Health Insurance the public option
August 192009
A vote for a public insurance option is a vote against the current distribution of wealth within society.
Not withstanding the current public options and without looking to detract from or support those options. We can see a clear difference between what is publicly funded today and the public funding of health insurance.
Health Insurance vrs Public Roads
No one is saying, or at least Im not saying, we should not pay taxes. Nor am I saying taxes are bad and the government should have zero jurisdiction outside the of military.
The Interstate Highway System was funded with 90% federal funds from the Highway Trust Fund (stocked with motorist fuel and excise taxes) and 10% state DOT funds.
Health Insurance vrs Public Education
9000 PER STUDENT
270000 for 30 students
45000 in total teacher compensation
28500 in curriculum ($950 per student)
14400 in mortgage and lease
2930 per year, per student
245 per person, per month
Health Insurance vrs U.S. Postal Service
The U.S. Postal Service “The independent government agency relies on postage and fees to fund operations. Though it has? a monopoly on delivering the mail, the USPS faces competition for services such as package delivery.” answers . com/topic/united-states-postal -service.
No one is forced to pay for postal service and this service does not increase the cost of mail delivery. Health Insurance does increase the costs of Health Coverage for everyone including the uninsured, which is unjust.
Health Insurance vrs Personal Responsibility
We eating foods that are killing us quicker than our reason of strength.
Access to health care should come from wages and sustainable wages should be paid by every employer.
I am all for the government legislating a meaningful minimum wage applicable to all business owners. The governments role is to secure the right of individuals to do good. Individuals can not do good if they can not pay for the services they need.
Thats no solution thats extortion
“But exchanges are not necessarily free. Many are coerced. If a robber threatens you with, Your money or your life, your payment to him is coerced and not voluntary, and he benefits at your expense. It is robbery, not free markets, that actually follows the mercantilist model: the robber benefits at the expense of the coerced. Exploitation occurs not in the free market, but where the coercer exploits his victim.” http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html
Your not driving innovation your driving profits
Don’t leave the president alone in the White House. Pray for him and all those in leadership that we might live quite peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.
SOURCES
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html
http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/lies-damn-lies-and-health-insurance/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-10-21-main-street_N.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/business/09insure.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtoIkn0k28&feature=rec-HM-r2
http://patentdocs.typepad.com/patent_docs/2007/02/retinal_special.html
http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/lucentis-vs-avastin.htm
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011747.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002215.html
http://www.studentloannetwork.com/financial-aid-101/costs.php
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Road_Funding_US.html
Duration : 0:7:35
[youtube l1Q--fsJoHQ]
August 19th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Thanks for the …
Thanks for the interest. I do cover some of your questions in a video segment titled WEALTH and another video titled WAGES and other video segments on Health Care.
A public insurance option and insurance in general does increase wages BUT for the top 10% of the U.S. at the expense of the other 90%. If services & goods were based on the “minimum wage” of the individual, the free market would have to offer services targeted to that wage, otherwise they are not offering a solution but extortion.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:30 am
So what is your …
So what is your alternative — sustainable wages? Considering how rigged and vastly lopsided the increasing distribution of wealth to the top 1 – 5 % has been over the past 30 years, far beyond the value such top few earners in the financial or health insurance sectors, for example, provide, how is redistribution unjust? A public option would be great for increasing wages and creating jobs, especially for small business. The people whose wealth you defend are often those depressing wages.