Sorry I got your name wrong Barn Babe
Kris, I think Moore's film will point out the hypocrises and blatant greed inherent in our privatized health care situation in the U.S. I'm looking forward to the film.
I agree with you that everybody needs to be covered - everybody. I didn't respond to InsureBob's second post because he made some patently offensive racist and classist remarks, and it wasn't worth my time to respond to him.
Since I only have 2000 characters to respond, I will be brief.
First: My name is Bob, not Bod. You misspelled it twice, and you misspelled Medicaid. I do not believe the poor should wear rags. I also don't believe they should have Plasma TV's, etc. I do agree that every child should have health care - good, quality health care. A pilot program was done in the mid-seventies, whereby local businesses would sponsor schools - in poor and wealthy neighborhoods alike. For each child that attended the school, and maintained a C+ Average, they would be provided medical care, free of charge to the parents. I will not tell you the rest of the story, because you would call me a racist and classist, once again. (I, personally, would like to see this program attempted once more - a way for big business to reach out to the community)
Second: Statistically. Let me reapeat, Statistically, the higher your income, the less of a chance you smoke, the less likely you are to abuse drugs, and the more likely you are to be active. This is why healthy people get lower rates than unhealthy people.
Third: My suggestion to solve the problem (in coordination with the pilot program mentioned above) is to return three subjects back to our public schools:
1. Home Economics: teach young people how to prepare healthy on-the-go snacks and meals, on a budget.
2. Health: teach young people how to stay active, and what goes into our bodies has a direct affect on how we feel and think.
3. Economics: teach young people how to balance a checkbook, and how much of their pay is taken out for Welfare, TANF, and other "social" programs. Also teach them how to invest wisely, how to put off immediate gratification for long term gains.
I think my 2000 characters are up. I am waiting, with baited breath, to hear what you have to offer as a solution, other than to point a gun at the wealthy, and force them to pay for those that are marginal contributors to our economic society.
Marginal contributors to our society, huh? Have you ever visited an inner-city school? How in the world can we expect these people to get good jobs when they grow up? They're screwed from the start.
And the dumb kids shouldn't have healthcare? I guess that's one way to cull the gene pool.
How did the wealthy get wealthy? Can you think of any contribution an individual could make that should make them worth hundreds of millions of dollars? I can't. These people are rich because of the people working for them, or because they simply inherited it. I find no fault in taxing them more to cover health care for the poor. They'll still be rich.
Improve education, improve health care. Somebody does have to pay for it, but the poor can't afford to and the middle class are already squeezed to the point that their children can't go to college without graduating with tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
I'm middle of the road. It does make me angry to read post after post, particularly on the Maternal/Child forum, about women who have no job, no insurance, little education,and rotating boyfriends actively trying to have a baby and moaning about not having enough money to even buy a pregnancy test.
I do not feel that lower income people should go without decent health care, and I think we all agree that our health care system as it is, is in a shambles.
I feel that there are some conditions and situations that are in the control of the person to exercise restraint and good judgement in life situations.
It makes me equally livid to see the mega rich sheltering all their money so that we in the middle class pay the majority of the taxes.
If you would read my earlier post, I stated that every child should have good quality healthcare, no matter where they reside. I liked the idea they had in the late 70's, where local businesses would sponsor schools, in both poor and wealthy areas, making healthcare available to all who attended school, and maintained a C+ average.
I also believe that every child, no matter what part of town they are in, should have equally as good education. Both poor and wealthy.
You keep ignoring these two points, which I have reiterated many times, and choose to spew bed-wetting drool. If you will read peekawho's post above this, I agree 100% with her.
And yes, I do believe if you improve education, you improve healthcare. It will drop the teenage pregnancy rate, for one, and will lead to more in-tact families, for another.
You have finally admitted what other liberals won't. You want the wealthy to pay more than the poor, based on the simple fact that YOU believe they can afford it, and should, just because.
As for a contribution that is worth milliions of dollars, I think Bill Gates did that, and allowed every individual the opportunity to come on boards, such as this, and get their message out. How much do you think Bill Gates should make?
How much should Stephen King make?
What about Paul McCartney?
I don't care how much they make. The fact is, the more they make the more they have left over. It's a practical matter. You can't take it from the poor or the middle class...the poor don't have it and if you tax the middle class any further than they have even less disposable income and demand slips. When there's less demand for goods and services, the wealthy suffer. Think of it as "Trickle Up" economics.
