A health care question...

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: How can you have a right to have someone provide something for you? It's called, "Being two."

And three.  And probably four. 

Easy Money wrote: The Republicans were voted out and in come the dems with a more hands on approach, that's what people voted for in the last election, like it or not.

Americans like to complain.  If we can't complain, we aren't happy.  It's true.

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: Easy Money wrote: The Republicans were voted out and in come the dems with a more hands on approach, that's what people voted for in the last election, like it or not. Americans like to complain.  If we can't complain, we aren't happy.  It's true.   I would like to complain about your overbroad generalization about Americans.  Not all of us like to complain.  Oh wait.    Nevermind.  Carry on.

Let me offer this scathing assessment of both US political parties from a brilliant Simpson episode:

"The politics of failure have failed, we must make them work again,"

"It's a two party system, either way you are doomed."

- Kudos and Klang

"Americans, look at your two beloved candidates, nothing but hideous space monsters"

- Homer Simpson

Edited by Easy Money - April 05 2010 at 07:23

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: So then there is no positive right to life, only a negative right to life.  I submit that this is no right at all, as it means that only those who can afford it have the absolute right to live.  And obviously you put the right to live behind those of the right to own property.  Because a person's life is not worth infringing the right of someone to horde their property.   Sorry, but that's just wrong man.  No amount of property is worth a person's life.  You obviously don't believe that, or you would sell all you own (besides the bare minimum to keep yourself alive) and use it to save dying people. Or did you mean that no amount of other people's property is worth a life?

I notice no one took on Llama's great post, because there's an uncomfortable truth there.  I think for those who feel government should spare almost no expense in taking care of everyone, they are still comfortable owning their own home, their own nice car, and their own savings/retirement accounts.  It's always someone else, making a bit MORE money, who needs to cough it up. 

Why wait for the tax rates to rise on the "rich"?  If you truly believe "no amount of property is worth a person's life", powerful words indeed, then are you (not just Doc, but anyone who believes that line he wrote) liquidating everything except the bare essentials and giving it to the "poor" or the sick?

Why not?  You could be saving lives that will be lost waiting for government assistance to increase.  You must feel that "some" amount of wealth is worth a person's life.  You are just drawing the line somewhere above where you currently are in the income ladder, presumably. 

I know the response will be, "well, because we do things collectively, not individually."  Yup, that's pretty convenient and doesn't really address the fierce ideological element that is being argued.  If excess wealth is to be committed to saving lives, as Doc's line makes pretty clear, then those who believe that should be leading by example.  Because the need is there right now, obviously.  There's nothing stopping that 50% (or whatever number it is) of the ideological world from practicing what they preach.  Think about how much more suffering could be alleviated if the true believers practiced what they preached with their own assets.  LOTS. 

But that's not really what this is about. 

And for the record, shifting gears, not all of us believe there should be zero safety net.  I personally believe we have some responsibility to the old and infirm for catastrophic care, and to those who've been paying into this messed up system their whole life.  But we need to begin changing the system slowly to something much leaner and more sustainable, which involves lowering taxation so that the young are able to work hard and accumulate their own assets.  Then, some day in the future, people will pay for their own healthcare out of their increased personal assets.  And they can still buy themselves a plan to cover catastrophic costs that might hit their family.  The smaller things will be paid for out of pocket, like any other service, or through a private plan for those who wish to own them.  This system could be completely revamped in a much more efficient way, a way that encourages personal responsibility rather than nanny state-ism.  We're simply choosing the more politically palatable way, even though we don't have the money to pay for these future outlays.  Our heads in the sand, we throw up our arms and let the next generation worry about it. 

I'm not saying it would be easy, but I think other reforms within the private system should have been attempted first, and I'll stop there.  And John is right, Repubs had the chance to do this and blew it. They are just as responsible for the mess we're in, perhaps more.  Still, two wrongs don't make a right. 

And that's enough typing for me today. 

Re Finns above post:

People should be willing to pay their fair share to support the infrastructure that made them wealthy, doing less than that is theft.

The American voters have spoken, we now consider health care to be part of that infrastructure, we now ask that everyone pay their fair share and hopefully curtail theft from the insurance industry as well (ie us paying lots and recieving little).

Easy Money wrote: Re Finns above post: People should be willing to pay their fair share to support the infrastructure that made them wealthy, doing less than that is theft. The American voters have spoken, we now consider health care to be part of that infrastructure, we now ask that everyone pay their fair share and hopefully curtail theft from the insurance industry as well (ie us paying lots and recieving little).

I don't have this problem.  I don't buy health insurance. 

Your post seems to lump health care services with health insurance.  They are two distinct issues (as we've gone over).

Also, as I mentioned earlier, we're a slave to a two-party system, and the fear of vote-splitting by either party makes multiple (i.e., more than two) viable options for President, senate, etc. a perpetual impossibility.  Add to this the slavish, "us and them" mentality that permeates American culture, and we will doom ourselves politically every election. 

"The American voters have spoken" didn't stop angry liberals from sporting "Not my President" bumper stickers when Bush was in charge. 

Easy Money wrote: their fair share

I love how this phrase gets tossed around as if it's a concrete quantity.

What is everyone's "fair share"?  What is fair?

Easy Money wrote: Padraic wrote: Easy Money wrote: their fair share I love how this phrase gets tossed around as if it's a concrete quantity.What is everyone's "fair share"?  What is fair? What is fair is decided by the American people in free elections where we elect representatives to our republic who make the decisions that we trust are in the best interest for America.

So by that logic, can I assume the Bush tax cuts were fair?

Easy Money wrote: Padraic wrote: Easy Money wrote: Padraic wrote: Easy Money wrote: their fair share I love how this phrase gets tossed around as if it's a concrete quantity.What is everyone's "fair share"?  What is fair? What is fair is decided by the American people in free elections where we elect representatives to our republic who make the decisions that we trust are in the best interest for America. So by that logic, can I assume the Bush tax cuts were fair? According to the vote of the American people, yes.

OK - appreciate the consistency.