Economic Growth Still Leaves Some Texans Behind

From an article in the Economist...

"The poverty figures are both less accurate and more hopeful. It sounds awful to say that 36.5m Americans are living in poverty. But “poverty” in America, as defined by the Census Bureau, does not mean destitution. A typical poor American lives in a three-bedroom house with a car, air-conditioning and two televisions. His children actually eat more meat than rich kids do. And he receives substantial benefits that the census bizarrely excludes from its calculations.

Americans are deemed poor if their pre-tax income falls below a certain threshold—for example, $20,614 for a family of four. By this measure, the proportion of Americans who are poor is no better today than it was in the 1970s. But this is nonsense. The census ignores non-cash benefits such as government health insurance, food stamps and subsidised housing. It also ignores the earned-income tax credit, a wage subsidy for the working poor that is reckoned to be one of America's most effective anti-poverty measures. On the day the census report appeared, Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor and a possible independent presidential candidate, called for a huge expansion of the earned-income tax credit and a serious re-think of how poverty is measured."

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9725549

Numero Uno Guest

Yup. Reckon so.

Numero Uno Guest

We're like two nuts on the opposite sides of the same acorn, Numero Uno Pest.

"Numero Uno Pest is more like it."

Exactly.

What good does preaching to the choir do?

If you want to fix/change something, you need debate, an exchange of ideas.

Heck, most of our elected representatives sure aren't going to do anything about anything - all they are interested in is a "job" for life.

Numero Uno Pest is more like it.

"$20,000 per year for a family of four is just - it's BEYOND poverty. Even outside of Austin. It's f**ked up that our government thinks any family of four can survive on $20,000 a year unless they own their own farm and don't have to pay taxes on it."

Hey, knothead...the government is NOT saying that a family of four can survive on $20,000/year.

If the government did think that, why do we have these government programs to help those living in poverty - such as food stamps and the above-mentioned free healthcare?

The $20,000/year was the national poverty level for a family of four when the post linked to was written. The government was not saying that a family of four can survive on that.

Think about it.

Numero Uno Guest.

$20,000 per year for a family of four is just - it's BEYOND poverty. Even outside of Austin. It's fucked up that our government thinks any family of four can survive on $20,000 a year unless they own their own farm and don't have to pay taxes on it.

"What about France - - a country Michael Moore described as Eden in "Sicko?" The government uses a sales tax approach and uses that money to buy a basic (not comprehensive) package of coverage for about 80 percent of the French people. The basic government benefit coverage is somewhat incomplete, however, so 92 percent of the people in France now purchase additional private insurance to fill in the 20 - 40 percent gap in various parts of their government benefits. About 20 percent of the French people skip the government program completely and purchase only private coverage. In either case, the coverage isn't free and is not handled through a Canadian single-payer model."

http://acuf.org/issues/issue91/070909med.asp

Numero Uno Guest

"Waiting 5 years for a hearing aid is better than never getting one at all. I bet the 30% of adults in Texas who don't have any insurance would love that inconvenience."

What of free clinics? The Salvation Army and other charitable organizations?

Or this...

"State law requires every county in Texas to provide free healthcare for the poorest citizens living in each respective county. Anyone earning up to 21% of the national poverty level (the national poverty level is currently around $20,000 per year for a family of four), and is a citizen of the United States is eligible for this free medical care."

http://www.jerryhoagland.name/2006/08/indigent-healthcare.html

Waiting 5 years for a hearing aid is better than never getting one at all. I bet the 30% of adults in Texas who don't have any insurance would love that inconvenience.

The French model has a lot of things going for it.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

However, it seems that it faces some major problems...

"That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation."

"Many French doctors, in fact, earn more by increasing their patient load, or by prescribing more diagnostic tests and procedures—a technique, also popular in the U.S., that inflates health-care costs. So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion."

France, i'm telling you.

Shoot, and that socialized medicine has just turned out great, hasn't it?

Cancer patients in Great Britian are having to wait for treatment until their cancer has become incurable. And it takes 5 years to get a hearing aid.

That sounds like the ideal system to me!

"In a normal marketplace, a competitor would enhance productivity, reduce costs, and pass that savings on to a customer."

Yeah. Back when we had an unregulated health care system with no governmental intervention, things were practically paradisical. Honest practitioners travelled the countryside aboard charming wagons peddling elixirs which cured what ailed you. It was truly a golden age. No wonder libertarians are so intent on turning back the clock. It's amazing that every single other non-hellhole country in the world has made the mistake of socializing medicine, given how obvious that all is.

