You hate Obama's health care penalty for the uninsured?

[Evo]

Your insurance is part of the compensation your employer pays for your labor--the same as wages. Your employer is still spending it's own resources to secure your employment, presumably because you have some value to them.

Why do we have to provide people insurance to people who can't acquire it on their own? I don't feel any particular obligation to subsidize other peoples lives.

I get $250,000 salary, and they throw in free insurance. Does it matter if I pay it or my employer pays it? It gets paid. It just doesn't come out of my pocket.

What's your problem with that?

My problem with what you are saying is that less fortunate people shouldn't get compensated for insurance costs. I *do*, unlike you, feel responsible for people that don't get these perks and I am willing to help them out.

As long as I do not give up what I already have. That wouldn't be fair, unless the loss of insurance was paid back to me as an equal payraise to allow me to buy back that policy.

 

[NeoDevin]

I don't think it's nice to be a burden to everyone else either.

It's a bigger burden when people go to ER for frivolous things because they couldn't afford primary care.

 

[NeoDevin]

I'm also not a push over—if someone breaks my contract I don't just whine about it—I take action.

Now try doing that as a single person who's just been crippled by a disease or an accident.

 

[Choronzon]

I get $250,000 salary, and they throw in free insurance. Does it matter if I pay it or my employer pays it? It gets paid. It just doesn't come out of my pocket.

What's your problem with that?

My problem with what you are saying is that less fortunate people shouldn't get compensated for insurance costs. I *do*, unlike you, feel responsible for people that don't get these perks and I am willing to help them out.

As long as I do not give up what I already have. That wouldn't be fair, unless the loss of insurance was paid back to me as an equal payraise to allow me to buy back that policy.

I don't have the slightest problem with what you get—you've earned it.

Let me put it another way. The first thing I did after I left my parents home as a teenager was join the military. I had health my health care covered. When I left the Army, I worked for DHS—health insurance came with that. Then I worked for a small business in Detroit. I had to pay a pretty hefty premium with a bit higher premiums and my employer pitched in, but I had health insurance. Right now, I own a bar and buy my own insurance. From the age of my majority I've had health coverage in one form or another by working for it.

Now people want to give away for free what I've had to work for the past 10 years. Thats my problem. What was the point of going to war if all that I earned while there is what many people believe is a right that should be provided for everyone?

If you feel charitable and want to help someone else out, that's very commendable and I hope they appreciate it. I've done the same in the past, and I will do it again in the future. But if I feel like being a little less charitable this month and instead buy an IPad, that should be my right.

 

[Choronzon]

It's a bigger burden when people go to ER for frivolous things because they couldn't afford primary care.

Now try doing that as a single person who's just been crippled by a disease or an accident.

I'm unconvinced of that. While it is wasteful if an uninsured person takes advantage of ER services, it still doesn't entitle them to all the drugs, tests, and treatments they may need.

As for your second post—so what? Even if I had been crippled by a disease or accident, it doesn't mean that I'm then magically entitled to enslave doctors and force them to treat me, nor am I then entitled to take my neighbors property to pay for my needs. It's called life—we might die at any moment and we might waste our lives with bad decisions or fall upon bad fortune. How does that make your property mine?

 

[zomgwtf]

How does that make your property mine?

It doesn't, it just shows that you care for others well-being. (which I understand that you don't)

 

[NeoDevin]

As for your second post—so what? Even if I had been crippled by a disease or accident, it doesn't mean that I'm then magically entitled to enslave doctors and force them to treat me, nor am I then entitled to take my neighbors property to pay for my needs. It's called life—we might die at any moment and we might waste our lives with bad decisions or fall upon bad fortune. How does that make your property mine?

My reply there wasn't intended to support universal health care, but rather to point out that, in many cases, people who are dropped by their insurers are unable to fight back. This is a separate issue.

 

[Choronzon]

It doesn't, it just shows that you care for others well-being. (which I understand that you don't)

I care for plenty of people—like my friends and family. I work hard to provide for them, and I give to various causes that are important to me. And to be honest, I do think that some people should be given free health care—children with no one to support them, and the disabled, whether mentally or physically. But resources are in fact limited, and when it comes down to it I'd rather send my daughter to a better school or even buy her some meaningless luxuries than give my able-bodied neighbor health-insurance.

