Go ahead and pound me: But I believe the Government should be involved in healthcare.

[targus]

As much as some do not like it, society requires give and take. For example, people in an outlying rural section of a county, pay the same property taxes as everyone else. So the big overpasses and 4 lane highways, are paid for by them, even though they might never use them. This does not mean the yuppies who drive that highway everyday are stealing from the rural people.

Likewise, the public school system. (Although I do not personally believe the government should be at all involved in the school system). I have paid approximately 40,000 dollars in property taxes over the last 14 years. 90 percent of that money, went to pay for schools that my children will never use.

Social Security, same thing. I have paid in about 80,000 dollars in on Social Security, to fund other peoples retirement over the last 15 years(although, again, I do not believe the government should be involved in the retirement fund business either). Medicare, same thing. I have paid in enough medicare taxes, to BUY insurance for me and my children for the next 5 years, if the government wants to give it back.

For those who do not support the war overseas (I Do support it: think it is terribly important), why are their tax dollars being "stolen" to support something they do not believe in?

The fact is, the only reason the lower class cannot pay for their own medical insurance, is because so much of their money is being taken already. Here in Texas, we have a sales tax, in addition to other taxes like property tax. A poor family making only 20k dollars a year, who owns a moderate 1 bedroom house, and only one car, can expect to pay about 1/4 of their income in taxes, even though they are not paying "federal" taxes. Most of that, is for things the government should not be involved in.


Understand that I am not arguing for my own sake. I have noticed several posters point at me, as if this is something I want for myself. I do not: I trust in the Lord, and I am fine. However, I have seen some very good, hardworking families go through hardships because of lack of Medical coverage. And until the government stops wasting 1/4 of their money on things like public schools (which they will NEVER do) something needs to be done to provide for them. If your child takes advantage of a public school, paid for by these peoples taxes, (many who do not have children, or who do not attend public school), or if you drive on those big fancy overpasses (paid for in large part by rural ranchers and large property owners who rarely, if ever, use them) you have no right to complain when they want their life saved by YOUR tax dollars...

So your arguement is:

The government should not be involved in schools...

The govenrment should not be taking our money for schools...

The government should not be involved in social security...

The government should not be taking our money for social security...

The government should not be taking our money for medicare...

The government should not be taking ourmoney for wars...

But !!!

You do want the government involved in health care...

And you do want the government taking our money to give health care who don't have medical insurance...

Even if it is because those without medical insurance do not have it because they choose not to buy it or do not want to wark.

Have I got it right?

 

[Havensdad]

Sorry that is just false in America. But....under the communist medical care in Canada and Europe it is very true. The problem IN America is not obtaining the care. There is just no issue there. It can be a problem paying for it. But medical services are never withheld for inability to pay in America.

Again, this is not true. There are certain things, such as transplants, specialty procedures, etc., which will not be done unless the patient has a proven means of payment (rich or insured).

The hospital is required to stabilize patients, and put them on machines to keep them alive. MANY have been denied life giving treatment, because of a lack of insurance.

 

[targus]

Again, this is not true. There are certain things, such as transplants, specialty procedures, etc., which will not be done unless the patient has a proven means of payment (rich or insured).

The hospital is required to stabilize patients, and put them on machines to keep them alive. MANY have been denied life giving treatment, because of a lack of insurance.

And it is your belief that if the government is making the decisions and paying for the specialty procedures that they will actually choose to do so?

The same government that just cut 400 billion from Medicare while proposing to lower the age of entitlement to 55 thereby adding even more people to a declining system.

That government?

BTW - I know that the government doesn't actually pay for anything - they just take our money to do whatever they want - but they do believe that it is their money.

 

[Havensdad]

So your arguement is:

The government should not be involved in schools...

The govenrment should not be taking our money for schools...

The government should not be involved in social security...

The government should not be taking our money for social security...

The government should not be taking our money for medicare...

The government should not be taking ourmoney for wars...

But !!!

You do want the government involved in health care...

And you do want the government taking our money to give health care who don't have medical insurance...

Even if it is because those without medical insurance do not have it because they choose not to buy it or do not want to wark.

Have I got it right?

Actually, I did not say I did not want Government involved in medicare. I was just listing this as an example. Most of the poor who would benefit from healthcare, have ALREADY paid in enough money, for others (Medicare and social security). So they are not "stealing."