And given a link.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

Numero Uno Guest.

Sorry. Meant to "sign" that last post.

Numero Uno Guest.

A doctor on health insurance...

"Right now, a lot of hospitals and physician groups are lobbying for expanding insurance. The problem is, health care financing is now largely driven by the reimbursement system...so doctors, hospitals, and other providers look for the procedures that pay the most. Whole industries have developed to maximize charges...I call it "code farming," sort of like farm subsidies.

In a normal marketplace, a competitor would enhance productivity, reduce costs, and pass that savings on to a customer. If you sold one widget for 100 dollars, your production cost might be 75 dollars, but after you sold 100, your production cost might drop to 50$, a savings which would be passed on to garner more business yet still make a profit. In health care, whether you do one procedure or 100, the reimbursement is fixed. There is no real reward/incentive for a provider to cut their prices...except in those areas of medicine where people pay out of pocket...check out cosmetic surgery and lasik."

Dear credulous-for-capitalism guest N:

Look up "adverse selection". Health "insurance", even catastrophic-only, if it ever worked, won't work any more.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. If so, I apologize.

The best way the government can help clean up the healthcare mess is to push through some free market reforms. Let's fix the problems instead of making them worse (or just trading them for other problems) with socialized medicene.

Give individuals the same tax break companies get for providing health insurance, for example.

Health insurance (and other benefits) is a part, along with wages, of what it cost to hire somebody. What if instead of providing insurance, an employer paid his/her workers more? The worker could then take the extra money and spend it on healthcare however they choose.

Numero Uno Guest.

I did say:

"Maybe you're right and people should fend for themselves, because the government gave corporations the power to crush the people. We shouldn't expect the government to do something to help the people, but we sure can hope."

Maybe if we had vouchers, you would have learned to read at a nice private school!

Let me see if I've got this straight...

"the government has allowed corporations to strip people of any power"

"with the governments' blessings -- [corporations] have made it impossible for (in the state of Texas) 30% of adults to AFFORD health insurance."

"government gave corporations the power to crush the people"

And so your solution is to...turn to the government?

Brilliant.

Numero Uno Guest.

How can you empower people when the government has allowed corporations to strip people of any power?

You want to give people the power to choose how to spend their money, but the corporations -- with the governments' blessings -- have made it impossible for (in the state of Texas) 30% of adults to AFFORD health insurance. Corporations don't provide a living wage for millions of people; You want those same people to somehow purchase insurance on their own? You think corporations are going to fund a healthcare system that allows those 30% of people to be covered?

Maybe you're right and people should fend for themselves, because the government gave corporations the power to crush the people. We shouldn't expect the government to do something to help the people, but we sure can hope.

"I can't buy into #43's notion that because the government currently is less awesome, we should be giving corporations all the power."

You couldn't be more wrong.

What I am talking about is giving the power to the people to choose their own healthcare. Not the government or corporations.

"Sorry, it has nothing to do with Che, or communism, or any of the other my-hair-is-on-fire-look-at-me-blather-like-Rush crap that you just tried to pull either."

What the heck does that mean?

That you can't refute my argument so you resort to posting gibberish?

Sheesh.

Y'all aren't about power to the people or anything like that at all.

You are all about bowing down and kissing the government's boots.

What about the French model?

the world is bigger than communists, england and canada.

I can't buy into #43's notion that because the government currently is less awesome, we should be giving corporations all the power.

Sorry, it has nothing to do with Che, or communism, or any of the other my-hair-is-on-fire-look-at-me-blather-like-Rush crap that you just tried to pull either.

As for links for guest 41...

"A Canadian woman has given birth to extremely rare identical quadruplets.

The four girls were born at a US hospital because there was no space available at Canadian neonatal intensive care units."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6951330.stm

"Five year wait for NHS hearing aids

Monday 18 September 2006

The time people in England have to wait to get a hearing aid on the NHS has increased in more than a third of all hospitals, according to a new report published today."

http://www.deafnessresearch.org.uk/Five%20year%20wait%20for%20NHS%20hearing%20aids%203184.twl

"NHS staff crisis lengthens wait for cancer treatment

Hospital shortages have led to delays that are making some patients incurable, according to figures revealed to The Observer."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,,920078,00.html

Wow. That took all of about a minute on Google.

