It appears there will be no Health Care..........

I'll tell you what, show me a program where everyone gets health coverage, my taxes and/or insurance premiums don't go up and my current level of care doesn't go down and I'll support the program.
Universal Healthcare sounds great in theory, but most of the countries that have implemented it admits the program is failing. It can work on a small scale, it seems to work in Iceland but that is a country of 250k people. A program of that scale is easier to manage than a program covering a country the size of the US.
Tell you what, why don't all of you just move to Massachusetts. The state will give you free/cheap healthcare based on your salary. You'd love it here.

 

It pisses me off because it's true? I'll be honest, your opinion really means nothing to me. I don't know you, you've clearly demonstrated that you would rather attribute my success to environmental factors than the fact that I have studied/worked hard my entire life. Again, you're entitled to your opinion but I know you're wrong.

I'm not basking in my elitism, as you say. As I told you, I come from a middle-class family, nothing elite about that. I take pride in what I have accomplished in my life, I won't apologize for that. I don't believe in helping people that refuse to help themselves and I won't apologize for that either.

I understand that there are cases where good people are put into unfortunate situations, but they are in the extreme minority. But guess what, the world doesn't owe you anything. Sorry some people have come up against adversity, but that's how life goes. It still doesn't mean I should pay more in taxes to subsidize people's healthcare, home mortgage, and just generally poor decisions.

 

Honestly, I don't care what you think of my opinion. If you want to think that environmental factors didn't contribute to your work, your studies, and your desires, that's your business. Instead of taking a small dose of humility, you would rather parade yourself around as the pinnacle of virtue for your willingness to put your nose to the grind stone.

In your words--guess what, a lot of people work hard and study to the best of their ability, but they do not achieve the same outcomes. Why? Other factors.

My point is not to excuse laziness or to enable people who refuse to work. I don't want to create a permanent underclass dependent on government assistance any more than you do. What I do oppose is the attitude of "I did it all by myself!"

 

Most poor people work I would say working in a manual labor job, food service job, doing yard work, being a maid in a hotel and other things are necessary and productive. And I'm not kidding on this a nurse I know who does work in the special care section you know the ones being watched after surgery etc. gets NO health care and paid by the hour is that what you think is fair she heals the sick and helps them but can't get medical care herself.

 

Well that's great news, we finally agree on something.

You're right, it is my business. I think environment has very little to do with it. I'm not saying it has no effect, I'm saying it has minimal effect.

I never claimed to be virtuous. Maybe my opinions are hard for you to swallow, but that doesn't mean they aren't right.

Or they didn't work hard enough. They didn't stay after school to get help with homework. They didn't study enough for an exam. They didn't do the networking and backslapping required to get a job. I can go on and on.

But that is exactly what the policies you support do.

But I did do it all by myself.

Everything you support makes this country weak but it makes you feel all warm and cuddly inside so that makes it okay. Maybe my views are harsh, but the world isn't easy.

 

I'd agree, but if they made the right choices in life they wouldn't be doing those jobs. If you end up 30 and in one of those jobs it's because your poor life choices caught up to you.

That must be the dumbest nurse alive. With the high demand for nurses right now there is no reason she couldn't go find a nursing job that provides benefits.

 

We clearly have philosophical differences here, but I want to note that I have not outlined specific policies that I support. You (AUTiger00) are assuming that I support a range of existing social programs when I do not.

I just have a different view of social responsibility. I believe that the government has the ability and the imperative to support programs that will better the lives of the poorest among us. Much of this can be accomplished by incentivizing appropriate actions and making benefits contingent on them.

 

StefanM, you're correct, you haven't pointed to any specific social programs beyond healthcare. My assumption is based on the thought that if you support what is undoubtably the most expensive social program in the history of this country and something that is destine to bankrupt us you more likely than not support additional programs that are a burden to tax payers. Of course you know what they say when you assume something....
If I am mistaken in my assertion then I apologize.

 

I actually don't support the current healthcare law. I think something needs to be done, but I don't prefer the methods used.

I'm in favor of removing the healthcare link to employment as a way to free up the labor market. I want to incentivize productivity and entrepreneurship. Our current system keeps people with medical issues chained to jobs because of health insurance. Rates under COBRA are so outrageous that an individual in transition often cannot afford it. With pre-existing conditions, individual insurance is out. High risk pools can be an option (albeit expensive), but relocation to a new state often hits you with waiting periods and other delay mechanisms.

Businesses shouldn't have to deal with obtaining healthcare for employees, IMO. Our current legal structure favors the large conglomerates that can spread risk over thousands of employees. I prefer to encourage competition by removing this legal advantage to allow small businesses and entrepreneurs to compete better for talent.

The problem I have with the current law is that it is neither fish nor fowl. It attempts to achieve universal coverage (a prudent goal in my mind), but it does so in a clunky, inefficient, and ineffectual manner (waivers, etc.).

