What do you mean even for Raek?

If you did live in the states, you would qualify. Why add more to the burden we already have?

I pay 1.5 times my mortgage in taxes every month. Isn't that enough?

Almost everyone I know has been laid off at one time or another, and it is not always easy to get another job, especially as you get older. Finding another company to work for is nowhere near as easy as you imply.

Going to college and getting good grades is not a choice for everyone. Not everyone has either the opportunity or the ability to get through college or an apprentice program for a skilled trade. I was lucky that I had both the opportunity and the ability to complete college - I would be in big trouble if my financial stability depended on my being able to keep a job that required a great deal of manual dexterity.

I would recommend Barbara Ehrenreich's book, "Nickel and Dimed - on (not) getting by in America." Before I read it I thought I had some idea how bad it was for low income workers, but that book was eye-opening.

Guess I'm going to be real unpopular tonight :)

But it IS a choice to be a grad student. It IS a choice to go and get a job with full benefits, even with just a high school diploma. It is a choice to not graduate high school and find whatever job you can.

Likewise, as Raek, I pay double in taxes on my home and car (because of my income) so that others can make their choices of whether to support themselves or not. I cannot imagine if we went to some kind of "socialized" healthcare, good lord...where would it end? I might as well get fast food job to have the same quality of life.

I feel bad for people who don't have good incomes. I just don't see why it should be anybody else's responsibility to take care of you. It is your responsibility to take care of you. It is my responsiblity to take care of me. That is the beauty of a free country. In order to pay the taxes I have to pay right now, I work well into May for the Government alone. I think that is crazy that I spend all of that time working and I don't get to benefit from it. I am fine with paying for prisons and police, etc. But I'm not fine with being responsible for the livelihood of others. If that makes me cold hearted, then so be it.

By "even for Raek" I meant that you have said a lot of dreadful things in this thread, but that one really takes the cake.

All I have said is that I don't want to support anybody except for myself and my family. If that is dreadful, then I guess I'm just a horible, dreadful person for not wanting to give away more than half of my income.

Sure, being a grad student is a choice... But it's not something considered a "poor choice" like if I was broke because I wouldn't work and spent my social assistance cheque on drugs.
That would be a poor choice. Spending a few extra years in school so I can get my PhD is not a poor choice.

Ceph, I didn't say it was a poor choice.

But, here in the States, if you choose to be a grad student and need assistance....then I'd rather not choose to support that person.

And I believe it is well within my right not to do so.

Our country is not set up the same and nor do I wish it to be.

Thanks for the back-up niv and kk!

I think what Raek, niv, kk, and others are missing is that if this country went to a system of universal healthcare, we all would actually pay out less of our income than we do now....between what we pay out in taxes, what corporations pay in premiums, what we pay in premiums, what we all pay in subsidizing trips to the ER for those who do not have primary care coverage....there are so many hidden costs to our present system that would be eliminated...if you don't think that our nation, our society would ultimately benefit as a whole from providing healthcare coverage for all our citizens...well, it is being penny wise and dolar foolish...

And TOS, I find this amazing to be in such agreement with you ...I, too, read Nickel & Dimed a few years ago...it was quite an eye-opener. After reading it, I truly felt, "there but for the grace of God..."

In reading the responses of some of the posters to this thread, I suspect they would blame the people who died in Katrina for their own fate....that government policies had nothing to do with that obscenity.

Sorry, but I for one believe universal healthcare is one issue where I am indeed my brother's (sister's) keeper.

Good gravy Nivea - Why don't we just go back to indentured servitude that passes through generations?

My dad drives long-haul truck and he couldn't do post-sec because he is severely dyslexic. My mom didn't work for the last three years of her life because she had cancer, and due to the dishonesty of private insurance, no life insurance. So my dad can't afford to pay for my post-sec.
According to Nivea's theories, I shouldn't attend grad school because my parent can't afford to send me... Or maybe I'm just not allowed access to health care while I'm in grad school. Two equally ridiculous ideas.

