Universal Healthcare. Good Idea or Commie Plot?

[Winterfire2008]

Wow Mike,  I would love to have you as a neighbor!!!!

Anyone heard of the Selective Service Act.  Or the stop-loss policy for the military. Talk about forced servitude!!!

Or how about forced retention when a company sues an employee who leaves for another company.  Microsoft did this when some of their top notch employees tried to leave for Google.

What stops a person from purchasing insurance....hmmmm the fact one has no money seems to hit the top of the list. 

[_Adam_]

I'm not thinking that you consider your brother to be an irresponsible slacker, does your judgement only apply to other people? If he couldn't afford to get insurance, why didn't you sign him up for that $107 plan?

Nope, he is an irresponsible slacker.  Smart as heck but prefers to smoke his life away on medical marijuana.  It drives me nuts that he is OK with letting the state cater to his needs.  So much so that my efforts to get him turned around has driven him away.  As far as not signing him up for the $107 plan, I am not my brother's keeper.  Had he asked, I would have done what I could to help.

[griff61]

I'm not thinking that you consider your brother to be an irresponsible slacker, does your judgement only apply to other people? If he couldn't afford to get insurance, why didn't you sign him up for that $107 plan?

Nope, he is an irresponsible slacker.  Smart as heck but prefers to smoke his life away on medical marijuana.  It drives me nuts that he is OK with letting the state cater to his needs.  So much so that my efforts to get him turned around has driven him away.  As far as not signing him up for the $107 plan, I am not my brother's keeper.  Had he asked, I would have done what I could to help.

Well, I guess as long as everyone else was there to pick up the slack, it worked out ok.

[Duckbutta]

Griff,

What you are failing to consider in this whole conversation is the morality of the topic at hand. The "problem" of 45 million uninsured Americans is not a problem of liberty. It is a problem of socialism.

Walter Williams is one of my favorite authors on this subject and I am posting an article of his here for your convenience. I think his point here is brilliant but I'm sure you will disagree. It reads as follows:

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her lawn, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

Again, Dr. Williams brilliance on display. That's logic and moral clarity that I think even you can understand.

[_Adam_]

Again, Dr. Williams brilliance on display. That's logic and moral clarity that I think even you can understand.

Duck,
Thank you for posting that touch of logic.

To the Socialistic leaning folks here:
I think I saw the argument that some have said firefighters and police are also examples of socialism, and to an extent they are.  But, going to an extreme position to make a point does nothing to advance an argument.

I don't think that providing for providing police or firefighters forces servitude on others.  I feel this way because police forces and firefighters are run mostly by local governments so there is no real method for power hungry officials to defraud or manipulate the system.  I think providing for national defense can, and has, been manipulated and I suspect everyone here sees that no-bid contracts are a prime example.

[griff61]

Again, Dr. Williams brilliance on display. That's logic and moral clarity that I think even you can understand.

Duck,
Thank you for posting that touch of logic.

To the Socialistic leaning folks here:
I think I saw the argument that some have said firefighters and police are also examples of socialism, and to an extent they are.  But, going to an extreme position to make a point does nothing to advance an argument.

I don't think that providing for providing police or firefighters forces servitude on others.  I feel this way because police forces and firefighters are run mostly by local governments so there is no real method for power hungry officials to defraud or manipulate the system.  I think providing for national defense can, and has, been manipulated and I suspect everyone here sees that no-bid contracts are a prime example.

You, Duck & Coup are all very good at prounouncing judgements on what the ills of the wolrd are.
You're also very good at never contributing a single workable idea towards a solution, because  it's not your job or some such thing.

I actually had a bit more faith in your logic than that Adam, but oh well. The fact is, one of the biggest reasons that people can't get insurance is pre-existing conditions, not because they lack personal responsibility.
The welfare mothers that Coup refers to are already covered by your state/federal Medicaid plan, because they contribute very little or nothing as far as income goes. They're also the ones who may stay on the dole for years, depending on the State they live in.
I'm not interested in them at the moment, it's the ones above the poverty line and just below an income level high enough to afford insurance after paying thing like rent & food. That's where the 'hand up' needs to come in. In the present system, these people get stuck in limbo and usually end up at the ER. The person on State aid can just go to their doctor.

