You know, US citizenship (or that of any other country for that matter) is not mandatory. If you don't like what the government asks of you, you can always renounce it, and found your own society where everyone is free, and no one will impose anything on you. Dream on, kids, dream on...

Poor kids, who have no idea of what life is really like, and believe in the big, bad, red bogeyman... Poor, spoiled kids with their inhuman, heartless, cruel Libertarian beliefs, who think they are God and nothing will ever happen to them just because they're gifted and work hard... Poor, fanatical, misguided idiots, who would turn the world into an even worse place that it already is. If you could only realise that everything you have could be taken away from you by a mere twist of fate, without any fault of your own, and you might find yourself in the same shoes of those people whom you are so quick to judge, without knowing anything of their circumstances. The best I can wish you and your ilk is to find yourselves on the receiving end one day, and to find the same level of 'compassion' that you are showing.

And please, stop mouthing off inanities about Communism... You have no idea of what you are talking about. If you want to continue making fools of yourselves, then don't complain if all the rest of the world laughs at you, ignorant Americans. The world does not revolve around you, as much as it may pain you to realize it.

Epignosis wrote: Relax J...we conservatives are just cold-hearted b*****ds who don't care about the little folks...even if we are the little folks (I know I am...I'm twelfth generation poor). As I mentioned, I think a moderate approach for health care could work... ...but I do find it kind of weird that people who probably would oppose slavery in America don't mind people working hard to have their money taken from them for the benefit of those who didn't lift a finger for it. Just sayin.

Robert,

I agree something needs to be done with health care. What's going on right now does not work. I just do not believe that Obama's approach will solve anything.

I love the phrase "no-brainer" in this discussion, as though this is some completely straightforward issue and those who oppose a universal health care system are without brains.

Most of the comments I have seen are lazy generalizations anyway.

I'm more in favor of seeing health care costs go down (again, major tort reform is one starting point), not taxpayers footing exorbitant bills,  so those who need to see a doctor for the most part can afford it.

My wife was once was charged $600 for a late night hospital visit in which all they did was check her urine and give her a prescription.  I wrote them a letter and said that they should have made her a sandwich and massaged her feet for that price.

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: My wife was once was charged $600 for a late night hospital visit in which all they did was check her urine and give her a prescription.  I wrote them a letter and said that they should have made her a sandwich and massaged her feet for that price. Oh no, hospital food is terrible.

Canadians bristle at American criticisms of their system 8/31

...
"The flaw in the American system," Ontario Health Minister David Caplan said recently, "is that first they check the size of your wallet, not the size of your need."

Obama has stepped in to defend his neighbors' system.

"I don't find Canadians particularly scary, but I guess some of the opponents of reform think they make a good bogeyman. I think that's a mistake," he said.

In seeking to spread affordable coverage, including to the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, Obama has said he isn't looking to copy the Canadian model, but wants to build on the existing U.S. system with a mix of private and government-funded insurance.

For all the rhetoric, both Canadians and Americans appear in opinion polls to be broadly content with the care they have.

A Harris-Decima poll published last month found that 82 percent of Canadians believe their system outdoes America's, and 70 percent felt it was working very well or well. The telephone poll of 1,000 Canadians was conducted from June 4 to 8 with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

A survey released this month by the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation said more than 86 percent of Americans rated their care as good to excellent. But 52 percent were very or somewhat worried they wouldn't be able to afford future care, and nearly 30 percent said they were very or somewhat worried it would bankrupt them. The telephone poll of 500 Americans had a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

Canada's system provides its citizens with coverage at a much lower per capita cost than the U.S. largely because its single-payer system, in which the government picks up the tab, greatly reduces administrative costs.
...

Millions of Americans with Health Insurance Find They are Underinsured When in Medical Need 8/31

Health care: Millions pay for coverage, but it's not what it seems

By Bobby Caina Calvan McClatchy/Tribune news

August 30, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - -- Laura Burwell was weeding her backyard vineyard last summer when she was bit by a rattlesnake.

Then came the unexpected sting of a $73,000 hospital bill -- and shock upon learning her health insurance would cover a mere $3,000.

"It was one of the longest, most stressful periods in my life," said Burwell, a self-employed wine shop owner.

...

