The Bitter Health Care Debate | Page 5 | Golden Skate

The Bitter Health Care Debate

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
Mathman, Not quite. You can also make the choice to either
a: pay 2% of your income in taxes as a penalty for not buying insurance
or
b: buy the insurance

My son is considering sticking with option a. Of course, right now, it costs him nothing to not buy insurance, so he isn't thinking this bill is a wonderful deal for him. He cannot afford to spend 7% or so of his income on insurance at this time, so 2% to not buy it is still cheaper.

He used to buy insurance, but since he turned 40, it is 3x more expensive, and he can't afford it any more. The bill still allows insurance companies to charge 3x more, so it is no help whatsoever.
 

skatingbc

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
The health care debate has always fascinated me. Recently my Sociology and PoliSci classes have got me thinking about health care in a way I haven't before.

I never thought of health care as a commodity before. It never occurred to me that it was a service that could be bought and sold. My prof went on to say that countries with universal health care (in this case, Canada) tend to have a more humanitarian view towards health care and countries without universal health care tend to have a more capitalistic view towards it. However basic or simple that point is, it was interesting to me and truly got me thinking.

Also, in my PoliSci class, we brainstormed our own definitions of Politics. The Golden Rule was brought up (Do unto others as you would have done unto you...) and it got me thinking again. The discussion, relating to health care, was essentially that I will pay my taxes that ensure that you get appropriate health care because I would want you to do the same for me down the road. That seemed to be the only thing the entire class agreed upon during the whole debate. I would love to take a Political Science class across the border just to experience the difference, if there is a difference at all.

One question...In the wake of the disaster in Haiti, there will be considerable financial aid going to Haiti. This aid may not be direct, but indirect in the form of the Red Cross, soldiers, etc. Do people object to their tax dollars going towards a foreign country in crisis?
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Do people object to their tax dollars going towards a foreign country in crisis?
It depends. On true "natural disaster" issues - not at all. However, when there is aid to a county experiencing famine, I do often question it - if famine has been caused by civil war, how much of the aid actually goes to feed the country and how much of it settles in the bureaucrats' pockets? I don't mind one bit when my money goes to help those really in need; unfortunately, too often that's not where it ends up.

Or, there is what happened with US and Somalia under Clinton (1993? I don't recall exactly). US first sent aid there because of an awful humanitarian crisis. That - I did not mind at all. Then, however, we thought - well, if we leave now, all of our good work will be undone, and the people we helped feed will, once again, starve. So, let's do some nation building instead! While the idea came from a very right place, it was a disaster. We spent A LOT of money, probably enough to feed a couple of Somalias for a year, lost a few soldiers, and essentially achieved NOTHING. That is the kind of aid I do mind.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
About money for humanitarian aid, universal health care, etc....today's newpaper reports that President Obama has just asked Congress for an increase, to 731 billion doallars, to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have killed a little over 100,000 people there, so that works out to $7,000,000 for each person killed. (Mafia contracts are a small fraction of that.)

The next article was about our plans for military action in Yemen, in the wake of the mentally unstable Nigerian man who set his pants on fire on an airplane. (No word yet about invading Nigeria.)

I am glad I am not the President to have to make these hard choices. But I can't help wondering if it would have been better to have spared the life of one Iraqi civilian and sent the seven million to Haiti.
 
Last edited:

i love to skate

Medalist
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
The next article was about our plans for military action in Yemen, in the wake of the mentally unstable Nigerian man who set his pants on fire on an airplane. (No word yet about invading Nigeria.)

I am glad I am not the President to have to make these hard choices. But I can't help wondering if it would have been better to have spared the life of one Iraqi civilian and sent the seven million to Haiti.

Why does the United States continue to choose war and military conflict?! My gosh, there has already been TWO wars started in the past ten years by this country. Do we honestly need a third? All this will do is send the world into more and more chaos. Obama better tread lightly here, as there are threats of a holy war:

"If any foreign country insists on aggression and the invasion of the country or interference, in a military or security way, Muslim sons are duty bound to carry out jihad and fight the aggressors," the clerics said in a statement.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/14/yemen-clerics-jihad.html
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ Well, the reaction of most Americans to the quote in bold is, "Jihad? We'll show you a Jihad! Nuke the camel-*******!"
 

skatingbc

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
About money for humanitarian aid, universal health care, etc....today's newpaper reports that President Obama has just asked Congress for an increase, to 731 billion doallars, to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have killed a little over 100,000 people there, so that works out to $7,000,000 for each person killed. (Mafia contracts are a small fraction of that.)

The next article was about our plans for military action in Yemen, in the wake of the mentally unstable Nigerian man who set his pants on fire on an airplane. (No word yet about invading Nigeria.)

I am glad I am not the President to have to make these hard choices. But I can't help wondering if it would have been better to have spared the life of one Iraqi civilian and sent the seven million to Haiti.

I agree. I would not like to be in Obama's shoes right now, or any other time for that matter. Every move he makes is critiqued...it's getting to be a tad ridiculous!

That statistic is astounding though. The amount of money that goes into wars. I know this has been brought up before, but I find it shocking the amount of people who have no problem with the amount that has been spent on wars, but when it comes to health care, that's when they bring up the amount of debt the country is in.

