Dancing With The Stars finale
Missing in America Memorial
Madison Commencement
Book Nook provides readers with insights into the world of books. Vick Mickunas takes you into the center of the publishing world with the latest book buzz, book reviews, and exclusive chats with authors..Home > Blogs > Book Nook > Archives > 2009 > August > 07 > Entry
Tips for debating universal health care…
It seems apparent that many Americans want to have access to health care insurance. Those who oppose universal health care for all Americans seem to have their own agendas.
The columnist, commentator, author and blogger David Sirota has a blog post today that offers some points that can be made in this heath care debate.
He makes some persuasive arguments. I’m curious to know what readers think about them.
Here’s an excerpt from Sirota’s post:
“I’m also fairly certain that when many of you run into the Me-First, Forget-Everyone-Else Crowd, you don’t feel like confronting the faux outrage. But on the off chance you do muster the masochistic impulse to engage, here’s a guide to navigating the conversation:
What They Will Scream: We can’t raise business taxes, because American businesses already pay excessively high taxes!
What You Should Say: Here’s the smallest violin in the world playing for the businesses. The Government Accountability Office reports that most U.S. corporations pay zero federal income tax. Additionally, as even the Bush Treasury Department admitted, America’s effective corporate tax rate is the third lowest in the industrialized world.
What They Will Scream: But the rich still “pay close to 60 percent of this nation’s taxes!”
What You Should Say: Such statistics refer only to the federal income tax. When considering all of “this nation’s taxes” including payroll, state and local levies, the top 5 percent pay just 38.5 percent of the taxes.
What They Will Scream: But 38.5 percent is disproportionately high! See? You’ve proved that the rich “contribute more than their share” of taxes!
What You Should Say: Actually, they are paying almost exactly “their share.” According to the data, the wealthiest 5 percent of America pays 38.5 percent of the total taxes precisely because they make just about that share — a whopping 36.5 percent! — of total national income. Asking these folks to pay slightly more in taxes — and still less than they did during the go-go 1990s — is hardly extreme.
Stripped of facts, your conversation partner will soon turn to unscientific terrain, claiming it is immoral to “steal” and “redistribute” income via taxes. Of course, he will be specifically railing on “stealing” for stuff like health care, which he insists gets “redistributed” only to the undeserving and the “lazy” (a classic codeword for “minorities”). But he will also say it’s OK that government sent trillions of dollars to Wall Streeters.
And that’s when you should stop wasting your breath.”
To read it all click HERE:
Well, what do you think?
Vick Mickunas
Permalink | Comments (32) | Post your comment | Categories: booms and busts
Comments
By Raoul
August 14, 2009 7:16 AM | Link to this
Downsized: It’s very difficult to perceive you as a caring, passionate, person when you spew hateful personal attacks at anyone who disagrees with you. Spare me the bleeding heart stuff. It doesn’t match up well with your hatred. This world of ours offers no promises, only opportunities. Redistribution of wealth does not help the needy; it sentences them to a lifetime of neediness. Your world view wants to reward the needy. Mine wants to encourage them to rise above it. That’s not social Darwinism, it’s common sense. Health care is not a divine right to be bestowed on citizens. Individuals are charged with taking care of themselves and their families the best they can. When they are unable, we need to help them. When they are unwilling, no amount of money and handouts will ever be enough. If we continue down the road of rewarding the unwilling, we will all be bankrupt and none of us will get the care we need. The answer lies in encouraging people to take a helping hand to rise up, not by pulling the achievers down. If you truly care about hard working families that are struggling, how can you expect them to care for those that aren’t hardworking? Utopia is not a place where people have lost their will or desire to excel, and are comfortable taking what can be extracted from others.By Stephen
August 13, 2009 8:45 PM | Link to this
Downside said: “Stephen, if the government could set the cost of healthcare provision, I don’t believe the taxpayers of my state would be paying over 200 doctors and specialists more than the President of the United States at ONE university hospital. Drop your guns and grab a book. Less town hall screaming and more study hall reading would serve you well.” Downside. Perhaps less personal attack and more on topic debate would serve this country better. The salary of various Dr’s or other people at the “one” university is irrelevant to our discussion on health care. Medicare can and does set a price they will pay for medical procedures. Google “medical coding” for an explanation of the system. Book not required, although reading for comprehension is. Medical Dr’s spend great amounts of time, money, talent and effort to enter their profession. I don’t begrudge them any money that their free choice allows them to make. Just as the marketplace gives talented music, sports, broadcast, etc, entertainers million in $$$. In fact, as a recent surgical patient, I would rather the person that held my life in their hands be the best and highest paid in their field. I can wait for the movie DVD or rerun on TV.By downsized
