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

[Idaho_Cowboy]

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.

Well at least you know why you aren't putting your money where your mouth is.

That's the problem with liberals, it's so much easier to steal from others than to get off their duffers and help people. 

[XenaLee]

@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?

That "moral obligation" BS is what the commies use to 'guilt' the peons into buying into their crap in the first place.  Then once bought into, it's too late to back out once the power-grip of the short hairs takes over.

Thank God at least half (or more) of Americans are too smart to fall for it ....

so far.

[Smokin Joe]

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?

The reason an aspirin costs multiples of what it would cost to buy a bottle of them is the result of treating those indigent. The hospital charges more to the other patients who can pay to recover the costs of those who skip out on their bill. In that way, patients who can pay take up the fiscal slack those who can't pay leave.
It has been that way all along, and you will find that happens in retail stores, raising prices (actually, just factored in) to compensate for breakage, spoilage, and theft.

Many of the non-emergency people who use the ER as a doctor's office are medicaid folks, and we're paying for them out of the kindness of the IRS now. We don't really get any choice in the matter, so that doesn't amount to charity.
 
There is a big difference between being part of the chain gang picking up litter and part of a volunteer group who adopted a section of highway. The former often resent being there in bondage, while the latter take pride in what they accomplish, not just because it looks better, but because they willingly did it.

It is a pity that distinction is lost on you, but you are professing that the ends justify the means, whatever means, where there are those of us who firmly believe how those ends are accomplished means something, too.

Your lack of faith in the goodness of your fellow humans is duly noted, along with your desire to rob people of the opportunity to feel good about doing things voluntarily to assist those who are in need..

[FS7]

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.

Your fellow socialist has ducked the question. You didn't answer but instead made a (rather nonsensical) case that we have a moral obligation to provide for health care for all.

I am asking that *if* that were true (as you believe and I do not), do we then have a moral obligation to provide food, shelter, and water?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Your fellow socialist has ducked the question. You didn't answer but instead made a (rather nonsensical) case that we have a moral obligation to provide for health care for all.

I am asking that *if* that were true (as you believe and I do not), do we then have a moral obligation to provide food, shelter, and water?

Why stop there? Cellphones, college education, lawn service, internet, Mocha lattes...

[Jazzhead]

Your fellow socialist has ducked the question. You didn't answer but instead made a (rather nonsensical) case that we have a moral obligation to provide for health care for all.

I am asking that *if* that were true (as you believe and I do not), do we then have a moral obligation to provide food, shelter, and water?

I would say no, applying a Rawlesian analysis.   The ability to acquire food and shelter is largely a matter of individual initiative and effort.   The risk of a medical catastrophe, by contrast, exists for us all, without regard to virtue.  A hard-working family man can be ruined by a cancer diagnosis, for example.

 Because of the nature of medical risk -  although most of us can manage such expenses,  any one of us can be unexpectedly ruined - it is especially susceptible to being addressed on a community-wide basis.   And that means,  as a practical matter, by the government and its ability to spread the cost of medical financing on a fair basis among both rich and poor.   (Private charity simply doesn't have the practical capacity to take care of the problem on its own.)   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

(Private charity simply doesn't have the practical capacity to take care of the problem on its own.)

Have you asked St. Jude or the Shriners about that?

[r9etb]

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.

Sigh.  I have no illusions about your ability to misrepresent what I've been saying, no illusions about your inability to understand anything more subtle than a hammer to the head, and no illusions about your ability to make an argument that doesn't include name-calling.  But I'll try to answer your questions regardless.

I believe we have a moral obligation to give food to a starving person.  I believe that we have a moral obligation to give water to people who are dying of thirst.  I believe we have a moral obligation to help people who might otherwise freeze to death.

At the risk of offending your sensibilities, I can point out that Jesus believed the same things.  It's not a "statist" position -- it's a moral one.  It's the right thing to do.

And by the same moral reasoning, I believe we have a moral obligation to help those in need of medical care, who cannot afford it for themselves.

How is it possible that you seem to be arguing against such things?

[txradioguy]

Have you asked St. Jude or the Shriners about that?

March of Dimes

JDF

Susan G Komen

MDA

and on and on and on

[INVAR]

Thankfully,  most conservatives don't share your values.

How would you know?

You are a radical Big Government Leftist.

Not only do you not understand Conservatism, you HATE the bulk of what identifies as Conservatism and you LIE about what you are.

[r9etb]

Have you asked St. Jude or the Shriners about that?

Both wonderful charities, and as charities go, helping sick kids is an easy sell for fund-raising.

I'm not sure they'd work as models for a more general patient population, however.

Let's do the math, using St. Jude's hospital as our basis of estimate.

According to philanthropyroundtable.com, operating the St. Jude's hospital costs about $1.7 million/day, or about $621 million/year.

According to the St. Jude's website, they treat about 7800 patients per year.  That works out to just under $80k per patient per year.