 

[zomgwtf]

@ Choronzon. I'm wondering exactly how much of what 'you earned' is being or will be taken away from you? It seems to me more or less that your 'angry' or 'jealous' over the fact that you've worked hard to attain what you have and other people will get it without working as hard as you. Is that really something to be angry over though?

I didn't see your reply to my other post. So with the resources that you're going to be losing you would be able to send your daughter to a better school?

 

[Choronzon]

My reply there wasn't intended to support universal health care, but rather to point out that, in many cases, people who are dropped by their insurers are unable to fight back. This is a separate issue.

Well I would absolutely support stronger consumer protection laws, both in health care and other industries.

 

[Choronzon]

@ Choronzon. I'm wondering exactly how much of what 'you earned' is being or will be taken away from you?

Well, I'll tell you. Out of every $10 of profit my bar brings in, the government takes $6.50 in various taxes and fees. If you're interested in my personal income taxes, I paid just over a third of it in Federal and State taxes. That doesn't include what I've paid in FICA and medicare, which I doubt I will see in 40 years.

As for sending my daughter to a better school, no, I just used that as an example. I was trying to illustrate that we all are at least a bit selfish. While my daughter goes to a public school (a good one!), I spent over $3000 last year so she could do various extracurricular activities (i.e. Dance, Gymnastics, Camp, Chess, etc..). I suppose I could have taken that money and used it help pay some of my struggling neighbor's mortgage, but I didn't. I expect others here have made the same choice. Should I be excited that the government may want to take another thousand of that next year?

To be honest, I don't know exactly how this bill will affect my tax bill. I don't believe those that say it will save money—the very idea that it will is absurd.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well, I'll tell you. Out of every $10 of profit my bar brings in, the government takes $6.50 in various taxes and fees. If you're interested in my personal income taxes, I paid just over a third of it in Federal and State taxes. That doesn't include what I've paid in FICA and medicare, which I doubt I will see in 40 years.

Ok but how much of this exactly do you suppose is going towards giving a helping hand to those that don't have insurance? Ball park figure if you can. Or are you just against paying taxes altogether and everyone should keep every penny of what they've earned? Maybe you live in the wrong country?

 

[Choronzon]

Ok but how much of this exactly do you suppose is going towards giving a helping hand to those that don't have insurance? Ball park figure if you can. Or are you just against paying taxes altogether and everyone should keep every penny of what they've earned? Maybe you live in the wrong country?

I've got no idea how much of my tax bill will go to this new health care program. To be honest, even if it lowered my taxes AND gave me personally awesome free healthcare, I'd still hate it on principle alone. To me, the very idea that health care is a right that should be provided to everyone is absurd.

And no, I'm not against paying taxes. I just wish our tax dollars were more localized. I absolutely hate it how the Federal Government takes such a large share of it that makes the sates and local government beg for it back on bended knee with hat in hand.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

To me, the very idea that health care is a right that should be provided to everyone is absurd.

I believe in universal health care. I do not feel that it is a right per se but rather that doctors and those in the medical profession have a duty to their community and to do what they can to help those in need. I feel that the government ought to implement any possible means of supporting the medical community in discharging this duty as it is vital to the stability, health, productivity, and wellbeing of the nations citizens.

 

[brainstorm]

Your insurance is part of the compensation your employer pays for your labor--the same as wages. Your employer is still spending it's own resources to secure your employment, presumably because you have some value to them.

Why do we have to provide people insurance to people who can't acquire it on their own? I don't feel any particular obligation to subsidize other peoples lives.

And I'm not trying to be nice. I also feel no obligation to be kind to people who can't provide for themselves and thus believe that they are entitled to a portion to what I've earned. I don't think it's nice to be a burden to everyone else either.

I agree that I don't want to subsidize other people, but I don't think some people understand how prices are set economically that makes subsidies necessary for some people to get certain things. Here's a simple example:

Let's say I make 100k/year and you make 10k/year and, for simplicity's sake we are the only two people in our health care market with one physician. If I decide that my health is worth a lot, then I will be willing to pay higher cost. My doctor, of course, wants to make the maximum amount of money possible, so she will accept as much as I am willing to pay her. I decide 20% of my income is not extravagant, especially since that still leaves me with 80k/year for other things.

