Tax the rich to pay for Health Care

[Muadi]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-uGO7WHIvlMCxNvWJPoUWg5_WHwD9C1C4O80

Bottom line, a high percentage of the people interviewed thought it would be a good idea to tax the rich more to pay for health care. Congress is looking at taxing about 5% more on those earning $250,000 or more per year.

Interesting thought, till you look at the numbers.

Only 1.5% of US households earn more than $250,000 per year (2003 census data). Does anybody in congress, or those being surveyed, really feel that getting an extra 5% from 1.5% of the people will make a difference? People need to slow down a think once in a while....:bang:

[]LoL[Harm]

I believe they've already done the numbers, and it is not increasing their taxes directly. It is changing the tax code so that those who make over $250,000 cannot claim as many deductibles on their returns which was quantified to a point where it shows that it will pay for the health care bill.

So they aren't getting an increase to their income tax, it stays the same, they just aren't able to deduct as many items and therefore get less itemization.

[]LoL[Harm]

Oh and that was just to assist in paying for it, the taxation thing was never meant to pay for the full amount. I can't recall where the majority of the money was coming from at this time but it was detailed in a town hall session I believe, by Obama.

[Post]

I liked the other option better of going after the methods they pay less taxes (proportionally) than people who make less money. I make more money and pay less taxes than I did a few years ago because of good ol' capital gains.

[Muadi]

I know its not meant to fully cover the costs... I miss-worded :)

None the less, there are just not that many people to go after at that income level... I guess that is what I thought was so funny :)

[Noleader]

Well all that will change if the Administration and Congress get their way... Lots of talk as of late on adding a Value Added Tax to the system (basically a ~20% sales tax to most products) on top of all the current tax codes.

I wonder when Americans are going to finally throw their hands up and finally start to demand their government to reduce in size and scope.

[]LoL[Harm]

That will be the same moment everyone starts caring enough about their communities to look in to the issues and get active enough to pull their asses out of their couches and stop sitting on the sidelines rooting for their Donkey team or Elephant team.

1984 has a lot to teach us on the the human condition. If the masses are too busy rooting for their sports teams, playing the lottery and drinking themselves happy they will never wake up and see the major issues in our society. They are more likely to complain about the pot hole in front of their house instead of complaining about the inefficient taxation and utilization of public funds that lead to the inability of the state to keep the roads in good working condition.

You fix the apathy and the laziness, I'm pretty sure you'll fix a few of the government issues.

[Post]

Well, the most bloated piece of government is the military, and that's a difficult thing to start shaving politically. I frankly think it will be a long time before the majority of people to start throwing their arms up in the air to the point of supporting military cuts.

What was that jet project that didn't work at all and still had people up in arms about canceling it?

[]LoL[Harm]

Here's a nifty opinion piece on it:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/17/its-tempting-but-the-rich-probably-shouldnt-pay-for-health-re/

[Muadi]

Well all that will change if the Administration and Congress get their way... Lots of talk as of late on adding a Value Added Tax to the system (basically a ~20% sales tax to most products) on top of all the current tax codes.

I wonder when Americans are going to finally throw their hands up and finally start to demand their government to reduce in size and scope.

For our Canadian friends... what is your current Government tax rate on goods and services?

The US, for a long time, has tried to stay away from high taxes and socialized medicine. It seems that it is the Canadian model that we are working towards.

[Noleader]

Well, the most bloated piece of government is the military, and that's a difficult thing to start shaving politically. I frankly think it will be a long time before the majority of people to start throwing their arms up in the air to the point of supporting military cuts.

What was that jet project that didn't work at all and still had people up in arms about canceling it?

We could cut a lot of our military spending by removing our troops from the two endless wars and closing down all our bases around the world. Also lets stop sending billion dollar 'aid' packages to nations the world over.

As for the biggest item that needs to be addressed though that would be Social Security and the Medicare unfunded liability. Most estimates put it at ~100 trillion dollars and that will bring the end to those programs in a very bad way in the near future if we do not address it now.

