Ninetothesky–I think we are on the same page.
To further illustrate:
Jsgoddess–the fact that you are willing to pay for other people’s health insurance is not a sufficient reason for the government to force everyone to do so (and I’m not saying you said it was, just illustrating my point). Also, you are perfectly free to pay $200 per month right now toward health insurance for others if you want to.
I agree, too. The trouble with individuals being charitable is that you would need a very large number contributing to make enough difference, and there would have to be a fairly large organisation to manage it. A government, for example? I’m afraid it can only be your way or my way.
The private sector has a great many large organizatons that manage much more complicated things than the government does, so I have no trouble believing that an organization could be created to provide free health insurance to people meeting its qualifications.
That’s a fair answer.
So, IMO, is this -
Regards,
Shodan
It could, but presumably it would need to make a profit, which would reduce the total income available, and might also affect the ethos of those donating. Don’t forget that here there are no qualifications to meet. You have a medical problem, it’s sorted. No forms, no questions. It really is very good.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that, as with a private organisation,we have an administration cost and impentrable layers of bureauracy, which has been complained about since the NHS’s inception. I guess that a private organisation would also be a monopoly, which makes it seem an awful lot like a governmental body. I don’t know how you get round that.
I answered in post #44, when I said, “I have been opposed to government social programs since I was old enough to form opinions about them, probably my mid-teens, and I will continue to oppose them no matter what my personal circumstances.”
However that opposition isn’t total. I approve of programs to aid the physically and mentally ill, and I would approve of the government requiring a Social Security-type program where a portion of each person’s income is set aside in interest bearing savings accounts to provide for their old age. And if it came down to it, I’d probably favor a Medicare-type program or insurance-payor program to assist people with health insurance once they’ve reached retirement age.
Of course I disagree. Letting someone die just because they aren’t insured or can’t afford to be cured at the moment is callous and in the context of a wealthy nation/state it’s stupid too.
I somewhat agree. We have a lot of social programs set up already funded by tax dollars that are TAKEN from me involuntarily.
My biggest gripe about Obama and Pelosi is that they LIE about the illegal aliens and giving them FREE insurance. Now they say that NO ILLEGALS can get the free Obama-mania Corp. Health Insurance.
Sure…that’s true…not one single Illegal will receive free health insurance, because Obama will make them all LEGAL…ergo…they are no longer illegal aliens…and they will forever be obligated to the Democrat party.
If Obama spent more time listening to Americans instead of trying to sell us a lemon of a used car…I think more people would be willing to trust the Government with their money.
Signed,
Squeak the Mouse
Ninetothesky–it could be nonprofit. And it need not have qualifications (ie, it could take all comers if that’s what the shareholders want to do).
Such as?
You took the time to sign up for this message board today. Why didn’t you take the time to come up with a rational argument?
Disagree.
I think the preventative medicine aspect is the most obvious argument, as has been raised by several other posters.
As a Canadian cancer doctor, I would have to agree that our system is in trouble and does not appear to be sustainable in the long term as it stands. However, I do feel that when you or your dependants have serious health issues, you should not have to worry about how you will be able to afford appropriate health care on top of worrying about the health issue. Trust me, our system does not cover everything, and this can be quite frustrating as the advisor trying to get the best care of a given patient. (Mr. X who is from another town does not have friends or family living in the city where he needs to stay for 7 weeks to get his potentially curative cancer treatment, and can’t afford motels or whatever for that length of time? He’s out of luck. He can’t afford the chemotherapy drug that his oncologist recommends that is not covered by provincial health care, and he doesn’t have other insurance or a kind rich relative/benefactor? He’s again out of luck.)
Life is not fair. There will always be people who develop health conditions that can be convincingly linked to their own bad health practices, despite knowing better. This leaves me as a taxpayer hopping mad, but if I get to indulge in my choice of vices (that hurt only myself physically) then my fellow taxpayers are entitled in my opinion to get the same freedom of choice. Society benefits from letting people know the consequences of bad choices but then needs to leave them the freedom to make their informed choices, for good or for ill. I suspect that society will typically benefit (net) from assisting people to follow through on making good choices. What needs to be appreciated is that for most people ill-health is not a predictable consequence of bad choices made in full knowledge but sheer bad luck. I have many patients who on finding out they have cancer (or worse yet incurable cancer) have the entirely understandable response of “Why ME? I didn’t do anything to deserve this … I even did these good health practices and still got this …”
I have a child diagnosed with autism (no previous risk factors to expect this) and am profoundly grateful that I live in a province in Canada where I got state support to get the educational and health assistance that my child needed when he needed it (as opposed to either getting the assistance too late or having to go bankrupt to afford the therapies). My child is now on the way to becoming a productive member of society and I attribute a lot of his progress to the timely interventions.
Disagree. Sorry, just don’t care about price as determiner or money as property. Money is too abstract to be that uptight about.
Starving Artist, you talk a lot about tradition, & the way things used to be.
Honestly, a little economic history is in order. The way things used to be sucked.
The Gilded-Age economy was fragile, because it had a small consumer base. The New Deal economy worked, & was largely opposed for ideological purist reasons by those best described as “cranks.”
At least until Reagan managed to find a propaganda campaign that worked–& even then the “conservative movement” was reliant on racism to get any electoral victories.
Making it non-profit alone won’t necessarily solve the problem. The largest health care provider in town, which is also the largest health insurance provider in town is a non-profit, but that hasn’t stopped them from making record profits recently. Here’s a cite from a local, conservative newspaper backing that up.
Could you provide some more detail about what you mean by the above? Thanks.
Cite? :dubious:
Bolding mine.
Then you support the government keeping its nose out of who people marry, right? Because that’s about as “how we live our lives” as it gets!
ETA: Completely disagree.
Open question for the dissenters: how big is your monkeysphere?[sup]*[/sup]
At some point, don’t most of us end up at RR’s view? Maybe not expressed so harshly, but the end result is similar, no?
Mrs. Dvl and I consult, almost exclusively for international non-profits. It gets pretty weird to think about sometimes. Both of us pull in a fraction of what we’d make if we took on commercial work, both because of the market and because our rates reflect our priorities. So on the one hand, we smugly pat ourselves on the back because we’re paying a high opportunity cost to do good in the world. Bully for us. :rolleyes:
But on the other hand, the nature of our work focuses on the developing world, and we can’t help but notice things. Our fees for a *small *project are generally higher than the average annual per capita earnings of one of our client’s stakeholders. So there we are, working with a vanishingly small pool of development aid, taking relatively obnoxious handfuls out of the feeding trough of the utterly desperate.
Could we do with fewer acres at Casa de Dvl? Sure. Do we need a gardener? Heck, do we need a gardener and a lawn service? The list goes on. Do we need super soft, two ply, quilted toilet paper? Nope. But are we giving them up?
So yeah, I’m all for UHC, and understand/believe that no matter what we’re told, there will be tax implications. But that’s only because my fellow Americans are closer to my monkeyspere than those dirty Canadians.
Maybe where most of us disagree with RR only as far as the size of the monkesphere.
[sup]* If you’re not familiar with the term, here’s a great read. [/sup]
Canadian here. Totally disagree - “Medicare” is one of Canada’s greatest accomplishments.
I cannot understand what all this fuss in the US is about. I love you guys dearly, but sometimes being your neighbour is just weird!
What? You mean you have never had to wait months to have your broken leg set? Your diabetes isn’t being treated by advice to “stay away from sweets”? You have never driven hundreds of miles to the US to have your appendix removed?
Are you sure you are a Canadian?