Maybe I should have made an unhappy marriage to a rich man when I was an undergrad so that he could make it so I'm not broke through grad school? Because that would have been a great choice.
Maybe I should have taken a few years between undergrad and grad school to earn some money in the middle, and knock back my eventual graduation a few more years, delaying my actual career? Yeah, that's a good idea too.

I am on scholarships and have never required any social assistance. Our grad student stipends are very low and I get by OK on it here, but I couldn't afford private insurance on my stipend. Lucky for me, I'm Canadian but Nivea and Raek aren't.

Ceph, I joined the military. I went to Iraq, went to Oman, went to Saudi Arabia, went to S. Korea.

Lived in tents, walked a half mile to use the toilet and soemtimes shower if we had the option. Ate MRE's, ate the food offered that wasn't native to me.

And you know what? No one handed me a damn thing. I went to school between all that. I paid my way to get where I am and I didn't expect anyone to give it to me. I earned it.

That is the way this country is run. You have options, you either choose to take them or you don't. And I wouldn't have it any other way..when I was eating cold tuna in a desert or now when I own my home without a mortgage.

Huh? How does that you ate tuna sandwiches in Iraq connect to that Canada has universal health care?
On second thought, I don't care how you think these things relate. I'm just going to skip over anything you or Raek have to say in this thread.

Ok, then do that.

Canada has universal healthcare for a bunch of different reasons and it does have a variety of different impacts to your country. Whether you choose to admit it or not, or choose whether to research it or not.

I, and other people in the US, who do have a higher income than the average person do not want/or should be expected to contribute more of our income on people who choose not to work. Whether it is because they are going to school (grad school, no less) or not.

I ate tuna (out of a packet) in the desert for a reason and it wasn't to support grad students.

"I ate tuna (out of a packet) in the desert for a reason"

Just curious, what was the reason?

I know that this is a long thread and the arguments are going round and round. But I have to say

I dont think anybody likes the thought of supporting people that could support themselves. Nobody is arguing that people have a right to a free ride.

But having universal healthcare wouldnt make that more of a problem than it already is. Medicaid and other government programs are funded by your tax dollars and are being exploited. In fact, according to an article in USA Today, "The United States system already has substantial public components. Of every dollar spent on health care in the US, 45 cents comes from some level of government". Its not right and its not good, but unfortunately whenever there is government aid there will be people to exploit it. Universal health care would channel the funds that you are already paying into a less exploitable program. Also, the World Health Report states, "The United States does spend more on health care, as an absolute dollar amount and per capita, than any other nation. It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan." So by de-privatizing health care we can drive down the cost of health care.
I for one am willing to accept that fact that people will exploit any system to ensure people who are trying to do the right thing do not die like animals on sidewalks outside of hospitals due to lack of healthcare. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT.
"But, here in the States, if you choose to be a grad student and need assistance....then I'd rather not choose to support that person. "
What?!? So now only those who are completely self sufficient should be allowed access to higher degrees? That is absolutely absurd. Getting a graduate degree is draining in almost every sense of the word: financially, mentally, physically These are the people doing medical research, find new energy alternatives, developing new technologies to make YOUR life better. Are you saying it doesnt matter if the person is one of the brightest people in their field; they should only prolong their studies and contribute to their field and society only if they have a big enough bank account? If that were the truth society would be much worse off And you cant say, "They should work". They are working exceptionally long hours already in labs, in classrooms, etc. and hardly getting paid anything for it.

Social programs began in the U.S. in the 1940's. Prior to that, we had nearly 200 years without such programs.

I'm DAR, and I've researched my own family's history, beginning with the Revolution. I have stood at my 5th g grandfather's grave and said a prayer to thank him for the sacrifices he made to help free us from oppression, taxation without representation and from big government.

Thank God this country wasn't founded by people who came here looking for a government "entitlement" and who had expectations that others should be responsible for their burdens.