August 13, 2009 7:40 PM | Link to this
Raoul: the insanity of your latest post is beyond the pale. So, you believe in social Darwinism? The strong will flourish and the weak deserve their fate. The world according to Raoul? Newsflash: you sanctimonius blowhard. Many good, hardworking Americans are suffering despite your Horatio Alger, childlike world view. So, you’ve supposedly had some tough times? Your self-proclamation of patriotism was a real laugh. Pin a medal on yourself then call people needing food stamps criminals? Your self indictment is enough of a joke to finally make me pity you. Let’s hope you never lose your health coverage. Without your medication you might burn your house up again. Oh, and how many times did you mention equality this time? You are neither a patriot, nor a caring person. Your hateful accusations betray your real beliefs. They all deserve what they get. You’ve got yours and if they can’t make it so what. Evil crap.By Raoul
August 13, 2009 5:17 PM | Link to this
Down, once again you make assumptions and convince yourself they are facts. I never mentioned equality. I said that health care legislation does not contain provisions for Americans to receive the same plan as our elected officials. Too bad, because they are well covered. You need to drop your guard and stop deluding yourself about me. I have been downsized and I have had to scramble for coverage. I had a fire and lost my home owner’s coverage, along with many prized possessions. I have been close to bankruptcy. I do believe in equality and equal rights. I don’t appreciate those who’s idea of equality is to redistribute wealth from those willing to those taking. There is a black market for food stamp vouchers, and I predict health care is next. The beauty of our country is you can make it if you try. When you get knocked down, get back up. I think that means I am a patriot. My love for fellow man extends to everyone; unfortunatley your’s seems anchored to the needy with no thought given to how they got that way.By downsized
August 13, 2009 3:26 PM | Link to this
Stephen: if the government could set the cost of healthcare provision, I don’t believe the taxpayers of my state would be paying over 200 doctors and specialists more than the President of the United States at ONE university hospital. Drop your guns and grab a book. Less town hall screaming and more study hall reading would serve you well.By Stephen
August 13, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this
Downsized said: “The cost overhead/administration fees of private sector healthcare is much higher than Medicare/Medicaid. That’s a fact.” A question then. If Medicare can set the price it will pay, who pays for whatever is left of the cost of treatment? I’ll give you a hint… Everyone else. Only the gov’t as a buyer can force a seller into a transaction. A correction, you could too, with a gun. Wait! Gov’t police have guns! It’s armed robbery by Gov’t!By Stephen
August 13, 2009 12:39 PM | Link to this
Alice said: a report from 2008 found that an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care but a study done in 2007 reported that an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad to receive some kind of elective medical treatment due mostly to cost. Did that “report” break out the cosmetic surgery? If someone wants to pay for a face lift or fat suction that isn’t covered by health insurance,at the least cost… go for it! Just don’t ask me to pay for it. I’m paying more for my health insurance than my mortgage. But I choose to protect myself & family.By Alice
August 13, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this
I have always thought that you can’t improve government if you don’t believe it can work in the first place.By downsized
August 12, 2009 11:08 PM | Link to this
In short, Raoul, equality will NEVER be “in the cards”, as long as you, and those like you, are dealing them.By downsized
August 12, 2009 11:04 PM | Link to this
Raoul: Were you forced into bankruptcy due to your medical bills, or maybe lose your home? Have you ever been “downsized” and lost your coverage? You pass on issues which your colleagues claim are the causative problems creating the very debt (that they scream at town hall meetings) a national healthcare program will break them, their children and future generations. They’re all connected, Raoul. If good people say nothing and resign themselves that “We The People” will never have the rights that our elected officials enjoy, you are helping maintain a system that destroys the American Dream. Complacency in the face of oligarchy or an elite class in America is tantamount to treason. You often claim to love our founding fathers. You are obviously untouched by the misery of your fellow Americans and have in your own words, stated that change is not possible. In colonial times they’d have called you a Tory. And rightly so. Patriots don’t give up on our country so easily. I now wonder if you ever were so inclined. To advocate the status quo condemns countless numbers of your fellow citizens to hopelessness and poverty. Never, ever count yourself among those who believe in an America that believes in equality and justice for all.By Raoul
August 12, 2009 6:53 PM | Link to this
