It amazes me when I read about US healthcare.A question for you USAers.

a reply to: blupblup

I'm genuinely shocked that so many US members seem to be against universal healthcare being funded by general taxation.
The US defence budget and NASA is funded by national taxation, why not healthcare free at the point of need for everyone?

They can still have their own private healthcare insurance, same as here in the UK. A couple of mates of mine have private insurance but I've never bothered as the NHS has stitched me back together well enough over the years.

Why is it OK to fund the military through taxation but not healthcare for everyone?
I really don't get it.

*Edit*
What about firefighting services?
I don't hear people complaining that their taxes fund that and they should have the right to purchase their own firefighting cover.
By the same reasoning, are firefighting services also 'socialist' then?

a reply to: grainofsand



Because screw 'em man!!! If they can't afford it then why should I pay?
Their poor life choices mean they have no money, not my problem... as long as me and mine are ok then who cares right?

Rugged Individualism man.... stand on your own two feet.

'Murica..... **** yeah!!

originally posted by: blupblup
a reply to: grainofsand



Because screw 'em man!!! If they can't afford it then why should I pay?
Their poor life choices mean they have no money, not my problem... as long as me and mine are ok then who cares right?

Rugged Individualism man.... stand on your own two feet.

'Murica..... **** yeah!!

The problem comes in answering "How much tax is too much tax?"

Because as it stands now, the "poor" get benefits from our tax dollars, meanwhile the people executing those benefits allow the non poor theives to fraud the system.

I think most Americans would have no serious issue with our social programs IF those programs weren't so poorly executed that at least 1/3 is lost to fraud and incompetance AND they weren't paid for solely by the middle class.

Governmental policy has decimated the middle class. Get this: we exported our manufacturing industry to places like India and China. In the US it was replaced by service jobs and skill jobs (which are now being sent over seas). But Americans don't like service jobs. So what do we do? Instead of find industries that Americans will work, we just import more people to fill service jobs.

As far as the eye can see you have nail techs, massage therapists, nurses, hairdressers....our entire skilled service industry is being outsourced while still sitting on our own soil. They just import the labor from overseas. The imported workers then begin exported US currency back to their home country, thus further devaluing our economy.

Just think about that. We exported our higher paying jobs, leaving lower paying jobs for Americans. When Americans wouldn't do the service jobs, we then just imported the labor. Screwed twice. How about this: instead of worrying about how we feed and medicate the poor....why don't we just fix poverty? Or, at least quit destroying our own economy?

Beyond that...ACA doesn't give healthcare to the poor. The poor still get screwed.

I just got back from oncologist appointment. She was on holiday, but got to see her nurse, a neurologist and brain surgeon all in the space of an hour, picked up next round of chemo ( it's in pill form and I take it home) and left. It cost me the price of the parking.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

CASE CLOSED.

and

GET BETTER WOODY!

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Ha...now you're definitely pegging me incorrectly. I abhor the constant spying just as I abhor people who lecture me about semantics on health insurance not being the same as taxed dollars acting as your health insurance.

We just differ on the idea of what government shoulddo, apparently. That's fine. But I disagree that it's 'my loss' because we don't have the NHS. Personally, I would prefer the government have nothing to do with health insurance or health care, and that it be left up to individuals and their doctors to determine what is best.

I agree that insurance companies can suck to high heaven, but unless we live in a world where you are born with great fiscal intelligence, most people can use something like that until they are capable to (a) have enough savings to drop it and deal directly with hospitals/doctors and (b) learn to live a healthy lifestyle that minimizes their need to visit a doctor.

But like it or not, I live in a capitalist society (which is being cancered up by crony capitalism), and it is designed that way specifically to keep government out. Bringing the constitution into it may be laughable to you, but that's a big indicator to me that you just don't get it, either. But that's okay...we can disagree or be incapable of understanding each other's stances on the issue. No big deal.

WHERE DOES the constitution does say you can spy on every part of my online or phone day, but they do it anyway....cherry picking.

Two things:

1. I can show you where it says the gov't can't spy on you without a specific warrant, and

2. I cherry picked because this thread is about healthcare in the U.S., not spying.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: blupblup

I'm genuinely shocked that so many US members seem to be against universal healthcare being funded by general taxation.
The US defence budget and NASA is funded by national taxation, why not healthcare free at the point of need for everyone?

They can still have their own private healthcare insurance, same as here in the UK. A couple of mates of mine have private insurance but I've never bothered as the NHS has stitched me back together well enough over the years.

Why is it OK to fund the military through taxation but not healthcare for everyone?
I really don't get it.

Well, because in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, it specifically states that:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So you see, these are the specific things for which our federal government can take our money, those in bold being the ones that deal with a military. I left all of them in there so that you can scan through them and realize that nowhere does it mention anything about "individual healthcare" or the like. Nowhere.