Raek and Nivea have taken a beating on this forum, especially by the person who started this discussion. They are simply expressing their opinions, which in this country, is allowed by law.

I understand the arguments about the working poor. I've been there myself, when going through college and in my first couple of jobs after graduating. There was a terrible recession going on when I graduated but I managed to find employment.

My first job paid me $12,000 a year before taxes. I had no benefits but I purchased my own major medical policy, and I did without many other luxuries in order to have health insurance.

I would have loved to have gone to law school after college but there wasn't anyone who would foot the bill and I couldn't afford it. I didn't expect taxpayers to provide me with that luxury. I made a great career for myself with what I had to work with and I'm grateful for the privileges I have enjoyed in this life.

I've been successful and I will emphatically state that I do not want to pay out any more of my hard earned money in taxes, and I don't want Uncle Sam to get any bigger than he already is.

I have no problem working the better half of a year paying taxes to support our veterans, our national defense and the handicapped people and children who cannot help themselves. But I do have a huge problem paying taxes to support able-bodied and able-minded people who make life choices and then expect someone else to pay for those choices.

I think Niveas point re tuna in the desert is that she has made very real sacrifices for our country.

First and formost, I'd like to say thank you to Nivea for serving in the military. You have made sacrifices and put your life on the line in order to protect the freedoms that so many Americans are willing to just throw away.

Ceph...The GI bill gives men and women serving in the military funding for college as well as the ability to save the money you earn while you are serving so that you will have the money to support yourself when you go to college. I suspect that also has something to do with the tuna comment...although I guess you are not reading this, so you won't learn from it anyway. That is so typical, instead of learning from one another and listing to other points of view, you call names and close your ears because you can't deal with having a healthy logical debate...oh well. I also like how you don't think it should be called "socialized"...I guess you don't want it to be called what it actually is, eh?

June..."I would have loved to have gone to law school after college but there wasn't anyone who would foot the bill and I couldn't afford it. I didn't expect taxpayers to provide me with that luxury. I made a great career for myself with what I had to work with and I'm grateful for the privileges I have enjoyed in this life."...I also would like to have gone to law school but could not afford it. I feel like I could have written this line myself.

"Universal health care would channel the funds that you are already paying into a less exploitable program"...What would make it less exploitable?

"So by de-privatizing health care we can drive down the cost of health care."...Again, what would make it cost less, and what level of health care can we expect to receive?

"do not die like animals on sidewalks outside of hospitals due to lack of healthcare"...Where in the world did you get the impression that people are dying on the sidewalks outside of hospitals like animals? Animals aren't even dying outside on the sidewalks.

"So now only those who are completely self sufficient should be allowed access to higher degrees"...That is what student loans are for. I also know plenty of people who worked their way through college, grad school & law school. If they don't want to work, they shouldn't expect me to want to work to support them, or they could do what Nivea did and go to the military first. Where there is a will, there is a way and that way does not have to include being a drain on the taxpayers.

Imamommy, so I could support myself and pay my own way through college.

"What?!? So now only those who are completely self sufficient should be allowed access to higher degrees? That is absolutely absurd. Getting a graduate degree is draining in almost every sense of the word: financially, mentally, physically These are the people doing medical research, find new energy alternatives, developing new technologies to make YOUR life better. Are you saying it doesnt matter if the person is one of the brightest people in their field; they should only prolong their studies and contribute to their field and society only if they have a big enough bank account? If that were the truth society would be much worse off And you cant say, "They should work". They are working exceptionally long hours already in labs, in classrooms, etc. and hardly getting paid anything for it."

We have gotten to where we are at today without centuries of grad students.

It is a choice. And my choice would be to not support them with my money.

The sense of entitlement is really out there, kind of reminds me of the debates here about sending stepkids to college. Hey, maybe stepkids can start using this argument to get their parents to pay for college :)

There are other solutions to grad students issues and it isn't the taxpayers money.

