Against Universal healthcare, why ?

[Bill3000]

i think the person thinks tariffs are the answer and tax businesses...

That's still taxation.

 

[ThePrussian]

...okay then... uh... how do you plan to have the government financed then? Voluntarily?

I said I disagree with it and think it should be abolished. But it is a necessary evil one that I can stomach if not taken to extremes. Lets go with a flat tax of ten percent, no loop holes or deductions, everyone pays ten percent.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

That is the Government's job, and I consider the United States Constitution only changeable through Amendment passed by the US Senate, the US House of Representatives and the States.

 

[Bill3000]

I said I disagree with it and think it should be abolished.
...
But it is a necessary evil one that I can stomach if not taken to extremes.

These are contradictory statements.

How do you plan on having a government survive with an abolishment of taxation? (of which there is no particular constitutional limit anyway)

 

[Sui Generis]

If we learn lessons from other Universal health care systems and create something without 3 month waits for surgery and routine care, then that would be great.

 

[Aleenik]

Kuwait has no taxes..go live there I guess if you dont want any
rich nation, not a bad place

 

[ThePrussian]

These are contradictory statements.

How do you plan on having a government survive with an abolishment of taxation? (of which there is no particular constitutional limit anyway)

Article One, Section Eight: Powers of Congress

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

That is one way. The other is though business loans. And the other way of ensuring our oil flow?

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Privateering.

 

[Bill3000]

...you just listed taxes, tariffs are taxation, business loans are loans, not revenue, and you have to be honestly kidding me about privateering...

Kuwait has no taxes..go live there I guess if you dont want any

Kuwait also has a nationalized oil industry.

 

[otago]

Damn what a lot of confused types, notice I stated universal health care, not government run universal health care.

Universal health care does not have to be run by governments, there is nothing to stop a board being set up to run the whole shebang.
As for those who whine about their taxes no problem, when you flip a car in NZ and are listening to the petrol drip, you will be pulled out AFTER you have paid the $5000 fee in notes or gold, you want a full free market system, you can have it.

But good grief I doubt if many of you are in business, yet you expect your boss to meet your health care needs, what does he get from it ?
Is all this fear of the unknown taught in US schools, because it seems that those who are against universal health care have a knee jerk response, that ALL universal health care systems involve taking more money off the wealthy for the not so well off.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Alaska also gets away with (almost) no taxes because of oil revenue.


How about we get rid of taxes, but declare that all mineral resources in the US are property of the federal government instead of whoever owns the land above?



I tend to favor high externality taxes. I would have no tariffs against nations with human rights and environmental records as good or better than the ours, and substantial ones against everyone else. The reasons for each tariff would be made quite clear, and the tariffs drops when the nations have proven that they are no longer justified. I'd encourage all other nations to adopt similar policies, but in no way try to force them to or create any international governing body to deal with this. I also tend to think that a special excise tax/tariff against cartels (OPEC, Da Beers, etc) is sorely needed. A tariff of about 60% against all members of OPEC would really drive us towards a green economy, and break the cartel's power as choosing to subject themselves to such a tariff would just be stupid. These would be a much better way to use the right to regulate commerce than anything the nation has seen so far, imho


I also tend to think that monetary fines for crimes (even those as simple as speeding tickets) should depend heavily on how rich the offender is. This wouldn't effect most of us, but the occasional $50 million parking ticket to be payed by multibillionaires could really help. I also tend to think that (similarly scaled) monetary punishment should be added to most criminal punishments in addition to jail time, and especially for white collar crimes. The most severe white collar crimes might call for selling the CEOs into slavery (which is legal as a punishment for a crime), but lets not get carried away.



Privateering is probably a bit much. I'd might be ok with us claiming ownership of any ships, oil, etc, that we liberate from those Somalian Pirates though.

 

[Grisu]

Then, CCA, I'll ask you the same question I asked Cheezy: if somebody in New Zealand needs medical care and goes outside the government-sponsored UHC program to get it....what happens?

Tell ya what, I'm not gonna wait for either of you two lazy slowpokes to answer that. I'll take a potshot and assume that in Scotland, Sweden, Iceland, France, and New Zealand, nothing happens to you when you go to an independent doctor. If that's true, then none of these countries actually have universal health care.

what utter nonsense...UHC doesn't mean that you are forced to use it, it just means that the government offers that service. Whether you choose to use it remains up to you. If you want your private doctor and pay for it, you can still do that...You know, choice and all that....

 

[frekk]

How about we get rid of taxes, but declare that all mineral resources in the US are property of the federal government instead of whoever owns the land above?

Surface rights and mineral rights are often different. Depending on where you live, its possible that anyone can buy the mineral rights to your property ... in some places, they can also force you to allow them access ie set up an oil rig in your backyard or what have you.

