If the USA cannot provide universal health coverage,

Post Reply New Topic

The U.S wastes a lot of food to, all that wasted food could feed a lot of people who cannot afford to properly feed themselves but by policy it has to be thrown away. Also maybe the U.S ought to start thinking of how they could alter the budget to make universal healthcare a possibility or ensure everyone who cannot afford insurance has access to medicaid/medicare....doesn't it end up costing taxpayers more when people get ER bills they cannot pay? vs how much it might cost to provide everyone healthcare? Or should should we change the system so you have to pay before being admitted to the ER and leave anyone who cannot afford to and does not qualify for medicaid/medicare to die? Also so there's not enough housing for everyone, or not enough money in the budget to pay for housing for homeless people for instance....that is bad enough so on top of that they create a bunch of laws to make it even more difficult for people who don't have a roof over their head by making anything you need to do to survive illegal to do outside.


Also I disagree that the government has no obligation towards its struggling citizens, it is important that the government is obligated to provide some form of social safety network for its citizens...otherwise that just leaves room for an authoritarian police state if their only job is truly to print money, pass laws(but no laws that ensure a social safety network is in place) and declaring war. But the way I see it if you have a government the govenment is obligated to serve the people which includes the poor and/or disabled who are struggling financially, which means it sort of does have an obligation to fund programs to help said people....I prefer a government that serves the people, but that is just me.

This country is already divided, just not so much by state lines....

No one is saying they should pay for things people can afford....rather that there should be help provided by the government to help people who cannot afford to support themselves. And you really want a government that does the bare minimum to serve the people....so one that does a half a**ed job of serving its people? Seems like that would help us head in the direction of a third world country if the government does nothing or very little to support its population/infrastructure.

Universal Healthcare would have the goal of everyone having health insurance as well as quality care....as they say we supposedly have such great medical care here in the U.S if you can afford it, which a large majority of people cannot, even insurance has its limitations as to what it covers a lot of insurance barely covers mental health treatment and they try to weasel their way out of covering things in the policy due to whatever fine print they come up with. If Universal Healthcare would just be sh*tty healthcare for all I would not support the idea, obviously it would not work unless it effectively provides people quality care.

And what about people who are on disability...and cannot hold a job due to that disability? And do not have parents that could afford to provide for their financial needs...I am certainly not in any such position, so yeah I depend on SSI, medicaid and foodstamps and if the view point of 'the government isn't responsible for providing any social safety network' thinking where to prevail in this country I'd be screwed and many other in my position. Maybe in the very beginning of the founding it was not said the government is responsible to provide that kind of thing...but since then people have woken up and realized that is necessary for stability, that the government have some involvment in providing help for its citizens. Not just sit back throw out a law here and there, declare war and print money while letting the chaos ensue...as well as things like companies having no safety regulations so workers are working in unsafe conditions, allowing people to starve, die of treatable causes and what not because they cannot afford to properly care for themselves, I don't want to live in a country like that.



Also there is a difference between thinking the government should provide you with every luxary in life, while you just sit back and do nothing or ever attempt anything....or thinking the government should provide help for highschool graduates to afford college, is very different than thinking the government ought to pay for everyone go to go some Ivy League College. Some people have problems like its winter and they cannot afford to heat their house, if they have a house, some people have medical conditions they cannot afford to properly take care of that insurance doesn't cover either a lot of people with mental health issues have a very hard getting treatment at all let alone adequate treatment and so people think the government is obligated to provide some kind of help/resources for that and I agree with those people.

I do understand that it would be great, and even though it seems like I'm arguing against it, I'm actually not because I want it too. My argument is that the government is not obligated to do it. They are not obligated to provide for us in any way, even though it's what other first world countries do. They are not obligated to do anything but give us a safe place to live, keep us safe from other countries, and give us the opportunity to live our lives whether we fail or succeed. I think it would be great to have it. I do, really. I think if it covered all medical costs, catastrophic illness, mental health, dental and optical, it would be perfect. I'd love it. I'd vote for it. But I would know that it's not something that they are obligated to do for us. If they could actually do it, and not cut back on other things to the point of sacrificing our safety and other things we need that they are already doing, then please find a way to do it. I'm really, actually for it if it could be done.

