VisorCentral.com - Universal Health Coverage: Side-by-Side

Pages (10): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Universal Health Coverage: Side-by-Side (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=33812)

Posted by BobbyMike on 05-19-2003 12:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
When you think about it, the sole purpose of government is to provide entitlements. What would you call defense, security and infrastructure? Aren't they a kind of entitlement? What is the difference between providing healthcare for the sick and building roads for drivers?

Main Entry: en�ti�tle�ment
Pronunciation: -'tI-t&l-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 1944
1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : RIGHT b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

You're talking about something different.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by clulup on 05-19-2003 01:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

That's what this discussion is about - The US providing more/better health coverage for it's citizens.

Can health insurance be considered different? (not trying to pick nits, just don't want to veer off on a rabbit trail)

On the other hand, it is the government who made the law saying that every Swiss has to have a health insurance (even if the health insurance company is private), and who creates the environment that makes it possible that almost everybody can pay for it (and for those who can't pay, of course the taxpayers pay in the end).

For a family of two adults and two kids you can get health insurance covering every health need of you and your family for the equivalent of about US$ 4200 per year. And that is on a medical standard that is just as high as the best in the US, only that it is available for everybody, not just the richest.

The concept of self-responibility simply does not work regarding health because it is rarely your fault if your kid has leukaemia or your wife gets breast cancer - and there is no way you could pay for the treatment, unless you are really rich. It is simply obvious that such risks should be spread evenly among the population - that's the basic idea of insurances.

Why the US have not yet reached this understanding yet is a very open question to me, I really used to think every civilised and developed country has health isurance for everybody, not just a charity or social security backup for the worst cases.

P.S.: Quoting other countries where the situation supposedly is not optimal either (like Great Britain) sounds like a bad excuse for me... of course one can always find bad examples if one looks for them (like bad christians, bad science, etc.).

Posted by yardie on 05-19-2003 05:17 PM:

I disagree. I think we are talking about the same thing. The only difference is that you are looking at healthcare as a benefit/entitlement for individuals, while roads and infrastructure as a benefit/entitlement for society as a whole. What do you think a driver would do if there are potholes on a certain street. Do you thinkt the driver would take his/her own money to fix it?

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Main Entry: en�ti�tle�ment
Pronunciation: -'tI-t&l-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 1944
1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : RIGHT b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

You're talking about something different.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by MIKE STH on 05-19-2003 07:08 PM:

And I totally disagree.

If those that whine and moan about the wealth of others would channel their efforts to better their situation, we would have much more production and much less leaching. Problem is that there are doers and there are those that ride on other's coattails. Doers actually produce something weather it be a product or service. Doers provide jobs and stimulate the economy whilst takers provide no motivation for the economy, only a drag on those actually achieving.

Funny, that we would have so many that can afford the 'luxury' of these electronic devices, can spend untold hours posting to forums and yet cannot make enough to support themselves.

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

I totally agree!

__________________
"Stupid Handspring."

Posted by Toby on 05-19-2003 07:20 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I disagree. I think we are talking about the same thing. The only difference is that you are looking at healthcare as a benefit/entitlement for individuals, while roads and infrastructure as a benefit/entitlement for society as a whole. What do you think a driver would do if there are potholes on a certain street. Do you thinkt the driver would take his/her own money to fix it?

Something to consider here. Roads and infrastructure are generally not paid for by society as a whole because society as a whole derives few benefits from a majority of roads and infrastructure. Only the interstate system is paid for with federal funds generally speaking (and its original purpose was for defense infrastructure). State and local roads are paid for with state and local funds. And in cases where local roads are improved, it's usually done by referendum (e.g. my home parish recently passed an ordinance where any public roads where the residents who lived on them would foot part of the bill got their streets paved/repaved).

And here's something interesting about healthcare from one of my AvantGo channels:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/914199.asp

Posted by Yorick on 05-19-2003 07:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by MIKE STH
And I totally disagree.

If those that whine and moan about the wealth of others would channel their efforts to better their situation, we would have much more production and much less leaching. Problem is that there are doers and there are those that ride on other's coattails. Doers actually produce something weather it be a product or service. Doers provide jobs and stimulate the economy whilst takers provide no motivation for the economy, only a drag on those actually achieving.

Funny, that we would have so many that can afford the 'luxury' of these electronic devices, can spend untold hours posting to forums and yet cannot make enough to support themselves.

this may not be, and probably wasn't, directed at me, but it seems a little like such.
I used to make more money. I used to have health insurance. I felt a need to change my life. It didn't work out as planned. It's been a struggle since, but until this year I've always made enough to support myself, excluding a lot of luxury items (which I consider health insurance to be because I rarely have had a need). If you have a job, good or crummy, count yourself lucky. I know I do.

