How can anyone be against universal health care?

[Ooberman]

It may cost some extra money, but when was money more important than health?

[nursebenjamin]

You don't have to let the insurance companies make the decisions if you don't want. The only reason they can make decisions is because you personally gave them that authority voluntarily, when you signed the contract.

If the insurance company says that they are not paying $45,000 for a knee replacement surgery, then your insurance company is basically making medical decisions for you (unless you can afford to shell out that much cash.)

[WinePusher]

You don't have to let the insurance companies make the decisions if you don't want. The only reason they can make decisions is because you personally gave them that authority voluntarily, when you signed the contract.

If the insurance company says that they are not paying $45,000 for a knee replacement surgery, then your insurance company is basically making medical decisions for you (unless you can afford to shell out that much cash.)

That's why consumers always inform themselves and look over and determine what their insurance plan does and does not cover. If an insurance company doesn't cover knee replacement surgery, and you think that one day you will need it, then you go to a different insurance company that does offer that type of coverage. That is the beauty of free market Capitalism.

[olavisjo]

.

That's why consumers always inform themselves and look over and determine what their insurance plan does and does not cover. If an insurance company doesn't cover knee replacement surgery, and you think that one day you will need it, then you go to a different insurance company that does offer that type of coverage. That is the beauty of free market Capitalism.

Good thinking, I am probably going to have one or two major medical problems in my life, so I should get a policy to cover those and forgo paying for all the other stuff that I am not going to need.

[otseng]

You have been listening to Fox News too much.

Where do you get this stuff from? Fox News?

Moderator Comment

This charge seems to come up quite often. Rather than charge that people use Fox News as a source, it's better to ask for the source for their information.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Ooberman]

.

That's why consumers always inform themselves and look over and determine what their insurance plan does and does not cover. If an insurance company doesn't cover knee replacement surgery, and you think that one day you will need it, then you go to a different insurance company that does offer that type of coverage. That is the beauty of free market Capitalism.

Good thinking, I am probably going to have one or two major medical problems in my life, so I should get a policy to cover those and forgo paying for all the other stuff that I am not going to need.

I find it fascinating Christians aren't on the same page about these matters. These are not small things. How we (the people/government) treat the least among us, etc.

On one hand we have ola pointing out the futility of determining which ailment one might have 5-10 years from the time they sign up for health insurance and how one is supposed to weight the cost-benefit (particularly putting that decision into the hands of the general public who have limited funds and knowledge of the complex metrics insurance companies use - and even insurance companies, with billions of dollars and cadre's of experts, can't properly assess the cost-benefits).
It appears ola, at least, is considering the "least among us" and is concerned for their welfare, even if it may cost more (and it may cost less)....

Then we have winepusher who would throw everyone to the mercy of the market forces. If a person has a limited IQ and can't afford proper insurance, they are to rest on the idea that winepusher MAY use his excess cash to help them out...
How this fits into the Christian religion - or any religion - I'm not sure.


But, both are staunchly Christian.

If this were musical taste, I wouldn't think twice, but how we live with others seems to be the reason for religion.

IMO, winepusher seems to use Chrisitanity to balance the sins of the world:
This world is tough. Prepare your own soul for Judgement, let others worry about their own. God will make it right in the End.



Whereas, Ola seems to use Christianity to mitigate the sins of the world:
This world is tough. God can make it right if we try to let God change it.


As an atheist, I support Ola's view (or my impressions of the two views) much more.

[Darias]

I find it fascinating Christians aren't on the same page about these matters. These are not small things.

I find it perplexing how anyone can make this issue out to be religious at all. It is no surprise as to why all Christians are not in agreement. I don't recall any Bible stories where Jesus instructed Roman soldiers to do his miracles for him. However, the gospels do speak of Jesus commanding his followers to feed the hungry and heal the sick. These stories never advocate the outsourcing of individual morality to the empire. So why does the myth persist that Jesus was a socialist who advocated socialism? Repetition I suppose...

How we (the people/government) treat the least among us, etc.