What I'm against is saying that they are obligated to do it. That they should provide everyone with health care. That it's part of governing us. It is not. Before FDR there weren't programs to help us out. The people could have used them and it would have prevented needless death and misery, but there weren't any. It was not something that the government did. We were considered completely responsible for ourselves and our families, live or die. The government is not obligated to do any different now, except for the fact that yanking the rug out from under us now that we are used to a safety net would be morally wrong, and flat out mean and something that only a hardass would do. I am for social programs and government help. I am very, very much for it. What I am against is people insisting that the government is supposed to do that for us. There is nothing in the Constitution about anything like that. It doesn't talk about the government providing for us and taking care of us. It talks about the government protecting us and legislating what we can and can't do etc.

It's a very scary idea to think that the government could pull it's support and leave us to live or die on our on and with only what we can struggle to do. Nobody wants that. I don't want that. I don't know anybody who does. I take that back, I'm sure some want it, who are able to take care of themselves and don't want to help others, but most people don't want that. However, they are not obligated to not do that. The government is supposed to govern us. They are supposed to give us a safe place to live and work and allow people free enterprise which builds the economy. They are supposed to prevent lawlessness and anarchy. They are supposed to spend the tax money to keep the country running and be answerable to the people about how it's spent. Keeping the country running is not the same thing as providing for the citizens. It's two different things. It involves roads and infrastructure, police and fire, military, etc. Actually, I don't think the government is even obligated to provide public schools, but I'm glad they do. It's smart to do that. It's smart to provide health care and housing and safety nets. However, whats smart to do to make the people happier and healthier and better educated isn't always what we are entitled to.

While I want these things as much as anyone else, I don't think I'm entitled to be provided for or taken care of by anyone not related to me by blood or marriage. Neither is anybody else. What's good to do, smart to do, even right to do, isn't the same as what is entitled to receive. Universal healthcare is a perk, nothing more, albeit a perk I dearly want.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here?

I do get what you mean I just disagree....even if when this country was initially founded it wasn't on the basis of the government being obligated to do those things, I think in order for the system to function in such a way this can remain a first world country...the government must be obligated to serve its people/citizens and that does mean providing some basic services, social safety network and regulations to ensure work places are as safe as possible and/or provide decent medical coverage for more dangerous jobs ect. Otherwise what stops it from simply exploiting the citizenry and using it for their own gain?

Living in a country that offers "universal health coverage":

It's s**t.

I'm poverty level for the West, and I pay for private health insurance (meaning, everyone that's not homeless can afford it).

I'm for the programs that you speak of. I'm glad they are there and think they should be expanded if possible. But the government is not obligated to do it. Chaos would ensue if they stopped the programs now, but if they had never implemented them in the first place we would still be responsible for ourselves, sink or swim. They were not obligated to start them, but now that they have, they can't very well stop them. That doesn't make them obligated to take care of us. You said that without them you would be screwed, and yes you would, as would lots of other people. I don't want to see that. However, the government is not obligated to see to it that you, nor I, nor anyone else isn't screwed. I'm not saying they shouldn't have these things, they should. It's the right thing to do. I'm simply saying that they aren't obligated to. It's not their job.

We get food stamps. Without them we couldn't pay the bills, buy gas for my husband to go to work, and also eat. We get a little less than $500 a month to feed us. I do complain that it isn't enough, because we barely afford to get by as it is. I have to stretch the food stamps more than what is comfortable. They have disallowed my daughter and her fiance for the food stamps because they are in college and not working at least 20 hours a week. There are no jobs down here, they share one car and their classes are so that one can't work while the other is in class. Jobs are 30 minutes away because everybody in this small town hires relatives first. We aren't related to anybody and there aren't enough businesses here to support the economy. So, they aren't counted because they go to college and can't work. I don't think that's right for what the program does, but I do understand there is a limited amount of money and they have to find a way to distribute it. I wish we could get more food stamps. Even though I depend on it and I feel the way I do, I also know that the government is under no obligation to keep me from starving. Thats on me to keep me eating. Thats on my husband to provide for us. The government helps us and I'm so damn happy they do I don't know what to do. But I'm not entitled to it. I'm only entitled to it because the program exists and I am eligible because I fall within the parameters they set. None of us is entitled to any of the programs existence though. We all grew up with these programs in place so we see it as something the government is supposed to do. It's actually not. It's optional. It's the right thing to do, but it's still optional. They would be within their Constitutional rights to phase out the programs and leave us to fend for ourselves. I'm very glad they don't though.




