Presidential Health Care Plans

The latter. Thanks for asking!

Re: Presidential Health Care Plans

I'm concerned about this .7 person. Will he require as much health care as a whole person?

Well, at any rate, it's good to see that someone is finally reaching out to Fractional-Americans.


I'm with suzy: not that I trust the cited figures or anything, but gimme' the latter.

I don't like either plan really.

I want all Americans to have health care insurance.

Well to comfort Joe re that fractional person, that should be 26.7 MILLION more people.

I think that it would be nice if all Americans had health care insurance, C.I., but should it be the Federal government's responsibility to provide that?

Um, yes?

Cycloptichorn

It would be nice if all Americans had a lot of things, but does that mean that it has to be paid for by other taxpayers?

If each citizen were asked if they would contribute voluntarily to a fund that would provide health care for Americans who had none, I wonder how much would the persons who are grousing the loudest, contribute?

What say you?

If our taxes can be used to build new schools in hospitals in Iraq, I'm willing to pay more taxes to help our own citizens get health insurance.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen and drive safely going home. I rest my case. Thank you C. I.

I don't know how much the persons who are "grousing the loudest" would contribute, but I am sure that, as always, it would be the lower-income people who contribute more in higher numbers, just as they do with charities. Has a little something to do with empathy and an interest in bettering the plight of others.
Rather phenomenal in this America.

I think you make an excellent point here. I personally hope that more people would contribute than we would typically expect. As a libertarian, I want more private, rather than government agencies, and donation based help programs.

double post, sorry

"If each citizen were asked if they would contribute voluntarily to a fund that would provide health care for Americans who had none, I wonder how much would the persons who are grousing the loudest, contribute?

What say you? "


I pay $600 a month (one person) for HC, so I am already subsidizng people without who show up in emergency roooms. I'm ok with doing that, through taxes or some other way.

What's not fair is that people who work for large companies that get a discounted rate pay much much less, regardless of what they can afford.
Now before anyone comes at me with the "life is not fair stuff", ok, I know that, but it seems to me if our government put forth a real and honest effort to gather facts and discuss options, we could come up with something better than what we have. (Hillary tried to just open the dialogue and they crucified her)


I'm one who does not feel health care is a luxury, like a fancy home or a super car. If one of the wealthiest countries in the world cannot come up with a fair, affordable, effective HC system that covers all its citizens, we should all be asking "why not?"

Where's the current tax money going ?

Third party insurance companies ?
Ill planned invasions ?
Tax cuts for billionaires ?

angie, We are the only developed country without national health care for our citizens. If we can spend billions (approaching 200 billion) of dollars fighting a war in Iraq, I'm sure we can provide our citizens with health care. It's a matter of setting priorities; war vs health care. Me? I'd rather see health care for all Americans.

Seems to me there is a trade off in all 'benefits'.

If a corporation pays or heavily discounts health care premiums for its employees, the cost of health care isn't less. It is just paid in benefits instead of wages. If the health plan is structured right, the benefit may be tax free, but under the current tax structure, you'll pay for it in reduced social security or other benefits later on when you may need it more.

The more the government takes on health care for its citizens, the more you will pay in taxes. Health care may be easier to get, but if the experience of other countries holds up here, you will also have fewer options, diminished quality in some areas, and probable long lines for any elective procedures.

The less government is involved, the less taxes you will need to pay, the more money will be in your own pocket with which to purchase health care that best fits your needs, the more options you will have, and the higher quality of health care.

I would prefer to see government initiative in the direction of medical savings accounts, caps on malpractice suits and elimination of law suits in all cases but those involving gross negligence. Perhaps some kind of incentive could encourage the private non profit sector to open more free clinics or low cost clinics, innoculaton centers, etc.

There simply has to be a better way to do it that what we've been doing. I can't believe that socializing medicine would be in anybody's best interest, however.

This is a side of wisdom that I hope all of you will try to take in.

Public health can not exist without an element of socialism-- at least not in any civilized society. We all live together and one persons health effects your health.

1) We live in a society where we don't let people die in the streets simply because they are poor. Our culture demands that if someone needs critical care, we provide it. You and I pay for this (there is no one else).

I don't think you will oppose this. Thousands require critical care each year and the alternative is that these people die painful needless deaths with no care.

The position taken by Foxfyre and LLR is causing a situation that is simply stupid. There are many conditions that are easy to treat if caught early, and very difficult if caught late. What we are saying is, we will treat you when you are sick enough to be dying. What would have taken a couple of injections now requires critical surgery.

People in healthcare will tell you this is really happening. It is not just heartless, it is unbelievably stupid.

2) Public health is a public concern. There are diseases, such as TB that are dangerous and contagious. The spread of these diseases is stopped by insuring that people who feel ill can get medical care.

Denying someone medical care puts the whole community at risk. It means that people who have potentially dangerous diseases must ignore them. Your desire for lower taxes puts you at risk.

The current concern of biological weapon attacks makes this a worse concern. If there is a significant number of the population that doesn't have access to medical care, this means that potential carriers of a pathogen will not be treated and their disease will not be detected.


It seems the only argument against govenment-supported health care is lower taxes.

I will gladly pay higher taxes for this because it saves American lives and will improve public health. A more reasonable health care system that provides basic care to all Americans may even save money. It will mean that we can treat diseases early, before they are critical and before they spread.

Kerry wins this debate hands down.

The problem is that he doesn't have the guts to go far enough, )but that's my general complaint about Kerry).

My tax money goes to a lot of causes I don't agree with. Why not let at least some of it do some good, like with health care. You people gripe about your taxes helping the less fortunate, then willingly pay for twice the military we realistically should need. It ain't a democracy concerning military; why should it be a democracy regarding health care?