Universal Health Care

Post Reply New Topic

So what, you're saying you're unable to be responsible for your own actions? That you can't understand the concept of right and wrong? Don't give me that song and dance routine.

It doesn't matter what level of functioning you are on the spectrum, you're able to post here right, we're talking concepts here that an average 8 year old would understand.

You don't steal things from other people, you may like what they have, but you are not entitled to it.

Quite frankly you may think I had an easy time with my disability, I didn't. Quite frankly I wasn't diagnosed till freshman year in college. I was bullied a lot, and yeah there were times I felt like giving up. However, I didn't give up, that's the difference between you and me and what you do is learned behavior not a lower level of functioning.

whatever. more name calling will not magically make me just like yourself. i will not dissuade you from removing the blinders from your vision. you are welcome to your world, but it is too mean a place for me.

I'm just making an observation about your behavior. I'm not calling you names out of any anger, hatred, etc., I'm pointing out a serious issue for you in hopes you will recognize that fact and correct it. Then maybe you wouldn't have as hard of a time trying to find a job if/when the economy starts doing better.

And why people on a site like this would fall for this macho Randroid survivalist BS is beyond me. Like it or not the vast majority of people are dependent on others for survival, even if some are too arrogant or dense to admit so.

Actually no, I'm going to call a spade a spade. You are name calling and you are acting in a crassly patronizing and sanctimonious manner towards someone who has probably worked at least 40 times the amount you have. You're the one acting like a spoiled brat.

Did I say "Obamacare" is affordable healthcare for all? The topic of this discussion is about Universal Healthcare. "Obamacare" is not Universal Health Care and does not afford healthcare for all, but it is the only healthcare reform that we have, and will eventually provide an opportunity for many people to purchase healthcare that cannot afford it now. People are already covered as a result of the law that would not have been covered if the law had not been passed.

If Universal Healthcare was passed a person might be able to argue that the Government is running Health Care, but "Obamacare" ensures that the Insurance Companies still have most of the control. The term rationing might fit in the sense that there are some regulations in the plan to control unnecessary practices, but there is no plan in "Obamacare" to ration healthcare, in general. The statement is a profitable one for the talkshow hosts that initiated it as a scare tactic to give people the idea that the government is going to have a level of control over health care that is far from reality.

The Supreme Court gets the final say on the constitutionality of the mandate. The constitutionality of a mandate had already been challenged in Massachusetts before a mandate was proposed as part of "Obamacare" and was ruled constitutional. There is an appeal on that decision just like the appeal on the decision in Florida. I doubt Mitt Romney felt like he was disrespecting the Bill of Rights when he supported the Mandate in the Massachusetts plan. Obama questioned the constitutionality of a mandate when Romney was for it.

Obama and many of the democrats wanted a public option instead of a mandate, but unfortunately a mandate was the only compromise that could be reached. Given that different decisions have been made by Federal Justices we can only speculate what the Supreme Court Decision will be. Apparently this is a larger concern for Obama, as a constitutional law professor than it was when the Republicans and Romney supported a Mandate. It will be ironic if Obama's earlier concern on the mandate issue is amplified by the Supreme Court.

There is also speculation that the democrats may jettison the mandate before it reaches the Supreme Court. This would probably require an adjustment that would make it harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get covered, but if the risk leans toward dropping many of those that have gained coverage in other areas of the law, the democrats can choose this route.

Obama knew the concern of the mandate provision when the law was passed; he does not seem like the kind of intellect that would not have a plan B or C readily available. There is political benefit in leaving the mandate in as long as possible, so the general public can enjoy more provisions of the law as each month goes by.

Given the potential strategy of removing the mandate before it goes to the Supreme Court, possibly in the Spring of 2012; if a Republican is elected president in 2012, it will be very hard for Republicans to remove the benefits that people already are enjoying without a mandate.

Perhaps, with a Republican President, the Republicans will be able to deny the Expansion of Medicaid Coverage and Subsidies to allow people to afford insurance, but the ability for some additional people to keep the coverage they have gained verses losing it, may make the removal of the mandate the safest strategy before it hits the Supreme court.

If Obama were to win re-election the medicaid expansion and subsidies would likely go into effect without the mandate. A repeal of the whole law in the Supreme Court would make re-election of Obama more difficult. A jettison of the mandate before it hits the Supreme Court might delight many and be seen as a bi-partisan effort that helps the chances of Obama's re-election.

A decision on this may have been considered well before now. There is one thing I know for sure, and that is that Obama understands consitutional law better than anyone on the Wrongplanet, or anyone in the media. He is in the perfect position to influence the decision on whether or not the mandate issue actually gets to the Supreme Court.

Okay tough guy. Whatever.


