National Health Care

[Midtowner]

You should have been free to pursue your dreams back when you say you could have made a ton of money - instead you stayed with the workaday job - for the health care benefits! There's millions just like you -- and they resent it. And well they should. The state of your health should never depend on the size of your wealth - or the status of any job.

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.

[solitude]

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.

[Midtowner]

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

]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!

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.

- 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.

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.

[PennyQuilts]

Automatically awarding attorneys fees, however, is a really bad idea.

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.

[mmonroe]

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.

[PennyQuilts]

<<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.

[Midtowner]

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.

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

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?

[solitude]

<<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.

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.

[PennyQuilts]

Oh God.. arguing for the prevailing party in a family case???

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.

[PennyQuilts]

You make MY argument for me. I don't get it. People work at hard, cruddy jobs and would like to move on to something bigger and better but are STUCK because of their health insurance! Hello?

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

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.

[mmonroe]

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?

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?

[Midtowner]

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.

[mmonroe]

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

[Midtowner]

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

You said this:

ANY working person would have the SAME tax, rich or POOR

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.

[solitude]

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.

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.

[Midtowner]

solitude, if you have a point, make it.

[solitude]

solitude, if you have a point, make it.

????

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.

[mmonroe]

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.

Ok, try reading this post I made, when I said Previous Posts:
http://www.okctalk.com/health-fitnes...tml#post143285

Again, things like the way the IRS is conducted, can be changed. What part of the constitution is hard to understand, that if we don't like something, it can be changed. Sure, it will take people, time, perhaps money, but change can happen.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

This is a post about a political position? I pointed out that liberals routinely assume (in a snearing manner) that anyone who disagrees with them get their information from a certain "disapproved" list of sources. Frankly, I don't know if I am to the right or left or sitting right on top of McCain and am not worried about it, a bit. At my age, I have my own opinions based on my own research, experience, education and value set. That there is some sort of list of disapproved information sources (based on how often I see liberals fall back on it) strikes me as sort of creepy.

I wish you'd quit swearing - it isn't necessary and certainly isn't helping your argument.

Universal health care costs money. Someone has to pay it. I've heard a lot of arguments as to why it should be adopted but your argument, that you have some sort of right to the job of your choice so the rest of us should subsidize your happiness, takes the cake. I think a lot of us MIGHT subsidize universal health care for certain reasons and under certain conditions, but the happiness level of our fellow citizens who think they should have jobs of their choice isn't doing it, for me.

[PennyQuilts]

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?

When I posted, it was an honest question. No offense, but I have no idea what you were saying. I still don't, to be perfectly frank. Are you saying that soldiers are willing to die for the poor but that the civilians are not even willing to pay for them? Are you making the contrast to shame the civilians? If that is not what you are saying, the rest of this post won't make sense.

In the first place, soldiers are a different breed than citizens. And I say that with respect. I can't imagine why they are willing to die, or why they put their lives and the lives of their families on hold for us. But they do. They are fighting for our way of life. Why they care about so many of us is something I don't understand. But they do.

As a civilian, I want to make it worth the sacrifice, to the extent possible. Calling on my fellow citizens to get off their butts, make decent decisions in their lives, take care of themselves and their families, show initiative and not expect the rest of us to subsidize their happiness level is about being a better, more productive citizen. I should think a soldier would be much more willing to lay it all down when we are doing what we can to live our lives the way that makes them proud. It should be more about what sort of people we want to be and less about what can I get and who else can I get to pay for it? After all, I deserve it! And why? Because I was born here?

We citizens need to be the kind of people that soldiers are proud to defend. The soldiers die for the poor because of the kind of people THEY are, not the kind of people the poor are. It is up to the citizens to do what be can to not be poor. There is no shame in being poor if you are a new immigrant; a young person who has not made it, yet; sick; or otherwise hit by something beyond your control. There is shame in being poor because you repeatedly make bad decisions; don't save your money when you can; won't work; have babies you can't afford; or don't learn a skill or get an education. This is the land of opportunity. A lot of people aren't taking the opportunity.

Ask not what your country can do for you...

[mmonroe]

That post was in reply to someone who said they pay for their own private health care and would not want to pay a tax to pay for the poors health care.

[PennyQuilts]

Not wanting to subsidize universal health care is in perfect keeping with the post.

[Midtowner]

????

I haven't made my point?

Nope. You're just accusing her of being a conservative -- as if that makes her opinion any more or less valid. It's completely irrelevant. I suppose I should have said that if you have something relevant to say, say it. The "you're bad because you said what Rush Limbaugh" might have said.

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.

hehe.. I guess you took it a little personally when I pointed out that you had completely mischaracterized the libertarian philosophy. You tried to use libertarianism to justify a government entitlement -- a proposition which is beyond absurd. Nothing personal, you just got it wrong

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.

Nope. Everything's fine. I guess my online 'tongue' is just a little sharper today than usual.