When I was a kid my parents didn't buy me any toys or garbage pail kids. I suffered greatly because of my parents.

Society isn't obligated to provide kids with the highest standards for free. You can live without a doctor. Plenty of working adults live without doctors. Other working adults see doctors too often, every time they sneeze or stub their toe, and health insurance makes me pay for their stupidity. I don't want to pay for someone else's kid with cancer when I wouldn't even be able to afford the same treatment for myself. If our health system were less corrupt and the costs affordable, certain limited expenditures could be a consideration, but right now it should be out of the question.

Well I am certainly in agreeance with needing to reform health care costs in and of itself. There are certainly a number of barriers that need to be broken down to make health care cheaper but we can't pretend it will ever be cheap. Advanced medicine comes with a  cost, the best scans and tests will always cost a lot of money to develope.

Under a socialize system you would have to pay for someone else's kid but someone would also pay for you if you were the one sick. If you purchase health insurance the same thing still happens. Costs are average among s pool of people. And actually a lot of people cannot live without a doctor. I think the drop in infant mortality over the last hundred years alone is a huge testiment to that.

You are right, nothing says we have to take care of others but I think we can choose to.

You are right, nothing says we have to take care of others but I think we can choose to.

Who is "we"? And under whose authority do you presume to choose for others?

That's the problem with believing government has a charity mission. You wind up stealing money from everyone to fund charitable welfare programs which the majority don't get to choose. 

Regardless of the good these programs might do for specific people, charity is to be funded through individual choices on how much and to whom they wish to donate. Government deciding who gets what benefits and how much takes the charitable aspect away.  Those who approve think they are doing good things for the poor.  Meanwhile, taxes are making more people poor so they may need to rely on these same programs.

Self-licking ice cream cone.

Who is "we"? And under whose authority do you presume to choose for others?

That's the problem with believing government has a charity mission. You wind up stealing money from everyone to fund charitable welfare programs which the majority don't get to choose. 

Regardless of the good these programs might do for specific people, charity is to be funded through individual choices on how much and to whom they wish to donate. Government deciding who gets what benefits and how much takes the charitable aspect away.  Those who approve think they are doing good things for the poor.  Meanwhile, taxes are making more people poor so they may need to rely on these same programs.

Self-licking ice cream cone.

We, society, mankind, etc.

I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself, that's why i said "can" instead of should or must. I speak for myself and I vote that way. Since we all get to vote then the majority can decide.

Is it better that the insurance companies and health care companies make us poor, as long as it isn't the government? Here is the other catch, I think health care for all benefits an entire society. Kids who aren't sick are going to do better in school which may reduce crime rates for example. We are going to spend more incarcerating them later than preventative care now. 

Same like public school, you think society would be safer if we left all the poor kids out of school on the grounds that you don't want the government to steal.your money?  Keep in mind I am for smaller government but I do think there are areas where everyone would benefit from government provided programs. I am sure I can find at least a few socialized programs you would support.

We, society, mankind, etc.

I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself, that's why i said "can" instead of should or must. I speak for myself and I vote that way. Since we all get to vote then the majority can decide.

Is it better that the insurance companies and health care companies make us poor, as long as it isn't the government? Here is the other catch, I think health care for all benefits an entire society. Kids who aren't sick are going to do better in school which may reduce crime rates for example. We are going to spend more incarcerating them later than preventative care now. 

Same like public school, you think society would be safer if we left all the poor kids out of school on the grounds that you don't want the government to steal.your money?  Keep in mind I am for smaller government but I do think there are areas where everyone would benefit from government provided programs. I am sure I can find at least a few socialized programs you would support.

If you are poor and need medical care, there are many programs and charitable groups available to see that you get it. If it's critical care, no ER can turn you away for being uninsured.

Keep pushing the emotional appeals. It just solidifies my previous comments.

There is affordable healthcare available in colleges today. All full-time students can visit the campus clinic for care. There are financial aid programs to pay for college. Problem solved for these young adults.