From all appearances. None of you actually know any more about how anything is funded in the US beyond what you heard on AM talk radio this morning. You say Medicare and Medicaid are ok, but none of that 'socialized'(the new Republican boogeyman word)* medicine!!! That takes my money!!!
If what you're concerned about is 'local control', then you could expand Medicaid to cover everyone and let States decide on most of the implementation. You know, just how it works in Canada (except they have provinces).

How do you think those things get paid for? Your sad little FICA contribution? Where do you think your State gets the money for Medicaid or the National Guard or education? Do you see a seperate deduction on your check, or is it from your taxes, both State AND Federal?

I thought corporations were our friends, they'd never do anything wrong like screw us on no bid contracts, they're all unicorns and rainbows! We just need to get rid of whatever government regulation that forced them to have to bankrupt us...that'll fix it.

The next few years are going to be rough on folks like you, all these things are going to be addressed and solutions arrived at.

Many corporations have proven themselves to be untrustworthy when unregulated and brought the financial system to near collapse, as well as the housing market, food safety, drug safety, military, etc etc. The pendulum is swinging the other way, you can either help offer alternatives to help slow it down or get run over. You can get in on the discussion so it looks like something more to your liking or you can sit around with your fingers in your ears going "la-la-la, I can't hear you" and offering nothing to the discourse.

You can feel free to sit in your little circle and stroke each other with how right you are about everything while the world passes you by. The rest of us will be over here in reality, having some kind of say in what the aftermath of this recession looks like.

Even the health insurance companies are changing their tune, they can see the writing on the wall. Perhaps you three might give it a try.
http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2009/03/24/insurers_charge_sick_people.html

In any case, you guys feel free to discuss amongst yourselves.

If any one should have an actual, non-fantasy land, idea about an alternative to our existing system, I'll be glad to discuss it.

[Duckbutta]

You're very welcome, Adam.

I believe that looking at the issue purely from an economic standpoint failed to take into account that most important factor. When the issue is framed through the lens of morality it becomes clear that what he is advocating is an assault on liberty and freedom. His position is untenable and I think his lack of response to the moral aspect of the issue bears that out.

[griff61]

You're very welcome, Adam.

I believe that looking at the issue purely from an economic standpoint failed to take into account that most important factor. When the issue is framed through the lens of morality it becomes clear that what he is advocating is an assault on liberty and freedom. His position is untenable and I think his lack of response to the moral aspect of the issue bears that out.

Folks like you are the reason that people like Pelosi & Reid are in charge. One side wants to sell the country to corporations, lock stock and barrel, and spent the last 30 years pillaging the national treasury while bleating about 'personal responsibility and morality.
The other side wants to flush every aspect of personal responsibity out of daily life and dumpe every penny of taxpayer money down the hole of good intentions without oversight.

You and yours can wave your little flags and bask in your tiny self centered morality all day long while two extremes shred the Constitution, I'll try to actually look for solutions that actually preserve the true American way of life.

[Duckbutta]

This true American way of life, would that be?

Griff, using the analogy Walter Williams posits with the widow and the lawn, do you support that type of government intervention?

[griff61]

This true American way of life, would that be?

Griff, using the analogy Walter Williams posits with the widow and the lawn, do you support that type of government intervention?

I haven't suggested it, what your example is described as is a straw man argument, you have nothing to say about solutions, only excuses to do nothing. Quoting a guy who thinks organs ought to be able to be sold to the highest bidder isn't quite the genius people would admire.

You just keep on fiddling while the Constitution burns, enjoy the ride.

[Winterfire2008]

Lens of Morality.... Whose lens?

What some think is right for them sure as heck ain't necessarily right for me.

I believe Universal healthcare is something that reduces poverty. That does not make me morally wrong nor personally irresponsible.  

[Duckbutta]

Griff,

Adam was right. You are intellectualy dishonest. If you substitute health care for the lawn, that is exactly what you propose. When confronted with the moral bankruptcy of your position you try to deflect the direction of the argument to something completely off-topic.

