Mandate insurance purchase?

garysher · 03-09-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yzerman19wingnut

Show me where in the constitution it says that healthcare costs will be covered by the state or by persons other than yourself. It's not there. I agree you do have a right to obtain treatment so long as you pay for it. You can't however tell me that the constitution guarantees that you have a right to my money and my income. It's not there.

You keep repeating the same nonsense no matter how many times I point out your hypocrisy.

If you have employer-subsidised health insurance you are effectively passing on your health insurance costs to consumers, via your company's higher prices. And you are getting it tax free.

If you really believe what you say, go tell your boss you want to drop out of the company health insurance program and tell him to pay you the employer subsidy as additional salary (which will be taxed).

Then get on the phone and see what it will cost to buy insurance as an individual, without subsidies from your boss OR his customers.

Then get back to me.

Until then you are being a hypocrite

garysher · 03-09-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yzerman19wingnut

Catch up? Catch up to what? The United States is the most successful nation in the world in so many categories it's unreal.

In many things yes. Firearms homicides for one.

But not in health care or education. The US lags way behind on both of those.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yzerman19wingnut

I wont step down to those nation's troubles. We have our own way of doing things here and we don't take it nicely when foreigners (especially socialist or communist foreigners) come into our country to better their lives and expect the dictatorships and the cradle to grave enslavement societies follow them here. You are free to take advantage of the prosperity our multicultural nation has provided for you through warfare and bloodshed and you can even slander it's existence while you succle at it's teet for your income and your well being. But don't try to tell me that I have to pay so that you can sit on your ass. Nah. You can speak your mind and you can have your ideas but don't start robbing from me to feed your gluttony and your sloth. My wallet is mine. Yours is yours. You buy your own shit and I'll buy mine. Works better that way.

Again let me remind you - I'm the self-employed businessman, the entrepreneur.

You suck on your boss's teat because you don't have what it takes to start your own business.

He has to pay for your health insurance and pass on the cost to your customers. And I have to subsidise your state through my Federal taxes.

You have no clue how health care or education work in other countries.

So spare me the 'rugged individualist' crap while I have to feed your gluttony and sloth

scrjnki · 03-09-2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Yes it is. In almost every other industrialised country health care is a right.

Obama is trying to give that right to Americans who have been denied it for so long, compared to their OECD peers.

It may take a few more decades but eventually Americans will catch up

I think many people have begun to confuse the difference between a right and an entitlement.

A human right is neither endowed by government, nor defined by activists. It is something we are all born with, like life, liberty and the pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness. Human rights do not require the servitude of others so that you may enjoy them. Health care for all is a noble aspiration, and worthy of pursuit, but medical care is not even a universal need or desire, let alone a human right.

While millions voluntarily opt out of--even avoid--medical care (which is their right), who would argue that food, clothing and shelter are not more universal human needs? Yet these true needs are not universally provided for by the government. Would life be more utopian if they were?

Activists chant that the USA ranks 37th in medical outcomes, but never say what that means. The Soviets had 100% employment, presumably ranking high in employment outcomes. Do activists want America to emulate the Cuban medical system, which required European doctors to effectively treat their president, Fidel Castro?

hot dragon · 03-10-2010, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leighredf

I was merely pointing out that you use our public education system as a basis for UHC and by doing so, you compare UHC to a generally expensive, non-performing government run program.

A better approach would have been for you to state "I assume that public healthcare will be better managed than the public education system." You could have provided reasons why the two programs would be different. When you linked them together by analogy, you have to take the good with the bad. The bad is our public education system is inferior, expensive, and ineffective.

the alternative, and the way things used to be is to have no public education and no requirement for children to be educated. if the children attending the disastrous public schools were not required to go, and their education was left to their parents to arrange, what kind of outcome do you think you would see?

education at a government school may not be as good as education at a private school but it is better than no education. better for the children and for society as a whole. government provides education, the private sector does too, so do charities, churches, even individuals who home school. you can choose where your kids get their education, but you cannot choose that they dont get one at all. the government requires you educate your children, if you dont want to get too involved, they even provide a school, but you have the choice to go there or pursue your own teaching.

i would bet, although i dont know, that when universal education was first suggested there were people critical of the idea. i bet there were detractors who said the government had no right to, that nobody wanted government getting between them and their teacher, that compulsory education was unconstitutional, that it would destroy the private sector, does any of this sound familiar?

hot dragon · 03-10-2010, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrjnki

Force? No, but I would be happy to ALLOW hospitals not to be forced to cover me or anyone...ANYONE!!!