[Noleader]

LoL[Harm;171553']Here's a nifty opinion piece on it:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/17/its-tempting-but-the-rich-probably-shouldnt-pay-for-health-re/

He does explore the issue... I am not all that sure what he is asking for but he does lay out all the options and why some are good and bad in his mind.

The one item he does not address, which is a big one for me, is that you can be jailed and fined if you fail to get health insurance under the house plan. I don't know how forcing people to buy insurance will lower the price since every company will know this and price accordingly.

[Post]

While I agree those are costs, I disagree that pulling people away from wars and aid packages will cut spending, frankly. Enough to the point where you can fiscally feel it, at least.

And forcing people to buy insurance without a public option is lame.

[Noleader]

While I agree those are costs, I disagree that pulling people away from wars and aid packages will cut spending, frankly. Enough to the point where you can fiscally feel it, at least.

And forcing people to buy insurance without a public option is lame.

Look at all the money we spend on Aid alone: http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/who-gets-us-foreign-aid.html It is a little old but still gives a good picture.

Now on to the military: http://www.humanitycampaign.org/policy-research/global-military-spending-facts/

That is only part of the way though... we do need to slash social spending as well. If we don't we will end up losing the social programs and military programs when the country goes belly up. I know you support the social aspects of our spending Post but the fact remains 100,000,000,000,000.00+ in future liabilities is coming due in the next 40 years and we have no way to pay for it. Putting it on the credit account is immoral and should be illegal as well (taxing people that have yet to be born).

We need to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Prescription Drug Plan (while providing for those that have become dependent). This is the only way we will beable to get solvent without drastically increasing taxes. We need to come up with a 383 Billion dollar surplus just to make the interest payment on our debt.

[Noleader]

Here is a small peice of a speech given by the Federal Reserve of Dallas CEO (Richard Fisher):

“To fully fund our nation’s entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary spending by 97 percent. But hold on. That discretionary spending includes defense and national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those controversial earmarks that make the evening news. All of them would have to be cut—almost eliminated—to tackle this problem through discretionary spending.”

“Similarly on the taxation side, income tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent and remain that high forever. Remember, though, I said tax revenue, not tax rates. Who knows how much individual and corporate tax rates would have to change to increase revenue by 68 percent?”

[Post]

First of all, when talking about expenditures on medical spending, someone will have to pay for it, be it directly from our pockets, our insurers or the government. And it's a big red flag to state it will increase costs to have government aid, when EVERY country that has better health care than us has government aid.

Second, it's an unfair argument to believe that capitalism will fill the hole in the future via technology or necessity, and then set social program costs in concrete with statements like "100,000,000,000,000.00+ in future liabilities." Either you have to concede society will follow a path of yesteryear without government intervention and we'll see things like foster children roaming the streets, OR there's plenty of room for innovation and other things to step in the way of those huge future liabilities. You can't have both.

[Noleader]

Quick question... Why can't we pay for our medical spending from our own pockets or pick our insurer (from across state lines if we wished; which right now the government prevents)? Why should the government run it into the ground like they always seem to do with every project they touch?

Secondly it is unfair to offer two false choices... You paint the debate as if only social programs will fix all the ills our nation faces. I tend to think we have grown as a socity and would work to prevent children roaming the streets even if the federal government did nothing about it.

I would highly doubt that if the government allowed men to beat their wives again (rule of thumb) every guy would go out and get a switch to show her who is boss. The ones that would decide to beat their wives would be the same ones that most likely already did when it was illegal. The absence of laws does not mean socity would go backward and accept the normals of old as the new standard.

Also that is the great thing about government intervention... prices always go up. Think about the prices in two areas that have seen a lot of government intervention: College and Health Care. Both areas have seen prices go up 2x or more the rate of inflation even as every other area of the market has seen prices drop. Thats how I can say we will have the liabilities without beating an eye.

There is no reason why it is getting cheaper for a face lift or boob job yet the rate to get a broken limb set is growing except insurance provided by government intervention (Our current system of insurance has the governments hands all over it).

