A rather large presumption (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TheHeretic -> A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 9:42:45 AM)

Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?

It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place.

Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?

Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. Government responsibilty for individual healthcare is not a given. Appeals to emotion don't make the cut, and attempts to demonize the very question only establish that those trying the tactic don't have an answer.




Musicmystery -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 9:47:36 AM)

I don't think anyone asks that "sneeringly," as you arbitrarily characterize it.

So OK -- whose responsibility is it? Given that it's beyond the means of many Americans to do on their own without assistance from somewhere.



Lucylastic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 9:51:39 AM)

It is only a presumption, if there was a working healthcare system in the known world that the governing body didnt have a hand in ?
is there such a thing?



mnottertail -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 10:02:50 AM)

I did question it and everyone else has too, and within a second, my answer was YUP.  I dont need to navel gaze it for 60 years as has been done in this country whether or not.  And I goddamn sure another 60 years of navel gazing is not going to resolve the complex and nebulous question--- 'whether or not'.  So, fuck it, yeah, I'm good with it.




TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 10:10:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I don't think anyone asks that "sneeringly," as you arbitrarily characterize it.




Nice to see you back around, Muse, but I think you might have missed a bit while you were away. It's a preferred rock for throwing, lately. Of course, "sneeringly" is a subjective term, and a matter of perception. That's how I see, especially when an the person tossing the challenge flees the discussion when an answer comes back. YMMV.



TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 10:18:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So OK -- whose responsibility is it? Given that it's beyond the means of many Americans to do on their own without assistance from somewhere.



And we have a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves, Muse. We also have an overwhelming majority of people who can, and do, provide for themselves in a market based system.



Musicmystery -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 10:32:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So OK -- whose responsibility is it? Given that it's beyond the means of many Americans to do on their own without assistance from somewhere.



And we have a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves, Muse. We also have an overwhelming majority of people who can, and do, provide for themselves in a market based system.

Not really.

For a couple decades, I went without health insurance, because I couldn't afford it and my two-three at a time jobs didn't pay for it. So I took a chance, but I'd have happily paid for health insurance within my means at the time.

Sure, today, no problem, and I'm also on top of creating wealth if something changed. But it's not a skill set most people have entering the work force.

You've left the key question unanswered -- unless you mean that no one should be solving this problem.

If you do mean that (or for anyone who does), it's short-sighted. Preventative care is a good investment, socially and economically, and getting a larger pool helps manage the risk both individually and comprehensively. The alternative is the mess we have, which only works for those who have.

I don't buy into the zero-sum game. The basic economic assumption mistakes a snap shot for the reality of a growth system. That's the fundamental premise of an investment. And in a society, government dollars spent is not the only metric.

Even where we do provide, we do so inefficiently, leaving companies to face health care costs spiraling at double digit inflation. The current system we've been clinging to is unsustainable long-term. The question "So what's your solution?" is valid.

I'm not a fan of the new system, just as I wasn't a fan of it when Gingrich Republicans thought it up. It's a messy and costly compromise. But I support it, primarily because, as Hup noted, it finally moves the conversation down the field from contemplating to doing. From here, the tweaking begins. But it's on *something,* instead of continual deferment.

Yes, I already know you disagree with that point. But that's your answer.



vincentML -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 10:39:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So OK -- whose responsibility is it? Given that it's beyond the means of many Americans to do on their own without assistance from somewhere.



And we have a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves, Muse. We also have an overwhelming majority of people who can, and do, provide for themselves in a market based system.

The safety net is pretty good for seniors. Better than pretty good actually. Medicare is a strong indicator that a public/private system can succeed. For the under 65 population the safety net is full of holes. It doesn't take much for a catastrophic illness to destroy a family's finances.

As to the presumption . . . it lies in the moral and social fabric of a nation and population that has outgrown its early agrarian neighborly-help-raise-the-barn roots. The flip side of the question is: why the presumption that anyone should profit from the illnesses of their neighbors?

