Vermont moves closer to universal health care ‎

My bad. I am just looking at the rest of the western world and seeing them embrace universal healthcare. Then I assume we would eventually come to the realization that whether a person is a burger flipper or a CEO we all make this country work and hold our society together. You cannot have one without the other.


If we stay on our current track the divide between the classes will be so great that it will tear this country apart. Want to promote stability in our society? Gota throw them a bone once in awhile to even things out and universal healthcare is a start. Since I believe this is going to happen I am pushing for it to happen at the state level where it can be tailored towards individual states and many more options can be tested and improved upon.

I am conservative when it comes to many things Federal and quite a bit more liberal when it comes to State governments. Our Federal government is too bloated and oversteps its authority on too many state issues. They need to be put in their place.
 
Last edited:
DocHolliday said:
My bad. I am just looking at the rest of the western world and seeing them embrace universal healthcare.
Click to expand...
The "rest" of the western world, ay?

Although I do agree with your opinion where you see the government continually overstepping its bounds, we differ on how healthcare should be administered--which is why I am in favor of each state maintaining its own design for indigent healthcare...

which is what we all are really talking about here--INDIGENT healthcare.

Anyone else with a desire to leech off of government tit is merely too busy acting like an idiot and spending their hard-earned money on more iPhone features and fancy contollers for their much covetted Green Day Rockband game.
 
Hey that works for me. Healthcare for contributing members of society and those who plain cannot contribute due to factors out of their control like illness, injury, etc. The fun part is verifying who is who in that equation.

I did mention I wanted this done at the state level so individual states could tailor their plans or lack thereof to individual states needs and desires.

I look 100, 200, 300 years down the line and cannot imagine a world in which healthcare is still paid for by private citizens and many lack the resources to afford it.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is great and all but without ones health it is all a moot point.
 
Last edited:
DocHolliday said:
My bad. I am just looking at the rest of the western world and seeing them embrace universal healthcare. Then I assume we would eventually come to the realization that whether a person is a burger flipper or a CEO we all make this country work and hold our society together. You cannot have one without the other.

If we stay on our current track the divide between the classes will be so great that it will tear this country apart. Want to promote stability in our society? Gota throw them a bone once in awhile to even things out and universal healthcare is a start. Since I believe this is going to happen I am pushing for it to happen at the state level where it can be tailored towards individual states and many more options can be tested and improved upon.

I am conservative when it comes to many things Federal and quite a bit more liberal when it comes to State governments. Our Federal government is too bloated and oversteps its authority on too many state issues. They need to be put in their place.
Click to expand...

I'm fiscally conservative. I give you props for at least being open minded. Too many of us look at this issue from a party affiliation perspective and we cant get anything done. Everything comes to a halt. We will possibly adopt some form of Universal healthcare in the US. It may be a hybrid of some kind. I think you are right about making that a state decision. Each state has different needs and a different demographic. I don't know Vermont that well but if its small white and conservative it might work. In CA something like this would probably become a bloated expense mess of entitlements.

Mitt Romney is one of the potential top Republican presidential candidates and he gets scrutinized all the time because he did deploy a type of universal healthcare plan as Governor in Massachusetts. His argument over the difference between his plan and Obama's is that his plan was state based. Regardless of his argument, as a Republican even he tried to deploy some type of Universal Healthcare.
 
I like the idea on doing it on a much smaller scale to start. Makes it more mobile. More apt to changes, tweaks, etc.

Hell I would even promote the Federal government offering states assistance in getting started and fine tuning these plans until they are viable. However in the end I want it to be the states decision and the states own economy supporting it.

In a sense this is an experiment and like any experiment it can go wrong. Other countries have gotten it to work quite well. Some better then others and even the best system can be improved upon. Federal funding to get the ball rolling sure. Beyond that they need to back off. If the Federal government did want to do this I would need assurances that they would not use this funding as a means of influencing state policies. That is my biggest fear in that option.
 
DocHolliday said:
I like the idea on doing it on a much smaller scale to start. Makes it more mobile. More apt to changes, tweaks, etc.

In a sense this is an experiment and like any experiment it can go wrong. Other countries have gotten it to work quite well. Some better then others and even the best system can be improved upon...
Click to expand...


I agree with that. Keep it a state level thing. Small and controlled. Easily dismantled or changed if needed. At the federal level its going to become a bloated mess and it would become far more difficult to change or dismantle. Obama's plan was rushed through so quickly and its going to end up being a revision nightmare for the federal government. The Federal government has so many debt control issues they need to deal with right now.
 
Just want to know... what other countries have gotten it to work quite well, and how many of these countries are "go to" destinations for people who are seriously ill?
 
VonTed said:
Just want to know... what other countries have gotten it to work quite well, and how many of these countries are "go to" destinations for people who are seriously ill?
Click to expand...

