Confused Briton seeks clarification from right -wing Americans

[Stoklov]

/sarcasm Why would you look for an intelligent debate on anything on the internet, of all things. It's a proven fact that anyone who says anything on the internet is a complete idiot and has no idea what they're talking about. /sarcasm

Yeah, I'm against it. Not because I say "Screw you, I guess you'll just have to deal/stay sick/die. I don't want to pay for you." Not because talk-show hosts and such say "Blah Socialist blah blah Death-boards blah Evil Obama." (although admittedly, I _do_ listen to such shows* and am in general not in favor of socialism) Hell, it's not even because I don't think we can afford it. It's because I don't think it's the job of the government. It's the job of the people.

People feel all noble and good when the government steps in and the taxpayers fund the project. What have you done? Sat back and done nothing that's what.** How saintly of you. The health care system isn't perfect? Then get off your butt and DO something about it, instead of waiting for the government to step in. Health insurance companies are out to make a profit? *gasp!* You don't like it? Change it. Start your own company, do things the way you think they should be done. People look at society's problems and look to the government to fix them, but that's shifting the responibility away from where it belongs, you.

* Clarification: I listen to them, I didn't say I agree with/unquestioningly accept what they say. I have to listen to the radio a lot, and music is boring. These shows, to me, are at least not boring.

** Apologies to anyone that has actually done something. This statement therefore doesn't apply to you.

 

[DrDeath3191]

I would pay insurance costs for things that are likely to occur, such as breaking bones, or common diseases, or more serious ones if I was particularly at risk for them. To make me have to pay for some disease that I won't or (quite possibly) can't get is silly. I want to pay for services I would use. I would agree that some coverage is wise, but get only what you absolutely need.

it doesn't work like that at all

you can't really pick and choose what you may or may not have. you might not be at risk to get a torn acl but one day you might twist in an odd way and tear your acl. with insurance coverage you can get it paid off but if you have selective insurance, you couldn't add knee surgery to the list after you tore your acl.

however you would be out about 20k or more for the surgery. with healthcare or insurance the cost of that surgery is paid for

It is completely my decision to be covered for a torn ACL or not. If I don't, and I get a torn ACL, boo-hoo for me.

 

[sneakypenguin]

To continue this point those of us who wish for private care(as I have) instead of government run, do we get that tax money back? Taxes will HAVE to go up, you can't add a trillion+dollars to the deficit without them increasing (even on the middle class). SO why should those of us who go to college and get those 50-200k middle class jobs have to pay for insurance twice?

Why do the states that actually developed their industrial and cultural centers have to pay for some of the states that aren't as well-off? (Answer: because the whole country's kinda fucked if they don't.)

-- Alex

Well one could make the point that states shouldn't pay for others, why should texas which is profitable be paying for CAs years of waste? I know confederalism was defeated in the civil war but still seems to me it would work better if states where pretty much left to their own devices with standardization coming from the federal lvl.

 

[Pipotchi]

I find it amusing that the arguements against healthcare are nearly all socialist/financial based whereas a more pertinent question would be how can the present system be ok when hordes of average Americans can be left in dire straits because your governemtn wont pay for them.

good article from the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html

Put simply without healthcare many of your citizens will die because you dont want socialised medicine, if you dont care then fine but any country that doesnt care about its citizens shouldnt be lecturing any other countries about their failings.

 

[Knight Templar]

To continue this point those of us who wish for private care(as I have) instead of government run, do we get that tax money back? Taxes will HAVE to go up, you can't add a trillion+dollars to the deficit without them increasing (even on the middle class). SO why should those of us who go to college and get those 50-200k middle class jobs have to pay for insurance twice?

Why do the states that actually developed their industrial and cultural centers have to pay for some of the states that aren't as well-off? (Answer: because the whole country's kinda fucked if they don't.)

-- Alex

Well one could make the point that states shouldn't pay for others, why should texas which is profitable be paying for CAs years of waste? I know confederalism was defeated in the civil war but still seems to me it would work better if states where pretty much left to their own devices with standardization coming from the federal lvl.

Then why be united? If you're not going to help each other in times of need why be the united states? Didn't you fight a war or two over this?

 

[Kedcom]

When it comes to America, it's just best to ignore what we say and laugh at our overall idiocy.

