Draginol Draginol

Why don't liberals start more charities?

▼

Why don't liberals start more charities?

A solution for health care insurance

from JoeUser Forums

The far left in the United States are outraged that Bush vetoed the bill that would have provided "free" health insurance to minors.

When these discussions get going, I am always amazed that the obvious solution isn't taken: Start charities that provide health insurance to the "needy".

It wouldn't be that hard to do.  Those who really feel strongly about paying for health insurance for other people could donate to these charities. Then, those who wanted said health insurance would send in their past year's tax return along with proof of children and then be given health insurance for that child. 

These kinds of charities already exist for people who have a random illness like cancer, breast cancer, childhood diseases, etc.  So what is the difference?  The difference from my limited research is that most of these charities and their fund raising are performed by conservatives (particularly religious conservatives). 

As was documented in the excellent book "Who really cares" American liberals have replaced concrete action with political belief.  To them, posting a blog or protesting or some other symbolic but ultimately futile gesture is the same as actually doing something.

For this reason, American liberals are much more inclined to support federal government provided projects for the needy because it takes the burden of having to do anything to back up their political beliefs.  The sacrifice and effort is transferred to other people (typically people who disagree with their views and are hence demonized by the left even as those they demonized are, as a practical matter, the ones actually doing the doing).

It is a pity conservatives aren't more inclined to step up and ask "Why not start a charity?" when an advocate of a socialist policy starts railing for some new government welfare program.  After all, the left routinely says "Why don't you volunteer for the military?" when a conservative supports US foreign policy.

democrat
44,060 views 113 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
What kind of policy should we get the children? A bare bones one, or a big fancy one with all the trimmings? What are we trying to do for them?

Also, what are we trying to do for the adults? What kind of care is enough care? Is a catastrophic plan enough for free, or do we need to give them free regular check-ups, too?

"That's only a fact if you include children of illegal immigrants. Do you support our taxes providing health insurance to them as well?"

This makes no sense after you asked her where the line was drawn. The line, it seems, is drawn around our borders, but includes anyone in them - regardless of immigration status.
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
We’re seeing some moderation in health-cost increases, but premiums for family coverage now top $12,000 annually,” Kaiser President and CEO Drew E. Altman, Ph.D. said.


OK. So Blue Cross/Blue Shield lied to me. Gotcha.

What you're arguing, then, is not that every American deserves basic health insurance, but we all deserve top of the line, low deductible health care coverage. Well, taking a look at countries who HAVE socialized medicine, you'll quickly see they don't have top of the line care. In fact, cacto all but admitted they allow the elderly to die because it's not cost efficient to treat them.

Throwing out average figures as if they were typical is intellectually dishonest, Loca. If someone took out catastrophic insurance and put the difference between that and quality insurance into a health care savings account, they could quickly build up assets instead of making the insurance companies wealthier.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you read all the comments that was in response to "liberals want to start all these programs and make ME pay for it". They are not talking about getting a bill in the mail, they are talking about their taxes. My point is that whatever goverment programs a liberal supports, they are paying taxes for it too.

As was pointed out to you eariler, conservatives pay the overwhelming % of taxes (7 to 3). 

Yet liberals claim to be the compassionate ones because they favor programs that they don't even remotely come close to shouldering the majority of the burden to pay for and are stingy at supporting charities to boot.

Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top

You pay to educate other people's children. Do you think only people with children enrolled in public school should have to pay taxes?

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

But let me first remind you that I already pointed out that if we took the position that we only paid taxes on things we supported that we'd have an extremely conservative government.  So I don't think that's a track you want to take.

Secondly, I would be perfectly happy, as a father of 3 children in public school, to pay for their schooling in exchange for having a choice of where to send my chidlren to.

Third, the benefits to society of having an educated population are pretty straight forward and well proven.  The benefits of society of overhauling our entire health care system in a way that might ahve very negative consequences so that we can provide money to the losers who can't or won't take responsibility for providing health care to their children is, at best, unproven.

I already provide health care insurance to people. Right now. I resent the idea that I should have to pay for insurance for other people. 

If they were born here, they are citizens and have the same right as any other citizen.

Oye.  So now it's my job to work to have my property looted from me to be handed over to illegal aliens to give to their children. How compassionate of you.

 

Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
What you're arguing, then, is not that every American deserves basic health insurance, but we all deserve top of the line, low deductible health care coverage.


No, what I'm arguing is that my statistic of the "average cost of insurance in the United States for a family of four is $11,000" is accurate.
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top
the last i checked liberals want to raise taxes on the rich. are you rich loco


loaded - NOT. I am very middle class. The increase in Schip is supposed to be paid for by an increased cigarette tax of .61 per pack anyway and we all know that more poor people smoke so they'll be paying for it themselves. Ha.
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
As was pointed out to you eariler, conservatives pay the overwhelming % of taxes (7 to 3).


