If that law was mandated in my state, then I would reduce my employees wages, the ones who I would then have to provide health insurance to, the ones now that are currently getting a higher wage because their spouse has insurance coverage. There are always ways to get around everything. There would be no increased cost for my business. That law would really be no problem to accomidate. As usual, the general public are the ones screwed.

..read it decades ago. The problem with Hawaii employee health insurance is it only covers the workers. What about those who cannot work (laid off, etc.)?

Well I have a plan for that Mike, I'm coming for your wallet, open wide! :)

Seriously though, I personally would be willing to pay more in taxes to promote a Federal plan of some kind.

100% deductible Jamo? Dam, no wonder lawyer fee's are through the roof. :eek:

Anthony, it would perfectly logical to reduce employee wages in view of HAVING to provide insurance. The beauty of such a plan is that it forces the YOUNG people to get enrolled, which balances things out.

True but thats because you have no computer skills:)

But, what about the bums in the chanty town? (probably best not to talk about them, huh?)

My business partner lived in Hawaii...;)

What about those "wino's under the bridge", as one man might call them? Not employed, no health insurance, end of story.

What they DO have is emergency care. With no assets and no income the hospitals are going to take a hit. Studies have shown some of these people use the emergency room option as if it WERE there own personal insurance plan. No matter what reform takes place that group will always be with us. There are some good suggestions on the table to deal with it too.

But my concern is for those that "fall between the cracks", the working class who through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times. Their kids especially. Waiting until that tooth ache becomes infected will ultimately cost more than using preventative medicine in the first place. For them and for the country. They need a reasonable option for at least basic medical care without having to rely on emergency care. THATS the kind of reform I'm talking about.

Congratulations to all: absolutely no traction made by either side.

Ex, for all your attempts to inject a level-headed approach, your "let's stick to the real debate" talk, you have not countered any of the logical arguments made on this and other threads.

It's just: "I think every one should health insurance; don't care about the cost, whether it will make every one better off; just I want it..."

Logic defeated by liberalism (defined as absence of logic, mostly emotion).

It's an exploration of ideas that might work? Got any?

"Logical" arguments are hard to come by in the Lounge, emotional arguments are legion. Personally I'm pleased with the progress this thread has made in terms of reasonable dialog and suggested alternative plans or ideas.

Yeah Ernie. Tort reform and cross border competition for insurance companies. There might be a little insurance company oversight as well.

IF you fell so strongly about it, you and your friends who think like you should take your money out of YOUR pocket and go do something about it. Like, give more to your church. Give more to your local charitable organizations. Stop saying "I would be willing to pay more in taxes" when you really mean "I want us all to pay more". Not all of us agree with that.

The reason many low income liberals agree with you is they know THEY won't pay any more!

Socailism is socialism Ernie. Stop looking at big earners as the solution. Start asking what YOU personally are willing to do without Obama helping you.

The Fed can't even properly fund Medicare and SS. You say you aren't ordinarily for big government, yet this proposal will triple the size of government. Kind of a lame statement Ernie. You want cradle to grave care by Uncle Sam. And you might well get it for a while. But I will work hard against socialist thinking like yours and help elect politicians that will take it back if it happens.

Mike

I want us all to pay a reasonable price for reasonable health care for a larger percentage of the population than currently has access to it. If you want nicer streets, better parks, a more secure neighborhood you don't call that "socialism", you call it paying taxes. Don't want better parks? You can always move or elect someone else to stop it. Maybe I DO want better parks, better health care. Maybe I'll help get those elected that have the same goals.

...stop with the socialism BS all ready, it's an extremist argument that ignores reality.

I have not asked you to change your debating technique and I will kindly ask you to do the same for me and others. This is socialism, pure and simple. If the governemnt gets the "public option" it will drive all insurers out of the market and "own" the sole means of "production" so to speak. THAT is socialism. The ONLY reason you get to state with confidence that socialism is the way to go is because socialist thinking members of your party control the house, the senate, and the white house. If you think the current system is so bad, then fix it! Stop asking me to help you. I do not agree with you.

Happy cost of government day was August 19th (there about). This means if you earn $100,000 a year, you supported government to the tune of $70,000. That's a lot of cheese Ernie. Can you live comfortably in Hawaii on $30-$50K a year? Pay your bills? Pay for health care? Prolly not. So, lets get Uncle Sam to take care of Health Care. HCOGD now will move to September or October. Can you now live comfortably in Hawaii on $20-$30K a year? Pay your bills? Pay your mortgage? I am pretty sure I cannot, even where I live.

I sincerely do not believe in the "moral imperative". Maybe you do. Maybe you don't. But I think the main reason people such as yourself are screaming for free health care has nothing to do with the moral imperative. Its all about getting free stuff and having to live worry free. And if you have to bring big earners down to your economic level, then so be it. All the more fair, huh?

Mike

THAT is "extremism" pure and simple! BS it will drive insurers out of the market, they will THRIVE with those willing and able to pay for their better services than a basic public plan would offer.

Interesting question you suggest though, I wonder what the "mean" income is for Hawaii, now that you mention it...

Looked it up, it's $62,000, that sounds about right based on the folks I know. More than adequate if you have your stuff together. I was talking to the "termite man" the other day, he comes around every so often to treat the house. He makes $75K a year and has no special skills, must the poison risk factor maybe?

Shangrala thinking Ernie.

Unintended (or intended) consequences Ernie. Just like those 30% interest rates on credit cards.

See you all tomorrow...

Mike

Ex,

There have been a number of ideas offered and logical arguments made that run counter to your position; to deny that they have been made destroys your credibility and indicates to me, that no matter what it is offered, you will reject it in favor of your initial position.

