Why are people so keen on gov't run healthcare again?

Quote:

May 12 03:12 PM US/Eastern
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The financial health of Social Security and Medicare, the government's two biggest benefit programs, have worsened because of the severe recession, and Medicare is now paying out more than it receives.

Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said the new reports were a reminder that "the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be."

Geithner said that President Barack Obama was committed to working with Congress to find ways to control runaway growth in both public and private health care expenditures, noting the promise Monday by major health care providers to trim costs by $2 trillion over the next decade.

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

The government can't even handle Social Security and Medicare, which are targeted at a relatively small portion of the nation's population, yet most of you Obama supporters are probably delighted that we'll likely have some form of national healthcare coverage before the end of Obama's first term.

Barring a return to Pre-Reagan tax levels (Top marginal rate was like 70 percent), I just don't see the shit happening feasibly and even then it's a stretch 'cause all you'll be doing is punishing achievement. How many of you, if you ever become successful will want to pay 70 percent of your income to the federal government? And we're not even talking state, county, and muncipal taxes like some of you in NY or Cali pay. If we're in debt NOW, what makes you think we're gonna get out of the shit in the future?

Shit is funny as fuck to me.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Why are people so keen on gov't ::funded:: healthcare again?

Because I can't afford the healthcare I need.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

HOW CAN WE PAY FOR THIS

UM WE COULD RAISE TAXES ON THE OBSCENELY WEALTHY

WHAT, AND PUNISH THEM?!?!?

I'm not sure where the official line for "successful" is but crying about being "punished" if you make more than 100K after-tax does nothing to earn anybody's sympathy.

BUT THEN NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY MOTIVATION TO WORK HARD!!

Remember, kids; nobody works for any reason other than greed, the same way the only reason we aren't all murderers is because of Christian Ethics.

(It should be pointed out that 2037 is the year that 2007 babies (the largest baby boom since WW2) hit their prime earning years but let's panic anyway)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Because I can't afford the healthcare I need.

So you feel it's prudent to force someone else to pay for you?

Most amazing jew boots

He probably feels it is significantly more prudent than dying.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

So you feel it's prudent to force someone else to pay for you?

Like education, health care should be provided to the masses, by the masses. It is a kind of important thing for the populace.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ok, but let's take a look at this government's track record...

The Department of Education has been an abysmal failure if it's goal was to increase the academic performance of American students.

Medicare and Social Security are going to become insolvent in the next 20 years.

So then the question has to be asked: Is it responsible for us to expand government control over even more aspects of American life when it has failed dismally in practically every thing it has ever done on this level?

You say it's important that healthcare should be provided by 'the masses', but when the agent of the masses, the government, is largely incompetent in providing it at a satisfactory level and has problems funding it, why should we allow them to expand their scope and reach?

That's the logic I'm having trouble wrapping my head around.

I'm against all of these programs in principle, but even stepping back from my ideology, I'm seeing that they can't execute properly.

FELIPE NO

What is so scary about publicly funded healthcare anyway? I've never understood why Americans are so afraid of healing their sick.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

What is so scary about publicly funded healthcare anyway? I've never understood why Americans are so afraid of healing their sick.

See, that's a false premise. You think the main objection to socialized medicine is that people don't want poor people to be able to get healthcare when no one has ever said that.

People who oppose a single-payer healthcare system in the United States are proponents of federalism and believe that the federal government should interfere in the lives of its citizens as little as possible. When you control someone's health care, you effectively control their life because you can then withhold that health care for whatever reason you choose, whether it be because you have personal habits the government deems 'irresponsible' or some other undisclosed reason.

People who oppose government-funded health care have an issue with the government's past track record in these over-arching social programs - that is, they don't work very well. They disagree with the very premise that you give benefits to one segment of the population at the expense of another.

That's a far cry from 'Americans don't want to heal their sick'

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The government cannot do things efficiently because there are Republicans in it.

No, no. Hear me out.

It is the Republican philosophical position to seek out "small government". In order to garner support for this position, they have to demonstrate that government is inefficient and corrupt. What is the best way to make the government appear inefficient and corrupt?

Be inefficient and corrupt yourself, and then become part of the government.

It is in the best interest of the Republican party's long-term policy goals to make every government agency other than the military look thoroughly bumbling and stupid.

There are dozens of examples in the wider world of government-run health services operating at a reasonable level of efficiency and solvency, so clearly the idea itself isn't intrinsically infeasible. There is something about OUR government that makes it seem implausible, and that something is a great plurality of rednecks with significantly more authority than they deserve.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

What is so scary about publicly funded healthcare anyway? I've never understood why Americans are so afraid of healing their sick.

Because it might keep THE MAN™ down by knocking him down a peg with taxes.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Join Britain! Become hideously underfunded and lacking in actual medical staff!

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I recall a comment Shin made just recently about how you can't schedule appointments in the UK anymore in order to avoid months long wait-lists. Can you provide concrete examples of efficient government run health programs? I hear a lot about selective or slow service. It does not make me comfortable.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Generally Britain is excellent when it comes to emergency situations, as in if you go to A&E they will be able to treat you appropriately. However, when it comes to other issues that are not so easily resolved, there are humongous waiting lists. I'm sure Sian has commented on this also. If you are suffering from something which does not require immediate (and I do mean immediate) service, you can be waiting for up to a year (in my experience) for proper service.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Yeah if you already have decent healthcare the prospect of a single-payer system reducing your quality of care becomes worrying. It also happens that a majority of Americans already have good health coverage, which is a significant reason for political opposition to single-payer, and the exact reason that single-payer healthcare reform is not on the table and won't be perhaps for decades, rendering the point of this thread utterly moot.