College keeps going up because of the demand coupled with the fact that government co-signs for all the student loans. Without the government agreeing to sign on the loans very few students would be able to get the loans and the class rooms would be empty... The colleges would be forced to reduce their prices just to fill the classrooms and thus making it more affordable for all those that wish to attend.

My problem with government intervention is that for each problem it fixes it introduces two new ones that no one thought of our intended for. Then government or those that support the intervention paint the issue as free market problems and claim the government is the only party able to fix the two new issues.

Also sorry I can't hope for a maricle to fix our current budget issues... We are taxing the unborn or just born to support our Great Socity. How can anyone that attempts to claim the moral high ground by saying they are for protecting the foster children of today say it is ok to tax and burden the next generation for our ideals? I think the greatest thing a socity can do is not spend their next generations into debt for which they have no escape. At the end of the day I guess it comes down to people thinking it will work itself out or that this time government will get it right.

[Noleader]

It will fix itself, right?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm

[Post]

"Quick question... Why can't we pay for our medical spending from our own pockets or pick our insurer (from across state lines if we wished; which right now the government prevents)?"

Well, technically we can, but I don't think it's feasible nor we should for the same reasons that we shouldn't for cops, fire department, roads and plenty of other things: I don't think being able to afford criminal protection / fire protection / grade schooling / health care should make the difference between you having it or not.

"I tend to think we have grown as a socity and would work to prevent children roaming the streets even if the federal government did nothing about it."

I think there's a good chance it should be more, but I don't see how it could effectively eliminate it like it is now (unless you're asking for a miracle, which I'm assuming you're not from the budget issue comment), and that's just one of many things. There are accidents that are of no fault of your own for example. I don't think you should be allowed to simply die if you get hit by a car, they can't find the perpetrator and you can't afford the medical bills.

And to think that society has grown to the point where that's eliminated is to think society wouldn't do things like dump the sick who can't pay for it at homeless shelters. Well, that happens.

"The absence of laws does not mean socity would go backward and accept the normals of old as the new standard."

It's not my assumption of it going backward. It's your assumption of it going forward. Let's face it - death and taxes are just assumed responsibilities. Putting money into homeless shelters is not. While many probably will, it's being truly hopeful to think people will step forward to the point to make up for what's lost.

"Think about the prices in two areas that have seen a lot of government intervention: College and Health Care."

And postal services? And wi-fi connectivity? And water? While I believe government intervention opens the door for corruption and overspending, it's not inevitable.

"My problem with government intervention is that for each problem it fixes it introduces two new ones that no one thought of our intended for."

Well, this is the root of our disagreement. Same goes with our disagreement for just about all of our roles of social help in government. I simply believe that the overall net loss in society is worse in several key areas, even if it's less expensive fiscally. It may be cheaper for the whole to not offer free public schooling, fire departments and whatever else, but I see those - along with health care - making a worse society overall.

I mean, we at least agree on things like school and fire departments should be done? I think both have their issues - no government intervention and having it. And everything in between. The goal is to pick the best overall, and I just feel there's more of a net positive with public health care.

For that matter, money is a representation of worth and not literal worth. Giving everyone else a million dollars except you makes you have less worth, even though no money was taken away from you. That's why it can be an ethically good thing to tax future generations in the long run. Not that it always (or even most of the time) is, but it's perfectly legitimate to do things in the name of insuring worth of the future, even if it involves taxing the future.

[]LoL[Harm]

A problem with your proposed solution Noleader, it hasn't fixed itself, there are core issues that don't appear to be remedied by your solution. I cannot pick an insurer right now that doesn't have a yearly and lifetime cap, I also cannot pick one that accepts those with pre-existing conditions. Merely allowing insurers to cross state lines will not correct that issue since it is simply an agreed to structure for all insurers, which is a primary failing of a free market.

[Noleader]

And postal services? And wi-fi connectivity? And water? While I believe government intervention opens the door for corruption and overspending, it's not inevitable.

Postal service has gone up and most likely would be cheaper for many if others could join in on First Class Mail Service. Granted those that live in the middle of no where would be without mail service or have to pay a steeper bill.

Last time I checked the government did not pay for my internet access... If they did I am sure that we would see a quick end of price reductions.

