You said: “I wonder if you think “welfare” is anything the government gives people that you don’t personally need, and “legitimate government” is what the government gives people that you directly benefit from.”

Why you continue to try and twist what I say is beyond me, and really quite unbecoming. I have no problems with vigorous debate, but I will not tolerate the tried and true liberal tactic of grossly misrepresenting and twisting. If that is the game you like to play, please go elsewhere.

-Gene

I certainly haven’t purposefully misrepresented any facts above, but you don’t know me, so I suppose it could be reasonable to assume that I am well-informed and acting in bad faith. If you did know me, you wouldn’t suggest that, but that’s one of the limitations of the Internet, I suppose.

On the other side of that coin, it’s obvious that some people have the resources to acquire private police forces, build private roads, and hire judges. Conversely, other people don’t have the resources to acquire health care. Pooling resources in each case is a necessity for some and not for others, so why would you set them up as being in two separate categories? I wonder if you think “welfare” is anything the government gives people that you don’t personally need, and “legitimate government” is what the government gives people that you directly benefit from. That’s a perfectly reasonable position to have, since it ends up optimizing government action for your personal benefit. It just doesn’t seem very equitable or compassionate to me.

You are naive beyond words. You really need to do your research and figure out who pays and how much they pay in America. The bottom 50% of people pay nothing, or virtually nothing and will continue to pay virtually nothing moving forward.

Nevertheless, I choose not to continue debating with folks who do know the facts, the truth and make things up as they go along. But before I go, one final thought… I never said the police and courts were welfare. They are not. That is the justified role of government to do what we as individuals cannot do or acquire on our own and need to pool together to receive. That was the idea of the Founding Fathers. So police and courts are very different than handing out health insurance, or medical coverage, which ARE things that people can do for themselves. I don’t expect you to understand that though.

-Gene

This is clearly false. Many people are hopeful that improvements can be made that make financial sense. If you assume that whatever system we create will be subverted by the people it’s trying to help, then obviously no improvement can ever be made.

“But when you take from tax payers to provide services for those who do not pay taxes that is welfare.”

Then roads and courts and police are indeed welfare.

“Why is France trying to move toward a more American model if socialized medicine is so good? Why are the leaders of Canada admitting that their health care system is broken and needs to be fixed?”

I think this is a great question, though incomplete. The complete question is, “If America, Canada, and France all want health care reform, why would we use the systems of any those countries?”

You say: “First, no one is currently suggesting that currently uninsured people would be “given” health care. The “public option” being discussed is a traditional insurance pool, but one run as a government non-profit organization instead of a private corporation.”

Reply: That is exactly what they are saying. If what you were saying were right that would just mean that the government would supplant private companies and collect premiums from the 47 million without insurance and force them to pay. Everyone knows they will not pay, and that those who pay taxes will have to pay more taxes to pay for many in that 47 million who pay no taxes. So on this point you are wrong.

You say: “Second, just because the government provides a service, doesn’t mean it’s welfare.”

Reply: Very true. But when you take from tax payers to provide services for those who do not pay taxes that is welfare.

You say: “the existence of the program will cause waste reduction in the system as a whole.”

Reply: This is just naive.

You say: “we already have rationing, so that would be nothing new.”

Reply: Yes we do, the difference is that under the Obama plan those who pay 90% of the taxes get screwed and have to pay for the 47 million to have insurance, and on top of that, for the privilege of paying into Czar Obama’s plan they get to receive less care and longer waits.

Answer me this: Why is France trying to move toward a more American model if socialized medicine is so good? Why are the leaders of Canada admitting that their health care system is broken and needs to be fixed? Why would we knowingly want to adopt something that hasn’t worked everywhere it has been tried?

-Gene

I’m certainly not being intentionally dense. I still don’t think welfare is relevant to the discussion.

“If the government gives them health care that is a welfare program by definition.”

First, no one is currently suggesting that currently uninsured people would be “given” health care. The “public option” being discussed is a traditional insurance pool, but one run as a government non-profit organization instead of a private corporation. Again, the people who need to be given health care are already getting it (Medicare and Medicaid).

Second, just because the government provides a service, doesn’t mean it’s welfare. From public roads to police departments to the court system, the government provides many services to specific individuals that everyone pays for. Most people wouldn’t have paved roads if the government didn’t give them to them, but I don’t think that makes the highway system welfare. If it does, then only the most radical Libertarians oppose welfare.