Non citizens aren't eligible. If Vermont had to address the free rider situation it could just require residence for a certain period of time.
 
DocHolliday said:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is great and all but without ones health it is all a moot point.
Click to expand...
Government has no business "guaranteeing" an individual's health by way of insured medical coverage. None whatsoever. Not unless you want to surrender other freedoms where health risks are concerned.

"Good health" is not a basic unalienable/inalienable right of mankind. Nor is "good health" some kind of endowment provided under natural law.



Just sayin' :shrug:
 
FngrBANG said:
Government has no business "guaranteeing" an individual's health by way of insured medical coverage. None whatsoever. Not unless you want to surrender other freedoms where health risks are concerned.

"Good health" is not a basic unalienable/inalienable right of mankind. Nor is "good health" some kind of endowment provided under natural law.



Just sayin' :shrug:
Click to expand...

Insurance isn't a "guarantee of some ones health". It isn't a natural right, but there is nothing to stop it from being a privilege granted to U.S. citizens.

Just sayin' :shrug:
 
VLT.jpg
 
I'm paying to cover those that don't have insurance (illegals), so I might as well see it on my paycheck now rather than with a bunch of insight jargon.
 
VonTed said:
Just want to know... what other countries have gotten it to work quite well, and how many of these countries are "go to" destinations for people who are seriously ill?
Click to expand...

I have certainly had better experiences with (albeit minor) illnesses in Europe than I have in the United States, where I have to jump through so many bureaucratic hoops just to get an antibiotic prescription when I get something like strep. When my dad needed to get a CPAP machine a few years ago, it took him over a year to get through all of the specialist verification processes required by his insurance company before they'd pay for it. That's over a year of withheld treatment after being medically diagnosed with a condition that kills a couple thousand Americans every year. And we're worried about the government getting between us and our doctor?

But if you still find yourself agreeing with Ron Johnson's ridiculous assertion in the WSJ that his daughter would have died under Obamacare (not that he could cite any part of the law that would have affected a multimillionaire's insurance) because only the free market of America's healthcare system develops the innovations to treat new conditions, well, let's look at Ron Johnson's daughter, since he brought her into this. Johnson describes her condition as having "her aorta and pulmonary artery ... reversed." The first procedure correcting this condition was the Mustard procedure, developed in the great free American market of ... Toronto, Canada. The alternative procedure was the Senning operation, developed in the great free American market of ... Sweden. The current procedure is called the Jatene procedure, developed in the great free American market of ... Brazil. The doctor who made the significant improvements on the Jatene procedure that are now used in its modern form to provide the best results is from the great free American market of ... London, England.

So, the procedure that saved Senator Johnson's daughter's life, which he argues wouldn't exist if it weren't for the United States' rejection of universal healthcare because there'd be no free market to drive innovation, was developed primarily in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and the United Kingdom.

Oops, I mean, American exceptionalism! Rah rah we're number 1! :flag:
 
BlueSoxSWJ said:
Yes, clearly attempting to emulate the healthcare system model used in countries that spend less than half of what we do and get better results for it is an idiotic thing to do. It's amazing how stupid some people are, wanting to stop paying more to get less. What are they thinking?!?
Click to expand...
Not only can you not read, but even your misguided point is wrong (because you're a moron).

What country is 100% comparable to the US?
 
ZOD said:
Insurance isn't a "guarantee of some ones health". It isn't a natural right, but there is nothing to stop it from being a privilege granted to U.S. citizens.

Just sayin' :shrug:
Click to expand...
And under what action does it become a privilege?

The only correct answer is "an unconstitutional one"

Just sayin' :shrug:
 
Spiderman said:
I think what this all comes down to is fngr doesn't want to treat "black" people.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But I can tell you for sure that he is an ignorant hick. He thinks that granting privileges to citizens is unconstitutional apparently :ftard:
 
NoGodForMe said:
The only good news about this, is Vermont is a mostly white state. So the number of free loaders they support would be low. But we've already seen what happens in New Orleans when government is the main support, it fails (Katrina).
Click to expand...

Actually VT has always been known as one of the most liberal / welfare states in the country. I lived the majority of my life in VT (21 years) and the amount of whites who leech off of State benefits is insane.

It is worse in specific towns where they actually send them due to slum lords who thrive off of State subsidized housing and other benefits.

Anyone who actually lives in VT can tell you we have way too many freeloaders.
 
Spiderman said:
I think what this all comes down to is fngr doesn't want to treat "black" people.
Click to expand...
What? :jawdrop:
ZOD said:
He thinks that granting privileges to citizens is unconstitutional apparently :ftard:
Click to expand...
:jawdrop:

privileges != entitlement

You can dress it up in semantics all day long but there is NO WAY you're going to convince me that your idea of universal healthcare isn't just another entitlement program in sheep's clothing
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top