Also there is a difference between thinking the government should provide you with every luxary in life, while you just sit back and do nothing or ever attempt anything....or thinking the government should provide help for highschool graduates to afford college, is very different than thinking the government ought to pay for everyone go to go some Ivy League College. Some people have problems like its winter and they cannot afford to heat their house, if they have a house, some people have medical conditions they cannot afford to properly take care of that insurance doesn't cover either a lot of people with mental health issues have a very hard getting treatment at all let alone adequate treatment and so people think the government is obligated to provide some kind of help/resources for that and I agree with those people.[/quote]

As car isn't a luxury here, it's a neccessity. However I don't really think they should give me one. But without one, you can't really get anything done. No grocery shopping, no going to the dr, nothing. The town isn't conducive to walking because of steep hills, no sidewalks and narrow roads with deep ditches 6 inches from the pavement. The two mile area of the center of town is flat and has sidewalks, but you have to get there first, and I can't because of the roads. I can walk through the woods or down one steep road at certain times of the year, but mainly, a lot of people in town can't walk where we need to.

I really do understand what you are saying, and I was being faecetious because Walrus was saying that Obamacare wasn't enough that they government should give us Universal Healthcare. That means that the government pays for everyones healthcare even those who could otherwise afford it, unless they opt to go private pay. I'm against that. Thats taking it too far.

I'm fine with not graduating college, I made that decision and stick by it. As I said, I was being dramatic. They do have grants and financial aid for people. Thats how my daughter and her fiance are going and how my other daughter will. It's good to have and it's smart because the better educated the population is, the better for the entire country. It's a smart decision that benefits everyone. However, they are not obligated to.

I think they should have heating subsidies for people who can't afford heat in winter and I think mental health should be provided for those who can't afford it. I'm there with you on that and have been for a long time. If I had access to a shrink several years ago I wouldn't have tried to kill myself. I would have been on antidepressants. I got put on them at the hospital during the 72 hour hold but I couldn't afford to keep getting them. I want something to help with that kind of situation. I'd like to see the government address it. I think people need it very bad. However, the government is not obligated to provide it for us.

There is a difference between the needs of the citizens and the obligations of the government. It's a harsh truth. I'm not advocating that they just say f**k us all, let us do it on our own. Hell no. I don't want that at all. I'm saying that while they should do it, while it's right to do it, while it's smart to do it, they are not obligated to do it. They are only responsible for certain aspects of our lives and we are responsible for the rest, and it's another hard truth that many times we can't meet those responsibilities and would fail without help but the government is not obligated to help us with our private responsibilites and needs. They do, they should, doing more would be better for everyone, but they aren't obligated. Thats my point. They are not obligated to do so. Morally maybe, because since the programs started, it's part of American culture to have a safety net and that's good. We have it because we have enough money to provide it. But just because it's morally right doesn't mean it's Constitutionally mandated.

People should be as vocal as they want to be about what they need and think the government could provide or should provide, i'm fine with that. It's when they start saying that the government is obligated to provide it that I get antsy. It's a very small point, but a very important one.

Also Sweetleaf I wanted to say something to you ok? I know we don't get along and I dissed the hell out of you when you first got here and I didn't like you at first. Sorry about that. I really am and thats not just a cavalier apology. I jumped to conclusions about you and judged you wrongly. I sincerely apologize. What I wanted to say was that I've noticed that since you have been here you have become one of the best posters here. You have rational, well thought out arguments (even when they are wrong lol - which means I disagree with them ) and you are well spoken and put forth a convincing stance and while I haven't seen all your posts, you seem to be able to agree to disagree and seperate the opinion from the person. You really matured since you have been here. I'm not crediting being here with that, I'm just saying I've noticed that you have over the time you have been posting here.

I'd honestly like to see you as a mod some day. You are one of the more intelligent people here and you seem to be well versed in current events and know your subjects or at least have done research before you post. I just wanted to say I've noticed it and it's good. Hope you don't mind me saying that.

