Universal healthcare

[Rferraris]

Reverie, I'd like to add my two cents. Hardly the thesis you put together, but a simple point. But I'm taking your point.

I don't believe people want to do poorly. I believe everyone wants to be successful and generally wants to show that success to someone they care about.

People have what opportunity they have. If they are 1, of a modest intellect, 2. A modest Socio-economic situation. 3. Of compromised moral values as a result of a underprivileged upbringing. And the other 20 I can't think of.

I have some economics in both my undergrad and graduate degrees.
I won't call myself an expert, but I know enough to say our system doesn't work without programs and safety nets, and it doesn't work without a middle-class.

The option of letting people die isn't really an option. I wouldn't want to live in that world, but even if you need to make it self serving, when people get that desparate, they do things that ultimately cost more than the social program that could have helped them.

I have looked at both my State and the Federal budgets. The money we are talking about to support the welfare system is insignificant, relatively. Certainly in terms of percentage. I agree we all do better as a result of everyone benefitting and participating. I haven't seen that since the late 90s and the Clinton years. I thought it would never end. It's been all downhill since. I feel badly for the kids today. Honestly, their world has little hope compared to what I grew up with.

My wife and I are well educated. She's a Penn doctor, and I have a masters and a bunch of certifications.
I'm not bragging and don't really care if it impresses or not. Not my point.
My point is we stayed home and missed parties, weekends and family gatherings. We passed on vacations to prepare for exams, projects. Spent hundreds of thousands paying for it all.

We both work hard at our work.
As a Veterinarian, she doesn't get much in terms of financial rewards. I guess that's her fault for picking a career that is impossible to get into, leaves you with an enormous debt and doesn't pay a decent salary. Mostly cause people either don't care for their animals, or spend all their time complaining about how expensive it is. The cost of care for you to go to a doctor is infinitely more expensive, but your insurance pays for it and you don't notice. If you have pets, buy insurance. Especially for dogs.

In the ninties, we lived like kings.
I made more money that I knew want to do with. I was smart, having learned from my patents not to get into debt, but mostly to save some too.

Maybe I exaggerate about how well I did, cause I don't have much to show for it now. I did well, but for a short time. The Bush years came and with it a decade of misery. The stock market stopped going up, 911, the constant fear of war. Looking back over my life, it seems we were always afraid. The news had us at odds and worried about terrorists. For a short time in the ninties it seemed to go away. Of course my dad, very conservative, hated those years; hated Clinton. I still don't understand why. Lieing under oath is unforgivable. I'll offer that. He lost me with that scandle. But what he did with the girl didn't bother me. I'd rather think he went to a hotel. But I'm not that offended.

We voted for Obama. Remember when he came into office.
The auto industry
Our healthcare system
Financial regulation
The economic slowdown
Two wars
Immigration reform
The collapse of the housing market were all underway. He didn't create any off them.

The question remains what would have happened if he did something differently; would we be worse off. Or is the auto industry an example where we were better served.

I know my dad thinks to let the industry collapse and restructure its debt would have been the best thing.
I read there are an estimated 2 million jobs that would have been affected.
I don't think we could survive that.
I don't think we have survived.

So my point is with all my education, and all my efforts, I sit here unemployed. 46 and worked hard everyday. I take pride in everything I do. But the company closes, losses money and they let everyone go.

How does one prepare for that.
I'm back in school. Updating my skills.
Money I don't have, but I am not sure what choice I have. At least I'm able to do that. What if I weren't. What does a person do when they have very little and almost no options to improve.

I don't have the ultimate answer. I will say I'd rather have a safety net to save a soul trying to help themselves than not have anything at all cause I'm so worried a few people that have abused the system.

I've lived through a couple cycles. Giving money to people that have it doesn't seem to work.
1, people have money cause they don't spend it.
2. People with money are terrified of losing it.
3. People with money understand the only way to make money is to make investments and take risks. When their pockets are affected, they come up with new investment ideas. They don't sit there saying I'll sit this one out. They are scared to lose what they have. Right now they are richer than ever. They aren't feeling too squeezed. Tax them a little harder and see how many new start ups there are. Watch the M and A activity spike. Watch for the IPO market to take off.

The middle class doesn't exist and what remnants remain can't give anymore. 51 percent of Americans are living at or below the poverty level. We ARE a third world nation. Wake up.

