Health Care reform bill reactions

[muses_nightmare]

Remember, give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. What happened to that?

You can't teach someone to fish if there are no fish left in the ocean. Besides, I don't think this applies here. People don't have to help the less fortunate, but it makes them better people if they do. (no I'm not saying they're bad people to start out with, before anyone jumps on that)

Universal healthcare helps everyone, not just the "less fortunate" as you put it.

[NodmiTheSellout]

How does "teach a man to fish..." apply here? Does it mean "force him to find a job that will insure him"? Because assuming that's doable for everyone is a pretty highly privileged conclusion to come to, particularly at the moment, where it is not legally required for a workplace to do so. Does it mean "give him enough knowledge to provide his own healthcare (a more direct interpretation of that analogy)"? Hahahaha. Again: a privilege of the wealthy. Maybe you mean his ill health will force him to make enough money to purchase worthwhile insurance. . .except, oops! Good luck qualifying for insurance while in ill health. Depending on what sort of "ill health" applies, good luck working while in ill health! Poor health can be literally crippling to people. Someone mentioned earlier that there is no benefit to capitalism in having a work force composed of sick people--that makes pretty good sense to me. The more people are insured, the more people can afford preventative care, the more people don't die or become cripplingly ill, the more efficiently they can work.

I just. . .why is socialized medicine suddenly going to destroy the capitalism of everything else in America? Is health care the US's most valuable industry and the touch of government is going to send us into a great depression all at once or something?

[Boozy]

I just. . .why is socialized medicine suddenly going to destroy the capitalism of everything else in America? Is health care the US's most valuable industry and the touch of government is going to send us into a great depression all at once or something?

Yes. So sayeth Fox News.

[AdminAssistant]

Good luck qualifying for insurance while in ill health. Depending on what sort of "ill health" applies, good luck working while in ill health! Poor health can be literally crippling to people. Someone mentioned earlier that there is no benefit to capitalism in having a work force composed of sick people--that makes pretty good sense to me. The more people are insured, the more people can afford preventative care, the more people don't die or become cripplingly ill, the more efficiently they can work.

I have several asthmatic friends, and they either 1) can't get health insurance, period or 2) have to pay ridiculously high premiums for insurance, with the caveat that it won't cover any of their asthma medications. I mean, what good is that?

There are some real benefits to this bill for people like me. 1) the restructuring of student loans. Taken out of the hands of private insurers and placed in the government. Now they can only demand 10% of our monthly income, and the increase in income will go to provide many, many more Pell Grants. 2) Graduate students can now stay on parents' insurance until 26, which is a literal lifesaver for one of my asthmatic friends referenced above.

There are people like me who are working our asses off. I'm not sitting around of the government dole. I am busting my butt to do well in classes, to teach, and to get my degree. It's not my fault that my school and state has declared that my work is only worth X amount to them. But, apparently, since I can't afford "real" insurance...what am I supposed to do if I break my leg? Come down with cancer? Get hit by a bus? I mean, thank God we have a decent student clinic, so that I've been able to get treatment for my chronic migraines. But they can only do so much. If I ever need to go to a hospital, I'm screwed.

[Rapscallion]

So, why is it so wrong for one to be able to keep money they earn? Why does everyone who has some spare cash HAVE to give it to the "less fortunate"?

Remember, give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. What happened to that?

A very valid thought, until you work out how they got that money. Generally speaking, to get money you have to use other people. Pay someone a small amount to do a job for which the person arranging the work receives a larger amount. Buy cheap, sell dear - to many people.

If the many used or purchasing people are not able to work or buy products due to illness, the whole system collapses. A healthy economy is one where money flows around and the successful ones are the ones who peel a bit off here and a bit off there for themselves. An economy where money is pooled in a few hands is actually unhealthy, stagnant, and an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

If the many used or purchasing people are not able to work or buy products due to illness, the whole system collapses.

Rapscallion

Very true. But overall, what is the actual likely-hood of 50% (150,000,000) of America's workforce falling ill to where they can't work? How about even 35% (105,000,000)? That's not likely to happen. The Spanish Flu of 1918 killed between 50 million people which at the time was about 3% of the world's population. The Spanish flu is considered the deadliest.

So while I agree fully that people need to be healthy, using people's health as a reason for a complete economic collapse or severe bang up to the economic system is really, really far fetched.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Very true. But overall, what is the actual likely-hood of 50% (150,000,000) of America's workforce falling ill to where they can't work? How about even 35% (105,000,000)? That's not likely to happen. The Spanish Flu of 1918 killed between 50 million people which at the time was about 3% of the world's population. The Spanish flu is considered the deadliest.

So while I agree fully that people need to be healthy, using people's health as a reason for a complete economic collapse or severe bang up to the economic system is really, really far fetched.

Let's not split hairs here, I do believe Raps was being a little hyperbolic in his wording so as to be clear. What he meant, and what isn't far-fetched at all is widespread illness having adverse effects, which we see everywhere and in odd circumstances effect the economy of small towns and the like to sort of mini-collapses. Nevermind that we aren't worrying about one big illness but the full gambit of all the things people could have.

