Universal Healthcare

[RobinFinderson]

Oh brother. Come back down to earth.

It's the symbolism of these moves that bug me. If I'm middle class (really, these are the people who stand to benefit--the truly indigent already have socialized medicine), I'm looking at a guy that's offering me a bunch of goodies and offering to pay me to take them. It's as if they're completely free and we were just waiting for the right guy to produce them out of thin air. It sends a bad message and sets a bad precedent of pandering.

Contrast this with "We'd like to finally take care of the healthcare needs of everyone. It's going to be expensive, but as a country we think it's worth it. Therefore, everyone is going to have to pitch in to help pay for it, some more than others, each according to their ability, but we're all going to feel the cost."

You Oh Brothered my point, but then didn't address it. I'm not against what you are saying, so I'm not sure what else to say. I would like everyone to pay for the cost of a national healthcare program, so I don't see how we disagree. Obviously there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay anything significant, so if you would like them to send in a symbolic payment of $.99, I have no problem with that.

But I don't get what you are Oh Brothering. Consider a teacher. When I was a kid, an LDS teacher in my ward was able to move to my home town, buy a house, and provide healthy food for his family of six. These days, in most areas, a teacher's salary will barely cover basics for a small family, the teacher will have to rent, and the teacher's partner will also have to work if they want basic cable, some internet, modest savings, and the ability to close on a mortgage for a home. Between my childhood and the present did teachers become less valuable members of society? I don't think so. Salary is not a decent indication of a person worth to a society. Good mothers, for example, receive zero salary for their mothering, but I wouldn't exclude them from a national healthcare program.

[ERCougar]

You Oh Brothered my point, but then didn't address it. I'm not against what you are saying, so I'm not sure what else to say. I would like everyone to pay for the cost of a national healthcare program, so I don't see how we disagree. Obviously there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay anything significant, so if you would like them to send in a symbolic payment of $.99, I have no problem with that.

But I don't get what you are Oh Brothering. Consider a teacher. When I was a kid, an LDS teacher in my ward was able to move to my home town, buy a house, and provide healthy food for his family of six. These days, in most areas, a teacher's salary will barely cover basics for a small family, the teacher will have to rent, and the teacher's partner will also have to work if they want basic cable, some internet, modest savings, and the ability to close on a mortgage for a home. Between my childhood and the present did teachers become less valuable members of society? I don't think so. Salary is not a decent indication of a person worth to a society. Good mothers, for example, receive zero salary for their mothering, but I wouldn't exclude them from a national healthcare program.

I'm "oh brother"ing your head-in-the-clouds transformation of the idea of paying money for goods to some intangible contribution to society. If we're truly evaluating contribution to society, I would say Bill Gates' contribution far outweighs anything made by the drunk I babysat in the ER last night.

I can barely understand what your point is, and I would dare say that the majority of folks on Medicaid would have just as much difficulty. They understand, like most of us, payment for goods. They also understand payment to take free goods. They're not thinking in the back of their mind, "I contributed to the greater economy by contributing to its human capital and then using my salary to drive consumption in our country--this is therefore my payment". They're thinking "pay me to get free stuff? Sweet! Why wouldn't I?"

I'm not claiming that salary is the measure of contribution to society. If I were, then Bill Gates has paid his due, and we need a regressive tax structure. I'm claiming salary to be an imperfect measure (but the best one we have) of ability to pay. I'm not sure what your point here is.

Take this to the extreme: I eliminate the income tax for everyone making up to a certain income level, calculated to acquire exactly 271 electoral votes. Everyone else pays...and I'm just randomly picking a number, 80%. I could actually calculate the exact tax rate I would have to charge, and following the economic logic of the Obama team, these wealthier Americans will still work to pay for everyone else's benefits. What's stopping this from happening? Obama's doing this, only on a smaller scale.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm not sure what your point here is.

My point is simple... there are a handful of things that we should create as basic 'rights' for U.S. citizens. I think these should be: Health Care, Healthy Food, and Excellent Education up through college.

Personally, I would value these things more than the fire department, more than public roads, and more than the federally insured bank accounts.

Much of what is 'socialized' today is about the protection of capital. I think we need to shift away from socialized capital protection and move toward the socialization of opportunity.

[ERCougar]

My point is simple... there are a handful of things that we should create as basic 'rights' for U.S. citizens. I think these should be: Health Care, Healthy Food, and Excellent Education up through college.

Personally, I would value these things more than the fire department, more than public roads, and more than the federally insured bank accounts.

Much of what is 'socialized' today is about the protection of capital. I think we need to shift away from socialized capital protection and move toward the socialization of opportunity.

Fair enough. Not sure I completely agree, but I can see your point. Again, I'm interested in what Faith thinks on this issue. Personally, I feel like I agreed with you much more strongly before spending much time in the trenches, so to speak. The problem isn't all lack of opportunity.

[BlueHair]

My point is simple... there are a handful of things that we should create as basic 'rights' for U.S. citizens. I think these should be: Health Care, Healthy Food, and Excellent Education up through college.

Personally, I would value these things more than the fire department, more than public roads, and more than the federally insured bank accounts.

Much of what is 'socialized' today is about the protection of capital. I think we need to shift away from socialized capital protection and move toward the socialization of opportunity.

