Hillary's Health Care Idea NSFW
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html

So, the right-wing people are trying to convince the masses that $110 billion would mean a lot of extra taxes. By my calculations, $110 billion is just $380 for each person in the US. Now, only 1/3 of Americans earn money, so some people might have to support their kids and spouces. But if they could give good health care coverage to every American for that much money, it sounds like a good plan. Espesicaly considering that I spend $840/year for Medicare right now, and I see nothing of that myself.

Right now, as a healthy 27 year old, I pay $600 a year to a for-profit insurance comapny. My company pays at least that much as well. And I have a $2500 high deductible HSA plan right now, so the insurance doesn't do much until I spend $2500. (Well, I get to use the first $800 that my company pays into the HSA first). I would much rather pay the governement if they could do a better job.

So, how can she say it wil only be $110 billion? Is that what Americans would spend on doctors, tests, medicine and new technology. In her plan she could get rid of the insurance employees, stockholders, billing departments, etc.

I don't know. I'm sure that I could come up with a basic health care plan that would be free if you had a major injury. But it wouldn't cover the basic visits and simple illnesses (which wouldn't cost too much for the individual).

What do you think of this new health care idea? Would you rather have government run health care or insurance companies? Wouldn't a non-profit insurance company backed by the government be a good idea?

Universal healthcare is completely unnecessary and simply anti-freedom. It is not about providing care to the old (Medicare) or the poor children (Medicaid), it is about forcing everyone into one government-constructed/controlled box.

Why are people so willing to lay themselves down to the whims of politicians that we know have their hands covered in blood? Why are they so willing to pull me down to the sacrificial altar with them?

wow this is wrong in so many ways..... Providing health care to everyone is anti-freedom? I knew those pesky liberals were trying to make me a slave. I just knew it. They almost got me by offering me free health care good thing I read this post and am not going to give up my freedom's to them. You know like free speech or the right to privacy....

So if it's $380/year per person in the US, and only 1/3 work that means....let's see $380 x 3 = $1140 per working person. Why should the working individuals be forced to support those who don't work?

I don't know, with health care costs out of control it seems like something should be done. I wonder why most of the new proposals are keeping the insurance companies in the loop?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Any questions?

I can remember, back in the 70's, going to the doctor's office for a check-up, physical or a minor ailment, and shelling out $20.

That's what my copay is now doesn't seem like a lot of inflation as far as the copay is concerned.

That wasn't the copay. That was the entire bill. There really was no insurance involvement, unless it was to cover something major.

well thats my co-pay as well for any visit for any reason no matter how many times I go...on top of the 120 a month I pay for my part of my insurance.

Im with BOR I remember when without insurance the entire visit was the around the same as just a little more than my co-pay is now....

I get the "itemized this is not a bill" statement and it just astounds me how much they charge for just a regular office visit these days

How about we answer that question with another one.

Why are people so willing to lay themselves down to the whims of markets that we know have their hands covered in blood? Why are they so willing to pull me down to the sacrificial altar with them?

nothing but a huge wealth windfall for insurance companies, and this tying proof of health insurance with the ability to work? talk about dependency on government. anyone who thinks the benefits are going to far outweigh the costs are extremely shortsighted.

Suggesting that one should have freedom from medical care should mean that they want freedom from police care, fire protection, disaster relief, use of public roads, and air. How about you stop paying taxes, and thus you stop using all that which the government affords you? How about the military stops protecting your family? How about you stop complaining?How about you stop being so selfish? I don't hear anyone complaining about having to pay taxes to the firemen come when there's a fire... at someone else's house!

I alone pay $515 a month. Not a year, a month. And $25 co-pay just to see a doctor. Why? Because I have a "preexisting condition". I'm not any more likely to need medical care, but that's irrelevant. If I left my healthcare provider, I could not get coverage in the US (cept by the worst companies out there that would require me to pay for most of any potential surgery). The funny thing is that in 50 years, I could pay for a $300,000 surgery.

The free market doesn't work with healthcare. It doesn't work with the military. It doesn't work with fire or police protection. It doesn't work with prisons. Get over the propaganda your community college economics teacher instilled in you about how the free market can solve all our problems and let's actually fix this.

I want universal health care but I have a hard time believing that it could be done for only $380/person/year. I'm paying 410/month right now for my family and my company is paying more than half. The govt is going to do it for 10% of the cost?

i don't need or want health insurance right now, nor do i want someone forcing me to get it

Yes, you do. You're not immune to sickness, nor are you superhuman. Just like saying "I don't need police" doesn't make any sense, saying "I don't need healthcare" doesn't make any sense. You might not want to pay for it, but you pay for police without too much complaining.

When you have to fork over thousands or tens of thousands for something simple like a broken toe, you'll have wished that you would have had medical insurance.

I am always astounded when this discussion takes place in the US.

I'm not opposed to the universal health care idea, people need it. But rather then forcing the tax payers to do it, why not go after the insurance companies and the medical industry, and any other cause of these outrageous prices (like lawyers and all the malpractice ligation that is a major reason for the prices)?

Again I'm not opposed to the idea, I just think it should perhaps more be a thing were people pay a reasonable rate because the government is regulating the industry and not making the tax payers handle their agenda.

I think one of the biggest problems with health care is that there is little or no competition in many cases, especially hospital costs. I don't see where Hillary's or most other plans do anything to foster competition. Where there is little competition prices are naturally going to go way up.

There was a special on 20/20 the other night where they pointed out that most insured people do not ask and do not care what medical procedures cost since insurance picks up the majority of the bill. Most people do not ask the cost and when asked most doctors do not know either. We were asked to imagine what would happen to the price of food if we had grocery insurance similar to the way most health care insurance works.

It's a nice idea, but while we're tied up in court for 15 years, many more people will suffer under the current system, myself included. It'd be awesome if we could go after these people, but even if we win, what will be done with the 45m people who can't afford insurance? Are we sure that the market will help them to get medical care?
That didn't happen in Canada or the UK. Or France.

A big part of this hypothetical shift would be openly beating and raping government officials who take kick backs. We need to be clear that this shift won't just be "we're going to universal healthcare", it's also "and if you fuck with this, you're going to burn". While UH represents an amazing opportunity for the US to improve, it also represents an amazing opportunity for no bid contracts just like we see in the military industrial complex. The military health care complex cannot form.

I don't know how many of those people are not children of a working parent(s), retirees, wealthy enough to not work, stay-at-home parents or other people that the worker cares about and would be willing to pay for?

Yes, there are a bunch of people who might be taking a break from work, raising a kid, or a bunch of other things that aren't offensive to society.

It is the slackers, drug-dealers, illegal immigrants, drug users, lazy people, and other people that would abuse the system and use more health care than they would pay for.

The other part is, would this drive innovations that cure disease instead of treating it? I doubt some cheap cure would come out right now, when they could get big $$$ month after month from treating the symptoms.

Whatever the outcome, I hope that the discussion is productive and people don't care about who has the ideas, but what their ideas are.


This is the other side of the coin. Would the government tell you which doctor to go to because they are the cheapest? Or would the government set the price that doctors can charge? I don't know how you would control prices and if the experience that doctors have, their success rates, how many patients they see, or what speciality they are would dictate how much they get paid. I would like to see a list from every doctor for how much they would charge for each procedure on-line. They can't do it now because there are different rates for different people and their insurance status. I don't have a problem with the amount of money that doctors currently make, or the quality of care. But it is the insurance companies and lobbyists that need to be dealt with.