If you want to debate about the sale of one's own organs and private property rights, I will gladly engage you on that topic.

Answer the question, do you support the government forcibly taking the fruits of the labor earned by one American, and giving it to another American who didn't earn it?

[Duckbutta]

Winterfire,

Go back and read my post about the widow and the lawn. Would you support the government intrusion described in the post? That is the lens of morality I am referring to.

[griff61]

Griff,

Adam was right. You are intellectualy dishonest. If you substitute health care for the lawn, that is exactly what you propose. When confronted with the moral bankruptcy of your position you try to deflect the direction of the argument to something completely off-topic.

If you want to debate about the sale of one's own organs and private property rights, I will gladly engage you on that topic.

Answer the question, do you support the government forcibly taking the fruits of the labor earned by one American, and giving it to another American who didn't earn it?

You're very one dimensional, substitute corporations for government and you're suddenly ok with it.
I don't think the government should be paying civilians to do military jobs that troops used to do either. Does that describe yours? I've refused job offers from KBR and Halliburton on that basis alone. How about you? Empty grandstanding seems to be the rule of the day, under the guise of patriotism and morality.

Show me where I've suggested taking anything by force and you might have a point, as it stands your arguing with yourself, this country is (supposedly) a republic, majority rule is the way it goes. Some version of universal coverage is about to happen. In fact, why don't you find an example of it in real life an one of the countries I've mentioned with universal health care?

I asked for solutions to a problem, you've got nothing, probably because Rush, Bob and Glenn haven't got anything either.

We used to function as a republic, where people voted according to issues and actually went below headlines when they thought about problems.
We are effectively a parliamentary system now, there are only 2 to choose from and we can't get beyond our own provincial party pettiness.
George Washington was right.

Unless you actually respond with a plan that addresses what I have asked about, namely skyrocketing health care costs and universal coverage, feel free to debate yourself.

[Duckbutta]

Griff,

As to your question, "substitute corporations for government and suddenly you're okay with it?" Could you please elaborate? I honestly don't see what point you are trying to make.

I don't have any problems with the government contracting out certain jobs to the private sector. To answer your question, yes, I am doing the exact same job that I did in the military. Does the fact that I no longer wear the uniform make me any less capable of doing the job? The government felt that the proposal my company made would be a better use of the money and resources that were already being allocated to the laboratory and would result in reduced costs. I can't speak for other labs, but in our case, that proved to be a correct assumption on the government's part. We have less than half the manning that the laboratory had when it was blue suit and the cost savings is substantial. I would call that a prudent use of taxpayer money. And unlike government, my company is not judged on it's good intentions, but rather it's results. If we do not provide a level of service that the Air Force feels is acceptable, we will be shown the door. That's called accountability, something our government sorely lacks.

Why you would refuse to accept a job with a government contractor is beyond me. The pay on our contract is good and the health insurance provided is excellent. You should look into it. As a matter of fact, I have more coverage than I want or need. I'm what some would call over-insured. I wish there was something I could do about that, but I don't have a choice in the matter. I can't get too bent out of shape about that though because I knew that going into it. It was a tradeoff that I was willing to make.

As to the issue of the government forcibly taking things, let me say this: By coercing me with fines and imprisonment if I don't comply with having my freedom violated by way of confiscatory taxation levels is not using force, I don't know what is. I think you are confusing what I said with physical force, though they will result to that if one pushes the issue to it's extreme conclusion.

And finally as to your point about majority rule, that was addressed in the article I referenced. Let me refresh your memory. It read as follows:
"Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her lawn, would that make it moral?"

I also would like to ask you a serious question. Would you agree with my point in the post about taxation levels? If you accept the basic premise of the post and how I arrived at the numbers, and putting your personal feelings about me aside, do you find it objectionable that the federal and state government takes more than $0.50 of every $1.00 that I earn in various taxes, fees, and surcharges?  And if you don't find it objectionable, what do you think is an appropriate level of taxation? At what point would even your sensibilities be offended?