I think that people who are of the mindset that they are not responsible for anyone else , under any circumstances, and that their bottom line is all that matters, are not going to change their minds.

You can point out , til you are blue in the face, all the reasons why health care should be available to all, but its falling on deaf ears. What matters to some people, is their own pocketbook and thats it.

Their minds will never be changed, until they lose their job, get denied private insurance because of a pre-existing condition, watch their grown children driven into debt because empoyers are cutting back on health care and new grads get the brunt of it, or see their elderly parents paying more in medication costs per month than they spend on housing.

I, too, have a higher than average income. My husband makes a very good salary, and I worked for many years, invested wisely, and can afford to no longer work. I, too, dislike paying my taxes to fund people who refuse to work and are able to.

But my heart aches for all those people out there who ARE working, who ARE struggling, and who are just getting by. I dont think its in any way productive to punish people who work for getting sick, while giving a free ride to those who refuse to work. There are people who have to stay on assistance just to keep their health benefits. Again, thats just wrong imo. Getting sick isnt a choice for most people. All the financial planning in the world doesnt protect someone against cancer, or a broken leg, particularly while they are still paying off student loans, or a mortgage or trying to raise a family.

Being overwhelmed with health care costs does not mean someone is fiscally irresponsible. It just means they got sick. Its not their fault.

Maybe a better way would be to subsidize health care for all workers, such as they do in MA.

Health care already takes a larger percentage of tax dollars in the United States than it does in Canada, and yet far less people are covered. The United States sytem, while it has its good points, is heavy in administration, and inefficient in delivery.

I dont know what the answer is, but something has to change. Its unsustainable for employers , and for average employees, both of whom have seen their premiums rise over 200 percent since 2000. Instead of denying there is a problem, maybe the better way is to think of the solution.

I am not sure a Canada style system would work in the USA. KKNY is right, its a different country with different population dynamics. But to stick head in sand and claim that it works just fine, is being a lemming off a cliff.

"Raek and Nivea have taken a beating on this forum, especially by the person who started this discussion. They are simply expressing their opinions, which in this country, is allowed by law."

How have THEY taken a beating? They've expressed their opinions. Those that disagree have expressed THEIRS. They just happen to have a less popular opinion. What was said that would be considered a 'beating'? Maybe I missed something.

kkny: I also expected nivea to say what you did but she didn't. According to her, it was all about her (making money for college), not in it for our country. That was going to be my point. Joining the military used to be about pride in our country, patriotism. Laying down your life for something you believe in. But, nowadays everyone is only concerned for what's in it for them. It's all about the money. Raek said it earlier in doctors being in it for the money. I do think that's true and it shouldn't be that way. Doctors used to become doctors because they wanted to help people. Same with teachers. Every year for the last ten years at least, there has been a local news story on teachers complaining that they are underpaid. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here, the schools focus more on their budget and teachers' salaries than providing the best education possible. (and we live in a wealthy community where there should be no 'budget' problem) and I'm not trying to drag the thread into a conversation about education... my point is that it is all about the money and nobody is doing anything just to make the world a better place, and that is what the next generation is learning.

Those posters that haven't been married or don't have children yet, they will probably change their perspective on some things as they go through life and have some experiences that form new opinions on some things.

nivea,

"We have gotten to where we are at today without centuries of grad students."

Where do you think we have gotten a lot of our technology and advances in health care? Where do you think we'd be today without people that were once grad students?

Raek:
"Universal health care would channel the funds that you are already paying into a less exploitable program"...What would make it less exploitable?"