I could get into a more esoteric argument about why the rich should be taxed more (rate-wise), but I'll just touch on it. Who benefits from oil subsidies? Me? Not really. My gas price goes up and oil companies post record profits. Who benefits from agricultural subsidies? A few more people, but mostly agribusiness. Who benefits most from port security and stuff like that? The wealthy. I benefit from port security, but not as much because I don't have as much to lose. They make the kind of money they make because of the society they live in. We have good schools that produce good workers who go on to make wealthy people wealthier. We all benefit from public education, but the rich benefit more even if their kids never came close to attending. It's their labor force we're training.
Basically, what I'm saying is that what's good for the poor and the middle class is also good for the wealthy. If we had a good, efficient single-payer system, the middle class should have a little more money to spend in the economy. The poor would be healthier and would make better workers and students.
Who benefits from oil subsidies? We all do, by having lead removed from gasoline, so we can live in a cleaner society.
Who benefits from agriculture subsidies? We all do. Food bourne illness is non-existent; whereas it was prevelent as recently as the early 1900's
Who benefits from port security? We all do. Since 9/11, we have not had another attack, or even a threat of one. Can't say the same for Great Britian.
Throwing money at the poor neither makes them healthier, nor does it make them improve their work ethic.
Now, if we can get back to my original question: If you are going to have a single-payer system, other than forcing the wealthy to pay the tab, how much would you raise taxes, across the board, and what level of service would you offer?
Oil subsidies have nothing to do with lead in gasoline. Lead was doomed because of various iterations of the Clean Air Act. Automobiles with catalytic converters and other emissions controls don't run well on leaded gasoline. Some states banned it because it didn't burn cleanly and they needed to comply with EPA air quality standards. The federal government banned it altogether at some point during the 1990's. I was talking about subsidies for drilling.
Agriculture subsidies have nothing to do with food bourne illness. This is regulated by the FDA and, in some cases, also state agencies. Subsidies are intended to keep the "family farmer" in business among other things. It's goverment interference in the private MARKET. Subsidies have nothing to do with food safety regulation.
Port Security? Of course we all benefit from that, but who benefits the most? The people who own the goods going in and out of those ports. If the Houston Ship Channel were bombed to bits, it would disrupt our economy...everyone would lose. But the people who lose the most would be those who profit from the goods that would be moving in and out of there.
Getting back to your original question, I'd first end this war that's costing us 12 billion dollars a month, then yeah, I'd tax the wealthy, upper middle class, and corporations to fund a system like the one Canada has.
And in the next few years you're going to see corporations get on board with the idea. Providing private health coverage for their employees has become a more and more expensive part of their compensation packages, yet they want healthy employees with healthy dependents. I believe Wal Mart (largest employer in the country) and General Electric (one of the largest) have already gotten on board. If they could compete in the labor market without having to worry about health care costs, they'd love that. We'd probably see less unemployment as a result.
So, the poor should get a free ride, because they are...well...poor!
The wealthy should pay because they are...well...wealthy!
Sounds good to me!
Let's expand it to other areas as well. I have a 16 year old daughter I'd like to send to Harvard. Based on your reasoning, I believe that someone who has millions should pay the tab, simply because I'm not as weathly as they, and by the simple fact that my child has a RIGHT to a college education of that magnitude.
Hey, this is gettin' good to me.
So, those who make wise decisions, pump money into the economy, and fund charities, etc. (see andy PBS station - those funds and endowments aren't from Roscoe on the corner, selling drugs) HAVE TO fund our health care system. Meanwhile, the poor, who are mostly on government assistance (TANF, SSI, etc.) should bear no responsibility for their healthcare.
You tickle me. This forum has become more entertaining than any TV show I could waste my time watching. You're not looking for a hand, you're looking for a hand out. Since when does someone else's money become yours? What right do you have to their money? Whether they inherited it, or earned it, what right do you have to put a gun to their head and demand it from them?
If I see something of yours that I don't have, can I just TAKE it, because you've got it and I want it?
As far as corporations doing their part, have you ever heard of the Ronald McDonald House charities?
Have you ever heard of the Bill Gates endowments?
All I hear from you folks is GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME.
