Free from socialized health care

cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Free from socialized health care

Aren't we lucky in the US to be free from socialized health care?  Who wants to pay for other people's health care?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110621/ts_yblog_thelookout/man-robs-bank-to-get-medical-care-in-jail

Some people who need medical care but can't afford it go to the emergency room. Others just hope they'll get better. James Richard Verone robbed a bank.

Earlier this month, Verone (pictured), a 59-year-old convenience store clerk, walked into a Gaston, N.C., bank and handed the cashier a note demanding $1 and medical attention. Then he waited calmly for police to show up.

He's now in jail and has an appointment with a doctor this week.

Verone's problems started when he lost the job he'd held for 17 years as a Coca Cola deliveryman, amid the economic downturn. He found new work driving a truck, but it didn't last. Eventually, he took a part-time position at the convenience store.

But Verone's body wasn't up to it. The bending and lifting made his back ache. He had problems with his left foot, making him limp. He also suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis.

Then he noticed a protrusion on his chest. "The pain was beyond the tolerance that I could accept," Verone told the Gaston Gazette. "I kind of hit a brick wall with everything."

Verone knew he needed help--and he didn't want to be a burden on his sister and brothers. He applied for food stamps, but they weren't enough either.

So he hatched a plan. On June 9, he woke up, showered, ironed his shirt. He mailed a letter to the Gazette, listing the return address as the Gaston County Jail.

"When you receive this a bank robbery will have been committed by me," Verone wrote in the letter. "This robbery is being committed by me for one dollar. I am of sound mind but not so much sound body."

Then Verone hailed a cab to take him to the RBC Bank. Inside, he handed the teller his $1 robbery demand.

"I didn't have any fears," said Verone. "I told the teller that I would sit over here and wait for police."

The teller was so frightened that she had to be taken to the hospital to be checked out. Verone, meanwhile, was taken to jail, just as he'd planned it.

Because he only asked for $1, Verone was charged with larceny, not bank robbery. But he said that if his punishment isn't severe enough, he plans to tell the judge that he'll do it again. His $100,000 bond has been reduced to $2,000, but he says he doesn't plan to pay it.

In jail, Verone said he skips dinner to avoid too much contact with the other inmates. He's already seen some nurses and is scheduled to see a doctor on Friday. He said he's hoping to receive back and foot surgery, and get the protrusion on his chest treated. Then he plans to spend a few years in jail, before getting out in time to collect Social Security and move to the beach.

Verone also presented the view that if the United States had a health-care system which offered people more government support, he wouldn't have had to make the choice he did.

"If you don't have your health you don't have anything," Verone said.

The Affordable Care Act, President Obama's health-care overhaul passed by Congress last year, was designed to make it easier for Americans in situations like Verone's to get health insurance. But most of its provisions don't go into effect until 2014.

As it is, Verone said he thinks he chose the best of a bunch of bad options. "I picked jail."

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:about 50

atomicdogg34 wrote:

about 50 cents of every dollar in healthcare comes from the govt, how on earth can someone even claim this to be remotely free market?

I agree.

atomicdogg34 wrote:

what we have is corporate medicine, where large business and govt are in bed together, hell pfizer and pharma were big supporters of obamacare

Again correct.

atomicdogg34 wrote:

what we need is an actual free market in healthcare,

I understand this may be an ideological point for many, but we will never have a chance to even debate this in any meaningful fashion, unless we do something radical about the financial hold of corporations on the electoral, judicial and all other aspects of our society.

atomicdogg34 wrote:

we need to fix the ridiculous tax structure, ease licensing regulations, and probably the biggest thing that could be done would be to fix monetary policy and stop price inflation

If fixing the ridiculous tax structure means that you want to see some regulation of the semi-autonomous tyrannical govermental institutions called corporations, sounds good to me. CEOs have been riding the tax payer for far too long, investors gambling with taxpayer as security are bancrupting US, while the war profiteers are literally destroying the nation as an international player. Right now we need to regulate these government-subsidised dictatorships first, just to be able to have any influence on the actual policy.

