<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, you aren't even close to understanding snowjob's point. He's criticizing universal health care supporters' definition of rights, not that offering free health care will make people demand more things. My god, you are incredibly slow.</p>
<p>At this point I feel like I'm being deliberately misunderstood. I particularly said that I realized that paying $46.25 for each person to have health care was oversimplified and that I was using it as an example of how we were already paying the amount of money it'd cost for a national health system. I do understand that underage people don't pay taxes, and I do understand that it wouldn't be a flat tax. In response, you give me a bulleted list of why something that I already said was oversimplified wouldn't work. I can provide links until I'm blue in the face (and I more or less have, if you'll notice that you, getasnowjob, and I have been the two people throughout this thread that have reliably provided links to support what they're saying), and it wont do any good. There is no acceptable source that will convince you that we need national health, and there is no acceptable source that will convince me that we need to leave the private insurance companies in. At this point I'm afraid it might be a useless endeavor.</p>
<p>I feel that I have answered the moral questions, actually. In my mind, it is more of a moral question that the people in the US who are sick can't get care than than that the government might, in a lot of peoples' opinions rob from the rich to give to the poor (to borrow from Robin Hood). It is a moral question that essentially everyone who depends on private insurance is in extreme danger of losing their health care if they actually get sick, and that most people don't realize that insurance companies aren't actually forced to provide what they say they will (or rather, it's written into laws and contracts that there are ways to get out of it). It is a moral concern that the government is okay with the fact that the rich can afford to be healthy and the poor (and, really, middle class) can't anymore.</p>
<p>I also feel like having the insurance companies hasn't increased the quality of health care at all, and even though it should drive down the costs, it's still unaffordable. I don't feel like it's the inherent cost of medical care that's making insurance so expensive. I feel like it's the insurance companies trying to get (extremely) rich, and I don't see why the country wants to support that rather than having health care. But what it will always come down to in the end is that you apparently have different morals than I do.</p>
<p>well, right now i'm torn. I'll be 18 with an absentee vote in a swing state (maryland). I agree with a lot of the conservative views of republicans except one - affirmative action. As a black male, i'm a vigorous supporter, and so cannot vote republican. In addition, I feel as being a black republican means being a traitor to the interests of my race, so I choose obama or hilary</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even as you admit that what you brought up was oversimplified, your math doesn't achieve the kind of result that you suggest (ie. "example of how we were already paying the amount of money it'd cost for a national health system"). Obviously, it doesn't show how we are already paying it because the cost to many taxpayers would be way higher than $46.25. I don't care if you freely state from the beginning that your example is oversimplified. Because it's oversimplified, it doesn't show that we are already paying the cost for universal health care. I told you already, John Sheils' calculations are flawed for a number of reasons. It's not just going to cost an extra $54 billion to insure the uninsured. Then, you go on to divide by the entire US population. How does that show we already are paying the amount necessary for UHS? You don't need to treat my response as some personal attack, which was hardly my intention, and avoid defending it by incorrectly asserting that I missed the point. I didn't miss the point; I only proved it completely, obscenely untrue. At the point where you freely admit your math was oversimplified, you destroy your own argumentation, and in retrospect, I did waste my time responding to it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So because we are entrenched in our mutually exclusive beliefs we need to resign to nihilism? Why do we have presidential debates then? Why even have discussions on the floor in Congress? If you firmly stand in your opinion, then you stop at nothing to defend it. Even if you can't convince me, you'll at least show other readers of this thread (2? 3?) why I'm wrong. We can't change the world in a thread of CollegeConfidential, but I find it insulting that you're going to resign to a "just forget it" mindset. I really want to think the best of people and that you just don't want to waste too much time on this thread as posting here isn't even close to accomplishing anything of political substance, but at the point where you respond to my other points regarding your oversimplified math or moral questions, I can't help but think that you just want to avoid defending the VA or having to admit the VA isn't as great as you once thought. </p>
<p>If you tell me why the Harvard study is still reliable amidst the McClatchy report, or why the McClatchy report itself isn't reliable, then you have the upper leg on the VA story. It doesn't matter that the conclusions gathered from the McClatchy report aren't your cup of tea. I'm not just giving you contradictory evidence. McClatchy directly invalidates earlier rosy reports about VA hospitals by demonstrating how VA has misrepresented itself in multiple areas of health care. Our discussion isn't stuck in a wash of dependable sources because I'm clearly proving to you why your source is no longer dependable. Until you prove why it still is, your only example of good government-controlled health care has failed miserably.</p>
<p>
<p>I also feel like having the insurance companies hasn't increased the quality of health care at all, and even though it should drive down the costs, it's still unaffordable. I don't feel like it's the inherent cost of medical care that's making insurance so expensive. I feel like it's the insurance companies trying to get (extremely) rich, and I don't see why the country wants to support that rather than having health care. But what it will always come down to in the end is that you apparently have different morals than I do.