The health care system is supposed to keep people from losing their houses to sickness. It's insurance, not like they didn't pay for it. We all get sick. Be careful before you say you aren't, won't or don't know of anyone. We all get sick and we all die. We all need healthcare. The insurance I buy should protect me. I have limited power to take on the industry when I'm in a hospital or caring for my wife.
I can't understand a person that wouldn't agree with that. I'm sure there is no conversation to have at that point.

The changes were supposed to come up with a better way to pay for the people we are paying for anyway. Using the emergency room is expensive. And that's what people without insurance use as a primary care doctor. And they don't get turned away. So they continue to use the hospital. I guess you could change the laws. Turn them away to die in the streets. They are sick and can't go to work. The kids, well I guess they aren't around that long so who will miss them if they go. Not sure who will clean up the dead bodies. See another service we'd have to pay for. Maybe we can force family, unless they don't have any, then maybe the last person that spoke to them to dispose of the body.

I live by a beautiful river covered with mansions and delicately manicured estates. Not my house but I get to drive by. I bet none of them think about this stuff.

 

[Rferraris]

http://www.askavetquestion.com/why-are-vets-so-expensive.php

 

[Kgal]

@Rferearis


I watched these videos the other night after having seen an interview with the Researcher on another documentary. He

 

[bickelz]

In actual real life lower income people put most of their earnings back into distribution because they mainly use it for the necessities of food, cost of living etc. which actually invigorates the local economy.

You need to read "What is Seen and What is Unseen" by Frederic Bastiat. What you're saying is an economic fallacy because you're not taking into account other ways that money could be spent. It came from somewhere else and would have been spent differently by people who worked for it thus growing some other sector of the economy.

Here's an overview of the myths about welfare from the Columbia University website, a review of Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader? by Irv Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ssw/faculty/profiles/Garfinkel-book.pdf

It's interesting that none of these authors is an economist. Just saying.

"Myth: The welfare state undermines productivity, efficiency, and economic growth.
Fact: Welfare state programs complement capitalism and increase productivity, efficiency, and economic growth. Investment in public education is the main driver of this; education is so demonstrably productive that including education in any analysis of social welfare shows that, in general, welfare state programs enhance rather than retard productivity, efficiency, and growth in economic well-being.

It's true that education leads to higher productivity for the most part but education doesn't have to be private. And just because education enhances productivity, that doesn't mean all welfare systems enhance productivity.

Economies grow through trade where people produce and buy things that other people value. If you just start spreading money around to people who haven't produced, they economy grows more slowly.

Myth: The welfare state is the antithesis of a capitalist nation

 

[technics]

Thirdly, welfare programs may help a few people but they make everybody else worse off and slow economic growth. You're just redistributing money instead of creating an atmosphere that creates wealth.

Are you studying mainstream economics or so? Because that is such a mainstream argument, that redistribution/subsidies/etc. create a dead-weight loss. But if you look outside of mainstream, e.g. development economics, it's pretty much clear that redistributing wealth so that other people can fulfill their potential can create surplus that exceeds the distributed amount.

But then again, as I said, I don't like economistic arguments because if you argue in terms of economics, you're already playing in the right-wing field.

 

[Untitled]

You need to read "What is Seen and What is Unseen" by Frederic Bastiat. What you're saying is an economic fallacy because you're not taking into account other ways that money could be spent. It came from somewhere else and would have been spent differently by people who worked for it thus growing some other sector of the economy.

Well what about what is not seen also is that by spending on national health, free university education, reducing poverty your "shopkeeper" indirectly benefits from educated, skilled labour whose healthcare he doesn't have to pay for. He has to live in less of a fear of poverty induced violence and can enjoy the benefits of a stabler society. How about those unseen benefits? It's not just unseen costs. You also have a bigger pool of talent to find for your company, when also those who are from poorer areas have access to higher education etc.
If you're talking about someone selfishly whining about what they could have done with that money themselves, then they are blissfully unaware of what benefits they are receiving in return. ...like paved roads. Garbage disposal...

It's true that education leads to higher productivity for the most part but education doesn't have to be private. And just because education enhances productivity, that doesn't mean all welfare systems enhance productivity.

Healthy labour enhances productivity.

Economies grow through trade where people produce and buy things that other people value. If you just start spreading money around to people who haven't produced, they economy grows more slowly.