Start getting used to the idea that this will have to be done by force. These guys will not give up until the last drop of blood is drained from the US middle class.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:If

Beyond Saving wrote:

If someone asks for my help, I might help them with a smile on my face. They get the help they need, I get that nice warm fuzzy feeling, everyone is happy. If someone mugs me either directly or indirectly using government I am going to resist as much as I can without paying too high of a price, and I am going to have a rather low opinion of them. The world would be a much nicer place if we weren't constantly trying to steal from each other using government as the tool. 

Since you feel like you are being mugged, I guess you will be calling the cops. Are you going to call your private police insurance provider, or are you going to call up a policeman and ask him for some charity work of arresting the mugger?

For your sake I hope you aren't a total imbecile, but simply high on some warm fuzzy feeling and not thinking things through here.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Beyond Saving

ZuS wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

If someone asks for my help, I might help them with a smile on my face. They get the help they need, I get that nice warm fuzzy feeling, everyone is happy. If someone mugs me either directly or indirectly using government I am going to resist as much as I can without paying too high of a price, and I am going to have a rather low opinion of them. The world would be a much nicer place if we weren't constantly trying to steal from each other using government as the tool. 

Does this nice fuzzy feeling come from you taking some hard drugs?

Since you feel like you are being mugged, I guess you will be calling the cops. Are you going to call your private police insurance provider, or are you going to call up a policeman and ask him for some charity work of arresting the mugger?

For your sake I hope you aren't a total imbecile and are just not thinking things through here.

 

There is a fundamental difference between paying for a service that you receive and having money taken with the intent of giving it to someone else. When you are paying for police/fire protection you are directly paying for a service that you are receiving (both of which are taken care of just fine at the local level I would point out). Comparing that to social programs which are specifically designed to take from one person to pay for another while still having to reach into your own pocket to fulfill your own needs is absurd.

 

If you want to set up a government health insurance system that is 100% voluntary and funded solely by people who voluntarily join, be my guest. There is no reason social security, medicare etc can't be optional other than anyone with a brain wouldn't pay into them and they would go bankrupt quicker. When you want me to pay way more than average while I receive none of the benefits what kind of reaction do you expect?

 

Although, the argument can be made that the costs of police and fire protection ought to be more evenly distributed. After all, everyone theoretically receives the same benefits of that protection in a given locality. But since it is an incredibly small portion of my tax bill, I don't worry about it so much.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:There is

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is a fundamental difference between paying for a service that you receive and having money taken with the intent of giving it to someone else. When you are paying for police/fire protection you are directly paying for a service that you are receiving (both of which are taken care of just fine at the local level I would point out). Comparing that to social programs which are specifically designed to take from one person to pay for another while still having to reach into your own pocket to fulfill your own needs is absurd.

Look, I am going to give you a chance to make some sense together with me here. You say that healthcare is something you do not use, and therefore the tax is basically a robbery? I say two things to that:

1) Healthcare is a tax no matter how you pay it, it's just a question of whether it's progressive or regressive tax. Private payment is the regressive model. It can be implemented in many ways, but it will always be unequal in terms of % of income - if a rich and a poor guy pay 20k a year for it, the poor guy pays much higher % of his income. You can be fine with this or not, but this is what we are talking about here.

2) You use public health insurrance in many ways. Firstly, the equal opportunity that US claims so loudly, is clearly supported by the progressive taxation model for healthcare - you are more able to perform, if you aren't losing your house due to medical bills. Secondly, you do not depend on your employer for physical survival and you can be sure that your kids will be able to see a doctor, even if you speak your mind at the workplace. Thirdly, you do not depend on charity, which is a plus in my book - I am just big on self respect, not sure why. Fourthly, when I look another person in the eye, I am sure that he at the very least can see a doctor and that at least that barrier in our communication is irelevant - we are equals at this basic level and we can work together easier because of it. And finally, healthcare is NOT a profitabe insurrance business, unless you cheat. Cars do not have to crash, but people WILL get sick. It's not a viable business model, unless you turn it into a criminal enterprise.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you want to set up a government health insurance system that is 100% voluntary and funded solely by people who voluntarily join, be my guest. There is no reason social security, medicare etc can't be optional other than anyone with a brain wouldn't pay into them and they would go bankrupt quicker. When you want me to pay way more than average while I receive none of the benefits what kind of reaction do you expect?

