Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pathos]

Honestly, I didn't get this. Why was there so much anger towards free healthcare in America? It just left me scratching my head with a "Guh?" coming out of my mouth. Especially since a lot of the anger was from people who would benefit from it most.

I've made this thread after the raging debates because, well, raging anger?

[Captain Hat]

Some people don't want to pay the extra taxes this would require, nor do they like the growth of government it would cause. Some people are just crazy.

[Cthulhu]

I'm a healthy bastard, and I don't want to pay a 0 dollar fine for not having health insurance.

[C4lv1n]

It's all very confusing, even more so because I'm from Canada, and we've had free healthcare here for quite a while.

[Andir]

Nothing in life is free (of cost.)  Our government was founded to protect our freedoms, not create laws.  We do not have the same government other folks have, but everyone keeps trying to pigeon hole it into the same tasks.  The Federal government's sole job is protecting our rights and defending the states.  It's up to the states to create laws that govern the people.  It's up to the Feds to keep that in check.

Make sense why I don't want Federal health care?  It should be State based... at the very least, systematically tested in the states until a working system is found that works with our laws and state of life.  If I feel like I'm getting ripped off, I can simply move to another state.  This allows citizens to live by their own means.

Sorry, another edit... take a few minutes to read our Constitution.  It really doesn't take long and you may understand.

[Aqizzar]

We've had several threads about the "new" American health-care legislation.  There's always room to discuss things again, but reading those would be a good way to start.  Not that everything won't be repeated ad nauseum anyway.

[piecewise]

As John Stewart said

The american people don't want cuts or rationing on government run programs, like Medicare 

The american people don't want to pay more taxes, which fund things like Medicare

The American people don't want government run health care, like Medicare



The reality of it is that the american people always push back against things, just like they did against anti-slavery, women's rights, and integration. The things that are hated infringements of our rights become things our country is founded upon after about 50 years.

Nothing in life is free (of cost.)  Our government was founded to protect our freedoms, not create laws.  We do not have the same government other folks have, but everyone keeps trying to pigeon hole it into the same tasks.  The Federal government's sole job is protecting our rights and defending the states.  It's up to the states to create laws that govern the people.  It's up to the Feds to keep that in check.

Make sense why I don't want Federal health care?  It should be State based... at the very least, systematically tested in the states until a working system is found that works with our laws and state of life.  If I feel like I'm getting ripped off, I can simply move to another state.  This allows citizens to live by their own means.

Sorry, another edit... take a few minutes to read our Constitution.  It really doesn't take long and you may understand.

Strict adherence to a system of government rather nebulously defined over 200 years ago is right up there with literal interpretation of scripture. For a government to survive and truly serve it's citizens it must be capable of adapting.

[nil]

Strict adherence to a system of government rather nebulously defined over 200 years ago is right up there with literal interpretation of scripture. For a government to survive and truly serve it's citizens it must be capable of adapting.

Within reason.  Personally I think it's appropriate for the government to expand to do more things, but not to do so at the expense of individual rights.  The mandate is a shitty idea that I've hated from start to finish; Obama gained my support over HRC in the primary mostly because he opposed it.  If we were a sane county, we'd do no more or less than slowly lower the age for Medicare until we had universal single-payer coverage.  Unfortunately, we're a corrupt country, so the insurance companies had to get a piece of the action with this weak-ass national Romneycare.

Better than nothing I guess but goddamn are we ever corrupt...

[Blacken]

Honestly, I didn't get this. Why was there so much anger towards free healthcare in America? It just left me scratching my head with a "Guh?" coming out of my mouth. Especially since a lot of the anger was from people who would benefit from it most.

Because I can afford good health care and I don't really feel like paying for other people's. It's nothing personal toward them, and if it were magically free I'd be quite happy for them, but my pocket is regularly picked enough.

Every bill pushed forward has been a love song to insurers anyway, so it's not like a good thing is being missed here.

[piecewise]

Honestly, I didn't get this. Why was there so much anger towards free healthcare in America? It just left me scratching my head with a "Guh?" coming out of my mouth. Especially since a lot of the anger was from people who would benefit from it most.

Because I can afford good health care and I don't really feel like paying for other people's. It's nothing personal toward them, and if it were magically free I'd be quite happy for them, but my pocket is regularly picked enough.

Every bill pushed forward has been a love song to insurers anyway, so it's not like a good thing is being missed here.

So you'd rather let kids die of leukemia just because they had the poor fortune not to be born rich rather then give a bit more money? Because that sounds an awful lot like what you're saying.

[Muz]

Heh, it's interesting. America's culture is just radically pro-capitalist, especially since the Cold War. Everything about America is about money. They believe that wealth brings better things. Want to learn? Pay a huge pile of cash. Want to eat? Pay piles of cash (though they have cheap food, thanks to capitalism). Want people to cure your illnesses? More cash.

They believe that all their money was earned from hard work. It's not wrong. They believe that good, rich people will willingly part with their cash to help those who need it the most. Not wrong either, but ironically, rich Americans are more likely to help starving kids in Africa and Haiti than poor people in America.

But giving hard-earned money to help poor people to live is against what America stands for. It seems to make perfect sense to people from most countries, but not so in a heavily capitalist culture.

[Blacken]

Honestly, I didn't get this. Why was there so much anger towards free healthcare in America? It just left me scratching my head with a "Guh?" coming out of my mouth. Especially since a lot of the anger was from people who would benefit from it most.

Because I can afford good health care and I don't really feel like paying for other people's. It's nothing personal toward them, and if it were magically free I'd be quite happy for them, but my pocket is regularly picked enough.