Numero Uno Guest.

Anti-communist?

Hell yes, I am anti-communist. Communism has been one of the worst evils this world has ever seen. Ever hear of Stalin? Or read about Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the gulags? Or about the Cuban doctor who is right now rotting in a tiny cell (with no medical care) simply because he went on a hunger strike in protest of Castro? Heck, you probably think Che was a hero - and not the murderous thug that he was.

You just go right on believing that it was all made up by rich white dudes. Keep deluding yourself.

And no, I think our situation would be closer to that of Great Britian - where the (national) healthcare system is in shambles.

All of your proponents of government-sponsored (socialized) healthcare...

Were you happy with the way FEMA handled Katrina?

No?

Yet you are all fire ready to turn over your healthcare to that very same government.

You gripe about the NSA or CIA reading emails, yet you are more than happy to be willing slaves to a nanny-state government.

guest 38,

Sure, if you're definitely going to consume way under your deductible for the year, you might be tempted to let a sore throat lie - but again, the primary factor for most of us for doctors' visits like that is the pain-in-the-ass in taking a half day off work to sit around in a waiting room.

Oh yeah, because if America had government sponsored healthcare, Cuba and North Korea would be the perfect analogous situation! We'd instantly become a totalitarian regime with an incompetent dictator running us into the ground.

On another note: have you ever been to Cuba or North Korea? And needed health care? Because your comment, chock full of anti-communist rhetoric, sounds like the crap our media (heavily influenced by rich white dudes who are heavily invested in promoting the free markets for their own continued gain) tells us all about.

I don't doubt things aren't so great in North Korea, but is it because of communism? Or because of the schmuck in charge of implementing the system?

As for your random, undocumented/uncited/unlinked examples, there are plenty of great examples of the American health care system not working. In fact, there's a great example of it not working right here in Texas: 30% of adults and 20% of children do not have health care.

But sure, go ahead and tell us how great the system really is and that theres no need for our government to get involved for the welfare of our people.

One more time for good measure - taxation DOES equal theft.

Numero Uno Guest here...

"You gotta wonder about someone like "Guest1" who will spend hours on the computer writing verbose screeds about why the government shouldn't provide healthcare, schools, or food stamps, yet won't take 2 minutes to set up a user account."

1 - What's not having a user account got to do with anything? Answer: Nothing.

2 - Why are you bringing schools and foodstamps into this. I never said a thing about any of that.

"Why are people so enamored by the idea of the free market and private industry? In particular, why are people who aren't wealthy, very wealthy, or stinkin' filthy rich in love with the idea that the government can do nothing right because "big government" is out to crush us like ants?"

Hell yes I am all for free markets and private industry. No free markets in North Korea - lots of good stuff going on there - like famine. Cuba? Don't even get me started on that communist hell hole.

As for government-sponsored insurance, let's take it to the next step...

Universal, government sponsored healthcare. Socialized medicene.

Yeah, that is a real winner. So much so that the Canadian woman who recently gave birth to quadruplets had to fly to a town in Montana to give birth - 'cause there were no hospital beds available for her in Canada.

In Great Britian, if you need healthcare, you'd better be prepared to wait. And wait. And wait. You need some new treatment or a new drug? Good luck. The infrastructe is decaying. Hospitals are underfunded and understaffed.

Everyone has coverage, but good luck actually getting any healthcare.

You'd have to be crazy to want to trade our system, even with all of its flaws, for that.

Md-

I'm the previous commenter; when I had an HSA at my last employer, I made health decisions based on money because of it.

When I had a sore throat, I didn't go to the doctor for an entire week because the cost would have been $100+ for the visit. Even with the pre-tax dollars, I didn't want to spend the money. I never went to an allergist either, because those specialty doctors are pricey.

Now that I'm at a new company and had an option to pick a PPO with a $20 copay, I gladly gave up the tax benefit, etc. I lose some money in the end if I never ever go to a doctor, because I'm still paying a fixed amount per month for my benefits and instead of it going into my HSA, it goes to United HealthCare -- but now I've got allergy medicine and had a mole removed that was tagged as pre-cancerous.

When I retire, sure I'll have a little less in the bank account. But for the time being, I'm making decisions based on my health -- not on my bank account. Even if the long term financial benefits of an HSA are rationally explained to people, they still do not go to doctors because of the immediate cost implications. It's human nature.

