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.
Americans have either never heard of the most important freedom you can have besides the your own, or they don't care...and that's economic freedom. Americans are slaves and many of you love yourselves for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocares811
I'm curious -- what exactly do you mean by "economic freedom", and how do you suggest that most people achieve that?
I cannot answer the latter question, but I can suggest an answer to the former.
I think what Zortation means (and Zortation, if I am wrong, you can correct me), is that "economic freedom" in the health care context means that one is economically free to do what is best for them regardless of health insurance--that is, one is not tied to an employer for health insurance, that one can change jobs to advance up the ladder without worrying about losing their health insurance, and that one can start up their own business without having to consider the cost of health insurance. One also doesn't have to worry about co-pays, deductibles, pre-existing conditions, or claims denied after the fact. In other words, one is free to live their life without being in thrall (and I think this is what Zortation is getting at with the "slaves" remark) to an employer with a good health insurance plan.
If I am correct, then I'll also add that Zortation's definition is a little overbroad when taken outside the health insurance context. Certainly, those of us in single-payer countries have things we cannot avoid that do eat into our economic freedom: the cost of everyday things such as groceries, gas for the car (or a transit pass) in order to get to work everyday, utilities, and so on. Yes, there are taxes, and some of them go towards health care, as they do towards police, fire, roads, education, and national parks, among other things. Yet, at the end of the day, we somehow have enough left over to enjoy a high standard of living.
The problem many people have with funding the medical care of those who pay very little or nothing for it is not, I think, a matter of wanting to deprive people of good healthcare, but knowing that if everyone paid more or less equally, the cost for their own personal medical care and premiums would go down.
For example (and at the risk of being overly simplistic), if six people go out to lunch and they each order the same thing, and the total cost is $120.00, the cost per person would be $20.00 if everyone paid their fair share. However, if two people say they don't have any money or credit cards with them, that means the remaining four will be expected to "cover" them, and so instead of paying $20.00 for just their own meals, these four people must pay now $30.00 (if it is split equally). Unless they are very unselfish and generous people, they might therefore resent the two non-payers who ordered their meals expecting that the others would pay for them. The question that now seems to have taken over this thread is whether those who paid should feel resentful or whether they just be grateful that they had enough money to cover the people who did not pay? And another question is whether the wealthiest of the payers should be expected to pay more of a share of the non-payers' dinners.
My personal opinion is that poor people should have good and nutritious meals (to continue with my example), even if it means that taxpayers foot the bill, but that poor people should not feel entitled to have coq au vin at a four-star restaurant.
Eat all boils down to the current situation of means testing of the skimpy social safety net that we have in America that is not the case in other countries.
This means testing causes resentment as it is designed to do. The answer is universal taxes and universal benefits. But that also means no more subsidizing of Walmart workers. Walmart must pay at least $15 an hour and then Walmart cashiers can pay an extra 5% Medicare-for-all payroll tax to pay for the national healthcare system.
Eat all boils down to the current situation of means testing of the skimpy social safety net that we have in America that is not the case in other countries.
This means testing causes resentment as it is designed to do. The answer is universal taxes and universal benefits. But that also means no more subsidizing of Walmart workers. Walmart must pay at least $15 an hour and then Walmart cashiers can pay an extra 5% Medicare-for-all payroll tax to pay for the national healthcare system.
Well, you definitely have a point! When taxes are deducted from my husband's paycheck or we get the property tax bill, I very rarely think about how unfair it is that so much is taken out when we get very little in return -- good roads and fire and police services IF we ever needed them, but that's about all. (Btw, I work, too, but now only part time.) The point being that if healthcare deductions were taken out of our paychecks with the knowledge that all our medical needs would be taken care of without additional payment, I honestly don't think I would care that someone else might possibly be paying a lot less -- or nothing at all! -- for the same security!
But do you honestly think that could happen in the next 25 years? I don't. (One thing I think most of us agree on is the uncaring greed of those companies that make huge profits from the misfortune of others.)
Last edited by katharsis; 05-08-2017 at 01:07 AM..
There is no right to health care. Period. There is no right to enslave others based on your own needs. There is only the right to trade, not the right to compel. Even if you are dying on the street and you need health care to live, your only moral option is to ask for help, not to demand it, nor to steal it. You are better off dying than using violence or force to compel others to bend to your personal need.
Ask for it, trade for it, beg for it. All moral and correct choices. Steal it, demand it, force others using violence to give you what you need? Immoral and a violation of the rights of others.
Health care is a service provided by one human to another, nothing more, and nothing less.
There is no right to health care. Period. There is no right to enslave others based on your own needs. There is only the right to trade, not the right to compel. Even if you are dying on the street and you need health care to live, your only moral option is to ask for help, not to demand it, nor to steal it. You are better off dying than using violence or force to compel others to bend to your personal need.
Ask for it, trade for it, beg for it. All moral and correct choices. Steal it, demand it, force others using violence to give you what you need? Immoral and a violation of the rights of others.
Health care is a service provided by one human to another, nothing more, and nothing less.
Good points here.
I believe ObamaCure will move us back into the right direction.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,957,969 times
Reputation: 16466
Yes everyone should be entitled to full healthcare included as part of your taxes. Stop sending money overseas and stop building bombs and ships and stop paying politicians so much and there would be money to keep everyone healthy.
If anti-UHC Americans moved to my country, 95% of them would probably change their opinion.
I cannot speak for all Americans, only one--my ex-wife, who moved from the state of Colorado to Canada, and who was (and still is) a healthcare professional.
At any rate, she was very pleased to find that she no longer had to deal with different forms from different insurers. One form, with standardized procedure codes, sufficed; and best of all--she always got paid by the government insurer. There was no question of whether Insurer X would pay, or whether she would accept insureds covered by Insurer Y, or whether any insurer would deny the claim after services were delivered. In Canada, if she was qualified by the necessary provincial licensing body (she was), and delivered the services, and provided the proper forms, the government insurance paid her. No questions asked.
She and I may have split up, but as of the last time I spoke with her (last April) she still lives in Canada, still practices, and has no plans to return to the United States. She has gone so far as to become a naturalized Canadian, allowing her to remain here as long as she likes. And though we may have split up, I am sure that she still provides the best care to her patients, as she always has. And gets paid, no questions asked.
Most saying NO probably aren't affected by these new Republican cuts. Heartless. I guess this is what we're headed for. No COMPASSION for The needy.
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.
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.
