Universal health care in the U.S.

Universal health care for those in the US illegally   70 votes

  1. 1. Should those who are in the US illegally be covered under a universal health care program?

    • Yes, comprehensive coverage should be paid for those in the US illegally at taxpayer expense
      18
    • Yes, but only for visits to an emergency room or free clinic
      26
    • No, those in the US illegally should be required to purchase private health insurance out of their own pocket
      26

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

344 posts in this topic

 

And by Jesus do they lobby!

 

The private insurance companies who know they can only turn a profit by providing health care exclusively to the better off.

The drugs companies who'd rather churn out "new" and costly drugs in the western world to protect their profits.

The section of the medical industry who do very well thankyou out of the current set up.

 

But they DON'T have a monopoly on the deicion making process.

But they certainly have a right to present their case to the rest of society. There are two or more sides to every story. It sounds to me like you want to use the state's monopoly on coercion to take everything from them and deny any them right to protect their their own property and interests. Is it immoral to target a specific market for consumers of health care if the law permits you to do so?

As for the pharmaceutical and biotech companies, some of their products replace what were once costly surgical procedures. Do you expect them to do the R&D, go through the clinical testing, governmental approval process, etc,. just for "solidarity"?

If you want to deal with the adverse selection problem by requiring everyone to participate, at a minimum, in the public system, you need to have some plan in place to deal with the future increase in costs besides just expecting ever-increasing contributions from everyone who you deem to have any ability to pay.

 

 

Sometimes that happens but not in this case.

The interests of the scum above and the majority of the populaton are diametricly opposed.

In a truly egalitarian system, the total cost would be divided so that everyone paid X %.

In money terms the rich would be subsidising the poor maybe, but what's wrong with that?

Evidently the money you want to take from the aforementioned "scum" is plenty good, eh? In your pursuit of "egalitarianism" don't stomp out things like property rights and economic freedom that made it possible to make that money in the first place. Perhaps you recall the low standard of living the Soviet Bloc had?

I don't have a problem with those at the lower end of the income distribution getting subsidized for health care; however, is it too much to ask those who smoke to quit, since they are imposing costs on others?

As for the "interests" of the minority, perhaps you should remember that just because someone has a higher income than others, and is therefore a minority, doesn't mean that they don't deserve equal protection of the law. Who are you to unilaterally decide what everyone's interests are? How would you like it the minority to be targeted here in Germany were British citizens?

 

 

How are the public German kasse surviving right now? JUST!

Rising employment, the €10 charge, massive efficiencies, greater restrictions on people leaving the kasse etc are keeping them afloat.

I think they have huge long term debts for which the federal government has to guarantee them.

Their problems are greater than just adverse selection. And you want to ravage some people's paychecks in the name of "solidarity" on a recurring basis to solve the problem? There is already a Solidarity Tax. We don't need more of them. People aren't interested in working just to build Socialism or Communism.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing you voluntarily give up what you have that is deemed "surplus" to your daily needs before you call on others to do something similar.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People aren't interested in working just to build Socialism or Communism.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing you voluntarily give up what you have that is deemed "surplus" to your daily needs before you call on others to do something similar.

That is a generality that does not apply to me.

 

I would be more than happy to "give up" that which would be deemed as surplus if it meant that all would be standing on common ground.

 

Please Note: I believe that in such a system (not wanting to label it socialism or communism as these have both already been perverted) there would be well and truly more than enough to provide every man, woman and child with more than they require as far as sustenance, Shelter, comfort and the finer aspects of life are concerned.

 

Surely such a distribution of wealth is preferable to the disparate have's and have not's that we currently experience.

 

It can not be in any way morally justified to spend trillions on war whilst letting children well within the reach of this money die from starvation and poor health care just because somebody thinks they should be making a profit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleb, like it or not, profits are what makes social spending possible. You can dislike them all you wish, but without them we would have a much lower standard of living, and wouldn't be able to afford the lavish social welfare you envision. Just curious, but exactly what are you characterizing as the finer aspects in life?

 

I disagree that a government-enforced veneer of equality would be desirable. There would be other ways of allocating scarce goods in an inequal manner, one much less just than wages determined by the free market. Of course, those who pine for "egalitarianism" don't seem to have a problem with higher earners in the private sector working harder than those to whom the transfers would be distributed- not very egalitarian in that aspect, now is it?

 

You can re-label Communism and Socialism anything you wish, e.g., Valhalla, Utopia, Nirvana, etc.- it will still have the same nasty results. As for spending trillions on war, you should not forget that the Soviet Union was, at one point, spending 25% of its GDP on its own armaments, not including what it was sending to other countries to foment "Socialist Revolution". Incidentally, those of us who support the free market usually want to see less military spending, myself included, but let's not be deluded into thinking it can somehow be done away with altogether and the resultant proceeds replaced with unlimited social welfare for the masses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have not read thread nor previously noted thread where said thread stemmed from. I just wanrt to say I am more concerned right now in getting citizens/legal residents and such covered first before concerning myself with illegals.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conq. Are you going to pull the "You must be a fan of Stalinism!" bunny out of your magicians hat every time you lose the argument?

