Brock said:

start by taxing the churches. Make them put their monies where their mouths are.

This would be a good idea...I wonder if we’ll try it in Canada. Hmmm...on the other hand....
The churches would probably want christian money to be spent only on christians, though. Could we stand to have hospitals divided by one’s godly beliefs? Sign at hospital entrance: “Convert or believe in Christianity and be healed here. Atheist burn in Hell”. Yikes…

I may be a little late on this but I really didn’t want to spend the time going through 76 comment.
I read the first few and kept seeing comments like “the government should pay for this”.
Just where do you think that money comes from?
Yep, the government has been so good at managing social security and medicare, that’s what we need, government managed health care.
I had a close friend who was in the same situation, but after 3-4 days of hearing “oh, I’ll get better” all the time being bed ridden. I personally drove her to the Walk-in medical center and yes, she also had pneumonia.
Some people are just damn stubborn, like my friend. It’s hard to believe that people would think about the cost when they are that sick.
I suppose the government should pay for her burial too.  A couple bottles of antibiotics would have been much cheaper.

Hey Abyssstares last time I looked we still live in a democracy. If the majority of us wants state sponsored healthcare and our current crop of corporate tit sucking whores won’t provide it then it is up to US to get off our asses and lobby for it. I worked in the healthcare field for several years after college and saw just as many ‘frivilous’ visits by patients with private health insurance as anything the state or feds provided. In case you have’nt noticed many of these visits are ENCOURAGED by the drug makers with thier ‘ask your doctor bullshit’. We spendt 1.7 TRILLION dollars on healthcare last year that is more than any industrialized nation on the planet and yet overall we rank 12th in overall healthcare quality(NYT Jan 13 or 14). That’s right 12th--what a crock of shit. People like Les’s relative die so some heartless money grubbing asshole at Phizer can make another 0.5% and purchase another rental property or take another vacation or just add another pile of cash to the hoard. Medicare and the VA currently purchase over 50% of all prescription drugs in the US but medicare is specifically forbidden from negoatiting a better price---this little gem was included in the new medicare drug benefit suppliment passed by congress last year. I see that the ‘free market’ does’nt seem to apply to the American taxpayer. How many billions of dollars will be wasted so the drug companies can keep thier double digit profits? How many Dianes will there have to be before we start valuing people over a corporations earning statement. I’m sure her childern and husband who hearts and souls will forever hold an empty space for thier departed mother and wife will take cold comfort when it is explained to them that she just does’nt have a right to healthcare and in her case a right to live.
Oh yeah here’s another on for you. Seems that CUBA that’s right CUBA has a LOWER infant moratality rate than the United States does(NYT Jan 14). Go free market GO!!

I also have a view towards the wealthy. Since there are only 3.9 million millionaires(Newsweek ‘03) in this country and about 360 million non-millionaires pardon me if I don’t shed a tear if these beneficiaries of all of our hard work would have to pay say a firm 50-60% tax rate so that the rest of us could have access to the resourses necessary to make our lives richer and a bit easier, as well as, HEALTHIER. Hey, we working stiffs are always being told to do without--what’s good for the gander should be good for the goose!

Cuba also has a massive number of doctors and dentists and such, so much so that throughout east Africa and South America you’ll find Cuban doctors who can’t find work at home.

I’ve read all the comments and many of you make excellent points.  You have giving me much to think about, things that I hadn’t considered from angles that I didn’t see.  I thank you for that.  In my life I have been so poor that I did not have the money to go to the doctor and I was so ashamed that I did not ask for help because I was afraid people would think badly of me.  I became sicker and sicker then I thought fuck pride and called my folks for help. They helped,thinking nothing of it and I got better.  Even now when I’m working fifty-four hours a week and have insurance I find myself having to choose between medication and gas to get to work.  I choose gas to make the money to by the medicine in a couple of days or weeks.  I’m smart, college educated and pretty darn good with money, but sometimes shit happens and things fall apart.  I don’t expect a hand out and I would never take one, but it would be so nice if when people are very ill that they could be assured of the help that they need to get better first and worry about the cost later.  That’s what I hope for.

