Healthcare in America

[Killian Kalthorne]

My (rapidly waning) freedoms. I dont think you have any concept of what its like to live in a non-Western country.

 

I have been through many countries and many foreign cities.

 

Bahrain, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Perth, Tijuana, Minnesota, to just name a few. I don't see how the freedom as stated in the Bill of Rights have been impeded on by this newly signed bill.

[Enoch]

This health reform is going to be paid by these taxes we all are paying into.

Um, no. The ones most in need of this bill probably do not make enough to pay Federal taxes.

Not really. The biggest beneficiaries from a financial point of view are probably self-employed people and small businesses, who both currently face very high premiums if they want to provide health insurance for their themselves and/or their employees.

 

The Medicaid expansion does help poorer people, but the truly indigent were already covered under existing Medicaid thresholds. The biggest increase in coverage resulting from this Bill will be among the so-called 'working poor'-- people with jobs that don't provide health insurance, that pay enough that they don't qualify for Medicaid under current thresholds, but that don't pay enough that they can afford to purchase coverage as an individual. These people may be largely excluded from federal income taxes (via the EITC), but they still pay federal payroll taxes, including the one that funds Medicaid.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Enoch

[Amentep]

Amentep, we all are paying taxes in some form or another into the government. May they be property taxes, taxes on the phone and utility bill, income taxes, sales taxes, and what not. This health reform is going to be paid by these taxes we all are paying into.

 

Indeed we all pay taxes* and in theory through representative government have a say in how those taxes are spent. Within the problems with this health care reform, as I understand Gfted1's position, is that people will get benefits from the system that far outweighs their pay in into the system (if they're paying in at all). And I think that's the crux of the problem that Gfted1 has that he will be taxed out of proportion with his use of the program to cover the use of the system by people who can't/won't cover their use of the system which outweighs any "public good" that the program might intend.

 

 

*this actually isn't true as there are, in fact, a lot of people who don't.

[Amentep]

The LAST Civil War worked out so well, didn't it?

 

Except for the Reconstruction bull, we became a stronger nation and a stronger people for it.

 

I meant in terms of setting a precedent that the states could break up and form their own nation(s).

[Aram]

What is to love about this country, Gifted1?

Guns and wars with funny-colored people.

[Killian Kalthorne]

That is the fault of our tax system, and not the health care bill. Personally I would love to get rid of taxes based on what we earn, and replace it with taxes based on what we spend. A federal sales tax would be more fair for everyone involved.

[Amentep]

That is the fault of our tax system, and not the health care bill. Personally I would love to get rid of taxes based on what we earn, and replace it with taxes based on what we spend. A federal sales tax would be more fair for everyone involved.

 

Truth is I think we need a government overhaul. Not a fix here and there but a close examination of everything that the federal government (and ideally state and local government) does, how it works, where it wastes.

 

This includes looking at how we collect taxes, how its divided and how its used. And I think there needs to be a bill that there can't legally be any riders added to budget based bills (because frankly I think its a big problem how many things get passed because someone managed to jam it on a spending bill that the government doesn't want to hold up the government being able to pay its employees).

 

I'd also like to see the party system abolished.

 

None of this will ever actually happen, mind you, as too many people have a vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are, with occasional minor fixes.

[Gfted1]

Indeed we all pay taxes* and in theory through representative government have a say in how those taxes are spent. Within the problems with this health care reform, as I understand Gfted1's position, is that people will get benefits from the system that far outweighs their pay in into the system (if they're paying in at all). And I think that's the crux of the problem that Gfted1 has that he will be taxed out of proportion with his use of the program to cover the use of the system by people who can't/won't cover their use of the system which outweighs any "public good" that the program might intend.

 

 

*this actually isn't true as there are, in fact, a lot of people who don't.

 

My god you're magnificent.

[Aram]

Even when someone says it better for you, you're still wrong.

[Killian Kalthorne]

How about we remove the whole election process of Congress altogether. Instead we have a randomizer pool. At each point where election would be up, a computer randomly picks a US Citizen out of the population to serve as senator or representative. The only requirements would be that he or she must be a legal citizen, 18 years of age, and not currently in active duty in the military.

[Asol]

/objectivist rant

Here Jack's mom traded the cow for magic beans and had the beanstalk adventure herself. Wealth redistribution is occurring intergenerationally through the monstrous debt as well as between classes, people not even born or productive yet will be hauling all the present day dead ass in this country well into the future. This will be another case of Americans consuming their station instead of passing it down to future generations, the assumption that our kids will live in star trek la la land is what enables this behavior the reality is they will be working a lot harder for a lot less. Sometimes it can be clear that 'most people' or 'common good' should not be enabled.

 

On 'backroom' deals, you can't enable every life sucking corporate demon and every squillion dollar big government boondoggle 24/7 then do some good conscience pretending to vote those monsters down one single day every 2 or 4 years. Thats the problem with consumer ethics, people believe they need every piece of candy dangled in front of them, and can be sold anything when they are paying on credit; that is robbing their children to pay for comforts. Such as passing this healthcare mess in the midst of economic disaster about amounts to looting, a guilt trip on the resistance is stunning.

/rant

 

Couldn't resist, I'm halfway through atlas shrugged.

 

If politicians were honest, Democrats would have skipped the bill that hands billions in profits to the insurance companies and come up with one where we wouldn't need insurance companies at all. One thing people need to realize is corruption always works in capitalism's favor, not the other way around. Politicians don't become corrupt for the fun of it.