I agree with this with the exception of college education. Currently, our education system is a Ponzi scheme. Let's stop making people take classes unrelated to their jobs. Let's get them trained and into the workforce.

[wuapinmon]

I agree with this with the exception of college education. Currently, our education system is a Ponzi scheme. Let's stop making people take classes unrelated to their jobs. Let's get them trained and into the workforce.

No sir, that's how you kill creativity, innovation, and the well-roundedness that has been the hallmark of Western Education since well before Seneca wrote an inflammatory essay about it 2,000 years ago. That will leave us culturally impoverished, will hurt productivity, and will lead to more thinking along these lines.

2,500 years of history in the Liberal Arts.

[Solon]

I'll agree with you that NHI would be a nice benefit. I'm not meaning to attack you with the "rhetoric without substance" line. But "children going without health insurance" is just as tired and is the ideal example of the term.

I think I did a poor job of writing up my ideas, so I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. I agree with you: enough rhetoric already. If this country has programs in place, let's get people to use them.

[BlueHair]

The reason that kids aren't getting insured under CHIP is that their parents refuse to enroll them, despite nearly every obstacle being removed and states actively trying to recruit them. The income limits for CHIP are really generous. There is no excuse for a child to go without health insurance, and I don't know of a single parent who gives a crap about their child who lets this happen.

I'll agree with you that NHI would be a nice benefit. I'm not meaning to attack you with the "rhetoric without substance" line. But "children going without health insurance" is just as tired and is the ideal example of the term.

I just checked Utah's CHIP website. The maximum income for a family of four is $42,000. The premium is $240 per year, a $1500 family deductible, and a maximum out of pocket of 5% of your income (minus the premium and deductible). This sounds like reasonable coverage. This is a progressive system. The more you make, the more you pay out of pocket. $42,000 is way too low for a cut-off point. A person making $50000 a year and paying for their own coverage would be better off asking for a pay reduction so they could get on CHIP.

[BlueHair]

No sir, that's how you kill creativity, innovation, and the well-roundedness that has been the hallmark of Western Education since well before Seneca wrote an inflammatory essay about it 2,000 years ago. That will leave us culturally impoverished, will hurt productivity, and will lead to more thinking along these lines.

2,500 years of history in the Liberal Arts.

We have K-12 to get them rounded. When you are an adult it is time to learn your craft and get to work. After high school, art, if unrelated to your field, is a hobby.

[Solon]

We have K-12 to get them rounded. When you are an adult it is time to learn your craft and get to work. After high school, art, if unrelated to your field, is a hobby.

Send 'em to trade schools, then. But liberal education is a hallmark of western civilization. College is about teaching people to think. Trade schools are for teaching people how to do tasks.

[Mormon Red Death]

My point is simple... there are a handful of things that we should create as basic 'rights' for U.S. citizens. I think these should be: Health Care, Healthy Food, and Excellent Education up through college.

That's interesting.... The founding fathers thought our rights were Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think I'll go with the founding fathers on this one.

[wuapinmon]

We have K-12 to get them rounded. When you are an adult it is time to learn your craft and get to work. After high school, art, if unrelated to your field, is a hobby.

You do realize that you sound like a dullard, right? That the bulk of Western Civilization disagrees with you, and that Liberal Arts is more than art? That China and Singapore are founding Liberal Arts colleges because they're worried about an inability to foster creativity in their universities?

[Mormon Red Death]

I just checked Utah's CHIP website. The maximum income for a family of four is $42,000. The premium is $240 per year, a $1500 family deductible, and a maximum out of pocket of 5% of your income (minus the premium and deductible). This sounds like reasonable coverage. This is a progressive system. The more you make, the more you pay out of pocket. $42,000 is way too low for a cut-off point. A person making $50000 a year and paying for their own coverage would be better off asking for a pay reduction so they could get on CHIP.

You are not even counting the fact that if a kid can't pay the hospital's charity policy will DEFINITELY cover children.

[Mormon Red Death]

When there is an issue of choice to proceed with a procedure there is a wait. Anything that is life or quality of life threatening is dealt with in the EXACT same fashion and according to timelines commensurate with care delivered in the US. In other words there is NO WAIT. You are fear mongering in order to support you opinion.

Uh yeah... The Frasier Institute will have to disagree.

Here is a quote for your viewing pleasure

It's becoming clearer that Canada's current health-care system cannot meet the needs of Canadians in a timely and efficient manner, unless you consider access to a waiting list timely and efficient

But I guess I am just a fear mongerer

[beelzebabette]

I just checked Utah's CHIP website. The maximum income for a family of four is $42,000. The premium is $240 per year, a $1500 family deductible, and a maximum out of pocket of 5% of your income (minus the premium and deductible). This sounds like reasonable coverage. This is a progressive system. The more you make, the more you pay out of pocket. $42,000 is way too low for a cut-off point. A person making $50000 a year and paying for their own coverage would be better off asking for a pay reduction so they could get on CHIP.

I had an employee at my last employer who did just that. The owners were happy to oblige. They kept track of what he would be earning w/ raises/bonuses, and when he reached the point where his would-be salary made economic sense again they bumped him from his stagnant salary to what his peers were earning.