I'm for Universal Health care 100%. In fact, I don't think Hillary or any of the democratic candidates are doing enough - although I know proposing ridding the country of all private providers would be very difficult.

I'm not a socialist, but I feel the government SHOULD supply everyone with health care. I don't care if that means I have to pay more taxes.

Hillary Clinton became the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions. This happened after health care providers spent $100 million dollars to defeat Hillary's health care plan while Bill Clinton was in office.

Unfortunately, most of the upcoming candidates are all from BIG money.

this is a good point that should be repeated.
so far, it doesnt seem as if folk from the right are spending a whole lot of effort thinking about this matter, simply because the ways arguments are framed does not appear to have any contact with the content of clinton's proposal. you'd think the proposal would be the topic of the discussion and not vague anxieties about being "enslaved" (pick your functional equivalent term) by the state.

basic health care is a fundamental human right, it seems to me.
the variable is the mode that gets us from here to there.

Amen!

I didn't buy into it in 1992 when I didn't have any healthcare coverage and could have used it.

No, I got off my ass and took a job that gave me benefits instead of an hourly FTE with no sick days, no vacation days. I didn't want to work in the jobs that I have at that point in time in my life. But the trade off was benefits versus my ego. My ego doesn't pay the bills, nor does it get me better healthcare or better education. My own initiative and drive does. I'm not interested in picking up the slack for someone else.

I bettered my life without government intervention.

I don't find basic health care a fundamental right, I find emergency services a fundamental right, but not basic health care because who defines what basic means?

Interesting. Because, as I was reading the previous posts, I found myself wondering pretty much the same thing. What exactly is the definition of "basic health care"? Certainly emergency services, vacinations, perhaps an annual physical exam. I have no interest in paying for someone's boob job, nose job, or botox injection. What about dental care? Is that covered as well? If so, (and it probably should be) then again, up to what point? Is orthodontia covered? What about caps, crowns and bridgework? Again, I'm not interested in paying for someone's "bleaching".

I have no inherent problem with universal healthcare as a concept. The government took care of my health care when I was in the service, and they did a pretty respectable job of it. I just know that for everyone that truly benefits from such a system, will come another that finds a way to abuse it. Still, the human animal should take care of it's own.

An individual's right holds power so long as it does not violate another's rights. I have a right to exchange goods and services with an employer who wishes to employ me. Part of that is healthcare coverage. To force me to a) use, b) pay for someone else's healthcare violates my rights as an individual. Universal healthcare should be a voluntarily-entered-into system supported by voluntary tax-deductible contributions.

My first amendment right to assembly does not give me the right to assemble in my neighbor's living room, because that violates his rights. Don't succumb to the temptation to be lazy and sacrifice one person's rights for another.

You still didn't address my point, seretogis. Would you opt out of police and fire protection and pay slightly less taxes? Would you opt out of paying for streets and sidewalks and stop driving or leaving your home?

You're already getting socialized services, and I don't see you complaining. Most people didn't start complaining about prisons until they were privatized, and now they are one of the biggest messes in the US.

universal health care is basically "the human animal taking care of its own"...

the only stumbling block here is that folk insist on using a very strange understanding of the individual as separate from society and then work out even stranger arguments that present the possibility of universal health care as some kind of affliction----or an impediment to gumption and Individual Achievement.

personally, i find all these arguments to be beside the point: for example, nothing changes about one's Gumption Leading to Individual Achievement if there is universal health care.


why should not some of the suplusses generated by american capitalism be redirected into making something like a decent quality of life available to all?

and where does the idea come from that universal health care would be a will-nilly affair in which any number of people can get cosmetic surgery gratis?
i dont recall that being featured in any proposal.
but maybe its in the fine print.

For all of you with nice $10-$20 co-pays, ready yourselves for the day when your company pulls the rug out from under you. Health insurance expenses for employee coverage are steadily rising. The company I work for switched from a 'traditional' health care plan (they paid all the costs and our co-pay was $20) to a HSA plan with a $2200 deductible almost two years ago. So in essence, I am being paid less money than I was when I was hired. From what I understand, this is becoming more and more common as the cost of providing coverage is becoming too onerous - especially among small businesses - so the costs of most non-catastrophic medical care are being transferred to the employees. As a single mother, this has been a real burden - especially this past year in which we have needed a lot of medical care.

I will pay more taxes not to be put into the position of questioning which is more important - taking the child who has been throwing up all morning to the doctor or buying food for the week. These are not imaginary scenarios taking place only in impoverished homes or among the unemployed. And it's only going to get worse.

I don't mean to pick on you but I'm so sick of seeing this type of statement all over the internet: "I did x and therefore those that didn't are lazy" There is no logical basis for it. Yes our system gives opportunities to individuals that have drive and some luck but regardless of individual performances the group that they rose from remains.

We could give all the career cashiers, construction workers, waiters, etc. college degrees and job skills and it wouldn't make a difference. There are only so many jobs available that give good benefits. The end result is that we'd have millions of college educated career cashiers, construction workers, and waiters.

The "I did x and therefore those that didn't are lazy" is illogical and does nothing to address the real issue. The reality is that no matter what the individuals do, there will always be low paying jobs out there and the workers aren't going to get coverage.

Individual Success Fallacy
1. Person A describes a specific situation where he or she has done something successful.
2. Therefore anyone who hasn't done that specific successful thing is lazy.

1. Elective surgery should remain… elective. Not covered. You can purchase outside insurance for that.

a. Roe vs. Wade is still in effect. However, some regulation should be in place. Perhaps… first one’s free, after that you have to pay it in full? To avoid being used as birth control.

2. Universal Healthcare should cover:

a. Well-person visits 2x year
b. All vaccinations
c. Emergency services
d. Specialists with referral from PCP
e. Dental check ups

i. Surgeries covered if necessary
ii. Braces for function okay, for looks, not covered

f. Surgeries in general covered

3. In order for this to happen:

a.Hospitals have far larger overheads than you realize.

i. Equipment and medicine: Medical equipment is far more costly than necessary, and pharmaceutical companies should NEVER have been allowed to be for profit. Their costs are astronomical and affect every aspect of healthcare.

1.See prescription coverage costs to pts. as well.

ii. Wages: Doctors get paid too much.

1.However… malpractice insurance is sky high.

a. More penalties for frivolous suits!!
b. More internal discipline for shoddy doctors!
c. Better QA to avoid this shit in the first place.

2.Cost of schooling is ridiculous

a. College costs in general are prohibitive. System needs overhauling.
b. Perhaps consider free tuition for primary care physicians/PAs. Major shortage.

iii. Emergency Services

1.While they should be available to all, being available to all is a huge cost to hospitals, and is the biggest reason they are so often in the red.

iv. That being said, I doubt their CEOs need high 6-figure salaries either.

b. We need to address our own sense of entitlement.

i. Americans don’t like to wait… for anything. From the basic check up to the more urgent trauma, we wouldn’t like to wait any more than we already do.

ii. Paying taxes for UHC is similar to the police idea, and providing preventative care cuts down on overall costs of managing diseases.