O, last commenter, you give HSAs too much credit, even. All they really are is a tax break skewed towards the wealthy - because their benefit is directly linked to your maginal tax rate; while providing essentially zero to the people who ARE consuming health care inefficiently (people who can't afford to see the regular doctor but end up at the emergency room).

Heck, I'm "enjoying" the tax break too (although I'm not sure it's worth the paperwork I'm drowning in), but it hasn't done jack squat to make me change how I use the doctor, nor would it ever make anybody else do so either. The only people who really decide to see the doctor when they don't need to are people who don't worry about time off work or child care - i.e. the elderly, and they've already GOT their own socialized health plan.

HSAs encourage people to make decisions based on money, not based on their health. It's a stupid plan that makes me want to smack someone with an Ayn Rand book.

I have one of those HSAs, and all it means is that I have a payment plan with four different doctors' offices for the $4000 (deductible amount) we rung up in about three months earlier this year which has to be repaid gradually over the 12 months the money goes into the account.

Yeah, it's real swell. And, no, it doesn't give you any real incentive to shop around, because shopping around for medical care doesn't _work_. When I get shunted to the nurse practitioner at ARC, they don't give me a discount.

And the guy talking about how the government can't find excuses to drop you is spot-on. Anybody who, at this point, still trusts private health insurance is a very sheltered person who's never actually had to switch insurers, or quit a good job to take a worse one for insurance reasons.

Libertarians have lost this one. They just don't know it yet; but they'll sure talk your ear off about how immoral taxation is while they drive on the freeways that bike-riders in central Austin fund with their property taxes.

#31, #27 here. You make some valid points and I can respect it. I don't necessarily think the government or corporations are always good or always bad. There's some happy medium.

In the case of health care, I fundamentally believe the leadership needs to come from the government because our health is too important to trust to a bunch of corporations straight up.

I don't think HSAs were a good idea either, but people love the idea of pseudo controlling their own money.

Commenter login seems to be busted. This is heyzeus.

I trust "big government" more than "big business" because the government wouldn't be allowed to deny coverage or drop you from coverage in pursuit of its profit motive.

Read the post that prompted this inane discussion. Under our current, mostly privatized system, 20% of Texas kids are uninsured. 30% of their parents are. Is this acceptable to you? No private health care provider is EVER going to step in and provide them insurance. The proper phrase is "market failure."

When those kids get seriously ill, they will either die or just be treated in the ER at great expense to all of us, likely with higher costs and worse health outcomes than if they'd had preventative health care all along. Both are costly options, to speak nothing of morality or good social policy.

"The same people blasting big government and slobbing the knob of the market are (likely) the same people who claim only the rich can afford ANYTHING (segways, condos, whole foods' onions, pizza, ACL Fest tickets, sushi). You don't like the rich, but you're willing to trust them with your HEALTH CARE?! WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT ABOUT?"

I can't answer for #1 but I think you got me confused with him. I can't afford shit and I don't like condos, segways, ACL, whole foods onions, or any display of abundant wealth when other people are homeless and hungry and desperate for some help, but I also trust the government and think insurance should be just as guaranteed as a public school education.

"Why the hell do you trust big corporations over big government?"

It's partially about accountability.

Don't like your senator or president? Wait 4-6 years to vote against them. Don't like some judicial decision? Federal judges appointed for life.

Don't like a company? Don't buy their products immediately, if enough people agree with you, they'll die.

Government is good for lotsa stuff, like enforcing laws. Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Worldcom's Ebbers, Tyco's Kozlowski, they all went to prison and in many cases their companies suffered as well. What happens with corruption in government? Nixon served no time, lived out life comfortably.

not just accountability, though. for all the "pretty nifty things in the charter", how many government actions actually reflect them. Plenty of companies have things about the common good in their bylaws as well, difference is that if a company doesn't adhere to it and their customers care enough to stop giving them money, they can choose to. If you don't feel like the government is adhering to it's "by-laws", you don't have much recourse.

to turn it around, why trust big government over big corporations? At least with a corrupt corporation, they can't legally put you to death or imprison you (in most cases ;-) ).

Right on # 27!

'throwing money at a problem' = spending = investment, ie leverage against an uncertain future. Another word for that is 'insurance'. So yeah, let's please throw a ton of money at the problem, and pronto.