Who do you think makes this economy run, the poor, or those greedy corporations you so despise?
Now, do I think that the same rules apply to children, the elderly, or someone who has contracted, due to no fault of their own, some herendous disease. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Those people should go to the front of the line, and get the best care humanly possible. There, I agree with you.
Where I disagree is someone who has total control over their lives, makes poor decisions (smokes, gains weight, has body piercings and tattooes) that put themselves at risk. These are the people I feel should at least pay a copayment or deductible. It's called personal responsibility, and that is the one topic that seems to allude you, and those of your ilk.
Please reply to this post, with more of your vehement replies. I cut and paste this, and send them to my friends. America's Got Talent, and it's right here, on this forum. :)
The problem is many people are poor because they got sick and were unable to work. How are people supposed to pay for COBRA and pay their bills when their long term disability or SSI claim is backed up ? SSI is so backed up in some states, that it takes years to get approved and to get your check.
Well, I find your response amusing because after my probationary period at work is over (October), I'll be firmly in the "upper-middle class" and would actually pay more taxes under this kind of plan. As of right now, I'm probably on the verge of upper-middle.
I'm willing to pay more in tax because I think the society I live in would be a better one.
And Platelet is correct...have you ever seen the figures on middle class bankruptcies and how much of the debt is usually medical in nature?
Anyway, don't assume that those of us who advocate some kind of universal coverage are all poor. That's ridiculous. I hate to admit it, but me and most of my friends are "yuppies". We make good incomes and pretty much agree on this subject. I know I came to this forum asking questions about COBRA and how I thought the cost was excessive. Still do. Keep in mind, though, that I switched careers and my moving costs were not paid for. I have to wait and take the deduction. I'm also coming off a long-term illness that kept me from working during some of the first part of the year, so yeah, I'm cost-conscious. That doesn't, however, mean that I'm poor and I think it's ridiculous to assume that I am?
And what makes you think I hate corporations? Is it not a fact that they'd lose more if our port security were compromised? I believe that to be a fact and think they should fit most (not all) of the bill for port security, but I don't think that suggests that I hate them. I learned some very valuable skills and received excellent benefits while working for corporations. Corporate America is where I cut my teeth...I harbor no ill will at all.
The poor should get a free ride on health care because they can't afford anything but that.
Whether it's ideologically acceptable for you or not, it is practical that the wealthy pay more. You take a million dollars away from a billionaire, and he's got 999 million dollars left. You take five-thousand dollars away from someone making $25k a year, and it hurts a lot more. Remember that this is a consumer driven economy. If the consumers have money to spend, the wealthy will profit.
"Anyway, don't assume that those of us who advocate some kind of universal coverage are all poor. That's ridiculous."
You are right on the mark !
If your economic debate begins with the fact that you are going to take $1 million away from someone who has $100 million, because YOU believe they won't miss it, then you really need to do some more research on this topic.
Let's say, for arguments sake that you do, "make the rich pay more". Over time, what would entice someone to obtain such wealth, if they knew that they would shoulder the lion's share of medical benefits for others, and have no say in it? Nothing.
They would want to be one of the needy, getting all the services for free, because, as you said, the poor should get a free ride. Now, if given the option of paying, or getting the free ride, I'd believe most would opt for the latter. Then, as the pool of wealthy diminish, who would you suggest pays next?
Emotionally, I can't, and won't disagree with you.
As for the economics of your plan, I'd love to hear a decisive manner of "trickling down", that would benefit all. Does the person who is having their money taken away get to choose how the money is spent; whether it be cancer research, surgeries, rehab services, etc., or do they just have to give you their money, and shut up.
Isn't taking something from someone, on the simple fact that you want it, and you feel they won't miss it, called stealing?
Stealing? No, it's called taxation. And it's been around longer than the Nation State. And, again, the person who's bringing in 100 million dollars a year probably isn't going to miss it 1 percent of their income being taken away. If you have a hundred dollars and you drop a buck on the subway tracks are you going to get so upset you jump down there and get it? If you do, you're WAY too attached to your money.
At some point, a person can become so wealthy that additional income is only numbers. They have enough to buy or do whatever they want.
