A topic to discuss....need input....

[-Truth-]

Once again I will post it this.
http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Savings gleaned from a national health insurance system like Canada's would be enough to provide medical insurance for the 41 million Americans who now lack coverage, the researchers said.

The study puts the administrative cost of the U.S. system at $294 billion per year, compared to about $9.4 billion in Canada. That translates to a per-person cost of $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada. A similar study, conducted in 1991, put per-capita costs in the U.S. at $450 and Canadian costs at one-third of that.

The study by Dr. Steffi Woolhandler of the Harvard School of Medicine found that Americans spend more on administrative costs because of the many private companies supplying insurance coverage. The multitude of companies create increased paperwork while Canadian doctors send their claims to a single insurer, the government.

"What we've got now under the current health-care system in the U.S. is a giant food fight between doctors, hospitals, patients and insurance companies as to who gets stuck with the bill," Woolhandler said.

Also, the study noted, private insurers spend large sums on marketing and underwriting, costs that the Canadian system doesn't have to bear.

 

[Blackguard_]

By your credo all taxation is robbery period.

Bingo

I have a funny feeling though you don't mind certain uses of taxation, just when it comes to helping the less fortunate.

That would contradict my credo that all taxation is robbery.

 

[-Truth-]

Bingo



That would contradict my credo that all taxation is robbery.

So who will pay for the roads, schools, libraries, armed forces, firefighters, police, national parks, city parks, ect…

 

[Blackguard_]

So who will pay for the roads, schools, libraries, armed forces, firefighters, police,

private companies and organizations. Do you really think we would all become illiterate barbarians with dirt paths and chaos if there was no government forcing these things into being?

national parks, city parks, ect…

Would not exist. They would either be private property or belong to noobody, but they would not belong to State.

 

[-Truth-]

private companies and organizations. Do you really think we would all become illiterate barbarians with dirt paths and chaos if there was no government forcing these things into being?



Would not exist. They would either be private property or belong to noobody, but they would not belong to State.

Why would private companies and organizations want to pay for such things?



Wouldn’t only people with enough money be able to afford such services/luxuries?

 

[Blackguard_]

Why would private companies and organizations want to pay for such things?

For profit. You've never heard of private schools and security companies?

Wouldn’t only people with enough money be able to afford such services/luxuries?

well, yes.

 

[-Truth-]

For profit. You've never heard of private schools and security companies?



well, yes.

Do you realize in a capitalist system you will always have poor?

Even if everyone in the country was motivated, educated, and a hard worker there would still be poor.

In a capitalist system you have to have the whole spectrum of classes in order to work. (someone needs to pick your strawberries)

So because someone gets dealt the bad hand and can’t afford to have the fire department come to save their child because of some reason, because they are poor they are just screwed?

 

[Blackguard_]

Do you realize in a capitalist system you will always have poor?

depends on how you define "poor". If you mean "people who can't afford the basics" I doubt it is a requirement. If you mean people poorer then everyone else, then yes.

Even if everyone in the country was motivated, educated, and a hard worker there would still be poor.

In a capitalist system you have to have the whole spectrum of classes in order to work. (someone needs to pick your strawberries)

Even if true, how does this justify Marxian schemes to steal from the rich to give to the poor to level it out? What in Christian morality justifies theft to give to the poor? Appeals to Utilitarianism are not Christian.

So because someone gets dealt the bad hand and can’t afford to have the fire department come to save their child because of some reason, because they are poor they are just screwed?

it's not like there are'nt volunteer fire-fighters or anything.

I agree capitalism has problems, but is is much more morally defensible then Socialism, which is based on theft. You have better idea, one that provides for everyone without doing immoral things to rasie funds?

 

[-Truth-]

Even if true, how does this justify Marxian schemes to steal from the rich to give to the poor to level it out? What in Christian morality justifies theft to give to the poor? Appeals to Utilitarianism are not Christian.

Who is justifying Marxism? Paying taxes makes some services cheaper for all because there is a collective pool to draw from.

I am not Christian. But I am a humanist.

Does the current system need a good audit, you bet. There is much my taxes go for that I wish they didn’t.

But my view on taxes are to pay for a better life for me.

it's not like there are'nt volunteer fire-fighters or anything.

maybe, maybe not.

I agree capitalism has problems, but is is much more morally defensible then Socialism, which is based on theft. You have better idea, one that provides for everyone without doing immoral things to rasie funds?

I feel that a mixed economy (what we operate under now) works best. No one has thought of another system that works for everyone while giving freedom as of yet that I know of.

