Healthcare is 'a privilege...not a right': GOP lawmaker

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Because WE know what FREEDOM actually means?

There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Listen, the bottom line is this for me: If your RIGHT imposes a DEMAND (an enslavement, an imposition, a detriment, an expense, etc.) upon another, it CAN NOT be a legitimate RIGHT.

If everyone pays for a national healthcare system in the form of taxes then how is that "enslavement"? A rich man will pay the same rate as a middle class man who will pay the same rate as the poor soul in need of medical attention.

Everyone pays and everyone receives. No one will be burdened additional money just because they can afford to pay more...

Originally posted by Divinorumus
What you may call a RIGHT can not lead to the enslavement of others in order to fulfill your RIGHT. Does this make any sense?

This is why socialism will never work among us ALL, because those that would be enslaved in order to fulfill a socialists dreams will simply leave for greener freer pastures, just like our ancestors once did before. Get them monkeys off my back.

I am sorry but everyone has a RIGHT to basic medical attention. 99% of the world has ALREADY figured that out! Why is this difficult to accept

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin

Very poor people do not pay taxes, and if you give them more subsidies, ie healthcare, the funds have to come from somewhere, which will be from the people already paying taxes for other stuff.

The very poor dont pay income taxes. But everyone pays taxes. Almost everything you buy is taxed. And, just because someone is poor now, does not mean they never paid income tax. Anyone can have a bad year, a crippling injury, etc. Even good people who paid taxes most of their lives.

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin
I don't think anyone would like to see an ill person denied care, but, there must be a better way than the government just taking over.

And more taxes..

The government created this mess by helping doctors lock out more doctors. Because they are the problem, they have to be part of the solution. And yes, it will cost money. I dont believe universal insurance is the answer. As I said earlier, I think creating more doctors is the answer. But we arent going to get there without the government stepping in and undoing what they helped cause.

Originally posted by whaaa
Perhaps the Health Care system could be funded from Sales tax.

That's the way to do it! (provided only the non-essential items of life are taxed in this way) In this way, socialism can remain voluntary. You want that large screen home entertainment center? Fine, pay cash for it (NO more consumer credit), and you pay into the socialist network. And then folks like me, that do not need or want to fund someone else's socialist lifestyle and has no NEED for non-essential items in life can opt out of this whole monkey on our backs ideals! I like that idea.

reply to post by Divinorumus


Problem with that is how do we make sure those haters of socialism dont use the Health care system when their parents or kids or themselves are dying of cancer? How do we lock them out? How do we keep those who will not pay for that safety net from taking advantage of that net when they find themselves in a bind?

Give Medical cards to those who buy large screen TV's? Doesnt that end up locking out not only those who dont want universal health care, but those too poor to buy large screen TVs? And if it locks out the poor, then what is the point of it? Also, if it allows in those who scream "NO SOCIALISM!" when things are good for them, but allows them to freeload off those same programs when they need to, how is that going to make the system viable?

Just like corporate America screamed "small government!" until they needed that big government check to save their butts.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Everyone pays and everyone receives. No one will be burdened additional money just because they can afford to pay more...

I'd rather pay for what I actually use and receive. In your proposal, everyone would pay, but only some would receive. I do not like the idea of socialist health care when there is no requirement for anyone to properly maintain themselves. When I was without health insurance, I made exercising and a proper diet a high priority, because I knew what the consequences would be if I did not maintain myself.

Think of this like auto insurance. Would you also be happy if all the DUI folks paid the same insurance rates as those that drive responsibly?

We need a solution that includes personal responsibility. Half of this health care issue is taking good care of ourselves. Who would worry about the consequences of over-eating or not exercising if they wouldn't have to bear responsibility for what that leads to?

Sorry, I want a solution that holds me responsible for myself, otherwise people will just abuse the heck out of any other solution. Look at how many people complain about health care that do not exercise or maintain a proper healthy diet. You want to see MORE of that? Every one of us can help reduce the cost of medical care if we got up off our couch potato teevee watching butts and used that time to take good care of ourselves.

Just like we need to force people to live within their means, I think we need to force people to take care of themselves. I'll go for a national health care solution if part of that mandates that EVERYONE get up and runs 6 miles every morning! Okay? Can you go for that?

reply to post by Divinorumus


You want everyone to run 6 miles? Really? Even the people with degenerative knee, back and other ailments? The very old who have heart conditions? So we can pay for all the additional surgeries that would cause?