I was responding to Dr. Guy's assertion that tax isn't charity and that my response wasn't "substantive". I get it - rich people are more conservative because they don't want to lose what they have. Poor people are liberal because we're spending "your" money. Or as one of my coworkers said - you are only liberal until you have something to lose. Or if you are 20 and not a liberal, you don't have a heart, if you're 50 and not conservative, you don't have a head.
Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
Third, the benefits to society of having an educated population are pretty straight forward and well proven. The benefits of society of overhauling our entire health care system in a way that might ahve very negative consequences so that we can provide money to the losers who can't or won't take responsibility for providing health care to their children is, at best, unproven.


You see this is the issue. I think it benefits our society for all children to have healthcare coverage which I believe is a prerequisite to quality medical care in our country. I don't think the children should be punished if their parents are "losers". I also do not think that all families who do not have insurance are selfish or losers. If your employer does not offer insurance, it is a huge expense. One that I think is necessary, even if it's a bare bones policy that would only cover a hospitalization but if a family can't afford it, they can't afford it. You're first priority is providing, food, clothing and shelter for your family. If there isn't enough left for health insurance, what do you do?

Also I don't think a government subsidy to pay for insurance for kids who do not have insurance is "overhauling our entire healthcare system".

I already provide health care insurance to people. Right now. I resent the idea that I should have to pay for insurance for other people.


Which is great but the fact still is that 20% of U.S. workers cannot get insurance through their employers. I am sure that your workers are more loyal and value their jobs if it offers good benefits.

Oye. So now it's my job to work to have my property looted from me to be handed over to illegal aliens to give to their children. How compassionate of you.


That's the law of the land, if you are born in the U.S. you are a citizen with all the rights of any other U.S. citizen.
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, what I'm arguing is that my statistic of the "average cost of insurance in the United States for a family of four is $11,000" is accurate.


No, you were actually using those figures to justify why the cap should be set insanely high (by using the emotional plea that the $11,000 was 1/4 of the pre-tax wage of a family making $50,000/year). The implication was pretty clear that average was the minimum standard you would accept for those families.

The truth is, with your hypothetical $50,000/year family, assuming they don't have insurance through work (in that wage range, most who are not self employed or independent contractors DO have insurance), they could get a quite reasonable plan for half of that average, meaning the situation isn't nearly as dire as you'd like to make it out to be.
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
No my point is not that the government should pay $1000 per month for insurance, my point was that many uninsured are uninsured because they cannot afford insurance even if they are middle class. Such as the example from the Baltimore sun article whose combined income is $45,000 but their insurance premiums at $1200 a month would be more than their house payment. Dad is self-employed. Mom's job doesn't offer insurance. Those are the children this plan is meant to cover.
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
My point is that whatever goverment programs a liberal supports, they are paying taxes for it too.


But the topic is Liberals starting charities. SO again, can we get back on topic and tell us why Liberals think Taxes are charity, or why liberals dont like charity?
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
Such as the example from the Baltimore sun article whose combined income is $45,000 but their insurance premiums at $1200 a month would be more than their house payment.


You're proving my point. The option of getting a lower priced insurance policy doesn't even seem to occur to you.

I just ran the numbers in Baltimore, assuming they are 45 years old or less. Most policies are FAR below the $1200/month mark. The $2500 deductible plan (which they should get; they'd make up their deductible in 3 months of what they're paying in premiums currently) is $291...1/4 of what they're currently paying. A $100 deductible comes in at $974...more than $200 LESS!

But because they're middle class, they shouldn't have to shop the market, right? Taxpayers should foot the bill!
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
oh...AND...extended maternity is included in BOTH of those plans!
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
the last i checked liberals want to raise taxes on the rich. are you rich loco


loaded - NOT. I am very middle class. The increase in Schip is supposed to be paid for by an increased cigarette tax of .61 per pack anyway and we all know that more poor people smoke so they'll be paying for it themselves. Ha.


there won't be enough money in that so you'll still have to raise income taxes.
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Insurance premiums have increased 78% since 2001, compared to a 19% increase in wages and a 17% increase in inflation. A recent report showed that the average cost of coverage for a family of four is already more than $12,000 a year."


So let me get this straight. Although this is a quote, you think we should regulate the cost of health care (Jytheir did a very good article on what Insurance actually is)?

And how would we go about that, and where would we start telling people "Sorry, you are too expensive to treat, so we cant treat you"? (for the last see GB and why they wont treat some people).
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're proving my point. The option of getting a lower priced insurance policy doesn't even seem to occur to you.


What these people are too stupid to see if they would qualify for another plan? Not everyone qualifies for the lowest rates. Their children were on chip and they had a car accident. If the children weren't on chip they would have probably lost their house because of medical bills.

My best friend and her husband picked a policy when he went to work for a different company. They kicked them off of it because she has high blood pressure and they had to go to a more expensive plan. They are not with the more expensive plan because it has bells and whistles. It is actually a high deductible plan. They are with the more expensive plan because that is the one that would cover them. Is this rocket science? Just because you plug some numbers into an internet calculator does not mean you will actually qualify for those plans or those rates.