Every bill pushed forward has been a love song to insurers anyway, so it's not like a good thing is being missed here.

So you'd rather let kids die of leukemia just because they had the poor fortune not to be born rich rather then give a bit more money? Because that sounds an awful lot like what you're saying.

Your argument is an appeal to emotion, and that's just silly. If individuals want to spend their money to help them, that's awesome (and, FWIW, I donated a good chunk of a paycheck to the Jimmy Fund at their last major drive; the difference between charity, which is voluntary, and taxation for pet causes, which is certainly not, is quite large). I choose to do so out of my own free will; it is no one's obligation to do so and I wholly reject the idea.

In a practical sense, I would actually be quite alright with UHC for anyone under the age of 18 and anyone currently enrolled in an institution of higher learning; the former allows for some basic protections before they are in a place to root, hog, or die (and yes, it's quite important that everyone do so, you are neither special nor entitled to take money from my pocket just as I am neither special nor entitled to take money from yours, but a fair starting point is certainly of benefit to everyone), and the latter encourages an improvement of our workforce's baseline capabilities in a way that, intuitively, seems to pay dividends greater than the relatively small expense. (UHC for everyone does not intuitively show a likelihood for an economic improvement beyond the expenditure, nor have I seen any numbers to suggest it to be the case.)

But if you find it so important, feel free to spend your money on it. Nobody's stopping you. Just don't presume to spend mine without my consent. (This goes for vote-pandering of all stripes, from UHC to farm subsidies.)


EDIT: Mind you, I entirely agree that most of the people complaining over UHC are ones who would benefit. They are morons. I would not benefit from UHC, and it is not my job, nor anyone else's, to save them from themselves. Stupidity is the only capital crime, and there are no appeals.

[Aqizzar]

In a practical sense, I would actually be quite alright with UHC for anyone under the age of 18 and anyone currently enrolled in an institution of higher learning; the former allows for some basic protections before they are in a place to root, hog, or die (and yes, it's quite important that everyone do so, you are neither special nor entitled to take money from my pocket just as I am neither special nor entitled to take money from yours, but a fair starting point is certainly of benefit to everyone), and the latter encourages an improvement of our workforce's baseline capabilities in a way that, intuitively, seems to pay dividends greater than the relatively small expense. (UHC for everyone does not intuitively show a likelihood for an economic improvement beyond the expenditure, nor have I seen any numbers to suggest it to be the case.)

Well, that's refreshing to hear.  Appeal to emotion or not (and I for one do think emotion has a place in political argument), at least we can all agree that people under 18 have no real control over their health and certainly over their finances, and shouldn't have to suffer for that.  The idea of making paid-healthcare for higher-learning students is one I've never heard before, but that does make a lot of sense.  People in universities are already spending unseemly amounts of money and effort just getting an education, and in doing so are making themselves more productive, so they deserve not having to worry about financing their healthcare on top of that.  I like it.

That being said, this is where we come to the philosophical difference.  I support universal health coverage, and I don't care that it would be a money pit.  I actually think talking about economic improvement and capability is a form of emotional appeal itself - the emotion of smug superiority.  It's a way of saying people who don't make money don't deserve any help, because hey, you worked for your healthcare, they can too, all practical realities be damned.  From where I'm standing, no one deserves to die for lack of money, regardless of who they are or what it "costs", and I'm just not going to budge from that.

Well, okay, I have my limits.  The 1000lbs human-blob guy for instance, fuck him.  But that's the kind of extraordinary circumstance it takes to sway me away from my bleeding-heart principles.

[G-Flex]

Blacken: Are you seriously calling health care a "pet cause"? What? It's fundamental to human survival and well-being.

I'm sorry, but I feel like you're extremely confused about how modern society works. People collectively provide for the welfare of those who cannot afford to provide it for themselves.

Wait, that's not even true of modern society, but of all society, really. Hell, that's part of what being a social animal is all about. You take care of your weak, period.

But if you find it so important, feel free to spend your money on it. Nobody's stopping you. Just don't presume to spend mine without my consent. (This goes for vote-pandering of all stripes, from UHC to farm subsidies.)

EDIT: Mind you, I entirely agree that most of the people complaining over UHC are ones who would benefit. They are morons. I would not benefit from UHC, and it is not my job, nor anyone else's, to save them from themselves. Stupidity is the only capital crime, and there are no appeals.

.... What? First off, it makes no sense to say this sort of thing should be voluntary. There's a damn good reason you don't get to choose where your tax money goes to. It's not "vote-pandering" either, it's a fundamental aspect of practically every developed nation except us.

And what does "save them from themselves" mean? If I'm poor and need my appendix taken out, how exactly is that the result of my own stupidity, or my fault in any way? Or do you think that all poor people are poor by choice? I know you know economics better than to think something so foolish.

[Andir]

Strict adherence to a system of government rather nebulously defined over 200 years ago is right up there with literal interpretation of scripture. For a government to survive and truly serve it's citizens it must be capable of adapting.

Except for the fact that it's a rather awesome system that checks and balances the States (that should be the ones testing Healthcare) who better know how to manage the people they govern.  Just because something is old, doesn't make it stupid.  States are perfectly capable of adapting laws to fit the people that live there and the people that live there have two motives of voting power.  One at the polls and the other at their feet.  In a capitalist society, having the states compete with each other over population just makes sense.

If it makes you feel better, think of the Federal Government as the EU and each of the states as countries, but the EU is totally dedicated to allowing freedom of movement of good and people between countries and personal rights.  Also, if the EU had a standing defensive military and your country didn't need one.  Now imagine one of those countries trying to push through agendas that make eating sauerkraut required by law into the EU.