[Fashion Lad!]

Let's not split hairs here, I do believe Raps was being a little hyperbolic in his wording so as to be clear. What he meant, and what isn't far-fetched at all is widespread illness having adverse effects, which we see everywhere and in odd circumstances effect the economy of small towns and the like to sort of mini-collapses. Nevermind that we aren't worrying about one big illness but the full gambit of all the things people could have.

No, I do believe that is pretty far fetched to think about it. Because we've never even seen an illness take out as much as 10% of the working population in such a way to devastate the economy.

I could go another route, now that the rich will have less money to spend, they will buy less. Retailers, manufacturers, food services, transportation will all take a hit because the richest few have less money to spend. Is this far fetched like a global illness slowing the economy down to a crawl, yes.

[Fashion Lad!]

I'm seeing a criminal lack of proof or information backing people's accusations in this thread. Most people I've met are in favor of the bill.

You didn't give an documentation to support your findings either.

But here are a bunch of polls taken a bunch of different times.

[AdminAssistant]

I could go another route, now that the rich will have less money to spend, they will buy less. Retailers, manufacturers, food services, transportation will all take a hit because the richest few have less money to spend. Is this far fetched like a global illness slowing the economy down to a crawl, yes.

Our entire economy rests on the fortunes of the top 2%? Sorry, but I don't think the world is gonna end if Bill Gates decides to only buy one new hybrid Hummer instead of two. Sorry, I'm not losing any sleep that people like the Walton's are going to have more of Daddy's money taken away from them.

Think about the swine flu pandemic. If people had been able to afford to take time off work and go to the doctor, then the illness would not have spread as far as it did, as fast as it did.

[Rapscallion]

I wasn't suggesting all the poorer people being ill at the same time. However, untreated there will be a longer term of illness for most health issues and a greater incidence of mortality. Without these people to exploit, so to speak, the amount of circulating money will reduce. The rich will pool the same proportion in their own bank accounts, leaving less money for the poor, so more will be unable to afford treatment, reducing the amount of money circulating...

It's a vicious cycle. More and more of the poorer people will end up poorer and unhealthier as a demographic. That harms the economy. The rich are only considered rich because of the economy.

I fully believe that economically there's a case for nationalised healthcare to improve peoples' productivity to boost the economy.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Proof means hard data or at the very least clear logic. Given that the former is incredibly difficult to find as does pertain to this issue (which was my initial point) most people aren't even providing logic. Instead they're hammering away at the smallest points ignoring the overall arguments of others.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not talking about one illness causing some sort of global breakdown? More sick people, regardless of what they have means less income, less spending and the economy suffers. I never said it would somehow collapse all together, merely that it would suffer. The grand majority of spending is made up of the small transactions of the masses, not the grandiose purchases of the rich. The markets they serve are comparatively small and in a healthy economy where everyone is earning and spending there's little reason for them to stop that spending anyway (seeing as most affluent people will, as a result of a growing economy, have more money coming in, they will be able to keep spending even without massive reserves.)

My beef is that a lot of people are saying "This will happen and the end is nigh!" without making the slightest effort to explain why. You have, to an extent, explained your self Fashion Lad and Raps and I have as well. So it's not the three of us I'm talking about.

Oh, and opinions polls don't mean shit except that a lot of people think something. That's not proof of them being right, just that that's what they think.

[IDrinkaRum]

Our entire economy rests on the fortunes of the top 2%? Sorry, but I don't think the world is gonna end if Bill Gates decides to only buy one new hybrid Hummer instead of two. Sorry, I'm not losing any sleep that people like the Walton's are going to have more of Daddy's money taken away from them.

Think about the swine flu pandemic. If people had been able to afford to take time off work and go to the doctor, then the illness would not have spread as far as it did, as fast as it did.

No? But the government thinks that if they tax the top 2% more than anyone else, they'll help out with the deficit. Can't have it both ways.

The really rich do go out and buy more than other because they can afford t.

As for the people who are rich "stepping on the little people" (to paraphrase another post) - that's how it is in a capitalist society. Don't like it? Become a rich person. You can start a company and step on other. You have the option of being a person in charge and a person not in charge. That's the capitalist beauty.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

That's not at all having it both ways. The top 2% of individuals being taxed to help with the deficit is most comparable to their lack of spending being a small setback. They are neither the magic pillar nor the ultimate time-bomb, merely a facet of the whole.

Also taxing the richest has more to do with not taxing those who can't afford it than because it'll save us all. If you have to get X$ you might as well get it from those who have X$ thousands of times over to spare.

[IDrinkaRum]

Yes, but one of the reasons the rich have $$$$$ to spare is because they undestand the basic premise of saving their money and spending wisely.

I'm not saying that's the reason why all poor people are poor, but from my experience, the people who should be saving don't. (Take my BIL#1 and his wife).

I plan on becoming (someday, hopefully) part of the 2% of the richest, and let me tell you, I want to keep as much of my money as I possibly can because I know how it is not to have so much money at my disposal.