|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 10 2008,12:19 pm |
|
   |
This started out in another thread. Nphilbro asked several important questions, so I opened a new thread.
Nphilbro QUOTE I guess what I'm asking is that we have a discussion regarding AMERICANS and only Americans. The illegals are a different discussion altogether.
#1. Is our healthcare system healthy and good for americans?
#2. Should we examine it carefully and make sure that it supports citizens, business, and innovation.
You can't talk about "Universal Health Care" without talking about "Universal"--EVERYBODY gets it.
As previously posted, the illegals drain on the health care system is one of the reasons for high medical costs--and subsequent high insurance costs. Nearly HALF of the oft-quoted "uninsured" are illegals--and you and I are paying for it.
Nobody that I know is advocating refusing medical care--even for illegals. NOBODY is refused medical care today (despite the disproved anecdote told by Hillary in Kentucky during her campaign). ANYBODY can go to ANY public hospital, and be treated.
We wouldn't have this drain on our health care--and other public systems, as well as our pocketbooks--if it were not for illegals. To not treat that problem would be to only treat the SYMPTOMS--NOT THE DISEASE.
We would not have this problem if the U.S. Government was doing what it is supposed to do--defend our borders. Several cities in the Southwest have lawsuits against the Federal government for the increased social care caused by the government not doing its job.
What to do about it?--I call it "Treat 'em, Report 'em, Deport 'em." If they come across ANY public service, prove citizenship. That's not too hard, the Euro's have been doing that for a century. WE have to prove our citizenship now with a passport just to get back into our OWN COUNTRY--why shouldn't illegals. Hospitals take reams of information about patients--if they turn out to be illegals, deport them. If they are stopped for traffic violations and turn out to be illegals, deport them. If they file for unemployment and are illegal, deport them. Fake SS number? Deport them. They are breaking the law by sneaking into the country--deporting them is kinder and less expensive than putting them in jail.
End "Sanctuary Cities"--any city that doesn't enforce the law loses Federal funds. The government does that to the States all the time (Federal speed limits--or lose highway funds). Cities are already forced to sign "fair labor standards" forms (non-discrimination, minority preference, women preference, etc) for any project involving Federal funds. Do the same for illegals.
Back to your two questions: QUOTE #1. Is our healthcare system healthy and good for americans? Take out 20,000,000 illegals, and the explosive growth of their progeny out of the picture, and it becomes vastly different. Yes, I would say that our health care system is amongst the best in the world. It is certainly better than Canada's failed experiment, the socialized medicine that Britain is retreating from, or Michael Moore's vaunted CUBAN healthcare paradise! 
You COULD do the Scandinavian system--nationalize the energy industry to pay for a socialism nanny-state--but even THAT is not enough. They have $8 a gallon gas (even though the country OWNS the oil fields!) to pay for it. With the wailing over $4 gas, I don't think that Americans are willing to pay that much to have the government take care of them.
QUOTE Should we examine it carefully and make sure that it supports citizens, business, and innovation. I would say "yes and no"--EXAMINE it, but no mandatory health care.
Innovation--WHERE in the world have most new procedures and drugs been developed? The U.S. Where has medical innovation NOT occurred? Socialized medicine countries.
Business? Business has no role in funding health care. That sounds hard, but the old saying "the business of business is business" still holds true. The role of business is to aggregate people and capital to accomplish profit-making goals. Business is TAXED on the money it makes, and the shareholders are TAXED on the dividends. If business wants to make healthcare part of an employee compensation package--good for them. The REALITY is that with the increase in two-earner families, not everyone WANTS the health care option--they are already covered. They would rather have the money.
Taxing business makes it even MORE uncompetitive in a world market--yet another cost that U.S. corporations have to bear that makes them uncompetitive with foreign nations. Taxing a corporation is a HIDDEN TAX on consumers--the cost of the tax is included in anything the consumer buys. Is it any WONDER that corporations have had to move to other countries?
IF (and it's a big IF) there was to be "universal health care"--I would leave the door open to mandated ability to pay catastrophic bills. Let people buy their own health plan, or provide demonstrated ability to pay (do you think Madonna needs medical insurance?). If you cannot obtain or afford health insurance, you have the government option AS A LAST RESORT.
Health care is too important to be left up to the government. Government is hardly a model of efficiency or fiscal responsibility (look at VA hospitals, Social Security, Medicare, etc.). Do you really want some clerk (think driver's license bureau)  making decisions about YOUR health care?