I expect you to realize how massively expensive these private solutions are - if public option is expensive, private option is insane. By the way, individual states are actually adapting your suggestion - their solutions are still much more expensive than a federal solution would be, but they are way cheaper and much better than the private option.

I also expect you to realize that the same is the case with the transportation infrastructure, including roads, railroads, air traffic, bridges - everything you see around you that makes it possible for private actors to go from A to B and trade.

I also expect you to realize that there are some core societal functions that make the famous equal opportunity in US possible. One of these is healthcare. Equal opportunity is what gets the right man to the right position in a well-functioning market, you should want that.

I also expect you to realize that the largest welfare clients in US are the corporations, not the population. Big pharma is one clear example, and there are countless others.

I also expect you to realize that private prison corporations in the south are investing in the legislature and courts and influencing the decisionmaking. They want more prisoners to get more public money. They want you behind bars for years and they don't care if the felony is jay walking. If this doesn't disturb you, I guess CIGNA leaving people to die because of pre-existing conditions is easily acceptable as well, but at least realize that insurance magnates are buying our politicians.

 

I would like you to understand these things and at least argue with me honestly on these premises.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Look, I am going

ZuS wrote:

Look, I am going to give you a chance to make some sense together with me here. You say that healthcare is something you do not use, and therefore the tax is basically a robbery? I say two things to that:

No, I use healthcare. I am saying I have to pay for my private healthcare no matter what. Under any kind of government plan I have to pay for yours in addition to paying for mine because I committed the sin of making too much money.

 

ZuS wrote:

1) Healthcare is a tax no matter how you pay it, it's just a question of whether it's progressive or regressive tax. Private payment is the regressive model. It can be implemented in many ways, but it will always be unequal in terms of % of income - if a rich and a poor guy pay 20k a year for it, the poor guy pays much higher % of his income. You can be fine with this or not, but this is what we are talking about here.

Using that logic everything you buy is a "tax". I think you need to look up the definition of "tax". If a rich and a poor guy pay $1 for a mcchicken the poor guy pays a higher percentage of his income. And yeah, I'm fine with that. If you want your expenses to be a lower percentage of your income, go make more money.

 

ZuS wrote:

2) You use public health insurrance in many ways. Firstly, the equal opportunity that US claims so loudly, is clearly supported by the progressive taxation model for healthcare - you are more able to perform, if you aren't losing your house due to medical bills. Secondly, you do not depend on your employer for physical survival and you can be sure that your kids will be able to see a doctor, even if you speak your mind at the workplace. Thirdly, you do not depend on charity, which is a plus in my book - I am just big on self respect, not sure why. Fourthly, when I look another person in the eye, I am sure that he at the very least can see a doctor and that at least that barrier in our communication is irelevant - we are equals at this basic level and we can work together easier because of it. And finally, healthcare is NOT a profitabe insurrance business, unless you cheat. Cars do not have to crash, but people WILL get sick. It's not a viable business model, unless you turn it into a criminal enterprise.

1. I don't care whether or not people work, how hard they work, or how effectively they work, that is their choice. If you can't pay for your mortgage, perhaps you shouldn't have taken out a mortgage. 

2. You depend on your employer to pay your agreed wages, whether or not you pay for your basic needs is your problem to work out. 

3. You have too much self respect to accept charity, but have no problem forcing the charity from me? That is just fucked up. I think it is a lot more respectful to yourself and others to accept charity than it is to go take the money you need from someone else.

4. Then perhaps you should donate some money to medical charities. 

5. Health insurance certainly is a viable business model. The margins are extremely small compared to other insurance types, but the sheer volume makes up for it. It isn't "cheating" when you make a profit on insurance. Buying healthcare through insurance will be more expensive on average than paying the doctor directly. The purpose of insurance is to protect you financially from the sudden large expenses. A person might go 10 years without a major medical expense, and then have something big. Buy paying for insurance over 10 years, the person distributes the cost of the major expense over a length of time. But on average the cost of the insurance will be higher than the cost of paying directly. 

 

ZuS wrote:

I expect you to realize how massively expensive these private solutions are - if public option is expensive, private option is insane. By the way, individual states are actually adapting your suggestion - their solutions are still much more expensive than a federal solution would be, but they are way cheaper and much better than the private option.

