Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) advocates universal health care for U.S. citizens by the year 2012. After Hillary's misguided and failed attempt to bring coverage to all American citizens which had so many tethers as if to make each soul a marionette, one would think that the very idea would be an anathema to candidates of either party. Perhaps, Kerry ruminated over the idea with George Soros over martinis in a jacuzzi or sauna in Davos but, at least, he came up with an idea whose time has come. It seems self-evident that all Americans regardless of their financial situation, ethnic extraction, or any other classification should have the right to affordable health care. It is time that the government intervenes on the side of those who cannot afford health insurance and/or those who simply cannot provide the "pound of flesh" demanded by the medical industry from those who are not insured, are not members of an HMO, and are not covered by Medicare/Medicaid/and/or other governmental assistance. One begins to think that voting Democratic may have a merit or two.
Cf. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2255918&page=2.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
James, this is an issue where we clearly part paths. There are better solutions than universal health care that do not involve a socialist redistribution of wealth. Why not allow small businesses or individuals to apply for coverage under a business-like entity to get rates comparable to company-provided rates? Or, how about making individual plans tax-exempt?
Why should anyone have to join a plan to get the same services for the same price as others? There is no redistribution of weath there. If the health industry wants to scalp their services to those who are unprotected, it's time to take them on. (The disadvantaged have alot more votes than the privileged.) If they are not willing to give every one a fair shake, then it is time to shake them.
So the solution to the sins of the medical and legal industry is to soak the taxpayer?
How are you soaking the taxpayers by mandating fairness and equality? Taxpayers are subsidizing Medicare, Medicaid, and emergency room care. Unions have negotiated health care for their members. The only ones who are getting messed over are the individuals and small businesses who don't have enough influence to get equal rates. If the health care industry doesn't play fair, then they have to deal with the consequences.
Again, I don't see why small businesses should not be allowed to form insurance co-ops to give them the buying power of large industries. It's not hard to understand the favorable treatment by the healthcare industry of large companies since they are their largest customers. If you allow individuals and small businesses to form organizations that have the buying power of medium to large companies. Companies subsidize usually more than half of the premium. So, anyone who joins one of these organizations might be given a tax credit for the extra cost assumed. I just don't think the creation of a governmental bureaucracy and another payroll tax from my paycheck to fund someone else's insurance is fair.
Joseph, why do keep assuming that you will be paying more if everyone is covered? If the government pools all of those who are uninsured and bargains with the insurance companies to get them a fair bargain, then everyone gains. No longer will the have-nots be sacrificed for the haves. If all are paying the same price for the same service, then the true value of the service will be charged or it will not be provided. Healthcare is not a commodity: it is a necessity!
I ain't touching this one.
Jon, get into the fray! You input is needed and desired. What do you think?
James, I cannot think of one thing the government has got involved in and done better than private enterprise (except for military action and interstate construction). In fact, I can think of many instances where the government has taken something done by private enterprise and turned it into giant blackholes of U.S. tax dollars.
The government is uniquely situated to do things that private enterprise will not or cannot. E.g., the Rural Electrification program was instrumental in bringing power to the hinterlands where the monetary returns would not otherwise justify investment. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security provide our seniors, physically disabled, and financially bereft with necessary care and sustenance. Similarly, the government can and should step in to make sure that all Americans are able to get basic health care.
Yes, all those are examples of government intervention, but they seem to evidence against your argument for government involvement. All those government "services" take out about 12% of my check every two weeks. Should taxpayers have to give up another 3 to 5% for universal healthcare?
However, when you are older and no longer working, you will reap the benefits of Social Security and Medicare. To fund universal healthcare, maybe, we can quit giving away money to other nations, cut down on our intervention in foreign affairs, and cease subsidizing corporations.
Will I? I'm not so sure that Social Security, Medicare, or any of these programs will be around for me when I'm older. I'm certainly not planning on it.
As if the politicians would steal the livelihood and medical care from that all important demographic that votes in a higher percentage than any other. Why do you persist in defending those who are battening themselves off of the working class and could care less whether they have health care after they have served their use? Look at your paycheck, and then look at the advantages that universal healthcare affords. Do you really want to gamble with the health of yourself, your wife, and kids?
Unless the underlying reasons for high medical costs are fixed, government will have to fund UHC through increasing taxes. I already have insurance, so if something happens, I'll be covered. UHC will also not only penalize the taxpayer but will produce an inferior product.
I don't think healthcare is a right. It's a luxury. Do we have a right to food and water? Do I have a right to a car? Do I have a right to a job? These are all things you have to work to obtain. Why should medical care be any different?
Joseph, I think that you may have said healthcare is a luxury to get me riled which is fine. However, healthcare is essential for not only our well being but our very existence. If it's not a right, then I think that it should be. If American citizens are unable to meet their fundamental needs, then government should step in and bridge the gap. If government is subsidizing other nations, big business, farmers, etc., then the least it can do is give its citizens basic healthcare. Just as lobbyists ply Congress and the President with money and favors to sup at the public till, we, the citizens, can leverage our votes to get them to come through for us.
I don't think that since the government is "already doing it" for some, then that legitimizes creating a whole new entitlement. The incentive to work is food, health, property, and freedom. If the government provides these, where is the incentive to work and succeed? We are sinful people and will behave sinfully, meaning that given the opportunity to be lazy and still be provided for, many will opt to do so. Then, you will not only have the Welfare class but the Healthcare class as well.
Joseph, healthcare is of a higher priority than welfare. If you are hungry, then that need does drive you on in your work. However, if you are ill, then you are not able to work: should we leave the sick to the altruistic whims of society? Rather than being otiose, leveraging your vote is the same as smart investing. You have a commodity that someone else wants: if you are an intelligent trader, then you make sure that your vote gets the highest return.
Post a Comment