political thoughts - read at own peril!

[Jimb]

Would you not agree though that your healthcare system does need some sort of overhaul? And if so, then there will be significant costs regardless of the solution.
And is it not a basic principle of a government to provide social programs when necessary to support its people? A good example of a Country that lacks in social programs is South Africa, where crime is rampant because of no support for the poor/unemployed.
Jim

[EddieJames]

Hi Jim - Protecting citizens from rampant crime and providing healthcare are polar opposites.

[Jimb]

Lol...I get what you're saying. In MY opinion it is everyones right to healthcare (in a free society that is), it is not something that should only be available if you as an individual can afford it. Most of us go thru rough spots in our lives when money is limited, and you should not be denied access to care simply because you lost your job. Do you see what I'm saying?
Jim

[maytag]

Would you not agree though that your healthcare system does need some sort of overhaul?

Yes, I WOULD agree. But I have a feeling we would not agree upon what it should look like AFTER the overhaul. I would like to see much LESS government involvement. I would like to get FURTHER away from the type of healthcare you folks have up north.

And is it not a basic principle of a government to provide social programs when necessary to support its people?
Jim

Well, we could argue if that really IS the role of government. But let's stipulate, for the moment. We would CERTAINLY have differences regarding the meaning of "when necessary".

In MY opinion it is everyones right to healthcare (in a free society that is), it is not something that should only be available if you as an individual can afford it. Most of us go thru rough spots in our lives when money is limited, and you should not be denied access to care simply because you lost your job. Do you see what I'm saying?

I do not see that as everyone's right. It is just this sort of entitlement that eats at the very heart of American society. Do I think we should deny care? Absolutely NOT, and in the US, there are ALWAYS places where you can receive care regardless of ability to pay. But I think that if a person has no insurance, and has no money to pay, then set them up on a payment plan. garnish future earnings.
Of course there are circumstances where a person may have no options, and the future also looks bleak. I would like to help those people. We already have programs in place to accomplish just this, both in government and in the private sector.

See, it comes back to the debate over personal responsibility.
Do you, Jim, not have any responsibility to provide for your own well being, and that of your family? Of course you do. And so do your neighbors have. Why would I expect the government to provide for me what I can provide for myself?

What is interesting is that we are dancing around a single issue, when so many others are inseparably connected. Immigration, for instance. In a socialistic society like France in the 80's, I was never required to show any identification whatsoever when I needed healthcare, including some minor surgical procedures. Nobody ever asked me if I was a French citizen. Because it didn't matter, France was paying the bill anyway. And in an environment where competition was removed when regulation took over, it was absolutely the worst healthcare I've ever experienced, anywhere in the world. But it still felt wrong to me, that as a visitor, a student, not contributing to their society financially, I was still able to access the government hand-outs. My friends who were citizens, who would frequently complain of their large tax-burden, were compelled to pay for my healthcare. I didn't ask them, and I didn't thank them.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free. But when you get here, please contribute. Please find jobs, pay taxes, and spend your hard-earned dollars HERE. That's all I ask. I couldn't care less what your legal status is, if you are doing this. But if you have entered my country because the hand-outs are better than those in your own... I would prefer you return home. If, however, you are doing all these things; you should get citizenship much more easily than is currently the case.

All of these things come back to the fundamental question of "who is responsible to take care of ME?" And I say it is ME. And I say YOU are responsible to take care of YOU. And if I need some help, if my family cannot help, and if my church cannot help, I'll come and ask YOU. because it would seem disrespectful in the extreme for me to go ask the government to FORCE you to help me.
In NO WAY do I think it is the role of the government to provide healthcare for me simply because "money is tight".
Unemployed? Already a program for that.
Injured / disabled /invalid? Already a program for that.
retirement age? Already a program for that.

I think we have enough programs here.
Government's role? Highways, laws / courts, public & national defense, etc. How did healthcare ever get on that list?

[CajunMike]

Lol...I get what you're saying. In MY opinion it is everyones right to healthcare (in a free society that is), it is not something that should only be available if you as an individual can afford it. Most of us go thru rough spots in our lives when money is limited, and you should not be denied access to care simply because you lost your job. Do you see what I'm saying?
Jim

Jim I think there is a perception that the us healthcare is only available to those that can afford it. This is simply not the case. There are dozens of programs already that provide healthcare for the less fortunate. And, federal law through the emtala act mandates that hospitals provide emergency care to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Everyone in this country has access to healthcare. Not everyone can afford health insurance. Two totally different animals. While I agree that healthcare should be more affordable so that more people can insure themselves, I completely disagree that the government completely taking over the healthcare in this country is the only way to achieve this especially considering that the government created the healthcare mess in the first place.