Second, I believe my post earlier made my position clear. In a perfect world (which I realize this is not) the Government should only be involved in three things: Law enforcement/defense (at home and abroad: aka military and police), Infrastructure (Roads, bridges, etc.), and medical care. I also would not be opposed to an emergency, short term food program.

I believe every other government enterprise would be illegitimate. Things like NASA: illegitimate. Robbing people's tax dollars. All of the non-medical research grants: illegitimate.

Since I am on my soap box, I also believe something that is sucking the tax payers money away, is overpaid political offices. No government official should be allowed to make more than the median income of the U.S. (which I believe is around 50k a year, presently).

 

[targus]

Actually, I did not say I did not want Government involved in medicare. I was just listing this as an example. Most of the poor who would benefit from healthcare, have ALREADY paid in enough money, for others (Medicare and social security). So they are not "stealing."

If they are poor - they why are they not on Medicaid?

Second, I believe my post earlier made my position clear. In a perfect world (which I realize this is not) the Government should only be involved in three things: Law enforcement/defense (at home and abroad: aka military and police), Infrastructure (Roads, bridges, etc.), and medical care. I also would not be opposed to an emergency, short term food program.

I believe every other government enterprise would be illegitimate. Things like NASA: illegitimate. Robbing people's tax dollars. All of the non-medical research grants: illegitimate.

I understand - you are against alot of what the government does but should not be doing. I agree.

Why then do you think that the government should be in the healthcare business?

Is there no other solution other than putting the people in charge who have already shown that they are capable of doing very little right?

 

[rbell]

Is there no other solution other than putting the people in charge who have already shown that they are capable of doing very little right?

This may be the most concise sentence encapsulating the best argument against Government healthcare.

It's akin to seeing an ad: "Come put your child in our childcare facility. While it is true that last year we lost two kids, burned three, ran over six, poisoned one, and microwaved another...we are the best, because we'll take all children."

Ummm...no thanks. And don't try and force me into it either. That won't go well.

 

[Havensdad]

If they are poor - they why are they not on Medicaid?

FYI: My mother in law, until she got hired by CPS, was a caseworker that handled these kinds of things. I only say this, because this is the source of the information that I have.

Medicaid in Texas, for adults, is not available for anyone who makes over 380 dollars per month. In other words, if you want to be lazy, and not work at all, you can get coverage. If you are working your patooty off at Jack in the Box or Burger King, making 1200 dollars a month, you are stuck out.

I would be fine with a government medical plan that provided for only those making less than 50k per year, BTW, under the current system (although I do not think this is how it should be: but since I am a realist and understand there is no possible way that the other reforms are going to occur...).

I understand - you are against alot of what the government does but should not be doing. I agree.

Why then do you think that the government should be in the healthcare business?

Because I believe the primary reason for government is to defend and protect the well being of it's citizens. In this modern age, I believe this includes police, military, and medical. It can also include emergency aid, such as food in disaster areas, or possibly for families whose parent loses their job suddenly (short term: provided they are actively looking for work).

Is there no other solution other than putting the people in charge who have already shown that they are capable of doing very little right?

I don't see how. Note though when I say "in charge" I do not necessarily mean that the Government is running it. I am making a blanket statement, without getting to the details of how it should be worked out.

Possibly, at this point, restrictions could be imposed on any hospital, that it had to give free medical treatment to anyone under a certain income, as a condition for licensing? More government restrictions on important medications? (No more 150 dollars per pill on certain antibiotics, etc.)?

Again, not sure how to work out the details. But it is EVERYONE'S job to help those in need. Not sure how a Christian could dispute this...

 

[abcgrad94]

But it is EVERYONE'S job to help those in need. Not sure how a Christian could dispute this...

We're already helping those in need, and a whole bunch of lazy folks who are "in need" of their own doing. To keep demanding more and more, using our faith as an excuse to fund them, is an insult.

The way to "fix" healthcare in this country is to make it all non-profit, and that will never happen because the big pharmaceutical companies are in bed with the politicians.

 

[Revmitchell]

But it is EVERYONE'S job to help those in need. Not sure how a Christian could dispute this...