There is a clear distinction between the rulers and the subjects. Slaves are not free because they get the opportunity to vote for their masters every few years. German Jews were not the Third Reich just because the Nazi party gained power through democratic means.

How you choose to treat the least fortunate in society is incumbent upon you. Anyone can be generous with other people's money. Anyone can be selfless with other people's lives; that's why we have a welfare-warfare state. By advocating the robbery of others to fund things you like, you are not exactly taking the moral high ground. You are not exactly achieving generosity.

On one hand we have ola pointing out the futility of determining which ailment one might have 5-10 years from the time they sign up for health insurance and how one is supposed to weight the cost-benefit (particularly putting that decision into the hands of the general public who have limited funds and knowledge of the complex metrics insurance companies use - and even insurance companies, with billions of dollars and cadre's of experts, can't properly assess the cost-benefits).
It appears ola, at least, is considering the "least among us" and is concerned for their welfare, even if it may cost more (and it may cost less)....

The thing about insurance is that it's a precautionary measure. You get fire insurance and life insurance and car insurance. If you live in an earthquake or sinkhole zone, you should probably get insurance for those things, or take the risk of losing everything. Everyone in society should not be punished financially because of your risky decisions.

Would you also care to explain how the "uninformed," "impoverished," "irresponsible," "unprepared" "greedy" masses means for an all wise, wealthy, accountable, responsible, altruistic state?

[center][/center]

The state is only concerned with the health of its citizens insomuch as it keeps them working and taxpaying, and insomuch as it provides an opportunity to make a jobs program that politicians can brag about. Health insurance would be affordable for the poorest people, as it once was, were it not for "government" stepping in to "solve" the problem in the first place.

Then we have winepusher who would throw everyone to the mercy of the market forces. If a person has a limited IQ and can't afford proper insurance, they are to rest on the idea that winepusher MAY use his excess cash to help them out...
How this fits into the Christian religion - or any religion - I'm not sure.

Do you actually believe the state is merciful? In what universe is the state merciful and benevolent where its actions are not to its own benefit?

If you care so much about the person with the limited IQ, you help him. If you do not wish to do that at your own expense, or through the voluntary charity of others via a kick starter, then I suspect you do not really care about the matter enough. Perhaps I should applaud the efforts of a thug to extort you in order to help "low IQ people" and feed Africa while I'm at it. Don't worry if he takes 50 percent and it becomes more difficult for you to put food on the table. It's for a good cause. It's for the "greater good" of which you are not a part. Rest easy citizen, knowing that your "charity" is funding my moral imperatives that I don't wish to take responsibility for!



-

[Ooberman]

I find it fascinating Christians aren't on the same page about these matters. These are not small things.

I find it perplexing how anyone can make this issue out to be religious at all. It is no surprise as to why all Christians are not in agreement. I don't recall any Bible stories where Jesus instructed Roman soldiers to do his miracles for him. However, the gospels do speak of Jesus commanding his followers to feed the hungry and heal the sick. These stories never advocate the outsourcing of individual morality to the empire. So why does the myth persist that Jesus was a socialist who advocated socialism? Repetition I suppose...

I agree it's no surprise Christians, or any religion, differs in how to deal with the perennial and crucial problems of the human condition.

Since there is no God, no one has any special insight and if they claimed to have it, it's probably going to be proven wrong soon enough. The issues are too complex.

However, if there was a God that spoke or guided people, it would seem that after 6,000 years of interacting with His sheep, they'd have a pretty good idea on how to manage these problems.

Instead, we see that God - the absentee Father - cares very little about these, often, crippling issues and simply leaves the important things to poorly worded cliche's and parables.

How we (the people/government) treat the least among us, etc.

There is a clear distinction between the rulers and the subjects. Slaves are not free because they get the opportunity to vote for their masters every few years. German Jews were not the Third Reich just because the Nazi party gained power through democratic means.

How you choose to treat the least fortunate in society is incumbent upon you. Anyone can be generous with other people's money. Anyone can be selfless with other people's lives; that's why we have a welfare-warfare state. By advocating the robbery of others to fund things you like, you are not exactly taking the moral high ground. You are not exactly achieving generosity.