Does the fact that insurance premiums have increased by 78% in the last five years not give you any pause? It's not that all these people are too stupid to get a lower priced plan, it's that they can't.
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top

I get it - rich people are more conservative because they don't want to lose what they have

Unfortunately, you don't get it.   Conservatives tend to be richer because they of their philosophy towards life.

My world view wasn't radically or even significantly different when I was in college and broke.

I'm not afraid to lose what I have.  I am afraid of men with guns (the government) stealing what I have earned.

You, like most liberals, have a fundamental lack of understanding about "rich people".  I can do far more good with my earnings for society than the government can. 

If the rich were simply massive consumers, they wouldn't be rich.  The rich are wise investors - that's why they're rich.

The government is a proven poor investor.

Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does the fact that insurance premiums have increased by 78% in the last five years not give you any pause?


Do you want last year's cures? You can have 1960 medicine at the same price or less than in 1960. Insurance is a reflection of the cost. as they find newer and better ways to treat diseases, they make them available - at a cost that includes developing the cures.

So you can have 21st century cures, or 1960 cures. You decide, and then you can try to dictate what a person is going to work for. But as we have seen, it usually results in people not working their butts off for what amounts to 25 cents an hour.
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does the fact that insurance premiums have increased by 78% in the last five years not give you any pause?


Does it escape your attention that gas prices have TRIPLED in the last SEVEN years? How about the fact that food costs have increased, although not as drastically, certainly significantly. None of these facts are a valid argument for a socialist state, which you are proposing. Do you really want viability to determine whether or not care is received? What will you say to the mother who has struggled for years to have a child that has to watch hers die on the table because it was born dangerously underweight and the doctors will do nothing. Is that a stretch? Nope. Countries with socialized medicine do this routinely.

It's not that all these people are too stupid to get a lower priced plan, it's that they can't.


PROVE IT! Prove that this family doesn't qualify for a reasonable rate plan; that $1200 is the cheapest they can get. Because I DON'T BUY IT, Loca!

The problem with talking points is that there are a billion holes in them.

Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
In fact, cacto all but admitted they allow the elderly to die because it's not cost efficient to treat them.


No I didn't. But organ transplants are prioritised for those who will get the most use out of them. The elderly will go on the waiting list, but they'll go at the back. Children who have fifty or sixty years of life ahead of them with a transplant shouldn't miss out because some 85-year-old, with 10 years ahead of them, wants it.
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
No I didn't. But organ transplants are prioritised for those who will get the most use out of them. The elderly will go on the waiting list, but they'll go at the back. Children who have fifty or sixty years of life ahead of them with a transplant shouldn't miss out because some 85-year-old, with 10 years ahead of them, wants it.


There's universal healthcare in a nutshell. Cacto, or some other benevolent soul who knows "better" than you, decides.

The fundamental flaw in the argument for universal health care is the claim that there isn't enough money to go around, which is a false premise.
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fundamental flaw in the argument for universal health care is the claim that there isn't enough money to go around, which is a false premise.


Okay, you're obviously not getting it. We need more organs. It's that simple. More organs, we can fix more people. Fewer organs, some will miss out. You can't just buy organs. They have to be donated. They have to come from someone who's dies in hospital and is on the register. We need more organs to fix everyone.

Have I made it clearer or do you still think it's a matter of too little money?

Understaffed hospitals tend to be a result of inadequate trained workers and poor working conditions - in Oz at least anyway. We give our doctors training colleges too much independence in how many they train and we don't pay our nurses enough, although they make even less in the private system so it clearly wouldn't be any better if it was all private.
Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
We need more organs. It's that simple. More organs, we can fix more people. Fewer organs, some will miss out. You can't just buy organs. They have to be donated. They have to come from someone who's dies in hospital and is on the register. We need more organs to fix everyone.


I get it now, but unless I am mistaken, I dont like the direction you are headed.

Harvesting?
Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
No I didn't. But organ transplants are prioritised for those who will get the most use out of them. The elderly will go on the waiting list, but they'll go at the back. Children who have fifty or sixty years of life ahead of them with a transplant shouldn't miss out because some 85-year-old, with 10 years ahead of them, wants it.




how do you know that said kid will not go out and get run over the day he/she gets out of the hospital.
Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
No I didn't. But organ transplants are prioritised for those who will get the most use out of them. The elderly will go on the waiting list, but they'll go at the back. Children who have fifty or sixty years of life ahead of them with a transplant shouldn't miss out because some 85-year-old, with 10 years ahead of them, wants it.


Actually, I'll argue the opposite. A 6 year old who needs a kidney transplant will consume more transplants over their lifetime. It's rare for a single transplant at that age to last. Factor in the cost of the drug regimen they will have to take the rest of their life and the lost productivity over their lifespan and it's a losing gamble. The 85 year old, on the other hand, has already proven their contribution to society.

There is no fair way to decide who gets transplants. Someone's going to get the short end of the shift. Most people in America acknowledge the shortcomings of our system; your fatal flaw is arguing the superiority of yours.

Also, it's good ol' Darwinism, man. If we can keep kids with congenital diseases from reaching breeding age we strengthen the gene pool.

(walks away whistling while you all get yer knickers in a twist over THAT!)