I agree.

Again correct.

I understand this may be an ideological point for many, but we will never have a chance to even debate this in any meaningful fashion, unless we do something radical about the financial hold of corporations on the electoral, judicial and all other aspects of our society.

If fixing the ridiculous tax structure means that you want to see some regulation of the semi-autonomous tyrannical govermental institutions called corporations, sounds good to me. CEOs have been riding the tax payer for far too long, investors gambling with taxpayer as security are bancrupting US, while the war profiteers are literally destroying the nation as an international player. Right now we need to regulate these government-subsidised dictatorships first, just to be able to have any influence on the actual policy.

Start getting used to the idea that this will have to be done by force. These guys will not give up until the last drop of blood is drained from the US middle class.

There is a fundamental difference between paying for a service that you receive and having money taken with the intent of giving it to someone else. When you are paying for police/fire protection you are directly paying for a service that you are receiving (both of which are taken care of just fine at the local level I would point out). Comparing that to social programs which are specifically designed to take from one person to pay for another while still having to reach into your own pocket to fulfill your own needs is absurd.

If you want to set up a government health insurance system that is 100% voluntary and funded solely by people who voluntarily join, be my guest. There is no reason social security, medicare etc can't be optional other than anyone with a brain wouldn't pay into them and they would go bankrupt quicker. When you want me to pay way more than average while I receive none of the benefits what kind of reaction do you expect?

Although, the argument can be made that the costs of police and fire protection ought to be more evenly distributed. After all, everyone theoretically receives the same benefits of that protection in a given locality. But since it is an incredibly small portion of my tax bill, I don't worry about it so much.

No, I use healthcare. I am saying I have to pay for my private healthcare no matter what. Under any kind of government plan I have to pay for yours in addition to paying for mine because I committed the sin of making too much money.

Using that logic everything you buy is a "tax". I think you need to look up the definition of "tax". If a rich and a poor guy pay $1 for a mcchicken the poor guy pays a higher percentage of his income. And yeah, I'm fine with that. If you want your expenses to be a lower percentage of your income, go make more money.

1. I don't care whether or not people work, how hard they work, or how effectively they work, that is their choice. If you can't pay for your mortgage, perhaps you shouldn't have taken out a mortgage. 

2. You depend on your employer to pay your agreed wages, whether or not you pay for your basic needs is your problem to work out. 

3. You have too much self respect to accept charity, but have no problem forcing the charity from me? That is just fucked up. I think it is a lot more respectful to yourself and others to accept charity than it is to go take the money you need from someone else.

4. Then perhaps you should donate some money to medical charities. 

5. Health insurance certainly is a viable business model. The margins are extremely small compared to other insurance types, but the sheer volume makes up for it. It isn't "cheating" when you make a profit on insurance. Buying healthcare through insurance will be more expensive on average than paying the doctor directly. The purpose of insurance is to protect you financially from the sudden large expenses. A person might go 10 years without a major medical expense, and then have something big. Buy paying for insurance over 10 years, the person distributes the cost of the major expense over a length of time. But on average the cost of the insurance will be higher than the cost of paying directly. 

Private healthcare isn't that expensive. The vast majority of Americans are able to afford it now when the cost is artificially inflated by medicare. If we fixed a few basic things like medicare and competition in insurance it would be even cheaper. How do you think a federal option will be cheaper? Bamacare isn't even a full public option and its price tag is over $1 trillion and I suspect that estimate is well on the low side. The only reason medicare is "cheap" is because the government simply doesn't pay the bill, forcing doctors to pass the cost to other patients who are paying privately. The more people between you and your doctor the more expensive it will be.

Are we talking about transportation? Your assumption that it can't be built privately is false, many railroads were built privately. In fact the most successful railroads in their time were built privately while competing against railroads that were heavily subsidized and ran by cronies. Regardless, I don't really have a problem with highways and such. I do believe that they should be exclusively paid for through use taxes. The gas tax is useful for that. The more you use the roads, the more tax you pay, that is my idea of a fair tax. There is no reason airports and such can't be private, or at least paid for by the airline companies that use the airport and control tower. Actually, I believe that airports are mostly or completely paid for by special taxes on airline tickets and businesses that operate at the airport. I'm not sure, but I believe that is the case. 