Almost every kind of health insurance does charge more for smokers. I think that something could be worked out so that those who live high risk life styles (including the over eaters) pay more, if it isnt in there already. But you cant just mandate running. You would cause more problems than you solve.

Instead of more taxation why not add national healthcare to the social security system? Increase social security withholdings and decrease state tax which is usually high. Do away with medicare and medicaid.... Cut down on unnecessary local beuracracy and make everything more centralised. For example no township police or county sheriff, state police is plenty.

At the federal level we can do with less agencies and a smaller defense budget. I don't have the perfect solution but I know we can cut down in many areas and reallocate these funds where they are most necessary.

As for self responsibility, I am all for it but how can we implement a system which discriminates into different classes? And besides these people punish themselves more than they punish the system or anyone else; low self esteem, increased rate of aids/cancer, heart disease, smaller life span, inability to walk/run, etc.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by EarthCitizen07]

I for one do not WANT the "government" to provide my healthcare...

Can you imagine if they had the option of actually controlling who gets what and when and how even more so than they do now?

I'd rather get trashed on Tequila and saw off my own arm.

And whether or not you choose to "run" for whatever reason,I DO believe there SHOULD be considerable incentives for those of us who work hard to stay fit and healthy,hopefully minimizing our risks of burdening the "system."

Healthy people aren't profitable enough. I have been very ill and chose to become very healthy and have seen the difference first hand.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by irishchic]

[edit on 7-3-2009 by irishchic]

reply to post by Divinorumus


Well, the prudent response would be to conduct a study, which determines how large a proportion of those without medical insurance suffer from illnesses, which actually merit medical attention. Your conjecture is not worth a dime. You arrogantly assume that half of medical insurance costs are related to lack of physical fitness. So what? There are a large proportion of people whose ailments are not related to your baseless claim. You can't just eliminate half of the population at whim. So lets actually fund a study, with tax payer money, to figure this out. Let's digitize medical records so that each case that can be analyzed and scrutinized to the fullest extent. This way we can focus in on individuals who are merely abusing the system. We can cut out all those individuals who seem to be taking a free ride. That would place a lot of incentive for people to start to take care of themselves. This isn't a zero-sum game. Why is this is such a difficult concept to understand?

Some people feel digitization would alienate their rights. But the only people who are complaining about this are those who know they will get caught shirking the system. For the most part, healthy people aren't worrying. And those that do are either delusional or irrational.

Originally posted by irishchic
I for one do not WANT the "government" to provide my healthcare...

Can you imagine if they had the option of actually controlling who gets what and when and how even more so than they do now?

I'd rather get trashed on Tequila and saw off my own arm.

It works everywhere else. Those that are denied quickly realize that it falls upon themselves to deal with their physical and emotional insufficiencies. Honestly, there's no conspiracy. In Canada, for example, there are extensive regulations, ethical committees and organizations related to considering all patients equably. An entire functioning bureaucracy emerges out of this demand for efficiency. It really is sad people are so unhinged here in the U.S. There's no reason to be afraid that the government innately considers you a liability, except of course for paranoia and extreme resentment for all government officials, mostly likely rationalized on a historical consideration for the last eight years of neo-liberalism.

Originally posted by irishchic
Healthy people aren't profitable enough. I have been very ill and chose to become very healthy and have seen the difference first hand.

The government makes zero profit under a free medical system.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Instead of more taxation why not add national healthcare to the social security system?

The social security system is a blatant Ponzi scheme. In fact, I challenge anyone to find a more obvious prime example of a Ponzi scheme than the SSS. The fact that it is mandatory is proof that our government is a complete sham and scam!

Originally posted by cognoscente
You can't just eliminate half of the population at whim.

Conversely, you can't enslave half of the population to take care of the other half at whim. Leave me the hell out of this mess. I'll take care of myself, myself, and the day I can't you can toss my sorry pitiful excuseful burdensome ass off a cliff. Honestly, this is all so ridiculous. Again, if whatever solution they come up with is dependent upon MY mandatory participation, well, you might as well then declare that solution a failed solution, because I will refuse to play along. I will not be enslaved to insure the socialist will have their way. If the solution is dependent up my participation, I will go away and cause your plan to FAIL! Understand?

"Social Security": recently had to get a replacement card.