Economies may grow but the money goes into the pockets of a few people. Maybe those few people should try striking it out on their own to see how well they'd do without the regular people. Those who do most of the producing should be compensated accordingly. With the middle class becoming poorer and poorer this is clearly not happening. You know as well as anyone that in a libertarian free market society the production facilities are in effect moved to 3rd world countires where people work in inhumane conditions to barely keep alive.

Besides my country is heavily taxed but is always rated top in international economic surveys, so obviously having a welfare system does not hurt business.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings
However i think the question is not what is conducive to economic growth but to the greater good for the greatest amount of people within a given country. I think the failure of libertarian politics from a human perspective is pretty evident as is seen in current unstable conditions.

This is patently false for a number of reasons but I would like to first point out that the "welfare state" came about after the industrial revolution so the correlation between "welfare and wealth" is misleading if not nonexistent.

How is that?

Secondly, if "benefits exceeded costs", then the government would be able to turn a profit on these "successful" programs. The reason for that is...the only way you know you're running efficiently is that you're turning a profit. But government doesn't use profits as feedback so it runs huge deficits, that the next generations will have to pay off. What I'm trying to say is that we're not paying for government benefits, the next generation (who hasn't even been born yet) will pay for it.

Profit is not the only measure of efficiency. There is the humane factor to consider. In Japan they've sacrificed the growth of GDP to provide the large ageing populus proper care. How great is that? Studies show that in my country for example that the majority people think it's better to pay higher tax and the welfare system running. Usually it's only the very affluent who have a problem with the system. There you can check Kgal's post which is backed by recent psychological studies as to why that may be.

Thirdly, they're not even using the term "capitalism" correctly. Capitalism is where people produce goods and services that other people value and are able to freely spend their earnings/profits on what they please within markets. By definition, adding in a socialistic state degrades capitalism and in no way "enhances it".

Well if the fact you have to purchase the insurance from a private instance is so upsetting maybe you should include the national health insurace in taxes. Otherwise by definition we're very much living in a capitalist system. Democratic governments are here to insure that the people as a majority benefit. If it's secretly being overtaken by those who do not truly advocate the interest of the majority of people then there is a problem.

What I'm saying is that A) why would I let government tell me where to allocate my income and B) profit motivated doctors are better, on average, than doctors in socialized systems.

A) Well maybe the cost should come from taxes like elsewhere. The only reason I suspect for this use of private companies for national insurance is appeasing big insurance companies and pro-Libertarians. It's less costly to have a national insurance.
B) Well that is categorically untrue as the healthcare systems in the said countries rank high in international comparison. In Japan the top Companies voluntarily enforce a salary cap, because they are as a nation very communal in some sense, though a modern capitalist country.

If anything, this exactly proves why having big government is a bad thing! Government is corrupt and gets what it wants through the use of force.

[/QUOTE]
If the Government's corrupt (by doing the bidding of the super rich) then you must begin to demand that your rights are not being ignored and take political action. what else would you suggest? No government? Anarchy?

 

[Lerxst]

I was going to elaborate on a post earlier here but forgot what page it was on. As for US and their military spending...

We spent a lot of money on our military and found, in the past, that it's helped us out in economic troubles; it creates jobs, sparks industry, etc. The problem is, most people in the military join just after high school. There's not a high degree of education needed, in fact, in students I taught, most barely squeaked by in their grades only to join the military upon graduation. Basically, there aren't a lot of Rocket Scientists, Doctors and Lawyers in the military.

After leaving the military, some actually do go to college, others go straight into the workforce. I doubt there have been any studies on this, but how many of them go on to a higher/advanced degree?

You can't blame them though; we've nurtured their types and given them a goal they can aspire for. Instead of promoting education and allowing them means to advance themselves intellectually, we've created a system that promotes their ignorance and wants to keep them intellectually stunted (a good soldier does what their told, not what they think they should do). We tell the near-high school drop-outs they can fire a gun and blow sh** up. If you give them a choice between that or continuing their education, which do you think sounds more appealing?

Now, switch all the money we spend on the military to the Healthcare field so that military jobs now become healthcare jobs. These same people wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting a job in that field once they graduated high school. They would need *gasp* more education, professional training, licenses and certifications. In order for those same people to stand a chance in this society, wed need to siphon more money into our long neglected education system, especially since many of these people won't be able to afford charter/private schools.

