IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@Cycloptichorn,

Okie, as quoted by Cycloptichorn wrote:

You cannot have it both ways, cyclops, you cannot hate profits and then claim that it is not the same as communists also ranted about.

... he exclaimed confidentally -- on a non-profit website, whose services he uses extensively. Laughing

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

on this forum, honesty is paramount

and yet you continue to post.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Government involvment is not the best solution to inadquate coverage.

In fact, the coverage is inadequate BECAUSE of government involvment.

There are too many regulations prohibiting competition across the state boders, resulting in higher costs.

Just an example!

1 Reply

@katterine,

katterine wrote:

Government involvment is not the best solution to inadquate coverage.

In fact, the coverage is inadequate BECAUSE of government involvment.

Then please explain to me why coverage is near-universal in Japan, Germany, England, France, Australia, and Canada -- where government involvement is much broader than in the US?

1 Reply

Good luck getting an answer to that one, Thomas.

Health care bill passes the final vote in the Senate today, 60-39. On to reconciliation!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Health care bill passes the final vote in the Senate today, 60-39. On to reconciliation!

Let's all hope this turd gets flushed away during reconciliation!

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/122409_congress_20091224_075836.jpg

0 Replies

Here's my opinion on the just-passed health care reform. At the immediate level, most uninsured will not see any change, and that's going to make them mad and disappointed. On the long-term level, most will see our taxes increase to pay for this "benefit" even though Obama has promised it won't "cost a dime more." The $750 penalty for not buying into the health insurance is going to really become the achilles hill that will make democrats vote republican in the future.

The US health insurance plan will not resemble any other universal health plans offered in other developed countries.

Also, I don't see anything in this legislation that will reduce cost or expand health care services for the 30-million more who must buy insurance, and the result will be reduced benefits for the majority.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

You will find that in those countries you listed, the cost ito the taxpayers is exorbatabt andthe quality if care if less than in our current system.

Just because someone else does it, that does not make it good.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What benefits are brought about by for-profit insurance? Why should we support a system of for-profit insurance?

Even a Not for Profit company must at least break even at worst. When claims exceed revenue, you go out of business.

Do you not understand the basic concept of what "insurance" is?

Any insurance company must make a profit to increase reserves for when claims exceed revenue due to an unexpected increase in claims as well as to re-invest in their operation.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's my opinion on the just-passed health care reform. At the immediate level, most uninsured will not see any change, and that's going to make them mad and disappointed. On the long-term level, most will see our taxes increase to pay for this "benefit" even though Obama has promised it won't "cost a dime more." The $750 penalty for not buying into the health insurance is going to really become the achilles hill that will make democrats vote republican in the future.

The US health insurance plan will not resemble any other universal health plans offered in other developed countries.

Also, I don't see anything in this legislation that will reduce cost or expand health care services for the 30-million more who must buy insurance, and the result will be reduced benefits for the majority.

You are correct and this is why the whole thing should die.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Actually, I recall him saying it wouldn't add a dime to the deficit, which is hardly the same as "won't cost a dime more". That's just my unresearched recollection. Now, if the economy booms as he hopes, there are enough 'savings' from Medicare, premiums are high enough, and taxes are raised sufficiently, there might well be no increase to the federal deficit.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

CI, I have to agree with you on this one. Hopefully, Repubs and independents will gain a filibuster-proof majority by 2012 (before it really goes into effect) and repeal this piece of garbage legislation.

1 Reply

@woiyo,

Actually, many nonprofit hospitals have already gone bankrupt. VMC, the Santa Clara County public hospital is in huge financial difficulties, and the increased shortfall with this new health plan will devastate them into bankruptcy.

1 Reply

@roger,

Can you please explain to me what the difference is since this health plan is about the federal budget?

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

Hard as it is to pass the current legislation, it will be much harder to repeal.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

This is from today's AP report on the health plan that was approved today:

Quote:

It also provides more generous subsidies, on average, according to calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. The agency says the approximate average subsidy in 2019 under the House will would be $6,800 a year; for the Senate bill, it is $5,600. Those differences reflect one of the biggest contrasts between the two bills " the $574 billion the House bill provides for subsidies over a decade, as opposed to $336 billion under the Senate measure.

What I find curious about these numbers is the simple fact that these numbers ignore the sure-to-come inflation in our economy - as our economy improves. It doesn't factor in what the "real" cost will be to employers and private insurance buyers.

It's just simply impossible to project what will happen in ten years to cost or our economy.

At $6,800 for the 31-million who do not have insurance now, it will cost $210.8 billion dollars per year. How much of this is going to be paid for by the wealthy earning $500,000 single or $1,000,000 couple? How many make this much every year, and what will their tax rates be?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What I find curious about these numbers is the simple fact that these numbers ignore the sure-to-come inflation in our economy - as our economy improves.

Inflation and hyper-inflation are coming for sure, but they are all but ignored.

Obamanomics = Change is all you're left with.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's just simply impossible to project what will happen in ten years to cost or our economy.

Well, I suppose that you don't know what you have to pay for private health plans in the current either.

But interestingly similar systems worked for more than 100 years elsewhere.

1 Reply

The Republicans look peevish and stupid in their absolute opposition to health-care reform. It now is 16 % of our economy, and would have soon been 25 % but for Obama's reform. In the rest of the advanced nations, health care is about 8 % or less. I think that the public, other than the totally deluded sheep on the right, will catch on.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

It may have worked in Germany, but many countries are having problems with funding their health plans, and it has become more acute in this economic recession.

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know