It depends. On true "natural disaster" issues - not at all. However, when there is aid to a county experiencing famine, I do often question it - if famine has been caused by civil war, how much of the aid actually goes to feed the country and how much of it settles in the bureaucrats' pockets? I don't mind one bit when my money goes to help those really in need; unfortunately, too often that's not where it ends up.

Or, there is what happened with US and Somalia under Clinton (1993? I don't recall exactly). US first sent aid there because of an awful humanitarian crisis. That - I did not mind at all. Then, however, we thought - well, if we leave now, all of our good work will be undone, and the people we helped feed will, once again, starve. So, let's do some nation building instead! While the idea came from a very right place, it was a disaster. We spent A LOT of money, probably enough to feed a couple of Somalias for a year, lost a few soldiers, and essentially achieved NOTHING. That is the kind of aid I do mind.

I agree. In fact, one of my term paper options is to examine humanitarian efforts and their benefits.

Relating this back to the health care debate, how many people feel that it is necessary to help other countries and their citizens in times of crisis, but feel that a publicly funded health care program to benefit their own fellow citizens in unnecessary? I feel that although health care may be on a smaller scale, numerous people and families go into financial crisis because of rising health care costs. Why do we feel an obligation to aid foreign countries but not our own citizens?

ETA...I really should have taken Sociology and Political Studies earlier...
 
Last edited:

i love to skate

Medalist
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
I agree. In fact, one of my term paper options is to examine humanitarian efforts and their benefits.

Relating this back to the health care debate, how many people feel that it is necessary to help other countries and their citizens in times of crisis, but feel that a publicly funded health care program to benefit their own fellow citizens in unnecessary? I feel that although health care may be on a smaller scale, numerous people and families go into financial crisis because of rising health care costs. Why do we feel an obligation to aid foreign countries but not our own citizens?

One thing I have found is that people are more than willing to help people overseas. The Canadian outpouring of support has been overwhelming and something to be proud of. However, I find people often ignore what is going on in their own country. As a person who works in social services I find Canada's performance on human rights matters lately extremely atrocious!

One in ten Canadian children live below the poverty line (this is Canada's dirty little secret), the quality of life on reserves is absolutely embarassing, 76 First Nations communities are under boil water adviseries. 76! Their own drinking water is unsafe to drink - this is CANADA for goodness sakes. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering Harper's government voted against the right to water at the United Nations Human Rights Council:disapp:

So my question I guess, is why are we so quick to offer aid to people from other countries while ignoring the plight of our own citizens?
 

Wicked

Final Flight
Joined
May 26, 2009
Reagan came close this. He closed all the federally funded hospitals for the mentally ill. They were clothed and thrown into the streets for the churches to take care of, and many died. I got a $200 rebate on my income tax. God was happy for me.

Closing the hospitals, or deinstitutionalization, was not the problem. The problem was that no one gave any consideration to what would happen to these people when they were released. There were no community programs in place to assist them.

Tonichelle, I am like you and generally want to take care of myself and not put my burdens on others. But as a social worker I have met many people who have had bad things happen to them through no fault of their own and over which they had no control, which led them to be unable to take care of themselves. They were good upstanding people who never wanted a handout. So far I have been spared these calamities and I hope this will continue. But if something awful does happen and I need help, I hope I will not allow my pride to stand in the way. Sometimes a helping hand can pull you up and allow you to stand on your own two feet again. There's no shame in it.
 

skatingbc

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
One thing I have found is that people are more than willing to help people overseas. The Canadian outpouring of support has been overwhelming and something to be proud of. However, I find people often ignore what is going on in their own country. As a person who works in social services I find Canada's performance on human rights matters lately extremely atrocious!

One in ten Canadian children live below the poverty line (this is Canada's dirty little secret), the quality of life on reserves is absolutely embarassing, 76 First Nations communities are under boil water adviseries. 76! Their own drinking water is unsafe to drink - this is CANADA for goodness sakes. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering Harper's government voted against the right to water at the United Nations Human Rights Council:disapp:

So my question I guess, is why are we so quick to offer aid to people from other countries while ignoring the plight of our own citizens?

I definitely agree with you! We are fair from perfect! I wasn't trying to insinuate that we don't have our own social epidemics...I live in Vancouver! There is so much ignorance especially regarding First Nations communities and the homeless. I just thought it was fairly ironic that for many, the argument is "I don't expect my neighbour to pay for MY health care costs and I won't pay for his either". Essentially, they are willing to pay for health care for foreigners but not their own people? Huh?
 

i love to skate

Medalist
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
I definitely agree with you! We are fair from perfect! I wasn't trying to insinuate that we don't have our own social epidemics...I live in Vancouver! There is so much ignorance especially regarding First Nations communities and the homeless. I just thought it was fairly ironic that for many, the argument is "I don't expect my neighbour to pay for MY health care costs and I won't pay for his either". Essentially, they are willing to pay for health care for foreigners but not their own people? Huh?

Oh, I agree with everything you said in your last post. I probably shouldn't have quoted it because my "rant":p was just expanding off of it and asking a different question! I didn't mean to make seem like I was challenging you or anything, because I wasn't :biggrin: I really like this political forum!
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
As a Massachusetts resident, I have a unique chance to vote on healthcare build - our elections tomorrow to replace the late Senator Kennedy will decide if Democrats still have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It's a tough race - I side more with the Democratic candidates on issues, but like the character of the Republican candidate much more.
 
Top