Unless you realize the amount of taxpayer money that is being 'defrauded' by able bodied people that ARE exploiting the current programs, you won't fully understand this issue. There are providers out there that are defrauding the medicaid system. There was a news story a couple of years ago, where a guy was hired by a clinic to take a van and 'round up' medicaid recipients. He'd drive them to the clinic, run their medicaid cards and take a look at them. They were not sick bu they were poor so if they were offered a little cash and a free ride to see the doctor, they'd go and the doctor would bill for a visit. Then, he had their billing info, he would bill for more visits when the people were not even there. I also had one client that 'loaned' her medi card to her best friend because the friend did not have insurance. She used it to have her baby and guess what? Instead of the 'real' mother's name being put on the child's birth certificate, the friend's name went on it because that was the name on the medi card. I discovered it almost ten years later and made a fraud referral but the statute of limitations was up. There is a ton of fraud in the welfare/medicaid system. There is a ton of fraud in the social security disability system. Depending on how a Universal Healthcare pays the providers, there might be less opportunity for fraud by providers. If everyone had access to care, there would be no reason for someone to use anyone else's identity to get care. There would also be no reason for people to lie about their income, work under the table or under another name to get government benefits/care.

""So by de-privatizing health care we can drive down the cost of health care."...Again, what would make it cost less, and what level of health care can we expect to receive?"

Go back and read what wrychoice1 wrote. She explains it quite well.

Imamommy, it is pretty much implied that anyone who joins the military is in it to serve their country. It's laughable that you had to ask the question to back up your suspicion that it is always about money. LOL, the military pays nothing but gives awesome benefits to those who have upfront and knowingly choose to sacrifice themselves. It is what you are given in return and it isn't some kind of martydome. And again, it's a choice.

There is always going to be fraud. That is not new and will not go away. Universal healthcare does not imply free healthcare for all without exchange of money. There are several different systems that can be used and fraud will come into play, as usual.

I have a child and several people in my circles are married with children and feel the same way. I suspect it is our tax brackets doing the talking here rather than our love lives and offspring. Shame on me to be concerned about where my money is going.

The advances in technology have everything to do with the individuals intelligence, talent and motivation and a whole slew of other factors. This is includes how they get themselves to and thru school if they do not have ready resources. The taxpayers do not need to fund them more than the public funding already given. It is a privlege and not a right to attend secondary education.

Ima,

"How have THEY taken a beating? They've expressed their opinions. Those that disagree have expressed THEIRS. They just happen to have a less popular opinion. What was said that would be considered a 'beating'? Maybe I missed something."

I don't have time to debate this point with you, Ima. You have more free time than I do, and I have to work and pay my taxes.

"Doctors used to become doctors because they wanted to help people"...I understand that doctors do become doctors to help people, but doctors also have to go through a ton of training and work long hours. Helping people is just not enough compensation for all of that. I'd like to know when in this country Doctors were not among the top income earners. They do it for profit as well. I think profit is the main motivating factor for everybody and why they do their jobs. If there is no profit in it, what is the point of working?

"Unless you realize the amount of taxpayer money that is being 'defrauded' by able bodied people that ARE exploiting the current programs, you won't fully understand this issue. There are providers out there that are defrauding the medicaid system"...I do understand the amount of exploitation...What I don't understand is how adding more goverment and more programs would make it less exploitable.

I did read what wrychoice1 wrote...I'd like to see the numbers to back that up because I don't think she knows what she is talking about. And I still beleive that the level of service will decline. It always does when government is involved.

"There would also be no reason for people to lie about their income, work under the table or under another name to get government benefits/care."...A very good reason for people to lie about income and work under the table would be the amount of income taxes they have to pay to support socialized medicine. Taxes are the main reason now that people do not report income that would not change.

I'm curious... what is a higher than average income? I've seen a few people write that, and well, nivea says "I suspect it is our tax brackets doing the talking here" and perhaps I am missing something. Without specifics, we make >100k. To be honest, I am not sure if that is considered average, higher or lower.... and June, I AM working too. I also pay my taxes.

In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according to the Census Bureau. Therefore anything over that number is higher than average.

Also, when June says "taking a beating", she means all the name calling, etc. It's one thing to state an opinion, it's another thing to attack one's character because you don't agree with their political views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket

This page gives the basics. But I do want to point out that this is just the simple version. A single person making the same amount as a married couple will not get the same exemption, etc etc.