Water is provided by local governments and I already said I don't have an issue with local government doing some items that I would not want the Federal Government doing.

Well, this is the root of our disagreement. Same goes with our disagreement for just about all of our roles of social help in government. I simply believe that the overall net loss in society is worse in several key areas, even if it's less expensive fiscally. It may be cheaper for the whole to not offer free public schooling, fire departments and whatever else, but I see those - along with health care - making a worse society overall.

It is not just about being a cheaper option it is about quality as well. The closer those are that are providing the service from government the better the service will be. You seem to lump my examples in with operations done by local governments. I have no issue with local governments providing some items the free market could... not because I think they do a better job but because they are more directly accountable to the voters and if a program gets out of hand it is easier for the voters to fix it. That and when the federal government does it they are doing so in a manner not permitted by rule of law.

Our spending on public schools has gone up and up as the years pass and the quality of the education for the students has fallen during that same time. It might just be chance but the cost and quality lines follow the increased federal involvement in our public school system.

The goal is to pick the best overall, and I just feel there's more of a net positive with public health care.

And how do we pay for it?

For that matter, money is a representation of worth and not literal worth. Giving everyone else a million dollars except you makes you have less worth, even though no money was taken away from you. That's why it can be an ethically good thing to tax future generations in the long run.

What? I don't think I have ever heard someone trying to paint it as good that we are putting the unborn into debt to fund our great socity before. Just because you are not taking money out of their hands directly does not mean it is not harmful. You are forcing future generations to lower their standard of living in order to boost todays. How that can be ethically good in any shade just goes behond me.

Not that it always (or even most of the time) is, but it's perfectly legitimate to do things in the name of insuring worth of the future, even if it involves taxing the future.

Aside from the fact I outright disagree that you are 'insuring worth' in the future how does one think it is acceptable to tax those that have yet to be born? Who decided that we as a people have the right to levy taxes without giving proper representation. We are far from unbias (thus we can not be their representation) and to easily justify away the fact that what we are doing to the future generations in this nation is nothing less then what the English did to us in the mid-1700's.

[Noleader]

LoL[Harm;171584']A problem with your proposed solution Noleader, it hasn't fixed itself, there are core issues that don't appear to be remedied by your solution. I cannot pick an insurer right now that doesn't have a yearly and lifetime cap, I also cannot pick one that accepts those with pre-existing conditions. Merely allowing insurers to cross state lines will not correct that issue since it is simply an agreed to structure for all insurers, which is a primary failing of a free market.

What we have today is not insurance; we have managed care. Our car insurance policy does not cover oil changes and such, yet our health insurance covers EVERYTHING.

The current systems design promotes overspending for people. If your car insurance covered your oil changes I am sure you would spend no time trying to find the lowest price, you would take it where ever and have them do it... after all someone else is paying for it.

When was the last time any of you asked a doctor how much something he was doing would cost? I would guess that it has not happened or only happened when you knew the insurance would not cover the costs.

The best way to drive down costs is to have insurance for the major issues and pay out of pocket for the non-emergent stuff. People demanding lower costs at the point of sale always being prices down. There is a good reason why lasik and cosmetic surgery have come down in price.

[Post]

"Postal service has gone up and most likely would be cheaper for many if others could join in on First Class Mail Service. Granted those that live in the middle of no where would be without mail service or have to pay a steeper bill."

Fed-Ex and UPS aside (who have gotten CHEAPER because of competition from the post office and its stepping up to faster services like priority mail), the problem you point out with eliminating the post office highlights the issue I have with health care without federal aid. People wouldn't have the service they deserve. Those people in the middle of nowhere deserve to have mail service, just as others deserve health care.

"Last time I checked the government did not pay for my internet access... If they did I am sure that we would see a quick end of price reductions."

I'm talking about the cases where it was paid for in things like city-wide wi-fi. In those cases, pricing for other types of high speed internet access went down.

"Water is provided by local governments and I already said I don't have an issue with local government doing some items that I would not want the Federal Government doing."

