If so many people are for universal healthcare, why not make it optional; charitable, and/or even make any donations as a tax write off.

lets give the taxpayers an option

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 5:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/14/2009 5:17:59 PM

we should try and make all taxes optional!

oh wait...

8/14/2009 6:00:23 PM

umm. I thought the current proposed plan was optional

to quote Obama: If you are happy with your current insurance plan, you can keep it.

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 6:01 PM. Reason : oh I see, are you talking about paying for it?]

8/14/2009 6:00:27 PM

Optional Universal Healthcare

Yeah...

8/14/2009 6:34:28 PM

thats not the point of this thread

8/14/2009 7:32:02 PM

ibtl

8/14/2009 8:57:13 PM

Why not Universal Meal Plans?

8/14/2009 9:10:51 PM

sending your kids to private school is an option too, but that doesn't prevent you from having to pay for public schools.

8/14/2009 9:26:32 PM

this is true

8/15/2009 3:56:46 AM

my jesus\\\\\\\\\\\\\


do ANY of you EVER


















































sleep

8/15/2009 4:33:38 AM

yes















(not really)

8/15/2009 12:17:33 PM

sometimes

8/16/2009 2:26:26 AM

Can't sleep.



Clowns will eat me.

Also, my back hurts but my insurance doesn't cover office visits so I'm eating OTC pain pills like candy.

I don't have dental insurance so I've been putting off having these cavities filled for years.

I've seen my father pull his own teeth with these:



I'm not complaining though.

8/16/2009 2:44:24 AM

God bless America, where we have the freedom to pull out our teeth with vice grips made of good old fashioned American steel.

8/16/2009 11:53:18 AM

Quote :

"made of good old fashioned American steel. "

doubtful

8/16/2009 12:05:45 PM

8/16/2009 6:35:05 PM

Fixed it for you.

8/16/2009 7:57:41 PM

^You missed the tiny one in the top corner.

8/16/2009 7:58:39 PM

Quote :

"umm. I thought the current proposed plan was optional"

Virtually everything the government offers is optional. You ain't gotta use roads if they're not up to your standards. You also may not ever have any need for the fire department, and if you do have that need, I don't know of any gun to your head to make you call them. You take those for granted because you already have them.

If all fire departments in the United States had been volunteer and privately-funded up to this moment, how shitty would they have to be for you to say, "OK, we probably need a public fire department?" Or is there even a level? I can picture you burning to death in your house saying, "If we let the government run fire departments they will be just as inefficient as the DMV and we'll have firefighting-panels to decide whether or not send trucks to my house!"

Quote :

"Why not Universal Meal Plans?"

It turns out that food is incredibly cheap and healthcare is really, really expensive. It's practical to run one of those off of charity. It's not practical to run another. If I donate $1000 to an organization that feeds people, I can give a person months worth of food. If I donate $1000 to give someone in this country medical treatment, I can give them part of an MRI.

8/17/2009 12:49:11 AM

^ Is that really the argument you're going to go with? Health care is resistant to charity organizations because its too expensive? Almost as expensive as, say, building a house? Something charitable organizations say far away from???



I'll let you think about that before you respond and so you can "elaborate" on what you "actually" meant to say.

[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 1:36 AM. Reason : ``]

8/17/2009 1:31:05 AM

I spent about half an hour doing quick research and writing an elaborate reply. But people are always getting on my case for going on too long, so I'm leaving it out unless it becomes necessary later.

Quote :

"Health care is resistant to charity organizations because its too expensive? Almost as expensive as, say, building a house? Something charitable organizations say far away from???"

Never said any such thing. Never said anything close, for that matter.

Obviously charitable organizations contribute to healthcare as well as housing. Just as obviously the work of those organizations has been insufficient to fix the problem*, and obviously people aren't lining up to increase their charitable contributions enough to close the gap.

*And by "fix the problem" I don't mean "completely eradicate all trace of it." Nothing can do that. But charitable contributions are not coming close, and cannot conceivably begin to do so in the near future.

8/17/2009 3:37:43 AM

Quote :

"It turns out that food is incredibly cheap and healthcare is really, really expensive. It's practical to run one of those off of charity. It's not practical to run another. If I donate $1000 to an organization that feeds people, I can give a person months worth of food."

We take for granted how cheap food is today, but this was not always so. Imagine if the New Deal brought in a universal meal plan in which consumers did not have to worry about the price they are paying given their food expenditures are covered by a third-party payer. I am certain the above graph would not look as it does today.

8/17/2009 7:44:13 AM

I do not think the gov't subsidized healthcare would be nearly as big of a deal if they actually took via payroll taxes from the people
that would actually be using it. What gets me about this crap is how liberals want the rich and upper middle classes to pay for something
they'll never use and those who do benefit pay hardly anything at all. If you are receiving gov't subsidized healthcare than you should be
paying Y% of your income much like they pay 6.5% for social secuirty.

Somewhat understandable is the fact that private insurance for a single individual may be becoming prohibitivly expensive. this does not
mean though taht you should be able to get a free "ride" with your health care paid by someone else so you can have more money for the
deluxe package of Time Warner Cable, a lease for a lexus, and being able to go out to eat at McD's everynight.

8/17/2009 9:52:39 AM

so anyone like my photoshop or do we not care?

8/17/2009 3:08:13 PM

Quote :

""

Habitat for Humanity only builds houses for people who can pay for them.

8/17/2009 3:18:21 PM

^ incorrect. Habitat for humanity only builds homes for people who can pay the no-profit, interest free mortgage (and contribute "sweat equity" to the construction of the home).