Most of the uninsured can find the money for cable tv, restaurants, movies, newer cars, entertainment centers, computers, broadband; but can’t be bothered to pay for their own insurance.

I went 6 years without health insurance until my current job which supplies it for a fee. No it was not because I wasted money on useless things, I barely had enough for food.

I have no problem paying extra in taxes for some form of insurance that covers everyone. I never want to go through that again.

Assumptions are always the weakest part of any argument.

By the way, I still don’t have cable. I do have dial-up.

Employers are gonna pay for ins. one way or another, and most rich people have employees...so they can either pay into a govt health plan via taxes or they can buy private insurance.  Not much of a difference to me.  Except that with a universal health plan, people might actually get decent coverage from low-wage jobs.

So then, should no one get to keep their wealth?

No one ever advocated robbing them blind.  Do you refuse to see why decreasing everyone’s income by, let’s say 5%, still keeps everyone in the same money-having proportions as before?  I would argue that buying power would stay the same.
Besides, what good is a bunch of money in a bank anyway?  They’re already wearing Armani suits and driving around in Jaguars.  Honestly, I don’t think it would make a huge difference in their standard of living--there comes a point when the money just becomes useless for purposes other than making more money.

Here’s my 2 cents:

I was employed at a Denver BMW dealer as a tech and in my first 6 weeks there and didn’t have benes yet. I hurt my back and didn’t file workmans comp because I was trying to be nice to their insurance. I was also trying to continue working through it. Everyone told me that they really appreciate that. After twon weeks it finally got so bad that I had trouble working and was almost blacking out with the pain. So, I missed 3 days in two weeks and they fired me for it.

I then went to the dr. I spent all of my saved money over the next few months on th dr. meds and physical therapy. I made it much worse my not getting attention at the initial time of the injury.

9 months later I found an mri lab that would finance me and got that done. So now I need surgery and am trying to find ways to finance that. I have been trying on my own to get better, losing weight, quitting smoking, exercising when I am able. This is severe. When it’s bad I am on the floor with spasyms. Screaming. During these episodes it takes about five days on my back to be able to walk again.

I had just started a great 50k/year minimum job working on the best cars in the world........

When, if, this ever gets better I am going to leave this country and try to live somewhere else.

--Seth

Seth:

I would encourage you to seek counsel from a Colorado attorney as soon as possible.  Counsel can advise you regarding several possible avenues for recourse that you may have. 

Regards.

This is all about priorities and while Consigliere, Brandy, and TheAbyssStares (to name a few) care more about their currency than their neighbors there is nothing that says they have to. I personally feel that greed should be classified as a mental illness because I see peoples slavish devotion to tiny rectangles of ink printed on paper as a type of insanity, hoarding their shiny silver coins like crows to line their nests. And how proud they are of their industriousness! Look how many hours of their lives they sacrifice chasing these little scraps of paper! I guess if I was engaged in gathering up bottle caps and spent all of my productive years chained to my obsession I might lash out when someone tried to seperate me from my precious junk too.

After reading about the immorality of taking money from these good people to save others from needless death I am torn. On the one hand my heart goes out to Les and his entire family and ALL of the people who die for no good reason, but then I find myself crying at the thought of Consigliere being forced to part with his beloved money EVERY DAY to pay for things like gas and coffee. Emotionally I am overwrought and just can’t find the balance here. Life or money? Money or life? So hard…

Gee, maybe we can get a committee to study this issue as long as it takes for the public to give up their silly notions of changing their government to do their bidding. Maybe we can give the rich some more tax cuts so they can rain their largess down on the unwashed masses like kings and queens of… wait, THAT doesn’t work. Maybe we should all get a scantron sheet with our taxes each year so WE can choose where our money goes, I mean let TheAbyssStares pay for his presidents wars of aggression and low yield tactical nukes and jerks like me can have our taxes spent on a public school system and national healthcare. I know I will sleep better at night.