Raek, taxes not only encourage some people (obviously the less than ethical) to underreport income, they can encourage some people from working (e.g, someone close to retirment).

what name calling? I read back through and don't see it. Nobody has called you any names. Ceph said some ideas are ridiculous and that's her opinion. She's entitled to think that. If she has a low opinion of someone that doesn't care about her fellow human being and would rather not spend their tax dollars on the hairdresser's mammogram, that is also her opinion. I don't see any personal attacks. Just disagreeing opinions.

If you want to take others' opinions as personal attacks, then what is it when nivea says "Imamommy, it is pretty much implied that anyone who joins the military is in it to serve their country. It's laughable that you had to ask the question to back up your suspicion that it is always about money."? That is personally directed at me and could be taken as an insult, but it's her opinion.

The words Condescending and Rude come to mind as well as references to my "big girl job", not to mention the presumption that if I don't have children that I've never made a hard decision in my life.

Hey Kathline, I don't think that any of the non supporters of universal healthcare on this blog are saying that the healthcare issues are fine.

I simply disagree with universal healthcare. I also disagree with the way our tax brackets are set up.

It's not just one issue that I feel needs to change, it is a bunch.

And, I do care about the people that are actually working but overwhelmed and cannot afford routine healthcare or crises healthcare.

It's just simply not enough for me to say that universal healthcare will solve these problems and still not take an even larger chunk of my income.

Actually, Raek, a median and a mean are two very different statistical measures obtained by different methods. For example, lets say you have 4 people earning $15K/yr (slightly more than minimum wage); you have 1 person earning $20K/yr; you have 3 people earning $25K/yr and 1 person earning $250K/yr. In this case, the median income is $20K/yr because half of the people in the sample earn more & half of the people earn less. However, the mean (average) income of the sample is actually $35K/yr...in this example no one, certainly not 50%, earns the average income...only one individual does and that person outearns everyone else by nearly 10 to 1...and that one person is probably the only one in the sample who doesn't have to worry about health insurance.....

wry, you are right, median is not the same as average. Therefore, statistically speaking, median is a better measurement of what is normal for people to earn because it is midway value between two points. There are an equal number of points above and below the median. Therefore, half of the households in the U.S. earned less than $48,201.00 and half earned more. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than just to make an effort to prove me wrong because you don't agree with my point of view.

And wry, she said median. You can add mean numbers, if you have them available and want to, but I doubt your hypothetical has any basis in reality. And wry I agree with earlier comments, if you can point to any surveys supporting your beliefs, fine, but absent that, I am sceptical that easy solutions will work. And I find it very naive to think ALL of us would see costs go down with universal health care.

If someone thinks that a comment is rude or condescending, that is their opinion. As for the 'big girl job', that was in response to your comment "I'm saying I've made better decisions in my life. I have flipped burgers and worked at Wal-Mart...when I was in school. But now that I'm an adult, I have an adult job"

That comment IS rude and condescending to all the adults that work flipping burgers and working at wal mart. In fact, there are plenty of adults that work at wal mart and support their families. (wal mart does provide some benefits as well)

You can use whatever words you want...I don't care, and I'm not complaining about them. I'm just answering your question. You asked what names where called. I answered.

I would still like somebody to answer my question...when is it going to be enough? At what point will the handouts stop? What will be the next thing that people should be entitled to? Everybody NEEDS food right? Does that mean we should have a "universal" food system? You should just be able to walk into your local grocery store and get whatever you need, right? After all, you do NEED food to live. We don't want all these people starving to death on the sidewalks, right? So the taxpayers really should have to pay for that because after all, not everybody can afford to feed themselves and their children. Then what? A car? After all, everybody NEEDS to get from point A to point B, right? I mean what if a person is really trying hard and they have a job, but it is across town? What if their child is sick and they need to get them to the doctor? Well, the taxpayers really should pick up the tab for that because if it's something people NEED, then they should have a right to it, shouldn't they? WHEN DOES IT STOP? Isn't it enough that I work into MAY now for the government? I guess not.

