Totalitarian Health Care: For or Against? - Political Forum

BenBraxton · 08-19-2007, 08:40 PM

Should we use government to empty everyone's bank accounts today, and spend all the money on the highest-tech health care possible for all sick people?

You students are willing to sacrifice your tuition-funds and educations in order to fund the health care of old, sick people aren't you?

You working parents are willing to give all your money to keeping old people half-alive, aren't you, even though that would mean no money left over to feed your children?

You have to realize, these old people are sick, and they will die unnecessarily, unless everyone gives 100% of their money to keep old people alive. Anything less than 100% taxation would be to directly deny the needs of the people. My goal is merely not to stand idly by and watch people, human beings, suffer needlessly simply because of the size of their bank account or the cash in their wallet.

Any objections to this proposal?

sybarite · 08-19-2007, 09:34 PM

This is a bit over the top, more than a bit.

mindunchained · 08-20-2007, 06:51 AM

Give me a break!

Quote:

My goal is merely not to stand idly by and watch people, human beings, suffer needlessly simply because of the size of their bank account or the cash in their wallet.

I serously doubt that, sounds more like you are just another neo con trying to scare people into thinking that universal healthcare would take all of their money away.Let me guess you think Fox News is a real news channel and that they are "fair and balanced", right?

Brother Oz · 08-20-2007, 07:45 AM

We have nationalised healthcare in Britain and it costs about a quarter of what yours costs on average per person.

FRYandBENDER · 08-20-2007, 08:49 AM

100%? Come on. You're clearly being sarcastic..... right?

BenBraxton · 08-20-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

We have nationalised healthcare in Britain and it costs about a quarter of what yours costs on average per person.

How do you decide how much of the GDP should go towards socialized health care? I've never seen an American liberal answer that question reasonably. Their only argument seems to be: people die, therefore we must raise taxes.

sybarite · 08-20-2007, 09:36 PM

If you were to follow most of the programs that are being discussed, they are paid by the employee in the form of national insurance programs.

BenBraxton · 08-21-2007, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sybarite

If you were to follow most of the programs that are being discussed, they are paid by the employee in the form of national insurance programs.

Unless it's optional, it sounds like another name for income tax. Whatever it's called, how will it be decided how much $ each employee is forced to pay into the system?

Brother Oz · 08-21-2007, 06:35 AM

Quote:

How do you decide how much of the GDP should go towards socialized health care? I've never seen an American liberal answer that question reasonably. Their only argument seems to be: people die, therefore we must raise taxes.

There's no real way. We just kept increasing spending until the government couldn't afford any more without raising taxes to a level that would cause people to vote for the other party.

MikeT · 08-21-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenBraxton

Unless it's optional, it sounds like another name for income tax. Whatever it's called, how will it be decided how much $ each employee is forced to pay into the system?

The same way all taxes are decided now--based on a percentage of your income--so yes--it would be an income tax. The same way we are taxed now for medicaid and medicare. The same way we are taxed now for the military and education and social security.

We obviously can't continue on with the same healthcare system we have today. We must do something to change what's happening in our country, to make it better, more equitible for everyone. k

We tried doing the 'free market' route and letting health insurance companies compete. We tried going the 'free market' route and letting the medical and pharma companies compete.

What we discovered however, is that when people don't have a choice, when they have a basic need (like setting a broken bone, glasses, dental work, a kidney transplant) then business can essentially charge as much as they want from the patient, and insurance can pay as little as they want. So, when there's a basic human need involved, "free market" practices don't apply.

This is what we've discovered. This is what we know. So, now that the "free market" has proven itself to be unable to create affordable healthcare for our citizens, it's time to look in another direction.

There is no other direction but to the government if we want to create reliable, universal care for everyone. This is the only entity capable of ensuring every United States citizen has access to healthcare when needed. No church, no community charity, no group of wealthy persons has that ability.

Now, we could use government to regulate the health industry, demand that it offer affordable healthcare and insurance through regulations and legislations, but then we have those market fundmentalists that don't want government interfering with business. This would also be a much more expensive route to take because the insurance middle-man would still be there sucking up the funds better spent directly on funding healthcare and paying providers.

Any which way I turn over this issue, it all points back to universal healthcare as the most viable and equitible option for everyone.