Also, you'll note that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had opposing viewpoints as to what the phrase "...and General Welfare of the United States" actually means when discussing federal ability to tax. It's worth reading this Wiki article about it. I subscribe to the Madison point of view, but isn't it funny how the governing body that would benefit the most decided to side (eventually) with Hamilton? Basically, the interpretation of that phrase that allows the gov't to take the most money for the most reason that it deems necessary won out--who would have guessed that would happen?

This is why the SCOTUS says that if the fine for not having health insurance under the Obamacare rules is deemed a tax, it's okay. I disagree that think that's a load of horsesh*t, and that it's just a ruling to continue to give a power-hungry body more money and more power.

What about firefighting services?
I don't hear people complaining that their taxes fund that and they should have the right to purchase their own firefighting cover.
By the same reasoning, are firefighting services also 'socialist' then?

To a point, they are, but we also understand that, at the local level, taxes are good for providing services like that...and roads, and police forces, etc. But bringing up firefighting services isn't an argument for federal taxation, it's an argument for local taxation. Not the same thing, nor do they really serve the same purpose. The farther from the source of the money that the taxing body is, the easier for corruption of the money to take place and then less likely the source is to do anything of substance about it.

Unless you tax our tea, apparently--then an ocean can separate us and there will still be an uprising.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Oh, so it's all about the constitution then.
So what about individual states providing healthcare for all, free at the point of need, to each states citizens, funded by local state taxes?

That against the constitution as well?
Would you have a problem with individual states opting out of ACA and any other health insurance schemes to provide their own funded by taxation?
Purely hypothetical of course, it just gives me an idea on where you stand morally or philosophically speaking, without the hindrance of the constitution as a blanket reason to let poor people go without equal healthcare.

a reply to: grainofsand

So we are talking about a tax increase here, then? Not just a reshuffling of taxes already levied?

If that's the case, then yes. I assert that the government needs to figure out how to make it all work without squeezing The People more. Tax increases don't hurt the wealthy or the poor. The poor already don't pay much in tax, and the wealthy have all manner of loopholes. Its the middle class that pays tax increases.

You can make everyone fit as a fiddle....but it'll bankrupt them in the process, and increase income disparity (and raise the poverty level equal to whatever the tax increase is).

I hear people say we shouldn't reduce defense spending....but we spend as much as the rest of the entire world. If we couldn't cut that in half and still maintain the same level of security for our nation, then I think we may have just found the problem: we are feeding a money pit.

a reply to: grainofsand

I already commented to someone else with such a thing--I said that I would have less of an issue if the states ran their own, because at least they could set it up in a way that makes sense for their smaller amount of people (and any local things that dictate different needs--I'm sure Alaskans have different overall needs than, say, people living in Arizona).

But in any case, my biggest concern is that we don't have an option to opt out (and, with opting out, keep our taxes that go toward that system). Instead, we have some BS system that forces us to buy in or pay a "tax" if we don't. We don't really have an option...at least, as has been claimed, you get a tax rebate if you opt out.

But don't mistake this issue as having any sort of moral undertones. I can disagree with a government entity taking my money in order to spread the wealth around for other people's benefit against my will, yet still willingly be a very giving, compassionate human being with my money and time. Pretending anything else is to try and stand on a moral high ground that you do not have, as you do not know what I do to help the less fortunate in a personal capacity. I'm not going to get into it, either, but just understand that if this is the angle you're trying to take, you're definitely pointing the finger at the wrong individual.

And like I've already said ad nauseam, the cliché that poor people didn't have proper access to health care is a false assertion that I really wish people who don't live in the U.S. and know how things actually work here would quit regurgitating out of their mouths as false quantifier to make their health-care system appear angelic by comparison. ("Equal health care" is a relative term...I don't have the same access to all healthcare that someone who lives near a cancer-specific treatment facility does, for instance)

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm sure it could be done without increasing any taxes, as you said your defence budget is huge, plus a state hospital would not be taking any profits for shareholders. Fire services are funded by taxes and there is no third party such as insurance companies taking a profit, or is there? They seem to work as state owned entities.
Then if you look at the massive monthly costs I'm reading people are paying in health insurance, transferred that into say a sales tax/property tax/income tax/whatever instead, I'd imagine people would be paying even less than they do now.

Target major corporations, maybe an airport charge for foreign nationals, whatever you can think of, it could be done.
State hospitals, doctors, dentists and health clinics could easily be funded if the people wanted it, and cheaper than it is now.

How much profit each year do insurance companies make from healthcare I wonder. All that cash could be kept by the individual states if the US as a whole wanted it.
I know it's all blue sky thinking, but while there are still people in the US who cannot get treatment or drugs for their ailments due to being poor, I'm sure something must change.
Of course I'll be told that nobody goes without, again, but we all know that ain't true. From everything I've read even medicaid is means tested and a few million people still slip under the net, which is better than the many millions before the ACA, but still a bit of a scandal.