So should severely autistic people be sent to the gas chambers? Maybe we should say sociopaths such as yourself are expendable dead weight to the human race.


Wrong. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.


blah-blah-blah I've heard it all before.


We are presuming the two who can get food are easily able to get enough to feed all five. If they refuse to share they are fair game. Your notion that they have the right to hoard at the expense of the survival of the other three is completely arbitrary. I think you'd feel justified in demanding that they share if you were actually put in the situation of the three. Your arbitrary "ownership" morality would cease to apply once you were in sufficient anguish. You can't apply your dumb black-and-white Randroid rules to every situation.


That people will lose take-home income by being "bumped" into a higher tax bracket is horse malarkey. Only the income exceeding the bracket income level is taxed at the higher rate.


Your view of the world is warped. We are social animals. We depend on cooperation to survive. Humans are not built like other wild animals. For our size we are one of the weakest, slowest, frailest species on the planet. Not even our superior brain power gives us a fighting chance out in nature alone, at least not without somehow relying on cooperation and/or on tools developed by others.

While it is true that you can never earn less money by being bumped into a higher tax bracket, his point still stands since there is an opportunity cost to making money. If taxes reduce the marginal return on an investment to the point where it no longer outweighs the marginal costs, then a rational market participant would not pursue that investment.

Marshall, I think it's great that you think there should be a social safety net, and I would never dream of using the coercive force of the state to prevent you from acting on your subjective political views. Why do you not afford others the same respect? I know many conservatives and libertarians who are very charitable, regularly contributing to church groups and private charities that provide for those in need. What you are advocating is for the government to take their money at gunpoint so that it can be spent on your personal social goals. The government is prone to inefficiency and waste, and their incentive schemes often backfire in ways that the social planners can't predict. Even with an 80% cut of all our incomes, I doubt the government could eliminate all the social ills you perceive.

Our tax brackets are incremental. You can't earn more and net less. If that appears to happen, it's an issue with the payroll withholding tables, and will get cleared up when the actual return is filed.

We've had enough history now to know that once the top rate falls below 50%, people stop factoring tax into their decision to earn more money. As long as they get to keep at least half of it, they happily do their best to earn more. The 70% marginal brackets that existed when Reagan took office were a deterrent, but they are long gone, bit the dust, not likely to ever return. The idea that current tax structure is punitive is false, and nothing but political rhetoric.

The reality is that businesses (and the people who run them) want to exist not only where the tax rates are relatively low, but also where infrastructure exists. They need roads to deliver their products, and schools to produce effective employees. Given a choice between a non-tax location with poor schools and poor public services, and a moderate tax location with good schools and good infrastructure, the business will pick the later every single time. Government and business are always doing a little dance to find the right balance on the issue. You'll always hear that talk about "don't tax me," but in most cases its posturing so government won't try to whomp them for more than their fair share.

I really don't see the point in arguing here anymore. We disagree on something so fundamental that it isn't just a matter of convincing the "other side" that they are wrong through argumentation or reasoning. I think the issue is I don't just see coercion and direct harm as the only evil. I see suffering caused through neglect and abandonment as something just as evil. The indirect harm done through withholding causes equivalent suffering. I suppose the fact that this darkness and suffering pervades the world doesn't bother conservatives as much as it does me. You guys all see yourselves as being infinitely strong and resilient. You can't imagine being put under more than you can possibly handle so you don't identify with it. You are under the illusion that you are completely at the helm. You think that you can never be thrown into the river and forgotten/forsaken because your pride in your supposed "self reliance" and deserving nature keeps company over you. You can lie to yourself because it helps you sleep at night. I'd do anything to trade places but unfortunately I can't make myself believe in a lie.

What are you basing that on? Conservatives in this thread have mentioned their preference for private charities many times, this would imply they feel it has a use.

Oh, I'm all for private charities. But the problem is, individual do-gooders can only do so much. But a sustainable safety net requires the financial support of all tax payers. I doubt even Bill Gates, with all his money, can take care of all disabled and retired persons into the far future. But by all means, he can feel free to help as many people that he likes.
As for the charge that only a small cabal of legislators make decisions about taxes - well, yes. That's how our political system works. If you don't like it, then vote for someone else. Otherwise, tough.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Otherwise tough? You are advocating legalized theft from the productive folk of the land. Why should the government be permitted an activity, which if performed by a private individual would constitute a felony?

ruveyn

While you make a valid point...some flaws in your reasoning.

Your example from Leviticus points out some interesting concepts you fail to mention. The instruction was to to not "glean" the fields (pluck bare). By leaving some behind, the poor could come through and get the remnant. However, God did not instruct the farmer to hand over X percent of his harvest to the poor. Rather, leave X percent unharvested. The poor had to go out and get their own food.