</p>
<p>If lack of government-intervention is your problem (ie. price controls, types of contracts, etc.), we don't need to go to the radical extreme of having the government take over all health care. At worst, you can say the government can just do some intervention in form of new laws, but no where do you justify eliminating the free market for health care at all. When you complain about the status quo, you are not presenting any problems inherent to capitalism that will necessarily corrupt health care. When you look at all the other facets of a capitalist economy, are they all corrupted too? That empirically isn't true. So, why is health care unique in that matter? Until you answer that, you cannot logically advocate a completely socialist alternative.</p>
<p>If you advocate something socialist because you want to help the poor, fine. Obviously, socialism is the only way to give health care to the poor for free. But don't misrepresent the situation by saying you advocate something socialist to fix (what you perceive to be) corruption or inefficiency in the status quo, because you never prove that socialism is the only or best way to do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wha?! Many African Americans vote Republican, more than you'd think, especially religious blacks in the south.</p>
<p>I'm an Atheist in Massachusetts. And like I said, any political party that opposes Affirmative Action is, in my opinion, null and void</p>
<p>
rl.hill is right. There is a stigma attached to being a black republican. Black people are often times conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues and economic issues are generally more pressing. And, black people have been voting Democratically for years. So, it is automatically assumed (by black people) that if you're black, you're a democrat. I know soooo many black people who are strongly in favor of many republican ideals, but would still vote democratically because it's what black people should do. Think about Clarence Thomas. I know many a black person who considers him a traitor to the race just becauseof his republican ideals.</p>
<p>It's sad that blacks in this country are considered to be so homogenous. I hate when the media talks about a candidate going after the "black vote" as if we all vote as a single unit. But the most disheartening fact is that we almost always do.</p>
<p>also, I don't like the republicans' views on religion. I don't believe religion should be intertwined with government, a la Mr. Bush. I know it's a stereotype, but republicans often come across as bigoted WASPS. the first step is getting rid of that image</p>
<p>but i'm against universal health care. we actually studied that this summer, and universal healthcare is almost always a failure. Those living in social democratic states can attest to many an underfunded state-controlled healthcare system.</p>
<p>I'm a big Richardson supporter. In the general, I will vote for a Democrat. That is not a partisan move- there are no halfway decent Republican candidates. Ron Paul also is such a huge hypocrite (less taxes but... a wall? I think that's what most people would consider insane or a complete lack of fiscal responsibility) that I cringe whenever I watch any of his speeches. Even though I probably agree the least with Richardson in terms of specific wedge issues for the Dems, his stance on Darfur is the strongest of any candidates, his experience is intimidating, and he has been one of the highest ranked governors in the country- especially in terms of fiscal responsibility.</p>
<p>Wait a second, lets roll back</p>
<p>A fundamental lie, or actually mistruth is the main arguement against health care</p>
<p>"Nothing government can ever work well"</p>
<p>This is a lie, that has been spread in the last 20 years or so while the world has been privatilizing and following neoliberal economic policies.</p>
<p>Lets go back to the countries with the highest standards of living; Canada, and the Scanadavian countries. These countries thrived under the so called "welfare state" and democratic socialist principles.</p>
<p>You guys ever worry about the post office not being reliable, isn't that government, and its way cheaper than fedex/ups.</p>
<p>If your house is burning down big bad local government funded firefighters come in and save your house.</p>
<p>Not because it really affects them, because they are a member of society serving an important role in society.</p>
<p>The best prosperity the world has seen occurs when socialism and capitalism is mixed, in a keynesian/neo-keynesian manner. People should have the RIGHT to choose between buying into PRIVATE or PUBLIC healthcare.</p>
