Why do we need healthcare reform? (Page 5)

This user's post has been ignored.

So to your questions about productive members of the economy.  If this were the case then the european welfare states should be out doing our economy, but they don't.  European nations by and large have higher systemic unemployment, lower median income, lower per capita GDP (PPP) and slower GDP growth.
unfortunatly the references I have showing this are all in paper form <gasp> not on the internet so links won't work. you can come to my house if you want though

I didn't answer that question because that's not what insurance is.

Is not thw whole point of the exercise that has been going on for the last ~ year not been: the current system is unfair and we have to revamp it to make it fair.  It only became about cost when it was clear the american people were less worried about fair and more worried about cost.

Thats ok I trust you.

But yet they consistently outrank us when it comes to quality of life, happiness, and even for some, standard of living, I guess it depends on what your measure of success is.

Now whether or not their welfare systems are sustainable or not is a whole different thing, and whether its the entire apparatus that contributes to lower GDP and higher unemployment or just certain policies (such as the employment 'guarantees' some countries have which make it very hard to fire workers) I don't know either.  I'm not in favor of a welfare state where we just take money and give it to people who are less well off just because they are less well off either but to say you are getting no material benefit from it at all doesn't seem quite right either. 

I look at it more like your school analagy, where I am paying for the disadvantaged to get something now (such as education or healthcare) so that they can get to a situation where they can pay me back by contributing to society and our economy - both of which I will benefit from in the long run even if the benefits are measured in crime rates instead of GDP.  Or in the case of healthcare, by not shifting their costs to me anyway, but in a less visable way.  But I would guess that my threshold for the benefit I receive in order for my paying taxes towards it is lower than yours may be and that's a legimate gripe I guess - why should we go with my threshold over yours?

 I think where the European countries go wrong (and us too in some instances) is that they don't seem to have a cut-off for people who are given a chance, but opt not to become contributing members.  But personally I would be willing to sacrifice a lower GDP or personal income for a higher quality of life, though I know many people wouldn't agree with me on that. 

I just resist framing the question as taking from one person and giving to another, because I believe it's too simplistic and stacks the deck against deeper discussion.  Health insurance is more than just taking from the healthy and giving to the sick, or taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  It's about sharing risk, over time, across as large a pool as possible, so everyone benefits. 

How open and deep a discussion is possible when on this side the "ayes" frame it as "doing good" and a moral imperative?

2 posts up - WARNING WARNING!  Too many embedded quotes!

That's why people should trim down the quote to the last comment that they are responding to.  (How many people will now respond to this, embedding the quotes inappropriately?)

Oh come on, quit acting so high and mighty. I tested in the genius level IQ when I was 10!