I'm not bashing the US either, but when a nation with the biggest defence budget in the world has people in pain with simple dental abscess because they can't afford a dentist then one has to wonder why.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Prezbo369

◾Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.


But hey, lets not blow things out of proportion any.

You're realise this is a discussion about healthcare and not road safety........right?

Or are we just listing this that kill lots of people? Malaria maybe?..

And it's not like the NHS doesn't have its own problems.

Indeed it's not a perfect system, and yet people don't think twice about calling for an ambulance.....and I wonder how many people die in the US due to similar negligence negligence? Or are you saying it doesn't happen?

Why is it that maybe paying slightly more tax or having slightly less wars..., which will in turn ensure everyone in your country will receive medical help when it's needed, is so abhorrent to so many Americans? And why do so many take pride in this kind of attitude?

Is it just a cultural thing?

a reply to: grainofsand

im sure it COULD be, but it WOULDN'T be.

nothing gets the salivary juices of our elected mobsters flowing more than the term "Federal Pork". A whole pallet of $200 hammers can go missing and no one bats an eye.

No, this won't reduce money in anyones pocket except the regular joe in the middle class. Everyone else will get some pork doled out to them.

a reply to: Prezbo369 it's a cultural thing, but also historical. Our NHS was formed after Brits had fought two world wars to save an empire. It was something in return for the sacrifices of all Brits throughout those wars. It wasn't easy either to come into reality. The doctors resisted the idea. They had to be paid huge amounts to get them on board with the idea of public healthcare free at the point of delivery

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: grainofsand

im sure it COULD be, but it WOULDN'T be.

nothing gets the salivary juices of our elected mobsters flowing more than the term "Federal Pork". A whole pallet of $200 hammers can go missing and no one bats an eye.

No, this won't reduce money in anyones pocket except the regular joe in the middle class. Everyone else will get some pork doled out to them.

I felt a little sad reading that.
We have our own robbing bastards in public finances as well of course, but your candid thoughts that it absolutely wouldn't happen due to freeloaders in the chain is a rather sad thought.
I wish all US people the best, it is why I wish you had a universal healthcare system which nobody had to get insurance for, similar to how your fire services are funded. Same sort of thing as I see it.
I wish that for everyone in the world.

a reply to: CranialSponge


It's thoughtful of you to provide us with reasons other than moronicity (I invented a new word) for freaking out over the ACA. The specificities of our moronicities (say that out loud, it's fun, lots of sssss action) are largely political. But you know that. The republican party has called for repeals close to 60 times, and the underlying reason is

Obama must fail, and I'm not necessarily talking about somebody's grandpa who opposes whatever the party tells him to oppose, but about the big-wig republicans, the ones who actually run the party. They've been asked repeatedly for suggestions to make it a success, and changes they could live with. All these years and not a peep.

Reading your post along with many others, I'm thinking "good point, good point", but the comments won't have any impact. Minds are made up, and have been. Time, perhaps.... time and experience. As you say, familiarity.

Now I must drink some vile elixir said to stop coughing sneezing wheezing "so you can rest" medicine, and go to my bedroom and smell the lovely gardenias I cut today, and wish I could give you all some. My favorite flower.

a reply to: grainofsand

well...i tend to feel a lot pissed when I think about it.

Its all a racket.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Personally, I would prefer the government have nothing to do with health insurance or health care, and that it be left up to individuals and their doctors to determine what is best.

And this right here is exactly what I was talking about.

Our governments (Canada, UK, Australia, France, etc etc) do not control our healthcare decisions. The individual and their doctor makes those decisions, nobody else. The government plays no part in day to day healthcare needs of its citizens.

I don't know how many times I have to say that before it finally sinks in for some of you guys.

Our governments do not control our healthcare needs under a universal healthcare system, they play absolutely no part in it whatsoever !

Oy vay...

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Personally, I would prefer the government have nothing to do with health insurance or health care, and that it be left up to individuals and their doctors to determine what is best.

And this right here is exactly what I was talking about.

Our governments (Canada, UK, Australia, France, etc etc) do not control our healthcare decisions. The individual and their doctor makes those decisions, nobody else. The government plays no part in day to day healthcare needs of its citizens.

I don't know how many times I have to say that before it finally sinks in for some of you guys.

Our governments do not control our healthcare needs under a universal healthcare system, they play absolutely no part in it whatsoever !

Oy vay...

My comment includes it being left to the individual how much they want of their income to go toward their healthcare and how much they want to spend. Your government controls the purse for healthcare--that's hardly "absolutely no part in it whatsoever."

Oy vay indeed.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I get what you are saying but I have to ask, why you do not advocate personal household fire service insurance policies to pay for rescue if you need it?
Fire stations providing emergency cover for people funded by taxation seems to be a similar concept to me, how do you differentiate if I may respectfully ask?