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

[XenaLee]

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.

Exactly.  Which is why the claim of people "dying in the streets" from lack of healthcare is absurd.  And which is why the push for government to force people to purchase health insurance in order to 'free up' emergency rooms from non-critical health problems came about.

Seems to me, if government is going to force you to purchase health insurance, it should be a 'catastrophic only' health insurance mandate.   That way, healthy, younger people will still have coverage if and when they need it.... and older, less healthy people will be free to purchase non-critical supplemental policies.   The Democrats' agenda is to get more power and control over Americans via their healthcare, however.  It has nothing to do with compassion or caring about their health.

[r9etb]

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.

Not for free, they don't: others are forced to pay for it, one way or another.  And how is the government not involved, if they passed a law requiring it?  So that response actually works against your stated position.
 

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 putting words in my mouth now.  But that's an awful lot of qualifiers to justify that "never."  Just to point out, you've already contradicted yourself: "Hospitals can not by law refuse care to anyone." So "never" turns out not to be "never" after all.

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

How so?  You said "government."  You didn't initially differentiate, until you did.  If anybody's moving the goalposts, you are.

Apples and oranges.

You don't get to just say that, without explaining why.  In what way is the government taxing you for roads, different from the government taxing you to provide money for health care?

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

Congress passed the law....  They're not worth much, but they are elected representatives and as such, constitute "representation."

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.

So, what are you saying, exactly? 

[txradioguy]

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.

So I take your long convoluted reply as an admission that people don't just get left in the streets to die that they DO receive treatment whether they have the means to pay or not?

Good glad we got that settled.

Now for the rest of what you said.

It depends on who runs the hospital...whether it's a corporation...a Church...University or a City/County.

Our insurance premiums have nothing to do with what I mentioned before about providing care no matter what.  Nothing at all.  The rest get passed on to the other people who use the hospital in what they have to pay for services.

That $2 you pay for a single 250mg Tylenol...that exorbitant price is how Hospitals mitigate the expenses of having to treat someone knowing they have no means to pay for the services rendered.

The only time we've been force to pay for other people's care via our insurance premiums happened on a crappy day in March 7 years ago.

[txradioguy]

So, what are you saying, exactly?

Government isn't the solution...it's the problem.

It's no more use discussing this with you than it is your Socialist friend Jazz.

It seems for both of you...you're perfectly content with the Federal Government dictating to you every aspect of your life.

There's no sense trying to reason with you or appeal to your sense of Liberty and free will.

I'm done.  Good day.

[r9etb]

So I take your long convoluted reply as an admission that people don't just get left in the streets to die that they DO receive treatment whether they have the means to pay or not?

But that's your problem, not his: the government passed a law requiring hospitals to treat the indigent.  Such care is not free: the law forces others to pay for the cost of that emergency treatment -- or, more commonly, for the non-emergency treatment by people who use the ER as their doctor's office.

Are you for or against that law?

[r9etb]

Government isn't the solution...it's the problem.

It's no more use discussing this with you than it is your Socialist friend Jazz.

It seems for both of you...you're perfectly content with the Federal Government dictating to you every aspect of your life.

There's no sense trying to reason with you or appeal to your sense of Liberty and free will.

I'm done.  Good day.

Oh, please.  You're losing the argument, but that's no call to accuse us of being "socialists."

[Idaho_Cowboy]

But that's your problem, not his: the government passed a law requiring hospitals to treat the indigent.  Such care is not free: the law forces others to pay for the cost of that emergency treatment -- or, more commonly, for the non-emergency treatment by people who use the ER as their doctor's office.

Are you for or against that law?

Shouldn't you be making the case why that law needs replaced not Obamacare?

[XenaLee]

Government isn't the solution...it's the problem.

It's no more use discussing this with you than it is your Socialist friend Jazz.

It seems for both of you...you're perfectly content with the Federal Government dictating to you every aspect of your life.

There's no sense trying to reason with you or appeal to your sense of Liberty and free will.

I'm done.  Good day.

 

You gave it a good try.....but....

you know (lefties = hopeless). 

