[quote]entheogens wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
Whenever I hear her talk it’s like a more eloquent George Bush. She’s a war mongering corporate whore disguised as a woman for the people. She can fucking blow me.
Yes, I hate the way she has waffled on Iraq. Republicans are too right-wing and in-bed with Christian conservatives for me to ever vote for one of them. If Hillary is the Dem candidate I will vote for her (while pinching my nose closed).
The two-party system sucks and, at the presidential level, it’s too difficult for a third-party candidate to break through, so you almost always end up voting for the lesser of two evils. It would be SO NICE if we had two rounds of elections for the Presidency.
[/quote]
Call it reality if you must but this is the type of sheeple thinking that allows for the status quo machine to keep chugging along. “Well dang I’ve only got two people to choose from” Guess what people you don’t HAVE to vote for the lesser of two evils and until people wake the hell up and vote for a decent person not just waste their vote on a douche or turd sandwich, the staus quo will continue with little to no change, or worse further degradation of our personal liberties.
…until people wake the hell up and vote for a decent person not just waste their vote on a douche or turd sandwich, the staus quo will continue with little to no change, or worse further degradation of our personal liberties.
[/quote]
Awesome South Park reference.
Giant Douche: My opponent is a turd sandwich.
Turd Sandwich: No, you’re a turd sandwich!
Giant Douche: Excuse me, but you are actually a turd sandwich.
But Americans are currently used to having the very latest technology and having it right now. That kind of cutting-edge care would not be supported by a socialized system and THAT is why Canadians come to the US for care.
That is why WEALTHY Canadians travel to the US. 40 million Americans cannot afford health insurance and are not used to getting the best medical technology right away. How many more are not used to getting the best medical technology right away because of miserly GMOs.
I’m not going quarrel about the system of innovation, but perhaps instead instead of saying, “Americans are used to this,” and, “Americans are used to that,” you should say, “Americans that matter are used to this,” and, “Americans that matter are used to that.” [/quote]
Dude, have you ever been to an emergency room? All Americans regardless of financial status complain about long wait times in the Emergency Rooms. And regardless of ability to pay EVERYONE in the US receives emergency care; it’s the law sport, look it up. It’s called EMLTA.
So your accusation that only the rich would complain about the level of innovation and timeliness of care is dead wrong. Through increasing welfare and other poor outcome social programs the US has created a sense of entitlement from most all Americans. It’s tragic. And the only Americans that seem to not play into this are recent immigrants who truly understand and value what American offers.
[quote]orion wrote:
pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
And why is food so cheap?
You’re kidding, right?
Do you want medicine to be as cheap as that someday?
It’d be nice.
Than you need competition and the constant small revolutions from below a market system provides.
Really?
The market system currently seems more interested in “inventing” new diseases it can then sell you expensive pills to treat.
Look up how many breakthroughs and “small revolutions” came from government funded research (much of it in the USA) vs. private research centers.
To a scientist doing research, it matters little if his check is coming from the government or from private investors. He does his research.
The problem with private investors is that eventually, most of them want to see something they can sell/offer/package to profit from. Long-term payoffs are not popular with them.
I love the free market as well as the next guy, but it’s not a solution to everything; nor is it the optimal solution to every problem.
First no, and second Nirvana fallacy.
Once upon a time 80% of all people worked in agriculture and even then they could only provide for 20% more because they worked for 16 hours a day, were constantly hungry and died at 40.
Crop rotation, iron plow bits, horses instead of oxens (30% increase in productivity!) were not developed by the ruling class.
Why would they invent something that challenges the status quo which will ultimately lead to their demise?
Then, of course Pharma companies bullshit like crazy. However they have competition to keep them in check.
Congress bullshits like crazy too, and at an abysmal approval rating they would have been replaced, had they any competition.
I want the bullshitters with checks and balances to their power and that means private companies that have to keep their customers satisfied.
It will always be though for poor people, no matter what.
Don`t pretend public health care could change that.
I live in such a system and some of my relatives are doctors.
Don´t try to bullshit me, I´ve been in the stalinist buildings and subjected to it socialist bureaucracy and I would have had to wait for months for necessary examinations without being properly connected and paying for private doctors.
Theoretically we are as good as Canada health care wise, practically we already start to rationize, which takes your faith out of your hands and makes low-level bureaucrats to masters over life and death.[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…She’ll be our next president, as we move toward a Socialist world run by these people.