I mean WERE called, not WHERE...before anybody jumps to correct me.

Wow...kudos on picking such a hot thread topic. Looks like healthcare is a rather heated subject.

I'm not too up on the health care issues (which I SHOULD be) so all I can really add is even though I have a good paying state job with good benefits...I pay OUT THE NOSE for insurance and once the baby is here that premium will shoot up over twice as high. One of my major concerns is affording the health insurance for the baby. Even with good insurance family plans are not cheap.

I will say it does kindof irk me that people who do not work or work very little get free healthcare while my pregnant hiney has to get up at 5:45 to go to work everyday to keep my insurance AND it costs me a good deal of money to boot. It seems a little unfair. The less you do the easier the ride...that seems to be how the system is set up. Just a thought.

Gosh, now I feel like I'm doing a poor imitation of TOS...
Here are a couple of links....please write Professor Thorpe if you think he doesn't know what he's writing about ;-)

The links:
http://www.apha.org/membergroups/newsletters/
sectionnewsletters/comm/fall05/2017.htm

The other link is below.

Enjoy!

I'm sure you won't like my answer, but it's enough when we decide it's enough. You can make the same arguments about almost any government spending. You want roads and highways; why not let private companies build toll roads and people who can afford it can pay to use them? Why fund police when people can just go out and make good choices and work hard enough to get good jobs and hire personal security? Why is my county supplying me with clean safe drinking water (this one comes with a small fee) and garbage pickup rather than just letting me pay for my own? There are valid arguments for and against all of these things (well, except the cop one) and different localities can and do make different choices; on an individual policy basis, as it makes sense. If it makes good public policy sense to do A, it's ridiculous imo to argue that we shouldn't do it because where does it end, is someone going to argue next that we should do B. A should be judged on its own merits, as should B. Right now, I think we do a pretty good job making sure everyone in this country is fed, but you know what? If, god forbid, we were to sink into another Great Depression where there simply weren't anywhere nearly enough jobs to go around for families to be able to put food on the table, then darn right I would think we should try to figure out how to keep people from starving in the streets if at all possible. Where the line is drawn depends on the situation and circumstances.

I believe that the way we fund health care now does not make sense. We pay outright for the people who have the most expensive care (seniors, the disabled, people with chronic illnesses that have blown through their insurance and/or assest until they qualify for medicaid) as well as those who don't work at all, we subsidize insurance via tax breaks for those most able to afford their own (those healthy enough to work and most often those with good paying jobs) and yet still leave people without. We pay more per capita on health care than other developed nations without a corresponding increase in any measurement of health outcome (life span, infant mortality, etc). I think that good public policy means doing something different than what we are doing now. I don't know if that something is extending Medicare-type program to cover everyone, or something similar to what Massachusets is doing, or something else entirely. And whatever it is, no I am sure it will not be perfect. But it can be better.

And you know, I can be a heartless b!tch when necessary. People will argue with all the compassion and best intentions in the world that you cant put a price on a human life, that if you save only one person its worth spending however many millions on this safety upgrade or that law. I will tell you that not only can you put a price on human life, but that in order to make good decisions you have to. Otherwise, you will wind up spending 5 million dollars on putting in crosswalks and speed bumps on road A which saves 2 lives when the same money could be better spent on flu vaccines which will save 100 lives. Or whatever. In the case of health care, I think that cost benefit analyses and common sense compassion happen to lead to the same conclusions; we should provide it. Obviously you disagree (and yes, I think some of the comments you made arguing that point were very condescending and I dont think it qualifies as name-calling to point that out). But if we choose to fund health insurance for everyone, it doesnt automatically follow that we should start feeding everyone. Nor to the contrary; we can choose to leave health insurance the way it is and still decide if food prices keep rising or the economy really tanks that we need to start buying food for a lot more people than we do. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Wry,

There are several articles that dispute what Thorpe is saying. His assumptions are also based on the population that is currently legally in the U.S. Health Providers in this country regularly provide health care to people who are not legally in the U.S.