Health care is not a right. It is not even a universal desire. It is, however, a way to expand the dependent class. Are you one of those? Why? Have you no stones?

I support public education, but that is not the same as supporting public schools. Government can easily provide FOR something without PROVIDING IT. Example: Housing assistance. Time was that public housing assistance meant living in the projects. Big publicly funded mass housing that looked like Soviet Chic. Of course there was the need for a government employed maintenance superintendent (the "super") with his government employed staff, who eventually got around to the work needed to be done, all the while complaining about a lack of funding. Of course, there was also the government employed security guard and his government employed staff to try in vain to curb the drug dealing and other crime.

Then, the heavens opened up and a little slice of government got smart. Public projects were finally declared a dismal failure and Section 8 housing assistance was born. Those who qualified were given vouchers to seek housing in the private sector(with co-pay). Said housing must pass a rigorous inspection to be eligible to accept the section 8 vouchers. Waste and general cost plummeted by 2/3. Dignity and quality sprung forth.

What can the public school/public education system learn from this experience? Is a government employee the answer? Is there another way? Government employees had to <GASP> lose their jobs for the aforementioned housing excellence to emerge.

Would the same price be worth our children's futures?

your little story is interesting, but you miss something. regarding the housing assistance, the vouchers, co-payments, the inspections, who paid for this ? i am guessing it was government that paid. so, it is still government support, still government that spends your taxation dollar providing housing for the inept. sure they found a way to do it more efficiently but it is still government spending to provide housing.

universal health insurance is the same principle. the government might pay the bill (your money, collected by tax or levy) but it will be private health care providers who provide the actual treatment. they just get reimbursed from government sources. of course, if you have your own insurance, they get reimbursed from them too.

with housing, the government didnt stop paying for it, they just started outsourcing. your housing argument is NOT an example of government intervention failing and things only improving when government gets out of the way. government didnt get out of the way, they may have wised up but they are still there, and they never stopped pursuing housing assistance.

yzerman19wingnut · 03-10-2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

That's like saying the Ritz Carlton has a better mini bar than the Motel 6.

So what?

Mini bar? A child's development and education is not even equatable with a mini bar. And no private schools aren't like Ritz Carltons. Most of the religiously oriented ones are actually thinly funded. The public schools get state funds and therefore typically have nicer buildings and materials. You obviously have never been inside a private school have you? Hollywood movies don't count.

Quote:

Do you really expect that public schools which have to cater to everyone, can ever compete with private schools that cater to a tiny wealthy minority?

Wealth? ROFLMAO. Most private school graduates I know were nothing higher than middle class who had to rely on financial aid. The public schools cater to everyone sure. But why do they have to? Why can't we have public schools for the smart ones and different ones for the ones who don't apply themselves? Oh yea that's right because the law says every kid has to be given an equal opportunity. They each get a trophy no matter if they win or lose. I am all in favor of every child getting a chance.................but when they blow that chance and can't read by the time they are in the 4th grade it's time to realize it aint gonna happen. Our public schools just pass them onto the next grade. Just toss the problem up the line.

Quote:

Your use of statistics is as barmy as your gun mentality

Quote:

How about this statistic for you: The smartest kids don't go to private schools. The smartest kids are in any given school.........the key difference between kids who succeed and ones who don't are high expectation parents and the child actually applying themselves.

I know learning disabled friends of mine who graduated just fine from college and I also know some who never graduated because their parents didn't make them do it.

I'm not proposing this as an actual policy change because its impossible but just for thought purposes..................what if parental salaries were partially determined by the scores of their children's proficiency test scores? Just think about what would be different about our country if parents actually got behind their kids' education?

yzerman19wingnut · 03-10-2010, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

You keep repeating the same nonsense no matter how many times I point out your hypocrisy.

so you admit the constitution says not jack squat about it don't you?

Quote:

If you have employer-subsidised health insurance you are effectively passing on your health insurance costs to consumers, via your company's higher prices. And you are getting it tax free.

OMG you are a total idiot. You have zero business or finance knowledge whatsoever. Do you actually think that when you spend money it's still yours? I pay for rich people's lexus and mercedes. Yea I do in your terms. So fuckin what. That's how life works. He who has the better ideas at the lower prices gets the sales. That is the premise of a capitalism state. The end consumers get the better prices from competition and the innovator gets the wealth from having the better idea and taking the risk. The beauty of this country is that anyone can start their own business and succeed if they have a good enough idea.

