"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble

So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch



It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the ability
to pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't
answer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms.
Plume.

Darn it.

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those
with the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that
cannot when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical
care. I repeat. Medical care.

Perhaps there is a moral requirement, but since it can't be legislated,
it ends up being an individual choice. The health of the country (medical
and fiscal) should not be dependent upon the whims of a few.

I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize
free health care insurance via private or government insurance programs.

I do support programs that ensure the health of the country, as I stated
just above. To do less, is not moral in my opinion. There's no other way
to ensure our health, at least nothing I know of. Perhaps you can suggest
something?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Well, since I believe we all have a moral responsibility to help our
fellow man to the degree we can, I have no problem with a tax program that
provides for a fund intended to be paid directly to hospitals for
services rendered for life threatening conditions. No government or
private insurance companies involved.

Umm... who's going to administer the program? It's going to have to be a
gov't body of some sort. A tax program = gov't.

Do you want to rethink your comment?


The difference in what I am proposing is that the fund provided by taxes
pays for the medical care given in these situations. It does *not* pay
for insurance policy premiums. That's the problem with our existing
system ... insurance companies ripping off the insured with big profits
derived from the premium payments and a reluctance to pay out when
required. A government run version of an insurance company would simply
create another huge bureaucracy consisting of tens of thousands new
government employees. They all have to be paid per federal guidelines from
the tax dollars. Very inefficient use of tax money intended to provide
necessary medical care to those who can't afford it or the insurance to
provide for it.

Make sense?

On some level, sure. It makes sense. But on a practical level, it would
difficult to administer. Who's going to administer the program? How do the
funds get dispersed? How do you know that there isn't fraud? Don't get me
wrong... I'm all for doing away with the insurance companies involved in
medical claims. They're just the middleman and they take a huge cut. The
problem is that some entity has to do the work. If you don't like insurance
companies, then the gov't has to do it. Medicare is an example. There's all
kinds of waste/fraud in that system. It has funding problems. The former can
be reduced with increasing oversight (but I believe the Republicans recently
voted against having undercover agents). The latter involves reducing
benefits for those who can afford to pay in other ways, and finding other
funding solutions (perhaps an increase in taxes - there's no free lunch).


--
Nom=de=Plume