(then again, I haven't really been complaining about the wealth of others. Yet. Dammit, where is *my* large automobile!)

Posted by yardie on 05-19-2003 08:46 PM:

No one is whining and moaning about the wealth of others.. We are just saying that the wealthy should share. Note everyone is in a situation to get rich so that they can buy a big house and own an SUV. Perhaps in a Utopian setting..but the real world does not work that way. As far as I am concerned, everyone is a producer or potential producer. The child of the poor mother on welfare could find the cure for AIDS when he grows up if he gets support -- who knows?

quote:
Originally posted by MIKE STH
And I totally disagree.

If those that whine and moan about the wealth of others would channel their efforts to better their situation, we would have much more production and much less leaching. Problem is that there are doers and there are those that ride on other's coattails. Doers actually produce something weather it be a product or service. Doers provide jobs and stimulate the economy whilst takers provide no motivation for the economy, only a drag on those actually achieving.

Funny, that we would have so many that can afford the 'luxury' of these electronic devices, can spend untold hours posting to forums and yet cannot make enough to support themselves.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by MarkEagle on 05-20-2003 01:10 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
(then again, I haven't really been complaining about the wealth of others. Yet. Dammit, where is *my* large automobile!)

It's in the garage of your large house, of course!

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by ToolkiT on 05-20-2003 02:31 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Note everyone is in a situation to get rich so that they can buy a big house and own an SUV. Perhaps in a Utopian setting..but the real world does not work that way.

Exactly!
The american dream is not available for everybody.. actually only a few people make it work, is that because nobody else tries just as hard? No, the opportunities/chances are simply not the same for everybody... simple example: how many black female lesbian senators are there out there? or even how many black female senators or even female senators... Women make up half the population but their % in high power roles are really tiny...
And that is not because they dont work hard enough for it.. most female bussiniss women work a lot harder to get the same result as their male counterparts..
But even if you are part of the 'lucky few' i.e. the white males, not everybody has the same opportunities... how many of you work really hard? and how many of those are milionairs?

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by BobbyMike on 05-20-2003 12:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Exactly!
The american dream is not available for everybody.. actually only a few people make it work, is that because nobody else tries just as hard? No, the opportunities/chances are simply not the same for everybody... simple example: how many black female lesbian senators are there out there? or even how many black female senators or even female senators... Women make up half the population but their % in high power roles are really tiny...
And that is not because they dont work hard enough for it.. most female bussiniss women work a lot harder to get the same result as their male counterparts..
But even if you are part of the 'lucky few' i.e. the white males, not everybody has the same opportunities... how many of you work really hard? and how many of those are milionairs?

You bring up some interesting points, but I have to differ on whether or not "actually only a few people make it work" or if "the American Dream is for everyone" Many people in this country make it work if you consider that they make enough money to support and feed their families without needing assistance to do so. If you can prove otherwise, with facts, please do so.

As to why their are no "no black female lesbian senators (female is redundant)" it's probably because statistically there are few black lesbians out there. When you put together two minority groups (blacks - lesbians) you tend to lower their numbers. We have black female senators (Carol Mosely Braun to name one off the top of my head), we have many female senators, we even have an openly gay senator (Franks). There is even some report that we do have a lesbian senator that isn't candid about her "posistion". The fact is we have a very diverse group of senators that aren't all "white males".
If you can actually prove these assertions, please do so. If not don't push them as fact, but merely as how you see it.
Women and minorities actually comprise a vital growing part of our government - in the Senate, Congress, and the Judicial branches.

I've also seen statistics (I'll see if I can find them online) that a woam has a better chance of starting her own new business and making it work, in this country, than a man does.

BTW most people in my area own houses and SUVs, and the employment rate is under 3%, yet the average income is under $30,000 a year. Do we qualify as making it work or not? Columbia County is by no means an anomaly either.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by MIKE STH on 05-20-2003 02:59 PM:

No...it was in general. But as talented as you are with graphics, I could easily see you doing very well

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick

this may not be, and probably wasn't, directed at me, but it seems a little like such.

__________________
"Stupid Handspring."

Posted by MIKE STH on 05-20-2003 03:06 PM:

First define "We" and I am totally at odds with the rest of the statement. WHY should the wealthy share? If they created and produced and earned why should they give to the leechers? Moreover, what right do the moochers have to partake in the wealth of those that actually earned wealth with either their thoughts or actions? Is it a sin to produce wealth(of any size) or is the sinner the person that leeches off the efforts of others? Seems real clear to me.

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
We are just saying that the wealthy should share.

__________________
"Stupid Handspring."

Posted by jhappel on 05-20-2003 03:15 PM:

quote:
BobbyMike posted:
We have black female senators (Carol Mosely Braun to name one off the top of my head), we have many female senators, we even have an openly gay senator (Franks).