As a Brit one side of me wants to agree with you completely. Because it can be amusing to see someone shoot themselves in the foot over and over again. But the other side of me just wishes for America to fulfill it's potential and truly become that shining beacon on the hill that other nations should look towards for progressive and enlightened ideas. Certainly Americans have a fantastic work ethic and few people have been as generous hosts to me when I have visited.

But unfortunately, as many problems as us Europeans have, I feel America is some way behind in many respects... healthcare is just one of them.

 

[Jsnoopy]

I'm just as perplexed as you are, especially seeing how pissed of people are getting at the town hall meetings over cheap national healthcare and cheaper private healthcare.

Actually these "grassroots" town hall protests are sponsered by republicans and/or republican supporters. Nothing really wrong with them organizing protests but if you didn't know better you'd really think "omg everyone in American hates this!".

snip

Pretty good stuff overall. Hehe Politics are amazing. Anyways again there is nothing wrong with them doing this. It's completely in their right to organize and proest and whatnot but the real trick here is making it seem like it's a legitimate grassroots movement and that they manage to pull off pretty damn well. I know plenty of people who ate all this junk up as if the whole of America is against the bill.

Yep shouldn't that be optional (helping people) doing a wrong (taking someones earned money for something they don't want/need) for a "right" (helping ppl) isn't IMO the correct way to go about things. But then again I'm one of those idealist libertarians

Yeah thats something everyone has to decide for themselves. And honestly the tax issue is the only real issue I can agree with against the bill. Especially when you think about how tax payer money tends to be misspent or simply disappear but meh. I could ramble on and on about crap like that.

well shit, that makes a lot more sense to me now lol.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I didnt care, Then they pulled the NHS into the arguement.

How dare they! Stupid conservative nut-jobs, On WE are allowed to slag off our health service!

Get your own, THEN slag it off!

Because some people are too shallow-minded to see the truth. It happens with just about everybody... well, here at least.

Its a power grab, and Orwellian is just a descriptive of how they are presenting itself. Doing a little research you will easily find that the president is back and forth on exactly what is in the bill (of which there are several different versions, not just one) and honestly if you take a historical, or definitive standpoint it is socialism.

Problem is, "socialism" has been so overused in the last 20 years, both correctly and incorrectly, that it has now become empty rhetoric. Nazi, likewise, but the terms are in essence the same, because Nazi stands for National Socialist. Just look at what socialist governments did in 1915-30 Russia and 1930-36 Germany and make the comparison of what the president is saying.

Also, "free" is not as free as you would expect. I don't want my neighbor paying for my health care because I don't want to pay for his. A tax increase is mandatory to be able to pay for it, so it's not "free." There is also going to be rationing within the bill, as it stands in each version, which is due to the fact that they cannot simply afford it for everyone, and the poor will lose out there still.

Also, I want MY CHOICES not the government choosing what health care I will be able to get. Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

Maybe I'm too much on the "self responsibility" thing because I'm not some mentally deficient, pathetic simpleton who requires the government to hold my hand for every little thing in the world.

Fair point, Fairly rational at least. Y'see the thing is, i know an increase in tax is on the cards, But think of the number of lives it could save? With taxpayer money going into healthcare shouldn't that also bring up the standard of healthcare on the bottom line?

Also, just because something calls itself socialist or a republic doesn't mean it actually is. The USSR, China and North Korea all call themselves republics. In fact, almost every communist nation calls itself a republic somewhere in it's full name.

Republicans are hated in the US because they always try first to fear monger, then when that doesn't work they go search for some piece of dirt that really shouldn't be considered a high crime or misdemeanor, but since the republican party wants back in power, they go for an impeachment based on it. Ronald Regan (the patron saint of the current republican party) did nothing but cut taxes on the wealthy and kill as many public services as he could. Obama is proposing raising taxes to the rate they were at in 1985. Every republican administration from 1980 to present has cut the crap out of services while raising military spending and lowering taxes on the upper class and corporations.

Democrats aren't a whole lot better, but that's mostly because the party is schizophrenic due to constant attacks by republicans. What we need over here is some sort of viable third party, but every time one attempts to form at the state level, the parties group up and pass a law to make sure those new parties can't get on ballets. If you can't get on the ballet you can't get elected.

Both parties are crap, but you have to pick one or the other.

No, you don't. There are other parties. I hate this "lesser of two evils" sh*t. I swear if America had to vote and the Democrat was Stalin and the Republican was Hitler, only 1/8th would vote independant/Libertarian/etc.

