Larry Kudlow: The government needs to pay 50% of healthcare costs

[r9etb]

What I get out of your refusal to engage is an inability to defend your own position.

You argue with hand-waving and emotion and fold when challenged.

Oh, pooh.  You've consistently misrepresented what I've said.  You're not honest, and therefore not worth the time of responding.

[Wingnut]

Oh, pooh.  You've consistently misrepresented what I've said.  You're not honest, and therefore not worth the time of responding.

Then don't respond.   In fact why don't you Move on and stalk another member with your mindless drivel and give it a rest.

[r9etb]

Then don't respond.   In fact why don't you Move on and stalk another member with your mindless drivel and give it a rest.

Golly.  Did somebody put some Wheaties in your morning glass of piss?

[Jazzhead]

And letting folks sicken and die of treatable diseases because they can't pay for themselves is what?

Because that's where this argument pretty much ends up.  There are some people who can't pay their own way.  Do we let them die?

No. 

Today he was asked about the CBO analysis and his response tells me there is no hope for a conservative solution.

Bingo.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

No. 

Bingo.

Of course maybe if we weren't worried about the problems that are 20 years old we could make more progress. Does anyone have any statistics on people being denied treatment and dying because of it? Last I checked anyone can walk into an emergency room and they will do what needs to be done to save their life. Insurance or not.

The question is whether we have a more efficient way to pay for this; not that people are dying.

[r9etb]

No.

Assuming I properly understand your concise response: Exactly -- there's a broad consensus that we have a moral obligation to help people who can't afford medical care.  If I'm correct about that, the question becomes one of means: what's the most effective way to deliver that help?

[LonestarDream]

Of course maybe if we weren't worried about the problems that are 20 years old we could make more progress. Does anyone have any statistics on people being denied treatment and dying because of it? Last I checked anyone can walk into an emergency room and they will do what needs to be done to save their life. Insurance or not.

The question is whether we have a more efficient way to pay for this; not that people are dying.

THiS.  And since we are starting from a very inefficient position, improvements should be easy to come by...

[r9etb]

Of course maybe if we weren't worried about the problems that are 20 years old we could make more progress. Does anyone have any statistics on people being denied treatment and dying because of it? Last I checked anyone can walk into an emergency room and they will do what needs to be done to save their life. Insurance or not.

The question is whether we have a more efficient way to pay for this; not that people are dying.

Lest you forget, we got on the subject by your reference to "unconstitutional theft," as it pertains to government funding for health care. 

I think I've been careful to state the underlying question, which is not, "are people dying," but rather, "do we have a moral obligation to ensure that they do not die due to lack of basic medical care?" 

My position is that we do have a moral obligation, and thus it comes down to what you say: finding the most efficient way to effectively discharge it.

[txradioguy]

My position is that we do have a moral obligation, and thus it comes down to what you say: finding the most efficient way to effectively discharge it.

Why exactly do we have that obligation?

Wouldn't the "most efficient" way be to let the private sector handle it and not let the Federal Government interfere or try to "fix" the problem?

[r9etb]

Why exactly do we have that obligation?

Because the alternative is barbaric, and we're not barbarians.

Wouldn't the "most efficient" way be to let the private sector handle it and not let the Federal Government interfere or try to "fix" the problem?

Possibly: It's an option.  And so is government funding.  And so is some combination of the two. 

The same can be said of road maintenance, and I'm not aware of many serious complaints about that....  What's the difference between using government to fund roads, and using government to fund a certain level of health care for those who couldn't otherwise afford it?

[Jazzhead]

My position is that we do have a moral obligation, and thus it comes down to what you say: finding the most efficient way to effectively discharge it.

That is my position as well.   And just what is the response from the "taxation-is-theft" conservatives?   If we are to address the community's moral obligation, it will require the redistribution of resources from those who have to those who don't.   There are a number of ways to do this,  and some are more "conservative" than others,  but all require redistribution and hence are incompatible with "taxation-is-theft" conservatism.     