Then again, millions of blacks die prematurely from cardiovascular disease, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, etc, in rates far exceeding that of whites because they have poor healthcare coverage or no healthcare coverage at all. Night Phoenix himself had a crisis of faith in our corporatist healthcare system when he lost his job and the health insurance that was attached to it. So unemployment spooks a nigga, but now that he's back on the horse his new job is just going to last forever and he'll never have to worry about health coverage again.

FELIPE NO

Canada is much the same way as Britain. The biggest problem is finding enough doctors who are willing to work here instead of south of the border where they can make enough money to buy 3 houses and 5 cars. It is gradually getting better, though. I remember hearing that Canada has started training people from poorer countries and letting them work in the Canadian healthcare system, where the work is plentiful and help is needed.

Also, the claim that doctors in public healthcare systems don't make enough money is an outright lie. Doctors here make enough money to live well - not enough to own 3 homes, but enough money to live quite comfortably.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yeah if you already have decent healthcare the prospect of a single-payer system reducing your quality of care becomes worrying.

There's no reason that a gov't-funded system needs to be the only game in town, you can have a single-payer system and and the clusterfuck of a private system we have now. That way if you have a shitload of money and you absolutely need an appointment today!!! you will have the option.

The idea that taxpayer-funded healthcare would immediately outlaw corporate healthcare is one of those hilarious bogeymen that I can only assume got its start in a talking points newsletter.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The UK provides general practice doctors just fine. It's the special services that take forever.

So, I mean. I'd rather wait for special services and get a GP with no problem for free than to go bankrupt if I have an emergency and have to go the ER.

How ya doing, buddy?

Well, it's not free, it's just that the expense is distributed. Don't give anyone an opportunity to whine about IT'S NOT FREE I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT WITH 70% OF MY 7 MILLION A YEAR YOU ASSHOLE WHY IS THIS GOVERNMENT BLEEDING ME DRY

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yeah if you already have decent healthcare the prospect of a single-payer system reducing your quality of care becomes worrying. It also happens that a majority of Americans already have good health coverage, which is a significant reason for political opposition to single-payer, and the exact reason that single-payer healthcare reform is not on the table and won't be perhaps for decades, rendering the point of this thread utterly moot.

Then again, millions of blacks die prematurely from cardiovascular disease, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, etc, in rates far exceeding that of whites because they have poor healthcare coverage or no healthcare coverage at all. Night Phoenix himself had a crisis of faith in our corporatist healthcare system when he lost his job and the health insurance that was attached to it. So unemployment spooks a nigga, but now that he's back on the horse his new job is just going to last forever and he'll never have to worry about health coverage again.

So lemme see if I understand your argument correctly...

Because at some point in the future, I may lose my job and the health insurance that comes along with it, I should therefore be supportive of a socialist health care system even though I'm not confident in the abilities of the federal government to adequately fund it when it can't even make Social Security and Medicare solvent?

Is that your argument?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

There's the rub. GP's appointments are easy to get if you have a general complaint. However, if you require specialist attention it can take a very long time to get the appointment you need. I myself had to wait nearly a year to address heart problems. I'm not familiar with American healthcare proceedures, but I'm guessing if I had the right insurance over there I could have resolved my issues much sooner.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Well Obama's proposed a tax hike on cigarettes to help finance the new programs, so more to the point the government is bleeding you dry and everybody else who smokes (poor people).

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

So lemme see if I understand your argument correctly...

Because at some point in the future, I may lose my job and the health insurance that comes along with it, I should therefore be supportive of a socialist health care system even though I'm not confident in the abilities of the federal government to adequately fund it when it can't even make Social Security and Medicare solvent?

Is that your argument?

Well it's not just my argument, it's the argument of every black man who can't get medical insurance.

Most amazing jew boots

An underfunded system is still better than NO system, and NO system is what people with no insurance have.

Your position is, essentially, that we shouldn't bother paying to give soldiers helmets since the helmets might not always be effective at saving their lives.

I mean, look at that guy. Got shot in the kidneys. Why did my tax dollars go to these useless helmets

tea party ahoy

FELIPE NO

See, that argument makes no sense at all - not the part about wanting health care coverage, because everyone naturally wants that. It's the fact that the government can't handle what it has on its plate now, so adding a full-fledged health care plan to the billet is sure to be an abysmal failure.

How ya doing, buddy?

Can we get a filter on the word "socialist" until people learn what it means? I suggest either "FANTASTIC" or "SWEDISH"

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

I'm guessing if I had the right insurance over there I could have resolved my issues much sooner.

I am skeptical, really. What sort of heart trouble was it? If it was something you were born with, the majority of insurers would either refuse to cover you entirely or else refuse to cover treatment of the heart condition on the basis that it was "pre-existing".

Okay looking at your journal it looks like it maybe had something to do with your drinking, so you would have been up the river on that one too.

Jam it back in, in the dark.