 

There are things wrong with the state for sure and I certainly have my disagreements with aspects of it.

Funilly enough I seem to get on the politicalcompass.org more liberal scores (on a trend of authoritarianism v personal liberties) than leading US Republican thought. Funny that.

 

But, for a social good like health, does general society, as manifested currentlly by the state, have the moral right, indeed a moral obligation,

to tax the rich to provide universal health care for all? There is no discussion on the issue from my side: YES!

 

The anti-universal health care lobby lobbies away in the governments and health administrations.

Sadly I've not seen the patients or the regular run of the mill contributors to health care services, let alone "illegals" getting that kind of Capitol Hill access.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All

 

I just spoke with a friend in our hospital who does the "financial counselling" for those who are under insured and those who have no inusrance. Apparently residents of other countries fly to the USA while pregnant ( in last trimester) with the intent of having a baby in the hospital in the USA. The trick is that one must find an OB/GYN who will take these patients and care for them at that stage of the game. I can tell you in the USA that they are few and far between with malpractice being what it is. Anyway, many of these people come over as illegal immigrants, have the baby who then becomes an American Citizen! They have the money to fly over but none for the hospital and doctor bills in many cases. He said if they cannot find a doctor then they appear in the ER and of course if in labor they must be delivered. The first thing we need to do is to NOT confer American citizenship on foreign nationals who come over here just so their child can get citizenship. Immigrants who come legally, no problem if they have resident status and are productive and taxpaying. Illegals have no real rights and do not deserve citizenship until they have complied with our laws and any babies born in the process should not get any citizenship or the benefits. If we go to Universal coverage my friend said that the way illegals are treated in the hospital would most likely not change. Just as it is in Europe now. An emergency is an emergency.

 

As for Universal care, compare it to government services here in the USA like the school system and the fire and police forces. A Banker's son and the son of a maid deserve the same healthcare access. It is for the good of society as a whole. Our taxes pay for these services and they are delivered to all. A thought...we already have Medicare and we could put everyone under that system since it already exists. Like it or not, when you turn 65 in the USA you get Universal Healthcare in the form of Medicare. If it is good enough for the elderly, it should be good enough for the rest of us. Imagine Americans not having to worry if they get sick about how they will pay for it--it would be covered (yes probably via taxes), but still for what we (those of us who are insured) pay to private insurance companies we would be saving money in the long run. As I mentioned before I do feel that all doctors would have to participate in caring for everyone in the system, they could take some private patients, but not be allowed to opt out of the system. Once everyone is covered, they would earn more money since millions would have access.

 

Drug companies would be forced to charge fair prices as is done in the UK. American citizens pay more for drugs than in any other country.

 

For all the problems in the Universal Systems in Canada and Europe, NOT ONE of those residents would change places with us in the USA and risk not having ANY coverage and losing all they have to a greedy healthcare system. Americans can devise a system that is the Gold standard if they apply themselves and if more people make their opinions known to their elected officials here in Washington, DC.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The first thing we need to do is to NOT confer American citizenship on foreign nationals who come over here just so their child can get citizenship. Immigrants who come legally, no problem if they have resident status and are productive and taxpaying. Illegals have no real rights and do not deserve citizenship until they have complied with our laws and any babies born in the process should not get any citizenship or the benefits.

You realize that such a policy would require a constitutional amendment? Not that it's such a terrible idea, but we're talking about a rather large roadblock here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The first thing we need to do is to NOT confer American citizenship on foreign nationals who come over here just so their child can get citizenship. Immigrants who come legally, no problem if they have resident status and are productive and taxpaying. Illegals have no real rights and do not deserve citizenship until they have complied with our laws and any babies born in the process should not get any citizenship or the benefits.

You realize that such a policy would require a constitutional amendment? Not that it's such a terrible idea, but we're talking about a rather large roadblock here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cinzia. that policy is actually based on a court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, so the Constitution itself would not need to be amended. A lot of people feel the ruling was a flawed interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

MT, I would hardly say that I have lost any argument with you, but each person who reads what has been posted is free to make up their own mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just wanrt to say I am more concerned right now in getting citizens/legal residents and such covered first before concerning myself with illegals.

I take it you don't "concern" yourself with eating right?

Becasue a HUGE ammount of the food on your plate is produced with "illegal" labour.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who wish to see farm workers paid more should want to stop those illegally in the US from working in agriculture- when the Bracero program was ended in the US, farm workers' wages rose sharply. MT, do you know what labor leader Cesar Chavez's position was on immigration?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I take it you don't "concern" yourself with eating right?

