If you will read elelle’s post a little more closely, you will see that she (I presume) said that it was abhorent that anyone profit from someone’s illness.
Companies that make fire trucks make a profit, thereby profitting off of peoples’ fires. This should be precluded according to elelle’s way of thinking.
Strongly disagree.
A few years ago, my employer’s health insurance company informed us we were going to have to pay an additional $100 USD per person per month for our health insurance. I told my boss that, if they did that, I would have to drop my health insurance because I couldn’t afford to pay an extra $100 per month. I guess I wasn’t the only one who said something because the company backed down and only increased our rates by about $30 per month. That year, the health insurance company made a record profit.
It’s not just that health insurance companies are making record profits; it’s that medical expenses are the biggest reason for bankruptcy in the US and are a huge expense for business, especially small business. Why start a new company if it means you can’t get health insurance without paying a small fortune for it? As for rationing and bureaucrats deciding who gets care, that’s already happening in the US, only it’s insurance companies who are doing it.
By the way, I have family members in England, including an uncle who’s a surgeon and a cousin who’s permanently disabled (she’s not his daughter). I would take NHS over the mess we have here.
Well, fair enough. I doubt elelle really meant that nobody should be allowed to profit from someone’s illness, though.
My reasoning is that a substantial number of wealthy people who are against the government taking “their hard-earned money” did nothing to earn it in the first place, and many of them openly stole it, some of it from me, sometimes with the assistance of the government. So their position is roughly equivalent to that of welfare cheats complaining about welfare reform. Does that clear anything up?
Not really. How does one ‘steal’ from you with the assistance of the government and without incurring criminal charges?
And it doesn’t matter one whit whether a person’s wealth is earned or won or inherited or found. It’s their money, not yours. It was never yours to begin with, and you aren’t entitled to it just because they didn’t earn it.
Would you approve of the government coming into your house and taking from you anything you received as gifts or windfalls or otherwise didn’t earn, and giving them to me?
I thought not. So what’s your rationale for thinking the government should take things from other people that they either didn’t earn outright or which you personally happen to regard as ‘stealing’ :rolleyes: and giving them to you?
I don’t strongly disagree. I don’t strongly agree, either. I believe that every able-bodied person should be required to pay for their insurance. I don’t believe that it’s my job to pay for alcoholic Joe Schmoe down the street because he can’t hold a job. I don’t believe that it’s my job to pay for Jane Schmane who has the dream of being an artist and isn’t making enough to pay for her loft, her organic food and her medical care. It’s not my job to pay for Juan Schwan who came here illegally and needs a heart transplant. However, James Schmames who is temporarily unemployed should be able to pay a reduced rate for a number of months (maybe the same number he’s on unemployment) for his insurance.
Several years ago, there was a food stamps debate here. One poster said he and his wife deliberately made the choice to work “nominal” jobs (he was a dishwasher, IIRC) so they could stay home with their child and watch her grow up. Due to these chosen careers, they qualified for food stamps. Now, few people said outright that foodstamps were a bad thing, however, this guy’s position was that if he wanted to spend his foodstamp allotment on steak and lobster tails, that was his privilege, because he qualified for government assistance.
What I have a problem with is a sense of entitlement. “I’m entitled to goverment support. If I don’t want to work, I’m entitled to adequate house, free food and health care. And cable TV, internet access and a cell phone.” There have been radio ads recently for a government-subsidized programs for free cell phones for people on goverment assistance. I heard that housing projects were going to be wired for wi-fi because the indigent deserved the benefits of internet access (never mind that every public library allready has internet access).
I pay taxes. I don’t complain about paying taxes. On the other hand, if I have to work to put a roof over my head and money to pay for medical insurance, why shouldn’t everyone?
StG
Disagree.
Gyrate summed up my opinion:
Let me ask you, Minnie, do you think it’s in society’s best interest that everyone have a car, a roof over their heads, automobile and home insurance, whatever food and drink they want or believe they need (as with health care), access to the Internet, enjoyable recreation, etc.? If so, do you think it’s incumbent upon the government to provide those as well? And if not, I’d be interested to know where you draw the line, and why.
