Quote:
Originally Posted by cementor
Rat,
The key phrase in your statement is "so the whole thing can work for Everyone".
What makes you think this can work. Every government program we have today is a financial failure. Not only will it not work(and it may take time to fail) It will eliminate what good we have in the current system. Once you make this move you can NEVER return. Government run (socialized is the proper term) will not be as good as what we currently have. See Canada , UK the list goes on and on.
Bottom line. The points made are the good parts of the bill. If they had put in the points above. ."ALL Government employees will also join this plan", I might have at least given it a chance.
I haven't been thru it yet and probably won't, but it isn't the stuff you know that will get you, it's the stuff you don't.
The price tag doesn't wash nor does another give away program.
|
SCHIP, the program providing health care to 8+ million kids of working class families, is just one related example of a government program that is not a failure. FEHB is another, providing affordable and accessible choices to millions of government employees.
With the exception of the very limited public option components, tHe proposed programs in the House and Senate are NOT government-run, but rather government-administered, with health services provided by the private sector and certainly are NOT socialized medicine.
Those screaming socialism or socialized medicine are either ignorant or intentionally being fear-mongers. Personally, for the most part, I think it is ignorance...they hear it from their "reliable sources" and accept it as the truth.
The proposed Insurance Exchange, to be administered by the Government is modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program.
FEHB is in effect, an Insurance Exchange for the millions of government workers, providing them a choice of private providers (4-5 national and hundreds regionally) with a range of benefit options and pricing. At some point (different in the House and Senate), government employees will have the futrher option of using the Exchange.
In terms of theprice tag, or cost to the taxpayers, I prefer the House version. It "washes" well for me because more than half the revenue ($500+ billion) is from a surtax on the top 1/2 of one percent of all taxpayers. An additional $120+ billion is from savings resulting from no-longer over paying the private insurance companies providing Medicare Advantage, companies that agreed to limit cost to 5% above Medicare scheduled, but current charging more than 15%.
Neither bill is perfect, but they are significant improvements over the status quo for both the 200+ millions who are insured through employer-bsed programs and the 40+ million uninsured.
---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
we sometimes bend our principles for those we love, especially when those we love do not have the capabilities to fend for themselves very well....
|
That is what a "social safety net" is all about.....helping those who do not have the capacities to fend for themselves very well. Most in this position face such circumstances for a relatively short period of time.
I understand bending your principles to assistance loved-ones. But there are millions who shared a similar love for a spouse who are also unable to fend for themselves, most often as a result of circumstances beyond their control. Should they not have the same opportunities as your loved-one?
Spread your wings and share that principle-bending support for assistance to others who cant fend for themselves as a result of circumstances no different than those you love. Unless you are among the top taxpayers, it wont even hurt your wallet very much, if at all.
That is what a compassionate and caring country does for its citizens.