Not through the fed. Such is unconstitutional and unnecessary. There is no command in scripture to be made by the use of force (the fed) to make Christians go to work, and labor to provide for others. That is a form of slavery.

Christ never once indicated benevolence via government.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

More government restrictions on important medications? (No more 150 dollars per pill on certain antibiotics, etc.)?

So, let me get this straight: you believe that medications shouldn't be more than $150 per pill, but you have no probem with the government policies that drove the price up to $150 in the first place???

Typical liberal hypocrisy.

Again, not sure how to work out the details. But it is EVERYONE'S job to help those in need. Not sure how a Christian could dispute this...

No, it is not the role of the government to "help those in need".

 

[Havensdad]

So, let me get this straight: you believe that medications shouldn't be more than $150 per pill, but you have no probem with the government policies that drove the price up to $150 in the first place???

Baloney. Profit on most of these medications run in the 800 to 1000 percent range. Corporate greed is what ran the prices up: "Oh, they'll die without it? Good, we can charge ten times more!"

Typical liberal hypocrisy.

Funny that you should call me liberal, because I do not think poor people should die. How is defending the sanctity of life "liberal"?

No, it is not the role of the government to "help those in need".

Really? I'll call the police and tell them that the next time your house is being robbed, they should ignore your call, since their interference goes against your political ideology! :laugh:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Baloney.

No, actually, it's true.

Profit on most of these medications run in the 800 to 1000 percent range. Corporate greed is what ran the prices up: "Oh, they'll die without it? Good, we can charge ten times more!"

If this is true, then why do they give so much medication away to indigent patients?

Funny that you should call me liberal, because I do not think poor people should die. How is defending the sanctity of life "liberal"?

Yeah, this is another very common liberal tactic: say one thing and then, when someone adresses that thing, pretend that you actually said something else.

Please read what I said, rather than just making things up.

Really? I'll call the police and tell them that the next time your house is being robbed, they should ignore your call, since their interference goes against your political ideology! :laugh:

OK, Einstein. I'll bite: how does calling the police go against my political ideology? This ought to be a good one.

 

[Havensdad]

Not through the fed. Such is unconstitutional and unnecessary.

There is nothing unconstitutional about promoting the public good. Please show me the passage in the constitution that says "The government shall not be involved in saving lives."

The hospital situation was not the same as today. Medical care at the time of the constitution, was negligible.

There is no command in scripture to be made by the use of force (the fed) to make Christians go to work, and labor to provide for others. That is a form of slavery.

According to scripture, the money itself belongs to "Caesar", and those who take part in this monetary system (no one is forced to: you can go live in the forest somewhere), are supposed to "render to Caesar, what is Caesar's" this money is to be used "for your benefit."

Christ never once indicated benevolence via government.

Apparently you have never read the Pentateuch.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is nothing unconstitutional about promoting the public good. Please show me the passage in the constitution that says "The government shall not be involved in saving lives."

It is called the 10 amendment. But the using vague terms like "governent" is insufficent for a debate.

The hospital situation was not the same as today. Medical care at the time of the constitution, was negligible.

Then the constitution needs to be changed first rather than just sidestepping it.

According to scripture, the money itself belongs to "Caesar", and those who take part in this monetary system (no one is forced to: you can go live in the forest somewhere), are supposed to "render to Caesar, what is Caesar's" this money is to be used "for your benefit."

No it belongs to Caesar and it is for Caesars benefit.

Apparently you have never read the Pentateuch.

When we return to that government system let me know.

 

[Hardsheller]

Havensdad,

If you paid $40,000 property taxes in 14 years you live in a higher class zone than I do.

Seems like to me with a tax bill like that and no health insurance the choice would be easy. Sell the property and buy health insurance.

You said in your OP you wanted us to pound you. Had enuf yet?

 

[OldRegular]

I know a lot of my conservative friends (I myself am socially conservative, but fiscally moderate) might disagree with me; I DO believe in small government, to some extent. But I believe that the government SHOULD be in control of health care.

Why? Well the first reason is theological. I believe that Roman 13:4 teaches a basic theological truth: the earthly powers which God has established, are responsible for the physical well being of it's people, just as the Church is responsible for the spiritual well being. In this day and age, this applies not just to law enforcement, but also medical care.