The distinction? My accurate description makes it clear that they are non-profit, charitable organization that help people get homes they typically could not afford (i never said they fucking gave 'em out like candy at Halloween). Your disingenuous description makes them sound like glorified contractors (they are not).

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ``]

8/17/2009 3:45:37 PM

And your disingenuous description made them sound like they give away free houses, all supported by the charity of others (they get a bunch of money from the government!) It's just not a very good example, and I stand by my statement since Habitat doesn't give houses to people who can't pay the mortgage, regardless of how much charity/gov't/whatever was able to lower the price of the house compared to prices of other houses.

lmfao, u mad?

[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 3:57 PM. Reason : u mad?]

Had to go back to look just to make sure, but you used Habitat for Humanity as an example to counter somebody's argument that health care was too expensive to give away thanks to charitable contributions. I guess you didn't say they gave away free houses, but given the context there's a pretty strong implication there...

[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2009 3:54:58 PM

^ The context is what you read into it, friend. I never said the gave the houses away and nothing in my post implies other wise. No one else said anything about giving away houses either. So I don't know where you got confused. Sorry you have a hard time with the internets.

I stand by my statement that Habitat for Humanity is a charitable organization that successfully helps needy people purchase expensive things (specifically, habitats for humans) that they otherwise would not be able to. Grumpy said that $1,000 of charity for health care will only get you part of an MRI. I think Habitat for Humanity shows that even that minor forms of assistance can help people in need. They don't give away houses, but by providing no-interest, no-profit mortgages they allow people to buy their own home that typically couldn't.

PS* Shouldn't you be in chit-chat anyways?

[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 4:33 PM. Reason : ``]

8/17/2009 4:19:14 PM

yep, u mad.

The context is where you put it - in response to and under a post comparing how much food you could give away compared to how much medical care you could give away, the meaning is what I read in to it.

The post you were responding to says it's not practical to run healthcare off of charity. Then you jump in with the Habitat for Humanity logo and sarcastic, rhetorical questions, so I don't see where you wrote an "accurate description" that "makes it clear that they are non-profit, charitable organization that help people get homes they typically could not afford". I don't see it because it isn't there.

Try to keep in mind I didn't initially say you implied that Habitat gives away houses or whatever -- you put those words in my mouth and after looking a little more closely at the context, that's kinda what it looks like. Now, I know you know that's not true, so it's not like I'm arguing that that's what you really meant. You also wrongly labeled my original statement incorrect. It isn't. It might be misleading if you assumed Habitat houses cost the occupants as much as regular houses, but that would be dumb since Habitat exists to lower that cost.

Don't assume I don't know how Habitat works or that I don't think Habitat is a good program, my mom works for Asheville's Habitat for Humanity and I think it's an awesome organization. It was just a shitty example, since the goal of providing somebody in need with food or an MRI isn't (in this case) conditional on the recipient being able to pay -- even if a charity or non-profit put up some portion of the cost. If you think that charity could provide universal healthcare, maybe you should find an example of a charity that guarantees a similarly valuable good or service to every citizen who can't afford whatever it is themselves.

In conclusion, get back on topic and off of my nuts

8/17/2009 5:20:58 PM

Quote :

"Grumpy said that $1,000 of charity for health care will only get you part of an MRI. I think Habitat for Humanity shows that even relatively minor forms of assistance can help people in need. They don't give away houses, but by providing no-interest, no-profit mortgages they allow people to buy their own home that typically couldn't."

that's why i posted the h4h pic. and i still think the example is apt.

but im all for moving on.

[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ``]

8/17/2009 5:52:49 PM

Quote :

"Is that really the argument you're going to go with? Health care is resistant to charity organizations because its too expensive? Almost as expensive as, say, building a house? Something charitable organizations say far away from???"

It's a valid argument.

There was a church a while back that started paying for their member's healthcare. It started out as just for members of that church, but it eventually spread to other churches. They eventually had to start rejecting paying for certain treatments, which pissed people off because they were tithing for this particular service, and people raised a stink. This caused the gov. to step in and force them to establish as an insurance company. Time passed, and as church leaders sometimes are wont to do, the leadership starts to siphon money from the service, which lead to some scandal, and eventually the company either got bought out or shut down.

In any case, the point is that it's pretty hard to run health insurance as a charity without a large enough "risk pool".

8/17/2009 6:50:28 PM

I don't really see that church example as a "charity" example, though. Without more info or a source to go on, it seems as though people we expected to tithe (10% for healthcare, ouch, would we stomach that?) in order to get benefits. What that example goes to show is that you can't operate any insurance company for long without a large enough risk pool, which is patently obvious.

8/17/2009 6:56:31 PM

Quote :

"We take for granted how cheap food is today, but this was not always so."

Indeed. The price of food has fallen, overall, ever since human beings started agricultural practices.

Quote :

"this does not mean though taht you should be able to get a free "ride" with your health care paid by someone else so you can have more money for the deluxe package of Time Warner Cable, a lease for a lexus, and being able to go out to eat at McD's everynight."

You seem to have a lot of anecdotes about people doing these things, but anecdotes are pretty much all you have.

Quote :

"Grumpy said that $1,000 of charity for health care will only get you part of an MRI. I think Habitat for Humanity shows that even that minor forms of assistance can help people in need."

I don't recall denying as much, and upon checking what I said...that's right, I didn't.

My original point was in response to "meals" coming from charity, and I stand by that point, which was essentially that current levels of charity could, at least in theory, feed everybody. What they could not do is provide health care for everybody.

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 2:58 AM. Reason : *"everybody" as in "everybody who needs it"]

8/18/2009 2:58:02 AM