Down, you have a real knack for making amazing assumptions about me. In this case, you are correct; I have employer health care coverage. Most people do. However, I also have some rather large health care bills to pay on top of what is deducted from my pay. I have spent quite a lot of money over the years out of pocket for health care, almost all of it for my wife. It isn’t easy. As to Afghanistan, Armani suits, and Blackwater, you are on your own. I was discussing health care, and on that topic, there is no way in the world that I, nor you, nor any other American citizen will ever have government based health care to compare to that which our elected officials receive. It isn’t on the table, and ain’t in the cards.By downsized
August 12, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this
IG: What you said is simply untrue, and you know it. The cost overhead/administration fees of private sector healthcare is much higher than Medicare/Medicaid. That’s a fact. But, following your logic we should hire private mercenaries to fight our “conflicts” and protect our citizens. Oh, that’s right..we did that with Blackwater. And, surely you’ve visited a nice private “non-profit” hospital that typically has an art collection which rivals most museums. The doctor’s parking lot is easy to spot. Just look for the Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Corvette, Porsche section. The Armani suited drug salespersons are a real hoot. But, we wouldn’t want to let a government run health system negotiate for lower prices now would we? In fact, let’s prevent citizens from buying their medications from Europe, Canada and Mexico. It keeps the price points right where the for profits want it. If government run healthcare is so bad why do we provide it to our soldiers and elected officials?? Why?By Alice
August 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this
Private for-profits don’t have to compete either when the product they are selling is your life. People are desperate enough to pay anything for well-being and the for-profits take advantage of that - it’s not about buying a radio. And sorry, Raoul, but the National Security Administration’s warrantless wiretapping refers to the surveillance of persons within the United States as part of the “war on terror”.By Alice
August 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this
Private for-profits don’t have to compete either when the product they are selling is your life. People are desperate enough to pay anything for well-being and the for-profits take advantage of that - it’s not about buying a radio. And sorry, Raoul, but the National Security Administration’s warrantless wiretapping refers to the surveillance of persons within the United States as part of the “war on terror”.By irishguy
August 11, 2009 8:03 PM | Link to this
Alice, it’s actually calls to or from a foreign country that our intelligence folks believe could have terrorist connections. I’m much more inclined to trust private for profits, than a gov’t agency using taxpayer monies. Gov’t programs don’t have to compete to survive. As a result they tend to be more wasteful.By downsized
August 11, 2009 7:10 PM | Link to this
Alice: Thanks for confronting the usual misrepresentations and outright lies we can always count on from the “three legged stool”. Raoul: I’m starting to believe you are a planted stooge and advocate for plunging our country into a morass similar to the undoing which befell the former Soviet Union. You want the middle class to go broke paying for healthcare and an ongoing, no end in sight, war in Afghanistan. It’s become evident that you have employer provided healthcare and are afraid to be part of the same “socialist” system that insures our elected officials. What are you afraid of? That people not as fortunate might be able to let insurance companies and employers make all our choices for us? Your arguments seem almost wistfull for a return to the Cold War. This time an uncivil war against the American people. Why can’t we have the same healthcare options as a Congressperson? Why can’t we bring our troops home from a country that bankrupted the Soviets and the British? Why do your neocon friends scare the elderly with lies about “death panels”? Have you ever faced large medical bills? I doubt it! I suspect you advocate as much healthcare and justice as you can afford. Shame on this campaign of misinformation cloaked in the guise of protecting common folks. It’s common folks who are suffering. Clearly, not you.By Alice
August 11, 2009 5:06 PM | Link to this
Irish, yes - that one. Not sure how Obama “expanded” it as you claim, but I don’t support it under either president. Second, it’s actually the wiretapping of citizens within the US, not outside the country Raoul. And have you actually seen this site that asks for people to “turn someone in”? Even bother to look? It doesn’t exist. They have an email address where you can report misinformation about health reform or ask questions and the WH has the opportunity to respond. People have a right to question the information (much of it bad) they receive via email. Based on your arguments I assume most of your points came from an email/free republic and I respect your right to not question anything you read. And again, no, the argument shouldn’t be about how to get more people to buy into the scam they call private insurance but how to lower healthcare costs to give more people access to basic preventative procedures.By Raoul
August 11, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this