Now, the fact that I am spending $20k/year on healthcare means that my doctor's business managers and advisors need to set her fees to get the full $20k. Once these fees are set, they seem like "THE cost" of health care. No one remembers that it was the highest income in town that set the bar to make the fees what they are in the first place.

Then, because I feel bad for you making 10k/year and not having health care, I vote to subsidize your insurance so you can gain access to the same health care that I have. What a good person I am! Only, in order to get the insurance you have to fulfill certain criteria, the most important of which is that you get a job, because I need employees for my investments to keep my 100k/year income growing.

So the problem is that health care costs are relative to the highest incomes instead of the lowest. If they were indexed according to the lowest incomes, no subsidies would be necessary, and health care benefits would not longer be an incentive to work for businesses where people invest more money to make more profit so they can pay more for health care.

 

[Alfi]

$250,000

Holy crap !

I make 10% of that as a Electronics Technician fixing computer motherboards.
I guess I move in the wrong crowd.
Sure glad I'm Canadian and have nothing to do with this debate.It's been a very good read. Thanks to all who contributed to it thus far.

 

[Al68]

Or are you just against paying taxes altogether and everyone should keep every penny of what they've earned? Maybe you live in the wrong country?

Uhh, which country would be the right one?

 

[brainstorm]

$250,000

Holy crap !

I make 10% of that as a Electronics Technician fixing computer motherboards.
I guess I move in the wrong crowd.
Sure glad I'm Canadian and have nothing to do with this debate.


It's been a very good read. Thanks to all who contributed to it thus far.

Yes, it's amazing how national pride in comparing one's blessed welfare state with the "big bad capitalist US" works to motivate the world's masses to accept relatively low salaries without realizing that the money they're not getting is going into the pockets of those who underpay them.

 

[Alfi]

relatively low salaries without realizing that the money they're not getting is going into the pockets of those who underpay them.

uh ..ya ...That would be an American company outsourcing jobs.

But at least I'm in good health :)

 

[brainstorm]

uh ..ya ...That would be an American company outsourcing jobs.

But at least I'm in good health :)

Look, I'm not the least bit nationalistic, but it seriously irritates me when people are and they're not even critical enough to see how it can be used against them.

Investors living in socialized post-industrial economies invest money in economies that are favorable for them to make lots of money so they can afford the high taxes and cost of living in the socialized post-industrial cities where they live.

Otherwise put, investors globally put their money in US-based companies to take advantage of low corporate taxes. You can call such companies "an American company" but there's a good chance there are global interests behind them with the goal of making profit to fund a well-isolated socialized post-industrial economy (WISPIE) somewhere else. In case you don't like the term, WISPIE (which I made up), you could just call such economies NSIs (national-socialist islands).

Anyway, the point is that one of the ways that these investors can channel money into their WISPIE NSI of choice is to out-source choice jobs to people living there. That reduces unemployment and reduces the cost of socialized benefits of those governments.

Then, you can pay people very little and tell them it's because a "mean American company" is their employer, plus they should be happy that they live in a nice socialized non-US country where everyone loves each other and would never exploit each other cruelly as happens in that "big bad capitalism over there."

In reality, the "American company" that "out-sources" jobs to you is probably a company funded and dedicated to the interest of serving you and others in the socialized paradise you live in. Then you all talk about how bad the US and capitalism are to relieve your guilt of being some of the most privileged people in all of capitalism.

Finally get it people. The global economy is totally interconnected. Everyone is part of the US economy and the US economy is part of every other economy. You're not separate. You can't be separate. The only reason you want to be separate is because it fuels your thirst for ethno-national differentiation and superiority. That way you can basically live in segregation among only the people who meet your standards, and everyone else has to go live in a poor or otherwise inferior region because they're not allowed to migrate to a post-industrial socialized paradise.

 

[cheae]

The following article compares medicaid and public option, may give some insight about the public option

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-medicaid-and-public-option/