First off, my sincere condolences, Les, to you and your family.  That these things happen in the US, which is supposed to be the greatest and most progressive nation in the world, is incredible - and unconscionable.

The wealthy, almost without exception, are wealthy not because they worked harder than the poor and the ever-more-struggling middle class, but because they have investments that make money FOR them.  It doesn’t require their physical presence; it’s called PASSIVE income, and you’re damned right I have no problem with it being taxed at a higher rate than the income of poor and middle class people whose every dollar is earned by the sweat of their brow, during time spent away from their families because they don’t get paid if they’re not physically present to do their jobs.

Tax cuts on capital gains and other passive income reward the wealthy for doing nothing while doing relatively little for the people who are required to work longer hours for less pay just to keep the jobs they already have, whose premiums for health insurance have also increased - all of which increases profits for their companies and gives investors a higher rate of return, now taxed at a lower rate.  Is it any wonder that the gap between the haves and have-nots keeps widening?

How about the capital gains tax goes back up to what it was, so the wealthy can fund their boy’s killer crusade with money they made without lifting a finger, and some of the Fed tax - the money the rest of us generate by selling time we’d rather spend with our families to the companies whose shareholders we’re making rich - can be freed up to help those who aren’t even fortunate enough to have access to a minimum of health care?

Sorry to double-dip, but it also needs to be said that one of the reasons lower-income people are more likely to need health care is because nearly all of the food they can afford to eat is chemical-laden, genetically-modified shit that provides hardly any nutrition while ravaging their bodies.  How many people would need LESS health care if they were able to eat good meat and some fresh vegetables all week instead of being forced to choose macaroni and cheese or MSG & noodles (ramen) because shit food costs a fraction of what decent food does?

Before we go all pinko here and diss the rich as parasites living off the poor, it should be noted that substantial investments involve research, management, and risk.  And their investments often involve creation or expansion of businesses that employ people.  To be fair, they’re not doing nothing.

Is this comparable to the level of exhaustion of a waitress after an 8-hour shift?  In some cases, yes, but I’d venture to say usually not. 

Does the risk equal the risk that a working person who must decide (while living on the edge of absolute poverty) to spend $65 on a doctor visit when there is no money to spare?  Very seldom.  Most of them don’t know what “high-stakes gambling” is because they have not had to risk anything essential to life on the quality of their decisions.

Those rare people who manage to become wealthy in a society of very poor people are called “despots.” But in a more stable, prosperous society, a far higher percentage of people can become rich.  This makes stability and prosperity components of opportunity. 

Paying taxes for the creation of that opportunity is an excellent investment.  The more healthy, productive people there are the easier it is for me to make a buck.  Why does any wealthy person not want universal health insurance?

Yep, I’m a trust fund baby who never worked a day in his life that desires nothing more than to be an overlord oppressing the poor, because it improves my sesnes of self-worth when I see others who aren’t doing as well.  In fact, I have this little dance I do each time I pass by a homeless person .

I say, no matter what the issue, let us all attribute the worst motives to those on the other side.  Never consider for a moment that there might actually be a rational opposite to our position.  That way we can ratchet up the heat in the political kitche with emotion.  We obviously need more of that.  As an added benefit, we need not even consider that with which we disagree.

Eric, I don’t believe government should do for others what they can do for themselves.  I also believe that government is a poor replacement for neighbors helping neighbors.  Since you know not my involvement with my neighbors, I’d kindly ask you not to make any assumptions in that regard. 

There are tens of millions of people who believe that universal health care is not a good idea.  Obviously, they are not all wealthy, in fact statistically most of them can’t be.  Obviously, some of them must be uninsured themselves.  How could that possible be?  It is not in the self-interest of the vast majority of these folks to maintain this position.  So why do they?  I would encourage you to start there. 