[TX82FIAT]

I'm really not sure where the concept of people in a free society being entitled to health care comes from? We have an obligation to help those less fortunate. As mentioned earlier in this post, the only reason the healthcare system in the US needs an overhaul is because of the Federal Government involvement. Also mentioned in this post is the incredible inefficency of the Federal Government. There is a huge difference between running a fiscally responsible Government that will serve the people and preserve freedom for the long run and a Government that can not say no to the low hanging fruit and avoid making hard decisions where untouchable programs are involved. Politicians and people both fail to see the long term consequences of thier actions. Unemployment is a great example. When you lose your job there is a program to you pay your bills and care for your family. This program is historically around 26 weeks. In the last few years the unemployement benefits were extended and re-extended. In some cases, us workers recieved a Government unemploement check for up to 108 weeks. The politicians did not have the political will to cut off unemployement payents as they have in the past. As a result, some people sat at home collecting a check rather than finding a job. If that temporary benefit plan was followed according to the design of the program people would need to find a job. If that job paid less (and if probably will) then they need to adjust lifestyle. However, people believe they are entitled to the standard of living they achieved while employed. that changed... therefore so must your standard of living. If I lose my job today I will be contacting a real estate agent and cutting back on my expenses within 30 days of not finding a job. I am not entitled to anything other than knowing I am responsible for myself.

This is a car forum and I greatly enjoy talking to the people on this forum about our cars. I debated a bit before posting this political topic. However, I wanted to see if people that share a hobby share some views or if they have other views I can learn from. It is because of the high level of respect that i have for this forum that i want to hear your thoughts on what is going on. In having conversations with many people I find that the simple answer of being compasionate towards others is not always the right answer. When you were a kid did you mom tell you to eat your vegatables. I hated the taste of lima beans. i guess as a kid i would have thought mom was great if she told me i could skip that part of the meal. We all have to do thing we do not like. We all need to make difficult decisions. We need to be honest with others about what they need to do in order to be successful. Last week at at a swim meet I spent five mintes talking to a parent who was handing a first place blue ribbon to every kid that swam in her lane. I had my thirteen year old daughter who took second place return the first place ribbon. My daughter said to her, " I took second place and I worked very hard to improve my time. The girl in lane 3 was a better swimmer and it is not right for you to give me a first place ribbon."

A little background. I grew up in a small row home in the Philadelphia PA area. My father abandoned the family and my mom raised two boys working 3 jobs. By any standards we were a very very poor family. Those experiences shaped me as a person to work hard and earn a place in this world. Life lessons such as "no-one can take an education away from you" or "you can do anything you want as long as you are willing to work hard for it". Have always rung true. Mom would tell us "don't tell me what you can't do, tell me what you can do and where that will lead you." A few more favorites. "There is no such thing as a free ride" or "whoever told you life was fair lied". Mom never complained about the hard reality of her life and yes, our family was on food stamps for a few years. I understand the benefits of social programs. However, we simply can not afford the road we are on. The United States must live within our means or suffer significant forced economic decline. If the US economy fails the entire western hemisphere will follow. We need to stop acting like children and eat the vegtables on our plate. By helping the U.S. be strong we will be in a better position to help those less fortunate in the U.S. and around the world. A good example of our governments over reach is in the military. We simply can not afford this historical role the United States military has played around the world. Again, another untouchable expense in the eyes of many politicians.

[maytag]

TX82FIAT, how about one more idiom that we used to hear growing-up:
"Only in America!"

the underlying commentary in that statement was that in this country, a person could succeed (or indeed fail) based on their own merit; their own ambition, their own skills, their own work ethic. Indeed; you could literally become anything you wanted to, or achieve anything you were willing to work for.

The insidious and pervasive entitlement mentality has turned this phrase into "Only in America, or anywhere else in the world". Witness the slow decline in the USA's various industries, education system, etc etc. We have in essence removed the very incentives that created the American work ethic.
Why work hard, when hardly working will net you the same thing?

[courtenay]

Sorry, Jim, but I really don't think we Canadians have much credibility in challenging the medical insurance system in the US. We have universal Government funded medicare financed by our taxes, however the system is being crushed by the weight of administration expenses driven largely by government bureaucracy, is grossly mismanaged (government bureaucracy again) and has unconscionable wait times which means many Canadians are forced to live in pain because they are unable to access the system on a timely basis. Added to this is the fact that I am able to spend my own money to have, for example, a knee replacement in India, or Bellingham for that matter, I cannot buy the same operation at a private clinic in Vancouver. The irony here is that a prisoner, policeman or worker injured on the job can have such surgery performed in the same private clinic in Vancouver and have the procedure paid for by the Government.
Frankly I think we Canadians should stay out of this and leave discussions about US politics to our American cousins.
Similarly, if someone started a discussion on the Canadian political landscape I would expect our American friends to remain silently on the sideline.

