65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 08:12 am
@revel,
revel, The other big issue about health insurance is the simple fact that their employers are providing it and they have no clue as to the actual cost and how that cost has been increasing. When people do not understand cost, they believe they're insurance is adequate. I think the best way to make employer based health insurance is to transfer those increased costs to the employees. If they are charged just 50% of the cost, it'll cost them $500/month. How many then will complain about the rising cost of health insurance? 75%, 100%.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 08:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
I think it should be decoupled from employment altogether. More and more companies are eliminating insurance coverage from their benefits package. This leaves workers to pay for (or forgo) medical treatments. The number of uninsured is rising at the same time the number of those eligible for entitlement programs is increasing. I'm coming 'round to the idea that single-payer public option for all is the only economically feasible and fair solution.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 08:32 am
And before anyone thinks I endorse any concept of open-ended medical care/coverage for the masses, let me say that most folks won't like what I'd want to see included in the single-payer public plan. Sometimes I think I'm the only American who believes that death is a natural consequence of being born and should be allowed to happen without extensive interventions.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 08:39 am
@JPB,
Alternatively, I'd like to see HC eliminated from the national realm and turned over to the local/state level ala education. This would include the current national entitlement programs as well. Every child is "entitled" to a public education - the quality of which is determined at the local level based on willingness to pay for it through property taxes. Some communities have great public education, some are crap and those who can afford it send their kids to private schools but EVERY child is lawfully eligible for a public education that is required by law to meet certain minimum standards. I don't see why the same model can't be used for HC to provide care to all residents.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 09:17 am
@JPB,
don't see that working so well here or in other poor rural states.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 09:25 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Alternatively, I'd like to see HC eliminated from the national realm and turned over to the local/state level ala education. This would include the current national entitlement programs as well. Every child is "entitled" to a public education - the quality of which is determined at the local level based on willingness to pay for it through property taxes. Some communities have great public education, some are crap and those who can afford it send their kids to private schools but EVERY child is lawfully eligible for a public education that is required by law to meet certain minimum standards. I don't see why the same model can't be used for HC to provide care to all residents.


I'm not sure why you think this would provide either a higher quality of service or save money. There are quite a few states which have proven that they really shouldn't be trusted with such things whatsoever, to a greater degree than the national government ever did.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 09:42 am
@JPB,
It's not as simple as that JPB. If it was it would have been done.

There's a significant cost in HC because it costs. We don't pay those costs in the UK. Not theoretically anyway. We don't have clocks running, and records of them translated into invoices which are sent out to be processed by those who receive them and possibly argued over. It is a significant cost to charge.

Whatever deficiences free UHC produces have to be set against the saving of those costs and if those deficiences can be reduced by good management then the cost saving can either go to lower taxes, which is usually unlikely, or to further improvements in HC.

Most of those who derive their living from the cost of charging will, human nature being as it is, be opposed to free UHC. They would be superfluous.

And a densely populated urban state would have different priorities than a thinly populated rural state.

As our Health Minister found when he introduced the NHS on the tick of a clock, just like that, as Tommy Cooper used to say, there is no sense in arguing about it. You either do it or you don't.

Half measures will leave you still bearing the costs of charging if only because some people will be charged at the zero rate and that invoice takes processing too as does also the entitlement to free care where not all get it.

Once you have what you call "certain minimum standards", which is the easy way to argue, you will have a majority to which they will apply and that majority will translate at elections into higher standards until you get to the point which we are almost at where those who have paid into insurance funds for years are seeing no better standards than those the rest of us get for "free" assuming we accept the taxes needed to fund it. Which we do.

It's a leadership problem. If Mr Obama can't pull his rank all you will get, it seems to me, is a long and costly wrangle. It's a Gordian Knot issue.

It might be worth a single issue campaign for re-election. And let the voters decide at the polling stations rather than trying to in useless slanging matches.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 09:51 am
@spendius,
The day has finally come. A post from spendius that I can understand.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 11:31 am
@FreeDuck,
I struggled a bit with spendi's last post, but I believe I understood most of it.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 11:35 am
I think he's being intentionally extry coherent on purpose.

good on him...

(a black and tan at the pub, mate)
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 03:17 pm
So now you will pay a fine if you dont have health insurance, according to one plan.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans who don't get health insurance once the system is overhauled would be fined up to $3,800 under a proposal that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as Democratic leaders cast doubt on prospects for creating a government-run insurance plan.


Quote:
Just as auto coverage is now mandatory, so would a requirement that all Americans get health insurance. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level - about $66,000 for a family of four - would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.


So now you might be fined for doing something that is NOT illegal?
Does that make sense to anyone?

Quote:
The proposed fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.


The longer the health insurance debate drags on, the stranger the whole thing gets.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 03:19 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
So now you will pay a fine if you dont have health insurance, according to one plan.


This is the 'Max Baucus' Senate Finance committee plan, which is almost certain to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the actual plan which gets voted on.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 03:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I hope it doesnt.

But the fact that the idea has even been mentioned means that someone is taking it seriously.
And if one person in Congress does, then its a good bet that others could also.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 03:27 pm
The dems in the House appear to be thinking for themselves, and that isnt good for Obama and health care reform.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/57565-already-23-dems-have-said-they-will-vote-no-on-reform?fark

Quote:
At least 23 House Democrats already have told constituents or hometown media that they oppose the massive healthcare overhaul touted by President Barack Obama.

If Republicans offer the blanket opposition they’ve promised, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can afford to lose only 38 members of her 256-member caucus and still pass the bill.

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 03:27 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I hope it doesnt.

But the fact that the idea has even been mentioned means that someone is taking it seriously.
And if one person in Congress does, then its a good bet that others could also.


Um; I don't know about that, lots of stupid **** gets mentioned in Congress, which never makes it into any real bill.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 03:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
But the opposite happens too often where **** gets into a legislation that's called pork.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 04:34 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

...The longer the health insurance debate drags on, the stranger the whole thing gets.


amen, brother. too many cooks in the soup, too.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 04:45 pm
@mysteryman,
That's kind of a problem I'm having with the whole debate, and I mean the nationwide debate, not a2k specifically. I think there are three basic House bills and one in the Senate, and they haven't come close to offering one as a complete and final bill. It's almost as if congress is trying to fatigue the population into accepting anything, so congress (all representatives + 1/3 senators) can go the the voters next year and say they have "given" us health care reform.

I'm serious about this. It's looking like one massive shell game
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 04:50 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

That's kind of a problem I'm having with the whole debate, and I mean the nationwide debate, not a2k specifically. I think there are three basic House bills and one in the Senate, and they haven't come close to offering one as a complete and final bill. It's almost as if congress is trying to fatigue the population into accepting anything, so congress (all representatives + 1/3 senators) can go the the voters next year and say they have "given" us health care reform.

I'm serious about this. It's looking like one massive shell game


Other way around - the House has a unified bill,

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

The Senate has several versions.

I think.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 05:19 pm
@roger,
Quote:
I'm serious about this. It's looking like one massive shell game


Maybe that's inevitable if you can get more out of arguing about health care than out of being a doctor or a nurse. It is a bit messy being a doctor or a nurse.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:03:17