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 11-23-2013, 09:13 AM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,969,876 times
Reputation: 2177

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
Thank you for your deflection. Your previously-scheduled thread will now resume.
I'm not deflecting. I'm explaining why the argument was not just absurd, but entirely mindless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-23-2013, 09:21 AM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,969,876 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
Huh. The very idea of a "just and caring society" is anathema to large segments of the US.
This assertion is based on what?

Quote:
I've been reading The War That Ended the Peace: The Road to 1914, and was reminded that the first real social safety net was instituted in Germany by Bismarck.
Oh, I get it. A "just and caring society" is one that distributes money and benefits via the political process.

Quote:
You know there's something wrong with you when you're more cold-hearted than the Iron Chancellor.
So, "cold-hearted" is believing that government should not take your money and distribute it via the political process.

So, logic dictates that you define "caring" as "giving the government money to distribute the way politicians see best - and politicians see best to do so to get votes and favor political allies.

You define a "caring and just society" as one that gladly approves of political corruption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
SS and medicare are government run and on the edge of the abyss.
We fund that through FICA.

And you want the government to take on one more ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 09:47 AM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,489,598 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
What on earth are you talking about?
I'm not surprised you cannot figure it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 09:52 AM
 
2,189 posts, read 2,605,871 times
Reputation: 3736
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
LOL..you ready to pay 20-30% FICA to pay for this ?
where do you get the 20 - 30% FICA figure?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 09:54 AM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,489,598 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I agree. Cosmetic surgery is not covered by insurance. People pay direct.
If they raised the cost like covered services did they'd be out of business because no one could afford them.
I have a dentist that does not accept insurance. He charges 1/3 of what other dentists do that take insurance and has plenty of cash paying customers. He charged my son $400 for a root canal where other dentists that take insurance quoted me $1500 and offered me a 10% reduction for cash because I don't have dental insurance.

People just don't see this.

The cost of college is sky high because they gave you loans to pay for it.
The cost of medical care is sky high because they gave you insurance to pay for it.
The cost of homes is sky high because they gave you cheap mortgages to pay for it.

In all cases the government intervened. But they didn't bring down the cost..they gave you ways to pay for the rising cost and put you deep in debt.

We do not have a capitalist free market. We have government intervention via debt that keeps the consumer "demand" at high enough levels that business can reap huge profits.
A cognitive response worthy of much consideration. Now how can you provide a system that will cover all citizens without discrimination AND keep government "intrusion" minimal. Also; why pick healthcare to be the one item you choose to draw the line in the sand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by fumbling View Post
where do you get the 20 - 30% FICA figure?
FICA today is 12% (6/6) between employee/employer

Austria ..8% of their paycheck goes just for healthcare
France..6% of their paycheck/pension goes just for healthcare.

If we set it at 8% that brings FICA to 20%.
Both Austria/France have direct government involvement in cost setting while the US does not.
FICA would have to account for rising costs..I just bumped it up an addition 10% to account for that.

Your 6% FICA would need to go to 10-15% to be able to pay for this.
Add the employer side and that brings it into the 20-30% range.

Do you think these single payer countries give it out for free ?
And not only do they collect payroll taxes for it but they also collect additional consumption taxes as well.

When you discuss single payer you have to also discuss the government funding of it as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 10:04 AM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,489,598 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
This assertion is based on what?



Oh, I get it. A "just and caring society" is one that distributes money and benefits via the political process.



So, "cold-hearted" is believing that government should not take your money and distribute it via the political process.

So, logic dictates that you define "caring" as "giving the government money to distribute the way politicians see best - and politicians see best to do so to get votes and favor political allies.

You define a "caring and just society" as one that gladly approves of political corruption.
Nope; it's about the priorities YOU stipulate to your government, not the other way around. You folks have got it azz-backwards and continually elect folks on that premise.

Once you've accepted the premise of having an elected body to make decisions on your behalf; what would you suggest they decide on your behalf as pertains to that 'quality of life' thingy? Clean toilet seats in every bathroom?

It would seem to me you have placed the responsibility on them and encouraged them to create a multifaceted welfare system that has fully 59% of you all receiving some kind of Government assistance but draw the line at a non-discriminatory healthcare system. Oxymoronic wouldn't you agree?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,080 posts, read 14,324,813 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:

Before anyone argues that average lifespan is higher in countries with
universal health care, I challenge you to study statistics that do not include
accidental deaths in those numbers. You will find that despite our (arguably)
worse lifestyle, the U.S. is at the top of the heap if you ignore accidental
deaths. Unless you want to make the argument that we need to improve quality
or access to trauma care, accidental deaths are not a measure of the quality
of a health care system. If you want to address our high rate of accidental
deaths that's one thing, but I suspect the answer to that "problem" does not lie
in the realm if health insurance reform
Yes, yes, yes. And the US is the thinnest, most fit nation if you ignore all the obese people.
It's the most educated nation if you ignore all the stupid people.
It's the wealthiest nation if you ignore all the poor people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2013, 10:22 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,395 posts, read 3,012,542 times
Reputation: 2934
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
Yes, yes, yes. And the US is the thinnest, most fit nation if you ignore all the obese people.
It's the most educated nation if you ignore all the stupid people.
It's the wealthiest nation if you ignore all the poor people.
And your point is?

Do you seriously argue that the number of accidental deaths is somehow a good measure of the quality of a nation's health care system?

Or, more to the point, that reforming a nation health insurance system will somehow reduce the accidental death rate?

Seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28 AM.

© 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