 

[Blackguard_]

I don't object to a collective pool to give to the needy from as long as its voluntary. This is in fact part of what churches are supposed to be doing with the tithes and offerings. The problem is how you get the the money for this pool. Taxation is nothing more then theft, which hopefully you can understand easier then most Christians as you are not as likily to have delusions of the State being divinely sanctioned. And so before you can talk of how taxes are spent you first need to justify that a human or group of humans has the right to demand money from others. The government with taxes and the threats that come with non-payment, does what if a private citizen did would be called extortion.

The State is nothing more then a human or group of humans with the physical power to enforce their pronouncements. What is it that gives them the right to take people's money for this pool? Might makes right?

 

[praying]

I don't think that Joe Schmo down the street who is too darn lazy to get a job, should automatically get it.

Joe Schmo getting a job is no garuntee of getting health insurance. The low level, dishwashers, busboys, etc they don't get health insurance.

 

[praying]

I think everyone should be garunteed the right to medical when needed if they can not afford it and preventive medicine especially for children.

 

[Vylo]

Blackguard, there is no stealing, it is called taxes. You pay taxes to the government, it is required. Considered how much tax evasion the rich tend to get away with anyhow, I don't see turning the heat up on them as a bad thing.

You act as though we are stealing the bread from their mouths as opposed to making it more difficult to afford another mutli-million dollar home or their own private island.

Should Max the Millionare have a 3rd car made of solid gold, or should 1,000 children be able to get vaccines so they don't die from influenza?

Should I as a upper class american be able to buy another boat for my shorehouse, or should that money instead pay for the prescriptions of a dozen elderly disadvantaged?

I've given my answer. I don't understand how you can sit there and favor the rich instead of assisting the poor.

Can you, right now, walk down to the nearest soup kitchen, walk up to one of the impoverished within, and tell them, to their face that they don't deserve healthcare? Can you look into their children's eyes and tell them they don't deserve lifesaving medicine? Can you sit there and explain why the wealthy deserve all their trinkets and toys over the well-being of that poor family. simply because they had more advantages then the less fortunate?

 

[Monsignore Postiglione]

And if you gave poor people money, would'nt they cease to be poor and start saving in proportion to their money, therby defeating the purpose? Or is this based on the idea poor people are poor becasue they blow their money on stuff regardless? And then wouldn't the money just go back to the people who save their money in the first place, so a level playing field will never be achieved?

No... For example, if you earn 10.000 dollars a month, you spend 4000 and save 6000. If you earn 1000 dollars, or 1500, it's the same, you spend everything on food, etc...

So if you redistrubute 500 dollars from someone who earns 10.000 to someone who earns 1000, you have 500 dollars less going to china and 500 dollars more inside the economy.

 

[CZzyzx41]

meh. there's arguments for both sides. I believe healthcare should be free. However, countries that do have national health care have some issues with it. From what I have heard, the health care works well for stuff that you need, i.e. emergency care and anything else that is life threatening. But it's a pain when it comes to more elective medical care. In this case there should be a combined system. The government will provide you with the necessary medical care in emergency and life threatening situations, but if you need elective treatment that is where insurance should be.

I like this plan.

As it is now if you walk in holding your severed arm in a bag of ice or a screwdriver in your head, they aren't going to just tell you to go home and come back when you have insurance. They'll take care of you. From what I've heard a lot of emergency room patients never pay their bills. Wouldn't this work so much better if emergency room doctors, nurses, orderlies, residents, and hospitals in general were garaunteed the money?

 

[HisEagle]

1. no.
2. I never advocated communism.
3. So not having the mindset to give all I have justifies the government taking it?

4. What is the Christian thing to do here then? Sit back and let the government rob people to give to the poor and needy, and otherwise do nothing, aside from not interfering with the States efforts? To sell all my possessions, give the proceeds to charity, and live in a cave in the desert? Pool all our money together as in the early Church?



That's becasue your points were weak, especially that Social Security one. Rich people getting tax money was an argument for State welfare how? And the finding a charity one is kind of a bad example as the current conditions are very arguaby not conducive to charities, but other hand I have no proof it would work in a free system as it is acedemic at this point.

And the almighty Blackguard thinks his opinion is the only correct opinion.

You're weak, I'm weak - you know, we could go back and forth with this all day.

I failed to notice that your icon doesn't specify if you are a Christian or not. In fact, had I noticed that before, I wouldn't have bothered to waste my breath. So what I'm about to say probably won't make an ounce of difference....

You keep stating that you feel all taxation is theft. But our Lord and Savior, Jesus, told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. So may I conclude that you believe Jesus was advocating theft?