Look, nobody is going to change anybody's mind here. Ernie has been consistent on his position. Where he tends to be a bit disengenous is in saying this is not socialism or "socialized medicine". Why? I have no idea. Perhaps not enough centering ideas have been allowed to enter his mind. Its no different with radical conservatives (neo-nazis, klan, etc). BTW, I am NOT comparing them to Ernie... just trying to make a point. Nobody wants to admit they are wrong. Not even me.

The socialist mantra is "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability". If this does not fit the health care reform, nothing does.

Nobody will admit there is NO money to pay for this. Just an annoying little problem that will get solved later. How? Higher taxes on those according to their ability so those with needs can have those needs met.

But in the end, I don't believe folks like Ernie sit around fretting about those whose needs are not being met. They are fretting about their own needs not being met. And that is why centering ideas will never enter their minds. And it is also why they will never consider the error in judgment.

"Yes, I want my needs met. I cannot do it myself. Or, I am unwilling to do it myself. But that sounds selfish, right? So lets frame it in the needs of OTHERS not being met". It just sounds so much more egalitarian, huh?

Ernie, read Atlas Shrugged. The ideas are more than centering. It will give you a perspective you have never had before. It will not change your mind.

Mike

Bad comparison, in my opinion. Our Federal government was charged with building the national infrastructure when we announced our independence from Great Britain. The preamble of the US Constitution goes only as far as saying we must "promote the General Welfare." The words "finance," "mandate," "administer," and "guarantee" were all common in the English language in 1776, yet they specifically did not choose any of those words in front of "Welfare" did they? It does not say government may mandate parks be built or healthcare may be administered or government-run. Any time the government of the state engages in the economic administration of otherwise free-market activities (INSURANCE or the administration/financing thereof via taxes), its an act of socialism. Taken a bit further, as they work to erode the position of the capitalistic position of the educated, wealthy and successful (the bourgeoisie), by asking them to concede to benefit the less-fortunate, then you have arrived at efforts of Marxism.

Sidenote>> I have not yet ever heard anyone at a town hall get up and shout "NO MORE PARKS AND INTERSTATES."

Who are these people who are "WILLING" to pay more tomorrow for what they are paying less for today? Oh, are those the ones screaming in joy at the town halls? For 90% of privately employed Americans, once they lose their employer subsidized plans (or the employer subsidy portion), the cost of maintaining their current coverage will skyrocket ten-fold. Again, the goverment's effort or willingness to erode the wealthy and successful to assist the laboring, less fortunate class is????.....Marxism.

From Obama's first memoir he described student life at Occidental College in 1979: “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

FYI, Extremism is defined as "Owning a Cobra and then putting a Chevy engine in it." :LOL:

In the end, this is not about "helping the uninsured", this is about attaching one's self to the public teat while not having to contribute to it. Unless, of course, you are a big earner.

Mariachi makes good constitutional arguments. ALL of the mandated budget items in our current federal budget are unconstitutional. Health Care will become a mandated item. The discressionary items that are constitutional (defense, infrastructure, etc) will suffer.

The reason many folks cannot see themselves surviving without these "benefits" is because the government now confiscates up to 70% of their income to pay for these benefits. How stupid can we be? And for that, they get loyal voters, even more so when the government makes the consfication process "progressive"... from each according to his ability....

Americans of ALL the world's people should be embarrassed that they have so willing become recievers of alms for the poor. Get your lard asses out there and go to work. Take some pride in your abilities. Expand your abilities. Encourage others to do the same. And stay the hell out of my pockets!

Mike

fstd, my position is simple, we need health care reform. How to do that, how far to take it, who's gonna pay for it is the problem. Many good ideas offered here, I have no idea why you think I reject them all.

I DO reject the extremist view points as being counter productive. Socialism, Klan, Nazi comparisons are ridiculous. VA insurance, Medicaid, Hawaii State insurance, etc are not socialist programs.

We cannot afford to do nothing.

No Ernie, Socialism is only extremist if you are extremist. In many peoples minds Socialism is just the natural road to travel and when others call it what it really is, they react as you have.

You are confusing Social Contract,with Socialism. Social Contract is where citizens give up some freedom(consent of the governed) to have social order, in that the government is responsible to do the things a individual citizen can't i.e. build a highway, park or bridge, to supply national, and local security. Socialism is the government taking control from private enterprise in production and distribution of goods or products. A great deal of difference between the two.

An accurate definition of the term socialism not with standing, the use of the term as it is commonly applied here in the Lounge is synonomous with such terms as Nazi and Klan, etc. As you have pointed out, there is a BIG difference! I'm not confusing anything. The history of theads and posts here in the Lounge are quite clear in their meaning of the term "socialism". A more recent comparison is "Jim Jones", give me a break!

Ex,

You are getting hung up, taking objection and debating the definition of the term "Socialism" - what the current administration really supports is a rise of the State, or "Statism" - more control of the private sector co-opted by the State (Federal Government). An simple example: they could have let Chrysler & GM go through a "normal" bankruptcy, but they choose to allow the State step in and take it over - turning the bankruptcy process on its head and giving unpredecented and blatant favor to the unions (not the American people); the administration simply disregarded numerous laws on the books that have stood for 10s and 100s of years!!!

Whatever it is called, it is a ridiculous expansion of the government; this country was built on the concept of a limited Federal government; programs like these are destroying that concept in favor of the next BS program to help save some maligned group or cause. This had been happening relatively slowly since FDR, with the exception of LBJ; Obama would like to accelerate the ascent of the State; and people like you are standing there, applauding when you should be...(aw, what the use?)