The San Antonio Texas office was FULL of young men 25-35 with "bad backs" and also was equally full of young women with several small children filing claims.

The "why" of their claims was not my biz: the fact that SO many were in there doing this at such a young age floored me.

OR,how the parents of the girl who does my nails (Asian) collect Social Security when they've only lived in the US for 3 years?

Can someone "explain to me how this system,obviously in need of serious and strong reform/ re-vamping could possibly absorb anything to do with "health care?"





[edit on 7-3-2009 by irishchic]

reply to post by wolf241e


Think about what will happen if they nationalize healthcare. First of all, the fed will determine how much dotors will be making, and they will all most likely be making the same amount thus demotivating individuals to be better. Which will result in crappier healthcare. Secondly, can you imagine how long the average idiot will have to wait in line to get a procedure or operation? I'm sure the rich and wealthy will have their own little independent system in which they wont have to wait in any lines, and their doctors will be getting paid more motivating them be BETTER doctors. My last gripe with nationalized healthcare is the fact that the fed will determine who gets what....for example: a 65 year old man needs a hip or a knee replacement....the fed determines by certain aspects of his life (which are on his file in the feds computerized healthcare records system) that his life expectancy is 75 years. They then determine it is not cost effective to give this man the procedure he needs and he is a guven a quick fix, like a cane, some generic painkillers, a wheelchair, etc etc.

I take your points cognoscente and appreciate them.

"There's no reason to be afraid that the government innately considers you a liability, except of course for paranoia and extreme resentment for all government officials, mostly likely rationalized on a historical consideration for the last eight years of neo-liberalism. "

In regards to this however,my feelings are based more on 25+ years of first-hand experiences that make me somewhat of a skeptic.

Indeed, it's a privilege to people who can afford it

Not a one liner.

reply to post by MarsAttacks


Health care is already highly technologically advanced in the U.S. It's actually so advanced here that no substantial advancements are going to positively affect the whole range of the population, only the richest individuals and families. Advancements in high-cost robotic surgery isn't going to help anyone who has an income lower than the highest brackets. I don't think corporations are very motivated at the moment to provide new technological medical solutions to the median population, to those that can't actually afford their billion dollar investments in research and development. Think about if that RND were subsidized. Everyone would receive benefits from such research.

If it were nationalized, everyone would receive marginally worse quality of medical attention, however a larger proportion of population would be tended to. Creating digital histories and records of every patient in the country would increase efficiency. A large, functioning bureaucracy would emerge, which would deal with ethical considerations such as the preferential selection of patients based on needs. The loss in technological progress wouldn't really be considerable. Medical technology can only get so good. There's an upper limit. When the human body is one-hundred percent curable there is no need to advance. I'm not saying we're anywhere near there, but there is very little more at the moment we can do without significant advancements in quantum computing, artificially intelligent robotics and genetic pharmacology. Until those technologies come about then is not going to significantly affect the quality of medical care and the incentives of practitioners.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


Yup. National health care is like a lottery where everyone is told they will win, ha, except we would probably only get back like 30 cents on our dollar investment.

With national health care, not EVERYONE is going to be able to get a new heart when they need one, we simply can't afford that, it just won't work. At least with the current system, SOME will get a new heart. Sure, maybe it will only be those that can afford it .. but, THAT should be the motivation to work hard enough TO afford it.

With an all or nothing (it's a RIGHT for ALL) solution, nobody will be able to get a new heart, and we all will suffer and die. With a privileged system, at least those that have worked their butts off and saved (instead of buying iPod and large screen teevees on credit) will be able to afford that new heart when they need it. National health care isn't going to be able to keep us ALL alive until we reach 100 years of age (or whatever).

Take food as a comparative example. Right now there obviously isn't enough food to go around, because a lot of people are starving today. But if food was also nationalized, maybe all won't starve, but we would all be less nourished as a result.

I know this doesn't sound fair to the Robbing Hoodlum crowd, but .. it really is UP TO YOU whether you can or can't afford it, it's just a matter of how hard you want to work to save your own life, or waste your money on crap instead! Anyone that says they can't afford health insurance should take a look at all the crap they have wasted their money upon before lying about what they can or can't really afford.

reply to post by cognoscente


I actually just downloaded this very insightful paper from my University's online catalog. It's titled Equilibrium social insurance with policy-motivated parties and is authored by De Donder and Hindriks of the University of Toulouse in France. I'm not technically allowed to distribute this, but if you send me a private message with your e-mail address I would not hesitate to share.