Private healthcare isn't that expensive. The vast majority of Americans are able to afford it now when the cost is artificially inflated by medicare. If we fixed a few basic things like medicare and competition in insurance it would be even cheaper. How do you think a federal option will be cheaper? Bamacare isn't even a full public option and its price tag is over $1 trillion and I suspect that estimate is well on the low side. The only reason medicare is "cheap" is because the government simply doesn't pay the bill, forcing doctors to pass the cost to other patients who are paying privately. The more people between you and your doctor the more expensive it will be.

 

ZuS wrote:

I also expect you to realize that the same is the case with the transportation infrastructure, including roads, railroads, air traffic, bridges - everything you see around you that makes it possible for private actors to go from A to B and trade.

Are we talking about transportation? Your assumption that it can't be built privately is false, many railroads were built privately. In fact the most successful railroads in their time were built privately while competing against railroads that were heavily subsidized and ran by cronies. Regardless, I don't really have a problem with highways and such. I do believe that they should be exclusively paid for through use taxes. The gas tax is useful for that. The more you use the roads, the more tax you pay, that is my idea of a fair tax. There is no reason airports and such can't be private, or at least paid for by the airline companies that use the airport and control tower. Actually, I believe that airports are mostly or completely paid for by special taxes on airline tickets and businesses that operate at the airport. I'm not sure, but I believe that is the case. 

 

ZuS wrote:

I also expect you to realize that the largest welfare clients in US are the corporations, not the population. Big pharma is one clear example, and there are countless others.

I agree and oppose all welfare recipients equally. Do you think the kickbacks will be more or less when government is managing healthcare?

 

ZuS wrote:

I also expect you to realize that private prison corporations in the south are investing in the legislature and courts and influencing the decisionmaking. They want more prisoners to get more public money. They want you behind bars for years and they don't care if the felony is jay walking. If this doesn't disturb you, I guess CIGNA leaving people to die because of pre-existing conditions is easily acceptable as well, but at least realize that insurance magnates are buying our politicians.

I actually am solidly against private prisons. The main function of government is to protect citizens from doing harm to one another. If we didn't need police/courts/jails we wouldn't need government. Unfortunately, we do, so government ought to do its job. Your comparison to CIGNA is absurd. Insurance is not equal to healthcare. Insurance is solely a financial transaction and only protects you financially. When insurance declines you, you are not "left to die", you simply are left to having to pay for the medical care you require by yourself. Doctors tend to treat you anyway, you may be in debt or you might have to accept that dreaded charity, but you will not be "left to die". 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:this is

atomicdogg34 wrote:
this is ridiculous im sorry, to say we have some sort of free market in healthcare is beyond bizarre, about 50 cents of every dollar in healthcare comes from the govt, how on earth can someone even claim this to be remotely free market?

 

what we have is corporate medicine, where large business and govt are in bed together, hell pfizer and pharma were big supporters of obamacare

what we need is an actual free market in healthcare, we need to fix the ridiculous tax structure, ease licensing regulations, and probably the biggest thing that could be done would be to fix monetary policy and stop price inflation

This is likely true on the US not being a free market, but I'm afraid that most of this post falls under the general rule of free markets being some sort of highly brittle glass bubble that is constantly out of reach by most governments today... a puristic definition that (like socialism*) is never seen in function because the slightest divergence from completely unfettered market forces causes it to cease in its existence. I wonder if we've ever seen a "true" free market in our historical record...

 

*mind you, I mainly use the word socialism to refer to social democracies, though I appear to be the exception here.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


peppermint42 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I know this thread is a

 I know this thread is a bit old, but this is a subject I've always been concerned about, especially now that I'm currently enrolled with Medicaid for my pre-natal and delivery expenses (btw I'm pregnant Sticking out tongue ) and will be going for an interview to get food stamps on Tuesday.  This is a very difficult situation for me because I tend to hate myself for having to ask for help from anybody, nevermind my fellow taxpayers.  I've always had a job (albeit never much of one) until I just couldn't work through the morning sickness and RIDICULOUS mood swings ON TOP of my chronic depression and having to quit smoking both cigarettes and pot, quit drinking caffeine and also the general anxiety regarding my potential competency at raising a child (sorry for the crazy run-on sentence).  Hopefully the food stamps office can also help me find a temporary job, because temp agencies around here are USELESS.  Plus, who's going to hire a (now visibly) pregnant woman?  