Regards,

There are tens of millions of people who believe that universal health care is not a good idea.  Obviously, they are not all wealthy, in fact statistically most of them can’t be.  Obviously, some of them must be uninsured themselves.  How could that possible be?  It is not in the self-interest of the vast majority of these folks to maintain this position.
So why do they?  I would encourage you to start there. 

Ok.  When Bill Clinton tried to bring about single-payer national health, the AMA and drug companies mounted the largest lobbying and propaganda campaign ever to convince people it was a bad idea. 

But the simple fact is that national health care works in other countries - not perfectly but a damn sight better than what we have here (a claim borne out by the ratio of what we spend on health care versus what we get in terms of infant mortality, average lifespan, chronic diseases, etc.)

Well, people not wanting universal healthcare does not of necessity imply that they are greedy.  My reason is simply that the government is much more intrusive than it needs to be already.  I distrust the government as well as large corporations.  Some of the largest corporations are insurers.  Being insured doesn’t even necessarily equate to receiving the care you need.  I have a friend who injured his back years ago.  He is in constant agony, but his insurance won’t give the okay on surgery because his condition is not considered “life threatening” or “incapacitating”.  Here are some figures from 2004 for infant mortality and age expectancy.  We are actually quite close to most of the socialized countries.

Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2004
Country Infant
mortal-
ity1 Life
expect-
ancy2
Albania 22.3 77.1
Angola 192.5 36.8
Australia 4.8 80.3
Austria 4.7 78.9
Bangladesh 64.3 61.7
Brazil 30.7 71.4
Canada 4.8 80.0
Chile 9.1 76.4
China 25.3 72.0
Costa Rica 10.3 76.6
Cyprus 7.4 77.5
Czech Republic 4.0 75.8
Denmark 4.6 77.4
Ecuador 24.5 76.0
Egypt 33.9 70.7
Finland 3.6 78.2
France 4.3 79.4
Germany 4.2 78.5
Greece 5.6 78.9
Guatemala 36.9 65.2
Hungary 8.7 72.2
India 57.9 64.0
Iran 42.9 69.7
Ireland 5.5 77.4
Israel 7.2 79.2
Italy 6.1 79.5
Japan 3.3 81.0
Kenya 62.6 44.9
Korea, South 7.2 75.6
Mexico 21.7 74.9
Mozambique 137.1 37.1
New Zealand 6.0 78.5
Nigeria 70.5 50.5
Norway 3.7 79.2
Pakistan 74.4 62.6
Panama 20.9 72.1
Peru 33.0 69.2
Poland 8.7 74.2
Portugal 5.1 77.3
Russia 17.0 66.4
Slovakia 7.6 74.2
South Africa 62.2 44.2
Spain 4.5 79.4
Sri Lanka 14.8 72.9
Sweden 2.8 80.3
Switzerland 4.4 80.3
Syria 30.6 69.7
United Kingdom 5.2 78.3
United States 6.6 77.4
Venezuela 23.0 74.1
Zimbabwe 67.1 37.8

1. Infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
2. Life expectancy at birth, in years, both sexes.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Database.

I’d like to see that dance (and might get the chance during the next four years of this administration).

Now you can’t seriously think I was speaking of your immediate neighbors when I used that word right? So you picked up somebodys mail while they were on vacation or fed their fish or let their guests park in front of your house when their kid graduated highschool. Okay, whatever.

I was actualy using the word globally as in ‘the fall of man’. I would hope you aren’t reading this asking ‘what man?’ ‘A man fell, is he okay?’ Same with neighbor, I meant that you are not of the opinion that another (unrelated) human life is as important to you as your wonderful money. I get it and it’s okay. It’s sad but hey, some folks wouldn’t waste their piss on a burning hobo… what are you going to do? You can’t help the way you are and I wouldn’t want you to, I just don’t want to be there with you.