[txradioguy]

Because the alternative is barbaric, and we're not barbarians.

Expecting people to take care of their own healthcare is barbaric?  Forcing me to pay for your healthcare for whatever reason it might be...now that is barbaric.

Possibly: It's an option.  And so is government funding.  And so is some combination of the two.

Government in cases like this is never the  answer.

The same can be said of road maintenance, and I'm not aware of many serious complaints about that....  What's the difference between using government to fund roads, and using government to fund a certain level of health care for those who couldn't otherwise afford it?

The difference is an apples and oranges comparison you're trying to make here.  Most road repair/improvement/construction is handled at the local level...city, county or state. 

But to use your comparison...why should the Federal government force Texas to pay for road repair in a county in Nebraska because that county decides it doesn't want to allocate funds in it's budget to take care of it's roads?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nah, he may have socialist leanings, but I don't think he's a troll. Seems pretty natural for folks to balk anymore at the concepts of personal liberty and personal responsibility.

Maybe some, but certainly not me, and perhaps yourself.

[Jazzhead]

Why exactly do we have that obligation?

Because there but for the grace of God go you and I.

  Wouldn't the "most efficient" way be to let the private sector handle it and not let the Federal Government interfere or try to "fix" the problem?

That's a slogan, not a policy.   Please describe a specific policy by which the private sector will "handle it" without the involvement of government.

You won't be able to.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That is my position as well.   And just what is the response from the "taxation-is-theft" conservatives?   If we are to address the community's moral obligation, it will require the redistribution of resources from those who have to those who don't.   There are a number of ways to do this,  and some are more "conservative" than others,  but all require redistribution and hence are incompatible with "taxation-is-theft" conservatism.     

Yes,a the community addresses it with its charity via churches, individuals, and corporate givings. 

PS - the Government is not a community.  It is the government, and there is no moral or legal obligation to forcibly extract money from me or others to give to others.  It is a freedom.

[Sanguine]

That is my position as well.   And just what is the response from the "taxation-is-theft" conservatives?   If we are to address the community's moral obligation, it will require the redistribution of resources from those who have to those who don't.   There are a number of ways to do this,  and some are more "conservative" than others,  but all require redistribution and hence are incompatible with "taxation-is-theft" conservatism.     

No, no, no!  If you have a moral obligation, then get thee to it!  I'll take care of my own moral obligations, thank you.

[txradioguy]

Because there but for the grace of God go you and I.

Gee don't remember seeing that as an enumerated right in the Constitution.

Cute saying though.

That's a slogan, not a policy.

The slogans being thrown around are by those advocating that the government remain intimately involved in healthcare...forcing people to buy policies when they don't want or need to. 

Please describe a specific policy by which the private sector will "handle it" without the involvement of government.

You're attempt at a gotcha is not gonna work.

There is a big difference between agencies like the FDA or CDC having oversight on certain areas of healthcare...laws requiring doctors to have certain licenses to practice various types of medicine etc etc...and having the Federal Government run the entire healthcare system.

You're attempt to roll the two together so that no matter what policy or business I pointed to you could go "AH-HA!" and cite to me how the government is involved is a giant failure.

You know exactly what I was getting at and the fact you tried to pull this sad stunt shows me you know you weren't going to like the answer.

You won't be able to.

You suck at setting a trap.

[txradioguy]

PS - the Government is not a community. 

And charity isn't charity if its given at gunpoint...proverbial or otherwise.

[r9etb]

Expecting people to take care of their own healthcare is barbaric?  Forcing me to pay for your healthcare for whatever reason it might be...now that is barbaric.

Refusing to help people who need health care but cannot afford it... that is barbaric.  Really, tx, this is "Parable of the Good Samaritan" stuff.  Do you really see yourself as one of those who would cross to the other side of the road?

Government in cases like this is never the  answer.