Please read this article about Government involvement in heath care and health insurance and let me know what you think...

Raek,

When I posted the link to Thorpe's article I was going to add that I am certain there are plenty of other sources that would discount his conclusions, so I am not surprised you found something.

The other thing I was going to do earlier was post a couple of different links for you: one to the Libertarian Party & one to the CATO Institute (A Libertarian think tank). I was thinking you would be at home in either place. And I do not intend that as a slam...just an observation.

With respect to the article you linked to...clearly the authors are coming from a very specific, ideological place. I personally do not agree with their philosophy or ideology...and I think Quirk in her post at 17:18 today sums it up pretty well in her first paragraph because her questions (public highways v. toll roads; police protection v. private security, etc etc) really ask about the consequences of the Libertarian philosophy espoused by Ayn Rand and her devotees when taken to its logical extreme.

I simply disagree with the philosophy....the article I cited was sponsored by a broad, non-partisan coaliton of groups representing a variety of perspectives (including business, labor, healthcare providers, insurers, consumers, etc.) I don't think the National Coalition on Health Care has an ideological axe to grind...unlike the authors of the paper you linked to. I think the larger argument here is the proper role of government in the lives of the people...it is an interesting debate...I think it also explains some of Ron Paul's appeal during the recent primary season...

...and I apologize for the median v mean post....I was feeling ornery.

"Right now, I think we do a pretty good job making sure everyone in this country is fed, but you know what? If, god forbid, we were to sink into another Great Depression where there simply weren't anywhere nearly enough jobs to go around for families to be able to put food on the table, then darn right I would think we should try to figure out how to keep people from starving in the streets if at all possible."

I agree quirk, and it should be noted that the government already does feed people through food stamps and WIC. What I would definitely support is higher taxes on junk food. (I also support higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol) because the health problems from obesity and smoking/drinking. It disgusts me that it costs more to give your child a glass of milk, juice or bottled water than a pepsi. IMO, food stamps should not be allowed to purchase junk food. (heck, they should tax the heck out of pre packaged 'convenience' and fast foods too)

Ima I agreee. When I went to school, back in the dark ages, in home ec, girls (yes it was segregated) who didnt already know, learned now to shop for and how to cook economical nutricious meals.

ha, my son was teased for taking home ec. in HS. He took it because he got to be one of just a few boys in a class of mostly girls (smart guy. lol) but really, he may need to know how to cook because too many girls today can't. Sad but true.

We're still working on the cleaning though. (he's getting better at it)

I totally agree, Ima.
Something that annoys the heck out of me:
A small bag of chips has tax on it, because it is considered as "personal luxury" so costs $1.10. A big bag of chips doesn't have tax, because it's considered "family size" and costs 99 cents.
So it doesn't make financial sense to portion control your chips by buying the smaller bag. And since many people "can't" stop until the bag is done... Yeesh.

ha, wry, while the police example was a ridiculous extreme (i think!), the privately built and owned toll roads are exactly what my local municipalities are proposing. And, while it will take awhile, I suspect it's eventually going to happen. My state is bound and determined to commit economic suicide by refusing to address transportation gridlock in its economic powerhouse areas so the localities are grasping for solutions and this is one on the table that's increasingly gaining traction. I didn't intend that to be an extreme example at all, it's a genuine proposition that has real support.

I am not certain about toll roads, but I supported Mayor Bloomberg's proposal for tolls for "congestion pricing" to subsideize mass transit. There is no need to drive into Manhattan. That is a luxury. We need the money for mass transit. In NY, that is a necessity. The mayors plan was shot down by the democratic machine (some of whom recieve large contributins from parking lot owners).