Well, that's two things. I understand the line you draw between the two, one being at a federal level without as much in the decision making process by the people as the local level, but that doesn't stray from the fact that government can do cheap, effective service just fine.

"You seem to lump my examples in with operations done by local governments. I have no issue with local governments providing some items the free market could... not because I think they do a better job but because they are more directly accountable to the voters and if a program gets out of hand it is easier for the voters to fix it."

Note that your criticisms are different, though, than cost and effectiveness. That's why I lump them together - if your logic is sound, it should be universal between the two (local and federal). If you state things like, "Also that is the great thing about government intervention... prices always go up." You would have to explain why that applies to the federal level and not the local level.

"Our spending on public schools has gone up and up as the years pass and the quality of the education for the students has fallen during that same time. It might just be chance but the cost and quality lines follow the increased federal involvement in our public school system."

So do you think that the government shouldn't provide free grade schooling?

"Aside from the fact I outright disagree that you are 'insuring worth' in the future how does one think it is acceptable to tax those that have yet to be born?"

That's the nature of nation planning, though. Taxes are just one piece of making decisions for our future generations. Going to war, making treaties, printing money, and everything that the government does is taking up decisions for the yet to be born. Why should taxation be treated any differently from any other decisions?

[Noleader]

"Last time I checked the government did not pay for my internet access... If they did I am sure that we would see a quick end of price reductions."

I'm talking about the cases where it was paid for in things like city-wide wi-fi. In those cases, pricing for other types of high speed internet access went down.

Something tells me the private sector is not going to be investing much money in those areas though. So basically government provides, and controls, the internet access and in the process drives out the private market. Win win right?

"Water is provided by local governments and I already said I don't have an issue with local government doing some items that I would not want the Federal Government doing."

Well, that's two things. I understand the line you draw between the two, one being at a federal level without as much in the decision making process by the people as the local level, but that doesn't stray from the fact that government can do cheap, effective service just fine.

I live in an area where the tap water is great. That being said you could find many people that would not agree their government does it well... to the extent that they buy bottled water. So the fact that the bottled water industry is booming should tell us that there is something wrong with water systems in this nation.

"You seem to lump my examples in with operations done by local governments. I have no issue with local governments providing some items the free market could... not because I think they do a better job but because they are more directly accountable to the voters and if a program gets out of hand it is easier for the voters to fix it."

Note that your criticisms are different, though, than cost and effectiveness. That's why I lump them together - if your logic is sound, it should be universal between the two (local and federal). If you state things like, "Also that is the great thing about government intervention... prices always go up." You would have to explain why that applies to the federal level and not the local level.

Local level governments tend to be tied directly to the voter and held more accountable. The races for the seats are not money races but topic races. That being the case you can expect your choices as a public official to be in the minds of the voters when they go to the polls. Thats why the local governments can be trusted to do more then the Federal Government.

"Our spending on public schools has gone up and up as the years pass and the quality of the education for the students has fallen during that same time. It might just be chance but the cost and quality lines follow the increased federal involvement in our public school system."

So do you think that the government shouldn't provide free grade schooling?

Why does it need to be managed by the federal government. Let the states run their own schools and assign the money to the students. If you want to go to a different school the money the state would have spent on you goes to that school. Let parents decide for their children.

"Aside from the fact I outright disagree that you are 'insuring worth' in the future how does one think it is acceptable to tax those that have yet to be born?"

That's the nature of nation planning, though. Taxes are just one piece of making decisions for our future generations. Going to war, making treaties, printing money, and everything that the government does is taking up decisions for the yet to be born. Why should taxation be treated any differently from any other decisions?

Going to war, when in defense of our nation, protects our nation and in the process preserves the government and rights for future generations... net result a good thing for them.

Making treaties tends to lead to greater access to goods and services the world over. Also they are created to end wars or declare a peace between two parties. Net result of it is good for them.

Printing money tends to devalue the money of the current generation leading to the shift of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class of this nation; leaving future generations working harder and harder to have the same standard of living we do. Net result is bad for them.