 

I'm not clear on it but it seems possible they may not do all that well, the customer still has the x factor knowledge of how much attention the expect to need and it seems they will be able to just pay the penalty until they need attention then sign up for an emergency or when health declines, I guess it would depend on strong enforcement.

[Walsingham]

I'd like to thank Enoch for making an equally magnificent contribution by being level-headed.

 

I can understand Gfted1's point, as I said previously, if it's about paying in more than you get back. But I really think you need to look at the wider picture. This isn't some commie hippy conspiracy. Looking at context and measuring wider implications is what huge corporations do to stay succesful and ignore at their peril. Ask any MBA [i don't have an MBA, I'm just saying].

 

As I understand it there are three benefits to Gfted1 as a contributor.

 

1. As an employer he can get coverage cheaply for his low end labourers without worrying they will become incapable by routine scrapes. I know this would bother me.

 

2. In the context of the overall economy having more people able to work and not going bankrupt is good

 

3. If he develops a long term condition such as angina - as is likely if I carry on annoying him - then he will be able to get coverage

[Aram]

Couldn't resist, I'm halfway through atlas shrugged.

Only 15000 more pages of excrement to go!

[Enoch]

Couldn't resist, I'm halfway through atlas shrugged.

Only 15000 more pages of excrement to go!

More entertaining are the accounts of how bat**** insane Rand was. Whatever you think of her philosophy, the story of her life and the little cult she founded is really quite interesting.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Enoch

[Aram]

Also, whatever you think of her philosophy, that book is a ****ing atrocity.

[Amentep]

How about we remove the whole election process of Congress altogether. Instead we have a randomizer pool. At each point where election would be up, a computer randomly picks a US Citizen out of the population to serve as senator or representative. The only requirements would be that he or she must be a legal citizen, 18 years of age, and not currently in active duty in the military.

 

Randomization doesn't really give choice and I think that people should be able to choose who represents them rather than arbitrary representation. Ideally IMO people would run as themselves to represent their community with no additional layers between the representative and the community. The community would choose who they wish to represent them and then the person chosen would go to represent them the best they can. This gives the community the ability to determine who it wants to represent them without having the disconnect of electing a person to represent a party that represents a large population across the nation to represent the community.

[Enoch]

How about we remove the whole election process of Congress altogether. Instead we have a randomizer pool. At each point where election would be up, a computer randomly picks a US Citizen out of the population to serve as senator or representative. The only requirements would be that he or she must be a legal citizen, 18 years of age, and not currently in active duty in the military.

 

Randomization doesn't really give choice and I think that people should be able to choose who represents them rather than arbitrary representation. Ideally IMO people would run as themselves to represent their community with no additional layers between the representative and the community. The community would choose who they wish to represent them and then the person chosen would go to represent them the best they can. This gives the community the ability to determine who it wants to represent them without having the disconnect of electing a person to represent a party that represents a large population across the nation to represent the community.

That was the idea back when the U.S. was a loosely-associated group of regional communities with a total population of 2.5 million (and with voting rights limited to landowning white men over 21). When you've got 300 million people and universal sufferage for citizens over 18, people aren't going to have much of an idea of who their local representatives are (unless the legislature is ridiculously big), and party affiliation makes for a useful shorthand in outlining where people stand on what are considered to be the biggest issues of the day.

 

Also, the only reasonable response to Killian's political forecasting is .

Edited March 23, 2010 by Enoch

[Killian Kalthorne]

Hey, I think it could be fun. Have some bugger just out of high school, working at McDonald's, suddenly becomes a Senator for his state. HA!

[Amentep]

That was the idea back when the U.S. was a loosely-associated group of regional communities with a total population of 2.5 million (and with voting rights limited to landowning white men over 21). When you've got 300 million people and universal sufferage for citizens over 18, people aren't going to have much of an idea of who their local representatives are (unless the legislature is ridiculously big), and party affiliation makes for a useful shorthand in outlining where people stand on what are considered to be the biggest issues of the day.

 

My only problem with party affiliation is that the elected official tend to represent their party not the people who elected them.

 

This could be mitigated by a true multi-party system to an extent given that more party choices could make parties more responsive to the people, but our current system allow the existing two parties to marginalize any new parties to non-relevance.

 

That said I don't think electing people - as opposed to parties - is unworkable given current population. It would require some changes in process and thinking, though. But maybe I'm too optimistic on that accord.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think I'm the only one here that will actually be taxed under this program to support all you bastards.

[Enoch]

I think I'm the only one here that will actually be taxed under this program to support all you bastards.

Given that most of the tax increases (scheduled to take effect in 2013) only affect payers whose individual income is over $200,000 (or $250,000 for married-filing-jointly), you're probably not going to get too much sympathy for that.

[Meshugger]

Whoa, the threshold was that high? What regular employee makes that much? A surgeon, a lawyer?

[Walsingham]

I think I'm the only one here that will actually be taxed under this program to support all you bastards.

 

On the contrary, given how much we ALL depend on the US economy being healthy... wait. Do I mean on the contrary? I'm too tired.

[Humodour]

Right, so have we finally established that the only people opposed to universal healthcare in America are those like Gfted who are happy to see others suffer as long as they pay less taxes?

[Hurlshort]

Right, so have we finally established that the only people opposed to universal healthcare in America are those like Gfted who are happy to see others suffer as long as they pay less taxes?

 

No, small business owners are rightfully worried that it is going to be a cost that they can't take in an already fragile economy.