Schwarzenegger calls for Universal Health Coverage

[Phasad1913]

I am so happy to hear about this. As others on this site who are in the legal profession will attest to, when California does something, most likely the remaining states will be soon to follow. I think its about time the country takes this step. It is so badly needed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/...ia_health_care

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Phasad1913

I am so happy to hear about this. As others on this site who are in the legal profession will attest to, when California does something, most likely the remaining states will be soon to follow. I think its about time the country takes this step. It is so badly needed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/...ia_health_care

The California concept is most interesting as a sort of "rich tax" - essentially taxing the upper tiers (doctors, insurance companies) to subsidize the lower classes. I'm not sure every state has the ability to follow through with such a plan, and really between the plans in place in MA and CA, you're seeing innovative solutions for health care that may not be universally applicable across other (poorer) states.

Remember that insurance is simply pooling risk - there's no 'magic' to where the money comes from . . . the estimated savings in this system will be fascinating to follow, to be honest.

[DeltAlum]

Are we sure Arnie isn't a Democrat? Or is he worried about the medical bills for his ski injury?

Seriously, KSig is right. It'll be tougher for the smaller and poorer states.

[Rudey]

Yeah everyone always follows CA. That's why when CA increased its taxes to support the lavish Gary programs, all those businesses left for other states.

-Rudey

[shinerbock]

Hopefully we'll be just like Canada soon!

[AOII_LB93]

Nah, Ahnold is what I like to call a RINO...Republican in name only. =) I heard about this on the afternoon news today and it sounds like a good idea, but will have to read more about it before I form any opinions myself.

[Kevin]

If you place the burden on the shoulders of the wealthy, they'll go somewhere they're appreciated.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by AOII_LB93

Nah, Ahnold is what I like to call a RINO...Republican in name only. =) I heard about this on the afternoon news today and it sounds like a good idea, but will have to read more about it before I form any opinions myself.

Well, he is married to a member of the Kennedy clan.

[Phasad1913]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you place the burden on the shoulders of the wealthy, they'll go somewhere they're appreciated.

Well, given the small amount these people would be taxed, especially since the burden would spread among a number of people and entities rather than JUST the wealthy, I doubt they will feel so pinched that they would choose to leave the U.S.

This is not a matter of people just wanting something for nothing like many conservatives love to yell about. People cannot go and heal themselves when they get injured or sick. People HAVE to be able to go to the doctor and receive adequate regular health care. It's a morality issue, not a social one in and of itself. How can people allow people to just die because they have no way to afford a doctor? That is very scary and something that happens everyday. For people to constantly fuss about "taxing the rich to help the poor" and then call themselves a Christian is completely hypocritical to me. In a system that has set up a nation where there are such deficiencies in how people become rich and how others are born and remain poor, it is necessary to not equalize the two groups completely ( I don't agree with that), but at least enable people in the are of health care to receive the same care that everyone else does.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Phasad1913

As others on this site who are in the legal profession will attest to, when California does something, most likely the remaining states will be soon to follow.

I can't say I agree. Sometimes it happens, but often other states view California as a bit on the crazy side -- they'll wait and see how it works in a more "sane" state.

Originally Posted by Phasad1913

It's a morality issue, not a social one in and of itself. . . . For people to constantly fuss about "taxing the rich to help the poor" and then call themselves a Christian is completely hypocritical to me.

This characterization bothers me. While I believe on ethical, moral and religious grounds that everyone should have access to good healthcare, I think people can disagree about how to make that happen without having to be characterized as hypocrites. Unless you want to suggest that we should have a theocracy in this country, then there are valid, non-hypocritical, arguments that the taxing power of the government is not the proper or best way to achieve accessable healthcare for everyone.

[Phasad1913]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I can't say I agree. Sometimes it happens, but often other states view California as a bit on the crazy side -- they'll wait and see how it works in a more "sane" state.
This characterization bothers me. While I believe on ethical, moral and religious grounds that everyone should have access to good healthcare, I think people can disagree about how to make that happen without having to be characterized as hypocrites. Unless you want to suggest that we should have a theocracy in this country, then there are valid, non-hypocritical, arguments that the taxing power of the government is not the proper or best way to achieve accessable healthcare for everyone.