<p>And fiscal responsibility is a joke, we found money we DIDNT have to invade Iraq and to stay there (growing defecits), but we cant find money for social welfare?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Finally, you show up. And again, just like before, you provide ZERO evidence for your claims. I gave you evidence of the failures of UHS in countries like France and Canada. Give us some EVIDENCE. It doesn't even have to be empirical evidence. At least provide some of your own analysis as to why Canada or Scandinavia is so friggin' awesome instead of just asserting it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, the post office isn't reliable. There are tons of complaints about lost packages, insanely long shipping times, and really slow service at post offices. Not to mention, it isn't always cheaper. The post office is only good for shipping small packages while UPS ships larger packages cheaper. USPS has low starting costs, but quickly buids up. UPS has higher starting costs, but additional increases are smaller. I've been an avid eBay buyer/seller for more than 4 years now, and USPS is not any more reliable than the other companies, if not worse. Here's some evidence too, the kind of thing that ginnyvere (who I also disagree with) and I have been thoughtful enough to provide: <a href="http://www.uspssucks.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.uspssucks.com/</a></p>
<p>Moreover, even if the post office was good, that doesn't even matter because the post office isn't a public service in the same sense that is public education or what UHS would be. It is neither structured as welfare nor run on a socialist methodology as the post office is not funded by taxes and everyone who uses it has to pay the same thing (in other words, poor people don't get out of paying for stamps). Last I remember, I couldn't just walk into the post office, drop off a package, and leave. We always have to pay to ship. On the flip side, freeloaders of health care can just freeload off of people who are in a higher tax bracket. Yippee!!</p>
<p>
<p>Not because it really affects them, because they are a member of society serving an important role in society.
</p>
<p>This doesn't mean anything either because it is already firmly established in the status quo that firefighting is something that is offered strictly by the government. There are no alternatives to the city fire department, and there have never been. On the other hand, a private market for health care has been given centuries to develop, and you're suggesting fundamentally altering the status quo to accommodate UHS, which will destroy the private sector and force certain people to pay for other people's healthcare, which is completely unjust.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is complete nonsense. If you choose private health care in a government that offers public health care, you're pretty much paying for both. How does a government offer universal health care without forcing all taxpayers to pay for it? (You must be KIDDING ME) If the government funds UHC with its tax base, everyone is paying for it regardless of whether or not they use it. If someone chooses private health care, they'd be an idiot because they're going to pay for both. What you're suggesting is exactly the same as choosing private education today: you'll have to pay for private school tuition AND your share of taxes to fund public schools. I guess money is no object for you, but for us in the real world, we don't want to pay for things we don't want or need to use.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you keep bringing up Iraq? Who said we had to support Iraq? What if we don't support Iraq OR universal health care? Does your argument still have any merit or credibility whatsoever? I do find it humorous, I'll admit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh yeah, I saw this comment earlier, and I am pretty disgusted by it to say the least. Why do we need to be on the ground if we support the Iraq war? I'm not saying I do, but for those that do, why can't they support Iraq war by funding their share of the pricetag? They'd be paying for the soldiers who voluntarily enlisted into the military. What, did you think you wouldn't have to fight in wars when you enlist in the military? When you enlist in the military, you don't have a damn say over what your government wants to do with the army, just like a cashier at McDonalds doesn't have say over how much the McChicken should cost.</p>
<p>If I say I like a certain restaurant, does that mean I suddenly need to work there now? Uh...no, I can support the restaurant through patronage, just like people can support the war by being completely copacetic about paying for it.</p>