The Libertarian philosophy reaches its heights of zaniness when it abandons the social order. That extreme proposition gives rise to unchecked monopolies, which we witness today.



DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:08:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?
It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place.
Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?
Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. Government responsibilty for individual healthcare is not a given. Appeals to emotion don't make the cut, and attempts to demonize the very question only establish that those trying the tactic don't have an answer.


Good luck getting any sort of civil discussion on this topic.



Musicmystery -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:23:05 AM)

And so it starts with you.



TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:28:10 AM)

I've done long stretches without any health insurance as well, Muse, and applying the terms and conditions of this new law to my situation in those times wouldn't have done me a bit of good in the early days, and flat out would have harmed me in the most recent lapse in coverage.

The deductible on a bronze plan I might have been subsidized into in the starving student days still would have left me on the hook for the odd ER trip I made, assuming I'd paid the insurance bill in months when I let the heat go off to pay tuition. The mandate would have posed a massive financial barrier to leaving my old line of work, and taking a pay cut and a big risk to start over in something new.

Your answer seems to be a default. It must be someone's responsibility, therefore government gets it.

That, I do disagree with.



DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:28:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And so it starts with you.


I'll start with also welcoming you back, MM.

Then, I'll second the proposition of TH that it's not within the purview of the Constitution to the provision of health care for the Citizenry.

Not much for TH and I to discuss there, as we, generally, agree.





Nosathro -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:29:35 AM)

I believe in the Constitution you will fine "promote the general welfare"



Musicmystery -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:35:33 AM)

Then promote it we shall.



EdBowie -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:36:08 AM)

Do you mean government, or do you mean why is it the responsibility of society?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?

It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place.

Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?

Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. Government responsibilty for individual healthcare is not a given. Appeals to emotion don't make the cut, and attempts to demonize the very question only establish that those trying the tactic don't have an answer.





popeye1250 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:36:40 AM)

The only way something like this can work is through a single payer system like in Europe, Canada and Australia.
Of course we'd have to cut back or simply do away with other things like foreign aid, Education and Energy Depts, EPA, and cut the state dept by 50% and also the military so we wouldn't be a "global power" anymore which is fine by me.
If you want to get something you have to give something. (I.E. we'd have to do away with other things to be able to pay for it.)



TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:37:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Good luck getting any sort of civil discussion on this topic.




And how often do I let that stop me, DS? [;)]



TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:40:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

I believe in the Constitution you will fine "promote the general welfare"



Yep. And that certainly covers matters of public health like communicable disease, but why don't you go find the bit of the Constitution that makes individual/family welfare the job of government?

(typo, or Freudian slip?)



TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:45:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

The only way something like this can work is through a single payer system like in Europe, Canada and Australia.



If, and I stress the IF, we are going to do universal healthcare in the U.S., Popeye, then I think single-payer is nothing but an invitation to fraud and abuse, bringing on a regulatory spiral into the shittiest care for the most people. My take is that we would need to completely nationalize the system (and that has big problems too).



jlf1961 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 12:01:18 PM)

Heretic, I understand your question, and as for an answer, I dont think there is a good one.

Many Americans cannot afford adequate health care insurance, so they dont have any, they use the emergency rooms as family doctors since the law says that the ER has to provide treatment. When the bills go unpaid, then the costs go up to cover the losses. But I am sure you already knew that.

I agree with your theory about single payer health care will go down the toilet, so in my opinion that is not the answer.

If we go to a truly nationalized system, personal taxes will go up to pay for it, which is going to make everyone mad.

As I understand the problem with American Health care, Doctors have high rates to pay off student loans that covered their education. Hospitals charge high rates to cover losses in the poor using the ER's and not paying, not to mention the cost of keeping current in technology.

Bottom line, I do not have the slightest clue other than the "promote general welfare" in the Constitution, but if you take that as the reason the government should get involved in health care, then it would also mean everyone would have jobs, adequate housing, etc.

I am sorry, but at some point the people need to take responsibility for themselves.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625