As I said, health is a public welfare issue. One sick person has the potential to affect many others. Sick people also have a reduced economic value - those that work affect the businesses they work for, reducing productivity and increasing costs. Those that don’t, often can’t because of the illness. Surely you’d prefer them to be productive members of society?
You can keep trying to paint health as a luxury but it isn’t.
Just saw this thread.
Most SDMBers seem to have the Vanilla Ice view of government–if there is a problem, yo the government should solve it.
I view the government as something that we decided to create to protect us from invading armies and other enemies (ie, terrorists and criminals). I am also willing to live with other things that have come within the government’s purview (such as roads, some aspects of the FDA and USDA, limited and targeted and temporary assistance to poor people, etc.) I think that the government’s role should not be expanded further.
Therefore, when I see something about society that I don’t like (such as the fact that many people don’t have health insurance), I don’t automatically think that the government should solve it. Rather, I ask whether the problem is a legitimate government concern or should instead be taken care of by the private sector.
Health insurance is not related to national defense, so it’s not a legitimate government concern, and therefore should be handled by the private sector.
Also, I think that poor people are not well-served by having the government provide for their needs. Rather, they are infantilized and made dependent on the government. I therefore oppose all programs that simply effet wealth redistribution by providing long-term benefits to poor people. I think mine is the more humane position.
Therefore, my position is not born of a hate for poor people–quite the opposite, actually. It’s born of what I view as the proper role of government. I think that a society where the government concerns itself only with those things that are its proper role is a better society.
Well said.
In post no. 41, I asked this question:
I’m still interested in hearing the answer.
NineToTheSky–I would have to be such a fundamentally different person than I am to not be able to afford health insurance that I think your question is essentially unanswerable.
Well, I am not Rand Rover nor Starving Artist, but I was in favor of limited government when I had no private health insurance.
I think much of the problem of getting taxpayer-funded health care passed is that those who are currently covered by health insurance believe (IMO correctly) that they will have to pay more and get less.
But think about it - how much are you willing to pay, over and above your current tax bill, and in addition to whatever you are now paying for health insurance (if you have it), so that someone else can get health insurance? Not how much cost you want to shift over to “the rich” - how much are you willing to pay? In concrete cost. $100 a month? $200 a month? $500 a month?
There are roughly 138 million taxpayers in the US. Multiply whatever figure you came up with, and see how much health care that will pay for. And be fair about this - don’t try to shuffle the cost onto someone else.
Regards,
Shodan
NineToTheSky is in Britain, so he’s already paying for someone else to have health insurance and seems perfectly happy about it.
Although** Really Not All That Bright** is absolutely correct, this is an interesting point. I don’t have any choice as to how much I pay for my, and everybody else’s health care. It’s part of my income tax bill. I’m sure it’s documented somewhere what percentage of my tax bill is used for the NHS, but I can’t find it at the moment.
Would I pay more? Absolutely. My views are the complete opposite of** Rand Rover**'s and Starving Artist’s. If I can help people less fortunate than myself, I would. Don’t forget, though, that this attitude is ingrained in the UK culture - not just amongst those who hold leftist beliefs (I don’t), but amongst the population as a whole. These two current threads have shown that most UK posters support the current situation. Had I been brought up in a culture like that in the US, I don’t know what my attitude would be.
How much (more) would I pay? I’m not so altruistic that I would want to suffer financially, but while I am not rich, it certainly wouldn’t hurt me for my tax to be increased to help others. And if it was needed for the NHS, I’d be OK with that.
Your second sentence does not follow from your first. We are talking about whether to use the unique power of the government to force people to pay for something. Therefore, what you personally would pay for is not relevant.
Stated another way, one could be fiscally conservative and very philanthropic. With respect to health insurance, someone could share my view that the government shouldn’t provide it while also spending lots of money themselves buying health insurance for others.
The role of the government should always be given separate consideration because it is a separate step in the analysis of whether the government should do a program.
I wouldn’t blink at paying an extra $200/month. It would be a sacrifice, but I can handle sacrifice.
Shodan asked what I would pay, so I answered.
Because I am in the UK, the government does force me to pay. I’m just saying I’m OK with that. You have said, if I understand you correctly, that you are not happy with that. So my views are different to yours.
I agree with your second paragraph, but it doesn’t negate what I said.
totally disagree (re: question asked in the OP)