Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

[Lion]

Please refrain from posting about things you have no idea about.

I would like to not respond as I can see there's no getting through to you

I don't care if you studied the principles of Economics and Political theory, and that if your knowledge in the subject is far suprior to everyone elses on the subject. But twice you said something to another member that wasn't called for. Present your facts, theories and opinions, and let the other decide for themselves. If someone isn't getting your point, then try to rephrase your arguement, but please don't include these sort of comments in the future.

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

You know what, I completely disagree with your stance on healthcare. After what my family has gone through in the last couple of years, and what my friend's family has gone through, I think it's inhumane to not have it free for everyone.

BUT

For the first time, I actually got what you meant, being on the other side of this topic, and respect that.

[SadisticNature]

The figures in the article don't include appropriations, however the total appropriations are included in the national debt, and can in fact be estimated by calculating the change in debt (actual) and subtracting the change in debt (budgetary). Note that the budget includes the interest on the debt, so that is not a factor to worry about in this calculation. As an economist, you should have some experience at estimating hidden information using publicly available financial data.

Again as per your own quotations of the article, the appropriations items are not included in the budgets. I continue to contend that claiming defense spending is only 4.8% of GDP when the appropriations dwarf this amount and most of those appropriations are related to wars is rather disingenuous. It may be true in a certain sense, but only in the sense that the budget doesn't reflect the spending of the country at all since all the appropriations dwarf it and hide the real picture.

I'm sure if the situation were reversed, and the military spending was entirely on the budget while all the social programs were appropriations and I claimed social spending was 0% of GDP, and military spending was 40% you'd cry foul just as quickly, and correctly so.

Also using % of GDP is misleading as it doesn't given a clear fiscal picture of a country given widely disparate tax policies. What is the federal government revenue as a % of GDP? If you're spending 4.8% of GDP on military and your revenue is under 20% of GDP then non-appropriated military spending is going to be over 25% of the budget.

[SadisticNature]

Actually this is nothing new. The US has consistently privatized many essential services, in some cases with monopolies. If you're so convinced its unconstitutional feel free to quote the portion of the constitution or a particular amendment it violates. Since very similar things have happened before you are also welcome to cite court cases where things of a similar vein were called unconstitutional. I think you are unlikely to find any.

As for requiring you to purchase healthcare: If you face a dire health problem that requires expensive medical care the most likely scenario is that you go broke.

At this point you are likely to be unable to work due to health complications, and as a result will be on 1) Welfare and 2) Medicaid.

Since the government will have to pay for all these situations, I see no problem with the government levying a specific tax on those who choose not to buy healthcare in order to pay for these added costs. The government already levies certain specific taxes and benefits for social problems/boons. Most income tax benefits fall into this category.

[oww-that-hurt]

We in Montana need a new Senator that remembers what a working stiff earns here. In my house we are working middle class that can't afford health insurance but make too much for 'assistance', not that we would take it anyway. We don't have cable/satellite TV, a cell phone, high-speed internet (just this 56K modem), new cars, don't go to movies or fancy restaurants or even RENT movies, and the list is endless of what some folks think they need but we do without. This isn't a 'oh-poor-me' stand, just background info. Our Senator wants to fine us over $3,000 if we don't get insurance. Insurance for us would be over $1,000 per month, which will just never happen. We can cut a few more corners (lower thermostat, less driving, etc.) to cover the 'fine'. We still won't have insurance, but also won't be able to pay for medical and dental and eye-care check-ups, which we now do. So much for preventive care. We even have enough budget left over to donate a BUNCH of food to the food bank (Pantry Partners). Well, with the 'fine', there goes that item, too. It all just gets under my skin. Sorry for the rant. Y'all have a nice Christmas!

[steelish]

Actually this is nothing new. The US has consistently privatized many essential services, in some cases with monopolies. If you're so convinced its unconstitutional feel free to quote the portion of the constitution or a particular amendment it violates. Since very similar things have happened before you are also welcome to cite court cases where things of a similar vein were called unconstitutional. I think you are unlikely to find any.

As for requiring you to purchase healthcare: If you face a dire health problem that requires expensive medical care the most likely scenario is that you go broke.

At this point you are likely to be unable to work due to health complications, and as a result will be on 1) Welfare and 2) Medicaid.

Since the government will have to pay for all these situations, I see no problem with the government levying a specific tax on those who choose not to buy healthcare in order to pay for these added costs. The government already levies certain specific taxes and benefits for social problems/boons. Most income tax benefits fall into this category.

We have a Congress pushing hard to get this thing past cloture by Christmas. In fact, they plan to vote on it tomorrow morning.

To get this thing to a cloture, Bill Nelson has been offered exemptions on Medicare/Medicaid cutbacks for three counties in Florida. HUH? I thought there WEREN'T going to be any cutbacks at all! I guess bribery (again) is what is needed to get bills passed, rather than Congressmen working on what their constituents want.

As for unconstitutional; by FORCING me (or anyone else) to purchase healthcare, they are taking away free choice.

[SadisticNature]

Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

[DuncanONeil]

The Government being able to "draft" for a military force is not in the Constitution. It is supported, however, yet that does not mitigate free choice. The Government can not "force" you to serve in the Army against your will. As a citizen you still have a choice.

The Government can not "force" purchase of anything, taxes are "voluntary", laws are not part of the Constitution, and we already discussed the military.

Other things "calculated in income taxes"? Just what do you think those things are?

Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

[steelish]

Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

A draft that goes into effect for a specific condition of the country and isn't done for perpetuity is NOT the same as forcing a citizen to purchase something they don't want. Besides, not only do you pay a penalty, you also are no longer considered a legal citizen. So in that respect it is NOTHING like a tax. I already have health care that I purchased on my own. I like it. I want to keep it, however, there are many who do not have health care and don't want to spend their money on it. That is their choice. They earned the money, they get to choose how to spend it. If this bill passes, the government will regulate the health industry and drive costs beyond what any private insurance company can cover, given what most citizens can afford to pay in premiums. Then the government will step in as "savior" with a single payer system. Heh.

Personally, I cannot trust the government with what they feel will be an adequate healthcare system. They screw up too much for me to feel comfortable. Medicaid and Medicare already have panels restricting care...the Post Office is in shambles (I know, I work there), TARP is a joke, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are basically holes that the government keeps pouring money into.

As to free choice...isn't that what Roe v Wade is all about? The choice to do as you wish with your own body? So now we're going to make a mockery of that with this bill?

[DuncanONeil]

The only thing that passed this mish-mash of a bill was bribery! Bribery that the leader fo the Senate praises! That means the Senate has made a liar of the President who promised that there would be "no more business as usual in Washington"

We have a Congress pushing hard to get this thing past cloture by Christmas. In fact, they plan to vote on it tomorrow morning.

To get this thing to a cloture, Bill Nelson has been offered exemptions on Medicare/Medicaid cutbacks for three counties in Florida. HUH? I thought there WEREN'T going to be any cutbacks at all! I guess bribery (again) is what is needed to get bills passed, rather than Congressmen working on what their constituents want.

As for unconstitutional; by FORCING me (or anyone else) to purchase healthcare, they are taking away free choice.

[DuncanONeil]

The figures in the article don't include appropriations, however the total appropriations are included in the national debt, and can in fact be estimated by calculating the change in debt (actual) and subtracting the change in debt (budgetary).

Read that again and see if it makes sense to you?

[DuncanONeil]

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

The Constitution does not grant the Government an enumerated right over health care.