The Bible likewise teaches that if a man will not work, nor should he eat. There is no social mandate to support those who WILL NOT contribute to society. Much of the entitlement mentality is that a person is OWED what they want and expecting them to work for it is inherently wrong. No. It is not. If the world goes to Hell and you want to survive, better expect to do whatever you can to help others in exchange for their taking you in. If you expect to show up, consume food, medicine, clothing, etc. but contribute nothing, they'll turn you away. You try and take what you want by force, expect to be gunned down.

Society tolerates way too many people who think they are OWED something they have not worked for. We also tolerate people who think they are OWED something simply because another enjoys having it...but with a total disconnect that the other person worked long and hard to acquire it. This is destroying society because it erodes any sense of personal responsibility or accountability. It feeds the mentality that people are victims of the successful who must be compensated for what they've been denied.

Amazingly, the vast majority of improvements to society came about from visionaries who worked long and hard to create something new. Often, they were successful and very prosperous for their discovery. Since when does that make them automatically "evil" people? The common man is content to sit on his ass and live day by day. He might go to a job and punch a clock doing mundane duties for an hourly wage, but the man he works for is taking 1,000X the financial risk, 1,000X the emotional stress and mental effort and likely double or triple the amount of physical labor (average Joe works 40 hours a week...many businessmen work 80-120 hours to grow their dreams). How does the worker have a "right" to a bigger share of the company profits? He didn't invest anything more than he was asked to invest and he was paid what he agreed was a fair wage for the work he was asked to do.

And as far as my being on my back with age, sickness, or injury, I've accepted that some day that will come to pass. I intend to trade what I can do for the support of others for as long as I can. I believe I do not have the right to take from others in exchange for nothing.

Going back to the idea of national health care, I believe it is needed, but the politicos are incapable of creating a system that can care for everyone without being unfair for some to benefit others. I believe everyone should be paying whatever they can spare into a lifetime health care program, but you know there are people would would scream that expecting everyone to give 10% of their gross income (arbitrary number I picked) is an undue hardship on the poor and grossly favors the rich. But how it right to give the poor no obligation and double-triple-or even quadruple the burden on wealthy people? A key reason our tax system is falling apart (the destruction of the "middle class") is because people who are poor pay practically no tax, the wealthy have a multitude of legal ways to mitigate their tax obligations, but the "middle class" are caught in the middle and get soaked for most every penny. The system is not equitable or fair. That's why I support The Fair Tax as a replacement to the current income tax model in the USA.

You really need to open your eyes and examine both history and current existing policies in government.

YOU ARE EXPENDABLE! That is how government views you. Always had...always will. Unless you are related to one of the few ultra-powerful political families in the world or ultra-wealthy, how long you would be preserved in the event of a disaster is a direct result of how much value you currently offer to the state.

Ignore that reality at your own peril.



Okay, then, let's look at your proposal. Five people, only two can get food, but they get enough to "share" (you don't specify how well all 5 would do, but I'll presume basic daily sustenance to survive). What do the three who can not get food contribute to the whole? Do they expect to be fed in exchange for nothing? Should they continue to be supported if they refuse to contribute in whatever way they can to the group's survival?

It is one dynamic to say 2 get food, one cooks and cleans, one works on making a shelter and maintaining it, etc. It is another dynamic to say 2 get food and the other 3 expect to have that food shared just because it's the "right" thing to do. The later reflects an entitlement mentality possessed by many useless pieces of trash we see living in society...people who feel it is a "right" for them to get all the things they need but it's wrong to expect them to work for it.

If that doesn't clarify the matter to you, I don't think it's possible for you to understand how society really must work to move forward.



We are social animals. In a crisis, we tend to band together....for a time. What do you think happens once resources can no longer meet the need? What happens when clean water only will satisfy 100 people and there are 200 or more in need? What do you think happens when the food you can find will sustain 100 people but to feed 200 or more means everyone slowly starves to death?

When survival is at stake, people revert to their most animal instincts to survive. The best way to prevent a total decent into barbarism is to have a sense of how much is available, how far it will go, and restrict it to the number it can sustain. It's hard choices like that most people don't want to make, and trying to compromise to do what feels good results in everyone being condemned.

I can make plans for myself.

I can make plans for my family.

I might allow my neighbors to participate.

I might allow my like-minded friends to be in my group.

I will not allow people who expect hand outs because I had the foresight to plan ahead.

I will not allow people to take from me by force because they didn't have the foresight to plan ahead.

If I seek the help of others, I will offer whatever I can to contribute to the survival of the whole. I will not ask them to carry dead weight.

Mcg, are you the one who made this same argument previously? The concept of opportunity cost has absolutely no meaningful application to tax law.