Becasue a HUGE ammount of the food on your plate is produced with "illegal" labour.

No shit? I suppose those nike I bought might be made cheaper because they were made in a sweat shop ?

 

The question was in referal to health care coverage.

 

As for the Bracero program that was a crock of shit also.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pleb, like it or not, profits are what makes social spending possible. You can dislike them all you wish, but without them we would have a much lower standard of living, and wouldn't be able to afford the lavish social welfare you envision.

That's bullshit. That is ONE system, that was designed or more appropriately eveolved as nothing more than the facilitation of exchange and has now become a highly efficient system of control.

The fact that you call it "Social Welfare" indicates a lot. It is in fact only about the redistribution of resources in a more equitable manner.

 

 

Just curious, but exactly what are you characterizing as the finer aspects in life?

The finer aspects of life are the ability to travel to practically any destination, the ability to enjoy a diverse range of cuisine, , your (mind numbing) television, your internet connection... in general those things that are above the basic needs for survival (e.g. suitable clothing, shelter, water and food).

 

 

I disagree that a government-enforced veneer of equality would be desirable. There would be other ways of allocating scarce goods in an inequal manner, one much less just than wages determined by the free market.

At no point have I said that this should be a government enforced idea. The government has continually demonstrated itself to be both highly corrupt and working in many cases for the interests of a small and select portion of the population.

 

The idea should be enforced by the people NOT the government. We now have the technology to disseminate information rapidly and therefore the ability to better educate the individuals within the society. There are many fundamental changes that need to happen before any real equality can be experienced.

 

 

Of course, those who pine for "egalitarianism" don't seem to have a problem with higher earners in the private sector working harder than those to whom the transfers would be distributed- not very egalitarian in that aspect, now is it?

Yes... the old fall back argument. "I work harder than him so I should get more... that's fair!"

The individuals that this argument applies to lie generally within the lower to middle classes of our present economic model called capitalism.

The difference between what the middle income individual and the low income individual earn in percentage terms is negligible when compared to the upper 10 percent who control the majority of the wealth, the majority of the political system and let their capital and resources work for them.

So it can also be argued that the "I work harder than him so I should get more... that's fair!" argument is actually a fallacy and doesn't apply to those who the current system actually works brilliantly for.

 

 

You can re-label Communism and Socialism anything you wish, e.g., Valhalla, Utopia, Nirvana, etc.- it will still have the same nasty results.

I am not comparing my example to communism or socialism (especially communism but to a lesser extent socialism) because these ideas were never implemented in their intended form and therefore those names refer only to tarnished perversions of an idea.

 

 

As for spending trillions on war, you should not forget that the Soviet Union was, at one point, spending 25% of its GDP on its own armaments, not including what it was sending to other countries to foment "Socialist Revolution".

You comparing the USSR and it's attempt at propagating socialist and communist ideals, is easily comparable with the US's present attempts at spreading "democracy" to certain regions we are all familiar with (and many we are not familiar with).

 

P.S. - Are you a big fan of Milton Friedman?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's bullshit. That is ONE system, that was designed or more appropriately eveolved as nothing more than rthe facilitation of exchange and has now become a highly efficient system of control.

The fact that you call it "Social Welfare" indicates a lot. It is in fact only about the redistribution of resources in a more equitable manner.

Pleb, there is probably almost nothing anyone can say to make you see the light, but ask yourself if any human being is omniscient enough to decide what would be a "redistribution of resources in a more equitable manner"? No, which is why we generally need the market to decide this- it is a collective wisdom.

 

 

The finer aspects of life are the ability to travel to practically any destination, the ability to enjoy a diverse range of cuisine, , your (mind numbing) television, your internet connection... in general those things that are above the basic needs for survival (e.g. suitable clothing, shelter, water and food).

So these are the things you, in your omniscient wisdom, deem everyone is automatically entitled to at the expense of others if they themselves cannot afford it. That is some real largesse, and it takes real chutzpah to demand that every person be entitled to travel to practically any destination at taxpayer expense as a basic right, whether they want it (and the other things you listed) or not!

 

 

At no point have I said that this should be a government enforced idea. The government has continually demonstrated itself to be both highly corrupt and working in many cases for the interests of a small and select portion of the population.

The who will enforce your Socialist Utopia and take these grand decisions to redisribute everything? We will simply let you and MT dictate to the rest of us?

 

 

The idea should be enforced by the people NOT the government. We now have the technology to disseminate information rapidly and therefore the ability to better educate the individuals within the society. There are many fundamental changes that need to happen before any real equality can be experienced.