Now just to clear things up when you said Eric, I don’t believe government should do for others what they can do for themselves. does that include dismantling Fire and Police departments? I mean what simpleton can’t throw a bucket of water at a flame and what with all of our tight knit communities I’m sure everyone would pitch in and agree to enforce a set of common laws. Probably could get rid of the FDA too because we all have a nose and eyes right? If food is contaminated we will know because everybody knows what e-coli smells like and if a medication is bad for us those seizures will tip us off right away! Man, once you get started you can see all kinds of useless crap the government is paying for!

I’ve been watching this thread with interest for awhile now and I’d like to pipe in with a few thoughts:

First, I have nothing in particular against the rich folks out there regardless of how they became wealthy. I don’t think someone who inherited their wealth is any less entitled to it than someone who worked his way up from the bottom. I do feel that those who can afford to contribute more in the way of taxes should be required to do so, but I also don’t feel this means we should overtax the hell out of them just because they’re loaded.

Second, I don’t think a one-size-fits-all solution is required or would even work. There’s no reason that those of us with decent jobs who can afford to buy insurance (or have it provided through our companies) shouldn’t continue to do so. I do think that some form of basic health care should be available to everyone who needs it. I also feel the current Medicare/Medicaid system is flawed and inadequate as the restrictions it carries force people into having to do stupid things in order to qualify. For example, I have a sister-in-law who had a job as the manager of a group home for mentally retarded adults. A job that doesn’t pay all that well despite the fact that it’s a needed service. The job doesn’t offer much of anything in the way of medical insurance so when she got pregnant she had to quit her job in order to qualify for Medicaid to ensure that she’d be able to afford the prenatal care and delivery. She didn’t want to quit her job, but it was the logical course to take. Does this make sense to anyone?

Third, I fail to see how taking taxpayer’s money and using it to try and provide health care for everyone is any more immoral or illogical than taking taxpayer’s money and trying to provide for a national defense for everyone. A lot of complaints have focused on the idea that some folks don’t want to have to pay for other folks to benefit by having health care, but that argument can be applied to just about anything the government does. You don’t have a “right” to a national military anymore than you have a “right” to national health care, yet I don’t see too many folks complaining about their tax money being used for the national military which benefits those lazy bum poor people just as much as it does the working stiffs and the rich.

For crying out loud, I thought our government was founded on the idea that it should be “of the people, by the people, and FOR the people?” Right in the preamble to our Constitution is the following idea: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Personally, I think this would fall under promoting the general welfare.

Warbi, our health figures bloody well ought to be in the ballpark with socialist countries - or better - because we’re outspending them per-capita by a wide margin.  Our health-care spending even went up 8 percent or so during 2003, a year that otherwise sucked economically.

If you want a rude surprise, try rearranging that list in order and see which countries are above us. (Also if you go back a few years you’ll see that means we’re catching up, not that we’ve always had even approximate parity.)

So no, we’re not getting inferior health care - it’s “ballpark” to countries that are paying a lot less.  (If you feel that infant mortality nearly double that of Sweden and Japan is OK) My point was the ratio of what we’re paying to what we’re getting, which is “ripped off.”

Les - general welfare - right.  This thread’s a keeper.  I know a lot of people have linked to it.

I disagree. Where does this end? The wealthier should pay more than the poor for the same loaf of bread...the same movie...the same box of bandaids…

Bullshit.

Well let’s say that Eric brings home $700.00 after taxes and Brandi brings home $1,500.00. They both go to the store and buy a loaf of bread for $2.00. Since the cost of the bread was .0028% of Erics monthly take home versus .0013% for Brandi it essentially cost Eric more money for the same loaf of bread. Same with movies. Same with bandaids.

I agree, it is bullshit but I deal with it every day and you don’t hear me squealling like a stuck pig. Cause it’s a blog.