 

Anyway, I guess the statement I wanted to make here was that I wish with every fiber of my existence that I had a real career-or at least a job that let me afford things like food that doesn't come out of a box.  If I had really thought it through, I would have waited to go to college until I'd settled on a better Major than the one that offered the most scholarships, which happened to be music since I was in the band.  But because I thought it was just what was expected of me and because I had absolutely NO reasonable guidance from my parents, I went ahead and wasted three years of my life taking classes that would in no way improve my chances of getting a decent job, realized this suddenly and dropped out because I thought it would save money.  I don't mean to go on about my life's story (believe me, there's sooooooooooo much more drama than you want to know) my point is just that, yes, if I had known better in the first place I'd be in a better situation than I am now.  At the very least I could be in school studying something useful and have something to look forward to besides depending on my boyfriend's Wal-Mart paycheck indefinitely.  But the fact is that good people who are more than willing to work hard and pay their own way find themselves in the incredibly awkward position of needing charity.

 

For those of you who do make enough money, mandatory taxes that pay for other people's healthcare may seem unreasonable, and it's entirely your right to believe that it's possible for someone who makes minimum wage (and also pays OMG taxes!!!) can also afford to pay for health insurance/care (assuming they don't live with their parents or something).  But what I want to know is this:  Does having to pay upset you because it's hurting your standard of living (Do you ever have to choose between a month's worth of gas money to get to work and a trip to the OB/GYN for a very important prescription, for example)?  Or does it upset you because you think that poor people just don't try hard enough to not be poor, and that it's not EXTREMELY humiliating  for them to have to even consider government programs?  

 

It took me way too long to write this.  Sorry if I rambled on a bit.  I know sitting here ranting in a forum is about as proactive as turning on a t.v. but honestly I dream of financial independence.  I crave it.  I'm willing to bust my ass for it.  I've been busting my ass for years, it just hasn't gotten me anywhere.  It's nearly broken me multiple times since I moved away from home.  And now that I'm finally at what seems to be the bottom, I'm more determined than ever to get back on my feet again.  I just wish it were some rich person's jet fuel money paying for my  fancy frozen vegetables and peanut butter, instead of mostly working class peoples' summer vacation money.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Dear cj, Thank you for this

Dear cj,

 

Thank you for this interesting topic.  I am now seriously considering to relocate to a more civilized/socialized country in several years.  Perhaps I am a rat and this country reminds me more and more one big fricking Titanic.

 

100% 

 

 

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:Dear

100percentAtheist wrote:

Dear cj,

 

Thank you for this interesting topic.  I am now seriously considering to relocate to a more civilized/socialized country in several years.  Perhaps I am a rat and this country reminds me more and more one big fricking Titanic.

 

100% 

 

 

You are welcome.  Where would you go?  Me, I'm close enough to Canada, it wouldn't be a big deal to move there.  Except I'm reasonably certain they wouldn't have me.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
So all you people that want

So all you people that want socialized medicine want the same government that runs our failed schools, prisions, immigration, wall street regulation, etc.. to  run the medical system that your life may depend upon?

The government fails with getting people into jobs so they can pay for their own insurance. They don't have immigration or population growth control so there are too many people chasing too few jobs. So we give them even more money to pay for the people they've failed.

Isn't this insane? It like if someone screws up a repair job so you give them even more money to fix the damage they cause.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
peppermint42 wrote: I know

peppermint42 wrote:

 I know this thread is a bit old, but this is a subject I've always been concerned about, especially now that I'm currently enrolled with Medicaid for my pre-natal and delivery expenses (btw I'm pregnant Sticking out tongue ) and will be going for an interview to get food stamps on Tuesday.  This is a very difficult situation for me because I tend to hate myself for having to ask for help from anybody, nevermind my fellow taxpayers.  I've always had a job (albeit never much of one) until I just couldn't work through the morning sickness and RIDICULOUS mood swings ON TOP of my chronic depression and having to quit smoking both cigarettes and pot, quit drinking caffeine and also the general anxiety regarding my potential competency at raising a child (sorry for the crazy run-on sentence).  Hopefully the food stamps office can also help me find a temporary job, because temp agencies around here are USELESS.  Plus, who's going to hire a (now visibly) pregnant woman?  