4. Cyn, I swear to god, if I hear that fricking argument from you ever again, I will come down to your apt. and smack you. Let me know when you’re a farm worker who clearly has no company to provide health insurance, or when you’re anything other than a man with opportunities to work jobs that provide insurance for you. It’s a lot cheaper to provide insurance that it is clean up the mess caused by not having it.

That is a specious bullshit argument that just lets people feel superior rather than addressing the underlying issues – like the fact that our society is ill-equipped for people who aren’t middle class.

That's all... for now.

Great post, JJ. But, I think the CEOs have 7 figure incomes. I remember reading somewhere that George C. Halvorson, CEO of Kaiser, a non-profit organization, brings home tens of millions a year (so even 8 figures). Tens of millions, btw, could pay for a lot of surgeries.

No, I have not said that anyone was lazy. I stated simply it wasn't acceptable to me any longer so I changed what I could change which is my job career and path.

You can complain if you don't get a raise if promotions are offered to you and you decline them. that's not lazy that called CHOICES.

As far as construction workers and cashiers, most of the ones that I known are union, they have benefits.

I also remember when medical insurance and health care was very affordable. I wonder what has happened to cause the costs to get so out of control.

Perhaps people are using health care services much more than years ago. As I recall we hardly ever went to the doctor and a prescription was a very rare thing to get. I read somewhere that today the average family gets 9 prescriptions a year. I imagine this also requires a lot of doctor visits.

We hardly ever watch commercial TV anymore but we do watch the evening news shows most days. It seems that every other commercial is for some prescription drug with the message "ask you doctor if XYZ drug is right for you". I wonder how many millions of people are getting "hard on" and "shaky leg" pills paid for with their insurance.

I think if we go to a universal health care system that something will have to be done to reduce the number of prescriptions and therefore doctor visits covered. I could be all wrong and people really need all these prescriptions but I doubt it.

I did work in a low wage garment factory for 3 years. The people who worked alongside me STILL work there to this day and do not have health coverage. I took a man to ER who sliced his finger off with a 12" garment cutting blade. He paid for that visit with cash.

THEY chose to stay at that company. Some of these people are very smart and intelligent people. They CHOSE to stay at that company that provides NO INSURANCE benefits, even to the principal owners. I have helped a few of those people move from that company to companies that do provide benefits.

It's called choices. Plain and simple. Skogafoss' mother doesn't have many because she made OTHER choices that limited her current ones.

You could have easily continued to pursue you a different career when you came out of college, but you wanted things that made you make choices you didn't want to make.

What we're all saying is that while you may have had that opportunity, not everyone else does. Some people are very much stuck and have zero options for getting health insurance. There's a reason 45 million Americans don't have health coverage, and I have to tell you it's not because they all just don't think they need it.
Complaint could easily end up with the person not only not having medical coverage, but food and a place to live.

Cyn, I'm glad you got out and moved up etc. I'm glad it seemed so easy to you.

It's not that easy for lots of people - it's a gross simplification of a complex issue.

That's why I posted all of that... everyone acts like if we just make a healthcare tax, magically it will work to have Universal Healthcare. That's just a fallacy. There are a lot of complications in the way of that.

you know some of those stuck 45 million people are the people who didn't apply themselves in school. They didn't bother to take advantage of opportunities presented to them because maybe it was too far of a drive or commute or the work was too hard. Again, choices. When do you stop having to pay for the choices you've made in life? In my opinion, when they put the dirt on top of your cold dead body. Until that point in time, no sympathy from me as to the fact that your choices are limited by your education, your lack of skills, legal work status, or because your mom didn't hug you enough as a child.

Those that legitimately need some sort of healthcare are provided for, in NY state we have a program that provides healthcare for all children under a particular age. Medicaid paid for my grandmother who recently died, my current maternal grandmother and grandfather gets benefits. They MOVED from NY state to Las Vegas Nevada because the benefits and cost of living would be better for them.

Again, choices they made. For the children a social program to help them out since they don't have the capacity nor ability to deal with insurnace companies.

Disabled people? They have health coverage as well. My mother in law is covered by the state when she needs to see the doctor. It's a choice for her to make between buying something she wants (no not food or rent) and going to the doctor. Again, choices.

It was not easy. It was hard work and again it was choices.

There are people I know who were laid off in 2000 who still don't have jobs, not because they are lazy but because they choose not to work. They cannot command the same salary or title they had. So they have no healthcare coverage after COBRA stopped. They didn't even wish to take a temporary job. So they've sold their invenstments, dipped into their retirement funds.

I'm supposed to finance their healthcare when they are old? No thank you I'm not interested in helping someone that wasn't or isnt' interested in helping themselves.

How do you know they didn't try hard in school? How do you know the school even taught them anything? How do you know they weren't helping raise 5 kids in a single parent family and thus couldn't concentrate on school? You are generalizing based on a bias that you have. Not everyone in the world has the same opportunities as you did and the reason for this isn't necessarily their fault.

And I'm of the opinion that I don't wish to pick up the tab for them.

I've stated plain as day that there are social programs that are currently providing for those that don't have healthcare coverage that have little to no means. I'm not interested in more. I'm happy to put my hand in my own pocket and donate to NGOs that do provide social services as a CHOICE I make. Not one that is forced upon me and someone puts their hands into my pockets and takes out money as they see fit.

So what you're saying is that because SOME (an unknown number) of these people *might* be lazy or don't apply themselves, ALL of them don't deserve our help.

BTW, sympathy isn't necessarily a thoughtful reaction. I can have sympathy for people I don't want to have sympathy for (ex: suicide bombers). I do think it's amazing that you seem to want to punish these people, though. As if you're god, and because they don't live up to your standards, they don't deserve a basic necessity of life (and let's not pretend that medical care isn't a basic necessity).
There you go with those assumptions again. Those that legitimately need some sort of healthcare do not necessarily get it. If you've seen sicko, you've seen people doing everything they can, but who are met with insurmountable walls. Had I not been lucky enough to get my grants and scholarships for college, it would be reasonable to assume that I would have had to work even hard than I did (two jobs) to pay for my tuition. That may have made my school impossible to pay for, I would have had to drop out and I would have only had my high school diploma to get me a job. I would have had to go to San Jose State or maybe even a community college, gotten a less business friendly AA. and BA and I would be making a fraction of what I'm making now. Imagine trying to pay $515 a month for Kaiser when you're making $12 an hour and paying for tuition. I may have had to choose between going to school and having medical coverage, and there would have been jack I could do about it. What would you have said to that young man doing everything he could to go to school so he could be a responsible contributing member of society, and who couldn't afford medical insurance?

Really, there would be nothing to say except "I'm sorry." Well, I'm not satisfied with just saying "I'm sorry". I'm doing something about it.

At least you HAVE a copay. There are so many folks out there with no health care at all. They just have to either suffer in silense or decide between foot, rent or health care.

It just isn't right in this day & age in the USA.

And more power to you. I'm saying NO THANK YOU.

I don't wish to contribute to it. We've had this same go round in the Sicko thread. I'm not interested in participating.

You can assert fallacies towards my arguments, when the same fallacies exist in yours. I'm stating simply I am of the opinion with no facts but anecdotal evidence and bias from life that I do not wish to participate nor contribute into such a system.

You go ahead, you change it. I'm not interested in playing alongside with you.