I agree and oppose all welfare recipients equally. Do you think the kickbacks will be more or less when government is managing healthcare?

I actually am solidly against private prisons. The main function of government is to protect citizens from doing harm to one another. If we didn't need police/courts/jails we wouldn't need government. Unfortunately, we do, so government ought to do its job. Your comparison to CIGNA is absurd. Insurance is not equal to healthcare. Insurance is solely a financial transaction and only protects you financially. When insurance declines you, you are not "left to die", you simply are left to having to pay for the medical care you require by yourself. Doctors tend to treat you anyway, you may be in debt or you might have to accept that dreaded charity, but you will not be "left to die". 

 I know this thread is a bit old, but this is a subject I've always been concerned about, especially now that I'm currently enrolled with Medicaid for my pre-natal and delivery expenses (btw I'm pregnant ) and will be going for an interview to get food stamps on Tuesday.  This is a very difficult situation for me because I tend to hate myself for having to ask for help from anybody, nevermind my fellow taxpayers.  I've always had a job (albeit never much of one) until I just couldn't work through the morning sickness and RIDICULOUS mood swings ON TOP of my chronic depression and having to quit smoking both cigarettes and pot, quit drinking caffeine and also the general anxiety regarding my potential competency at raising a child (sorry for the crazy run-on sentence).  Hopefully the food stamps office can also help me find a temporary job, because temp agencies around here are USELESS.  Plus, who's going to hire a (now visibly) pregnant woman?  

Anyway, I guess the statement I wanted to make here was that I wish with every fiber of my existence that I had a real career-or at least a job that let me afford things like food that doesn't come out of a box.  If I had really thought it through, I would have waited to go to college until I'd settled on a better Major than the one that offered the most scholarships, which happened to be music since I was in the band.  But because I thought it was just what was expected of me and because I had absolutely NO reasonable guidance from my parents, I went ahead and wasted three years of my life taking classes that would in no way improve my chances of getting a decent job, realized this suddenly and dropped out because I thought it would save money.  I don't mean to go on about my life's story (believe me, there's sooooooooooo much more drama than you want to know) my point is just that, yes, if I had known better in the first place I'd be in a better situation than I am now.  At the very least I could be in school studying something useful and have something to look forward to besides depending on my boyfriend's Wal-Mart paycheck indefinitely.  But the fact is that good people who are more than willing to work hard and pay their own way find themselves in the incredibly awkward position of needing charity.

For those of you who do make enough money, mandatory taxes that pay for other people's healthcare may seem unreasonable, and it's entirely your right to believe that it's possible for someone who makes minimum wage (and also pays OMG taxes!!!) can also afford to pay for health insurance/care (assuming they don't live with their parents or something).  But what I want to know is this:  Does having to pay upset you because it's hurting your standard of living (Do you ever have to choose between a month's worth of gas money to get to work and a trip to the OB/GYN for a very important prescription, for example)?  Or does it upset you because you think that poor people just don't try hard enough to not be poor, and that it's not EXTREMELY humiliating  for them to have to even consider government programs?  

It took me way too long to write this.  Sorry if I rambled on a bit.  I know sitting here ranting in a forum is about as proactive as turning on a t.v. but honestly I dream of financial independence.  I crave it.  I'm willing to bust my ass for it.  I've been busting my ass for years, it just hasn't gotten me anywhere.  It's nearly broken me multiple times since I moved away from home.  And now that I'm finally at what seems to be the bottom, I'm more determined than ever to get back on my feet again.  I just wish it were some rich person's jet fuel money paying for my  fancy frozen vegetables and peanut butter, instead of mostly working class peoples' summer vacation money.

You are welcome.  Where would you go?  Me, I'm close enough to Canada, it wouldn't be a big deal to move there.  Except I'm reasonably certain they wouldn't have me.