“How anyone could conclude that a government run program instituted by a bunch of Chicago politicians who are running the US will reduce waste is beyond me.”

I don’t think anyone imagines that whatever program that gets implemented will be super lean and mean. Rather, the existence of the program will cause waste reduction in the system as a whole. For example, if everyone has access to health insurance, more people will go to doctors’ offices and clinics where costs are lower, instead of waiting for an emergency and going to the Emergency Room at a hospital where the costs are much higher, but they have to be treated. Additionally, since the public option would be a non-profit organization, it may still be able to compete on price despite the bureaucratic overhead, since it doesn’t need to turn a profit.

Of course, the effects of the proposed changes on the system are extremely difficult to predict, and I don’t have the economics background to do a decent job of it. One interesting data point, though, is to compare the health care spending in the US to similar (Western, industrialized) countries:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

It’s also interesting to compare the spending level with life expectancy and infant mortality rates:
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

And as we’ve already discussed above, we already have rationing, so that would be nothing new. Even my (really good) employer-provided health insurance has a whole list of things it won’t ever cover, no matter what. The only people who can get any medical procedure they want are the incredibly wealthy (which is actually the case for every country and system I know of).

If you cannot understand how welfare and medicaid play into this discussion I doubt there is anything anyone could ever do to get you to understand. I know from past comments you make to this blog you are not stupid, so I have to conclude you are being intentionally dense for a particular purpose.

Over 47 million Americans do not have health care. If the government gives them health care that is a welfare program by definition. It is not that complicated.

How anyone could conclude that a government run program instituted by a bunch of Chicago politicians who are running the US will reduce waste is beyond me. Such thinking borders are pure insanity. Name a single government program that is not filled with waste. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting the country, so putting everyone on those plans is pure stupidity and ignores facts. Obama has said he wants a single payer system, and this is the first step. There will be rationing of care, just like in every other country, and the seniors who got Obama elected will soon find out that when the government needs to control costs it will be at their expense. With 80% of health care spending coming at the end of life there is but one way to cut costs. I find it mildly humorous that those seniors who voted for Obama because they couldn’t trust Republicans with health care and Social Security will be told they cannot get treatments. I guess at the end of the day you get what you ask for.

-Gene

I didn’t say you wanted free drugs, but there are drugs that are practically free that could save countless lives and no one seems to want to give them away. Folks always want the newest drug or treatment to be given to the masses. So it has nothing to do with doing good, it is anti-patent, anti-pharma and anti-common-sense. Without protections that allow for extremely large profits there will be no extremely large investments and there will be no new drugs for generic makers to make. Generics do nothing but copy, and if there is nothing to copy then that just means no one benefits ever.

As far as where the benefit for future generations is, the next time you go to the pharmacy and pay a few dollars for a drug ask yourself that question. Perhaps you should be amazed that the drug (1) exists in the first place and (2) that it doesn’t cost hundreds of dollars. That seems like a pretty significant benefit for this generation, and a benefit that wouldn’t have existed without past generations paying more.

-Gene

Well said Gene, I will end here with this by starting with a point you made above,

*”Everyone wants revolutionary drugs delivered for free or very little, to save those with the disease of the moment. What about all the drugs off patent that could be given away for pennies? The trouble is they save lives for diseases that kill people, but those diseases are not the disease of the moment, or the celebrity cause of the day.*”

it brings a question to mind, what is the point ?. Your claim that the future generations argument is not weak, I have to say different based on the fact that diseases do not go away Gene, they change in some cases and we even find we have new ones at times; so celebrity cause – disease of the moment will always be, future generations when in need will pay the money because the drug machine keeps a grind forever in need to protect every moment of the way, …I ask, what is the benefit for the rest of us?,and the benefit of the countless future generations ?. This all talks volumes of the point and direction this is going and has, in my opinion nothing to do with people or their benefit, and is more about control and the money as I believe anyone could point out a big blue spot on a white floor.

Gene, at a personal level, I want to clear up something, I never at any time made a point where anyone should get the drugs they need for free, but made a point, at a fair cost.
“– its to get something you pay for is the value I have known all my life; ”
I believe in profit as without it there is no growth.

Thanks, I’m out of here.