So if all these poor people are going to get my money for their health insurance then what service am I getting back from them in return? Are the democrats going to require that they sweep my porch off and mow my grass? See the fallacy in your logic? My company provides a good and a service. Poor people do nothing and get it for free.

Quote:

If you really believe what you say, go tell your boss you want to drop out of the company health insurance program and tell him to pay you the employer subsidy as additional salary (which will be taxed).

I already told you I would gladly opt out of it and just get catastrophic coverage. I would win out even with the taxes. But that's not an option for me. The salary doesn't change if you opt out of the insurance.

Quote:

Then get on the phone and see what it will cost to buy insurance as an individual, without subsidies from your boss OR his customers.

Identical insurance plan from the same company would cost me about $100 - $130 a week.
What I pay now is about $55 per week.

If I opted out I would only get catastrophic coverage with a high deductible and pay maybe $50 bucks a week if that and pocket the difference as a doctor fund or health savings account. I win in that case because I don't use doctors for every time I get a headache.

Quote:

Then get back to me.

Quote:

Until then you are being a hypocrite

Just did. It's really not that expensive if you don't use it for everyday maintenance.

yzerman19wingnut · 03-10-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hot dragon

your little story is interesting, but you miss something. regarding the housing assistance, the vouchers, co-payments, the inspections, who paid for this ? i am guessing it was government that paid. so, it is still government support, still government that spends your taxation dollar providing housing for the inept. sure they found a way to do it more efficiently but it is still government spending to provide housing.

universal health insurance is the same principle. the government might pay the bill (your money, collected by tax or levy) but it will be private health care providers who provide the actual treatment. they just get reimbursed from government sources. of course, if you have your own insurance, they get reimbursed from them too.

I'm confused. We already have that it's called medicaid. Why do we need more medicaid?

Quote:

with housing, the government didnt stop paying for it, they just started outsourcing. your housing argument is NOT an example of government intervention failing and things only improving when government gets out of the way. government didnt get out of the way, they may have wised up but they are still there, and they never stopped pursuing housing assistance.

Ok so in these terms the current healthcare legislation is like forcing everyone onto section 8 housing. No thanks.

yzerman19wingnut · 03-10-2010, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

In many things yes. Firearms homicides for one.

But not in health care or education. The US lags way behind on both of those.

The united states education is doing ok. The only reason other countries look better is because alot of them don't put up with students not doing their shit and dealing drugs on school grounds. Those kids are kicked out and never allowed back. Cut that piece out and the US is far supreme. We may have more gangsters per capita but we also have far more scholars per capita too. Most of the worlds innovation even by foreign students is done here. So even if the foreign folks have better education they still come here for the opportunities in our country to implement their ideas.

Quote:

Again let me remind you - I'm the self-employed businessman, the entrepreneur.

With your lack of knowledge about money and finance it's shocking that you stay in business. What type of business?

Quote:

You suck on your boss's teat because you don't have what it takes to start your own business.

I do for that matter have what it takes. I choose not to because the political climate out there is ripe for killing off small businesses. Small businesses pay far too high of taxes for what they do and the government is getting ready to mandate that business owners pay out the ass for two or three employees health insurance. No thanks. I prefer not to be bent over the table by the government. I'll start my own business when and if the climate is conducive for doing so.......................and yes I could start one up and get to 50 employees within 2 years guaranteed. I choose not to because I know it wouldn't be high enough of a take home for me in this climate.

Quote:

He has to pay for your health insurance and pass on the cost to your customers. And I have to subsidise your state through my Federal taxes.

They don't have to they choose to. And they already announced that if the congress passes healthcare changes they will likely drop coverage and just pay the penalty. No salary increases at all. Good job Democrats. Fuck the middle class out of insurance so they can hand it over to the poor. Now how does that help me?

Quote:

You have no clue how health care or education work in other countries.

Quote:

So spare me the 'rugged individualist' crap while I have to feed your gluttony and sloth

ROFLMAO. You don't have to feed shit. And yes I know how it works. I have seen it. They certainly don't all get trophies just for showing up. That much is clear. In alot of those countries it's cut throat competition in schools.

waitingtables · 03-10-2010, 07:57 AM

The preamble to the Constitution clearly defines the spirit of the document. Are you familiar with it?