Ok, so you are getting help from medicaid and foodstamps. Why do we need a much larger, much more expensive federal program? While on a theoretical level I would prefer that all assistance is given and received through private charity, I am willing to accept welfare type programs that go only to the truly destitute. At least it sounds like you have a desire to improve your own situation and I appreciate that. Far too many people don't.

The problem for me arises when most people receiving government benefits don't need them. We have the richest poor in the world. If you have a cell phone, are paying for cable, blowing money on booze, cigarettes and entertainment you don't need charity, you need your priorities in order. For those who do make mistakes, get unlucky and find themselves in a situation where they need temporary help, fine. I would prefer you accept charity that is voluntarily given instead of demanding it as yours through government, but if everyone insists I have no problem helping out the bottom 5% or so of the population that is in need.

The problem comes in where Bamacare isn't focused on helping that small portion which is already helped by medicaid. It attempts to expand those government benefits to people who are making livable incomes. It ought to be your primary responsibility to take care of yourself and your family. Only after you have expended all your options should the government even consider stepping in. Bamacare is a program that affects EVERYONES healthcare, not simply a helping hand to the destitute. Just like social security and medicare, these government programs go far beyond simply helping the poor. 

Okay, let's really review "Obamacare".

1. You may not be turned down for preexisting conditions.  Did you know some insurers have called a normal pregnancy a preexisting condition and have turned women down for totally unrelated health care claims because they were pregnant in the past?  Yeah, really.

2. A young person in school may be on their parent's health insurance until they are 26, instead of 24, and all insurance coverage must offer this.

3. There is no lifetime maximum.  So if you were so "lazy" as to be born with something like Cystic Fibrosis, you could have had all health insurance - whether or not you were able to work for an employer who offered you health coverage as an employee - denied for lifetime maximum costs.

4. Health insurance will not become government insurance.  It will not be a single payer system like Medicare.  All health insurance- except Medicare which remains a single payer system - will be private.  The difference is that the government and the insurers will all be members of a pool.  The government will pay part of the premiums so that overall insurance costs will be lower - for those who qualify to buy insurance out of the pool.  To qualify, you must be unemployed or your employer must not be able to offer you insurance you can afford.  There are income limits.  There are penalties for large corporations - small businesses are exempt - for not providing health insurance for their employees.

Most people are not too upset - in fact, many are in favor of - the above 4 items.  This last is the one that has some upset.

5. At the request of the health insurance lobbyists, the Republicans insisted that a provision that everyone has to purchase health insurance be included in the legislation.  Similar to car insurance.  Can you drive without car insurance?  Sure.  If you get ticketed for something or have an accident, you will have to pay a larger fine and provide proof of insurance to retain your driver's license.  You can then leave the court and let your car insurance lapse.  Similar to but not exactly like the health insurance since there is no penalty similar to losing your license. 

So now, since people have had conniption fits about #5, the Republicans are all against having that provision in the law.  It may be a moot point depending on what the courts decide.  One just recently ruled that this requirement was unconstitutional.  So it is a little too soon to get excited about this one way or the other.  BS appears to be livid about this clause - he needs to take a chill pill.

There are concerns that the health insurance law will raise total costs for health care.  I don't know one way or the other if it will - and neither does anyone else.  They are all guessing about potential economic costs at this point.  Every last one of them.  What I do know is that the US has some of the worst health statistics in the world for a so-called industrialized nation and we have some of the highest health care costs. 

What BS and others can't seem to get through their heads is that they are already paying for other people's health care costs.  Those high costs are due, in part, to poor people not having access to regular care.  What could have been controlled with a few office visits, some blood tests and medication instead is treated in the emergency room.  And those costs for people unable to pay are passed on to other customers who have insurance or can pay out of pocket.  You are already paying for other people's health care and have been for years.

That is a very condensed highlighting of the bill.  There is no need or reason to take my word for any of this as the information is on the internet in a number of places - including the full text if you are feeling masochistic.