I don't have a college degree. I have a highschool diploma. I dropped out of college because I needed to move out of the house and wanted to live on my own outside of my parents rules. I didn't qualify for scholarships because my parents made just over the limit. I didn't qualify on my own except for student loans. What's your point? Again mine is choices. I wish to have a choice. I choose to not fund someone else unless I have a choice. Plain and simple. Call me selfish and I say great I am selfish to those that don't live in my village or my community.

Cynth, do you believe medical care is a necessity, along the lines of police or fire protection?

No.

I believe some basic health care is a necessity: annual checkups, vaccinations, emergency services access (EMT/EMS which is what I equate to police and fire protection) People currently have access to such things via many many different social programs currently in effect.

So if you're shot in the face and the surgery to save your life is $35,000 in the ER....? Too bad?

I'm all for paying for such things with user fees. If someone is a recluse who never leaves their home, they will never put gas in their car, never pay gas tax, and therefore never pay for new roads to be built.

As for police / fire protection, it easily could be handled like any other public utility -- if I don't want or need running water, I don't pay my water bill. If I don't want or need electricity, I don't pay my electric bill. Police and fire protection likely would remain socialized for the most part, but on a much smaller scale. Seattle PD would be paid for with taxes from Seattle residents -- as it should be. San Franciscans should not and would not pay for the Seatlte PD.

Will, i've been reading your posts on this thread and they all convey the same theme....reliance and dependence upon government agencies and their people. This is completely opposite of what this country was supposed to be.

You ask about relying on police and fire forces. I say no. two reasons why.
1) I can protect myself and my family, provided i'm not being restricted and regulated out of the ability to do so by my supposedly 'out for my best interests' government.
2) No court has held these government agencies responsible or liable for failure to do said objective, so why on earth should I be forced to rely on them for protection and services?

public roadways, etc.) this is what every single vehicle property tax, vehicle registration, inspection stickers, etc. were supposed to provide. It doesn't, as is evident by the numerous proposals that come up every legislative year to afford government to increase revenue to provide these services. What is happening to continually keep the government from coming up short on providing said services adequately?

To also coin an argument that many government dependent people like to use, where is the right to medical care in the constitution? Not that this should matter, but I find it a convenient outlet for alot of people who can't logically explain the reasoning behind their policies other than this is what they 'think' it should be like. More likely, it's an issue of this person or that person determining that they can't handle their responsibilities on their own and feel that someone, anyone, everyone should bail them out of the problems they have caused themselves. I'm really sickened by the large group of people who are twisting the plain text of the constitution to redefine what it says and what it means to conform to their ideals of what kind of country they want to live in.

The many groups who are pushing to get unconstitutional programs like socialized medicine or universal healthcare are the same groups of people who existed back in the times of slavery and before. They are people who wish to subjugate an entire class of people in to being dependent upon a government body.....a government body that has been usurped by large corporate entities whose sole desire is to accumulate wealth by stepping on the backs of those below them. This is exactly what hillary clintons universal healthcare will do for the health insurance company, and I stress the word company. If anyone with intellectual honesty can see, why would the health insurance companies contribute billions to her campaigns, unless they had something to gain. Please don't think it would be out of the goodness of their hearts to keep a healthy america. If you do, then you might be the one that had gone to community college with an inept economics professer (that generalization was for you will).

The bottom line is that universal healthcare will ruin healthcare for most of the population. It will be handled like social security. When the government realizes that they can't afford it, they will cut benefits. They will continue to cut the minimum amount of benefits in order to NOT piss off the populace and to keep the health insurance industry profitable.

Cynthetiq I find your logic that you don't want to pay for someone else a bit hypocritical. Do you realize many of the things you have today are paid for by people other than yourself? For example, fire, police, military, roads, bridges, utility lines, ect. There are people who make a lot more money in this world that pay a whole lot more in taxes that you do and I bet many of them aren't happy about it. Are you thankful that they provide for you? Are you only willing to receive from others but not give? If you really don't want people to pay for other people we better change over to a flat tax that is much higher than you are paying now that way everyone pays equally.

And they don't (unless a San Franciscan is unlucky enough to get a speeding ticket in Seatle).

Police funding is local not federal.

This thread is further proof that people generally don't care about their fellow man (Or woman). It seems to me that the people who oppose this idea or any others like it do so under the basis that they don't feel that they should have to pay for others. Therefore, I'm assuming you also don't pay taxes.

again, that is ER. And that person will be paying for that for some time $35,000 is no chump change.

if that person is me, I have insurance at this point in time, I'm covered by a $50 copay for utilizing the ER facilities.

and I disagree that this is further that people don't care about their fellow man. I'm stating that I don't care about someone else who doesn't care about themselves. I'm not willing to burden myself by someone who isn't willing to or cannot. I have not said those that aren't able, I've stated that I don't want to cover those that are taking advantage of public services that would are otherwise able bodied people that can contribute.

No this turns into people who have stuff that don't want to give it up to those that don't have.

I'm not interested in spending my extra money or compromise my living standard so that someone in Tennessee can have health care. I don't live in Tennessee. Just like I don't want to be forced to contribute a percentage of my income to pay for starving people in Africa. I'm happy to contribute to helping out my fellow New Yorkers, and preferably the NY people that live in my neighborhood.

I'm happy for it to be a choice, not forced.

Quite the contrary. The amount of taxes I pay is quite obscene and absurd. I'm not happy to pay it but I willingly pay what I must after all deductions and other exploits I can utilize to save as much money in my pocket so that then I can choose what to do with that money.

this is quite the misnomer. I pay taxes, federal, state, and local. would I like to pay less? absolutely. Would I like to see others pay less? absolutely. If we reduced funding to the bare minimum absolute necessaries, you'd see alot happier people. Instead what we see are a large group of people who feel cheated because they don't have the amount of wealth that a few select do, therefore they feel that they can impose their will upon those that made more money. This is how politicians stay in power, blame the evil corporate empires, promise to make them pay their 'fair' share to take care of you, while underhandedly accepting money from, and creating programs for, those same companies while portraying it to you as a 'benefit' that will make your life easier.

Did they? Did they leave me huge deficits to pay for the roads and infrastructure?

No they didn't. Roads are constantly rebuilt and refreshed via current taxes. Gasoline tax 9/10 at the end is federal taxes, the rest of the embedded taxes pay for other things. My license tags are revenue that goes to paying for the roads, bridges.

For the utlity lines:
Also those things are raised initial fund via municipal bonds people then INVEST in their local city and infrastructure and in return get a profit in the future. They aren't doing it because they want their grand kids to have better highways and byways.

Is this going to be one of those things where you tell everyone what you think the founding fathers were thinking?

The founding fathers weren't gods, and if they screwed up, it's up to us to fix it.
So what are you doing to end mob violence in the great lakes areas? And what are you doing to prevent guns from getting into the hands of violent criminals? How many red light violators have you pulled over in the past month? Do you show up on command to the scenes of robberies, follow clues and collect evidence, make an arrest, and turn over the perp to the judicial system?

You, dk, are not a reasonable replacement for a real police force. Stop pretending you are. Seriously.
So you're saying the judicial system has never prosecuted a federal or state agency?
Yes, that's what taxes provide. Socialized roadways. What is happening? They tax us. They do their job, and we pay for it in taxes. That's how government works.
The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence. You know, the paper that explained why we wanted to start our own country?
Oh my god. Unconstitutional? Where do you get the idea this is unconstitutional?!
Healthcare already is ruined, and it's been proven in every other western country that universal health care works. Even governments much more poor than our own can easily afford it.