Taxation to live high on the hog right now at the expense of the future is just outright wrong. If we were putting a power station on credit that would be complete right around the time those that were paying for it would use it then fine... I might not agree with it but hell. What we are doing is paying our medical bills on the backs of those that get no benifit from it yet get stuck with the bills. It would be the same as your grandma expecting you to take care of her from the time you are born to the time you die just because you happened to come second. They do not deserve to be born into indentured servitude just because we want and can't afford.

[Nymf]

Its nice to see that the U.S finally takes a step back from the spinning out of control capitalism idea that almost sunk the worlds financial system and turns towards socialism ( small turn, but nevertheless its a better route the the other direction at this point ).

[Post]

"Something tells me the private sector is not going to be investing much money in those areas though. So basically government provides, and controls, the internet access and in the process drives out the private market. Win win right?"

The times I've heard about it, either the private market was running a hugely inflated price, or unwilling to provide service in areas. Out of the ones that were inflated price, they lowered theirs to compete but weren't driven out of business. As a matter of fact, a couple of them that refused to provide service in certain areas sued the government, and while it was in court, ran lines in order to provide service.

"I live in an area where the tap water is great. That being said you could find many people that would not agree their government does it well... to the extent that they buy bottled water."

Actually, the rise of bottled water can be charted to start directly from the deregulation of tapwater. But that's neither here nor there; the point is, government can run cheap, effective services. If your issue with public health care is that you don't think this particular method will work, then I apologize, but it sounds like you're pretty much guaranteeing it won't work simply because it's government ran and it's inevitable to fail.

"Local level governments tend to be tied directly to the voter and held more accountable. The races for the seats are not money races but topic races. That being the case you can expect your choices as a public official to be in the minds of the voters when they go to the polls. Thats why the local governments can be trusted to do more then the Federal Government."

But that's an entirely different issue. I can buy the issue of control loss by the people because of how large our country's government is. The way to solve that, though, is to find a method gain better control. Even relegating it to the states per very loose guidelines by the federal government. Not simply stating it's futile and giving up.

To have your issue with it lessened by the level of government (state or federal), means that your issue of it being a bad idea to hand over to the government isn't cut and dry.

"Taxation to live high on the hog right now at the expense of the future is just outright wrong."

See, I don't believe that's what a public health care system is for. Assuming that you agreed its purpose was a good structure for the future for argument's sake, you do believe that taxation is perfectly legitimate?

[MickeyFinn]

Define "better".

[Post]

When I stated, "The way to solve that, though, is to find a method gain better control." I'm using it in terms of the people being more connected and responsible for the end result of public health care.

[Rooster]

Its nice to see that the U.S finally takes a step back from the spinning out of control capitalism idea that almost sunk the worlds financial system and turns towards socialism ( small turn, but nevertheless its a better route the the other direction at this point ).
Actually, it was government interference that caused it in the first place. And they still haven't learned.

Congress created rules for lenders that forced them to lend to people that couldn't really afford it - so they could say "Look! You can now qualify for a house, you can live the American Dream, thanks to us!"

What it did was cause a vulnerability unheard of. It created so many risky loans that when all those variable APR's and the interest only (for 2-3 years) loans came to bear (I was in one!! - went from 6% to 8.25%, a $400/month increase in my mortgage - that WILL sink some families) - people couldn't REALLY afford the mortgages.

That is exactly what started all this. Government interference.

Capitalism works just great if idiot congressmen that dont know shit about business stays out if it.

So get off your misinformed high-horse. It's your type of thinking that has us in the problem in the first place.

:fuct:

[IceFire]

We need to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Prescription Drug Plan

We also need to set a limit on welfare, and people having babies over and over just to suck more money from the tax payers.

my wife's sister's husband refuses to work, my wifes sister has 2 kids, and works 40 hours a week with a $8.60 an hour job; guess what? I make 20+ an hour, 2 kids and a wife.

My bank account isn't that much higher than hers. O yea, + she gets half of her electric+300 a month in food stamps+gas assistance to drive back and forth to work....and a 2 bedroom apartment paid for...

Who's the dumb-ass now, me for working! Now good old washington is wanting to toss in this national health care bullcrap aka welfare version2 so even more money can be sucked out of us.

sigh.