[Smokin Joe]

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

That's a fine reason, we, as individuals, should be charitable and help those who cannot 'do' for themselves. It is no reason, however for the government to rob people at gunpoint to force them to pay for others. There is no 'charity' in taking someone else's money by force and giving it away, just force. Without an option to do otherwise, the act cannot glorify God.

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.

Describe something, some aspect of medical care where government tentacles are not present. You won't be able to.

[XenaLee]

Oh, please.  You're losing the argument, but that's no call to accuse us of being "socialists."

Yeah.  Let's not call it that.

That's what it is.  But let's not call it that.

 

[txradioguy]

You gave it a good try.....but....

you know (lefties = hopeless).

It's frustrating at times.  My teenage son understands the concept of "a government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it all away"...but to some adults that seems to be an offensive statement.

[r9etb]

Shouldn't you be making the case why that law needs replaced not Obamacare?

Well, maybe tx should be trying to make that case, as it's his logical conundrum.  At root, that law is meant to address the moral obligation I was talking about. 

For reference, the law is the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act of 1986, which as I recall was passed as a result of several highly-publicized cases of people dying after being refused care from the ER -- so the "people aren't dying" argument is actually relatively recent.

I'm really just talking about the OP, in which Kudlow's calling for government funding for a particular portion of health care costs.  While I do think there's a moral obligation, and I do think a plausible case to be made in favor of a government role in funding his idea, my main intent on this thread has been to challenge the bold "conservative" assertions being made.

Here's the thing: if conservatives can't even make the case among friends, how in hell do we expect to make it to our opponents?

[r9etb]

It's frustrating at times.  My teenage son understands the concept of "a government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it all away"...but to some adults that seems to be an offensive statement.

If you can't make a good argument among friends, how do you expect to make a good argument against your opponents?

The problem with your position is that you're mainly just making claims and expecting me to accept them.  I actually agree in principle with a lot of what you're saying; but I'm not the one you need to convince. 

If you say that government is good for some things and not others, it is your responsibility to explain how and why there is a difference.  You don't get to just make the claim. 

[FS7]

Well, maybe tx should be trying to make that case, as it's his logical conundrum.  At root, that law is meant to address the moral obligation I was talking about. 

For reference, the law is the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act of 1986, which as I recall was passed as a result of several highly-publicized cases of people dying after being refused care from the ER -- so the "people aren't dying" argument is actually relatively recent.

I'm really just talking about the OP, in which Kudlow's calling for government funding for a particular portion of health care costs.  While I do think there's a moral obligation, and I do think a plausible case to be made in favor of a government role in funding his idea, my main intent on this thread has been to challenge the bold "conservative" assertions being made.

Here's the thing: if conservatives can't even make the case among friends, how in hell do we expect to make it to our opponents?

Multiple people have died of exposure, starvation, or dehydration while you dodged the question on where our "moral obligation" ends.

I'm waiting.

[r9etb]

Multiple people have died of exposure, starvation, or dehydration while you dodged the question on where our "moral obligation" ends.

I'm waiting.

Waiting for what?  The question of where an obligation ends, simply confirms that the obligation itself exists. 

[FS7]

Waiting for what?  The question of where an obligation ends, simply confirms that the obligation itself exists.

I will ask one more time.

If we have a moral obligation to provide health care, do we also have a moral obligation to provide food, water, and shelter? If not, why not? It's a very, very simple question, even for a statist.

Your answer (or lack thereof) will be very illustrative of your intellectual honesty and consistency.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Well, maybe tx should be trying to make that case, as it's his logical conundrum.  At root, that law is meant to address the moral obligation I was talking about. 

For reference, the law is the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act of 1986, which as I recall was passed as a result of several highly-publicized cases of people dying after being refused care from the ER -- so the "people aren't dying" argument is actually relatively recent.

I'm really just talking about the OP, in which Kudlow's calling for government funding for a particular portion of health care costs.  While I do think there's a moral obligation, and I do think a plausible case to be made in favor of a government role in funding his idea, my main intent on this thread has been to challenge the bold "conservative" assertions being made.

Here's the thing: if conservatives can't even make the case among friends, how in hell do we expect to make it to our opponents?

Seems to me Kudlow and Ya'll are the ones arguments in favor of the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act of 1986 as the reason we can't get rid of Obamma care and have to replace it immediately.