Now, they have a high school degree and jobs waiting for them, but in order to be something more than an orderly or nurse's assistant, they need some type of college education. Most jobs won't pay enough to warrant an education at this point, with the education bubble being inflated to the extent it is - $80,000 in tuition alone to work a job that would pay $30,000. That system is also flawed, never mind the Capitalist mentality that will take hold and start jacking prices up for some programs that will now be in high demand. Only way to circumvent that issue is to socialize the colleges in addition to the other 2 institutions.

That makes three areas of our society we need to socialize in order to be on par with most other developed nations. The sad news is, we're about 70 years behind them all. Blame it on the fact that we've never been bombed into dust or invaded by an enemy. If you look at most countries that have these systems in place, they were ones that were ravaged during WWII - France, UK, Germany, Japan (blame Canada for having very close ties to Europe if you want). This could also be a reason Conservatives in our country as as fanatical as they are; they've had the luxury of never needing to challenge their way of thinking to the extent those other countries have - they've never been forced into a situation where they needed to band together to help other people. The one thing Conservative thinking lacks is empathy and it's hard to promote empathy when you've had the luxury of living comfortably and never having to experience hardship... or to help others.

 

[Rferraris]

Universal Healthcare for All. Even you.

 

[Kanamori]

Watching a video for school : Frontline : http://video.pbs.org/video/1099857730 : Frontline : it goes into the costs of insurance, and why people get turned down and then end up with life or death or bankruptcy choices (and they couldn't get privately insured anyway) ... I've been under really great health insurance (apparently, compared to the way insurance is for everyone else... so I never knew it was this bad) there are the really great bits in the video about how people with problems or a history of problems just can't get health insurance unless it's through certain jobs(really wtf?), and going into the hospital while you're having a heart attack could bankrupt you unless you're sitting quite well financially. That seems more than a little messed up.

 

[Lerxst]

Watching a video for school : Frontline : http://video.pbs.org/video/1099857730 : Frontline : it goes into the costs of insurance, and why people get turned down and then end up with life or death or bankruptcy choices (and they couldn't get privately insured anyway) ... I've been under really great health insurance (apparently, compared to the way insurance is for everyone else... so I never knew it was this bad) there are the really great bits in the video about how people with problems or a history of problems just can't get health insurance unless it's through certain jobs(really wtf?), and going into the hospital while you're having a heart attack could bankrupt you unless you're sitting quite well financially. That seems more than a little messed up.

God forbid you have to ever call 911 for a medical emergency; they might as well haul you off to a debtor's prison in the ambulance. After my car accident, the ambulance bill came to $1,600. Luckily that was covered by my car insurance, otherwise I'd be living in a cardboard box right about now.

People in the US simply can't suffer from any kind of catastrophic medical emergency... we can't afford to! Insurance will look for any reason to not pay. Thinking insurance companies are there to cover you when you need it, is like thinking a casino is there to pay out money when you play the slots.

 

[Quiet]

Try joining a campaign and you'll see how much more effective it is when you talk with people on the street than on forums.

I have participated in political capaigns and been a member of politcal groups. That is precisely the reason behind my opinion. The most effective groups that I have partcipated in have been direct action groups. But its always the same thing- People communicating with each other to understand and solve problems. Where is gets ugly is when people stop communicating and trying to understand and respect each other and instead try to push their own agendas and disregard the opinions and concerns of others.

...............................................

I consider myself truly fortunate to live in a nation where I have universal healthcare.
Any society or nation is only as great as it treats its smallest, least fortunate parts.
For a society to be truly free, and for individuals to have real social mobility, everyone must start on an equal footing. Basic healthcare is something that everyone should contribute to and everyone is entitled to despite their socio-economic status, and the place they happened to be born in. This way all people can excel if they choose to, not just those that can financially afford to. This is what it means to live in a truly free community, rather than living in a structured, heirarchal dog eat dog jungle.
And at some point where have to accept that we can either live in a community or an ecomony, but we have to choose one. Living in an ecomony might be beneficial for people that are currently at a position in the hierarchal ladder that they wish to maintain, or for those that do not wish to live in a community. But ultimately I believe that living in an ecomony is fundamentaly anti-human and anti-life.

 

[unpersons]

I believe everyone has the right to life and no one is worth more based on the amount they can pay. Everyone should pay a flat tax into it, and preferably, we pay for universal healthcare and insurance instead of endless wars.

Dick Cheney got a new heart and now some significantly younger person probably has to die. Because of who he is. Aren't they worth as much as him? I think so.

 

[Pin]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5649968