The Glade 4.0

DE, the president's plan is going to be funded through premiums, and if the cost savings do not materialize, through spending cuts, and not tax increases.

So, how does that constitute forcing people to pay for other people's health care?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Who is going to pay the premiums and how much will they be? All these poor people with no health coverage are going to pay premiums how?

You already pointed out that medicaid pays for care for the poor. That's paid for by taxes. I'm not just opposed to increasing taxes to pay for healthcare, I'm opposed to continuing to spend tax money on healthcare (other than for the government's own employees) at all.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Individuals and families, according to what he said to congress. Also, if employers do not offer insurance to their employees, they will pay a fee.



So, do you believe that the VA system should also be shut down? How about medicare for seniors? Should we end all health care entitlements?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Why should private companies be required to carry health care for it's employees?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

That doesn't sound realistic at all. Where are these individuals and families going to get the money? Why should a buisness be required to pay for healthcare for menial jobs? What if the employer goes out of buisness or has to lay people off in order to meet those costs?



The VA provides healthcare for people because of their employment in the military by the government, so no. Healthcare entitlements for seniors certainly should eb shut down, as should all other healthcare entitlements for people not actually employed by the government.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, make that case on it's merits. We don't know what the premiums will be, but it looks like it is shaping up to constitute a percentage of overall income that caps out.



Forgive me, but why is a menial job somehow unworthy of health care coverage? Should janitors be denied health care coverage that an office worker might enjoy at the same company? Why?



The current cost of health care for an employer is simply out of hand. I'm sure we can agree on that. Let's assume that this program does what it's supposed to and lowers costs. Those businesses would have more money to use towards expanding their business or hiring other employees. Win win.



So, what is so special about military service that it deserves an NHS style government health care system?

(by the way, I very much support the VA system, think that soldiers are entitled to excellent health care, but also recognize that there's not much difference between saying "soldiers are entitled to health care" and "all citizens are entitled to health care")



I find that to be an unfortunate opinion. I do not believe that people should go without health care for any reason. I see health care in the same light as the Military - it's necessary for the security of our citizens.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No, the question should be why should a private business be required to provide insurance at all? It's a perk.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

That's certainly one way of looking at it. I, for one, don't feel water is a "perk" for example, and so I feel government should make sure that no private individual or individuals get a hammerlock on local water supplies. To me, health care is not much different.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

So forcing people to do things the way you want, is ok. Is that what you are saying? I just want to be clear.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Of course that isn't what I am saying, Nitefox.

Should water be a privatized commodity?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Let's stick to health care please. You seem to get confused when other elements are brought into an ongoing debate. I don't want to deal with that frustration.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

So in other words, those with more income will pay more for the same healthcare than those with less income. While it caps out, that just proves that those with more money are paying for those with less since it does not cost more to care for people that have more money.



Because the work that the janitor performs does not justify the expense of the health coverage in terms of keeping the company profitable.



No, we can't agree on that. If costs of healthcare were out of hand for buisnesses, it would be far less common.



In order to maintain adequate national defense we either need to draft people or recruit them. If we draft them, the government obligates itself to their care for injuries suffered in that service. If we continue to rely on recruiting, maintenance of adequate strength relies in part on potential recruits being assured that if they are hurt while performing military duty, they will be cared for. It is an essential component of national defense.



There's a huge difference.



Healthcare hass notihng to do with the security of citizens unless you're specificlly talking about the care of those providing security. I know that you think no one should be without healthcare but you've given me n reason to agree with that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Assuming they chose the public option, sure. But then again, they can also chose any number of private plans that suit their needs.




He works just as hard, if not harder than someone who answers phones all day. Personally, I think both of them should have access to the same health care options as anyone else in the company's employ. But then again, I see health care as a need, and not a perk.



That doesn't logically follow, DE. The costs of health care are out of hand, and anyone who runs a small business will tell you that. It's a major economic drag on our economy on all kinds of levels.



Then I submit that national health care is an essential part of our national defense. We need a strong national health care infrastructure in order to deal with security challenges such as anthrax attacks and bio terrorism.




And I disagree. One is no more arbitrary than another. The NHS style system we use for the VA is a good model (when properly funded, mind you) for what might work as a national health system for all Americans.




Let's be honest, I won't be able to give you a reason to agree with that, no matter what I argue.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

And if they DO choose the private option, where is the money to pay the difference for those on the public option coming from?