So, if "everyone benefits," that's your litmus test for a massive takeover of 1/6th of the economy by gov't?

Glad you're for smaller gov't!!   

Schools are not a federally-funded program.  Straw man argument and totally off point.

If you are poor and need medical care, there are many programs and charitable groups available to see that you get it. If it's critical care, no ER can turn you away for being uninsured.

Keep pushing the emotional appeals. It just solidifies my previous comments.

There is affordable healthcare available in colleges today. All full-time students can visit the campus clinic for care. There are financial aid programs to pay for college. Problem solved for these young adults.

So, if "everyone benefits," that's your litmus test for a massive takeover of 1/6th of the economy by gov't?

Glad you're for smaller gov't!!   

Schools are not a federally-funded program.  Straw man argument and totally off point.

I think you will find some of those charities lack enough resources to provide care for all those who cannot afford it, though I would be a strong supporter of charities taking the load of many other social systems. (Food stamps for example)

Like you said ER covers some stuff but we all end up paying for it. What if we can avoid a thousand dollar or ten thousand dollar bill with a annual checkup costing $100  isn't that possible it will save us all more money in the end? And one of the shortcomings of the ER is that someone might get a diagnosis for cancer but the ER isn't going to treat the cancer.

Why are you against an emotional appeal for health care but not one for protection of gun rights? We. Can't very well claim no emotional arguments then claim fear of an oppressive government.

Public schools are regulated federally and do often receive federal dollars. Yes, it benefits everyone is part of it but in limited application. I am talking about programs that will have long reaching benefits that could save us more than they cost us.

I think you will find some of those charities lack enough resources to provide care for all those who cannot afford it, though I would be a strong supporter of charities taking the load of many other social systems. (Food stamps for example)

Like you said ER covers some stuff but we all end up paying for it. What if we can avoid a thousand dollar or ten thousand dollar bill with a annual checkup costing $100  isn't that possible it will save us all more money in the end? And one of the shortcomings of the ER is that someone might get a diagnosis for cancer but the ER isn't going to treat the cancer.

Why are you against an emotional appeal for health care but not one for protection of gun rights? We. Can't very well claim no emotional arguments then claim fear of an oppressive government.

Public schools are regulated federally and do often receive federal dollars. Yes, it benefits everyone is part of it but in limited application. I am talking about programs that will have long reaching benefits that could save us more than they cost us.

Emotional is not the same as passionate. Learn the difference.  No one is afraid of an oppressive government. We are prepared, so there can't be one.  Not afraid when you're able to defend yourself.

Resources in the hands of the government always give less to the beneficiary than is taken in taxes due to gov't overhead for supervision. As for resources in private charities, there are places like St Judes wh never turn a child away and always seem to have the resources through fundraising and donations.

Regulated is not funded. Schools only get federal money if they follow federal program guidelines to qualify. if we do away with the Dept of Education, which hasn't been around forever, the money saved could cut taxes, making local funding of schools easier.  Why should parents in Colorado pay for federal funding that goes to Mississippi or Georgia?  More overhead, less money for the stated purpose.  Redundancy should be slashed at all levels, so we aren't paying for two or more of every organization.

Emotional is not the same as passionate. Learn the difference.  No one is afraid of an oppressive government. We are prepared, so there can't be one.  Not afraid when you're able to defend yourself.

Resources in the hands of the government always give less to the beneficiary than is taken in taxes due to gov't overhead for supervision. As for resources in private charities, there are places like St Judes wh never turn a child away and always seem to have the resources through fundraising and donations.

Regulated is not funded. Schools only get federal money if they follow federal program guidelines to qualify. if we do away with the Dept of Education, which hasn't been around forever, the money saved could cut taxes, making local funding of schools easier.  Why should parents in Colorado pay for federal funding that goes to Mississippi or Georgia?  More overhead, less money for the stated purpose.  Redundancy should be slashed at all levels, so we aren't paying for two or more of every organization.

A difference without a distinction. If you want to frame gun rights as passion and preparation then Fine but we can frame health care in the same fashion.