Glad you clarified who will (in theory) enforce things, but how? How will you accomodate disagreements and current property rights and other legal impediments that stand in the way of your confiscatory fetishes? What if the vast majority does not support your ideas and wishes to keep the status quo? Who will have the legal authority to make decisions? Are you calling for a "withering away of the state"? Who will do the educating, and who will set the curriculum in the "Plebian Utopia"?

 

 

Yes... the old fall back argument. "I work harder than him so I should get more... that's fair!"

The individuals that this argument applies to lie generally within the lower to middle classes of our present economic model called capitalism.

The difference between what the middle income individual and the low income individual earn in percentage terms is negligible when compared to the upper 10 percent who control the majority of the wealth, the majority of the political system and let their capital and resources work for them.

So it can also be argued that the "I work harder than him so I should get more... that's fair!" argument is actually a fallacy and doesn't apply to those who the current system actually works brilliantly for.

In case you haven't noticed, taxes to fund the social state here in Germany fall quite heavily on the middle class in particular, but also on the lower classes. Now, as to the "idle rich" you rail against, where I come from there are relatively few of them- Paris Hilton is the exception, Warren Buffett is the rule.

There is a problem in all societies with special-interest lobbying, and this is absolutely something that needs to be dealt with, but let's not deceive ourselves that only the rich constitute special interests and that those who aren't would not abuse power if they had it. Power corrupts everyone, which is why a functioning system of checks and balances is necessary.

Those who don't work, by their own volition, don't deserve others' tax euros just so they can have the finer things in life while others work hard every day. No one works solely for the rest of society- they mostly work for their own benefit and that of their families. This is as it should be- it balances the needs of individuals with that of the larger society.

 

 

I am not comparing my example to communism or socialism (especially communism but to a lesser extent socialism) because these ideas were never implemented in their intended form and therefore those names refer only to tarnished perversions of an idea.

Ideas that do not work, nor will they ever work.

You comparing the USSR and it's attempt at propagating socialist and communist ideals, is easily comparable with the US's present attempts at spreading "democracy" to certain regions we are all familiar with (and many we are not familiar with).

It does not suprise me in the least that you have a problem with democracy. You also fall for the usual trap common to the far left of assuming moral equivalence between the US and the Soviet Union. It's an argument that only the post- Soviet Union far left would take seriously.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last entry of my previous post should have been like this:

 

You comparing the USSR and it's attempt at propagating socialist and communist ideals, is easily comparable with the US's present attempts at spreading "democracy" to certain regions we are all familiar with (and many we are not familiar with).

It does not suprise me in the least that you have a problem with democracy. You also fall for the usual trap common to the far left of assuming moral equivalence between the US and the Soviet Union. It's an argument that only the post- Soviet Union far left would take seriously.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pleb, there is probably almost nothing anyone can say to make you see the light...

I think this quote would also apply to yourself.

 

Your answers continually contain the restrictions of current systems and current thinking... almost as if you are unable to look beyond the current paradigm to something a little more expansive.

 

Once again I would like to ask you...

 

Are you a fan of Milton Friedman?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell you what, Pleb, why don't you explain in detail how your system will work and how you would transition from what you see as the current system? I am particularly curious as to how you will manage to bring the "finer things in life" to everyone. Do you anticipate anyone being left out in your system, and will anyone be disadvantaged in your system?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the resources required to both create and distribute all that is needed for every single person on this planet to live a more than comfortable existence.

 

We both know it is not possible to explain the complexities of such a system in a few forum posts however:

 

The systems would not be so much different to what we already have in place, just more open, transparent and fairer in the distribution of resources.

 

General Consensus would need to be reached on the following:

The period of mandatory service in lesser and menial jobs before moving onto occupation of preference

Hours of work in a day/week

 

Changes to the current system required would be:

No party political system. Representatives would run on an Independent Platform

Complete transparency in all governmental processes.

Open, honest and informative media

Individual transport systems would need to be changed and integrated with the mass transport systems

 

Once again the differences from now are mostly in the distribution of the resources and the need for major reforms in the societal decision making and informative processes.

 

The massively wealthy will experience a slight curtailing in their freedoms as far as they would need to contribute to the actual labour/service side of society, but on the upside of this, billions of people will be raised above the poverty line into a comfortable existence that is based on co-operation as opposed to competition.

 

The only individuals to be disadvantaged would be those who would be unwilling to actually contribute to society. Actually that idea is exactly the same as at present except they would still have the basics required for survival, whilst perhaps not enjoying the finer aspects of life (eg the travel etc).

 

We already the systems and technology in place to allow for every possibility, it is simply about the implementation and distribution.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the unsubstantiated assertion that we have the resources for 6 billion rapidly multiplying people, the concept that human beings are all just going to forget their own interests and sectarianism to support some new world order global government is wishful thinking from someone who sounds like he watched too much star trek.

 

And this comes from someone who supports a massive us health system overhaul.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now