I agree that there are a number of ways to achieve a more fair health care system. However, my statement was specifically geared toward (and perhaps I should have made the statement more directly to those that I had in mind) those who claim to be Christians and have a sense of disdain and resentment toward the poorer people and more disadvantaged in this society and allow those sentiments to guide their feelings about how this society in general and health care in particular is run and who has access to what. These types of people seem to have a great deal of influence in our society from what I have observed and it is a big problem in my opinion.

[Drolefille]

All he's doing is giving Blagojevich ideas. Seriously. And Rod will want to implement it first, with no money.

I have to move out of Illinois ASAP

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Phasad1913

These types of people seem to have a great deal of influence in our society from what I have observed and it is a big problem in my opinion.

Not in my experience or observation, but maybe.

I think part of the issue/debate, if one is going to look at it from a Christian perspective, is whether a Christian response requires involuntary support (via taxation), voluntary support, or some combination of the two.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Phasad1913

Well, given the small amount these people would be taxed, especially since the burden would spread among a number of people and entities rather than JUST the wealthy, I doubt they will feel so pinched that they would choose to leave the U.S.

This is not a matter of people just wanting something for nothing like many conservatives love to yell about. People cannot go and heal themselves when they get injured or sick. People HAVE to be able to go to the doctor and receive adequate regular health care. It's a morality issue, not a social one in and of itself. How can people allow people to just die because they have no way to afford a doctor? That is very scary and something that happens everyday. For people to constantly fuss about "taxing the rich to help the poor" and then call themselves a Christian is completely hypocritical to me. In a system that has set up a nation where there are such deficiencies in how people become rich and how others are born and remain poor, it is necessary to not equalize the two groups completely ( I don't agree with that), but at least enable people in the are of health care to receive the same care that everyone else does.

I have a problem with your argument (bolded) in that it's something of a slippery slope. As you know, medicine is a lot different than it was 50 years ago. Some procedures are routine (and cheap) while others are just astronomically (and sometimes unjustifiably) expensive. You seem to present to us that health care is some sort of inalienable right. It's not.

The fact is that in the end, we all die. Those with more resources have the ability to cheat death. In the end, we all have bodies which will eventually cease to function. C'est la vie. Were a doctor to come up with some sort of anti-aging therapy which could either reverse or stall the aging process and it was a very expensive therapy, it would seem that your above bolded statement would hold that it is necessary for society to fund that therapy for every single aging person out there.

I may be beating a bit of a straw man here -- I'll admit that. I only do it to point out that should we 'give in' on this proposition that the government should provide health care, we'll suddenly be faced with the prospect of 'line drawing.' By that, I mean that some government official, committee, task force, computer, high priestess, etc., is going to be tasked with deciding which procedures the American people will pay for and which procedures they will not. What criteria will decide whether people have a "right" to health care in a certain case? The commonality of their condition? The severity of the condition? Their poltiical party? A letter from a Senator?

Currently, Americans have a lot of choices. We can go pay for insurance which would only cover those basic procedures.. that doesn't cost a whole lot. Or, like me, you can take out a pretty good chunk of change and cover just about any possible medical emergency. The point is, we have choice. I like choice... choice is good.

People no more have a "right" to medicine than they have a "right" to housing. We all die. It's just a question of when. People who have failed to make good choices in their lives may die because they can't afford insurance. Oh well.

At some point in governance, we have to be callous. We have to be willing to accept that governmental intervention is not the solution to all the ills of the world. As I said above, it's all about line drawing. I'm pretty clear where I draw the line on this issue... are you?

[RU OX Alum]

I refuse to pay christian tax.

I think one of the major problems in this country is that those who support the DNC/RNC/AP would be perfectly comfortable in a xian theocracy