Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-28-2015, 05:05 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13625

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Low grade inflation is about a given with any successful modern country these days. It does make it all the more hard to plan for retirement. But given on balance public and central money support for SS and Medicare, IMO we are moving in the right direction. UHC would also be in the right direction, but not my choice. I still support the Public option and would let the privates fill the desired niches.
We can't pay for UHC unless everyone, and that means EVERYONE, is taxed for it. I haven't fully analyzed the numbers, but perhaps a national sales/VAT tax of 15% would be able to fund bare-bones UHC.

The other choice, as another c-d member already mentioned, is excessive new money creation, which further impoverishes the poor but boosts American workers' and retirees' pension/retirement investment assets.

 
Old 02-28-2015, 05:08 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,466,787 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
If you oppose health care reform (the inferior Obamacare, or much preferred single-payer model), please list your reasons for doing so.

I oppose universal health care as a right for every American citizen because:
1.
2.
3.

Good luck.
I think everyone should have health care but I think everyone should pay for their own health care to the extent they can. I oppose just handing out health care for free because it's not free. The burden will fall squarely on the middle class to pay for it. I think everyone should have to pay some portion of their own health care expenses. Health care is a personal responsibility not a right.

I don't like the government taxing us to pay for basic care because everything the government does costs three times as much as it would in the private sector. I think health care should be a responsibility of the person who is insured but should be required like car insurance is required. Given that we already offer free clinics for the poor and hospitals end up writing off their care because they can't pay, cost per person should go down if everyone is required to be insured because we won't need free clinics and hospitals will get paid for the care they give the poor.

If it were up to me, I would make all medical expenses INCLUDING insurance premiums a tax write off for everyone. I have never understood why the premium I pay for my medical insurance pre tax because it's through my employer while someone else who buys their own can only write off what is above 5% of their income. I'd give tax credits to low income people who don't qualify for medicaid to offset the cost of insurance. There'd be a tax penalty for people who have no insurance.

To be honest, giving away free gym memberships would do more to improve the health of people in this country than giving away free health care. I think the cost of gym memberships, physical trainers, dieticians, diet programs, etc, etc, etc...should all fall under the medical write off.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 02-28-2015 at 05:20 AM..
 
Old 02-28-2015, 05:08 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
2,737 posts, read 3,156,970 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I'm not ill informed. In the end your argument boils down to the same one being complained about. The rich can access good treatment while the rest can't.
Not at all, NHS Hospitals including specialised treatments are open to all, and only charge private patients who often come from overseas for treatments.

Furthermore the NHS is more efficient and less profit driven than the US System, it suffers from less litigation and uses generic drugs and parallel importing to try to achieve greater control of drug prices.

The problem with private care is that as medical treatments become ever more expensive so do peoples medical bills and so do the small print denying treatments. The US System is far too profit driven and far less about benefiting society as a whole.

Whilst no system is perfect, at least the voting public can decide on who they vote for in relation to NHS policy and the NHS has been popular since it's foundation in 1947. If you want to read about how society operated in the UK and Europe prior to the post war welfare systems then read the works of Charles Dickens or George Orwell.



Last edited by Bamford; 02-28-2015 at 05:17 AM..
 
Old 02-28-2015, 05:10 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
It's the government's job to promote the general welfare... is it not?
Promote, not provide for, the general welfare of the United States, not the welfare of individuals. Individuals/citizens are never mentioned in that clause.

Quote:
Inflation is an economic requirement. There is no economic growth without inflation.
So why not just print new money excessively, as you suggest, pay our debt/bills and give the rest away to U.S. citizens as a benefit of being American, and hyperinflate?
 
Old 02-28-2015, 05:17 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stizzel View Post
Convenient you wouldn't answer my question. To answer yours, no. That is why I am all for a sin tax on unhealthy food and activities. By all means, be unhealthy if you want, just be prepared to pay for it.
How about an excessive risk tax on those who are unfit, overweight, smoke, drink excessively, abuse drugs, etc.?

Quote:
I would like conservatives on here who despise intervention in health care demand to repeal EMTALA. It doesn't get worse than having a Dr provide care to an individual who cant pay to treat them any ways or face certain fines or even imprisonment if they refuse to be subjugated to slavery of free labor.
You're admitting here that you advocate the tax slavery (free labor) forced upon the most productive (with the highest earners bearing a grossly disproportionate slavery burden), that already exists. Interesting...
 
Old 02-28-2015, 05:31 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford View Post
Not at all, NHS Hospitals including specialised treatments are open to all, and only charge private patients who often come from overseas for treatments.

Furthermore the NHS is more efficient and less profit driven than the US System, it suffers from less litigation and uses generic drugs and parallel importing to try to achieve greater control of drug prices.

The problem with private care is that as medical treatments become ever more expensive so do peoples medical bills and so do the small print denying treatments. The US System is far too profit driven and far less about benefiting society as a whole.

Whilst no system is perfect, at least the voting public can decide on who they vote for in relation to NHS policy and the NHS has been popular since it's foundation in 1947. If you want to read about how society operated in the UK and Europe prior to the post war welfare systems then read the works of Charles Dickens or George Orwell.


Believe me, when we finally start addressing the cost side you are going to be paying more or doing without.
 
Old 02-28-2015, 05:33 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
How about an excessive risk tax on those who are unfit, overweight, smoke, drink excessively, abuse drugs, etc.?
That isn't worth the effort and people will just lie (outside of weight) and any program to catch the liars will cost more than you save. It will go places we really don't want to go also.

Quote:
You're admitting here that you advocate the tax slavery (free labor) forced upon the most productive (with the highest earners bearing a grossly disproportionate slavery burden), that already exists. Interesting...
But we agree, this can not be done just on the backs of the "rich" or with monopoly money.
 
Old 02-28-2015, 06:16 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by billydaman View Post
...Public policy is not and can not be a moral question. Its one of pragmatism. ...
Excuse me for isolating this one part of your response to another forum member however I'd like to comment that I don't think it's an absolutist, black/white or either/or thing.

Imho, public policy & legislation is very often concerned with & considers moral questions. Fr'instance why are there laws & public policies against theft? Isn't at least part of the reason because theft is considered to be immoral?

I too am interested in pragmatic solutions.
 
Old 02-28-2015, 06:17 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by billydaman View Post
The premise of the question was flawed, if you cant see that then you are allowing yourself to be deceived by liberals appealing to your emotion.

Spoiler
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals that accept payments from Medicare to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
I think the question revealed an ill-prepared Mr. Paul.

& rather than an 'appeal to emotion' I think the responses revealed a 'mob mentality' & a lack of reasonable (plausible, pragmatic, etc.) solutions.

Personally, I appreciated the honesty of the responses because it showed honesty rather than denials, suggestions for 'time traveling' back to the good ole daze' & weasel words.
 
Old 02-28-2015, 06:29 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals that accept payments from Medicare to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
In addition, most hospitals in the US exist as non-profit entities. Their non-profit tax status is conditioned upon providing a public service to the community. In order to retain this status, they are required to provide services to a certain % of uninsured folks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us...hospitals.html
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top