When the U.S. took over building the Panama Canal from the French, the first thing they did was to send Dr. Gorgas in to kill the mosquitoes that spread yellow fever and malaria--diseases that had decimated the French. Only after the disease had been treated was the actual work on the canal possible.
We need to treat the disease of illegals and outrageous lawsuits sucking the blood from our health care and social structure before we can work on making it better
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
The Boognish
Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2008,2:02 pm |
|
 |
DJim Wit,
You are vastly overestimating the effect of illegal immigration on health care costs. I find it sad, yet predictable, that you have fallen into the whole "us vs. them" mentality that has been marketed to the American public (by the Republicans mainly) regarding illegal immigrants.
A few problematic questions for you to answer:
1. Who is going to pay for deportation costs associated with deporting every illegal who is identified as you suggest?
2. Once an "illegal" (as you refer to them) is deported back to Mexico, what makes you think that they will just give up and remain there? (Won't they just come back and have to be shipped back to Mexico - at a cost to the U.S. taxpayer?)
3. With U.S. foreign and domestic policies that essentially weaken Mexico's economy, how can we honestly think that immigration to the U.S. can be significantly halted?
4. Did it occcur to you that these "sanctuary cities" you are referring to might require much more federal funding if it weren't for the contributions that these PEOPLE are making to the local economy. (The continued use of the term "Illegal" is a means of objectifying real people who are supporting real family members, thus the emphasis on PEOPLE)
5. Do you really think that the high costs associated with health care can be attributed solely to illegal immigration? What about the "big business" of medicine in today's society? Do you know of a hospital that is not currently expanding its infrastructure and growing bigger?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
6. When are you going to move beyond the simplistic ideological opinions of your beloved Republican Party and begin to think critically for yourself?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2008,3:49 pm |
|
|
1. One way bus ticket to McAllen, Tx. - $181.00 (they can be marched over the border from there.)
2. Tresspassers will be shot on sight. (turn the minutemen loose.)
3. See above.
4. I hardly believe that an increase of federal aide would be required. Perhaps a transfer of funding to different areas, i.e. health care support would be less.
5. This is a really rediculous question that even you know the answer to.
6. Not my question.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
The Boognish
Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2008,5:17 pm |
|
|
1. Djim wit, our board's resident expert, quoted a total of 20,000,000 "illegals" in his post. At $181.00 per one way ticket, that would add up to a cost of $3.6 billion tax dollars - assuming that we only have to deport each of them once (nobody reimmigrates). Hmmm....
2-3. Too absurd to even reply.
4. These sanctuary cities don't provide a sanctuary for nothing. These communities rely on these people, for they are an integral part of their local economies.
5. The reality is that Djim wit and others are easily buying into the whole "us vs. them" argument. Notice how the thread, which is "HEALTH CARE" suddenly changes into this discussion about illegal immigration which, contrary to the expert's opinion, has relatively little to do with increasing health care costs. By confusing the easily confused, politicians (on both sides) can turn attention away from the real issue (affordable health care) and the underlying causes of this problem. Maybe we should be discussing the lobbying power of the Pharmaceutical companies?
6. The question could just as easily been addressed to you.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2008,5:18 pm |
|
|
Well look what surfaced! You must be back in shcool with your buddy Hymiebravo--you two usually post together. Did you two get an apartment overlooking Loring Park? 
QUOTE
1. Who is going to pay for deportation costs associated with deporting every illegal who is identified as you suggest
I've answered this one before. In the 1950s, the deportation effort was called "Operation Wetback." I guess people weren't so PC in those days.
The idea is to apprehend and deport--and do it vigorously. You can look it up on Google. Wikipedia mentions that over 1 million were deported OR LEFT ON THEIR OWN ONCE THE ACTION STARTED. Considering there weren't that many in the U.S. as there are today, that's a pretty good start.
On another thread, I also pointed out other actions required for self-deportment. I don't have time to look it up tonight, but you could. Among them:
A. No sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities lose federal funds if they adopt that policy.
B. Anybody caught illegally for any reason gets deported. You have to put some fear in the illegals to make them quit coming to the U.S. That means if they are pulled over for a traffic stop--deported. Go to the hospital--treated and deported. Go to school--deported. Apply for work without credentials--deported. Like any other criminal (and they ARE criminals by definition--ILLEGAL) they won't come around an enforcement action.
C. Enforce the law that is on the books for employers W-9--prove citizenship to get a job.
D. Require proof of citizenship for a Social Security card.
All of these items are ALREADY on the books--no new laws required. You can't let people pick and choose which laws they will enforce or obey.