I think what gets overlooked the most is the emotional and psychological benefit this nation would benefit from if every citizen knew that if they got sick or hurt, they'd be looked after. Working class--well, everybody for that matter-- has enough stress as it is. Let's relieve a huge worry from the minds of millions.

And also sterilize the poor.

Kenneth,

No self respecting liberal would ever vote for Ron Paul. I'd vote for John Kerry (again) before I voted for that guy. I might even vote for Joe Lieberman over Ron Paul.

Why are people so enamored by the idea of the free market and private industry? In particular, why are people who aren't wealthy, very wealthy, or stinkin' filthy rich in love with the idea that the government can do nothing right because "big government" is out to crush us like ants?

Somehow Karl Rove and some sort of spin machine has convinced you that the government never did anything right and never will do anything right. The federal government has some pretty nifty things in its charter about being of the people, for the people, and by the people whereas corporate charters are for the shareholders only (if your shares are measured in multiple percentage points of the outstanding equity). Why don't you demand your representatives fix the government, instead of disbanding it and giving away its power to a bunch of faceless mega corporations hellbent on profit? You really trust the Board over at UnitedHealthCare or BlueCross BlueShield to do ANYTHING in your best interests? Really?!

Why the hell do you trust big corporations over big government?

The same people blasting big government and slobbing the knob of the market are (likely) the same people who claim only the rich can afford ANYTHING (segways, condos, whole foods' onions, pizza, ACL Fest tickets, sushi). You don't like the rich, but you're willing to trust them with your HEALTH CARE?! WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT ABOUT?

"The private health care system the cause of this problem, not the solution. Fewer jobs offer health benefits all the time. Even if you do have a job with benefits, chances are decent that the HMO will decline your claim for something important. Your choice will be either don't have surgery or go into crippling debt. American middle class families with private insurance are destroyed by this every day."

Ah, I see.

If we can just get the government to pay for everything, it'll fix things. The world will be all rainbows and cute fuzzy bunnies!!

Riiiiggggghhhht.

You gotta wonder about someone like "Guest1" who will spend hours on the computer writing verbose screeds about why the government shouldn't provide healthcare, schools, or food stamps, yet won't take 2 minutes to set up a user account.

Also, you liberals/libertarians who are ga-ga for Ron Paul, be advised that he is opposed to all government programs and all taxes.

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner...

"no, shoveling money into the gaping maw of government will not solve the poverty/ health care problem. but you're mistaken if you think that by ensuring that "i got mine", you are somehow not paying the dr. bills of poor folks. oh you pay. we all pay."

You are mistaken if you think I was in any way advocating some kind of "i got mine" philosophy.

On the contrary, I'd like to everyone to have access to affordable healthcare.

However, I don't think that an ever-expanding government program is the answer.

So now you're saying that someone with childhood diabetes can't be slothful?

"Also, what's up with someone expressing a different view of the role of government immediately being called a freak (by mdahmus) and a lunatic (by guest #12)? Hardly reasoned political discourse."

As soon as you bring up "taxation is theft" or one of the other half-dozen bumper-sticker slogans parroted around by pimple-faced cyberlibertarians who think they'd rule the world like Conan if only it wasn't for the evil statists, you lose your right to reasoned political discourse.

HTH.

The private health care system the cause of this problem, not the solution. Fewer jobs offer health benefits all the time. Even if you do have a job with benefits, chances are decent that the HMO will decline your claim for something important. Your choice will be either don't have surgery or go into crippling debt. American middle class families with private insurance are destroyed by this every day.

Actually, I said "diabetes meds for the chronicly slothful", which would not include those with the genetic version, so i think you've mischaracterized the statement by saying "even childhood diabetes", unless you think those with juvenile diabetes fit the chronicly slothful description.

Also, what's up with someone expressing a different view of the role of government immediately being called a freak (by mdahmus) and a lunatic (by guest #12)? Hardly reasoned political discourse.

"Because if the people spend it badly we still have sick people on our hands and TB ridden urchins in the gutter. There's a reason we got into this situation in the first place. History shows that people don't think they're going to get sick. Then they end up sick in the gutter."

So what you are saying is that the poor can't be trusted with their own money?

That they've got to have good ole big government make those decisions for them?

"We're all in this together - as human beings - and sharing my good fortune (good health, good genes, good paycheck) is the least I can do."

Great!!

