Universal healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

It's unfortunate that some work the system like that. There are ways the government is trying to reduce that. In theory, I would think whether kids get medicaid would normally depend on all the income the custodial parent receives. And in a perfect world, she/he should be receiving child support payments from the non-custodial parent, which I think is partially based on the income of the non-custodial parent (meaning the father's income should be in the picture).

Not everybody works for a company that has insurance that you're talking about. If one is working at Hardees, they can't necessarily afford 37.00 dollars a week. That's about 160.00 a month that some poor people see as being very important to have. And some people have two part time jobs and not currently working a full time job. They don't offer insurance for those people most of the time.

To answer the original question, I'd like to say that everybody should pay the same amount or percentage. Thing is I don't think the flat tax would work any better than complete Socialism.

---

I've sold to government accounts for well over 25 years. I've seen the government at work too closely. I do not trust the government to administer a health plan. I don't trust the politicians to capably manage anything.

I really don't want my life dependent on some beaurocrats rulings on health issues. The insurance companies are bad enough; the government would be worse.

Lanie, have you ever been in a VA hospital? Some of the ones around here are pretty frightening. I've had several VA hospital employees state that they don't want their own parents or themselves getting care there.

I haven't worked all these years, paying my insurance, to turn over my care to some rotten universal health plan. I think much of it is an attempt to get something for nothing, the usual way the dems grab power.

I don't want something for nothing. But I do want our current medical system intact, not diluted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyelids

That is bullshit because I saw people trying to get by growing up and they spent every waking moment taking care of their kids and working but they still couldnt afford insurance. What do you have against the waitresses, auto mechanics... all those service people you take for granted? Why do you want them dead?

---

Now that's taking it too far to make a point. I grew up poor - rural poor and I've supported myself by serving food. I was never in any danger of death because I didn't have insurance (and I didn't). When I broke my foot while I was a server I was instantly treated in the ER and I made payments to the hospital for the treatment. I didn't have to make a choice between eating and paying the hospital. I had to make a choice between going to a club or a movie or buying shoes and paying the hospital.

Nobody wants the working class dead but they aren't dropping like flies because ambulances refuse to pick them up and because ERs refuse to treat them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyelids

People will avoid going to the doctor when they are genuinely sick because they are afraid of the bill. Thats America for you... the rich survive and the poor die off.

---

Well, I've always been poor. I raised 5 kids on my own...until 6 years ago. As a child, I was 13 or 14 before my parents had insurance...and it didn't cover anything until the first $1000 was paid. We always went to the doctor when we needed one. Always. Only idiots die off. If they'd rather die than run up a bill, that's their choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflight

Stop trying to impose your values on everyone else.

---

He can't help it, he's a liberal. It's his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

I think it's a good idea.

Everybody gets their medical care paid for.

Tell me why it's not a good idea.

Note: I promise to be nice. :)

---

Hey Lanie!!


The fact of the matter is that it all is paid for right now. The difference is who is paying and how much.


To start things off, the left is (suprise) blowing the issue WAY out of proportion. The claims of 46 million uninsured is just plain a flat out lie.

The Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

A closer look at that report reveals that 45% of the "uninsured" are only temporarily so - they quit one job and the benefits of the new job have not yet begun. Subtracting these people and the number of uninsured is roughly 21 million. The Census data also include roughly 10 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 11 million. A huge number of the remaining actually qualify for govt. health benefits, but simply have not applied. Others are earning good incomes but choose not to purchase insurance.

Quote:

---

The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up.



Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.



Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.

---

http://www.businessandmedia.org/prin...718153509.aspx


Upon a bit of digging the 8.2 million figure is from the Kaiser Family Foundation - a healthcare advocate who actually trumpets the larger number for funding purposes and has not included this number in their publications - EXCEPT the original study. They simply use the larger number because it helps them in their cause.


So the issue is not nearly as dire as the left would have us believe. What then for those 8 million or so who really do have a need and what about the rest of us??? What are the results of a universal system and what are the alternatives???


Lets look at those who have insurance now. The main problem we have is that we have unresponsive care, and costs are rising to employers - so they cut benefits/increase costs to their employees.

The problem is that the people who are affected by the decisions of insurance companies (we the people) are FAR removed from those decisions that affect us. The insurance companies use actuarial tables to set costs and dole out benefits. Everything is done to THEIR benefit. Why is this??? Because they are not affected by those decisions. WE ARE. The sheer bureaucracy decreases the responsiveness and the fact that we have little choice allows them to pretty much charge what they want.

Adding ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy (the govt.) only will add to the problem.


The solution is to bring the consumer of healthcare services back into the CRITICAL role of an comparative shopper. That means WE decide where our healthcare dollars go. We compare and force the health companies to compete for our dollars. This drives down costs AND increases quality as the companies scramble to earn our money.

Each state mandates all types of coverage be included in all of the benefits plans offered in their state. These coverages are incredibly expensive, but very few use them. This drives up the costs even further. Another HUGE area of concern is the litigious nature of society. Malpractice insurance is driving Doctors out of the business - thus decreasing the supply while demand is rising. The misuse of lawyers is a big problem that needs to be addressed.


The problems we have with our insurance are BECAUSE we moved closer to the socialist system. The cure is to move away.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the TRULY needy, we are better off having private charities help them. I have no problem helping them out AS LONG AS they are truly needy, but the care is far better done with people who are actually there to help instead of an uncaring bureaucrat. We should make it easier for charities to help people and make it easier for people to donate to charities.

If that is unpalatable to you, we might be able to provide assistance via state or local govts. for these people, but I would discourage this in favor of the private charity angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megimoo

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

" Do you think they would provide a sniper to take her out without any warning ,It would only cost the price of one 30.06 round and his 'snuff fee' would be covered !"

SALEM, Oregon, - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself.

"Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision. Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone,...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingersnap1

Welcome to universal health care. Infinite demand + finite resources = rationed health care.
All you old, sick, crippled people with complicated diseases or risky outcomes need to throw yourselves under the bus now. k thx bye

---

http://www.conservativeunderground.c...read.php?t=312

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingersnap1

Now that's taking it too far to make a point. I grew up poor - rural poor and I've supported myself by serving food. I was never in any danger of death because I didn't have insurance (and I didn't). When I broke my foot while I was a server I was instantly treated in the ER and I made payments to the hospital for the treatment. I didn't have to make a choice between eating and paying the hospital. I had to make a choice between going to a club or a movie or buying shoes and paying the hospital.

Nobody wants the working class dead but they aren't dropping like flies because ambulances refuse to pick them up and because ERs refuse to treat them.

---

Excellent post! I never knew how to say it so good. I raised 3 kids and for two of them it was no ins. It was have it paid up front. I've made deals with hospitals before too. At that time tho, there were no big screen tv's, no real toys that we had to have, our big choices back then were chicken or hamburger for dinner again.