Alice, two points: one, tapping out of country cell phone communications was done to protect all Americans from terrorism. The Obama administration wants people to report those that aren’t on board with his Health Care legislation. Put in perspective, the latter is far more sinister and only serves the cause of a minority of Americans who want to see the legislation passed. Second, if the vast majority of Americans had major problems with our Health Care system, there would be a long history of public outrage, demonstrations, ‘health care’ movements, etc., similar to anti-war rallies and the Civil Rights movement. The Health Care debate is largely the Democrat party stoking up another socialist reform aimed at winning votes and power. Our health care system may be costly and far from perfect, and in need of some reform, but not to pander for votes, and not to further burden those that are already contributing their fair share. The argument should be how to get more people to insure themselves instead of how to get those that do to further insure those that aren’t.By irishguy
August 11, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this
Alice, are you talking about the warrantless wiretap program expanded and protected by the Obama administration?By irishguy
August 11, 2009 1:18 PM | Link to this
Alice, are you refering to the warrentless wiretap program expanded by the Obama administration?By Alice
August 11, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this
Raoul, a report from 2008 found that an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care but a study done in 2007 reported that an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad to receive some kind of elective medical treatment due mostly to cost. Google “medical tourism” - it’s big business. As the government has cut more funding from the budget for medical research, big pharm has picked up much of the research tab. When we turn our research over to the very companies that profit from it, we get results that shouldn’t be surprising: research funded by big pharm is less likely to be published and are more likely to have outcomes that benefit the drug companies than consumers. And yes, anyone can get treated here in the US. If you don’t have insurance you get a $1200 band-aid and the part of the bill that you never see is paid by US taxpayers through federal subsidies. Taxpayers are already footing the bill for at least those that seek treatment but we get nothing in return when the bill is for treating the sick rather than on preventative treatments that can keep them from getting sick in the first place. The best place to treat cancer? Great… you can get cured from cancer here (tell that to the two aunts and a cousin that have died within the last three years from cancer) but based on life expectancy rates you’ll still get sick and die sooner than in other countries with national health plans.By Alice
August 11, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this
Irish: they didn’t need to rely on ordinary citizens to report “fishy behavior” - they could just record it from your phone line.By Raoul
August 11, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this
OK Down, how about this? A lot of people seeking care from countries with ‘universal health care’ spend their own money for treatment in the US. In the US anyone can get treated, whether they have insurance or not, because the people who do pay for insurance cover them. The US ranks very high for recovery rates for many forms of cancer. Poor people flood the Urgent Care centers every day and get treated right away. When faced with large out of pocket expenses, even people without insurance are allowed to pay what they can, when they can. Chances of surviving any number of diseases are higher in the US than anywhere else. In the US, treatment is immediate in most cases, despite the costs. Almost all new drugs in the world for treatment of many ailments are courtesy of the US Pharma industry. We can argue and debate the costs, and complain about profits that insurance companies and big pharma generate, but you cannot argue that our citizens are not also benefitting. We are seeing seniors (mostly) acting very concerned out Town Hall meetings, not because they are stoked by right wing organizers, but because they can see that the logical outcome of universal, single payer health care is the rationing of care to those that are deemed worthy. The assault by the left on ‘profits’ strikes at the core of our nation’s success. If you like France so much, move there and blog about how wonderful it is.By irishguy
August 10, 2009 10:17 PM | Link to this
Gee Alice, what was that email address the Bush administration set up to report “fishy” behavior?By downsized
August 10, 2009 5:29 PM | Link to this
Raoul: Exactly what information are you basing your assertion that we have the best health care system in the world? We rank below dozens of nations in positive outcomes, and pay a greater portion of GNP than most. What we have is the best profit making payoff system for elected officials and corprations in the world. Also, in all likelihood the highest compensated doctors. But, I suppose that’s what you meant. Afterall, look at the job creating machine those tax cuts to the wealthy, lack of anti-trust enforcement, and lobbying by insurance and drug company interests have provided us. Presidents from FDR to Nixon have advocated a single payor system only to have been “bought” out of the courage to do the right thing. Sidenote: France has the “best” healthcare system. Your allies at the reform protests who scream, “keep government hands off my Medicare,” appear to share your logic.By Alice