Edited by Slartibartfast - August 31 2009 at 11:54

The Antique wrote: So do you oppose taxes altogether? The only reason people have a right not to have money stolen from them is because we collectively agree that we have this right. I am making the argument that this right ends where it impedes our ability to provide basic services to people who cannot provide it for themselves. The right stems very concretely from Article I Section VIII of the Constitution which details the very limited uses for which Congress may tax. Welfare systems certainly don't fit into this. Also the use of a graduated tax systems totally b*****dizes the whole ordeal. I'm for tax collection for basic manners much along the lines detailed in the Constitution, but only assuming it is done so as a flat tax.  I am not making this rich vs. poor. It is simply the case that, if more money is needed and the only way to get it is through taxes, the fairest way to obtain it is to tax most those with the most money, since it causes them the least harm. I don't know how you speak of fair while identifying a group which is expected to shoulders others burdens under coercion from a government.   People work jobs based in part on their opportunities (going to college will get you a better job in general, but people born into poor families are much less likely to get this opportunity than people born into rich families). As for natural abilities (in which I should not have included strength since it is very much dependent on the effort you put into it, way moreso than the others), yes, they can be improved, but no amount of hard work is going to turn me into an NBA star or a person with an IQ of 90 into a particle physicist. So the general rule is to be defined by the most extreme cases? Swings from one end of the spectrum to another I'll admit are not going to occur. However, a wide amount of fluctuation is possible in the middle stages. Aside from a few savants you meet you'll find the smartest, most athletic, proficient people are the ones who have put the most time into their field be it economics, swimming, playing piano, whatever.  In addition, there are simply not enough well-paying jobs for everyone to make a reasonable living, and moreover there are low-paying jobs that need to be done (some of which are almost exclusively done by people born into poor families or born with low intelligence, such as janitors, at least in my personal experience). If people all gravitated to "high paying jobs" the cost of these jobs would simply skyrocket and the need would inevitably be filled. Also, there will always be lazy, bottom feeders in society, as well as unfortunate cases of good people drawing a short straw which I think are fewer than people care to admit.  For these reasons, the distribution of wealth in a capitalist system will inevitably be arbitrary and unfair to a very great degree, and thus it is not immoral to take money from those this system benefits in order to help those it shafts. You haven't demonstrated this, and the conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. The distribution being arbitrary gives the government no moral or certainly constitutional right to correct it. The distribution of blue eyes is arbitrary in a population, but the government hardly has a right to force eye transplants so that everyone may have one blue and one brown eye for some patchwork equality. I know it's a laughable example, but clearly you can think of many horrendous acts which could be justified with that argument. But while as a society we maintain there's something off limits about ones body, we have lost that the same applies to ones money. We have begun to see it as a mere purchasing tool than the direct fruits of ones labor deserving of the same reservations.

Negoba wrote: SentimentalMercenary wrote: I got a question for those who support universal health care :   What makes healthcare so much more important than access to food that makes you support the provision of the former by the government, but not of the later?   First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be.   Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. The one we use now is run by for profit, rarely honest, accountants that do not have to take all comers. One option is making them take everyone and imposing cost limits, or by simply creating a government program.

All right.  Let's go with that model.  I guarantee you health insurance companies will no longer exist.  They are a business run for profit (sorry, but profit is not an ignoble thing).  Force them to take everyone AND limit what they charge, and the "evil" businessmen who run the insurance companies will close shop and invest in something more productive, like...I don't know...taco stands.

Then everyone can pay their own way.

Negoba wrote: Anyone who believes that the hard work is what makes you rich in a capitalist system is a complete fool.   It is but one of several factors, and not the most important. By far the most important is the cultural environment in which you were born into. You may find extraordinary exceptions to this, but this is the rule. If your parents never worked a steady job, the chance you will are much much less than if yours did. It's not just laziness. It's a culture.   Now, how do we change our culture to make it harder to take without giving back??? Without finding away to only allow contributing members of society to reproduce, I don't know how to fix that.

Epignosis wrote: Negoba wrote: SentimentalMercenary wrote: I got a question for those who support universal health care :   What makes healthcare so much more important than access to food that makes you support the provision of the former by the government, but not of the later?   First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be.   Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. The one we use now is run by for profit, rarely honest, accountants that do not have to take all comers. One option is making them take everyone and imposing cost limits, or by simply creating a government program. All right.  Let's go with that model.  I guarantee you health insurance companies will no longer exist.  They are a business run for profit (sorry, but profit is not an ignoble thing).  Force them to take everyone AND limit what they charge, and the "evil" businessmen who run the insurance companies will close shop and invest in something more productive, like...I don't know...taco stands. Then everyone can pay their own way.

I voted yes. It's a complex discussion, but I think that some form of basic health care should be free for everyone. The difficult part is where to draw the line ...