Post Reply
Page 2 of 48  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 48 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Universal Health Care
7 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2008 - 9:43PM #11
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,261
There have been many proposals on how to pay for universal health care. Massachusetts enacted one. Here is a link that outlines Massachusetts plan. My state is considering such a plan because when they crunched the numbers they found that if they could get everyone to carry health insurance even if the state subsidizes it would cost less than the current model of loss of revenue on unpaid hospital bills and increasing medicaid costs. Our hospitals and ER would not have to be bailed out. I think you would need to have a medical card to obtain service. I do not think they were going to cover illegal immigrants. They would have to provide proof of coverage as well. if everyone has to do it then you achieve parity, costs go down and everyone can have affordable seek care.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1045.cfm

"While many oppose a mandate to buy insurance—even basic catastrophic insurance to protect the community from individuals not paying their bills—on philosophical grounds, they should still have a firm factual understanding of the Massachusetts mandate, which may be less problematic than they realize."

Maybe health care will have to be managed by the states. Maybe the Fed government can't figure it out. But my state thinks it will cost less. Eadler you make a good point that all the other developed countries have universal health care but all those other countries do not spend as much on defense as we do.   If you deconstruct our defense spending I think you find much waste and profit going directly into some one's pocket.   Opponents to universal healthcare say,  keep your hands out of my pocket.   yet don't seem to mind the waste and profit going into the corporate pocket.
"I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story."

This hint that Potter had merely swaddled an anti-government rant within a "religious" blanket illustrates the main problem with Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Hobby Lobby: it takes claims of religious scruples for granted.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2008 - 9:51PM #12
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,261

stitch813 wrote:

Eadler your point is well taken but it is also true that after all those debates Hillary said she couldn't rule out garnishing one's wages. Why didn't she say that at a debate? Because then someone could point it out and discuss it. She didn't want a discussion of how she was going to enact her health plan she just wanted people to know it was universal. She makes me very cynical


   
garnishing one's paycheck is the same as mandate.    Massachusetts mandates participation.  I do not think that HC is unknowledgeble about how to enact a health plan.   

as it stands now I can purchase insurance for myself at a monthly cost of 500-800$ with a  deductible of 5000-7500$.     I just cannot do it.   SChip requirements change so often and funds dry up so even children in my state do not have reliable insurance.   One day they are covered the parent makes some overtime or receives a christmas bonus they are out.

"I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story."

This hint that Potter had merely swaddled an anti-government rant within a "religious" blanket illustrates the main problem with Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Hobby Lobby: it takes claims of religious scruples for granted.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2008 - 9:59PM #13
stitch813
Posts: 5,519
My problem is not so much that she may garnish wages to pay for it but that she never said that.  She and Edwards both wouldn't answer when Obama asked if people were going to be forced to pay for insurance during the debates.  I thought it was trying to avoid a discussion about it.  Now I know why. 

Also I went to her website and she talks about giving tax cuts to people to help them pay for it.  Tax cuts?  I think that is something most people don't know.  I guess to have universal health care it has to be paid for, but I still don't understand how you can force somebody to buy something they can't afford and then give them a tax cut like that is going to somehow make it better.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 12:06AM #14
TENAC
Posts: 25,660
[QUOTE=eadler;262308]This seems like a bizarre discussion to me.
So few of the posters seem to get it.
Instead of looking at the total picture, people are being distracted by superficial issues in the question of how to provide health care.

We are the richest nation on earth. We pay more for health care as a percentage of GDP than any other country on earth
by far.

Despite this, we have a 47M people uninsured and many more millions underinsured. Health care costs are the most frequent reasons for bankruptcy.
Health care costs are so high without creating a more healthy population.

There is an excess of technology and medication use, which in many cases contributes very little to health and well being. This is driven by the for profit system.

There are many examples that can be cited. Among them,
Statins are way overused. In excess of 100 patients have to be treated at a cost of 1000/year, for one heart attack to be averted over a 3 1/2 year period in a high risk group. It is costing $13B/ year for statins in the US, and many are taking them who don't need them.
Most prostate cancers are benign and do not need treatment.
It is known that prostate cancer is way overtreated in the US and many patients are harmed by the unnecessary treatments.

New types of Xray machines are being installed at 100M a piece and are going to be used for purposes for which they are not essential, because health facilities want to advertise the latest and greatest.