I would do away with the federal department of education if I had a choice. Not entirely though, maybe keep an officer with a small contingent of staff in charge of gathering statistics and sending out information for local schools.

I think we might go in circles if we continue so we maybe have to agree to disagree here.

The reason why healthcare is so expensive and why it's given to poor people is our philosophy that all life is precious and we spare no expense for it.  We are willing to spend the most for the best care and it runs counter to what we normally do in life which is picking the best value balancing price and effectiveness.  If given the choice would you spend $20,000 for a drug that has a 70% chance of saving your life, or $100,000 for one that is 90%?  You'd do everything you can to get the $100,000 option.  When a new more effective (and more expensive) treatment becomes available the old less effective option is discarded where it otherwise would have been a value option.  There's also less competition with the supply/demand aspects.

Same carries over to the poor.  Majority of people would want to support the poor with some level of healthcare.  Might be worthwhile to setup care clinics for the poor with the value proposition where they get a lower quality of care but for a much cheaper price.  Perhaps setup cheaper medical schools where they train physicians on minimal care options.  Keep them out of the ERs and save the better care for those that work hard for it.

IMHO, the biggest reason why healthcare is so expensive is the healthcare industry practice, particularly pharmaceutical companies.  Yeah, I get that it is a business, but when the healthcare execs are benefiting more than patients, as well as doctors, then that system is broken. 

I wasn't saying we shouldn't support the poor or unfortunate with medical expenses.   I was venting on being tired of having to pay for healthcare for folks that quite frankly couldn't care less as they have no appreciation for the value of their healthcare, appreciation for who is effectively paying for it, nor any intention of doing anything to improve their condition.  I have pretty good health insurance, but I try my best to not NEED it by trying to take care of my health.  My personal choice and I shouldn't impose that on others, but I feel that folks like me, who pay into the system end up getting shafted by those that generally only drain the system. 

Much of that is frustration in what I see with welfare programs in general, particularly the abuse of the system.  Yes, there are definitely those who genuinely need it and honestly benefit from it.  I just see too many folks with EBT spending that lavishly, all while driving nice cars, plenty of bling, plenty of tats, etc.  Yeah, their choice to live how they want to live and maybe all that other stuff is coming from legit things.  Maybe I'm being unfairly judgemental.  That said, that's what I see and I don't like it. 

IMHO, the biggest reason why healthcare is so expensive is the healthcare industry practice, particularly pharmaceutical companies.  Yeah, I get that it is a business, but when the healthcare execs are benefiting more than patients, as well as doctors, then that system is broken. 

I wasn't saying we shouldn't support the poor or unfortunate with medical expenses.   I was venting on being tired of having to pay for healthcare for folks that quite frankly couldn't care less as they have no appreciation for the value of their healthcare, appreciation for who is effectively paying for it, nor any intention of doing anything to improve their condition.  I have pretty good health insurance, but I try my best to not NEED it by trying to take care of my health.  My personal choice and I shouldn't impose that on others, but I feel that folks like me, who pay into the system end up getting shafted by those that generally only drain the system. 

Much of that is frustration in what I see with welfare programs in general, particularly the abuse of the system.  Yes, there are definitely those who genuinely need it and honestly benefit from it.  I just see too many folks with EBT spending that lavishly, all while driving nice cars, plenty of bling, plenty of tats, etc.  Yeah, their choice to live how they want to live and maybe all that other stuff is coming from legit things.  Maybe I'm being unfairly judgemental.  That said, that's what I see and I don't like it.

I think we will reach a point where we can be judgemental. Especially since we are paying for it. People enjoy freedom. The problem is that they don't realize that freedom is a fruit that is raised and nurtured. Whether from past generations or from people of the current who remain unseen by those enjoying it.

I think we will reach a point where we can be judgemental. Especially since we are paying for it. People enjoy freedom. The problem is that they don't realize that freedom is a fruit that is raised and nurtured. Whether from past generations or from people of the current who remain unseen by those enjoying it.