 

Anyway, I guess the statement I wanted to make here was that I wish with every fiber of my existence that I had a real career-or at least a job that let me afford things like food that doesn't come out of a box.  If I had really thought it through, I would have waited to go to college until I'd settled on a better Major than the one that offered the most scholarships, which happened to be music since I was in the band.  But because I thought it was just what was expected of me and because I had absolutely NO reasonable guidance from my parents, I went ahead and wasted three years of my life taking classes that would in no way improve my chances of getting a decent job, realized this suddenly and dropped out because I thought it would save money.  I don't mean to go on about my life's story (believe me, there's sooooooooooo much more drama than you want to know) my point is just that, yes, if I had known better in the first place I'd be in a better situation than I am now.  At the very least I could be in school studying something useful and have something to look forward to besides depending on my boyfriend's Wal-Mart paycheck indefinitely.  But the fact is that good people who are more than willing to work hard and pay their own way find themselves in the incredibly awkward position of needing charity.

 

For those of you who do make enough money, mandatory taxes that pay for other people's healthcare may seem unreasonable, and it's entirely your right to believe that it's possible for someone who makes minimum wage (and also pays OMG taxes!!!) can also afford to pay for health insurance/care (assuming they don't live with their parents or something).  But what I want to know is this:  Does having to pay upset you because it's hurting your standard of living (Do you ever have to choose between a month's worth of gas money to get to work and a trip to the OB/GYN for a very important prescription, for example)?  Or does it upset you because you think that poor people just don't try hard enough to not be poor, and that it's not EXTREMELY humiliating  for them to have to even consider government programs?  

 

It took me way too long to write this.  Sorry if I rambled on a bit.  I know sitting here ranting in a forum is about as proactive as turning on a t.v. but honestly I dream of financial independence.  I crave it.  I'm willing to bust my ass for it.  I've been busting my ass for years, it just hasn't gotten me anywhere.  It's nearly broken me multiple times since I moved away from home.  And now that I'm finally at what seems to be the bottom, I'm more determined than ever to get back on my feet again.  I just wish it were some rich person's jet fuel money paying for my  fancy frozen vegetables and peanut butter, instead of mostly working class peoples' summer vacation money.

 

Ok, so you are getting help from medicaid and foodstamps. Why do we need a much larger, much more expensive federal program? While on a theoretical level I would prefer that all assistance is given and received through private charity, I am willing to accept welfare type programs that go only to the truly destitute. At least it sounds like you have a desire to improve your own situation and I appreciate that. Far too many people don't.

 

The problem for me arises when most people receiving government benefits don't need them. We have the richest poor in the world. If you have a cell phone, are paying for cable, blowing money on booze, cigarettes and entertainment you don't need charity, you need your priorities in order. For those who do make mistakes, get unlucky and find themselves in a situation where they need temporary help, fine. I would prefer you accept charity that is voluntarily given instead of demanding it as yours through government, but if everyone insists I have no problem helping out the bottom 5% or so of the population that is in need.

 

The problem comes in where Bamacare isn't focused on helping that small portion which is already helped by medicaid. It attempts to expand those government benefits to people who are making livable incomes. It ought to be your primary responsibility to take care of yourself and your family. Only after you have expended all your options should the government even consider stepping in. Bamacare is a program that affects EVERYONES healthcare, not simply a helping hand to the destitute. Just like social security and medicare, these government programs go far beyond simply helping the poor. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: The

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

The problem comes in where Bamacare isn't focused on helping that small portion which is already helped by medicaid. It attempts to expand those government benefits to people who are making livable incomes. It ought to be your primary responsibility to take care of yourself and your family. Only after you have expended all your options should the government even consider stepping in. Bamacare is a program that affects EVERYONES healthcare, not simply a helping hand to the destitute. Just like social security and medicare, these government programs go far beyond simply helping the poor. 

 

I see.  I admit I never really have educated myself much on exactly what Obamacare is all about.  I agree with you that many people do abuse the system. I know of a couple now who, because they had a friend working in the income-based housing office, they didn't have to wait the five year wait period everyone else has to wait to get incredibly low rent  on a two bedroom house to live in.  But it's not like they're exactly needy because they go out and buy brand new video games as soon as they come out...  And in a few months the husband will graduate from pharmacy school and most likely be making much better than just a livable wage.