Why do the incredibly rich want a socialist world?[/quote]
The very rich don’t like capitalism any more than Communists do. Socialism is a way to stifle competition. Ever read ‘The Naked Capitalist’?
Owning and controlling large companies also draws people who enjoy controlling other people. There’s a carry-over effect.
Perhaps the primary reason is that, if these very wealthy people don’t run things, maybe someone else runs things, someone who is AGAINST their interests. If someone like Mao runs things, he’d simply shoot them all.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…She’ll be our next president, as we move toward a Socialist world run by these people.
Why do the incredibly rich want a socialist world?
The very rich don’t like capitalism any more than Communists do. Socialism is a way to stifle competition. Ever read ‘The Naked Capitalist’?
Owning and controlling large companies also draws people who enjoy controlling other people. There’s a carry-over effect.
Perhaps the primary reason is that, if these very wealthy people don’t run things, maybe someone else runs things, someone who is AGAINST their interests. If someone like Mao runs things, he’d simply shoot them all.
But Americans are currently used to having the very latest technology and having it right now. That kind of cutting-edge care would not be supported by a socialized system and THAT is why Canadians come to the US for care.
That is why WEALTHY Canadians travel to the US. 40 million Americans cannot afford health insurance and are not used to getting the best medical technology right away. How many more are not used to getting the best medical technology right away because of miserly GMOs.
I’m not going quarrel about the system of innovation, but perhaps instead instead of saying, “Americans are used to this,” and, “Americans are used to that,” you should say, “Americans that matter are used to this,” and, “Americans that matter are used to that.”
Dude, have you ever been to an emergency room? All Americans regardless of financial status complain about long wait times in the Emergency Rooms. And regardless of ability to pay EVERYONE in the US receives emergency care; it’s the law sport, look it up. It’s called EMLTA.
So your accusation that only the rich would complain about the level of innovation and timeliness of care is dead wrong. Through increasing welfare and other poor outcome social programs the US has created a sense of entitlement from most all Americans. It’s tragic. And the only Americans that seem to not play into this are recent immigrants who truly understand and value what American offers.
[/quote]
I’m curious as to why you quoted my post and then didn’t address a single one of my points. You seem to be delivering a rebuttal to a post that doesn’t exist. Please re-read.
i) I didn’t say anything about the rich complaining about innovation and timeliness. In fact, I said that I had no quarrel with your points on innovation.
ii) I’m well aware of EMLTA. We hadn’t discussed emergency room service, as the issue of timeliness is an entirely different animal that we can discuss, if you like. Non-emergency service is the issue.
No problem, but you are moving the goal posts. If we are talking about efficiency, that is different than saying the system should more humane, even if it comes at the expense of less efficiency.
And, I don’t have a problem with that, within reason. More on this later.
Of course that occurs, but does it happen broadly enough to condemn the system itself?
Not as long as there some level of competition among health-care providers and insurers. Flawless? Nope, but all service-based industries actually have to provide a decent level of service, else someone will do it for them. I shop insurance providers all the time on that basis.
Another problem is you confuse care with insurance. The health care provider �?? the doctor, nurse, or hospital �?? doesn�??t provide actual care based on whether you have insurance or not. If you are complaining that insurance companies won�??t pay out for the actual care like they should, that is a fair concern �?? but that isn�??t a broad problem that has generally denied people care across the system.
If you want to make the case for UHC, you have to make the case that the current private system fails society broadly and generally, not that it works ok broadly and generally but needs reform in specialized areas (i.e., poor people who don’t have the ability to shop insurance, etc.). What you are suggesting is open-heart surgery to repair a broken ankle.
I agree �?? which is why I don�??t believe in an absolute laissez-faire system. The market can certainly fail in this area, and I believe in a safety net for people that such a market fails. But the point is, the market simply doesn�??t fail the broad populace, so ascribing a solution for a narrower problem to the whole doesn�??t make sense unless you can make the argument the whole needs the solution. It doesn’t, and you haven�??t.
I don’t doubt it for a second �?? but I was making the point that generally people don�??t get turned away, not that no one ever never has ever.
The point is we should have something in place to deal with those situations �?? but does it entail needing a wholesale shift to UHC? Again, UHC would make sense if people were getting awful care or turned away broadly speaking. While the American system is far from perfect �?? that simply isn�??t the case.