How hard he works doesn't matter. What matters is how much his work is worth. If he's costing more than he's worth, his job will just be eliminated.



Of course it logically follows. People will not keep providing something they can't afford. Just because it's expensive for small buisnesses does not mean it's out of hand, either.



What anthrax and bioterrorism threat are you talking about? How exactly will general public healthcare in any way improve our ability to deal with such threats? How will this plan in any way improve our ability to do so?



One is considerably more arbitrary than the other. There's nothing at all arbitrary about the need to provide healthcare to veterans for national defense reasons.



Yes you could. If you could show me that it would ultimately reduce the cost burden on the country as a whole, without unfairly shifting the cost to people for no better reason than their income level, without also degrading the quality of care I might go for it. I already pointed out, and it should be very clear from history, that I'm not Elmo. I don't care about the ideological aspects of it. I oppose it because I don't see advantages that outweigh disadvantages, nor do I buy the claims from the PResident in that regard.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Montegue:

Should we hold President Obama to the "Dime Standard"?

_________________

Of course we should, Khross. He does not want the plan to add a dime to the deficit, and if you watched the speech, he said very clearly that his plan includes spending cuts if the savings do not materialize. He also mentioned a date when that would be judged by.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Montegue:

I see. Do you concede then that Obama lied about taxes during his campaign?

_________________

No, I don't. I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on that, but I don't think his policies in any way run counter to what he said on the campaign trail.

That being said, sometimes policies change in the face of reality. That doesn't make them a lie. To say that it does presumes that the person in question had the lie planned all along, and there's just no evidence of that. For example, when George Bush senior promised no new taxes, reality hit him in the face pretty hard.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

So what would be an acceptable percentage for healthcare premiums?

I currently pay approximately 2.26% of my yearly gross on healthcare premiums. Which works out to about 70 bucks a month, ot about 900 bucks a year.

Do you honestly think a public option, with care similar to mine, let alone the quality of Medicare (which, you may remember, I believe to be **** in comparison) can be had for every man, woman, and child in the US for 900 bucks a year?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Montegue:

Except, Obama knew his policies would require tax increases while making that promise. George H.W. Bush at least had a nominal excuse, even if it was flimsy and insignificant. Obama was fully cognizant that any national healthcare reform would require an increase in taxation.

_________________

Out of curiosity, does your employer pay an additional amount on top of that?

Edit: Additional Notes - I'm not going to go so far as to suggest your government has ever shown the sense or competence to do this, or that you should support it. However, you could easily enact universal health coverage that costs 33% less per capita than you currently pay per capita for "Medicare," and be every bit as good or better as what normal employer group health coverage currently covers. How do I know? Canada does it already. It's more than $900 a year, but right now you pay $3300 a year, per person, in federal tax just to cover Medicare. Canada's total costs for our universal coverage are about $2200 a year, per person, so it could be done. So if they cut your taxes by an average $3300 per year, then billed you 2/3rds of the amount cut as health coverage fee, you'd save money.

Knowing your government's fiscal history, I wouldn't trust it to even try this, but it's not impossible.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I, for one, don't dispute that monopoly-by-government would be cheaper as a whole. To me, that's kind of a no brainer.

The question then becomes quality, service, and individual autonomy and how they're affected. To an extent (and depending upon the specific definition of each), the answer is: adversely.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Nitefox, that is society in general. I'm pretty sure that you support things like laws against murder. So in effect you are ok with forcing people to do things the way you want.

Everyone does that.

I have no doubt they do. However, I ALSO have no doubt that as soon as they don't have to provide insurance anymore as a result of a broad blanket of coverage by the gubbmint... they won't.

And the money they spend to keep us happily insured will vanish into the ether and we'll be expected to pick up the slack in the form of increased tax payments.

Which means, the company will be paying me less, I'll be spending more, and I'll have worse care as a result.

Its lose/lose/lose for me. Why the hell would someone like me want the government involved in my health care?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

That really isn't a good example to illustrate your point, since the law against murder doesn't force anyone to do anything. It does attach repercussions to certain activities, but certainly doesn't force anyone to not commit murder.

It would be more analogous to say that no one needs 2 kidneys, so anyone with 2 will be subject to forced donation for someone with 0 working.

And Monty actually touches on something that, if the predictions are accurate, will become a major issue in the next 30-50 years and will likely have more impact on redefining the nature of our government than anything else.