wHAT A DUMB IDEA
09-08-2009, 09:38 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-06-2008
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,076
A few recent quotes from Bill Moyers, a man who I respect and admire very much...
"I find it hard to understand why this nation has not embraced the notion of health care as a common human need to which everyone should have access regardless of their economic resources." Bill Moyers on Real Time with Bill Maher. http://bit.ly/1297nb
"Universal health care for every citizen, irrespective of your resources, is representative of a deeply moral society." Bill Moyers on Real Time with Bill Maher http://bit.ly/Oy4is
09-08-2009, 09:43 PM
#12
Member
Join Date: 07-26-2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 31
Health insurance is not an entitlement any more than owning a home etc. I busted my hump and never quit trying to do better, now they want me to pay for welfare and insurance of those who choose not to work for it. It took me years to finally land a job with benefits, but I never quit looking and never expected someone else to pick up the tab.
09-09-2009, 07:23 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-24-2008
Location: USA
Posts: 725
Health insurance is not an entitlement any more than owning a home etc. I busted my hump and never quit trying to do better, now they want me to pay for welfare and insurance of those who choose not to work for it. It took me years to finally land a job with benefits, but I never quit looking and never expected someone else to pick up the tab.
And by the way, we are all paying for your health insurance benefits even now - his/her prices had to be raised to the public to cover this. You pay for my wife's health insurance - she's a government worker. We paid for GM employees health insurance in the price of our HHRs, etc.
Most importantly, this is not about welfare - it is about the average Joe/Jill having the basic right to receive proper care in a hospital.
I have stated before - when Eisenhower built all of the highways in the '50s, he didn't build them for those that "could afford them", he built them for all - knowing that the entire country would be better off - we would be more mobile, the economy would expand, etc. With health care we will all have better preventative care - like changing your oil in the car.
09-09-2009, 07:29 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-11-2007
Location: Palm Bay, Florida
Posts: 1,378
I really hesitate to post this - but as a businessman who has continually provided health insurance for all of my employees for over 35 years, I get totally disgusted by employers who refuse to provide employees with health insurance, yet they own a second home in Florida, a huge boat, belong to the expensive golf courses, etc. While I agree that a "fine" may be extreme, it may be what it takes to make employers get off their selfish asses and do the right thing.
I have nothing against employers making money, but I really believe there should be a sense of sharing the wealth - and frankly, most of us on this site probably fall onto the side of those deserving a fair shake.
I have nothing against employers making money, but I really believe there should be a sense of sharing the wealth - and frankly, most of us on this site probably fall onto the side of those deserving a fair shake.
Why not just increase everyones pay so that they can purchase health insurance on their own so they know the costs and can be responsible for their own health care insurance. I don't understand why employees would feel entitled to "free" benefits yet have no idea or any concern on those costs to the employer.
Your altruism is to be commended.
Even the Dem's are looking for some place to hide.
09-09-2009, 08:49 AM
#17
Founding Member
Join Date: 11-23-2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,210
09-09-2009, 09:00 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-01-2006
Location: lockport,ny
Posts: 1,378
The scary part of the government getting involved in health care is the possibility of health care rationing. I live in a border area near Canada and you would be surprised at the number of Canadians that come over the border and pay out of their pockets for health care here. Some of these cases involve serious and/or painful conditions that had very long waiting lists in Canada.
In most countries that have a national health care system, there is rationing of health care, usually based on your "worth" (which is usually age-based).
When the government is involved, there is usually no incentive to do anything economically because they can just raise taxes to cover costs. A business only has so much money to work with and must (usually) work within the budget.
When the government gets a monopoly on any system then they make the rules PERIOD! If you don't like it, tough! You have no other place to go.
If you go to a grocery store and the store has rude employees, poor products and short hours, then you go to another store. If enough people stop shopping at the bad store, it either goes out of business or changes its ways. Now imagine that the bad store is the ONLY store available. What incentives do they have to improve? None.
Sometimes the government can be like a cocaine dealer that gives away a little to hook you on them.
I'm not saying our current health care system doesn't need any improvement, but we should be wary of any new system that trashes the current setup and replaces it with something totally different.
About 5 years ago I attended a talk by the head of a panel that had studied health insurance systems in the US. He said that at least 25% of the cost of health insurance was used up in antiquated paperwork and administrative systems. We could cut a large cost out of the system by implementing more efficient billing/payment systems.
Steve
In most countries that have a national health care system, there is rationing of health care, usually based on your "worth" (which is usually age-based).
When the government is involved, there is usually no incentive to do anything economically because they can just raise taxes to cover costs. A business only has so much money to work with and must (usually) work within the budget.
When the government gets a monopoly on any system then they make the rules PERIOD! If you don't like it, tough! You have no other place to go.
If you go to a grocery store and the store has rude employees, poor products and short hours, then you go to another store. If enough people stop shopping at the bad store, it either goes out of business or changes its ways. Now imagine that the bad store is the ONLY store available. What incentives do they have to improve? None.
Sometimes the government can be like a cocaine dealer that gives away a little to hook you on them.
I'm not saying our current health care system doesn't need any improvement, but we should be wary of any new system that trashes the current setup and replaces it with something totally different.
About 5 years ago I attended a talk by the head of a panel that had studied health insurance systems in the US. He said that at least 25% of the cost of health insurance was used up in antiquated paperwork and administrative systems. We could cut a large cost out of the system by implementing more efficient billing/payment systems.
Steve
09-09-2009, 10:42 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-24-2008
Location: USA
Posts: 725
I guess I just feel very blessed to have everything I have and believe it should be shared with others. Not all (and a very small minority) are lazy people that this legislation affects.
I also would like to remind those in disagreement that enemployment is at somewhere around 9-10%. A good 5% of those people had good jobs and lost them. Imagine working all of your life and having a child get cancer and being uninsured. Thousands of people have lost everything they had due to a lack of insurance.
Again, I stress that those with insurance only have it as a basis of their employer. If you work for the government - we're paying for it. If you work for a private employer - it is in the cost of your production and the public is paying for it. What is so wrong with having our children have an even break at their health. I just don't understand......
PS - Told you I'd regret posting this.
I also would like to remind those in disagreement that enemployment is at somewhere around 9-10%. A good 5% of those people had good jobs and lost them. Imagine working all of your life and having a child get cancer and being uninsured. Thousands of people have lost everything they had due to a lack of insurance.
Again, I stress that those with insurance only have it as a basis of their employer. If you work for the government - we're paying for it. If you work for a private employer - it is in the cost of your production and the public is paying for it. What is so wrong with having our children have an even break at their health. I just don't understand......
PS - Told you I'd regret posting this.
09-09-2009, 10:48 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-06-2008
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,076
Indeed. It would be an exceptional world if more of us had the interests of others in mind... from simply letting people into traffic, to assisting those with disabilities, to feeding the indigent.
It's interesting how little incrementalism has to occur in societal evolution for people to go apeshiat. Would anyone suggest we tear out the wheelchair ramps and take down the talking crosswalks? What about disaster recovery services? You know, those 'accoutrements' the government doles out to those who need help.
And before the onslaught of "healthcare isn't a right" comments... don't get caught up in the terminology. What AJochum is describing is a "right of humanism." It's a high-order concept whereby we seek to help one another instead of compete against one another. As a species, we ain't there (yet?)