Taxation isn't robbery. You seem to be twisting this into a conspicuously Republican/Libertarian soundbite.

I have no use for those religions.

On one hand we have ola pointing out the futility of determining which ailment one might have 5-10 years from the time they sign up for health insurance and how one is supposed to weight the cost-benefit (particularly putting that decision into the hands of the general public who have limited funds and knowledge of the complex metrics insurance companies use - and even insurance companies, with billions of dollars and cadre's of experts, can't properly assess the cost-benefits).
It appears ola, at least, is considering the "least among us" and is concerned for their welfare, even if it may cost more (and it may cost less)....

The thing about insurance is that it's a precautionary measure. You get fire insurance and life insurance and car insurance. If you live in an earthquake or sinkhole zone, you should probably get insurance for those things, or take the risk of losing everything. Everyone in society should not be punished financially because of your risky decisions.

How is getting a inherited disease a risky decision?

Would you also care to explain how the "uninformed," "impoverished," "irresponsible," "unprepared" "greedy" masses means for an all wise, wealthy, accountable, responsible, altruistic state?

Half of the population is below average intelligence, right?

Many of those people are unable to completely assess the proper actions, or the proper level of insurance they should carry, or many other things.

While I understand it's very Darwinian to leave their lives up to fate, there is no reason we as a social species can't do a good job of caring for them, even if we start to make SOME decisions for them.

For example, deciding to put all of them on a health plan.

The benefit to the smarter, stronger, faster is that they now have a healthier and, presumably, happier work force.

Fewer sick days, less disease, means more productive work forces.

After all, all the wealthy people have gotten wealthy because of others - they don't live in a vacuum.


Hence taxes. We pay taxes to have a police force and legal system to keep people from burning down our lemonade stand.

If taxes are "robbery", you are welcome to open up shop in a country that doesn't collect taxes. Just don't expect people to come to your aid if your lemonade stand is burned down.

[center][/center]

This cartoon can apply to anything.

The state is only concerned with the health of its citizens insomuch as it keeps them working and taxpaying, and insomuch as it provides an opportunity to make a jobs program that politicians can brag about. Health insurance would be affordable for the poorest people, as it once was, were it not for "government" stepping in to "solve" the problem in the first place.

Socialized medicine in other countries is working just fine, and the examples of non-socialized medicine inevitably leaves many people un- or under-insured.

A completely free market is a fantasy for Capitalists as much as Heaven is a fantasy for Christians. As much as a completely free country is a fantasy for anarchists or communists.

Then we have winepusher who would throw everyone to the mercy of the market forces. If a person has a limited IQ and can't afford proper insurance, they are to rest on the idea that winepusher MAY use his excess cash to help them out...
How this fits into the Christian religion - or any religion - I'm not sure.

Do you actually believe the state is merciful? In what universe is the state merciful and benevolent where its actions are not to its own benefit?

As you said, the State's interest is a healthy work force. That's all we need the State to do - prolong the lives of it's citizens. Anything else is up to the citizen, even suicide.

If you care so much about the person with the limited IQ, you help him. If you do not wish to do that at your own expense, or through the voluntary charity of others via a kick starter, then I suspect you do not really care about the matter enough. Perhaps I should applaud the efforts of a thug to extort you in order to help "low IQ people" and feed Africa while I'm at it. Don't worry if he takes 50 percent and it becomes more difficult for you to put food on the table. It's for a good cause. It's for the "greater good" of which you are not a part. Rest easy citizen, knowing that your "charity" is funding my moral imperatives that I don't wish to take responsibility for!

Your attitude is probably the most common. In fact, it's a version of the tragedy of the commons.

You think you are defending some higher ideal, but really you are FORCING others to take care of the homeless, sick, poor, and at a greater expense because you refuse to.

You don't like the wino on the street? So you expect OTHERS to pay for them to be moved to a half-way house.

If everyone thought as you did, we'd have the streets roaming with the poor. They'd be breaking into our homes, and assaulting our children.