You could contribute to St. Jude's Childrens Hospital, the American Cancer Society, and any number of hospitals here in the US run by charitable organizations!

That alcoholic or smoker in need of a transplant could end a war, find a cure for cancer, or figure out a way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

I'm not willing to write those people off just because Ron Paul and his libertarian internet army thinks we shouldn't have taxes or national health care.

We're all in this together - as human beings - and sharing my good fortune (good health, good genes, good paycheck) is the least I can do.

I'd love to let "private industry" look out for me when I'm sick; after all, "private industry" isn't in the business of maximizing revenues while minimizing expenses to create maximum shareholder wealth, right? Unless I'm the CEO of a health care corporation, I see no reason to think this is such a wonderful idea.

A little less than $20,000 a year. I'd find a way to cut back if 5% of my paycheck could go towards making sure that everyone in the US was insured. I'd eat less steak or drink less coffee or find some way to make it work.

You people willing to give up 5%...How much do you make?

"Yes, why bother trying? I'm sure they can't do better than the private insurance system that still relies on administrative assistants memorizing thousands of non-standard codes to actually file requests, which are then entered into a myriad of incompatible computer systems (or not). Upon completion many of the claims are denied for bizarre reasons. The private insurance system doesn't sound anything like the federal government. You're right."

So your solution is to compound the problem?

************************************************

"Well, people with expensive health care really like their health care, so it would seem to be a logical conclusion to draw."

That makes no sense. If an alcoholic really likes his booze, your conclusion would be that we should all drink more?

***********************************************

"You're going to have to substantiate that claim buddy."

For one, can you point out one time where government meddling in the healthcare (or whatever) market made anything better?

Second, this is a subsidy to healthcare providers - all they have to do is sit back and collect the federal/state dollars.

************************************************

"Again, we're not trying to get people out of poverty. We're trying to prevent full blown health crisis. And healthy people are more likely to lift themselves out of poverty than ones who are sick all the time. Antibiotic resistant diseases are no respecter of wealth or privilege."

That is a great goal. But we aren't going to accomplish it by pouring more cash down the hole, by placing ever-increasing burdens on the working poor, or with an ever-expanding government.

ZINGER!

OK. I just read the rest of it where you equate people with diabetes (even childhood diabetes which is genetic and has nothing to do with being overweight) with smokers needing lung transplants.

So you're a paranoid delusional lunatic, huh? How's that going for you? Maybe if you had government sponsored health insurance you could take meds to treat your craziness.

"Keep your hands off my wallet."

???

This makes no sense to me. You do realize you are paying for things that you may not even use already like public schools and roads and international wars, right?

"Additionally, that 5% is a heck of a lot of money for somebody at or below the poverty level."

I'm living below the poverty level and I'd much rather get a 5% increase in my taxes than have to pay a huge hospital bill if I ever get sick. Christ knows 5% of my pay would never buy me health insurance in the private sector. 5% of my take home pay is not much, but if everyone in the US put in 5% of their paycheck, I think that should cover insurance for everyone.

"The question is "would you force your neighbor, under threat of revocation of their liberty (don't pay taxes = go to jail), thereby forcibly substituting your judgement for theirs on what they should do with their money, to pay for others' medical costs"."

Yes, I would, you freak. I'd also force my neighbor to pay for schools and other essential public services which cannot in this day and age practically be funded any other way.

Hint to other readers: You can immediately tell when you're dealing with the ideologue fringe of the libertarian movement when you start hearing this "taxation = theft" bullshit.

Guest #2...

The question is NOT "would you gladly pay more taxes if everyone in the US got health coverage?".

The question is "would you force your neighbor, under threat of revocation of their liberty (don't pay taxes = go to jail), thereby forcibly substituting your judgement for theirs on what they should do with their money, to pay for others' medical costs".

Keep your hands off my wallet. I gladly donate to what I deem worthy causes (you may have a different opinion), and take a pass on giving to smokers in need of lung transplants, alcoholics who need new livers, and diabetes meds for the chronicly slothful.

Sounds like you would force others to pay for all of the above.

"Because if the people spend it badly we still have sick people on our hands and TB ridden urchins in the gutter. There's a reason we got into this situation in the first place. History shows that people don't think they're going to get sick. Then they end up sick in the gutter. People complain to their politicians that they don't like sick people in their gutter and the whole cycle starts again."

And government health insurance prevents this how???

