Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 01-06-2012, 11:40 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideways View Post
I've been following this thread with some amusement and really have no interest in the discussion beyond that. I take no side in the discussion but want to point out that "Obamacare" already existed before it was even introduced under that name. In establishing some kind of definition as to what is meant by that word the simplest definition that comes to mind is one that defines "socalized" health care. That is a system of heath care where an individual receives care based upon an ability to pay and the balance is paid by others in the class/ group. Seems to me that insurance meets that definition. I want to point out that "Obamacare" has existed in the United States since the Civil War. Ever hear of the Veterans Administration? That's right, socalized health care. A system of health care paid for at the taxpayers expense. I know. I was an Army medic for 20 years. Oh, wait! Another system of socalized health care! The United States military health care system. Paid for by he taxpayers. I receive my health care at the VA and and don't know how I could afford it otherwise. And I thank all you taxpayers for paying for my health care. Just my
Maybe I am missing something here but are you saying that employer subsidized healthcare (as a benefit of employment) falls under the same category as socialized healthcare?? If that is in fact what you are implying based on your comparison to military healthcare then I disagree. As a member of the military is their coverage being paid "by the taxpayer"? Yes, I would say it is BUT you are also an employee of the "taxpayer".
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 11:45 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideways View Post
I've been following this thread with some amusement and really have no interest in the discussion beyond that. I take no side in the discussion but want to point out that "Obamacare" already existed before it was even introduced under that name. In establishing some kind of definition as to what is meant by that word the simplest definition that comes to mind is one that defines "socalized" health care. That is a system of heath care where an individual receives care based upon an ability to pay and the balance is paid by others in the class/ group. Seems to me that insurance meets that definition. I want to point out that "Obamacare" has existed in the United States since the Civil War. Ever hear of the Veterans Administration? That's right, socalized health care. A system of health care paid for at the taxpayers expense. I know. I was an Army medic for 20 years. Oh, wait! Another system of socalized health care! The United States military health care system. Paid for by he taxpayers. I receive my health care at the VA and and don't know how I could afford it otherwise. And I thank all you taxpayers for paying for my health care. Just my
Maybe I am missing something here but are you saying that employer subsidized healthcare (as a benefit of employment) falls under the same category as socialized healthcare?? If that is in fact what you are implying based on your comparison to military healthcare then I disagree. As a member of the military is their coverage being paid "by the taxpayer"? Yes, I would say it is BUT you are also an employee of the "taxpayer".
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 04:26 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by flemke View Post
You are 34. You didn't bother to try to buy insurance until you got sick. And now you want us to pay for your illness. Yes, us, the taxpayers get to pay for it. You don't think that premium of a few hundred dollars actually paid the cost of your thousands of dollars worth of medical procedures do you?

I bet you also let your new insurance lapse as soon as you got well and you won't bother to buy more coverage until you get sick again.

Obamacare is an abomination. I don't mind helping people who deserve help but you don't. You are a lazy 34 year old with a job, should be stuck paying for your treatment because you were either too lazy or too cheap to go buy a Blue Cross policy when you were healthy. Give me a break.
maybe she couldn't have been covered, even if not, it is a great example of why health insurance needs to be required in order to keep costs low, say it got to the point of being critical, we all would pay those costs since the e.r. has to take patients or she likely could not have paid, so yes you may not like the idea at first, but think it through, we can either all pay for people who don't get insurance (as we have had to pay prior to obamacare) or we can have everyone paying their fair share (as obamacare requires).

which is is it that you want? choose a side, I am tired of paying other people's medical bills and that is why we need obamacare. you are arguing for the same thing obamacare fixes and acting like it doesn't.
__________________
Please help babies...... http://www.intactamerica.org/
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 06:32 PM  
Senior Member
 
oldognewtrick's Avatar

Nashville, TN
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 493 | Kudos: +74
My biggest grip about this socialized medicine scheme is all the exemptions that have been granted to certain states, certain employers and certain groups. I don't see where we will be any better off, except it will end up costing me more and still not cover that many more people. If they said every citizen of the US was going to have to get it, no exemptions, including the politicians, I'll jump on the Obama health care wagon.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 09:44 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
maybe she couldn't have been covered, even if not, it is a great example of why health insurance needs to be required in order to keep costs low, say it got to the point of being critical, we all would pay those costs since the e.r. has to take patients or she likely could not have paid, so yes you may not like the idea at first, but think it through, we can either all pay for people who don't get insurance (as we have had to pay propr to obamacare) or we can have everyone paying their fair share.

which is is it? I am tired of paying other people's medical bills and that is why we need obamacare. you are arguing for the same thing obamacare fixes and acting like it doesn't.
Thank you. That's my biggest gripe as well.

Folks are complaining that this woman refused to get medical insurance, and criticizing Obamacare for treating her anyway. These same people are complaining that costs are too high for the average person because healthy people aren't getting insured. And it is these exact same people who are complaining that everyone is forced to get medical insurance.

These complaints nullify eachother.