Please get your facts straight before putting them here as the truth. Carol Mosley Braun has been out of office for several years. Barny Franks is not a Senator and never has been. He is a member of the House of Representatives, one of 435, whereas the Senate only has 100 members. The House is more diversified than the Senate simply because members are elected from much smaller districts by fewer voters. If memory serves me correctly (and I could be wrong on this) I believe we have approximately 13 or 14 female Senators, one Native American (Ben Nighthorse Campbell), one or two Asian-Americans (I can only remember Daniel Inoye (sp) of Hawaii) and I can't think of any current African-American Senators. It is not a very diverse place at all.

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by LaughingMan on 05-20-2003 04:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

I don't believe reditribution of wealth through taxation is ethical or fair. The repealing of the the tax cut is an interesting issue. Bush wants to take less out of the peoples pockets, the Democrats want to take more. I don't actually think that the issue is even about that, it's about fiscal responsibilty - which Congress (and the Governments bureaucracy) has little to none. If I pay a dollar into a health care plan and only 2 cents actually go towards patient care, why should I want to see "more" coverage?
They can't responsibly use they money they get now, why should they get more?

Yes, it is an interesting issue. Have you ever wonder why your property taxes gone up? Bush reduced funding for the states and local governments so he can give you the tax cut back in 2001. Now with a second tax cut and with unfunded mandates like the "No School Board Left Standing" bill, or the "Every Teacher Left Behind" bill, many states and local governments end up raising property taxes so they can balance their budgets. Yes, my income tax is lowered, but my property taxes went up. What changed? Nothing.

You can have the president's tax cut or you can have health care that can never be taken away. You can have the president's tax cut or you can fully fund special education so class size can go down and your property taxes can go down. You can have the president's tax cut or you can have the 20% of the federal highway grants that the president cut to every state this year.

Well, I want to have the roads, the education, and the health care because I didn't get the president's tax cut.

quote:

Actually I don't think that's a bad idea (but then I homeschool my kids) Then we might actually see proper preformance from the schools and their adminstrations. That's why vouchers systems are so scary to the NEA and other teacher/school organization. Right now the States and Federal Governments are doing a completely sucky job at educating the American child. If they actually had to have children leave school with a good education, or lose their jobs, they would stop screwing around and do it.
When you have public school teachers say that they plan on homeschooling their kids because they want them to have a decent education, you know there are problems.
The government has a moral obligation to protect it's citizens from other nations and to do it's part with trade treaties. I don't think huge bureaucracies do well when it comes to health and education. In fact they waste enormous amounts of money (through fraud, inaction and plain stupiness) and accomplish little to nothing.

I disagree. Here is why a voucher system is so scary. It puts the white folks here, the black folks there, the Hispanics over there, the Jews over here, the Catholics there, the Protestants there, the rich people here, the poor people there and the last people left behind are the special ed kids because nobody wants them. Haven't we learned enough from Brown vs. BOE? I can�t live in a society like that. This country is better than that.

__________________
joe

Posted by LaughingMan on 05-20-2003 04:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by MIKE STH
There should be no "entitlements". It's very simple, you work and are compensated for your efforts. If you do not agree with the compensation, then find another job or get off your duff and learn new skills. I am not my brother's keeper, nor should I expect to be. I have my plate full bearing the responsibility of raising my family and contributing to society. One of these days, you that believe so much in entitlements should that the time to read ATLAS SHRUGGED 1957/Ann Rand. There are doers and those that whine, gnash the teeth and ride on coattails. You have a choice as to which group you belong. Can you even begin to imagine the wealth and prosperity that would be generated in this country if only 20% of the 'entitlement junkies' started to contribute to the GNP?

You have bootstraps for a reason.

I hope this is not directed to me. I just want to say that I am not whining. I am addressing this because I think that we can do better. Like you, I am proud to have fulfill my personal responsibilities of raising my family, paying my bills and my fair share of taxes. Aside from my work as an instructor, I own and manage a small business with 12 employees.

I think what is happening here is that we are so concerned about efficiency (do things right) that we have forgotten about effectiveness ( doing the right thing). And I think the incidents that happened at Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and other similar establishments have taught us how dangerous this "every man for himself/herself" mentality can be.

We must not forget that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

__________________
joe

Posted by K. Cannon on 05-20-2003 05:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
But even if you are part of the 'lucky few' i.e. the white males, not everybody has the same opportunities...

I'm a female and I seem to be doing okay...

Posted by KRamsauer on 05-20-2003 05:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by LaughingMan

Here is why a voucher system is so scary. It puts the white folks here, the black folks there, the Hispanics over there, the Jews over here, the Catholics there, the Protestants there

Uh, where in school voucher programs do they repeal the Constitution?