Eric,

To add to your argument having differential health care costs based on ability to pay leads to more general accessibility to a social good.  Differential prices for consumer goods are a differnt matter.  However, differential consumer prices are already exist.  I mean tell me the difference between designer jeans that cost $200 and the jeans I bought at Old Navy (yes I know, Old Navy is bad, but for some reason their pants fit me really well) for $30.  I would say that the substantive difference is who’s wearing the pants.  People who have more money buy $200 pants, people like me who are less wealthy buy the cheaper pants.  If that isn’t differential pricing, I don’t know what is. 

As for bread, just consider the difference in price of “artisan bread” versus Wonder Bread.

I do feel that those who can afford to contribute more in the way of taxes should be required to do so

Who has the right to determine “who can afford” more?  Who determines what enough is?  I for one don’t trust anyone, or government, to draw that line.  A fair system should always be our goal.  Figure out those services that benefit everyone equally, and divide that cost equally among those that receive them.  Trying to steal more from some to give to others is unfair at its core. 

The word “contributeâ€? here is also a bit of a misnomer.  It implies voluntary giving.  You are talking about taking more, by force.  That is stealing.  I “contributeâ€? to several causes I feel are worthy, it’s my choice.  I would like to be able to give more, but I don’t because the government takes much of the money.  Some of it they spend on things I agree with (strong military, roads, court systems, etc) but a lot of it they spend on stuff I despise (farm subsidies, foreign aid to countries that I dislike, welfare).

The Government has placed itself, over the decades, into a place where they determine how a vast majority of charity is distributed.  I’m not against helping the poor; in fact I’m very much for it.  But I want some control about who receives my hard earned dollars.  Not every person on the planet is worthy of charity, to be a bastard about it. 

Your relative’s death is a sad story.  But she made the choice not to go the doctor, mostly as a cost savings measure.  We all have done that I expect.  But it was a choice.  There are programs, both at healthcare providers and State/Local governments, to take care of these costs.  Maybe she might have had to forgo other wants/needs to pay for a doctor visit, but in hindsight, its a lot better than getting dead.

I have worked with people that would not go in for preventative health care, to save money.  But they had cell phones, new rims on their cars, cable TV and plenty of “discretionaryâ€? items in their possession.  I’m not saying they were living excessively, but they made a choice to buy these things over healthcare.  They also would not sign up for the state’s assistance programs for reasons I can only describe as pride.

I am sorry to hear of her death, but I don’t see her loss as a reason for more government involvement in the process.

Here are a few quotes from this thread:

My insurance company refused to pay the $800+ because it didn’t turn out to be an emergency. I was stuck with the bill which was a serious financial hardship.
So even if you have insurance, you can be hedged in by their actuarial attempts at profit and wind up in worse shape.
They took out life ins. on him because they thought he would die first and it’s what they could afford
I have been so poor that I did not have the money to go to the doctor
I went 6 years without health insurance until my current job which supplies it for a fee
I spent all of my saved money over the next few months on th dr. meds and physical therapy
spend $65 on a doctor visit when there is no money to spare? [\quote]

Wow, what the Hell is going on here? How can the medical insurance companies act like this? Simple, they don’t give two shits about anything but making money...the bottom line is the only thing that counts for them. They have lost bags of cash since the last stock market crash, guess who has to make up the difference? They do? Yes, that is correct and your fees will reflect that. The insurance companies, those clever weasels, then blame 9/11 for all the fee increases.
If someone becomes too expensive, just get rid of them, don’t renew the costly policies (I presume it is a possibility that in the USA one can lose their medical coverage through the insurance company if they make too many claims, is this correct? It’s what I have heard and read). 

Contrast that to the Pinko, Socialist, Commie system in Canada. When I lived in Alberta, I paid a flat fee of $24.00/month (The family rate was $48.00/month). It is the almost the same as paying a private insurance company; you have a monthly financial obligation, you get medical coverage for doctors visits, diagnostics, operations. However, your fees are the same as everyone else, you will not be removed from the policy despite your health (or lack thereof), you have to trust the government to handle the management of the Medicare system.

What would you prefer? A managed and regulated medicare system or a profit driven, unregulated system? Did I get it wrong?