Plenty of “world studies”, you say? You mean like the WHO report, which downgrades against nations who have big areas of private medicine or user fees?
Who said the American system was perfect? I certainly didn’t �?? I believe it is way overdue for reform, and that includes public elements. Don’t argue against points not made.
Have they? I am not certain bankrupting the system and creating a demographic time-bomb is my definition of “making it work”. Another problem is that Western nations have, since WWII, enjoyed the NATO dividend, which has allowed them the privilege of dropping lots of cash into their cradle-to-grave programs. That is quite a luxury in the short-term, but not one the US enjoyed. And now, of course, we see the financial strain a system that guarantees ever more benefits without containing costs has wrought in Europe . I have no interest in going that route.
So, you say the US can learn from the experience of other Western nations? I agree completely �?? don’t adopt UHC if you are interested in a sustainable national health system.
No, it isn’t the only evaluation, but it is the big one that can�??t be ignored, no matter how generous you want to be w/r/t helping the needy. Resources are limited, and whether we like it or not, there is no “free lunch” when it comes to health care, just as nowhere else.
You fundamentally misstate the problem. The American system isn�??t built purely off a “cost-benefit” approach �?? if you think that, you know nothing of the federal and state guarantees of health care �?? but we do put the very important issue of “cost-benefit” analysis on the table, even when it seems mean-spirited to do so. But we have no choice �?? health care isn�??t immune to economics.
“Human health” is very much part of the equation �?? but unlike European-style programs, which promise ever more while burying their heads in the sand over future insolvency, the private (mostly) American system merely addresses that which the idealists don’t want to deal with. I think that is bad policy, and we owe the next generation solid policy built on the long-term (God knows we have squandered enough of their patrimony while being obsessed with the “right now” already).
Nor did I suggest as much �?? the point is, we have had plenty of observation time, and we simply don�??t like what we see. If we don�??t like what we see, it is unwise to “go ahead, give it a try” �?? not on something this important.
Read above on speaking generally about people being turned away.
Correct �?? and that is the entire point of risk pooling in the first place.
A truism. You are right.
Your lament is noted, but again, how often does you idealized “poor sick guy” not get help in the American system? When we speak of UHC, we are taking about universal reform, not just reform for the poor sick, which (thankfully) is a minority. No problem �?? a kind, fair, and just society should help these folks: it is always the duty of the strong to protect the weak.
But UHC isn�??t really about protecting the weak �?? it is about changing insurance broadly for everyone; weak, strong, and in between. And in that context, UHC as the system, has fundamental problems: cost containment over time, moral hazard, etc.
My point is straightforward �?? the government should help those who can�??t benefit from a market in health care. That is a minority of citizens, however, and therefore the “U” in UHC makes no sense: there is no “universal” denial of insurance in need of solution by way of UHC.
I think the major gripe is not that health care isn�??t accessible broadly, but that a system that makes people handle it themselves is mean-spirited. I disagree. But I think it is worth getting the actual complaint right. We can protect the weak and sick in a private system �?? it is a false choice to suggest otherwise.
Right �?? but that is precisely what insurance is for and why you collectively pool resources to guard against that kind of calamity. My uncle has no problem with insurance, he has a problem with the “free rider” problem that ultimately creeps into the goody bag of public entitlement.
But no one disputes this �?? it has little to do with the problem. The question is, how do we expect people to engage in insurance? Everyone needs it �?? that is easy. How should people go about it �?? that is the question we are considering.
Well, you run into the additional problem in that you hate lobbying but you want a large government bureaucracy. If you are intellectually honest (and I think you are), you simply can�??t have one without the other. I hate lobbyists too, but if you are going to have a federal government micromanaging a great deal of local decisions on health care, there will be lines of lobbyists out the door. It is a trade-off - and you’ll just be trading off one lobbying devil for another.
You fail to see the issue. We have two enormous problems w/r/t health care in the US :
Self-inflicted obesity, cholesterol problems, etc.
An illusion that every health care problem that we get can be fixed with a prescription drug or procedure
These problems threaten the viability of our health care system, and are getting worse. How would UHC help these? Remember, health care �?? be it waiting rooms, pills, procedures, etc. �?? all are limited resources. These resources are being pushed to the limit by the above, thus crowding out health care resources for the “poor sick guy”. Costs are headed up, people are demanding more and more health care (“I�??m fat�?�give me a lap band procedure or a pill”), with no end in sight.