Really? Then how the hell is it that only those two parties are allowed to hold primaries and get government money for their presidential campaigns? There was an attempt in Oregon to BAN all 3rd party candidates from the presidential ballots. This includes independents, without that little R or D you aren't a viable presidential candidate. Name the last third party candidate for president that came even remotely close to winning. Give up? It was before the dems and republicans were even in the picture in their current forms. And don't say Perot or Nader, they were just there to take votes off one party or the other (Perot took them from Bush 1 and Dole, Nader from Gore.)

I mean sorry come back later when we have a balanced budget and a surplus and the idea would sound a lot more rational.

We had one, the republicans squandered the whole thing in under a year. Spent it all on tax cuts to the wealthy if I remember right.

If by 'wealthy' you mean "Iraq and Afghanistan", then yes....you remember correctly.

Except that the money was gone before those wars started. Bush went right in and started with the tax cutting and the increases in military spending.

I wonder why both parties want you to believe that the other parties 'just take votes away'. I won't vote for anyone I don't want for president. I have that moral system.

What's wrong with cutting taxes? That = less government intrusion. Increasing military spending isn't all that good, but what I want are far less taxes, far less government intrusion, and more freedom.

 

[niglett]

its mostly because conservatives don't believe in abortion nor are they known for being open minded.
but also if they don't believe in something personally they don't think others should either.
I'm not conservative or anything but that's what i gathered from my conservative community.

Actually, the Democrats use the donkey. The Republicans use the elephant. Never forget!

no yous just crazies about the goats.
there is no donkeys in my post!!!

Did you edit your post? I could've sworn you had a line in there about the Repubs using an ass as their image. Sorry for the weirdness either way. Apparently, I'm having a stroke. Too bad anticoagulants aren't covered by my insurance! (see the way I brought it back on topic there? Smoooooooth)

 

[asinann]

What's wrong with cutting taxes? That = less government intrusion. Increasing military spending isn't all that good, but what I want are far less taxes, far less government intrusion, and more freedom.

The problem isn't that they cut taxes, it's that they cut taxes on the upper 10% only (themselves and their friends) and call it "trickle down economics." The theory being that if you give the people at the top more money, they will use that money to either directly or indirectly employ more middle and lower class people. This has never happened, not once, because the people at the top are already employing the number of people they need are are not about to add more people just because they have a little more money. Tax cuts rarely reach the middle class, and the lower class usually pays so little in taxes anyway that any tax cut would just cut it to a full refund.

Less government intrusion would be nice, but the cuts in programs are never in areas that intrude heavily in the lives of the common citizens. The cuts are always to roads, schools, hospital subsidies (we already pay for the nations poor to go to the emergency room, the most expensive type of health care) and things like that. Republicans always yell and scream about welfare moms when welfare is limited to 60 months life time for any individual, the problem is they lump the people that are disabled from birth into that group and try to pass it off as welfare when they are paid for either by individual states or through the social security trust fund. and not the general budget.

Another problem with anti-tax proponents is that they never stop spending. They just foist the costs of current government (mostly military) programs onto the next 2-3 generations. We need to up taxes and start paying as we go and maybe, just maybe paying off some of those trillions of dollars in debt.

Taxes are a necessary evil to keep governments running and able to provide the services that we as people cannot afford as individuals. The downfall of the US isn't going to be "gays and taxes" it's going to be sickening amounts of debt that the next generations can't pay because the current one is shipping all the work out of the country. Service based economies are only viable if there are people other than yourselves to serve, and last I checked there aren't a ton of people coming to the US to spend a bunch of money.

 

[Squarez]

Why do you not want a free health service when the option for private care will still exist?

Because it won't.

Pretty soon the government will decide that private healthcare isn't "safe", and that it needs to be illegal "for your own good". Then the government will get to decide exactly who gets healthcare and who doesn't. Healthcare is yet another thing that the government has no business controlling.

Also there's the fact that it's another huge monetary expenditure for a country already more than 10 trillion dollars in debt...

There are private health care companies in Britain.

Here's just one.
http://www.bupa.co.uk/

And if Bupa can exist in such an "evil" and Orwellian" society like Britain, they'll surely be able to survive in the "Land of the Free"

Also, it won't be bad for the economy, you won't go into debt, that;s why they need to raise taxes. But think of all the money the government will be injecting back into the economy on medical supplies, drugs and ambulances (for your failing motor companies).

 

[Imat]

They fear it because in all likelihood it will successful and become an untouchable part of American politics in the same way social security has become. The Republicans want small government and low taxes, a public healthcare system will mean an increase in both of these.

That's what it's really about, they are just using fear and lunatics to oppose it because if they had a rational debate about it, most people would be in favour of it.

I'm gonna have to ask this...Are you saying Social Security is successful or just that it's untouchable...Because only one of those is correct...

And I do not want nationalized health care because it doesn't work. It may look good on paper and it may look good in the short run, but it does not work overall. Exactly like Socialism (Notice that I am saying socialism looks good on paper and may work in the short run, not that nationalized health care is socialism).

And in all honesty you're doing the exact same thing you just described: Clearly we have no argument, according to you, so we must be a bunch of crazies who can't stand any change. And that's simply not true. We present arguments, you lot shoot them down - no matter how legitimate they are - faster than flies. As someone else said, "There is good on both sides, and bad on both sides."

Social security is untouchable because it is successful. Can you actually imagine what poor areas of America would be like if it wasn't for social security?

Not poor? Social Security would work if it weren't so awful to begin with. You understand that it's actually a losing scenario right? That we are gonna have to pay more for it to pay off what the elderly are currently getting? I've crunched numbers, and if we took the same amount of money that the government forces us to invest in SS and invested it in a savings account we'd all end up much better off. I'm not sure how you were so deluded as to think it's successful, I'm pretty sure most people in government understand that it's not. But people like to think that it's working, that they won't be putting their grandchildren in extreme debt. So nobody can touch it because the elderly are too selfish or too ignorant to admit it's ruining us. And if they don't admit it, they definitely won't let politicians admit it. By the time the next generation grows to that age, they have the exact same feelings towards it. Social Security is bad. I DO NOT want to shell out cash so that the elderly of the country can go on vacations. I DO NOT want my children to have to pay more than I do so that I can go on vacations. I DO NOT want this country to go bankrupt (More than it already has) because politicians are too afraid to get SS in check. The future is bleak, my friend, and you're just letting it happen.

 

[The Austin]

As an Englishman, it can be sometimes hard to wrap my head around the psyche of many Americans particularly the type who spends their days arguing on the internets about freedom and patriotism, also known as conservatives.

Im a liberal and I usualy am all patriotic on the interwebz, sooo.....


Anyway, I'm in favor for partal free health care, so those who really need it get it free, but those who want better treatment still pay some.

E.X. If your too poor for health care like my dad and me, you still get it, your just on the bottom of the list. If your a rich guy who wants better/quicker treatment, you just pay for higher class health care.

 

[Cliff_m85]

What's wrong with cutting taxes? That = less government intrusion. Increasing military spending isn't all that good, but what I want are far less taxes, far less government intrusion, and more freedom.

The problem isn't that they cut taxes, it's that they cut taxes on the upper 10% only (themselves and their friends) and call it "trickle down economics." The theory being that if you give the people at the top more money, they will use that money to either directly or indirectly employ more middle and lower class people. This has never happened, not once, because the people at the top are already employing the number of people they need are are not about to add more people just because they have a little more money. Tax cuts rarely reach the middle class, and the lower class usually pays so little in taxes anyway that any tax cut would just cut it to a full refund.

Less government intrusion would be nice, but the cuts in programs are never in areas that intrude heavily in the lives of the common citizens. The cuts are always to roads, schools, hospital subsidies (we already pay for the nations poor to go to the emergency room, the most expensive type of health care) and things like that. Republicans always yell and scream about welfare moms when welfare is limited to 60 months life time for any individual, the problem is they lump the people that are disabled from birth into that group and try to pass it off as welfare when they are paid for either by individual states or through the social security trust fund. and not the general budget.

Another problem with anti-tax proponents is that they never stop spending. They just foist the costs of current government (mostly military) programs onto the next 2-3 generations. We need to up taxes and start paying as we go and maybe, just maybe paying off some of those trillions of dollars in debt.

Taxes are a necessary evil to keep governments running and able to provide the services that we as people cannot afford as individuals. The downfall of the US isn't going to be "gays and taxes" it's going to be sickening amounts of debt that the next generations can't pay because the current one is shipping all the work out of the country. Service based economies are only viable if there are people other than yourselves to serve, and last I checked there aren't a ton of people coming to the US to spend a bunch of money.

Or maybe trusting the government with our taxes causes the problem? Up the taxes? Of what? Why not just do away with the taxes for useless things like the war on marijuana or building bridges in Alaska that go to communities with 12 people, take that money, and give it back to the tax payer or use it for something actually useful?

Trusting the government is like trusting your child's welfare to Mr. Henry A Molestington. It doesn't end well.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Wow.<-----what I said when I looked over the 7 pages of this thread

All I will say is...Damn I love living in Canada .

 

[Jenkins]

You know what is really interesting? while you see all us Americans complaining about how our health care will end up like Canada's and the such and with waits and what not? Well when I was up in San Fransisco and was having dinner with one of my uncle's who lives up there, he travels ALOT because he owns a bakery and travels to France and Canada almost every year for baking Expo's and competitions and the such, He has told me that in all of his 20 years of doing this when he talks to Canadians while they say and agree their healthcare is problematic and has a lot of holes and such, not ONE person has told him that they would exchange their healthcare for that of the U.S



makes you think eh?

 

[asinann]

What's wrong with cutting taxes? That = less government intrusion. Increasing military spending isn't all that good, but what I want are far less taxes, far less government intrusion, and more freedom.

The problem isn't that they cut taxes, it's that they cut taxes on the upper 10% only (themselves and their friends) and call it "trickle down economics." The theory being that if you give the people at the top more money, they will use that money to either directly or indirectly employ more middle and lower class people. This has never happened, not once, because the people at the top are already employing the number of people they need are are not about to add more people just because they have a little more money. Tax cuts rarely reach the middle class, and the lower class usually pays so little in taxes anyway that any tax cut would just cut it to a full refund.

Less government intrusion would be nice, but the cuts in programs are never in areas that intrude heavily in the lives of the common citizens. The cuts are always to roads, schools, hospital subsidies (we already pay for the nations poor to go to the emergency room, the most expensive type of health care) and things like that. Republicans always yell and scream about welfare moms when welfare is limited to 60 months life time for any individual, the problem is they lump the people that are disabled from birth into that group and try to pass it off as welfare when they are paid for either by individual states or through the social security trust fund. and not the general budget.

Another problem with anti-tax proponents is that they never stop spending. They just foist the costs of current government (mostly military) programs onto the next 2-3 generations. We need to up taxes and start paying as we go and maybe, just maybe paying off some of those trillions of dollars in debt.

Taxes are a necessary evil to keep governments running and able to provide the services that we as people cannot afford as individuals. The downfall of the US isn't going to be "gays and taxes" it's going to be sickening amounts of debt that the next generations can't pay because the current one is shipping all the work out of the country. Service based economies are only viable if there are people other than yourselves to serve, and last I checked there aren't a ton of people coming to the US to spend a bunch of money.

Or maybe trusting the government with our taxes causes the problem? Up the taxes? Of what? Why not just do away with the taxes for useless things like the war on marijuana or building bridges in Alaska that go to communities with 12 people, take that money, and give it back to the tax payer or use it for something actually useful?

Trusting the government is like trusting your child's welfare to Mr. Henry A Molestington. It doesn't end well.

And what does that have to do with what you quoted? I said that people screaming to lower taxes still spend the money anyway, you say don't give the government the money to cover the debt they're racking up. A lot of the problems could be solved by the line-item veto (Clinton had it, it was put in place while the dems still had full control of senate, house and presidency last time. Republicans hated it because Clinton was killing pork projects that were wasting money and they sent it to the supreme court to kill it.) After Clinton lost the line-item veto power the spending went out of control again. The president has no choice but to sign off on things he doesn't want in bills because he can't kill one part of them, he has to take it or leave it all.
Education bills that include funding for agri-businesses, Emergency spending bills for New Orleans jammed full of pork.

Where I live, bills are (under state constitution) only allowed to address one thing. If it's an education bill, it's only about education spending. If it's to repair roads or emergency spending for a disaster, that's all that's in it.

That could be another fix, and it would end pork really fast. Most of the pork barrel projects aren't placed into the budget, it's almost all added to emergency spending bills, military spending bills for the war, or when they enact a law (as in, they make a mandatory sentencing law and tack on funding for repainting the Brooklyn Bridge or some crap like that.)