Here's what this motherfucker thinks.

I think that it is worthwhile to make healthcare cheap and accessible, not because healthcare is a right, but because it is better than the alternative. I think that society is better off, both financially and otherwise, when it isn't in someone's financial best interest to wait until a condition requires emergency care to do something about it, even if that person isn't presently living up their potential as a cog in the market.

Someone who is sick and works a health-benefits-less job will generally be more of a drain on the resources of the people around them than someone who is healthy and works a health-benefits-less job. You don't exist in a vacuum. Even if you are completely incapable of sympathising with someone who doesn't get benefits through their job (not that it is even realistic to expect everyone to actually be able to get benefits through their job), you should be able to recognize this and favor cheap access to healthcare out of purely selfish reasons. A rising tide raises all ships, or some shit. Healthy people are better consumers and more productive workers.

People shouldn't have to worry about losing their house because they get sick, but beyond that, the fact that people do lose their homes because they get sick is often bad for everyone else, too. I think that we're all better off if healthcare is easier and cheaper to get and i don't mind spending some of my money towards this end, and i don't mind spending some of your money too. You couldn't have earned that if not for the fact that you exist in an interdependent economy that requires a certain amount of living and nonliving infrastructure. If you can't fathom the notion that you would not have been able to make that money if you had only ever taken what you earned than you don't deserve it(yes, even you, mr. "i walked uphill in twelve feet of snow both ways till my toes froze off while you were eating cheetos and watching the price is right". I don't care how much harder you worked, you've still benefitted immensely from taking more than you earned.

I recognize the fact that the government often fucks things up, but in this particular instance, the market approach seems to have fucked things up all on its own quite nicely. Looking towards britain, canada, et al, it seems like they've found a way that most of their citizens are satisfied with.

Also, if folks hate having to rely on the government so much, perhaps they might benefit from a life where they can truly be free of government meddling; somalia perhaps? I hear it's a libertarian dream come true.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in the declaration of independence; the only thing is, it is an affirmed right of man, the government has no bearing on the equation. It simple states the government has no claim or power over your life, your liberty, or the (reasonable) pursuit of your happiness.

The only bearing government would have in the question was if it were restrictive of your pursuit to life; the lack of federal subsidized universal health care is not a restriction on your life or liberty.

And last but certainly not least, as has been pointed out to me several times ini arguments over state/religion, the DoI is not the law of the land, the constitution is.

The constitution is a framework for our government, there is only one law in the constitution and it pertains to treason. The Bill of Rights and the following amendments are restrictions on government, it is not a bill that codifies law, it restricts the power of the government and affirms the natural inalienable rights of the people.

In short, it would not be unconstitutional per say as far as I can tell as the congress has the right to levy taxes, and it would be an issue of amendment and voting as laid out by the constitution. But to say it is an affirmed right is just false.

Luckily for us the FF's in their wisdom left the door open for change, it just sucks now-a-days that people seem to think the government has the responsibility/right to do certain things, when there is no mention of it in the constitution; it complete circumvents the system and takes the power out of the hands of the people.

QFT. The overall country would benefit from not having 3rd world country conditions for some of its citizens.
filtherton, I think we're not having the same conversation they all are. This isn't about the constitution. This isn't about "why should I pay for that person". This is about reducing bullshit strains on the economy and workforce, about having decent living conditions for every single citizen, not just those who threw away their opportunities so they could make other choices and look down on those who don't even have those choices to make.

As always it is perceived as an 'us vs. them' crisis when it is really a 'you and me' sort of one.

I think filtherton speaks my mind very eloquently and with the proper placement of curse words even. :)

Normally, nobody should HAVE to tell you what the founders were thinking because it's all there in black and white.

and you think that you are smarter than they were? That YOU have the answer to all of the countrys problems where they had no clue?

Seriously, I never said such a thing so I have no clue why you would try to put those words in my mouth. Police on the streets to regulate traffic and INVESTIGATE crimes, fine. I don't NEED cops to protect me when i'm fully capable of protecting myself. If people would start being responsible for their own protection and safety instead of trying to pass it off on the government, there would be alot less spending and budget problems in localities. There would also be alot less crime, at least violent crime.

As I brought up in another thread, that unless the situation is excessively egregious, no they don't. Look up Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The police are NOT responsible nor liable for your personal individual protection. They will not be prosecuted for failing to protect you from crime.

Providing for the general welfare is not socialism. It's not socialized roadways, it's public roadways for the express purpose of regulating commerce. Not to make YOUR travel easier.

how is the right to life the same as a supposed right to medical care? Implying a right to medical care intimates that you should be able to go to a doctor, get cured, and not have to pay for it at all. Thats what a right is.

It's called knowing the constitution as a legal document, not as a so called 'living document'.

It has NOT been proven that socialized medicine works in every other western country when people have to wait excessive periods of time for care on certain issues.

Thanks, i'm glad i'm not the only person who thinks this way.

btw, happy birthday, mm.

For those who dont want to pay for the uninsured, I would suggest you already are.

If you have insurance through your job, your employer probably has seen an average premium increase of 10%/year for the last 5-6 years. In many cases, a portion of that increased is passed on to you, the employee. At the very least, your employer has less funds in the pool for salary increases.

Now consider that hospitals are facing costs of more than $20 billion/year to provide services (emergency and otherwise) to the uninsured. How do you think they recover some of these costs? Or why do you think your employers premiums have risen so much in recent years? In part, by hospitals raising their fees on the insured.

Universal care is both good social policy and fiscal policy.....and does not mean socialized medicine.

I know more about the 21st century then them. I'm more familiar with our current problems, and I'm more capable of coming up with solutions to these modern problems because I didn't die 200 years ago.
Reread your post:
You do in fact rely on the services that the police (and for that matter firefighters) provide. To suggest otherwise is rather insulting to police and firefighters.
Those two things are linked, dk. The police officer pulls over the drunk drivers so he doesn't run you or your family over. To put it in language I think you may appreciate: they protect you and your family so you don't have to. You can act as a contingency all you want, but doesn't knowing they are there make you safer? I'm sure the answer is yes.
Either the people pay the taxes to the government who is, based on what I see with police and firefighters, not trying to make a profit to fill, a CEO's 7 figure salary, or you pay a corporation who's goal is profit. Think about that. Imagine having to pay $300/mo for private services (for those who can't have guns or who aren't willing to kill).

I'm wondering something, how many fires can guns put out? We're concentrating on police, which creates an interesting take because you're a second amendment type, but do you have the knowhow to fight a 4 alarm fire? Do you have the tools and training necessary to protect you and your family from a fire?
You're seeing a difference where there is none. Public roadways -> public healthcare. Same basic idea: we all pay into it a little so we all can use it.
It's called something? Okey dokey. The living part is the amendments (you know, like the second amendment?). The document can be changed and updated as needed, thus "living".
They don't. Go to the UK. But don't bring a gun, they don't allow those there.

That's a good point.

I'd also like to frame the emergency services thing in a different way... See, we already have universal healthcare - it's just the most inefficient and shitty system devisable, and it harms the health of our nation while it drives the cost of care up for everyone.

Cynthetiq - you and I went around about this in the Sicko thread, and I don't think much has changed about either viewpoint. However, I do want to point out that it's naive at best to think that every uninsured guy who comes in the door with a severed finger pays his bill at all, let alone in cash. The uninsured people who are transported to the hospital by medivac and require emergency surgery to even survive the night don't all pay their $100,000 bills. The diabetic who doesn't take care of their condition (because they can't afford preventative checkups and insulin) and requires the amputation of an ulcerous and gangrenous foot to avoid death from sepsis may not pay their $60,000 bill. So who does? You do, in the form of higher hospital service charges and increased insurance rates. There's no real alternative to this. So I move that we accept the fact that by opening the door to emergency services we've already created a national healthcare system which is inefficient and shitty. The question is whether we'll improve it or stand our ground on ideological concerns which are moot.

I think the biggest difference I see is that some people think this should be a right, and some people don't. I am one that doesn't.

I am of the opinion that if you want health care, pay for it, or put yourself in the position to have insurance, but I sure as fuck don't want to pay for your health insurance, and based on how efficiently the government manages itself now, I certainly don't want them managing my health insurance.

I'm a HS dropout, I'm a recovered (not recovering, recoverED) drug addict, spent a couple of years homeless (living in a park homeless, not couch surfing), have lost everything but the clothes on my back...twice, became a single parent w/ a 21 month old, and a 4 y.o.

I now have health insurance for myself and my children, I have a decent place to live. Why? Because I have busted my ass to put myself in a better situation. I wasn't GIVEN any opportunities. I fought tooth and nail to create them. Guess what? The system doesn't owe me free healthcare, free food, free housing, or anything else. If I want it, I had best get off my dead ass and do what it takes to get it, don't expect me to provide it for you when you don't.

so you are suggesting that because it is the 21st century and not the 18th, that the limitations on federal power listed in the constitution should no longer apply? Because if you do, then the following statement by you makes zero sense with the actions that you are trying to accomplish.

The amendments do not 'live', nor do they 'breathe', like most liberals tend to intimate. To further this part of the argument would require digging up an old thread or starting a new one though.

I don't 'rely' on them, although I am not saying they don't provide a benefit, however, I do not NEED them to protect myself nor my home. Having been trained in both security matters and how to fight jet fuel fires (thank you USMC) I'm pretty secure in my knowledge of how to fight most fires. Equipment to do so is the deciding factor. Pity the city won't let me hook up to the fire hydrant.

The answer is no, simply because you are looking at things backwards. They provide the contingency because THEY are not around me 24/7/365. Because I am the most immediate person surrounding myself, I alone am completely responsible for mine and my families protection. The police are my backup. To put it in terms YOU might understand, If a small group of thugs managed to break through your homes defenses, who is going to protect you and yours for the few minutes it takes a policeman to arrive?

do you carry a cop with you wherever you go? Does ted kennedy have a bodyguard everywhere he goes?

apples and oranges in fact. With public roadways, I can use them as often or wherever I want. With public healthcare, there WILL be limitations and things not covered.

I'm assuming that you consider the UK a 'western' nation? This is just one example of why socialized medicine doesn't work.
Liberal MP goes to US for cancer operation

Of course there is an alternative... the alternative that those who are against universal healthcare suggest: Let everyone fend for themselves.

Someone can't pay for their treatment? Let them die.

Can't afford to look after yourself if you have diabetes? It's a good way to thin the heard.


This is essentially what is being said by many here on this thread.

Do you seriously think that the Federal government is competent enough to manage this???

On top of that, let's seriously look at who is pushing this, why they are pushing it, and who stands to seriously benefit from this? The spin about healthcare for all is exactly that, spin. The health insurance companies would not be pushing for this with billions in campaign donations if they didn't stand to reap a windfall of profit.

My point is that the "alternative" is no longer a choice. We've already made that choice, and we opted for universal healthcare. All of those people get emergency or stabilizing treatment. They're all billed, but they don't all pay - so in essence it's a payment optional system.

That's one way to look at this situation. Another is to ask whether the intended beneficiary (the citizen/patient) benefits. Still another way to look at it is that the healthcare companies may support one version of universal healthcare, but we the people may implement a different version of it.

One of the fallacies espoused by those who seem to be against universal coverage is that it would result in a government run program.

Much of the focus of Hilary Clinton's plan is on personal tax credits to working families and tax incentives to small businesses to make employer-sponsored plans more affordable for more people. More than half of the 46 million without health insurance are working and this option could provide affordable insurance.

And for those who dont like their current plan for whatever reason, the other component of her plan is to provide the option is to join the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, which includes numerous private health insurance options. There is no new federal bureaucracy.

I imagine you never once during your homeless drug addict phase ever got anything you didn't earn, which is good, because if you had ever once gotten anything you didn't earn you would have never actually gotten off your ass and got your shit together. Because that's how things work. ;)

I'm glad you have your shit together.

What about the idea that, regardless of the perceived fairness of it, we are all better off if everyone has access to affordable health care?

Charlton, what about the smokers with lung cancer? If they can not pay for their treatment they should die.

How about alcohol drinkers? If they get cirrhosis of the liver they should die if they cant pay.

What about the people who love the extreme sports? Should I or the others have to fund their healthcare because they love the adrenaline rush and break their neck?

These are a few of the instances where people control their life and health, I am sure there are hundreds more, and if they dont take personal responsibility for their well being why should I have to fund it?

Why is it that the have nots want to take what they do not have from the ones that have?

Why does the Democratic party the champion of the have nots, the ones who barely pay any taxes keep digging their hands into my pocket?

Votes

Your assertion that we should look to people like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson for an answer to the current healthcare crisis is asking a lot, and presumes an almost supernatural role to each man. It has less to do with federal power in general, and has more to do with the fact that times change, and thus solutions change. It is clear that the current health care system is not the cure for what ails us on a large scale. While it may be more than adequate for the rich, for many people it suffers from many problems. We can't just say "No more big government!" to every problem we see. Nothing is that simple (something Ron Paul will probably realize on his death bed). In order to solve real world, complex problems, we need to develop real world, complex solutions.

I love the Constitution. I think it's one of the most amazing things humanity has ever produced. It's not an oracle, though. There are some problems to which the Constitution has no answer.
If the Constitution were unchanging, you would not have the right to bear arms as a part of a well regulated militia. You have your second Amendment, as proof that the Constitution is a changing document. There is no argument against this fact.
Assuming you really were trained in fire fighting, you know well that different fires behave in different ways. You know that a jet fuel fire burns completely different from a brush fire, which burns completely different than a house fire.

The point is that without police protection, you wouldn't be able to defend your family. Once you've run out of ammo, in a world without police, and shipments of ammunitions are intercepted and production stops, you'll be down to hand to hand combat and only those who get ammunition illegally will have guns. So, how about we leave the inevitable "I can protect my family from anything" testosterone contest just this once. Please.
No one. We go into the basement in an emergency involving someone trying to get into the house. Then the police arrive and deal with it. See? I don't have to kill anyone, and the police do their job. Fortunately, the odds of my house being broken into are so low that it's not really a concern.
There would be a thankless job. Watching the black sheep of the family drink himself stupid and squander his family name.