Basically, it examines income polarization in the U.S. They conclude that because income disparity is so high, risk aversion tends to dominate any political decision making process on issues that are so focal on income disparity.

It makes a lot of sense now just after reading this discussion here on the boards. Highest-income earners are positively risk-averse, meaning they tend to oppose implementation symmetrically, and that they believe the implementation of some public health care system would impose a significant cost on their finances, while diminishing the probability of a profitable return in terms of service. On the other hand, the lowest-income earners are negatively risk-averse, meaning they support implementation symmetrically, but tend to burden the system in terms of its service. In the short run, lowest-income earners take full advantage of the system, while highest-income earners are indifferent. But this problem peters out in the long run as people realize the system isn't going to disappear. Just imagine if you were really poor; you would definitely jump at the opportunity to get all your medical concerns addressed immediately, assuming you might believe it's not going to last forever. But when you realize it's not going to disappear, many of these concerns become trivialized. Also, in response, bureaucratizing elements tend to create a system to reduce inefficiency in the short term, thereby alleviating stress, even though this might have some adverse social effects on the poor, and media might jump the gun to portray the medical industry are cold-blooded, inclusive and discretionary.

This observation definitely leads credence to the notion that a single-tiered medical system just wouldn't work politically, even though it just might work on a technical level. The whole issue is convincing people, and since people are evolutionary predisposed to think in the short-term, it gets rather difficult to address issues such as long-term free medical care, especially when it seems people's finances, and hence their security, are at stake.

Perhaps if this were to be implemented on a regional level, one that supersedes state boundaries, this might be a viable strategy. What do you think about this? A regional health insurance system would be organized along boundaries, designed to enhance political efficiency based on income disparity. Prices would be differ region to region, with membership restricted to the category they are placed into by the federal government. And since this is nationalized, every region would be expected to meet very high standards of medical technology and professionalism.

If Obama wants to implement a free medical insurance program then it will be very difficult to implement on a national level. I'm starting to think that nation-states with increasing high income disparity just won't make it through this next century, as growing capitalism is apparently making this situation worse every year. It makes a lot of sense when you look at all the different countries of the world.

Canada and Australia have a low degree of income polarization and their public health insurance industries are rarely the center of attention in any political debate. Whoever focuses their political platforms on such non-existent issues during election times are rarely considered by voters, and rationalized as political outliers, or a waste of time.

In the U.S. it is almost the opposite. I think this should be done a state or even better yet, a regional level, if it is to succeed. A national heath insurance policy, after reading this paper and reflecting on the very nature of this thread, simply isn't mathematically reasonable on a political level, unless of course we adjust equilibria by changing our cultural attitudes, which is impossible of course.

I still don't think it would be difficult to operate some sort of public health care system on a technical level, assuming people can weather through the short-term scenario, which entails high degrees of political contention and high burdens on the system itself. I believe the emergence of bureaucracy would address short-term rationality, and shifting cultural attitudes in the long run would address unstable political equilibria, maximizing the expected utility of both the conservatives and liberals in terms of risk-aversion due to income disparity.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander



You are singing to the choir, babe. Hubby and I often have this argument. I'm a staunch free-markets person and he thinks there should be licensing. He has actually told me that there might be quacks hurting people without licensing. I countered with your very argument about the docs themselves restricting entry into the profession and followed with the existence of licensed quacks molesting women who are drugged. Discussion got heated and while he knows that I respect the work HE does, there is much not to respect about the profession as well.

My husband is again a rare breed and he went to learn a little about the unpleasant history of his field after that discussion. Interestingly enough, his mother- also a doc (Ob/Gyn)- calls for the need of western medicine combined with...wait for it... alternative natural therapies. Funny how I never thought her an ally before I married her son. ;o)

I agree that it is a problem that lies with the insurance companies. The basic cost of anything medical is rediculous! I blame the pharmecuticals also because of the profit margin on medicines. My son had cancer in 1989 and his care was $175,000 USD for treatment for 1 year. I even had insurance and still had to declare bankrupcy because of it. Maybe if it were controlled by people who are to be held responsible it would work. Something has clearly got to change or the poor will just die away and now we are all getting poorer.