As a conservative estimate, let's say that Kudlow's number applies to 1 million people.

At St. Jude's rates, private charities would need to raise about $80 billion to provide the same level of care.  That's maybe not such an easy goal to meet.

[INVAR]

I believe we have a moral obligation to give food to a starving person.  I believe that we have a moral obligation to give water to people who are dying of thirst.  I believe we have a moral obligation to help people who might otherwise freeze to death.

YOU have a moral obligation to give food to a starving person.  YOU have a moral obligation to give water to the thirsty.  YOU have a moral obligation to provide warmth to the naked.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OBLIGATION to empower government to put a gun to all of our heads and force them to do those things FOR YOU and therefore absolve YOU of the responsibility of doing it yourself.

Empowering government to do charity in your stead perverts what Jesus said to do, and is nothing less than Communism.

At the risk of offending your sensibilities, I can point out that Jesus believed the same things.  It's not a "statist" position -- it's a moral one.

He NEVER suggested or empowered the people to petition the government to do those things and absolve the individual of responsibility by simply taking it out of the producers via taxation.  It is INDEED statist, and Communist to do so.

I believe we have a moral obligation to help those in need of medical care, who cannot afford it for themselves.

That is something YOU must do, on your own if you are so led.  Not empower government to put guns to our heads to force us to do it in your stead so you can feel magnanimous.

How is it possible that you seem to be arguing against such things?

Liberty.  Something anyone empowering government to do charity has absolutely no comprehension or understanding of.

[Sanguine]

Sigh.  I have no illusions about your ability to misrepresent what I've been saying, no illusions about your inability to understand anything more subtle than a hammer to the head, and no illusions about your ability to make an argument that doesn't include name-calling.  But I'll try to answer your questions regardless.

I believe we have a moral obligation to give food to a starving person.  I believe that we have a moral obligation to give water to people who are dying of thirst.  I believe we have a moral obligation to help people who might otherwise freeze to death.

At the risk of offending your sensibilities, I can point out that Jesus believed the same things.  It's not a "statist" position -- it's a moral one.  It's the right thing to do.

And by the same moral reasoning, I believe we have a moral obligation to help those in need of medical care, who cannot afford it for themselves.

How is it possible that you seem to be arguing against such things?

Wait - you're advocating for a theocracy? 

[r9etb]

Wait - you're advocating for a theocracy?

Um... I'll just assume you've had a long day.  That comment has no basis in anything I said, unless you choose to grossly misconstrue my statement concerning what Jesus taught.

[Bigun]

YOU have a moral obligation to give food to a starving person.  YOU have a moral obligation to give water to the thirsty.  YOU have a moral obligation to provide warmth to the naked.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OBLIGATION to empower government to put a gun to all of our heads and force them to do those things FOR YOU and therefore absolve YOU of the responsibility of doing it yourself.

Empowering government to do charity in your stead perverts what Jesus said to do, and is nothing less than Communism.

He NEVER suggested or empowered the people to petition the government to do those things and absolve the individual of responsibility by simply taking it out of the producers via taxation.  It is INDEED statist, and Communist to do so.

That is something YOU must do, on your own if you are so led.  Not empower government to put guns to our heads to force us to do it in your stead so you can feel magnanimous.

Liberty.  Something anyone empowering government to do charity has absolutely no comprehension or understanding of.

POST OF THE WEEK! 

Where did Jesus EVER say "give your money to Cesar so he can take care the poor?" You will not find that anywhere!  Just as you so correctly point out His admonitions were ALWAYS to us as individuals.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Um... I'll just assume you've had a long day.  That comment has no basis in anything I said, unless you choose to grossly misconstrue my statement concerning what Jesus taught.

Why doesn't separation of church and state doesn't apply if you are going to use Christianity as your basis for forcing people to pay for the health insurance of others?

[INVAR]

Why doesn't separation of church and state doesn't apply if you are going to use Christianity as your basis for forcing people to pay for the health insurance of others?

Because when it involves redistribution of wealth - FROM each according to their abilities TO EACH according to their need, why then... using Jesus and the bible to shame people into accepting government empowerment to do charity is perfectly good and acceptable.

But that is it.

Don't bother using Jesus or the Bible to talk about personal responsibility or eschewing sin and wickedness, because once you do that then YOU ARE pushing a theocracy on everyone according to the leftist.

[roamer_1]

Presumably you're defending this point of view. I'll assume you haven't thought about it.

The reason insurance companies charge premiums is to cover their risk in the eventual case expensive care is required. You pay while you don't need it so that you can receive care when you need it. Now, if you isolate the "sick" in a pool, there is no reason for insurance. Alternatively, this could be looked at as a way to grossly enrich insurance companies by letting them collect money from healthy people but transfer the hard work (paying out claims for the sick) to the taxpayer. Either way, this is an argument for single payer.