If we reformed health care, our costs would go down, health would improve for those who are covered, and we would have enough money to cover everyone. It isn't rocket science. Every developed country in the world except the US has universal health insurance, and most have single payer. The health of their people is as good as or better than the people of the US.

As it is, in the US,  people, who are insured, are paying a hidden tax, due to cost shifting , which is needed  to pay providers, for acute care, for the uninsured, not covered by government payments. This is paid for in part by employers, and their employees, as well as the few who have private insurance, because the medical system gets them to pay that which government payments do not cover. The money is being spent  on acute care only, and not on preventive care where it would do the most good.

The for profit system does not deliver good and cost effective health care. The providers have the market power and the information, and few consumers know enough to choose the right and most cost effective treatments for themselves. That is why health care is an example of free market failure.[/QUOTE]

I would dispute the claim "richest nation" on earth.

Only by congressional accounting.  If you look at receipts versus expenses (All receipts, ALL expenses), its not so.
Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 12:08AM #15
TENAC
Posts: 25,660
[QUOTE=petofi;261849]Garnashing people's wages for health-care?  Why don't they just look North of the border and follow Canada's example?  If that's the best Hillary or Obama can do, I will be voting Green for president.[/QUOTE]

You dont think Canada's wages are garnished for their failing healthcare system?

lol....that is funny.  Garnishment, fees, TAXES.....cant pass the duck test, not close.
Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 1:05AM #16
Whisperingal
Posts: 25,009
TENAC--do you think it might be apropos in any discussion of healthcare reform to identify yourself--as you have on other threads--as someone with a big financial stake in there NOT being healthcare reform?


WGal
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 1:18AM #17
n0parkin
Posts: 2,350
Many of us who do have health care have it provided to us by our employer.  It is, of course, garnished from our pay checks.  The other way it is generally garnished is by not giving us the raises that we would need to keep up with inflation.  Health care is going up so much right now, the employers are doing anything they can to get us to pay for more of it.  Each year we have to pay a higher co-pay and there's now a fee for going to the doctor at all. 

The biggest problem I have with my health care insurance is not that it's garnished from my paycheck, but that if I get a chronic disease, there's no guarantee I will keep my job.  If I lose my job, no health insurance.  So when I may need health care the most, suddenly my 'insurance' will be forcing me to pay out of pocket. 

As anyone knows, once I lose my health insurance due to a chronic condition, there would be no insurance that would take me. 

I'd much rather have that same paycheck garnished, but know that I'll be covered no matter what.  This may sound old-fashioned, but I would also have greater peace of mind knowing that everyone was covered.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 1:50AM #18
JosephBaileyOne
Posts: 564
[QUOTE=stitch813;261744]Hillary Clinton left open the possibility of garnishing wages to pay for universal health care.  I think that is the point made by Barack Obama several times in different debates, but of course then Hillary didn't answer the question.  What do you think of garnishing wages to force people to get healthcare?

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448&page=1

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

Clinton went on to say, though, that such mechanisms would not include penalties. "They don't have to pay fines … We want them to have insurance. We want it to be affordable. And what I have said is that there are a number of ways of doing that. Now, there's not just one way of getting to that."[/QUOTE]


Universal health care violates every tenet of what is left of American federalism and is as bad an idea as the NCLB Act.  It gives the federal government total power over your healthcare and gives even more power to the feds for those seeking to turn the federal government into one big socialist ocean of power.  It strips the individuality from the citizen and is nothing but bad news all the way around.  Whatever need to be done about healthcare throughout American, universal healthcare is NOT THE ANSWER!
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 1:56AM #19
Whisperingal
Posts: 25,009
" Whatever need to be done about healthcare throughout American, universal healthcare is NOT THE ANSWER!"

What--in your opinion--is the answer?


WGal
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 9:19AM #20
JosephBaileyOne
Posts: 564
[QUOTE=Whisperingal;262930]" Whatever need to be done about healthcare throughout American, universal healthcare is NOT THE ANSWER!"

What--in your opinion--is the answer?


WGal[/QUOTE]



My answer would not be looking in the direction of the federal government as if it is God, and the end all and be all of everything. It would involve making sure that the federal government stayed as far away as possible from getting any authority over anyone's health, something that is not the case now nor would be with universal healthcare.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 48  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 48 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook