A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health - page 17

From Bloomberg: Universal Health Care Six in 10 people surveyed say they would be willing to repeal tax cuts to help pay for a health-care program that insures all Americans. ... Most of the... Read More

  1. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    No of course you're not asking about the areas of healthcare where the free market has been left to work. You don't want to hear about the REAL success stories of combining the best of quality and cost.

    What you want to hear is that Uncle Daddy will save us all. Sure. It'll only cost you your freedom to choose.

    No. Wait. My bad. It'll also cost you 2/3rds of your salary in taxation.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    I am asking about needs rather than wants.

    When and where has or is profit driven free market working?
  2. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    I am asking about needs rather than wants.

    When and where has or is profit driven free market working?
    The free market provides you with pencils for a dime. Do you know how many materials go into making a pencil? Do you know how many hands are at work? And yet. Fine quality, excellent pricing.

    It provides you with a dozen different components that went into making your dinner tonight - all for probably less than an hour of your wage. Do you know how much effort and energy and TIME went into providing such a meal, even a generation ago?

    It has provided you this internet, the computer that accesses it, and the software that runs it SO affordable that it is just a routine household appliance.

    And that cell phone? WOW. What technology! In your hands - for less than a good old gov't regulated MA Bell landline cost a generation ago. And then, you had no choice: black phone, rotary dial. And wait a minute - now that you have those cell phones, how many of worry anymore about the cost of long distance phone calls? Wow. What freedom.

    The free market provides you a hundred different forms of transportation options. Wanna drive a Hummer? A Prius? Something in between? YOUR CHOICE.

    The free market IS CHOICE. Free as in - free from government interference. (Only the gov't STILL interferes, with almost every mentioned product in this post. EVEN with such interference, because it is only relative, the free market still excels. Imagine! Imagine if you had unfettered access to the freedom to choose. Wow, I'm giddy, just thinking about the wonders of a world without gov't interference. Imagine . . . a world with no gov't coercion of its citizens - I'm getting all John Lennon here.) Gov't interference is the taking of choice. It makes things free - not free. That is what gov't has always been. It is the nature of gov't to take your rights 'for your own best good'.

    When Milton Friedman made a TV show for PBS on the advantage of capitalism, he summed it up in his one phrase title for what the free market is: Freedom to Choose.

    Gov't stifles that freedom. You are proposing a trade: gov't takes care of your needs, you get only what the gov't provides. You are proposing an exchange of freedom for a measure of safety.

    Only, it's an illusion. The gov't will not make you more safe. It cannot. It is not designed to have your best interests at heart. It never was. Gov't only excels at tyranny. From the gov't's point of view, restricted care isn't about taking care of you; it's about a dangled carrot to control you. THAT is what gov't is about.

    Our framers knew that. THAT is why they placed our gov't in the box of enumerated powers. Gov't equals tyranny.

    Freedom has choices. Choices come from the freedom to make such choices. You can't give that freedom to the gov't in exchange for safety and still expect to have freedom or choice. Oh, I know that is promised - anything to get you to gladly trade your freedom. Bread and Circuses.

    Uncle Daddy will take care of you. Sure, he will. Uncle Daddy always has my best interest at heart. Socializing medicine has NOTHING to do with the gov't taking, for the elected class, the ability to dole out 1/7th of the economy to the highest lobbying bidder. The King and his Courtisans only want to control healthcare FOR YOU, so it will benefit you BETTER.

    All the gov't wants to do is have a bunch of friendly, professional healthcare planners make better decisions for you than you could. They will be expert, and efficient at it. It will save you tons of money and provide you with better care. As a token of trust, all you need do is cede over more of your paycheck, as a down payment on this grand utopion system.

    Really? Really!

    Does anybody REALLY believe that the gov't of DMV waits and Social Security Administration disdain will step up to the plate and be spiffy, on the spot healthcare providers? Does anybody really believe that the monopoly of gov't can be on time and on budget with such a goal? What I would like for you to show me is a consistent example of that.

    Medicare is more than 10 times overbudget from it's original cost estimate. This new system will save me 37% on administration costs? Wow. But. . . Is that before OR AFTER it runs 300% overbudget? That could never happen, right? The gov't never spends 900 bucks on a hammer? They don't just give powerchairs away to anybody, at no cost to you? Never happen . . .

    Oh yes, I know the argument. The free market is FULL of people with schemes on how to get rich off the backs of you. Well, maybe so. At least they have to compete in the marketplace and offer me a deal that I am willing to take. At least, I have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to say no. The FREEdom to say no.

    Will you be free to say no, under gov't restricted national care? Yeah, that's much, much better than that evil 'free' market.

    Gov't? It's full of people with schemes on how to get rich off the backs of you. Only, they don't really want to have to compete for your part of the bargain. They'd rather you sell it to them, in advance. It's much easier - for THEM - that way. Come hither Esau, a meal is ready for you. It'll only cost you your birthright.

    Uncle Daddy is looking out for you.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 17, '07
  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    I am asking about needs rather than wants.

    When and where has or is profit driven free market working?
    To answer your specific question, look at the relatively UNREGULATED drug market: look at OTC drugs. If you really need an ibuprofen, how much would it cost? Hundred bucks a month, you say? Of course not! IT has to compete in a market of competitive CHOICES. . . When it comes to OTC pain relievers, you have the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. And, that choice impacts and informs both your decisions, and the decisions of marketers actually trying to gain YOUR free-willed choice. Both buyer and seller are FREE to say no. It's a free market (at least, relative to the fully regulated prescription market).

    I could look to the fully gov't regulated prescription drug market for MY proton pump inhibitor. How much, exactly, DOES Nexium cost, per month? I bet some of you know. I don't. Why not? Because I CHOSE to turn to the relatively more free OTC market for MY PPI. My OTC Prilosec costs me 18 dollars a month, no copay; that's the total cost. I wonder how much it cost when it was still able to hide in the fully gov't regulated prescription market? I have no idea. THEN, I used OTC H2 blockers. Freedom to choose.

    You want an example of the difference between full gov't regulation and partial gov't regulation (a more relative free market)? Look no further than the drug market. Look no further than the cost differential between your OTC and prescription drugs. They are made by the same companies. Why the huge differences in prices? One market is fully gov't regulated, and one isn't.

    Do you know why you'll never see amoxicillin and keflex OTC? You're too stupid to be informed about the differences between microbials and viruses, right? Well, actually, no. IF the gov't were to allow such a thing, you wouldn't even CONSIDER paying a hundred bucks for some next gen cephalosporin. We can't have that now, can we? After all, YOU don't fund our campaigns; big phrama does. And THIS gov't is going to have your best interests at heart, when you have no freedom to choose anything? Forget my routine benediction below: to believe this, THAT'S FAITH.

    ~FAITH,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 17, '07
  4. by   teeituptom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    No of course you're not asking about the areas of healthcare where the free market has been left to work. You don't want to hear about the REAL success stories of combining the best of quality and cost.

    What you want to hear is that Uncle Daddy will save us all. Sure. It'll only cost you your freedom to choose.

    No. Wait. My bad. It'll also cost you 2/3rds of your salary in taxation.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    No where do I see the loss of freedom to choose, unless you are talking about the freedoms already being taken from us.

    The freedom to bear arms

    The freedom to the pursuit of happiness

    the freedom of the right to privacy

    the freedom from illegal search and seizure

    the freedom of choice is already limited to our choice of flavors at Braums Ice cream store.

    What are taxes already, State Tax, Federal Tax, Social Security, property tax, sales tax. Just lump them together and you have almost 2/3s as is
  5. by   teeituptom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    The free market provides you with pencils for a dime. Do you know how many materials go into making a pencil? Do you know how many hands are at work? And yet. Fine quality, excellent pricing.

    It provides you with a dozen different components that went into making your dinner tonight - all for probably less than an hour of your wage. Do you know how much effort and energy and TIME went into providing such a meal, even a generation ago?

    It has provided you this internet, the computer that accesses it, and the software that runs it SO affordable that it is just a routine household appliance.

    And that cell phone? WOW. What technology! In your hands - for less than a good old gov't regulated MA Bell landline cost a generation ago. And then, you had no choice: black phone, rotary dial. And wait a minute - now that you have those cell phones, how many of worry anymore about the cost of long distance phone calls? Wow. What freedom.

    The free market provides you a hundred different forms of transportation options. Wanna drive a Hummer? A Prius? Something in between? YOUR CHOICE.

    The free market IS CHOICE. Free as in - free from government interference. (Only the gov't STILL interferes, with almost every mentioned product in this post. EVEN with such interference, because it is only relative, the free market still excels. Imagine! Imagine if you had unfettered access to the freedom to choose. Wow, I'm giddy, just thinking about the wonders of a world without gov't interference. Imagine . . . a world with no gov't coercion of its citizens - I'm getting all John Lennon here.) Gov't interference is the taking of choice. It makes things free - not free. That is what gov't has always been. It is the nature of gov't to take your rights 'for your own best good'.

    When Milton Friedman made a TV show for PBS on the advantage of capitalism, he summed it up in his one phrase title for what the free market is: Freedom to Choose.

    Gov't stifles that freedom. You are proposing a trade: gov't takes care of your needs, you get only what the gov't provides. You are proposing an exchange of freedom for a measure of safety.

    Only, it's an illusion. The gov't will not make you more safe. It cannot. It is not designed to have your best interests at heart. It never was. Gov't only excels at tyranny. From the gov't's point of view, restricted care isn't about taking care of you; it's about a dangled carrot to control you. THAT is what gov't is about.

    Our framers knew that. THAT is why they placed our gov't in the box of enumerated powers. Gov't equals tyranny.

    Freedom has choices. Choices come from the freedom to make such choices. You can't give that freedom to the gov't in exchange for safety and still expect to have freedom or choice. Oh, I know that is promised - anything to get you to gladly trade your freedom. Bread and Circuses.

    Uncle Daddy will take care of you. Sure, he will. Uncle Daddy always has my best interest at heart. Socializing medicine has NOTHING to do with the gov't taking, for the elected class, the ability to dole out 1/7th of the economy to the highest lobbying bidder. The King and his Courtisans only want to control healthcare FOR YOU, so it will benefit you BETTER.

    All the gov't wants to do is have a bunch of friendly, professional healthcare planners make better decisions for you than you could. They will be expert, and efficient at it. It will save you tons of money and provide you with better care. As a token of trust, all you need do is cede over more of your paycheck, as a down payment on this grand utopion system.

    Really? Really!

    Does anybody REALLY believe that the gov't of DMV waits and Social Security Administration disdain will step up to the plate and be spiffy, on the spot healthcare providers? Does anybody really believe that the monopoly of gov't can be on time and on budget with such a goal? What I would like for you to show me is a consistent example of that.

    Medicare is more than 10 times overbudget from it's original cost estimate. This new system will save me 37% on administration costs? Wow. But. . . Is that before OR AFTER it runs 300% overbudget? That could never happen, right? The gov't never spends 900 bucks on a hammer? They don't just give powerchairs away to anybody, at no cost to you? Never happen . . .

    Oh yes, I know the argument. The free market is FULL of people with schemes on how to get rich off the backs of you. Well, maybe so. At least they have to compete in the marketplace and offer me a deal that I am willing to take. At least, I have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to say no. The FREEdom to say no.

    Will you be free to say no, under gov't restricted national care? Yeah, that's much, much better than that evil 'free' market.

    Gov't? It's full of people with schemes on how to get rich off the backs of you. Only, they don't really want to have to compete for your part of the bargain. They'd rather you sell it to them, in advance. It's much easier - for THEM - that way. Come hither Esau, a meal is ready for you. It'll only cost you your birthright.

    Uncle Daddy is looking out for you.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Timmy I love all those big words you so dramatically throw out.And phrases.

    I'm getting all John Lennon here

    for your own best good

    Its an illusion,,,,,,Maybe we should elect Chriss Cross or Uri Gellar to run things

    Government equals Tyranny, boy thats an old slogan to, I remember that from the 60s

    Bread and Circuses I found this very illuminating

    Down payment on this grand utopian system. Dont we all want Utopia for all

    are you saying you want a power chair, I prefer a golf cart myself

    Gov't. Its full of people with schemes on how to get rich off the backs of you. Is this any differrent than what the War mongering Republicans and Halliburton are doing to us already. is that what your saying



    Enquiring minds want to know
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from teeituptom
    Gov't. Its full of people with schemes on how to get rich off the backs of you. Is this any differrent than what the War mongering Republicans and Halliburton are doing to us already. is that what your saying
    It's very difficult for me to imagine (humming Johnny) how you are SO distrustful of the current Administration, however, you have so much FAITH in that same gov't to be any kind of fair or any less kind of scheming.

    I'm in awe that you can so readily dissociate your current feelings for the current Administration with your otherwise good feelings for gov't, in general. It's amazing to me that a Woodstock child could ever turn to the gov't for anything that requires trust.

    Yet, here you are. You don't fool me with your 'let's play golf' dismissiveness. When it comes to gov't, you are a man of FAITH.

    Me? I'm an athiest when it comes to gov't. If only everybody inside the Beltway could learn to play golf and forget about thinking up new ways to coerce the people that actually make America work.

    Gov't = tyranny, btw, has a much longer track record than the '60's. "Don't tread on me." Your generation wasn't the only ones that had that right. So did your father's. And his father. And his. And his.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 18, '07
  7. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from teeituptom
    No where do I see the loss of freedom to choose
    But that IS the proposal: let the gov't be the owner. If Uncle Daddy pays; Uncle Daddy decides.

    The customer isn't the end user; the customer is the buyer.

    Under gov't restricted healthcare, your choices will only be from among those the gov't CHOOSES to make available to you. You no longer exercise any choice but to accept the choices MADE FOR YOU.

    By the gov't. By the next Republican Administration.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    On the bright side, it doesn't really matter what kind of single payor system could get passed.

    The consequence of bypassing the enumerated powers is that gov't HAS INDEED sold out its checks and balances.

    Does it really matter what kind of legislation you could get passed?

    5 members of the Cabal is all it would take to toss it all out. . . That die has been cast. (3 of those 5 are already sitting and only in their 50's.)

    In this case, there would actually be Constitutional merit for tossing it aside. A President's signature is no longer game/set/match. That's just the first round.

    That's the road we've chosen to go down.

    The only real power anymore is the power to choose the Cabal.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 18, '07
  9. by   HM2VikingRN
    Give me results over ideology.

    Does anyone really think that Australia, NZ, Canada, Germany, The UK (or the Scandinavian Countries for that matter) are any less free than the US or have less vibrant economies? With a single payer or mixed public/private system they are achieving better health results at a lower price. The funny thing about the Commonwealth fund data was just how well the UK performed vis a vis the US. The other countries can learn from us about right care but in every other area they have lessons to teach us. Social democracy and/or socialized finance of health care is not contrary to a free society.
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Give me results over ideology.
    Exactly my point.

    The idea of gov't restricted care is ideological. It certainly has nothing to do with universal access. We could do that far short of a wholesale takeover of a large part of the economy.

    Besides, the free market has proven itself, time and time again, to be results driven. Higher quality, cheaper price.

    No matter how much you want to, you will never duplicate that with any monopoly, much less a gov't one. Think Ma Bell's black rotary landline with long dx charges vs. your cell phone with a national calling plan. In inflation adjusted dollars, your cell phone is cheaper. Much higher quality, much cheaper price. The difference: no gov't regulated monopoly.

    No matter how much you want to, you will never duplicate that with socialism. Gov't restriced care is socialized medicine. Those nations that have adopted it have no qualms about saying so. Those that want to adopt it here will go out of their way to deny the truth. The truth cannot sell. When it comes to selling socialized medicine Stateside, the truth is a PR disaster.

    Socialized Medicine: A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.)


    I agree. Results over ideology. The way here has a long, proven, track record: get the gov't out from in between you and your healthcare.

    Really, except for the true believers, how many people actually believe that the path to a 'results driven' system lies through gov't bureaucracy? Really? Is that truly your experience with gov't thus far? This efficient, friendly gov't that has only your best interests at heart: it's a fairytale. Most people, I think, actually do have enough real world experience when it comes to gov't to distinguish reality from this fable.

    THAT is why we don't have a gov't restricted system, now.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 18, '07
  11. by   teeituptom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    But that IS the proposal: let the gov't be the owner. If Uncle Daddy pays; Uncle Daddy decides.

    The customer isn't the end user; the customer is the buyer.

    Under gov't restricted healthcare, your choices will only be from among those the gov't CHOOSES to make available to you. You no longer exercise any choice but to accept the choices MADE FOR YOU.

    By the gov't. By the next Republican Administration.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    You mean by the new incoming Democrat administration

    there lies the difference and the improvement
  12. by   nicurn001
    Zashagalka , in respose 204 you tried to answer my question :-

    "Whilst I believe that we as RN may have the ability to research our healthcare and possibly be able to finance it, there are many consumers of health care who would not be able to do so , how is this group to be cared for ? "

    But in your response the consumer would have to be able to:-
    a) obtain insuranace ( no pre-existing conditions)
    b) be able to afford the premiums for the insurance.
    c)have a large enough income to pay for their uninsured expenditures .
    and / or
    d) pay enough taxes , so that any tax break would have a mitigating effect upon their healthcare expenditure.

    Then you went off on a Rhetorical rant about the uninsured expecting " Uncle Daddy "to take care of the uninsured's healthcare.I am a compassionate conservative, in that, I believe most uninsured simply do not have the wherewithal to manage there healthcare .But conservative enough that I wish to cover them in the most cost effective manner possible .
    There is the crux of our divergence of opinion .Why the uninsured are uninsured and how to ensure we can cover healthcare for everyone.

    I tend to beleive in "there ,but for the grace of good go I " ie. it is only circumstances that enable me to be able to take care of my healthcare .

    Whilst it appears that you believe that whatever the circumstances , it is the uninsured's fault they are uninsured it is for them to remedy this problem , without bothering me .
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from teeituptom
    You mean by the new incoming Democrat administration

    there lies the difference and the improvement
    I wasn't suggesting the NEXT Administration would be Republican, although, that's not as unlikely as you hope.

    But, there WILL be a NEXT Republican Administration, at some point. THAT Administration will control whatever of your rights you choose to cede to gov't.

    You can't just plan for when 'your guys' are in office. Our electorate is much too divided for that.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

close