You seem to THINK that these won't be effective. As usual, your liberal FEELINGS aren't in synch with REALITY. If you have any questions about the efficacy of rigid enforcement, see Maricopa County's Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He has been rigidly enforcing the law--not only deporting illegals, but they have been SELF-DEPORTING from the area. There has been such a flood of people going back to Mexico that the Mexican Government has complained--"What are we going to do with all of these people back in our border towns?" Play the world's smallest violin! 
QUOTE Did it occcur to you that these "sanctuary cities" you are referring to might require much more federal funding if it weren't for the contributions that these PEOPLE are making to the local economy. Libbies USED to make this argument--it has since proven to be untrue--they have much higher cost to the welfare system, health care, and school district than they produce. Do you think these people pay taxes? There is a REASON that not even the far left like Obama make that claim any more. 
QUOTE The continued use of the term "Illegal" is a means of objectifying real people who are supporting real family members, thus the emphasis on PEOPLE Acknowledged. However, you continue to ignore the word ILLEGAL--people that have broken the law to get here, and continue to drain our limited resources. Maybe you will understand when you start paying taxes.
QUOTE Do you really think that the high costs associated with health care can be attributed solely to illegal immigration? No, I've already mentioned the stultifying effect of government over-regulation, and the role of lawyers in the high cost of medicine. Illegals are only HALF the cost.
QUOTE Do you know of a hospital that is not currently expanding its infrastructure and growing bigger?
MAYBE it's to:
A. Serve the public better.
B. Incorporate advanced techniques and practices
C. House the illegals
QUOTE What about the "big business" of medicine in today's society? If you think there is LOTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE IN MEDICINE, you should hock everything you have and by stock in pharmaceuticals, or perhaps United Health Care. With the "insider knowledge" that only you, in your wisdom, seem to have (insider knowledge that Wall Street investors don't seem to have) you could make a killing. C'mon--put your money where your mouth is--or are you just blowing hot air again?
QUOTE When are you going to move beyond the simplistic ideological opinions of your beloved Republican Party and begin to think critically for yourself? I see you haven't learned anything from the last beating you took. If you had, you would have realized that I don't donate to the Republican Party--they are now "Donk Lite"--too wimpy. You could look it up, if you had any ambition. I guess it's easier to just use the Donk "talking points" and slime anybody that is right of you--which would be 80% of the country. Unlike the plagiarist (ask your English teacher what that is, now that you are back in school) Joe Biden--you won't find me using the words of other people without attribution (ask your teacher about that one, too)
Perhaps you like Michael Moore's version of Communist health care better?
Attached Image
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2008,5:31 pm |
|
|
QUOTE Djim wit, our board's resident expert, quoted a total of 20,000,000 "illegals" in his post. At $181.00 per one way ticket, that would add up to a cost of $3.6 billion tax dollars - assuming that we only have to deport each of them once (nobody reimmigrates). Hmmm.... That would STILL be less than the cost of having them here! DEPORT! SAVE MONEY!
You assume that the cost of EVERY bus ticket is $181--and as usual, you would be WRONG. I'll bet that we could get a VOLUME DISCOUT for that many! Turn it over to WAL-MART--THEY'LL GET THE COST DOWN!
In reality, since so many are located in California and the border states--it would mean just a LOCAL ticket--as little as 50 cents on the trolley to the border from San Diego.
QUOTE These sanctuary cities don't provide a sanctuary for nothing. These communities rely on these people, for they are an integral part of their local economies. Can you cite your source, or are you just listening to Hymen again?
QUOTE These communities rely on these people, for they are an integral part of their local economies.
Illegals are SO important to San Francisco--picking crops in the Presidio......... How do they afford to live in one of the most expensive cities in the country?
QUOTE Notice how the thread, which is "HEALTH CARE" suddenly changes into this discussion about illegal immigration which, contrary to the expert's opinion, has relatively little to do with increasing health care costs. I've already said--the health care issue won't be solved until you solve the problem with illegals. SCHOOLS and other public services are also under attack.
If these people were "contributing" as you say, the border cities would be FLOURISHING--instead of suing the Federal Government for failure to do its job. If that were really TRUE, we should be IMPORTING MORE ILLEGALS!
Maybe you and Hymen could COMBINE your posts, so we would only have to answer your blithering ONCE.
Which one of you is Beavis, and which one is Butthead?
Attached Image
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
bulldog
Group: Members
Posts: 352
Joined: Feb. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2008,5:59 pm |
|
|
build a river along the mexican boarder and put a 50 ft electric fence along it, sure would be cheaper then feeding them and giving them free health care,
--------------
none
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
nphilbro
Group: Members
Posts: 1586
Joined: Jul. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2008,6:20 pm |
|
|
Thanks Jim for starting a new topic on this, but I'm afraid the train derailed before leaving the station.