 

"Never" is a very big word.  Are you sure you meant to use it?

The difference is an apples and oranges comparison you're trying to make here.  Most road repair/improvement/construction is handled at the local level...city, county or state. 

You're differentiating between types of government, now.  Would you still be opposed if the city/county/state were to levy tax money for purposes of health care, rather than at the federal level?

But to use your comparison...why should the Federal government force Texas to pay for road repair in a county in Nebraska because that county decides it doesn't want to allocate funds in it's budget to take care of it's roads?

Well, by means of the 18.4 cents/gal gas tax, the Feds do force Texans to pay for some of Nebraska's road repairs, through the federal Highway Trust Fund...

[Jazzhead]

No, no, no!  If you have a moral obligation, then get thee to it!  I'll take care of my own moral obligations, thank you.

So the poor and sick should just be left to the whims of voluntary charity, or die.    Got it - and thanks for the honest response.  But if this is "conservatism",  don't expect such selfishness to win many elections.   

[txradioguy]

Refusing to help people who need health care but cannot afford it... that is barbaric.  Really, tx, this is "Parable of the Good Samaritan" stuff.  Do you really see yourself as one of those who would cross to the other side of the road?

Hospitals can not by law refuse care to anyone...even if they can't pay for it.  That Good Samaritan stuff is taken care of already.
 

"Never" is a very big word.  Are you sure you meant to use it?

When it comes to things like trying to control healthcare...force people to buy policies they don't want or need...abscond with 1/7 of the economy...you're damn right I mean never.

You're differentiating between types of government, now.  Would you still be opposed if the city/county/state were to levy tax money for purposes of health care, rather than at the federal level?

And you're moving goal posts.  Just like when you brought roads into a discussion about healthcare.

Apples and oranges.

Well, by means of the 18.4 cents/gal gas tax, the Feds do force Texans to pay for some of Nebraska's road repairs, through the federal Highway Trust Fund...

Taxiation without representation...didn't we fight a war over something like that.

And thanks for highlighting my point about government interference...imagine how may people would benefit from NOT having the Federal government forcing states to add that extra 18.4 cents to every gallon of gas they put into their car.

[txradioguy]

So the poor and sick should just be left to the whims of voluntary charity, or die.    Got it - and thanks for the honest response.  But if this is "conservatism",  don't expect such selfishness to win many elections.   

What part of Hospitals are obligated by law to take care of someone even if they can't pay is confusing to you?

[Jazzhead]

You suck at setting a trap.

And you suck at answering a simple question.  But that's okay, because you don't agree with the premise - that the community has a moral obligation to not let sick people die.   Conservatives of your ilk have no solution - and could care less about finding one.   Thankfully,  most conservatives don't share your values.   

[Jazzhead]

What part of Hospitals are obligated by law to take care of someone even if they can't pay is confusing to you?

And who pays the hospitals for doing so?   It's you and me, by means of our insurance premiums and tax dollars.  See, sonny, it's all redistribution of one sort or another.   At least a single payer system can be honest and fair about it.   

[FS7]

And you suck at answering a simple question.  But that's okay, because you don't agree with the premise - that the community has a moral obligation to not let sick people die.   Conservatives of your ilk have no solution - and could care less about finding one.   Thankfully,  most conservatives don't share your values.

You and your fellow liberal have been arguing (again, using hand-waving) that we have a "moral obligation" to provide health care to those that can't afford it. This is not a provable statement. Furthermore, there is no way to prove "consensus" on this either (not that it would matter if you could).

I asked before if we have a "moral obligation" to provide health care to all then do we also have a "moral obligation" to ensure the basic requirements of life - shelter, food, and water - are also met? After all, if we are being honest, the vast majority of medical care is not life-saving, and instead only serves to provide for a certain quality of life. However, without shelter (in certain climates), food, and water, there is a 100% chance of death. Would not that be a considerably more urgent problem to solve? If not, why not?