National Health Care

Why?

Why is it fair to force me to pay for someone else to pursue their dreams?

Oh.. I get it.. my labor doesn't belong to me, it belongs to the poor.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I mean health care for all - not just the poor. You wouldn't be paying for the poor - you would be paying for yours.

Keep in mind every industrialized western country has some kind or another of national health care and looks at our system as barbaric. We lag far behind in just about every single health barometer.

The East Coast Okie response was way off the mark from what I'm talking about. The USA is UNIQUE (only one) who ties health care with employment. What does one have to do with the other except it being a part of our bizarre labyrinthian medical care sysyem? Our jobs have become "home base" for our health care --- WHY? It's that way only because, "it's always been that way." And the thinking that baffles me (you used "mentality") is the thinking that one should have to stay in a job simply because it offers health care benefits they can't afford to lose because they would be uninsurable if they left. That's a good system? You don't understand a "mentality" that thinks there's a better way - as the rest of the world has managed to do?

And your damn right one should be able to pursue the job of their dreams! We are not slaves. To pursue the best one can be is a basic and fundamental libertarian concept - an American concept! - and yes, a right! What does "free" mean? In fact, it's called the "American Dream!" Is everyone capable of doing more than your example of dead animal cleanup? No, but they should be able to quit and flip burgers if they want. There's no reason in the world health care shouldn't be portable. What job you have at any given time shouldn't have anything to do with it.

I'm 48 years old, have always had health coverage and it's not a personal concern. It's a concern for the country that we can't sustain the astronomical increases in the costs of health care and the huge percentage that go to middlemen to administer our overly complicated medical maze. This country can and should do better.

Ah.. okay, who pays for the poor then?

Yes, because we should endeavor to be more like France.

Keep in mind most of these industrialized western countries define themselves as being socialist. Despite having a Democratic party which would lean that way, we have not managed to reach that point as of yet.

Our jobs are tied to our health care because it's more economically efficient for health care providers and employers to do it that way. Further, if you want a decent PPO, you can go and buy one yourself. This "lack of access" to medical insurance because of your job thing is a myth -- at least in Oklahoma.



It is not a libertarian concept that I could ever expect anyone else to subsidize my lifestyle or my pursuit of my dreams. Having the right to achieve those things for myself and the right to make the choices that get me there is a libertarian concept. I shall live for no man and I shall not ask any other man to live for me.

Insurance companies are private entities. Why should the be forced to do business in a certain inefficient way just because you want them to? They exist to make a profit, not to make you feel more 'free.' You are free of course to go with the many single-payer plans out there. They do exist.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I know where you are coming from and I can't dispute your analysis. A frustration I have is that so many judges, certainly those in state court, even when faced with a ridiculously frivolous case, simply won't pull the trigger on attorney fees. I tend to do guardian ad litem work and frequently watch opposing counsel slug it out. Sometimes, one side is really far out there in terms of bringing frivolous claims, etc. The kids suffer as a result, which is where my ox gets gored. Unfortunately, the judges where I practice just won't address it. I wish they would because a lot of people simply get outgunned because they are going pro se against an attorney, or they have to let their attorney go mid-stream because the other side has frivolously run up costs and the well runs dry in the interim. Money that could go to the kids goes to the lawyers who run up fees with impunity.

Selfish and Greedy. Why should I have to pay for someone else, well, I guess our military doesn't have to PAY with their lives to defend your freedom to have your own damn health insurance.

<<And your damn right one should be able to pursue the job of their dreams! We are not slaves. To pursue the best one can be is a basic and fundamental libertarian concept - an American concept! - and yes, a right! What does "free" mean? In fact, it's called the "American Dream!" Is everyone capable of doing more than your example of dead animal cleanup? No, but they should be able to quit and flip burgers if they want. There's no reason in the world health care shouldn't be portable. What job you have at any given time shouldn't have anything to do with it.>>

If you don't want to settle for a "cruddy" job with good benefits, go make enough money and buy your own policy. There is your portability. Or pay as you go. Lots of people do that. I don't think I should have to finance "your" dream job. That may make YOU free but it puts a collar around MY neck. I don't know of any society, at any time in history, that seriously included the premise that people should be able to work at whatever job they want and not have to make sacrifices. There are too many people out there barely scraping by and working hellish jobs to take care of their families (and damned grateful that they can put food on the table) for me to have much concern for someone wanting to fulfill themselves on the back of other's labor.

Oh God.. arguing for the prevailing party in a family case??? That is even worse. Now you're giving a powerful and coercive incentive to parties to lie even more than they do.

Courts could be better gatekeepers, but an English rule system would just be terrible in family court.

I suppose you'd set up a system where the wealthier parent would always win. I've seen what should be slam dunk custody cases go down in flames for inexplicable reasons. I'm sure you have as well. In such cases, if the party is wealthy, that's fine, but that's usually not the case. Loser pays sounds fine at first blush, but when you start applying it automatically, you really run into some inequitable situations.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying. Explain? Are you saying soldiers are dying because I am not in favor of universal health care? No? Yes?