You aren't going to like this and most people probably aren't going to like this, but it's what I think. While modern society does expect these things as a given, and first world countries should have these things, and we are a major first world country and world power, and we all want to stay that way, the government is not obligated to keep us a first world country. It's done because it's smart, it's advancement, it's what anybody with a brain in their head would do, but there is no obligation to keep us from turning into something like Slumdog Millionaire. No obligation whatsoever. They are obligated to make others leave us alone to do our own thing, whatever that is. Turns out our thing is being the most powerful country in the world. Whodathunk it when it was just Pilgrams and Cowboys and Indian's and that bunch from Little House on the Prarie? I'm glad it's our thing and to pursue that goal of remaining the most powerful country in the world, we have to do these things like provide for our citizens. However, being that country, being first world, nor providing for us are basic obligations of our government.

It would f**k this country up so bad it's not funny to stop doing what they are doing. It would be a horrible idea. However, just because it would be a horrible idea does not mean that it is not within their rights to do that. To advance we need these things, without a doubt. To an extent. But to fulfill their obligations to us, the government doesn't have to do any of that. That is all I'm saying. Again, very small difference, but very important.

The US government is democratically elected. It is beholden to the whims of the people. If it did cancel Medicaid or allow America to fall to the living standards of 1960s India, then it would be out.

Democratically elected governments are obligated to appease the citizenry.

I understand (though strongly disagree with) your desire to avoid providing government services for the rich. Less money provided to the rich means more money for the poor, right? However, the ACA doesn't achieve that, and nor do the other US public healthcare options. Instead, money that should be spent on providing healthcare is wasted on things like deciding who gets healthcare. If you have a choice between "wasting" money by providing free healthcare to the relatively affluent, and "wasting" money by stopping the relatively affluent from accessing free healthcare, which do you choose? For me, it is an easy decision.

Here's the link I promised David - the US system is the least efficient and the least equal of eleven studied nations, and it doesn't beat the NHS in a single category.

I live in Canada and I don't think people understand the cultural differences between Canada and the U.S and why we can successfully maintain a single payer system in Canada. Here's why it works here:

- everyone pays taxes. The "poor" are not exempt.

- high tax on junk food and fast food (a McDonald's meal for two can cost over 20 bucks. No "dollar menu") no supplemental nutrition program (not EBT here) different portion sizes - all of which dissuade obesity. We have less obesity or Diabetes than not only the United States but also other common wealth countries like Australia. Less obesity related illness.

- The 2008 recession never affected Canada. Which is why our middle class was able to thrive. Most people here are middle to upper income so they're able to afford to pay into the system with ease.

I am not homeless and would not be able to afford private health insurance....if it wasn't for medicaid I wouldn't be able to afford therapy or medications, or any other general health care treatment or yearly health check ups, or be able to cover hospital bills.

What's the cost of basic private healthcare cover there? I doubt it'd be more than here in Oz, mainly due to Oz being expensive to live in and basic healthcare taking away from people getting insurance.

I also get cheap medication and 1/2 price therapy/GP visits, but that's because of the disability card, which most people don't have, and it's unrelated to basic healthcare (most people aren't disabled).

There's no way I'd go public for surgery or mental health.

Question, if the U.S already has "Medicaid" and "CHIP" why do you need anything else? You seem to already have a public option for low income people. I think you underestimate how many social programs you actually have available to you. Free cell phones, food debit cards (EBT),housing vouchers and many other services. Do you not realize that you have more government programs than any other country?

And your politicians call us Canadians "socialist" . What a joke.

None of those things apply in the UK and we successfully maintain a single payer system.

Are you sure about everyone paying income tax? According to this calculator and this one, I would pay no income tax in any province. Maybe it just doesn't recognise low wages...

I agree with you about cell phones. I don't think that's really the government's place.

"By 2024, [the interest on the debt] will reach $880 billion, or 3.3% of GDP. That means interest will account for the lion's share of the $1.1 trillion deficit projected for that year and will come close to what will be spent on Medicare".

NOTE: Interest on debt spending ~ medicare spending in 2024 .....

"In contrast to the rapid growth of interest spending, outlays for defense programs and domestic programs -- such as education, infrastructure, disaster relief and law enforcement -- are on track to fall to their lowest levels since 1962".

We will be consumed by our debt.



source:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/04/news/ec ... t-on-debt/