I am being judgemental, but I also wonder if I am being unfairly so as I do not know what the truth of the situation that I'm seeing is.  I mean I think I am not that far off, but I am trying to give folks the benefit of the doubt.  That said, I have friends, who have flat out told me about how they work the system.  Not welfare, but stuff like unemployment and such.  Different story, but my point is that there are folks that work the system (there always are) and I am sick of paying the cost that allows them to do so. 

I agree about the lack of realization that "freedom is a fruit that is raised and nurtured".  People today seem to have the mindset that they are owed something. 

I am being judgemental, but I also wonder if I am being unfairly so as I do not know what the truth of the situation that I'm seeing is.  I mean I think I am not that far off, but I am trying to give folks the benefit of the doubt.  That said, I have friends, who have flat out told me about how they work the system.  Not welfare, but stuff like unemployment and such.  Different story, but my point is that there are folks that work the system (there always are) and I am sick of paying the cost that allows them to do so. 

I agree about the lack of realization that "freedom is a fruit that is raised and nurtured".  People today seem to have the mindset that they are owed something.

They fail to realize that the "system" is made up of taxpayers like you and I. I used to be naive to think that this system had some sort of magical pot o' money that we can all tap into. As I got older and more responsibilities were being put on my plate - I realize that things aren't free. I guess some people never grew up or are so selfish and naive to take from this community pot without putting back.

They fail to realize that the "system" is made up of taxpayers like you and I. I used to be naive to think that this system had some sort of magical pot o' money that we can all tap into. As I got older and more responsibilities were being put on my plate - I realize that things aren't free. I guess some people never grew up or are so selfish and naive to take from this community pot without putting back.

Exactly. I think it’s easy to feel/think that a more socialist system is good when you’re younger.  You haven’t paid into the system yet, or not much. My opinion that’s a big reason why the “Feel the Bern” thing is so popular with college aged to about mid-20s.

I had a discussion about “free college” with one of my best friends younger brother. He felt free college was a good idea for two reasons. It would benefit his young kids as well as he felt that if that program was available when he finished HS that he could have benefited since it would open up more opportunities for those like him that didn’t have the grades or couldn’t afford it. I saw the benefit, but then I asked about who would pay for it. He basically said he’d take advantage of the benefit being offered with no thought about the rest. Money must grow on trees...

The reason why healthcare is so expensive and why it's given to poor people is our philosophy that all life is precious and we spare no expense for it.  We are willing to spend the most for the best care and it runs counter to what we normally do in life which is picking the best value balancing price and effectiveness.  If given the choice would you spend $20,000 for a drug that has a 70% chance of saving your life, or $100,000 for one that is 90%?  You'd do everything you can to get the $100,000 option.  When a new more effective (and more expensive) treatment becomes available the old less effective option is discarded where it otherwise would have been a value option.  There's also less competition with the supply/demand aspects.

Same carries over to the poor.  Majority of people would want to support the poor with some level of healthcare.  Might be worthwhile to setup care clinics for the poor with the value proposition where they get a lower quality of care but for a much cheaper price.  Perhaps setup cheaper medical schools where they train physicians on minimal care options.  Keep them out of the ERs and save the better care for those that work hard for it.

I think one thing to consider is inequality in terms of social stability. Not to say we must all be equal but psychologists know that the more inequality there is the more unrest. We would be foolish not to consider the consequences of a destabilized society if too many people cannot get health care.

Perhaps the government could provide a certain minimum level of health care and people can purchase catastropich health care insurance for the big things. This might get us the best of both worlds. People will get basic coverage for little to no cost  so they won't avoid doctors to save money and therefore many medical problems can be caught early and treated. This would make the catastropich insurance much more affordable and that way the taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for the big things either.