Saving people's lives is the one area in which capitalism should not apply: at least in the application of it to individuals. "Big Business" health care, such as we have now, does not support free enterprise: it is for all intents and purposes the implementation of a caste system, where the rich who can pay for the proper medical care can live, and those who cannot die. This, frankly, is disgusting.

Imagine for a moment if we took this idea to the front steps of a hospital. On the right, a little girl, whose parents are poor, that needs a liver to survive. On the left, Bill Gates, who needs that same liver. In some instances, even if the little girl were at the top of the donor list, she would be skipped over, due to an inability to pay.

This is sickening. Who recieves medical care, should not be based on ones social status. While I agree that most forms of income redistribution are wrong (welfare), medical care is something different. We are not speaking of making sure everyone has a car and a T.V. here; we are talking about the right to life! The very thing that we Christians fight so hard for!

Republicans keep talking about just "making health care affordable to everyone." Speaking for myself, I have three children, a wife, I am going to school full time, and working my patooty off too. In order for health care to be "affordable" to me, it would have to be free.

If our idiotic conservative friends in the House and Senate, would quit opposing the health care bill, and instead put all of their efforts into putting in protections for the unborn, we would all be better off.

BTW: I even have a solution to the expense: dissolve the IRS, go with a straight tax, and re train all of the IRS employees for jobs in health care. Funding and people all in one shot!

Havensdad

I had planned to give a detailed rebuttal to your OP but on reflection just wanted to say that you are wrong on all points.

I will quibble specifically on one point, however, which indicates that you apparently know little to nothing about how Congress works. You say:

If our idiotic conservative friends in the House and Senate, would quit opposing the health care bill, and instead put all of their efforts into putting in protections for the unborn, we would all be better off.

The minority party in the House can essentially do nothing as far as legislation is concerned. Since the Senate democrats control 60 votes the Republicans can do little except stall. If you will reflect a little on the difficulty of getting the Ban on Partial Birth Abortions passed and signed you will understand.

I hate to say it but your above quote sounds just like something that Just Christian or whatever his moniker was would repeat ad infinitum.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

There is nothing unconstitutional about promoting the public good.

The problem is that "promoting the public good" is defined in Article I, Section 8 and it doesn't say anything at all about healthcare, welfare, entitlement programs, or compelling citizens to buy a commercial product or service.

Please show me the passage in the constitution that says "The government shall not be involved in saving lives."

That isn't how the Constitution works. The Constitution doesn't say, "OK, unless the Constitution says we can't, the goverment can do anything it wants!" It says that in order for the government to have the legal authority to do something, it has to be specifically enumerated within the Constitution.

According to scripture, the money itself belongs to "Caesar",

Which verse is that?

Apparently you have never read the Pentateuch.

Apparently, you've never read the book of Hebrews.

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad,

If you paid $40,000 property taxes in 14 years you live in a higher class zone than I do.

Then I guess I do. I Had a home whose County and State taxes were approximately 1600/year, plus 580 dollars in city taxes.

I also had 2.5 acres of property that cost more. About 4,000 dollars (not counting the taxes I paid on my current "house").

Seems like to me with a tax bill like that and no health insurance the choice would be easy. Sell the property and buy health insurance.

As I stated, I am not speaking primarily of myself. I am fine: there are others who did not have the breaks in life that I did, however.

You said in your OP you wanted us to pound you. Had enuf yet?

Nope. I will forever tout the right of every man woman and child in our modern age, to receive life giving treatment, regardless of social status.

 

[rbell]

Havensdad has never answered this:

Since government care is such a great idea...how come it performs so poorly? (Hint: if confused, look up "Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital" and see what kind of care they've been getting).

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad has never answered this:

Since government care is such a great idea...how come it performs so poorly? (Hint: if confused, look up "Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital" and see what kind of care they've been getting).

Don't know about that. Do know my Father got a staph infection on his back: handed them the Medicare card, they stuck him in a room, I believe they lanced it (or possibly cut a portion of it out? Wasn't in the room) gave him antibiotics, and he was fine. No problem.

Brother got a similar infection, only his was MRSA. In just a few hours, a small spot on his hand had turned into a large spot, and his arm was swollen. He (because of not having insurance) had to go to a hospital all the way in Houston, which, if he would not have had gas money, would have just been too bad for him.