[maytag]

Similarly, if someone started a discussion on the Canadian political landscape I would expect our American friends to remain silently on the sideline.

that's nice of you, Courtenay. But I WOULD like to discuss a Canadian politics topic that has been bothering me for many years.

I lived in Calgary for 7 years, and since that time, I've always wondered:

How DOES that squirrel continue to evade the Mounties?

Honestly, though; I have no objection to the commentary or questions that come from a different national perspective. As long as it remains as respectful and civil as it has. You of our "Brothers to the North" are probably more impacted by American politics than any other country in the world. (With the possible exception being Mexico)

[courtenay]

The RCMP motto, Maytag, is "We always get our man". No mention of squirrels.

I appreciate your comments on the discourse, however, I will continue to sit on the sideline. Your political system and ours, like our health care systems and the underlying histories and philosophies of both are so very, very different. I don't pretend to understand the US system to a point where I feel comfortable in commenting.

[Jimb]

Please dont misunderstand my intentions. I am not promoting the Canadian system, and I'm the first to admit that I don't have the answers. If you read my posts again you"ll see that Im only asking some very basic questions regarding public policy in government. How else does one expand his horizons unless they ask questions? I never intended to offend anyone. It's just a very interesting topic.
Jim

[baltobernie]

Do I think we should deny care? Absolutely NOT, and in the US, there are ALWAYS places where you can receive care regardless of ability to pay. But I think that if a person has no insurance, and has no money to pay, then set them up on a payment plan. garnish future earnings. ... How did healthcare ever get on that list?

There are only three choices here.

(1.) We can repeal Ronald Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and deny access to ambulances, hospitals and clinics to anyone without proof of medical insurance. I don't think the richest country in the world should do this to its citizens and non-citizens.

(2.) We can leave the system as it is, and figure out a way to pay for it. Maryland does this perhaps better than any other state with its All-Payor health care system. Once a year, 27 healthcare professionals employed by the state set the price for virtually every hospital procedure. A shot of Xylocane and five stitches costs the same no matter who pays for it; private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or the State of Maryland (in the case of indigent patients). We passed this legislation in nineteen-seventy-five because local hospitals were subsidizing health care to the poor by low-balling the amount paid by the state for those without insurance, and jacking the price they charged to insurance companies for those patients with insurance. Eleven states initially had similar plans, but relentless lobbying by the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry successfully killed all but ours. Hospital costs in Maryland per admission went from 23% above the national average in 1974 to 5% below the national average in 2005.

(3.) Make health insurance mandatory, and subsidize the premiums for those who cannot afford it. There is no way on earth that we can force insurance companies to accept all applicants without simultaneously requiring that everyone have such insurance. What auto insurance company, for example, would allow you to buy insurance after you had an accident ... and be forced to accept you ... and be forced to pay without limit on the cost of repairs?

Actually, there is a fourth option: Medicare for all. Talk about cost-effective! Medicare administrative costs are 1-2%, while private insurance is 5-6%. Per year. On a couple billion dollars, that's serious money. You youngn's are not exposed to this, but the difference for the same procedure under Medicare vs. private insurance is phenomenal. One bill, not six or seven batted back and forth between claimant, hospital and insurance company for six months. Public management with private delivery. Works in Maryland, would work in the other 49.

ps The government of Taiwan looked around the world for exemplary models of health care delivery and administration when they grew advanced enough to require it. They chose Medicare as their model, and it is widely touted as one of the best anywhere.

[Kent124]

>the richest country in the world
LOL, lets see the government debt, not including unfunded liabilities, is what over $15 trillion. Add in unfunded liabilities (SS, medicare, medicaid, prescription drugs, government pensions, future interest, etc) and you are conservatively closer to $75 trillion. With 310 million citizens that's a debt of nearly $242,000 for every man, woman, and child.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[baltobernie]

Yes, $16T in debt, but $41T in assets, 39% of the world's total. Also $44k per person GDP, all world-leaders. Any country (or any company) would be thrilled with 2½ : 1 assets/debt. Plus, we print our own currency.

Unfunded debt doesn't count. Any future benefit can be repealed or restructured. Businesses, U.S. states and counties do it all the time.

This is not to say that we should press the "bill me later" button for everything. But I am unwilling to have people dying in the streets for lack of medical care.

[maytag]

There are only three choices here.

says you?

I'm actually rushing out the door here, but let me just throw this out there:

Why don't we let the free market work the way Americans have always made it work?
And let charitable institutions do the work they are good at?
And let the existing programs work to catch the rest?

Why do you think the government has the right (let alone the responsibility) to determine how much the hospital charges for a procedure?
Do you think they should also dictate what I charge for an electrical service-call? Why not? Shouldn't electricity be available to all, regardless of income?