August 10, 2009 3:46 PM | Link to this
Raoul, social conservatives have always been the voice of the status quo disguised as a voice of dissent. Frankly, it’s how you guys have won the healthcare debate for the last seventy years. As far as turning you in, I think you guys have administrations confused - Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales aren’t in this one.By Alice
August 10, 2009 3:34 PM | Link to this
The rich will go into income preservation if put into an unfriendly financial environment? Are you guys serious??? Because we all know that in the “friendly financial environment” of the last decade (up until we elected Nobama) the rich were so concerned with investing in our country and taking care of the people their companies employed. Clue: the rich are ALWAYS concerned with income preservation (and expansion) no matter what the financial environment because that’s how they became rich. As it is in any for-profit industry, if they can save a dollar by denying you treatment for your cancer or save a dollar on sending your job overseas, they will and they have. No “right” to healthcare? Part of the problem is that people have confused healthcare with health insurance. Do I believe that I have the right to free insurance? No, but I do believe that I have the right to access affordable healthcare. Should access to basic vaccines, medicines and screenings be a privilege only for the fortunate? And how is healthcare in Canada and England failing? The healthcare systems that have operated since the mid-forties? Are they failing because of lower overall costs or resulting in longer life expectancies or lower infant death rates?By Raoul
August 10, 2009 2:48 PM | Link to this
Irish, I don’t think Vick would turn us in. He gets a kick out of our raging debates. However, others that post to this blog might be tempted. Is this 1939 all over again? Conservatives are now the voice of dissent. It’s interesting to see how the other side responds to it. So far, it ain’t pretty.By irishguy
August 9, 2009 9:04 PM | Link to this
Hey guys, you suppose Vick is just fishing for names to turn in to FLAG@whitehouse.gov? ;-)By Raoul
August 9, 2009 7:18 PM | Link to this
Vick, your excerpts from Sirota’s blog posts don’t say anything at all about health care reform. Instead, they are a collection of misinterpreted facts about who pays taxes. TRS is absolutely right in making the almost forgotten point that further taxation on those that would spend capital to grow and create jobs would send that money into tax shelters and self-preservation. This creates even more hardship on those taxpayers holding jobs and trying to pay for their insurance. We have the best health care system in the world, because we generally treat people first, and try to recover the cost later. What we need is the proper incentives to get more people to buy their own health care insfurance. This is accomplished only be job creation. When people get something for nothing, they tend to do nothing at all. That is the road we are heading down with universal health care.By TRS
August 8, 2009 10:30 AM | Link to this
Why these sound like right smart arguments; but, I don’t think it will get you far. 1st, there’s the adage “liars figure and figures lie”. For every website out there which supports these numbers there are others which reflect a whole different perspective. End result, they leave people’s head spinning and they revert to common sense discussion. Most folks instinctively understand who ultimately pays for any taxes on corporations, so in reality a corporate tax is just a indirect tax on all. As for the rich, if put in an unfriendly financial environment, they go into the income preservation mode rather than risk taking. It won’t change their lifestyle and 4-6% returns on tax free products will still allow their already large pot to grow and sustain them; but, as long as their money is on the sidelines, the creativity and innovation that the President calls for to revitalize the economy will be there too. Finally, Sirota’s arguments inadvertently strike at the root of people’s main concern - debt and taxes. Polls show they do not believe the President or Congress when it comes to limiting tax increases to corporations and the rich nor that they have a handle on the monster deficit they are creating. They do not believe the political class and they do not trust them (that includes both parties). That’s why there is such resistence to giving them more influence over our lives. If you read Cal Thomas’ column yesterday, you may not agree with it, but the perception is that DC is asking folks to just trust them and they’ll do the right thing; yet, they have done little to earn any trust.By irishguy
August 7, 2009 11:00 PM | Link to this
The old wealth envy and class warfare arguments are being trotted out again. Socialized medicine isn’t working out so well in England or Canada, what makes anyone think it’ll work here. I don’t think I should be taxed to pay for illegals and those who don’t wish to be insured. I survived my 20’s w/o health insurance. At the time it didn’t seem like a good investment. There is no “right” to health care. BTW, I wasn’t in favor of the Wall Street bailouts either. The gov’t, be they Dem or Repubs, seem to think our money is really their money and seem to be in a race to see who can spend it the quickest.