What about when, say, it is 10% of your paycheck?

Or when it is 15%? 25%? 50%?

Additionally, that 5% is a heck of a lot of money for somebody at or below the poverty level.

We would all be better served if we got to decide on how to spend our healthcare dollars.

Just think. At some point in time some old American fart was saying, "Now why the hell do we need public schools? They're just a waste of tax money."

Why should it be the government's responsibility to provide healthcare for everyone?

Because for some reason we don't like seeing TB riddled street urchins lining our gutters.

What makes anyone think that the government wouldn't screw it up? The billions in Medicare/Medicaid fraud?

Yes, why bother trying? I'm sure they can't do better than the private insurance system that still relies on administrative assistants memorizing thousands of non-standard codes to actually file requests, which are then entered into a myriad of incompatible computer systems (or not). Upon completion many of the claims are denied for bizarre reasons. The private insurance system doesn't sound anything like the federal government. You're right.

What makes anyone think that throwing money at a problem will fix it?

Well, people with expensive health care really like their health care, so it would seem to be a logical conclusion to draw.

We are going about this the wrong way. Programs like S-CHIP help drive up health care costs.

You're going to have to substantiate that claim buddy. Providing preventative care is pretty universally accepted as being far cheaper than a hospital visit.

Why not give them - and all of us - the choice on how to spend our money?

Because if the people spend it badly we still have sick people on our hands and TB ridden urchins in the gutter. There's a reason we got into this situation in the first place. History shows that people don't think they're going to get sick. Then they end up sick in the gutter. People complain to their politicians that they don't like sick people in their gutter and the whole cycle starts again.

Shoveling more cash into the gaping maw of government is no way to bring people out of poverty.

Again, we're not trying to get people out of poverty. We're trying to prevent full blown health crisis. And healthy people are more likely to lift themselves out of poverty than ones who are sick all the time. Antibiotic resistant diseases are no respecter of wealth or privilege.

I think John Edwards idea of letting the government compete with private insurance to insure people, but ensuring that everyone is covered is the way to go. If private insurance can do it cheaper and better they'll get a chance to prove it.

hello guest #1. we all DO pay for the uninsured. those emergency room visits don't pay for themselves. who pays? you do and i do. so what's better? paying for peoples' acute, emergency treatment when the problem has been building for weeks, months, even years? or maybe paying for everyone to have a yearly checkup, get the treatment they need when they need it, and not allow problems to escalate. i mean hell, it's in everyone's best interest to have a healthy, able-bodied workforce. rich or poor.

no, shoveling money into the gaping maw of government will not solve the poverty/ health care problem. but you're mistaken if you think that by ensuring that "i got mine", you are somehow not paying the dr. bills of poor folks. oh you pay. we all pay.

I'd gladly pay more taxes if everyone in the US got health coverage and got to stay in hospitals for as long as they need to get the treatment they need to be healthy. Under current health plans, they want you in and out right after you get in and sometimes people need time in the hospital to heal and get treatments. As long as I'm paying say, 5% of my paycheck and everyone else in the US is paying 5% too, I'm all for it.

Why should it be the government's responsibility to provide healthcare for everyone?

What makes anyone think that the government wouldn't screw it up? The billions in Medicare/Medicaid fraud?

What makes anyone think that throwing money at a problem will fix it?

We are going about this the wrong way. Programs like S-CHIP help drive up health care costs. Some states have already expanded their S-CHIP programs to include kids up to 25 (!) years old and families at 200-400% of the poverty level. A govenment study (from OMB, I believe) found that most of the gains in S-CHIP enrollment that would come from the called-for expansion would be kids who already have private insurance.

Basically, the government would just be taking the place of private insurance!

And to top it off, it puts more of a burden on the working poor - some of the very same people S-CHIP is supposed to help!

As the program is expanded, costs will go up. Where is the money going to come from? Taxes. All of us - the working poor included - will end up paying more in taxes.

The working poor will be simply trading one burden (lack of health insurance) for another (higher taxes).

But it makes us all feel better, right?

Why not give them - and all of us - the choice on how to spend our money? Instead of feeding another bloated, always growing bureaucracy, why don't we let people decide how they want to spend their money?

For starters, we should give individuals the same tax breaks that businesses get for providing health insurance to their employees. Let people pick their own health plans from competing providers.

Shoveling more cash into the gaping maw of government is no way to bring people out of poverty.