(I'm peppermint42, btw I just hadn't gone and looked up my old username before.) As far as me personally accepting government money, as uncomfortable as it makes me I prefer it over charity because my boyfriend and I both have been long-time tax-payers ourselves and so for as short a time as we plan to be using  tax-payer money, hopefully we won't need to use more than what we ourselves contributed.  Charity is something I want to be able to give, not something I believe I should be accepting.  


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote: I see.

Gallowsbait wrote:

I see.  I admit I never really have educated myself much on exactly what Obamacare is all about.

 

Okay, let's really review "Obamacare".

1. You may not be turned down for preexisting conditions.  Did you know some insurers have called a normal pregnancy a preexisting condition and have turned women down for totally unrelated health care claims because they were pregnant in the past?  Yeah, really.

2. A young person in school may be on their parent's health insurance until they are 26, instead of 24, and all insurance coverage must offer this.

3. There is no lifetime maximum.  So if you were so "lazy" as to be born with something like Cystic Fibrosis, you could have had all health insurance - whether or not you were able to work for an employer who offered you health coverage as an employee - denied for lifetime maximum costs.

4. Health insurance will not become government insurance.  It will not be a single payer system like Medicare.  All health insurance- except Medicare which remains a single payer system - will be private.  The difference is that the government and the insurers will all be members of a pool.  The government will pay part of the premiums so that overall insurance costs will be lower - for those who qualify to buy insurance out of the pool.  To qualify, you must be unemployed or your employer must not be able to offer you insurance you can afford.  There are income limits.  There are penalties for large corporations - small businesses are exempt - for not providing health insurance for their employees.

Most people are not too upset - in fact, many are in favor of - the above 4 items.  This last is the one that has some upset.

5. At the request of the health insurance lobbyists, the Republicans insisted that a provision that everyone has to purchase health insurance be included in the legislation.  Similar to car insurance.  Can you drive without car insurance?  Sure.  If you get ticketed for something or have an accident, you will have to pay a larger fine and provide proof of insurance to retain your driver's license.  You can then leave the court and let your car insurance lapse.  Similar to but not exactly like the health insurance since there is no penalty similar to losing your license. 

So now, since people have had conniption fits about #5, the Republicans are all against having that provision in the law.  It may be a moot point depending on what the courts decide.  One just recently ruled that this requirement was unconstitutional.  So it is a little too soon to get excited about this one way or the other.  BS appears to be livid about this clause - he needs to take a chill pill.

There are concerns that the health insurance law will raise total costs for health care.  I don't know one way or the other if it will - and neither does anyone else.  They are all guessing about potential economic costs at this point.  Every last one of them.  What I do know is that the US has some of the worst health statistics in the world for a so-called industrialized nation and we have some of the highest health care costs. 

What BS and others can't seem to get through their heads is that they are already paying for other people's health care costs.  Those high costs are due, in part, to poor people not having access to regular care.  What could have been controlled with a few office visits, some blood tests and medication instead is treated in the emergency room.  And those costs for people unable to pay are passed on to other customers who have insurance or can pay out of pocket.  You are already paying for other people's health care and have been for years.

That is a very condensed highlighting of the bill.  There is no need or reason to take my word for any of this as the information is on the internet in a number of places - including the full text if you are feeling masochistic.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:I agree

Gallowsbait wrote:
I agree with you that many people do abuse the system.

Gallowsbait wrote:
As far as me personally accepting government money, as uncomfortable as it makes me 

I was going to comment this stuff, but it's just hopeless. An average person is disinterested in what's going on, lives in his small world of breakfast-lunch-dinner-sex in the city, has only the ludicrous notions paddled from the TV about how the world functions and generally is a bag of shit with legs.

 

Oh and nice try, cj. But the 2,5 trillion in cuts is going to remove funding from everything except the 'mandate' in that bill. Curiously, no one in WDC is bothered by the mandate. Just like they are not bothered with US govt not being able to negotiate prices with pharma. Or get any taxes on the oil drawn out of US soil.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.