You don't want to pay for their care, so you put the burden on the rest...


Luckily, the State sees that your view is untenable, and one of the great privileges you get for living in such a good country is that you get that decision made for you via taxes.

Your view would immediately result in some form of State sponsored care because everyone would see how unreasonable it would be for the average wage earner to pay for private security.

Security in the form of health care is directly connected. Security that your children will survive some of the common ailments every child gets is a great relief for the people who don't make as much as you.


BTW, do you make a lot? I often find many people who argue for this free market fantasy are often not doing as well as they think they could. They seem to think that taxes are too high...

Not that their negotiated salary - the one they chose to take - is too low.


That is, if you have a problem with taxes, why not make more money?


Isn't that what you are asking everyone else to do?

[WinePusher]

I find it fascinating Christians aren't on the same page about these matters. These are not small things. How we (the people/government) treat the least among us, etc.

Jesus commanded us to take care of the least among us and Christians follow this commandment far better than non believers do. Christians give more of their money away than non believers do and many Christians dedicate their lives to serving others, ie: missionaries. Christians are the ones in society who are focused on taking care of the least among us, not non believers. These are facts that have been documented by many think tanks and research organizations, yet we continually have people like you saying that Christians don't care about the poor just because they don't support your misguided socialist policies. Here's a newsflash, socialism isn't a humane way to organize society. In fact, socialism is the most inhumane way to organize a society. Socialism is responsible for the misery and deaths of many people.

And what I find fascinating is people like you, who think that universal healthcare is only about helping poor people. Universal healthcare is about power, it's about taking power away from the private sector and putting it in the hands in the government sector. I would rather the power remain in the private sector, in the hands of individuals and not some government bureaucracy.

Then we have winepusher who would throw everyone to the mercy of the market forces.

Because free market healthcare is better than government run healthcare. Do I really need to list the reasons? With the free market you would get lower costs, higher efficiency, better quality.

A very simple thing that could be done that would fix many problems within healthcare would be to allow healthcare providers to compete across state lines. Increased competition would also fix many problems within our educational system.
The more amount of competition, the better. The increased competition between healthcare providers lowers costs, would force them to increase their efficiency in order to attract consumers and provide better quality care.

If a person has a limited IQ and can't afford proper insurance, they are to rest on the idea that winepusher MAY use his excess cash to help them out...
How this fits into the Christian religion - or any religion - I'm not sure.

I would keep a basic healthcare safety net that would take care of people with 'limited IQs.' I wouldn't socialize the entire system though because it wouldn't work.

IMO, winepusher seems to use Chrisitanity to balance the sins of the world:
This world is tough. Prepare your own soul for Judgement, let others worry about their own. God will make it right in the End.

I don't even know what this nonsense means. I don't use Christianity for anything. Christianity is my religion and it is what I turn to for truth. Like I said, despite all your misinformation the fact is that Christians give more and help the poor more than nonbelievers do, just like our savior commanded. Christians don't support your failed socialist ideas because they don't work and end up hurting the poor and creating more poverty. The biggest joke on the face of this earth is the idea that socialism is beneficial for poor people.

[Ooberman]

I find it fascinating Christians aren't on the same page about these matters. These are not small things. How we (the people/government) treat the least among us, etc.

Jesus commanded us to take care of the least among us and Christians follow this commandment far better than non believers do. Christians give more of their money away than non believers do and many Christians dedicate their lives to serving others, ie: missionaries. Christians are the ones in society who are focused on taking care of the least among us, not non believers. These are facts that have been documented by many think tanks and research organizations, yet we continually have people like you saying that Christians don't care about the poor just because they don't support your misguided socialist policies. Here's a newsflash, socialism isn't a humane way to organize society. In fact, socialism is the most inhumane way to organize a society. Socialism is responsible for the misery and deaths of many people.

And what I find fascinating is people like you, who think that universal healthcare is only about helping poor people. Universal healthcare is about power, it's about taking power away from the private sector and putting it in the hands in the government sector. I would rather the power remain in the private sector, in the hands of individuals and not some government bureaucracy.