I'm not saying individuals should be given a free pass or shouldn't be held accountable. What I am saying is that a system with universal coverage can offset some of the current costs of emergency treatment of the uninsured. I'm not sure the best model for doing this. The Mass. model doesn't control costs enough.

The market system isn't controlling costs either. We can pretend that this will be solved by hard work, but even hard-working middle class folks have trouble with rising insurance premiums and deductibles, paying more each year to get less. The rocket ship of rising prices that dramatically outpaces inflation can't be solved by "hard work" alone.

For social programs, I primarily prefer programs that would require pursuit of education or job training and that are time-limited. I want to make sure that opportunities exist to meet people "half way" if they are willing to exert the effort. Some of this is based out of self-interest. Uneducated and impoverished people are much more likely to become involved in criminal activity. I'd much rather pay the money to treat the problem than to lock them up later.

 

Not necessarily lets say you score due to natural limitations the bottom third percentile in mathematics in your peer group in school you can use it but like me can't get basic algebra and geometry, below High School level or you can read but not in a way that can handle complex information how far are people supposed to get in school. In the 1950's my father was like that and like most people worked in a factory out of High School in fact most people did but some it was the only option. He never advanced far his aptitudes didn't support welding or other skilled work so he was a general assembly worker making vehicles.

With the shifting focus on certain areas to be employable alot of people are being marginalized now lets say your like me. I couldn't do much mathematics over everyday use, did well in reading comprehension not so much in writing things out and did okay in science. My strong points were social skills, artistic skill in performing and a love of reading anything I could get my hands on what I would call a love of learning for its own sake and of good fiction. They don't test for these, these skills don't matter in school if one looks at the standards of NCLB so I was considered for lack of most educators stupid. So I got burned off from school and unschooled myself focusing on what I do well to be a decently good street performer and generally educated. I did pass the GED barely in the math portion before they upped the standards in Florida and so am not without some skills just I'm not college material.

What choice did I have most professions now are over my head in a practical sense, being physically disabled it hurts to so I figured I'd always have to make my own money or be sponging off the government. I would suggest many older people doing menial work as you see it may just be in my case the out of favor group in the New Economy is that our fault?

So I would say as a citizen and to uphold the "life" part of the preample to the US Constitution we should have some form of national health care for all, I don't like the bill passed that much but its better than nothing to me. Rationed care if your poor with none now is at least an option and going to a hospital ER when your very sick is not health care, health care is seeing professionals for care before that point so its taken care of early. If we won't take care of our least then who are we as a people?

 

Back to the topic the only way this law is going to be repealed is if:

1. The Senate gets a procedural majority as long as the Democrats hold 41 seat they can bog the repeal down until the law kicks in and at that point your going to be taken away benefits from alot of poor people.

and

2. Obama is not re-elected and that only demands a simple majority and he is the incumbent in office, with a over a year to go people might forget his fubars and likely will if the economy turns around.

In the courts the odds of the Supreme Court overturning this is remote and if they remove the mandate the regulations can be done for compel compliance without any action by Congress such as a penalty compounding to raise premiums if you don't get insurance when you are able to. But what are the odds four justices will rule against a major Federal program they could just declare the mandate constitutional due to the unique market of health insurance being de facto across state lines as a unique case. A limited expansion of the interstate commerce clause.

 

I think the Dead Kennedys have a solution:

YouTube - Dead Kennedys - Kill the Poor Music Video

J/K

Abner

 

You bring up some good points OTB. I admire the fact that you were able to overcome your limitations.

Welcome.

Abner

 

The majority of the current plan's benefits do not go into effect until 2014, so if he is not re-elected and a repeal bill can get through the senate there is a very good chance the current health care law will be repealed. I agree though, once it goes into effect there is no turning back because no politician is going to want to suffer the backlash of taking something away from voters. It's a shame that we can't get politicians in office who are more concerned with doing what is right and less concerned about getting re-elected. There is a real need for a third party in this country.

I still think the current bill is unconstitutional, but because of the slant on the Supreme Court I agree that it will never be deemed as such.

 

This is why I prefer the parliamentary system. The two-party adversarial system inevitably becomes about scoring political points and making the other party look bad in order to reap the benefits.

I do agree on this point.

 

WOW! An agreement between you and I in THIS thread?!?! Who would of thunk???

 

Weather you agree with it or not, the "Tea Party" (which are essentially Libertarians) is becoming a viable 3rd party. They aren't really republicans. Their fiscal policy simply aligns with what Reagan-Conservatives believe so they ended up as the Republican candidate for a number of seats in the 2010 elections. They could easily become a stand alone 3rd party in the next 3-5 election cycles if they keep their momentum.

 

I know, right? The previous disagreements were less on policy than they were on philosophy/worldview related to theories of human development and sociology. I'm not a full-on behaviorist, but I'm a strong believer in shaping behavior (even economic behavior) through the use of incentives.