The thing is, no matter how wealthy they are and how much they insulate themselves, they are still a part of this society. And the question is, would they benefit from living in a healthier nation? If they're this wealthy, they either own a significant stock portfolio or own businesses outright. Who works for those businesses? Who buys the products that these businesses produce? In the end, it all comes down to the masses. If they're healthy, they're more productive. If they're more productive, they accumulate wealth. And if they have wealth, they spend. THAT is trickle up economics, I guess you could say.
In terms of taxing the rich into oblivion, well when I look at Europe I still see plenty of very wealthy people. Just because you're taxed it doesn't take away your incentive to make more. That idea is absurd. "As the pool of wealthy dimish". That's a slippery slope.
So, do you think that poor people should have no health insurance coverage at all? Do you think those that have managed to elevate themselves just north of the poverty line and into the lower-middle class should have ****-poor coverage because they can't afford anything else? Because that's the status quo. I don't think it's an option to continue on the same bath. I'm sure you're aware that medical bills are a significant factor in bankruptcies among those families who bring in between 40 and 100 thousand a year, right? Apparently even this group is lacking in coverage.
The poor have no money, so we cannot tax them to get them benefits. The middle class is already taxed to the hilt, and if we don't give them some kind of relief (through a tax cut or perhaps by stemming the cost of health coverage), then you're going to see the demand in our economy dry up over the next ten or twenty years. Where would the wealthy be then? How much will their stock portfolios be worth when nobody's buying anything???
This is a very complex issue and you're not taking it seriously with your catch phrases about stealing and what have you.
As far as the taxed having a choice about where their money goes, when do they ever? That's simply not realistic. Well, it is, in a way. They already do that because the wealthy ALWAYS have the ear of Congress. Always. So they'll have their say, believe me.
Do you make a living selling insurance? If so, I can see where you might feel threatened considering the political momentum these days. Well, times change. I really feel for you but you know what? Lots of people have to change careers.
Actually, a single-payer system would be a boon for someone selling insurance. All you would need to do is go up and down the street, taking orders, and finding out which company a person wants to get coverage from, since everyone is accepted.
That aside, what you are proposing isn't really Unviersal Health Care, it's more like "Wealthy Paying Health Care". You've already stated that the lower and middle class cannot pay, so therefore, it is up to the wealthy, who, in your expert opinion will not miss it, to pay.
I have an excellent way to start that process. The next CD that Barbra Streisand or Celine Dion puts out, I think 20% (nice round number) of all proceeds should go to pay for national healthcare. Or better yet, lets take the top grossing films - I believe the one about the two guys posing as gay men is the top earner this week - and tell the actors, directors and supporting cast that 20% is going to pay for national healthcare. After all, Kevin James and Adam Sandler won't miss it, will they?
Hey, why don't you get on YOUTUBE tonight and ask Hillary Clinton for 1% of her money? You think she'd give it to you? I'm waiting for someone on this forum to log in tonight, and ask a Democrat how national health care is going to get paid for, if not for raising taxes. Betcha nobody will throw that hard ball question at them tonight.
Keep pulling on the emotional heartstrings, and avoiding the hard facts. I've looked through the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Nowhere, in either of those documents, did healthcare become a "right".
I'm going to say it again (and it will probably be ignored again). Children, or those who contracted diseases or illnesses, through no fault of their own, are the exception, and should get "millionaire coverage", like baby Noor did. For those who put themselves in at-risk situations, I find it more difficult to feel sorry for.
So, therefore, the individual should bear no responsibility at all. They can live to excess, in any manner in which they desire, and when they then come down with something, based on their lifestyle choice, it's okay. We've got the wealthy to pay for it.
No personal responsibility at all. You can smoke, put yourself in a state of excess weight, pierce your body, and do anything else that feels good. No reprisals. Let the wealthy pay for it, you just live as you want. After all, they (the wealthy) should be glad your around to consume their products, so, in essence, they OWE it to you.
As they guy says in the beer commercial, BRILLIANT!
I responded to your posts but it never appeared. MedHelp is really bad about that, and I barely have the time to waste on one post, much less two.
im concerned about health care in this country. it just seems like the government doesnt care at all. i saw this video on youtube and it reallly got me thinking....
im concerned about health care in this country. it just seems like the government doesnt care at all. i saw this video on youtube and it reallly got me thinking....
I, too, am concerned about healthcare in this country. I'm also concerned about education in this country. I just take a different approach to get to the end result.
Making a decision, based solely on emotion, will do noone any good.