A person should not be forced to make a decision between bankruptcy and death of a loved one. Yet, our medical system is such that this choice is a reality for a hell of a lot of people. It needs to change.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 09:21 AM  
Senior Member
 
Sideways's Avatar

Houston, Texas
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 980 | Kudos: +33
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep

Maybe I am missing something here but are you saying that employer subsidized healthcare (as a benefit of employment) falls under the same category as socialized healthcare?? If that is in fact what you are implying based on your comparison to military healthcare then I disagree. As a member of the military is their coverage being paid "by the taxpayer"? Yes, I would say it is BUT you are also an employee of the "taxpayer".
I'm saying it COULD be viewed that way since everyone in the plan contributes and receives the same level of care. And yes, you are correct about the military health care you mentioned. But also know that every member of the military regardless of rank, from a 5 star general down to the lowest private is entitled to receive the same level of care. Don't forget that the basic premise of Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". My friend we no longer live in a "democracy". We live in a socialistic society.....that's becoming fascist. But that's a topic for another thread.
__________________
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Never forget that everything the Founding Fathers did was not." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 11:11 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
In effect many forms of insurance are a level of socialization, employee based healthcare is certainly more so as there is a flat cost among all participants, but what if insurance or pooling of risks were banned in all situations, would people not be more careful drivers if they had no insurance available? be more wary of fires/ locations of risks to houses if nothing could be insured? at some level there HAS to be some level of acceptable pooling of risk to work. If we go all out (the republican way) then we remove that pooling and everyone pays for their own medical care (but still need insurance to get fair prices) I can't see that as a solution to our healthcare problems. Obamacare isn't perfect, but it's a heck of lot better then what we have now, and infinitely better then anything the republicans have put forward.
__________________
Please help babies...... http://www.intactamerica.org/
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 11:23 AM  
Senior Member
 
oldognewtrick's Avatar

Nashville, TN
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 493 | Kudos: +74
Red, I disagree with you on costs. The older I get the more I pay for life insurance and also health care. I say if we are going to move this system forward, then make EVERYONE get in the program and you will help level the pool cost per person. If it's such a great deal why isn't congress participating? Why are there hundreds of company's with exemptions? Why are there certain states exempted?
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 05:12 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideways View Post
I'm saying it COULD be viewed that way since everyone in the plan contributes and receives the same level of care. And yes, you are correct about the military health care you mentioned. But also know that every member of the military regardless of rank, from a 5 star general down to the lowest private is entitled to receive the same level of care. Don't forget that the basic premise of Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". My friend we no longer live in a "democracy". We live in a socialistic society.....that's becoming fascist. But that's a topic for another thread.
"Socialism" has taken on a number of negative political connotations. We like to think that our economy is not socialist, that we've got nothing to do with socialism. And yet, vast segments of our economy rely nearly exclusively on socialist practices. Virtually every road in the nation is socialized. Most bridges are socialized. Military protection is socialized. Police protection is socialized. Fire protection is generally socialized, (although there are exceptions in rural areas) Any government that could legitimately be described as democratic is socialized - how else do you describe a government of the people, for the people, and by the people? While the term "socialism" is despised, the concepts it describes is certainly not.

It could be argued that the moment people specialized their skills, we became a socialized society where we took from the people according to their ability, and gave to them according to their need. A blacksmith has the ability to forge iron. He produces iron products according to his ability. Do you think he does this work in exchange for less than his needs?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does not, by itself, contradict capitalism. In a capitalistic environment, if that blacksmith can't get what he needs to survive from forging horseshoes, he changes his abilities, and produces another product that is demanded in the marketplace - door knobs, nails, or he takes up a new profession entirely. If he takes significantly more than he needs to survive, he invites competition from someone willing to work for less. In any situation, he produces according to his abilities, and consumes according to his needs.

The quote applies to ANY economy. A slave owner takes from enslaved people according to their ability, and provides for them according to their need. (Well, according to his need for his slaves to be healthy and productive)

By itself, that Marx quote does not state or imply the problems with Marxism. Just because a situation can be described by Marx's quote does not mean the situation is Marxist.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 07:06 PM  
Senior Member
 
Sideways's Avatar

Houston, Texas
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 980 | Kudos: +33
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival

"Socialism" has taken on a number of negative political connotations. We like to think that our economy is not socialist, that we've got nothing to do with socialism. And yet, vast segments of our economy rely nearly exclusively on socialist practices. Virtually every road in the nation is socialized. Most bridges are socialized. Military protection is socialized. Police protection is socialized. Fire protection is generally socialized, (although there are exceptions in rural areas) Any government that could legitimately be described as democratic is socialized - how else do you describe a government of the people, for the people, and by the people? While the term "socialism" is despised, the concepts it describes is certainly not.

It could be argued that the moment people specialized their skills, we became a socialized society where we took from the people according to their ability, and gave to them according to their need. A blacksmith has the ability to forge iron. He produces iron products according to his ability. Do you think he does this work in exchange for less than his needs?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does not, by itself, contradict capitalism. In a capitalistic environment, if that blacksmith can't get what he needs to survive from forging horseshoes, he changes his abilities, and produces another product that is demanded in the marketplace - door knobs, nails, or he takes up a new profession entirely. If he takes significantly more than he needs to survive, he invites competition from someone willing to work for less. In any situation, he produces according to his abilities, and consumes according to his needs.

The quote applies to ANY economy. A slave owner takes from enslaved people according to their ability, and provides for them according to their need. (Well, according to his need for his slaves to be healthy and productive)

By itself, that Marx quote does not state or imply the problems with Marxism. Just because a situation can be described by Marx's quote does not mean the situation is Marxist.
In truth I agree with you on all points. What I should have also stated is that in the US this comes at a loss to our personal freedoms. And indeed we loose more of our personal freedoms it seems almost on a daily basis. One quote I also agree with is that "people should not fear their government, government should fear it's people".
__________________

__________________
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Never forget that everything the Founding Fathers did was not." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.