Which isn't the case. Since this act is in place we have plenty of time to figure out the best way to handle the situation. I haven't seen any hard data that the new proposed laws will improve on the law that's been in place since 1986.

[XenaLee]

Waiting for what?  The question of where an obligation ends, simply confirms that the obligation itself exists.

If your next-door neighbor, who you don't know, chooses to get hooked on drugs and alcohol and gets in an accident, injuring himself..... are you under any "moral obligation" to pay his medical bills? 

Charity ends (IMO) where irresponsibility begins.   If you're the kind of person that lives a lifestyle where you abuse your health (ie become a drug addict) your entire life and then expect others to suffer the consequences by having to pay for your care, you really don't deserve to get 'quality' healthcare.  That's what Medicaid is for.   Personal responsibility is suffering the consequences of your own actions and choices.

[XenaLee]

It's frustrating at times.  My teenage son understands the concept of "a government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it all away"...but to some adults that seems to be an offensive statement.

Yep.  As someone in another thread said.... 'it ain't rocket surgery'...lol.  But to lefties, it apparently is.   

[geronl]

I doubt he thinks that; however, it does have the sort of financial wherewithal that other entities don't.

If government is paying for it, the price will sky-rocket.

[Jazzhead]

I will ask one more time.

If we have a moral obligation to provide health care, do we also have a moral obligation to provide food, water, and shelter? If not, why not? It's a very, very simple question, even for a statist.

Your answer (or lack thereof) will be very illustrative of your intellectual honesty and consistency.

One's medical expenses are, in large measure, a function of misfortune rather than a lack of virtue.   Bad genes,  an unexpected accident,  an unanticipated cancer diagnosis;  all can send a virtuous person to financial ruin.   Under a Rawlesian analysis,  if we are all equally susceptible to such random ruin,  then we as a community have a moral obligation to act to make sure there is support for those who suffer such catastrophe.   In other words, there but for the grace of God go I.   

[txradioguy]

If your next-door neighbor, who you don't know, chooses to get hooked on drugs and alcohol and gets in an accident, injuring himself..... are you under any "moral obligation" to pay his medical bills? 

Charity ends (IMO) where irresponsibility begins.   If you're the kind of person that lives a lifestyle where you abuse your health (ie become a drug addict) your entire life and then expect others to suffer the consequences by having to pay for your care, you really don't deserve to get 'quality' healthcare.  That's what Medicaid is for.   Personal responsibility is suffering the consequences of your own actions and choices.

@XenaLee one has to wonder how far some people think this whole "moral obligation" thing has to or should extend.

For instance:

If I have a car and someone else in my neighborhood doesn't...am I morally obligated to give them money to help them buy a car?

If someone is homeless...am I morally obligated to give the homeless person money to help them obtain shelter?

If I make more money than a coworker...am I morally obligated to give them part of my salary?

[Sanguine]

One's medical expenses are, in large measure, a function of misfortune rather than a lack of virtue.   Bad genes,  an unexpected accident,  an unanticipated cancer diagnosis;  all can send a virtuous person to financial ruin.   Under a Rawlesian analysis,  if we are all equally susceptible to such random ruin,  then we as a community have a moral obligation to act to make sure there is support for those who suffer such catastrophe.   In other words, there but for the grace of God go I.

Again, Jazz, form your community and start anteing up.  Until then your words ring hollow.

[Jazzhead]

Again, Jazz, form your community and start anteing up.  Until then your words ring hollow.

That's the problem, Sanguine - too many "conservatives" don't feel they belong to a larger community.  They have an extreme view of individualism,  living their lives in metaphorical bunkers and to hell with everybody else. 

But even a conservative in a bunker can suffer random ruin from a medical event.  That randomness is what differentiates the moral obligation with respect to medical care from such "rights" as food and shelter.   

[Sanguine]

That's the problem, Sanguine - too many "conservatives" don't feel they belong to a larger community.  They have an extreme view of individualism,  living their lives in metaphorical bunkers and to hell with everybody else. 

But even a conservative in a bunker can suffer random ruin from a medical event.  That randomness is what differentiates the moral obligation with respect to medical care from such "rights" as food and shelter.

Oh, come on, Jazz - that wasn't even a good red herring!