 

[Kennigit]

You don't really "steal from the rich and give to the poor", its more that "everyone pays less for a more efficient, quality system". We already tax from the rich and give the poor by that definition- as stated earlier, the U.S. govt already covers 45.1% of our total healthcare expenditures with the $2860 per capita or w/e it was, while universal healthcare states cover far more of the costs with around a $3000 govt expenditure. Costs aren't going to go up, so if you say that universal healthcare is a step towards socialism in its spending, then we are already socialist (which we aren't).

 

[Brighteye]

I am against the government taking money by force to give people healthcare. If anything else they do is an indicator they will tons of waste and graft and unlike a private entity the government has no real incentive to stop any of it. Plus you will be sacrificing efficiency for "equality", and you won't even get equality either. The rich will still come before the poor just like in everything else.

Your corporations have far more incentive to waste money than the government, but they don't call it waste: they call it 'profit' and 'reasonable renumeration'. CEOs earn giant salaries by denying the insured the healthcare they believe they have paid for and thus earning the shareholders dividends.

Since the purpose of healthcare provision is, in my mind, to provide healthcare, there is a clear problem. Government-run organisations might suffer less drive to cut costs, but they also suffer less drive not to give what they're there for: you won't find the NHS denying healthcare in order to make a profit!
These two factors vary depending on the sector, and a comparison of the US system with the British one clearly shows that healthcare is provided more efficiently by the government.

If all this money is already going to government healthcare, why do we need another system for those that can't afford healthcare?

The presentation in your latter post did not work. But I am curious to know how the money right now being spent on just those that dont have healthcare, which is so high, is going to suddenly come down once we start paying for healtcare for every citizen.

Prices have been artificially raised by the markets and companies you have in place. Your government at the moment must pay those prices. If it arranged a national system it could negotiate incredibly low prices, as the NHS does.

The NHS is one of the most commanding organisations in healthcare provision, and is one of the world's biggest employers (the Chinese army is bigger). Drugs companies want its custom, and offer good deals to obtain it.

UH types are such complete hypocrites it is actually amazing to watch them at work. Things far more basic than health care that they don't support nationalizing:

Electricity
Water
Food
Shelter

Do they not? Says who?

We are now seeing in Socialized countries, that they are having to ration healthcare, such as in Great Britain. Government decides who lives and who dies.

While I agree that there is a right to healthcare (Life), the difference is in how we impliment that right. I say, government's healthcare policy and social policy in general, should be to create the circumstances where big brother is unneeded.

The government is forced to ration healthcare because some drugs are hugely overcosted in order to make profits for the companies that produce them. The alternative seems to be private insurers denying treatment, and individuals going bankrupt in an attempt to stay alive. So it's a bad situation either way.
Of course, the NHS has managed to negotiate reduced prices on some recent cancer drugs, because the companies need NHS custom. Your system could do the same if it were government-organised.

 

[Cutlass]

its a aspect of Communism/Socialism
Making all people ''equal''
You can work for 12 hours and another guy 12 hours, but you work your &#%# off and the other guy is lazy, yet he gets the benefits as much as you do=socialism/communism

if I work hard, I dont want my money giving to those who havnt earned it by being as successful as me

It is not an aspect of Communism/Socialism, it is making capitalism work. The poor work extremely hard in the US, they just lack the skills and opportunities to prosper. Health care allows them to work harder. Getting sick or injured and letting it fester until they can't work increases welfare dependency.

Private healthcare in the US will eventually reach 1/2 the country unable to afford it as things are going now. When it does, it will be voted out then, if not before. In the meantime, the best thing that a person who prefers capitalism could do is go for universal health care.

 

[Patroklos]

But good grief I doubt if many of you are in business, yet you expect your boss to meet your health care needs, what does he get from it ?

Company funded health care is part of your pay. You don't work for free, you expect compenation for your time and effort, and in this day and age quality employees do not require just money for that time and effort.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know if full-out government provision of healthcare is the best way to go. There are dozens of models being used by various governments, and some of those surely can be tweaked.

I think the intent is to lower average price and increase healthcare provision.

 

[Patroklos]

I think the intent is to lower average price and increase healthcare provision.

Exactly, and to image that that can't be accomplished within the current system is ridiculous. The simple act of limiting liability lawsuits would significantly impact prices itself. Letting insurers charge smokers more is another.

 

[Bill3000]

Exactly, and to image that that can't be accomplished within the current system is ridiculous. The simple act of limiting liability lawsuits would significantly impact prices itself. Letting insurers charge smokers more is another.

...insurers already charge smokers more...

 

[Patroklos]

That was an error, I meant to say obese people, in reference to the other thread.

 

[Bill3000]

That was an error, I meant to say obese people, in reference to the other thread.

...insurers already charge obese people more.

And it doesn't solve the underlying problem of the cost of medication. Nor the problem of the lack of insurance of people who lost their job, for example.