[Post]

I don't know why people totally understand innocent until proven guilty meaning that a bunch of guilty people will go free in order to ensure innocent people don't go to jail, but lose it when welfare comes up and unfortunately people that don't need it will get it to ensure the people who need it actually get it.

Then there's the people who simply feel being poor is a side effect of being lazy. Damned foster kids, get to work!

[Nymf]

:rolly:

[]LoL[Harm]

The above statement by Post points strongly to illogical arguments.

[Noleader]

I don't know why people totally understand innocent until proven guilty meaning that a bunch of guilty people will go free in order to ensure innocent people don't go to jail, but lose it when welfare comes up and unfortunately people that don't need it will get it to ensure the people who need it actually get it.

Then there's the people who simply feel being poor is a side effect of being lazy. Damned foster kids, get to work!

I don't think it is that people think lazy = poor. I think the issue most people have is that they bust their ass to get by and see many a person not doing anything but having children getting taken care of.

You say we have to care for all to ensure those in need get care... I say we stop caring for them all and promote charity. THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME OR ANYONE ELSE TO TAKE CARE OF A HEALTHY ADULT THAT CAN WORK! If we just supported the kids I would not object, but that is not the system we have. Our system creates a moral hazard since adults know that if they have a kid the state will step forward, with the peoples treasury, to bail them out.

If you are so worried about the kids I think the first thing we can do for them is to stop spending them into indentured servitude.

[IceFire]

I don't think it is that people think lazy = poor. I think the issue most people have is that they bust their ass to get by and see many a person not doing anything but having children getting taken care of.

You say we have to care for all to ensure those in need get care... I say we stop caring for them all and promote charity. THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME OR ANYONE ELSE TO TAKE CARE OF A HEALTHY ADULT THAT CAN WORK! If we just supported the kids I would not object, but that is not the system we have. Our system creates a moral hazard since adults know that if they have a kid the state will step forward, with the peoples treasury, to bail them out.

If you are so worried about the kids I think the first thing we can do for them is to stop spending them into indentured servitude.

Study's show, if someone is grown up in that atmosphere they are ten times more likely to adopt the attitudes of their parent(s). So the cycle will never end until someone puts their foot down.

[]LoL[Harm]

THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME OR ANYONE ELSE TO TAKE CARE OF A HEALTHY ADULT THAT CAN WORK!The above relies on the logical assumption that there are jobs for every capable working individual in our economy.

[Noleader]

LoL[Harm;171649']The above relies on the logical assumption that there are jobs for every capable working individual in our economy.

It might not be the job they want or the pay they want but there are jobs for everyone when we are not in a depression. The problem I have seen more times then not is someone out of high school that wants to get their first job making 15 or 20 bucks and hour and they are useless.

[Post]

"THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME OR ANYONE ELSE TO TAKE CARE OF A HEALTHY ADULT THAT CAN WORK!"

That's part of the issue - there are plenty of adults who aren't healthy and/or can work. The core reason why I mention the "being poor is a side effect of being lazy" statement is because it's the extreme. On the scale of a healthy adult who can work to someone that's unhealthy, a child and can't work, there's some spot where welfare shouldn't happen. Obviously, welfare shouldn't happen at the one end. The other end is the "being poor..." statement. Somewhere between is where it should happen.

Which brings us back to square one - to ensure the ones we all believe people should get welfare (unless you're one of the "poor = lazy" people), there will be people who shouldn't get it but do anyway. It's inevitable. Even if we went completely by charity. Which, by the way, you know my issue with that in it allows people to die from simply being poor and the system is still considered as "working."

Also, you believe that people will step up at least to the level we + the government do now, and after seeing real cases of things like hospitals dumping the poor who can't pay for the medical bills on the streets, I have to disagree.

For your supposition to work, it assumes that a personal moral compass will disallow people to die from being poor. For whatever reason, there are cases of that happening now, even with government intervention. It's illogical to think a moral compass will change if government steps out of the way.