Would UHC make this problem better? Or worse? UHC induces moral hazard �?? if you think people are bad about eating right, losing weight, and generally taking good care of themselves, how the hell do you think they will act when they get health care “for free”?
This is no hypothetical �?? and the consequences are frightening. Moreover, for every dollar spent on someone who won�??t take control of their health, it is a dollar taken away from someone who can�??t, which we desperately need. Why institute a system that will only exacerbates this phenomenon?
Again, the issue is whether the solution - UHC - you propose solves a problem the US has. On balance, it doesn’t. It would augment problems that already exist.
I recognize your desire to extend help to the needy in the name of a humane policy - and I share it. Don’t confuse me with the keyboard warriors here who preach “the law of the jungle” of raw laissez-faire (while in actuality, these “hardmen” are about as hard as marshmallows). I believe the tough rules of the market have to be tempered with mercy and civilization, but UHC simply is too idealistic and naive to produce sustainable results in the long run in the US.
Class rhetoric aside, most people don�??t think UHC is “evil” �?? and you know plenty well not to take the temperature of the “people” by internet chat board rebels who do nothing but traffic in faux-radicalism. Most folks worry about rising health care costs and the “free rider” problems. American culture is not fond of freeloading, and UHC is ripe for such abuse.
I don�??t have any doubt the US could institute UHC and even pay for it in the short-term. But that isn�??t my concern �?? I am concerned about viability in the long run and the effect it has on personal responsibility.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No problem, but you are moving the goal posts. If we are talking about efficiency, that is different than saying the system should more humane, even if it comes at the expense of less efficiency.[/quote]
I think our disagreement here stems from not measuring the efficiency of the same things. What I meant by efficiency was whether the system gave care to everyone who needed it when they needed; I was not addressing economic efficiency. It is also an important factor, but I place it behind the need to provide care. In other words, a system who’s less economically efficient, but provides more extensive care is better, in my opinion, than a economically well-tuned system that fails to care for all.
That will depend on how high we place the bar for tolerating care being either denied, or being provided while bankrupting the recipient. I personally like to have this bar as low as possible.
I don’t have enough experience with your system (obviously) to be able to comment adequately on this issue. I can tell you that the general impression from the outside is that there is to some extent collusion between the various providers, and that competition between them is similar to competition from oil companies or credit card companies… you can shop 'til you drop, but eventually the companies run the market, not the consumers. I may be completely wrong about this, and so much the better if I am.
It still a concern if you get the care you need, but are then bankrupted by the bill. While the person actually got the care he needed, his (and his family’s) life is still “destroyed” by his illness.
We’re back to deciding where we want to place our “bar” again. How many people must the system fail before it’s considered to be “broadly” failing? 1%, 5%, 10%…?
Ok.
I can’t disagree with that. But by that standard, most system in place in Western Nations, private or UHC style, don’t “broadly” fail their people. Some have serious cash flow problems, and others leave some people with inadequate coverage… None of them are perfect. We’re basically debating which “flaws” we prefer.
Well, one wouldn’t be plenty. There was a health care thread which I mostly missed a while ago… I don’t think I’d have any new links to provide.
Where have I heard that before…?
The same reasoning you apply to the US system is valid here too. UHC systems have their own problems, and need solutions to address them. Completely abandoning them is much too radical a solution.
The demise of those systems is always announced. As far as I can remember, I’ve read of costs being too high; of the imminent caving in of the whole thing… yet it is still working and our economy is doing great. The media - and this certainly isn’t news to you - tend to sensationalize and highly exaggerate everything.
I Agree. My personal opinion and perception is still that the US system seems to privilege economic factors over human ones. There is a middle ground between an “economically efficient” system and one so costly that it bankrupts the country’s economy. I feel that our Canadian UHC is closer to that middle ground (towards the “humane” side) than the US system (who would be close to the economically efficient side).
Here again, I’m not well versed in the minutia of all your health related laws. I’m aware you already have UHC-like programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and that hospitals are held to provide emergency care to people showing up with parts dangling.
But as for larger principles, I feel that where health care is concerned, it is enough to have an economically viable or sustainable system; not necessarily an “efficient” one.
