Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Sticks And Stones! We're an HTTYD fan forum. Feel free to have a look around and stay awhile; whether you want to talk about the movie, post some fanwork, or just kick back and relax with us, we can't wait to have you!

If you'd like, join our community!

If you're already registered, just log in below:


Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Healthcare mandate passed
Topic Started: Jun 29 2012, 12:06 PM (2,733 Views)
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
Azdgari
 
If I, and everyone else, were forced to do our own small part to end the suffering of a lot of people? I don't see myself minding very much.

If you recall, I asked you "How would you feel if instead of volunteering you were forced to do that?"
You provided the above response.
I am not everyone else.
I had not, have not, and will not allow you to force me to as you say, 'do our own small part to end the suffering of a lot of people. THAT is immoral. THAT is the gun to MY head.

I am a responsible individual who takes the time and resources to review and have insurance. I always have had health insurance ever since I started working after I graduated college. If I needed to help my relatives or friends or provide charity to a church then I should be allowed the right to choose which insurance and what charities to give to. And as it stands right now, I have to support those who say they can't afford healthcare by having my premiums increase again.

Now I would like to ask you, how many people are we talking about. If it is the 15% of Americans who don't have health care then I will submit to you the following:

"In 2006 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes over $50,000 a year, and could, presumably, purchase their own health care insurance. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million of the uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health care coverage or chose not to purchase it. Moreover, only 30 percent of the non-elderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than 12 months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months." From Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" and I can supply all of the references to back these claims.

So the number that is widely quoted and used is wildly exaggerated. We are going to change our entire health-care system for over 300 million people because approximately 10 million people may not have health care insurance. We are going to change an entire system because less than four out of one hundred people are unable to have insurance. If we can agree that the numbers provided are inflated than charity can definitely be used to provide temporary, not permanent support of individuals in need of health care.

So, as I stated previously, it is noble to aspire to provide health care 'for all' but catastrophic if implemented through legislative fiat.

EWO
Edited by Eyes Wide Open, Jul 18 2012, 11:02 PM.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

I'm sorry if I offended you somehow with that answer, I assumed that was what you were asking. So we're imagining a scenario in which the government requires only me to volunteer and contribute to charity? That seems unrealistic.


15% is a reference to the number of Americans that live under the poverty line, per the Census Bureau, not the amount of people uncovered.

Quote:
 
We are going to change our entire health-care system for over 300 million people because approximately 10 million people may not have health care insurance.

Well... yes. In my opinion, if ten million Americans are uncovered, our system does not work and we are not being responsible as a country. Additionally, do you not think our system merits change when it is nearly two times as costly as the nearest competitor and no where near the most efficient or effective? Especially when we're trillions of dollars in debt?



Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
Hi Az,

No, in no way did you offend me. It's just that I am firm believer in the Libertarian point of view if you haven't figured it out. The scenario I imagined would be similar to performing 'community service', where you would be required to give your time and effort to help out. It would be like a judge decided to feel better about him or herself and 'volunteer' you and me for community service. Hey it would make him or her better! I would prefer that I give my time and effort on my own free will before subjugating myself to the whims of the state. Now, if you can encourage people to help you with your volunteering efforts then good for you. Just don't say, 'Hey, if I can force other people to help then maybe that will make me happy.' Your goals and means as I mentioned before are noble, the delivery needs work. Don't consider 'other peoples money' or 'other people time' when thinking about helping.

The first question that should be asked is, "How can I help?" which is then followed by, "How can I get others to help me?". Question number two is what needs to be thought through.

Now as far as your telling comments regarding the 15% who live in poverty, that in itself is revealing. The poverty line in the U.S. is considered to be approximately $3000/month.That figure takes into account the overall GDP, how much everyone makes and applies a percentage. I believe that the global poverty rate figure is $3/day or $90/month. The computation of what the poverty line is in any given country is again based upon a mathematical calculation which I believe is a percentage of the current GDP of the country. So by your definition, there will ALWAYS be poor in ANY country.

Considering that the poor in our country have household items that would be considered luxuries in other parts of the world then yes, I am wholeheartedly against changing a system to alter (not better) the lives of so few.

Azdgari
 
Well... yes. In my opinion, if ten million Americans are uncovered, our system does not work and we are not being responsible as a country. Additionally, do you not think our system merits change when it is nearly two times as costly as the nearest competitor and no where near the most efficient or effective? Especially when we're trillions of dollars in debt?

So, your belief is that we should radically alter our healthcare system and become more like the British and Canadian models? Our system may not be perfect, but it is the best out there. Could improvements be made? Heck yes. But you don't go and enslave 95% of the population in order to achieve your goal, and yes by compelling to take additional resources from each and every paycheck will be considered enslavement by a majority of the U.S. population. And by taking additional resources from the people, how does that effectively pay down the debt which you will inherit when you start working? What about Medicare and Medicaid? These were two efforts launched by President Johnson in his 'War on Poverty' campaign? Forty five years later and the percentage of people still on poverty hasn't changed one bit.

The reason that healthcare is not cost efficient or effective is because of the bureaucratic regulations that are placed on it and every other business out there. This is why I mentioned the cell phone companies as a model, where a highly regulated and fractured service was given the opportunity to deregulate to become the telecommunications industry of today.
Edited by Eyes Wide Open, Jul 19 2012, 07:57 AM.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

Quote:
 
Our system may not be perfect, but it is the best out there.

I'm not sure the facts support that.

Posted Image
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
CrazyTrace
Member Avatar
Night Fury
I'm not sure what the numbers themselves are meaning... are higher numbers good or bad?
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
CrazyTrace
Member Avatar
Night Fury
Technically, my husband and I are beneath the poverty line by those numbers. We just bought a four-bedroom house with a big backyard and no freakish debt getting into it. True, the house was a bank recall house so we sort of got a good deal...
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

Should've specified, sorry. They're rankings, 1st being best in the study, 7th being worst in the study.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Night Fury
Member Avatar


The poverty line for a single person is $931 a month, and $1921 a month for a family of four. This is based on 2012 data.

I'm sure everyone would agree that it's extremely difficult to live on that amount of money in the US.

Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
CrazyTrace
Member Avatar
Night Fury
Whew. I'm not beneath the poverty line! It is hard to live with that kind of paycheck. However, I will say that it is hard namely because we Americans have an extremely high standard of living. We have a minimum standard for housing that is globally extravagant. As has been said before, your average poor person in America is filthy rich considered to most other poor.

Azd, thanks for the explanation. I just stared at the chart and couldn't figure out anything about it. Now I can!
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Night Fury
Member Avatar


CrazyTrace
Jul 19 2012, 04:16 PM
We have a minimum standard for housing that is globally extravagant.
This is very true. I think there needs to be a bigger supply of smaller, more basic housing. A "cheap" apartment will set you back at least $600 a month in most cities. There goes 65% of your poverty income right there... now try to buy food and other essentials, and transportation to your minimum wage job.. and good luck, you'll need it.

Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dragon's Den · Next Topic »
Add Reply