Time to get away from the "I can protect my family" talk, as it's a threadjack. You would call 911 if someone came around your house whether you shot them or not, so case closed.
You can't park on the highway with our public roads, and you can't get a nose-job with public medicine.
Why do you always do this? Post a link to a story that's an exception, then present it as the rule. You do the same thing with gun crime.

He came here because the system for the rich in the US is actually quite good. No one has argued to the contrary here.

But violating or circumventing the constitution isn't one of them. You want universal healthcare supported by all of america? amend the constitution so that it states that every american has the right to medical care.

There is not one recorded moment in history where 'more government' ever made things more free for the people.

There is a prescribed process for this change, as you well know. All too often though, the far left uses the judiciary to circumvent these changes because they know they don't have enough populace support to change said constitution.


Because you always state your ideas and goals as the end all/be all solution, that socialism would solve everything or that peaceful resistance solves everything. I'm merely showing you the chinks in your armor.

Think about this for a minute, exactly what you said. If socialized medicine were that great, then there would have been zero reason for this 'wealthy' individual to trek to the US for surgery. That alone should tell you that all socialized medicine did was reduce the quality of care overall so that everyone would have some. Is that what you want for us here?

Universal healthcare doesn't violate the Constitution, and that's that. It's not a Constitutional issue at all. I was humoring you, but you need to realize that.
Meaningless.
The far left uses the judiciary? Like the far right uses the executive? What does that have to do with anything?
Weakest ad hominem ever. Want to answer my question?
Socialized medicine is better for the average person there, and it's better for the super rich here. I, alone, make over $150k a year. I still get shitty medical care. I was turned down for a surgery because it wasn't cost effective. I'm not a celebrity or super rich. I wonder why you'd want a medical system that is only adequate for ~2% of the population.

And I'm fine with that as it is. Because they don't pay already. So I'm already paying for it. From what I read and understand I will pay more not less for those that aren't able to pay for it. I'm not interested in that.

Charlataan, yes. That is in effect what I'm saying. I'm not painting any rosy pictures here. Thin out the herd. If you cannot take care of yourself, the collective should forever?

Should we just then have organic food for everyone? I mean it's better for them in the long run. Why not it's their health we are talking about if they are just eating McDonald's, KFC or BK Lounge. So we should pay for someone to have triple and quadruple bypasses because they didn't choose to eat healthier? They were too busy doing whatever else they were doing to cook or purchase healthier meals and I'm supposed to feel bad for them?

Should you and I foot the bill because someone is a chronic drug addict and isn't interested in rehabilitation?

Again, I see it as choices. You make the choice to smoke? Why the fuck shoud I pay for your poor fucked ass with a lung transplant? Shouldn't there be consequences to actions? Or let's toss that out too since we're talking about the betterment of human beings and all that kumbayayas.

As far as Diabetes is concerned onset Type II diabetes is growing exponentially. Do you think that it's something that just happened? or do you think that there are lifestyle choices such as eating right and excercising that are made that remove it from being critical?

At what point is it okay for me and you guys to tell me you are done taking money out of my pocket and my quality of life? Where does it end?

Then maybe you should spend more of your money to pay for those starving people in Africa and other third world countries. Maybe that will assuage your guilt.

Think of how many mouths that will feed. I mean in ratio it's just like how much the CEO of Kaiser's salary will cover surgeries. Don't you want to keep those others alive???? :surprised:

Cynthetiq......I am trying to understand how personal tax credits to working families and tax incentives to small businesses to enable millions more workers to have access to affordable insurance will take money out of your pocket anymore than lowering the marginal rate on the top 2% of earners or cuts in the capital gains tax... not to mention the more than $100 billion in corporate tax breaks enacted in the last six years to industries as diverse as restaurants, nascar owners and importers of Chinese ceiling fans (just to mention a few who benefited from Bush corporate tax cuts)

And why do people insist on equating universal health care to socialized medicine?

all a matter of 'because you said so'? guess that settles it then.

So we can safely assume that you and your pursuit of socialism is about doing away with freedom of choice?

If you consider that ad hominen, then you better thicken your skin some, and that does answer your question. Sorry you can't see it.

so instead of trying to remove the impediments of a 'class society', you intend to cement it in to being with your full support. The health insurance industry is the reason we have the screwed up health care system as it is. If you'd like to see health care be available to all and at reasonable prices, do away with the power that the health insurance industry has over the way medical issues are handled.
If you still get bad medical care and you make that much, then i'd see about changing your policy, cause damn!!!!

I have yet to see tax credits, rebates, abatements change what comes out of my pocket.

Mayor Bloomburg recently gave us NYC property owners $400 credits for property taxes. Whoopdefuckingdoo. After he raised property taxes he gives some of it back after a year of holding it?

When I lived in California the voters voted for better auto insurance. I believe all that media, I was going to get money back for all the insurance redlining and disproportionate charging of rates. I didn't even get a nickel back. I moved out of the state and as far as I know all my friends and family that live in CA still haven't seen dime one from that voter mandate. It was a bunch of hogwash and I'm not buying it again.

People are wronged let's make some sort of class action suit, let's get the company to pay. Yeah I have coupons from Microsoft for $150 so that I can buy another Microsoft product. I have $20 coupons from AT&T so that I can feel better that they fucked me out of monies but in order to get my "$20" I have to spend more money with them.

Maybe you don't feel fucked by Steve Jobs because he charged $599 to the first iphone people and then when the new ones come out at $399 everyone cries found and he "gives" back $100 to be used in Apple stores. He's still got your $200 dollars.

No, it's just as much how I see the government working just not as efficiently.

If you're referring to Prop 103 in Cali, auto insurance prices in California declined in the subsequent 10 years (according to the Consumer Federation of America):

Auto insurance prices in California declined 4 percent between 1989 and 1998 while jumping an average 38.9 percent nationwide, according to a new survey released by Consumer Federation of America.

....Ralph Nader and other consumer advocates credited Proposition 103, passed by the state's voters in 1988, which tightened insurance regulation.

"California stands out," said Robert Hunter, director of insurance for Consumer Federation, who prepared the study. He said Prop. 103 brought smaller rate increases, fewer uninsured drivers and more insurance companies to the state — as well as fatter profits for the companies.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Autos...d=88105&page=1

I dont know if Hilary's solution is the answer, but health care reform that results in significantly lowering the number of uninsured can result in the same win-win.

The long and short of it.

I see healthcare as an essential service. It should be provided much in the same way that water and electricity are supplied.

They should not be privatized, they should not be for profit.

Nothing I have seen so far from the US system suggests that healthcare for profit works.

There are Constitutional backdoors for everything, including universal healthcare. One could easily interpret "promote the general welfare" to include, but not be limited to, universal healthcare. Boom, done. Constitutional.
It's not black and white. The US isn't socialist enough, of course, but we couldn't operate in a pure socialist system (if there is such a thing). What you said above is still meaningless. Government gave the world roads. So there, boom, you're wrong.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. In other words, what you said had flawed logic. It has nothing to do with thick skin, it has to do with arguing a point that makes no sense.
Socialism is anti-class by nature. Capitalism supports a class system by nature. It's not a rule, but they each tend to be that way in theory and practice. So, actually, universal healthcare is anti-classism. And you can see that in Canada, the UK, and especially France (where everyone is treated like they're millionaires, it's nuts).
I have one of the best programs Kaiser offers. I also happen to have had a coarctation of the aorta repair done. That kind of medical condition tends to complicate things.