[Kegg OBeer]

Socialism isn't the answer either.
Personally, I wish the founding fathers had gone the route of the constitutional monarchy. Then again, the grass is always greener...

[Post]

If you're looking for an "answer" as in a flawless solution, none of them are the answer. Without some type of socialism (and government regulation is still socialism, just with a lesser degree than public health care), the system is considered functional when people die because they simply can't afford it. Whether they're lazy, infant, handicapped or whatever.

No one against public health care approaches that fact because that's what it is - a simple, inevitable fact. A fact we all know is unacceptable within civilized society, so instead of the debate being brought up as a lesser of evils, it's about the flaws in method X since every method is flawed and it means you don't have to talk about the minimums required to run a civilized society.

If anyone has a method that involves no socialism (ie, no regulation), and people not dying even for the universally accepted reasons of being poor like being a foster child or a quadriplegic of no fault of the person's, I'd love to hear it. Heck, I'd even accept a debate on the merits of running a civilized society and letting those people die (I think it's ridiculous, but it's a stance). Until that happens, though, we all believe socialism is the answer. It comes down to degree.

[Noleader]

Post I think the heart of the issue for me is I think, and granted I might be wrong, that those same people will die under the new system as they did under the current, The only differince between the two is one will put us into greater debt in the process and we lose a little bit more liberity.

If I thought the solution being floated now would resolve the issues I would be calling for an amendment to give the federal government the authority to do it. I just don't think it will work.

[Post]

See, I can totally understand that. I have huge doubts about this particular iteration as well. My hope is that something will get its foot in the door to be modified into a better working model.

My personal feeling on it is that a public option is a minimum, but that's not really here nor there. The key is getting people not so scared of the "socialism" label on something like this. Capitalism isn't good because it's capitalism. It's good (most of the time) for its positive effects on society. There are plenty of negatives to it, though, like all systems.

When we all sit on a pretty common ground at a lot of the root (things like I think we all agree that people shouldn't be allowed to hemorrhage to death on the medical table because they aren't able to show they can pay for surgery), our next phase is to figure out how to give society the most benefit with the least cost and loss of choice.

[IceFire]

The problem I have seen more times then not is someone out of high school that wants to get their first job making 15 or 20 bucks and hour and they are useless.

Exactly, last winter I got me a temporary second job to help pay off the credit card that I maxed out for xmas. I worked at Pizza Hut delivering pizza's, well I worked a deal out with the store manager, told them my cousin needed a job, would they do me a favor and higher him when I left.

They promised him an interview, I drove his ass down there made sure he went in and told him before hand, [name], you need a job, its not 15+ an hour but its a job. Stop playing stupid wow 80 hours a week, your 24 years old! Start acting like it.

The store manager offerd him 8.50 an hour + delivery tips + $1.75 per delivery.... Well he didn't show up for work the first day because he said he would send "$30.00 a day driving around"..... Half of the issue is people being lazy anymore, people do not want to work for themselves.

Moral of the story and I am being very reasonable here with the example: 80% of the people that are ABLE to work in some form or another will not swallow their pride and work, even if it means taking a $8.00 an hour job.

Here is a suggestion, anyone on workers comp, welfare ect.. that does not have a job must commit to so many hours of some form of community service to help pay for this heathcare, food stamps ect..

[Post]

What if you're paraplegic? In a coma? What if you work 70 hours a week already but taking care of several kids? What if you're a kid?

No matter what you do, if you give ANY support to people who need it (all the way down to foster kids or disallowing a hospital to dump a bleeding person on the streets who can't pay), there will be people who get it but don't need it. I'm for improving the system, but that is an inevitable fact, and social welfare as a whole shouldn't be looked down upon because of it.

[Noleader]

Anyone ever wonder why this topic gets to much play? Seems odd that Obama would be pushing this when the American tax payers are exposed to 18 Trillion dollars worth to credit extended to the banks.

When the wars are still raging.

When the state is expanding the spying operations on us.

I am starting to think that those in charge are using the decisive issue of health care to keep us fighting with each other so that we don't kick them out of office or notice the crap they are pushing on us.