 

[Blackguard_]

Blackguard, there is no stealing, it is called taxes. You pay taxes to the government, it is required. Considered how much tax evasion the rich tend to get away with anyhow, I don't see turning the heat up on them as a bad thing.

Taxes are extortion. What happens if you don't pay? What gives a human or group of humans collectively called "the State" the right to extort money from others? That it's own charter says it can? A government is nothing more than a group or person that is able to physically enforce it's pronouncements, a monopoly on the use of force as some put it, in a region.

In other words, how is it moral for peolpe who happen to have enough physical backing to enforce their will, do things that if people without this backing did would be called extortion?

If I took 200 of my friends, stormed your town's city hall and summarily executed the mayor and town councils and declared myslef Duke of Your Home-Town and made my firends constables to enforce my laws and demanded tribute and stromed the houses of "law-breakers" who would not pay tribute to me, the "rightful authority" of your town in this scenario? Would you owe me anything I demanded simply becasue I had gained a monoploply on force in your region, simply be virtue of my constables either putting down any resistance or the populace not resisting ofr whatever reason?

You act as though we are stealing the bread from their mouths as opposed to making it more difficult to afford another mutli-million dollar home or their own private island.

No, stealling is stealing. And many more then the rich are taxed.

Should Max the Millionare have a 3rd car made of solid gold, or should 1,000 children be able to get vaccines so they don't die from influenza?

Appeal to Utilitarianism, which has no basis in Chrisitanity. And the "the rich's money would be better spent on the poor!" argument is not Christian either.

Matthew 26
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

Should I as a upper class american be able to buy another boat for my shorehouse, or should that money instead pay for the prescriptions of a dozen elderly disadvantaged?

If you want to pay for a dozen diadvantaged elderly people be my guest, it's your money. But how is it right for me as a State agent, to force you on threat of prison, fines, etc, to pay for the dozen elderly?

I've given my answer. I don't understand how you can sit there and favor the rich instead of assisting the poor.

I'm not favoring them. I don't people stealing from poor people either.

Can you, right now, walk down to the nearest soup kitchen, walk up to one of the impoverished within, and tell them, to their face that they don't deserve healthcare? Can you look into their children's eyes and tell them they don't deserve lifesaving medicine? Can you sit there and explain why the wealthy deserve all their trinkets and toys over the well-being of that poor family. simply because they had more advantages then the less fortunate?

what a nice collection of straw-men...

 

[Blackguard_]

And the almighty Blackguard thinks his opinion is the only correct opinion.

If I thought someone else's opinion was correct, then I would hold that opinion.

Which is not to say I don't believe I could be wrong, just that I am not going to act as if there is no right answer. I may very well be wrong, but until I am proven wrong I am going to hold the opinion I have on this matter to be true until it is proven wrong until that is proven wrong so on and so forth.

You're weak, I'm weak - you know, we could go back and forth with this all day.

Yes we could.

I failed to notice that your icon doesn't specify if you are a Christian or not. In fact, had I noticed that before, I wouldn't have bothered to waste my breath. So what I'm about to say probably won't make an ounce of difference....

I am orthodox aside from that I don't buy the Hypostatic Union.

You keep stating that you feel all taxation is theft. But our Lord and Savior, Jesus, told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. So may I conclude that you believe Jesus was advocating theft?

No, Jesus said to Render to Caeser what is Caeser and God's what is God's. Everything is God's ultimately, especially in the Evangelical belief of surrendering your entire life, money included, to God.

So what exactly belongs to Caeser, anything his little ol, heart desires of your's? Which could mean everything if Caeser declared it one day, so you only keep "your" money at Caser's pleasure.

What exaclty is Caesar's? Everything he demands, which might ultimately be "everything"?

Furthermore,in Matthew 17 Jesus talks about how those who pay taxes are not free.

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.


And notice how Jesus only pays to avoid ticking them off, and using counterfeit money at that?

 

[admtaylor]

It's money. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things. You really have the American obsession with money worship down pat. One of the reasons when I hear American moral lecturing I turn the volume way down.

The health of one person is more important than keeping that extra 200 bucks a year in taxes for a National Health Care plan.

\

Is this Hillary? Come now, come clean. Mrs. Clinton is this you. Now you know your National Health Care plan failed, just give it up.

 

[admtaylor]

a public health care system signifies an economic boost in domestic demand, by redistributing income from rich to poor, augmenting the average propensity to consume. A way more efficient and moral economic boost than buying bombs.

AAGGGHHHMMMM.......socialism.