<p>My friends in the military are disgusted by people who support the war and are young enough to enlist. Not that it SHOULD matter, but out of probably 20 friends from various places- especially my HS- who enlisted, there's not a single one who thinks staying is in the best interest of either our country or Iraq and that's the prevaling thought among their companies. If you support the war, talking about it isn't good enough. Show your support be enlisting and let our boys who now KNOW it's a bad idea to stay go home.</p>
<p>Everyone has to pay for it whether we like it or not. Bad argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, your friends decided on their own volition to enlist in the military. What I'm saying now is something that everyone is thinking but unwilling to say. When you enlist in the military, you take the risk of fighting in a war if your government orders you to. If you don't want to fight, then don't enlist. It's their job now. Of course now that the government has indeed gone to war, some of our soldiers are squirming at the prospect of having to fight. Unfortunately, they made the commitment. </p>
<p>Talking about supporting the war is perfectly enough. Why should Joe Blow supporter of the Iraq War need to be on the ground to show his support? Maybe Joe Blow is just not interested in doing the fighting. So what? Our soldiers voluntarily enlisted, so it's their responsibility to go do it. If fighting was a problem, they shouldn't have enlisted in the first place, simple as that. You anti-war people are simply offering empathy because soldiers are risking their lives, but they chose that path. Do you support firefighters risking their lives to fight fires? I guess you should become a firefighter now. Do you support having the police risk their lives to fight crime? So I guess you should become a police officer then, huh? Didn't think so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True that everyone pays regardless, but that's not the point. The point is that you should OK with paying. Non-supporters, like you, or perhaps your family, would complain about paying for the war. Yes, your psychological consent may not seem important, but why does that matter? People's sitting around talking about supporting universal health care or firefighting isn't "important" either.</p>
<p>Or conversely, since you and your buddies don't support the war, I guess you all should be hanging out with Cindy Sheehan all day and actually put in some "effort" to try to stop the war. Better yet, you should run for president and try to win so you can call the whole thing off. Why are you just sitting at home complaining about the war, SilverClover? Talking about it means nothing.</p>
<p>1) People who join the military by and large come from the working class communities, and minority communities (disportionately so), lack of opportunities, etc, sometimes make the military one of the few viable options. We should have universal service to make politicans think more carefully of where they are sending our troops and to spread the social responsibility across all class-lines. (i myself am a minority from a lower-middleclass background).</p>
<p>2) We spend more on our current failed health care system which is private than we would for a singlepayer system, you are already paying taxes into a "private" system ironically enough.</p>
<p>3) Any educated person will tell you that European countries by and large have higher standards of living, look up UN data on HDI index, we are the richest country in the world, but we dont have nearly the best living conditions, due to our regressive tax system and Reagan attacks on social welfare.</p>
<p>4) We spend too much on a military budget filled with porkbarrel spending, why arent you outraged about that.</p>
<p>--Edwards will give the option to buy into public health care funded by a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those earning over 200k per year.</p>
<p>We have a system of corporate welfare that rewards business, but staddles our middle and lower class and this has been the case from Reagan onwards</p>
<p>And our current system of Health Care has origins with Nixon and Reagan; it hasnt been around for centuries that is ridicious.</p>
<p>A SYSTEM is a failure when it doesnt insure 50 million plus people. And those insured get screwed by HMOs daily. HMOs spend 30-40 percent of their total gross on overhead, Canada spends around 3 percent, Medicare spends a little over 4.</p>
<p>Thread Revival (let's see if this works):</p>
<p>Okay, now that the field has been narrowed down to two major party candidates, 10 months after the most recent post, who's your choice now?</p>
<p>I'm still for Obama.</p>
<p>OBAMA. Still. Always have been.</p>
<p>i voted for clinton in the primary but now (naturally) i'll vote for obama.</p>