I agree with those sentiments. Many European systems provide far and above simply health care. They’ll provide free nannies for new moms; give years of time off for both new parents; pay for sabbatical years of anyone, etc. I’d love a paid sabbatical as well as anyone, but I’m not willing to pay taxes so that everyone else can enjoy them; so I’ll pay my own and if I can’t, I’ll do without. But that’s hardly a health issue.
Here again, the outside perception is that the insurance companies and your lobbied politicians don’t like what they see; not so much the American people. Of course, like any outside perception, it might simply be a media distorted picture.
Well, yes, of course. But your system keeps some people out of the pool because they represent too high a risk (through unaffordable premium, or heavily-conditional coverage). Second, if risk-pooling is a good thing, and few disagree that it is, then isn’t the largest pool possible - automatically including all citizens - the best pool available?
He might get help, but if poor sick guy turns out to be poor-planner sick middle class guy, he’s going to be hit with a bill he has no hope to be able to pay. Of course, personal responsibility-wise, it’s his own damn fault; but I prefer a system than doesn’t punish someone and his family for their entire lives because of what is often just bad luck.
I think that solutions can be found for each of those problems. I still feel that on base principles alone, UHC is a better policy to start off with. Each system will have problems and will need tweaking to work it’s best. But I’d rather tweak budget overruns and deficits than denying care or bankrupting individuals.
Overall, each system deals with the same problems. UHC spreads the “individual bankruptcy” problem to the entire population in the form of higher taxes and spreads the “individual care denied” to the population also in the form of long waiting lists for some particular treatments.
Well of course not. If everyone was well off enough to pay for their own health care, there wouldn’t be any UHC. A problem doesn’t have to be universal before you use a universal solution for it. It’s like vaccines. Not 100% of the population died from the various diseases we now vaccinate for; but enough of them did, and the costs to society where high enough to justify a universal vaccination. I’m aware than it’s not a perfect analogy, because vaccination requires universality as a condition of efficiency, but it still makes the point.
If everyone was responsible enough to handle it themselves properly, it wouldn’t matter. But unless the system “makes” people handle it themselves by forcing them to get some coverage (which then gets pretty close to “taxing” them…) you will always have a fairly large portion of the population that doesn’t take proper care of insuring themselves.
You can address the “free rider” problem with particular solutions that don’t require avoiding the entire UHC system.
If you legislate that someone must get insurance, aren’t you skirting dangerously close to “taxing” for all intents and purposes, your citizens so that they have coverage? With the difference that the funds are then administered by insurance companies who have corporate interests in paying back out the least amount of those funds? I’m not sure trading the inefficiency of a government bureaucracy with the greed of a corporate one is a winning proposition.
I’m not seeing this one. If you collect taxes from one side, and pay for the care on the other, where do the lobbyist come in? What do they lobby for?
That’s hardly a problem limited to the US. Ageing populations the world over are increasing the health care needs of every nation. A obese person who dies of a heart attack at 54 probably saves money vs. someone who dies at 80 after 10 years of Alzheimer.
But, but… that what they say every night on TV! Lipitor, Levitra, Hexxium, Viagra, Cialis and others… pills to sleep, pills to wake up, pills to fuck, pills to keep eating more crap. You can’t miss them, they often run with those ads for “A drug free America” stuck in between.
Enough sarcasm. It’s not an illusion; it’s a vast mediatic campaign that goes on night after night, after night. Sit in front of your TV and count how many drug ads are shown during a typical night. You can’t do that and then wonder about “the illusion” that every problem has it’s pill. They’re advertising prescription drugs so that you may “ask your doctor if X is right for you!” Isn’t that what 10 years of medical school is for?
There are ways to deal with abuse in a UHC system that stop short of completely denying care for parts of the population. You want a solution that paints with the thinnest brush possible, so as to, ideally, never refuse a legitimate health need.
How would you explain that European, Japanese and Canadians - who all enjoy (or endure, as the case may be) UHC - are healthier than Americans? Shouldn’t we be seeing the opposite situation? Shouldn’t the country where you won’t get a free ride if you’re not careful have the healthiest, most responsible population?
I don’t that argument stands up to reality. It certainly sounds plausible, but I think it is superseded by many other, much stronger, societal factors.
How do you propose to distinguish between the two? I’m totally in favor of eliminating abusers, leeches and parasites from our public systems, but I have yet to see a method that manages to do a good job of it.