I am not employed. In a health care system so I don't speak from any inside authority but I do think there are a number of things that could reduce the cost of health care itself instead of just insurance.
1. Tort reform so doctor insurance is cheaper.
2. Simplify the system for new medical procedures and medicines to be tested and approved. I own stock in a small pharmacuetical company and they keep having to send the drug back from the FDA for so many new tests even though it contains two drugs already approved. I have. Been waiting for over 5 years to see any profit! They are designing abuse resistant opioid medications.
3. Don't tax health care. Why do we tax services and goods needed to save someone's life? This would have to be monitored for abuse of course but just a rough idea.

I read somewhere about “historical evidence that shows the purpose of a middle class like in the US is crucial to maintaining a buffer between those who hold most of the nation’s wealth and those who possess very little of it”. Think that applies to the US healthcare system.

I think we will reach a point where we can be judgemental. Especially since we are paying for it. People enjoy freedom. The problem is that they don't realize that freedom is a fruit that is raised and nurtured. Whether from past generations or from people of the current who remain unseen by those enjoying it.

I will admit that I am judgemental here as well but for me the exception with medical care is that people don't seem to see the long term consequences well do the threat of risk later is not seriously considered. So if we threatened a poor person with bad eating habits that we won't cover their future diabetes it would not be statistically effective.  As opposed to things with immediate consequences, this is very common in teaching kids and young people lessons.

For systems like food stamps I am highly critical because they directly enable bad behavior and they involve much more immediate consequences that can be leveraged to teach people lessons. I think food stamps should only cover fresh fruits, vegies, and milk/ cheese if anything at all.

I do think a new system would have to have incentives engineered into the structure. I don't know exactly what incentives would be effective or not though. Maybe somehow the system has to make people recognize the value and sacrifice that goes into such a system. They have to put in something into it themselves. Maybe make a volunteer requirement if they are in the class where they don't pay taxes?

I will admit that I am judgemental here as well but for me the exception with medical care is that people don't seem to see the long term consequences well do the threat of risk later is not seriously considered. So if we threatened a poor person with bad eating habits that we won't cover their future diabetes it would not be statistically effective.  As opposed to things with immediate consequences, this is very common in teaching kids and young people lessons.

For systems like food stamps I am highly critical because they directly enable bad behavior and they involve much more immediate consequences that can be leveraged to teach people lessons. I think food stamps should only cover fresh fruits, vegies, and milk/ cheese if anything at all.

I do think a new system would have to have incentives engineered into the structure. I don't know exactly what incentives would be effective or not though. Maybe somehow the system has to make people recognize the value and sacrifice that goes into such a system. They have to put in something into it themselves. Maybe make a volunteer requirement if they are in the class where they don't pay taxes?

I like the idea that recognizes the value and sacrifice. For me, that’s at root of much of my objections about the system.  I believe I value and sacrifice for those that couldn’t be bothered.

For EBT, I say have a list of qualified foods. I believe come states have that. Basics and nutritious. No stuff like crab legs, candy, etc. there are some will say that that is demeaning to the folks that need the benefit.  Well, shouldn’t those that pay into the system have a say?  I also am all for drug testing for EBT. Yes, I understand that those with substance abuse problems are a different case and still need help. But even then, no real consequences to that life choice. I do feel for those that got hooked on pain meds due to stuff like back pain and legit reasons. But again, to many in that situation on their own doing. At least in my opinion.

I like the idea that recognizes the value and sacrifice. For me, that’s at root of much of my objections about the system.  I believe I value and sacrifice for those that couldn’t be bothered.

For EBT, I say have a list of qualified foods. I believe come states have that. Basics and nutritious. No stuff like crab legs, candy, etc. there are some will say that that is demeaning to the folks that need the benefit.  Well, shouldn’t those that pay into the system have a say?  I also am all for drug testing for EBT. Yes, I understand that those with substance abuse problems are a different case and still need help. But even then, no real consequences to that life choice. I do feel for those that got hooked on pain meds due to stuff like back pain and legit reasons. But again, to many in that situation on their own doing. At least in my opinion.

Get rid of EBT.  Replace it with government ham, cheese, rice, and beans.

Get rid of EBT.  Replace it with government ham, cheese, rice, and beans.

what?!