I wanted to have a disscussion on solutions for real life Americans. I want to eliminate and segregate the illegal issue from the conversation.
I don't necessarily believe that govt run universal healthcare is the best solution.
I do believe that every American should have the right to healthcare, regardless of income or job status.
I do believe that you shouldn't be forced into bankruptcy because you have cancer and your spouce, who's company provided your insurance, was laid off.
I do NOT believe that it's an employer's primary responsibility to provide insurance to their employees.
I'm trying to have an open, non-partisan discussion on what's best for those of us that are legally within our borders. I would like to have a discussion about 90% of us and keep the focus off the 10% or less of exceptions.
I am a successful business person with a track record of success. My house cost right about the median for the seattle area. I've wanted to start my own business for several years, but the wife has a pre-existing condition that makes it impossible for me to start my own business, pay the mortgage, pay insurance for my family and one employee who would have to take this job as a primary provider.
All politicians are talking about employer based insurance. I've heard that Taiwan has a regulated but open market system that's very successful.
I guess, this is how I wanted to frame the discussion.
Illegal Immigration, education and healthcare should be an entirely different discussion because we're not talking abot Americans - IMO.
Again, thank you for bringing this up, can we look beyond what the pundits are saying and the media cycle talking points and address real solutions for real people. After all, corporate people have insurance, rich people, and the poor have it. Many don't fall into that category.
--------------
Merely to try is to prepare for failure.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2008,6:49 pm |
|
|
This SHOULD be about healthcare--but as stated in the first post, you can't seperate the illegals from the health care issue when they are such a large part of the problem.
When you have that many people getting benefits paid for by the rest of us--that impacts the cost of health care--BIG TIME.
"Universal" is just that--UNIVERSAL. Either EVERYBODY has it--or it is no longer "Universal."
Can we agree that there really isn't a good model for universal health care? Canada is reeling from its effects, and there is a move to once again allow private practice. It has been a boon for border cities in MN and ND, as well as Eastern border cities like Detroit. Canadians come across for health care that would take too long under their socialized system. The Brits have also retreated from socialized medicine. The Scandinavians have nationalized the energy industry, and gas is $8 a gallon. Michael Moore mike like the Communist system in Cuba--but I don't see a lot of people going there for treatment.
To move on to something that CAN be discussed, you mentioned (paraphrasing) CATASTROPHIC health care. That is another subject--as long as it doesn't result in incrementalism towards socialized medicine.
I pay about $275 dollars a month for Blue Cross coverage at age 61--with a $5000 deductible. One way or another, I could afford $5000--even if I had to sell a car. What I DON'T want is a $125,000 heart procedure. The Blue Cross system also pays for up to $500 per year of checkups ("wellness") so my net cost is $2800 per year.
CATASTROPHIC health care insurance IS available. I would never back MANDATORY health insurance, but I might go along with government-enabled health insurance. As previously explained, I could go along (reluctantly) with a requirement to show the ability to pay--either by insurance, or sufficient assets. IF insurance was not available, the option of minimum government insurance would be available--the place of last resort, as government SHOULD be. This would take care of pre-existing conditions, catastrophic injuries, neonatal defects, etc. It would NOT be government subsidized, only government assisted.
The problem with all third party payers, whether insurance, government, or HMO's--is that there is no incentive for the medical profession to hold costs down--and if government starts rationing health care (as in CAnada) you have a bureaucrat deciding your fate. How many government bureaucrats would you like to make YOUR life and death decisions on your health?
Another problem with third-party payers--again whether insurance, government, or HMO's--is that people don't take responsibility. As long as "Some one else" is paying--they don't get preventive care, and they don't take care of themselves. Drinking, smoking, drugs, risky behavior, obesity--drive the costs up for EVERYONE in the group.
As an offset to the catastrophic coverage I'm talking about, how about allowing people to start their OWN insurance companies--HMO's--and allow them to specify who is in their group (kind of like the cellphone circle)? A group of young 20-somethings, married, non-smokers should be able to associate themselves, and get a lower rate (share the risk) than being forced to take in 80-year olds and smokers.
Many would say "that's not FAIR"-- eventually, the older people would have to pay more--but they had the advantage of the lower rates when young.
There IS no "free lunch"--the government can't help except as a last resort guaranteeing access.
I'm going to be gone for the next week--I'll leave this place to the lefties--can't wait to see what they come up with in their Utopia!
In the meantime, Nphilbro--keep this discussion going! 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