I think you’re right, but not for the same reasons. I think a US UHC program would have many problems, but mostly because all the current players will do their damnedest to remain involved in it. You’d probably end up with a system that would combine the problems of both systems, while being less efficient that each “pure” form…
But you also believe that UHC systems are unsustainable every where else too, no?
For a culture that isn’t fond of freeloading, there sure is a great fear of it happening. I think American culture is not fond of others freeloading, but quite alright with personal freeloading.
Fair enough.
We should disagree more often. It makes for interesting discussions.
Private charity is a win for everyone. It allows lovers of individual liberty to keep their freedoms intact, and allows for those worried about the unisnsured to help. See? No need to use the force an armed government against a free people. Both sides win.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Private charity is a win for everyone. It allows lovers of individual liberty to keep their freedoms intact, and allows for those worried about the unisnsured to help. See? No need to use the force an armed government against a free people. Both sides win.
[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…She’ll be our next president, as we move toward a Socialist world run by these people.
Why do the incredibly rich want a socialist world?
The very rich don’t like capitalism any more than Communists do. Socialism is a way to stifle competition. Ever read ‘The Naked Capitalist’?
Owning and controlling large companies also draws people who enjoy controlling other people. There’s a carry-over effect.
Perhaps the primary reason is that, if these very wealthy people don’t run things, maybe someone else runs things, someone who is AGAINST their interests. If someone like Mao runs things, he’d simply shoot them all.
You are massively confused.[/quote]
…as to why Zap couldn’t answer the post. Then again, maybe not.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Private charity is a win for everyone. It allows lovers of individual liberty to keep their freedoms intact, and allows for those worried about the unisnsured to help. See? No need to use the force an armed government against a free people. Both sides win.
Why do the incredibly rich want a socialist world?[/quote]
What is interesting is once a persons investments achieve $5,000 they start becoming conservative. This goes into the millions where the trend starts reversing, and once you get to $100 million in net worth, they tend to become very liberal.
This actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it. The poor get benefits from the government, so they support the liberals. Once you achieve some sort of success in life, suddenly the government starts to hurt you financially.
If you become ultra wealthy, at some point it no longer hurts, as you have so much wealth that there is little the government can do to hurt you. So these people want to help the downtrodden, kind of forgetting that nobody else is this immune to the pain of taxes.
Again the American government is already spending more then Canada on heath care.
What is being missed here is confusion on the whole idea of health insurance. The purpose is not to take care of you, it is to save your finances. The most expensive thing for the insurance companies to cover are all those little expenses. The routine exam, the check up, things like that. This is why having a large deductible produces cheap insurance.
This is also why those HSA accounts are going to explode in popularity.
As far as that 40 million number of uninsured, fully 1/3 are illegal aliens. These are added to boost the numbers for political reasons. A large portion are young healthy people who choose to spend their money on cars instead of health insurance.
I would not doubt that it also includes people on welfare, receiving government run healthcare.
We were just given the option to control all the aspects of our insurance for next year, and we chose to have a $2,000 deductible, with $2,000 max out of pocket. (Per person.)
This is costing us $12 every other week. Personally I am loving this insurance, especially compared to what it used to be. I would have chosen the HSA option had my wife not had her medical problems. But this was actually the best option for our situation.
My wife spends over $200 a month on medicine, and this is applied to the out of pocket max.
This year she hit our current out of pocket maximum of $5,000 at the beginning of November. Next year I am expecting to hit that number by July for my wife. The worst we can do is spend $2000 less then last year only including my wifes health care expenses.
Why would I want Hillary’s plan? Will her plan only cost us $24 a month in taxes? ($36 two months out of the year.)
Remember that plan Bush got into trouble for vetoing? The plan that covered kids in families making up to $80,000 a year? Know why it went up to $80,000? Only because they had so much money allocated that they couldn’t find enough poor families to cover, so they kept upping the number until they covered enough kids to spend all the money. (Anyone ever come up with the idea that if you don’t need to spend it, it can be sent back to the government to reduce the debt?)
[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Private charity is a win for everyone. It allows lovers of individual liberty to keep their freedoms intact, and allows for those worried about the unisnsured to help. See? No need to use the force an armed government against a free people. Both sides win.
Demand far exceeds offer.
So? How does that justify robbing your neighbor?[/quote]
It doesn’t. Just pointing out that your simple “both sides wins” solution addresses a very little portion of the problem. A method to increase generousness would be greatly appreciated.