I skimmed through some of this thread, so if this was mentioned, I apologize.

Fire protection and police protection, in addition to infrastructure, are completely different from health care, because health care is generally to protect the individual, while the others serve society as a whole.

The purpose of fire protection is not to prevent the destruction of one's personal property. It is to prevent the fire from growing and destroying additional property. Anyone that has ever read descriptions of major fires and how firefighters will destroy property as a preventive measure (fireblocks, etc.) knows that.

The purpose of police protection is not to protect individuals from crime, or to punish crime on behalf of individuals, but to prevent crime throughout the society so it does not expand and destroy the society.

Even infrastructure is for the good of society, because of allowing ease of movement for many in many different situations.

Unless one is discussing infectious/contagious disease, health care is about keeping protecting the individual, and assisting in the recovery of one person.

Maybe we should be asking how the government made it possible for the costs of health care to rise to the point where government-provided health care is a serious option in a free society?

wait really they get treated like Millionaires? I guess that's why those muslims rioting were pissed off because well they were just partying like millionaires do.

no wonder we're in such a mess.

so there were no roads at all until the idea of government was formed? seems mighty far fetched to me.


If you think that socialism is anti-class by nature, yet rich people can fly wherever they need to for the best care while the non-rich are confined to whats in the area for their care, then how can that truly be anti-class? If it was truly anti-class, then they'd have that level of care for all people, all the time.

Cynthetiq don't forget that if there were universal health care your employer would no longer have to pay for their workers insurance. Much of that savings would likely be passed on to the employees as raises (at least at the good places to work). So well your taxes may go up so would your income. My work pays around $1800 a year for my health insurance and I pay an additional $200 and my insurance sucks big time. I would welcome an additional $2000 in my pocket and health insurance on top of that. I'm sure my taxes wouldn't go up that much. Ohh yeah I hope you realize we are paying about $400 per person per year for the Iraq war....... thats probably more than universal health insurance would cost. Why should I be paying for someone else's war?

I'm sorry but you're not immune from this. The health care providers aren't there to protect you to the extent you deserve, they are there to give you the lowest amount of care possible. Look at the millions of American's who HAVE health insurance but are still being fucked over by these companies.

Instead of being praised for helping people, doctors and health care providers are praised for lowering the costs. How is this right? Why do you think we're #37 on the list in the world.

I don't care about all this socialist aspects, or the "I have the right to not get the service" stuff. What goes around comes around, and while maybe you don't think you should help others, they'd be helping you as well.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I just find it completely wrong that we as a country are so hung up on the government invading our lives that we can't put it aside for our own health. Why don't we lessen the government filter on the internet, books, etc. and use it to our benefit - for something like universal health care!

I would argue that universal health care, while different than police/fire/infrastructure, is also good for society, at several levels, the most obvious being the economic impact of far higher absenteeism (resulting in lower productivity) of uninsured workers and the higher cost of premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured (a study from Familes USA put that cost in 2005 at an average $922 higher premiums (and rising) for employer-provided family health insurance).

And dk, every public policy discussion does not have to rest on constitutionality. There are times when its just good public policy.

Canada, UK, France. No messes.
Do some homework. Please.
They are moving to a different system. He came here because the top 2% here get exceptional care. That care is slightly better than the average care in the UK (supposedly, I've not seen any evidence besides the trip to confirm this). Also, you don't seem to understand how anti-class works. Anti-class is equality; the foundation upon which socialism is built.

And they need to make as much profit as they can. So they lower their costs and the claims they pay out, but will want you to see this other doctor and take this new drug.

They all have schemes that try to limit the amount of stuff the insurance company has to pay for.

And private insurance companies are more inefficient than government if you view profits and bonuses as loses. In a non-profit, that money wouldn't need to be collected. Private insurance might cover more stuff, but I really don't need insurance coverage for a lot of those things. It is the $25,000 bill I worry about. Not the $1,000 one. I would at least like to see government insurance for everyone if your bill is over $10,000 or $20,000. And people who are working and paying taxes should get preferential treatment, but it doesn't mean that the uninsured shouldn't be able to get catastrophic treatment without paying taxes

I'm not saying the government would get it right at first, but it can't be any worse than the messed up system we have today.

You're absolutely right, and when you take this sentiment and combine it with the reasonable successes in Canada, the UK, and France... this is kinda turning into a broken record. Either you realize it works (as we see in other countries) or you don't.

Is the United States Canada, the UK, or France? No.

Has the divine right of kings been replaced with the divine right of those without jobs?

Im just curious how many posters in this thread that are in favor of a plan like Clintons work in health care?

yes, I am.

And I didn't get any benefit from it. I move in 1991 while they were still fighting it out in court. And if they didn't fuck you in the ass with the insurance, they sure did with the electricity.... so no. It overall wasn't a better experience in my eyes to spend 4% less then the national average and then pay up the ass and have rolling blackouts for electricity. Still MORE money out of my pockets at the end of the day. It isn't the nickel and dime here and there it is ultimately how much at the end of the day stays in my pockets.

Not to belabor the point since it is a bit off topic, but I think you are confusing the issues here; prop 103 had nothing to do with the cost of electricity. It did have a positive impact on auto insurance rates.

I stand by my conclusion that national health care reform that can significantly lower the number of uninsured can result in the same win-win.

Please take a look at the study from Families USA (link) that makes a pretty strong case that less money "stays in your pockets" and you (and/or your employer) are paying higher premiums as a result of the costs for the uninsured.

I'm not confusing how much money comes out of my pockets. At the end of the day it isn't how much less I spent on insurance. It is OVERALL how much money I get to keep versus all these other people who insist that it's better for me to give up my money "so that other people will benefit and thus I will benefit."

Strange because in 2005 I don't recall anything close to paying another $955 more for my health coverage because of these findings. My insurance premiums went up, some benefits changed such as formulary prescriptions. But no another $955 didn't come out of my pockets. If it did, I would have been screaming about that as well.

I don't want to pay that $400 either. I didn't want to before and I still don't.

But you must be seriously delusional to think that the $1800 savings your company makes per head would be given to the employee in some fashion. No it goes to the profits of the company because the company didn't incur the expenses. You think magically that any business owner would suddenly give that money away? The only change that I see would happen is that the $200 you no longer pay would go into your left pocket and taxes would go up and that would take it right back out and then some.

Again, it still equals more money out of my pocket.

Oh wow. So because we.... what... different countries, that means that things will be completely different here?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14478117

Actually, it looks pretty good. Not only that, but as the front runner, it actually stand a chance of being implemented.

Actually I would just tell my boss, either you pay me that $1800 or I will find someone who does. If my boss says no then they are screwed when I leave because it would take 3 years to train someone into my job., Unions would demand it or there would be a strike, most people in educated jobs could demand that increase.

Sorry if this has already been posted, I could only make it halfway through this thread. This is straight from the horse's mouth, the British National Health Service. Promising that by December 2008, no patient will have to wait longer than 18 WEEKS for treatment.

Do YOU want to wait 4 friggin months for treatment????

http://www.oxfordradcliffe.nhs.uk/fo...s/18weeks.aspx