You make MY argument for me - I don't get it. You are right, many people work hard at cruddy jobs and alot of them would like to move on to something bigger and better but are STUCK because of their health insurance! Hello? You can't run out and buy a personal policy if you are already diagnosed with just about anything! Also, have you priced individual policies? Even with high $5000 deductibles - we're talking astronomical! You sound like a very conservative, far right Republican who thinks about me, me, me before thinking about how that kind of thinking will destroy our country for future generations.

You also need to become educated on how Universal Health care would work. You make it sound like a '60's era giveaway program. Read up and don't get all your information from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all those who do the bidding of Big Pharma, the HMOs, the big insurance companies and everyone who WINS with our current economic Darwinian system of providing (or not providing) health care.

No, no, very poor example on my part. I don't think the prevailing party should win in a family law case. I just used that as an admittedly poor example of how judges in frivolous cases STILL won't pull the trigger. I was thinking of the alternative you offered about having judges award fees in frivolous cases as opposed to automatically awarding the prevailing party. If they'd slap frivolous petitioners/plaintiffs, I think that would go a long way to keeping frivolous cases from running up fees and clogging the courts. My experience is that they usually don't.

Sorry, sorry. I've muddled the discussion.

Yeah, real life is hard, isn't it? The choices free people must make.

Why would any job that is "bigger and better" not have health insurance? Isn't that part of what someone would reasonably consider in judging whether it actually IS bigger and better? Where are all these great jobs out there that don't provide health care? Independent contractors? That would make them self employed, which means they are the boss, which means that they can choose whether they want to provide health care to themselves or not. It is a cost of doing business. And you get tax credits, btw. I always worked at jobs with health benefits and am now self employed. You can bet that health care was high on my list of things I needed before I took that step.

My suggestion is for people to think about what it is that they want and what they need. If health care is on the list, they know what to do. Personally, I think a daily massage would go a long way to making me feel fulfilled and free. It is probably healthy, too. I am not about to insist that the taxpayers pay for it.

And BTW - I struggled as a young woman with no health care - went to free clinics, stood in line, hat in one hand, child's hand in another. It sucks. I make the employment decisions I make, in part, considering that experience. You can bet that health care benefits are high on my list of what I need from a job. I am not about to expect the rest of the country to provide health care so I can go find myself, flip burgers, be a sidewalk artist or whatever. My dreams are mine to follow. They aren't anyone else's responsibility.

I think there has been discussion about how liberals invariably accuse people who don't agree with them of getting their opinions from Fox, Rush, etc. You don't know anything about me or whether I am a fan of anyone on your list. It is so predictable that I am embarassed for you, frankly. I am not sure who I know that last "did the bidding" of Big Pharma, the HMOs, etc. (did you really write that and push send???). Sounds sort of like there is a vast right wing conspiracy going on. I didn't get the memo so I'm not in the know.

OK, that's taking the whole damn statement out of context. People say they wouldn't want to pay a tax into a national/universal health system because they would being paying for the poor. Well, from the statement I made, ANY working person would have the SAME tax, rich or POOR, taken out. I said it was SELFISH/GREEDY to say that. IMAGINE, if a soldier said, eh.. i don't want to go fight, i'll be protecting the freedom of some poor person. But do they? NO. You know the government spends more on war than they do health care... but that's another subject all together.

Imagine, I was ignorant enough to say soldiers were dying because you didn't support a universal health care system. What person would say that?

mmonroe, by "the same tax," do you purport to mean the same amount of money as a flat number of dollars, or do you mean the same percentage of income?

To claim that the latter is "the same tax" is dreadfully misleading. Be clear about what you're talking about.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

In previous posts i've made, i mentioned a flat tax.

A percentage of income tax on the wealthy is hardly the same amount of tax.

You said this:

If I make $100,000 and you make $20,000, under your program, do I pay the "same tax, rich or poor" that you do? Of course not. I'm paying the same percentage, but I'll be paying five times as much tax.

And a flat tax will never happen. Read through the IRS Code (I have) some time. There are far too many industries protected under the current IRS code who wouldn't be under a flat tax regime (for example, a pipeline in Alaska is capitalized at a far quicker rate than a pipeline in any other state [thank you Ted Stevens!]).

There would be too many oxes getting gored there, so forget about it. The income tax in its current form, subject to an adjustment of rates, is here to stay.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I guess you're denying you are pretty radically to the right to write what you did in all the posts above? If John McCain were to say them he would be written off in November on that kind of radicalism alone. Truth be known - you are FAR to the right of Senator McCain. You are trying to confuse the issue of Universal Health Care with somebody wanting something for nothing and some such nonsense. I pointed to Limbaugh and Hannity because they spew that crap and get away with it by screening their calls. There's no screening at OKCTalk - it won't work here.

solitude, if you have a point, make it.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

????

I haven't made my point?

Are you okay today? You sound unusually personal against me. We don't always agree on every issue - but I don't remember you being this way with me. Using the "You lie" icon a few posts back, the above post, etc. I hope all is well. I'm not sucking up or trying to change the subject, I'm really wondering if everythingi s okay. It's just different for you.