All really insightful if true, but it's not.


For example, the most atheistic countries also tend to be the most Socialist. They give about 50% of their income in the form of taxes to help EVERYONE in their country.

This makes Christians seem cruel and miserly in comparison.

Then we have winepusher who would throw everyone to the mercy of the market forces.

Because free market healthcare is better than government run healthcare. Do I really need to list the reasons? With the free market you would get lower costs, higher efficiency, better quality.

This isn't true, though, and, even if true, the thing you are missing is that only a few people benefit from those wonderful things.

I'm sure Bentley's are nice cars, too... Now, how does that help the average guy trying to get to work?

A very simple thing that could be done that would fix many problems within healthcare would be to allow healthcare providers to compete across state lines. Increased competition would also fix many problems within our educational system.
The more amount of competition, the better. The increased competition between healthcare providers lowers costs, would force them to increase their efficiency in order to attract consumers and provide better quality care.

When has chasing the lowest cost been good for quality?

The problem of the free market fantasy is that once you get to about 20% profit, you stop attracting the best and brightest.

The only reason for people to get into the business is for the profit.

The free market doesn't have a ledger column for "Public Good". It's all about the money.

It's chasing the profit percentage, and while companies will try to lower their costs to increase or maintain profit, they will inevitably suffer the same as all industries - the bottom.

Eventually, there will be no profit motive. Then what?

The State, inherently, isn't concerned about the profit and shouldn't be.

This is the cost you guys never consider. You want us to somehow believe the profit added into the costs will make the system cheaper than a system that removes or reduces those profits.

If a person has a limited IQ and can't afford proper insurance, they are to rest on the idea that winepusher MAY use his excess cash to help them out...
How this fits into the Christian religion - or any religion - I'm not sure.

I would keep a basic healthcare safety net that would take care of people with 'limited IQs.' I wouldn't socialize the entire system though because it wouldn't work.

So, you put the burden on only those people who would want to help a societal problem?

How is that fair?

Say there is contaminated water source in your community. You have the money to buy bottled water, and then 5 other families of the 20 families, buy bottled water.

You pass on the cost for those other 15 families to clean up the water.

Then, you lose your job... voila! You have clean water at no cost.

This is what you guys want to do. You want to pass on cost of curing the ills of society onto your neighbors.

IMO, winepusher seems to use Chrisitanity to balance the sins of the world:
This world is tough. Prepare your own soul for Judgement, let others worry about their own. God will make it right in the End.

I don't even know what this nonsense means. I don't use Christianity for anything. Christianity is my religion and it is what I turn to for truth. Like I said, despite your all your misinformation the fact is that Christians give more and help the poor more than nonbelievers do, just like our savior commanded. Christians don't support your failed socialist ideas because they don't work and end up hurting the poor and creating more poverty. The biggest joke on the face of this earth is the idea that socialism is beneficial for poor people.

It's funny. I know a staunch Obama hater who is married to a Swede.

They are moving to Sweden because they see how much better it is for them. They are getting older and will need medical care.

You are simply wrong, winepusher. Using the State as as a tool of the people to help the people is a reasonable and logical thing to do.

You want to place it in the hands of a corporation that would only care as long as the profits justify it's existence.


I understand people are wary of "The State", but they think of it as "Them", whereas, the only reasonable view of the State is "Us".

The State is a perfect "company" or "corporation" for some social issues. It uses a large base to handle large problems. And, it doesn't expect quick profits in return.

We use the State to solve other large problems: military, infrastructure, etc.

It's reasonable to include Health Care under that umbrella.






Listening to anti-Universal Healthcare people is odd. After all, it's how some people thought of the defense of America. Some thought that privatizing the military was the best solution.

Sure, the wealthy would have excellent protection! But the reason the State socialized the military was because it made sense.

When we go to war, we protect even the people that don't, even the sick, the poor, the weak, the cowardly.

Even people who make risky life choices.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 118 by Ooberman]

Wow, Ooberman, you have a lot of faith in the state.