It would, in addition, do absolutely nothing to contain costs. The taxpayer becomes responsible for both their own health insurance as well as the government-sponsored "sick pool." Given the inefficiency of the government, it's likely that costs to the end user would increase substantially. At the absolute theoretical best, they would remain the same, but then that would obviate the need for such a program.

Any amount of logical thought shows that this is an argument for single payer somebody with the rationalization ability of a high school sophomore would propose.

@FS7
Brilliant... With the exception that your position omits the nefarious motives very predctably present in the gov's intention. It isn't about the sick. It's about the money. It's always about the money, or it's about control... or both. So your 'absolute theoretical best' will never even remotely happen. It will be cost inflation in fire-hose mode. if not now, then 4 years from now, or the next time the democrats rise to power.

But then, I think you know that. No one can put lipstick on this pig.

@LonestarDream

[roamer_1]

Somebody has to pay for that care.  Correct.  I presume you say so because the alternative is not worth considering.  Kudlow is suggesting that spreading the cost among the national tax base is probably the least intrusive, in terms of money, and the most likely to ensure that the care actually is paid for.  There's some merit to that argument.  Assuming that the same level of cost can be covered through charitable contributions is perhaps a bit idealistic.

The 'alternative' is moot. It already exists in the form of Medicaid/Medicare. So it is no alternative at all. It's the same thing, just more money. NO ONE is dying from lack of care. If you get sick enough to crap out, you will be covered by medicare/medicaid. Guess what: If you crap out that bad, insurance isn't going to change a thing - you are still going to lose everything whether the government or not.

And as to covering through charity, That is exactly what happened prior to the 70's when churches could no longer 'profit' from their hospitals and remain 'nonprofit', their charitable write-offs notwithstanding, or rather not counting. That is why churches used to own most of the hospitals in the country, and now own few.

[Sanguine]

Um... I'll just assume you've had a long day.  That comment has no basis in anything I said, unless you choose to grossly misconstrue my statement concerning what Jesus taught.

The fact that you don't understand the implications of your statement doesn't mean they aren't there.  Think about it a bit. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And that means,  as a practical matter, by the government and its ability to spread the cost of medical financing on a fair basis among both rich and poor.

There we have it exposed: Socialism in its purist form.

Give to the government who knows best so they can decide who is rich and poor in order to be 'fair'.

[FS7]

YOU have a moral obligation to give food to a starving person.  YOU have a moral obligation to give water to the thirsty.  YOU have a moral obligation to provide warmth to the naked.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OBLIGATION to empower government to put a gun to all of our heads and force them to do those things FOR YOU and therefore absolve YOU of the responsibility of doing it yourself.

Empowering government to do charity in your stead perverts what Jesus said to do, and is nothing less than Communism.

He NEVER suggested or empowered the people to petition the government to do those things and absolve the individual of responsibility by simply taking it out of the producers via taxation.  It is INDEED statist, and Communist to do so.

That is something YOU must do, on your own if you are so led.  Not empower government to put guns to our heads to force us to do it in your stead so you can feel magnanimous.

Liberty.  Something anyone empowering government to do charity has absolutely no comprehension or understanding of.

[Jazzhead]

Have you asked St. Jude or the Shriners about that?

By all means, go ahead and ask.  They will most certainly say there is a role for government to be played in addressing the afflicted.   

[FS7]

Sigh.  I have no illusions about your ability to misrepresent what I've been saying, no illusions about your inability to understand anything more subtle than a hammer to the head, and no illusions about your ability to make an argument that doesn't include name-calling.  But I'll try to answer your questions regardless.

I believe we have a moral obligation to give food to a starving person.  I believe that we have a moral obligation to give water to people who are dying of thirst.  I believe we have a moral obligation to help people who might otherwise freeze to death.

At the risk of offending your sensibilities, I can point out that Jesus believed the same things.  It's not a "statist" position -- it's a moral one.  It's the right thing to do.

And by the same moral reasoning, I believe we have a moral obligation to help those in need of medical care, who cannot afford it for themselves.

How is it possible that you seem to be arguing against such things?

As INVAR so eloquently put it, it's a simple matter of freedom. I am free to choose to believe that ii is my moral obligation to protest against abortion, help the homeless, feed the hungry, or anything. It is a statist position to demand that the guns of government force another, under penalty of law, to do the same. If it is their choice, they can do it freely.

You advocate for forced charity based on your moral beliefs. It is a common tactic of leftists of all stripes to say that because the statist's intent is good, then the method must be good as well. This is a logical fallacy, one that you swallowed so long ago there are rusted flecks of the hook and sinker throughout your body.

This is a simple concept. You don't fully grasp it, I see, but even if you did, you would still argue against it because that's who you are.

[txradioguy]

There we have it exposed: Socialism in its purist form.

Give to the government who knows best so they can decide who is rich and poor in order to be 'fair'.

Apparently to some that is the new Conservatism.