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by clulup on 05-20-2003 05:52 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

I'm a female and I seem to be doing okay...

That doesn't prove anything. Maybe you are just fantastically intelligent, charming, well connected, etc. (possibly even without realizing yourself) that you just managed to overcome the discrimination? Maybe as a man you would work less and earn twice as much?

Posted by MIKE STH on 05-20-2003 06:46 PM:

But how would the redistribution of wealth be "the right thing"?
As an example, a man(or woman) creates something out of nothing, markets it and receives fair compensation for it's value. As our society uses money as a form of barter, we will suppose that the person becomes wealthy from their efforts. Wealth is the reward. Meanwhile, Joe Schmoe (apologies to anyone named the same) sits at home and laments the short deck he has been delt. He cites his lack of care as a child, his social status, his location, every excuse with the exception of the truth which was that he never applied himself. He believes that the world owes him by virtue of the fact that he exists. He begrudges the wealthy individual because "they had all the opportunities" or "they earned it on other's backs". But, again, the wealthy individual had applied themselves.
Meanwhile, society is telling the wealthy individual that he should be supportive of the whiner "because you have no heart". Society proclaims that the wealthy individual "owes" the lackey a job, position, house, $$$ etc. The wealthy individual supposes that he must be wrong because everyone is telling him so, so he relents and hires the whiner. Naturally, the whiner having no skills and no ambition, does not advance the corporation or product, he just sits back and collects his stipend believing that it is owed him (as he has learned throughout his life). Finally, the corporation is overrun with whiners who are receiving compensation for nothing,(read ENRON) this results in the truly productive employees questioning their offerings and they leave and withdraw their ideas and energies. Guess what happens next? The corporation collapses and no benefit is afforded to society as the product is withdrawn, the economic influence is absent and the growth/employment opportunities evaporate. Not only does the wealthy individual stop making their product, but they become disenchanted and disengaged and withdraw their economic force from the market.
Not only does the wealthy individual lose money, they also lose faith in the system that rewards lackluster performance and disciplines productivity. Other segments learn from the example and the trend continues.
This is happening daily. There should be no dishonor in applying oneself and being productive. Why do we reward those that chose not to do, yet punish those that perform? Joe Schmoe has no right to any portion of the rewards that were granted for service and product because he did not produce�.he only consumed. What lessons are we learning and how can we reverse this trend?

*** Keep in mind that I am referring to honorable people that produce a viable commodity or service and back it up to the best of their ability. They make no excuses and take full responsibility for their actions and repercussions. That in no way is offered as a defense for those that try to cheat an honorable profession by shortcuts, lies and innuendo like the players in the Enron debacle. Remember ~ there were surely honorable people at Enron putting forth their best efforts daily. They learned that those that were rewarded accumulated wealth for the wrong reasons. The sad part is that dishonorable people were able to fleece honorable people of their life�s rewards.

quote:
Originally posted by LaughingMan

I think what is happening here is that we are so concerned about efficiency (do things right) that we have forgotten about effectiveness ( doing the right thing). And I think the incidents that happened at Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and other similar establishments have taught us how dangerous this "every man for himself/herself" mentality can be.

__________________
"Stupid Handspring."

Posted by MarkEagle on 05-21-2003 12:38 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
That doesn't prove anything.

Sure it does. It proves she has the gusto to go out and do what she needs to do to be successful. She (or anyone for that matter) doesn't need to please the masses. She only has to be able to look at herself in the mirror and feel self-respect for herself and her efforts.

quote:
Maybe you are just fantastically intelligent, charming, well connected, etc. (possibly even without realizing yourself) that you just managed to overcome the discrimination?

Isn't that what overcoming discrimination (of any sort) is all about? I'm sure she's had to work at honing those attributes since they don't tend to come without at least a little effort. I call it the Little Train That Could mentality: I think I can, I think I can, I know I can, I know I can...

quote:
Maybe as a man you would work less and earn twice as much?

It's also possible that as a man she'd be working twice as hard for half as much. She (and we) will never know... I realize that the statistics say women work harder for less than their male counterparts, but as with most things, I think they're painted with pretty broad strokes. Remember, there's exceptions to every rule.

As Yorick said, he felt he needed a change. Hopefully, he knew the risks before he took the plunge. I'm sure he knows that he's made his bed, so now he has to sleep in it. It seems to me that he's not looking for any handouts, but perhaps maybe just a hand up... and there's a huge difference between the two!

I've always followed a simple saying I saw as a youngster (I even used it as the quote in my High School yearbook): The future belongs to those still willing to work and get their hands dirty.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 PM.

Pages (10): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page