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.

[DuncanONeil]

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

[DuncanONeil]

Who determines guilt or innocence?

Good point. But then letting a case go to a jury pretty much means someone already decided that it was not frivolous!

[DuncanONeil]

All three of the proposals presented here by Steelish have been proposed in Congress. In fact when the current bills were wending their way through the halls of Congress they were offered as part of the package. And dismissed out of hand! One can only presume because they were from "those" people.

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

[steelish]

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.

Ah. So you feel I've treated you so stupidly that I felt the need to explain what a bomb or a plane was?

As to specific opinion positions...of course I do! So do you. I would expect that. I don't feel you have no understanding of the world. What I think is you have no understanding of how most Americans feel right now. You don't live here. As far as I know you didn't grow up American and move out of the States. Feel free to state your opinion. I feel free to state mine. I can disregard yours if I wish, just as you can disregard mine as you wish.

What I took offense to was the way you wrote directly to me as if I were 3 years old. I don't recall EVER doing that in a post to you. If I did, please point it out to me.

"and during this event there were big planes called bombers, that dropped things called bombs on places called factories where stuff is made"

I really don't recall ever taking that tone with you.

[Thorne]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

Waking up during surgery is definitely a complication. And individuals rarely decide to sue everyone. It's the lawyer who sues anyone involved, in the expectation that at least one of them will stick.

Personally, never having been in this position, I can only answer hypothetically, but I am aware that, due to variations in body chemistry, some anesthesia medications may not work as well on some people. I would certainly want to know why I woke up, if for no other reason than to make sure it couldn't happen again. But unless I was fairly sure of negligence I wouldn't feel right suing anyone. I don't feel that a lawsuit should be a quick way to a small fortune, especially in circumstances where no one did anything wrong.

[DuncanONeil]

Btw, how much do you suppose health care costs would go down by eliminating frivilous law suits, and how exactly, like Thorne said, would you go about getting rid of them?

I have wonder a bit about that. A quick look provided no quick answer. The statistics are all over the place, and do not always include hard numbers. Although I found a reported 60% of cases dropped but even that has a cost of $18,000 per case. 90% of cases that go to trial are in favor of the defendant with an average cost of $100,000.
"According to the American Medical Association, defensive medicine increases health systems costs by between $84 and $151 billion each year" An incomplete rendering of potential case is in excess of 1,000,000, that would come to about $47 billion per year. Plus the savings on "Defensive Medicine". Resulting in between $131 to $198 billion per year at the low end.

[DuncanONeil]

While looking for the stats on frivolous savings I saw a number that has the admin cost of lawsuits starting at 54%

It would be more likely to deter those whose claims are real, but who are worried about even the possibility of losing. In some cases, too, it's the attorney who convinces the client to file a suit, especially if he can collect a fee regardless of the outcome.

However, I think there should be some way to have the person being sued compensated for their costs if they win the case. Something along the lines of having the plaintiff's attorney, not the plaintiff himself, pay all court costs and defendants costs, without collecting any fees from the plaintiff. That might tend to insure that only suits with real merit are brought to trial. A lot of bugs in there, though. I don't have a better answer, sadly.

[DuncanONeil]

There is a business opportunity in these ideas. A bonding agency for the attorneys to cover their share of trial expenses.

Or maybe a combination of both? Plaintiff pays a fee (to the court system) and the prosecuting attorney pays a much larger compensatory fee? There definitely has to be some sort of reform on this because it's why the doctors and hospitals have such ridiculously large charges. Their malpractice insurance rates drive up prices.

At any rate, those whose claims are real should have real evidence to back it up. (such as the "wrong foot was removed" or "they left an instrument behind in my intestines and had to go back in after the fact and retrieve it")

[DuncanONeil]

Where do you find a fiscally responsible person knowledgeable in medical procedures that is not a doctor or pharmacist? Insurance don't count because they are only CPAs! No offense.

I know how to solve the insurance issue.....get rid of insurance all together. Make medicine free accross the board for life saving procedures. Take the money grubbing sideliner types who have made the thing the way it is today purely out of greed out of the picture entirely.

Tort reform, is not quite as simple but still doable as well.

Put one regulating authority in charge of it and do away with all the others and do not let it be run by the doctors or the insurance assholes or drug companies. But by a fiscally responsible third party with full knowledge of medical procedures.

Oh wait, some greedy CEO's will loose out then, I guess we can't have that now can we.

[MMI]

I am? How so. Please explain.

My brief study of Holmes's Opinion in Buck v Bell leads me to believe that his intention was to uphold the practice of eugenics in the US as constitutional, rather than to validate the methods used in particular instances. I don't think that by approving permanent sterilisation in this case he was doing anything new. I have not seen any reference to the exclusive use of temporary sterilisation methods prior to this case.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, that he did legitimise permanent sterilisation for the first time by extending the meaning of "vaccination", I do not see how this demonstrates that the passage of the health bill will enable "Progressives" (who or what are they when they're at home?) to impose different and unintended penalties on the public at some time in the future? By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

[steelish]

By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

Magna Carta is an English legal charter, and not something that effects me in the states...so nope, I'm not worried about it.

Progressives are already making noises that show us they will use the health care bill as a trojan horse. They've even said as much. I am trying to find the video clip of a Senator talking to the press and all but stating that very fact, but I am having difficulty finding it. Maybe the progressives have pulled it off the internet - on that, I'm not sure.

[Lion]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?