Universal healthcare.

[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. :)

[Shannon]

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. :)

Poor Bridget.:D

Why don't you tell me why it is a good idea? Actually just start with how "we're" going to pay for it and forget all the "ideas".


(Good to see you here, kiddo)

[Space Gravy]

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. :)

It's not a good idea because while everyone will get their medical care paid for.........not everyone will pay for it.

[Lanie]

It's not a good idea because while everyone will get their medical care paid for.........not everyone will pay for it.

So if everybody had to pay with a piece of their paycheck, would it then be okay?

Hillary's plan would have required that everybody buy healthcare, including the poor.

Obama is going to require that health insurance be mandatory for children. I can't imagine the poor getting out of that one.

[Gingersnap]

Universal health care is absolutely possible. The only question is what kind of health care? You can provide childhood immunizations, prenatal care, trauma care, and treat some chronic diseases but you can't offer MRIs, expensive diagnostics, transplants, many drugs, extended physical therapies, or a host of other expensive services.

This is why the French go to India, the Canadians go to the United States, and the Brits go all over. Some small, wealthy countries can provide U.S.-style health care but they don't have a U.S.-style population.

The other big factor to consider is this: if the government is providing your health care, they have a vested interest in managing your private life toward optimal health. This is already happening in the U.K. where undesirables like smokers are denied non-life saving surgeries. While the smokers are the usual victims of any social crusade, the sheer numbers will soon enough point to the fat, the under-exercised, the drinkers, and the old. Eliminate all those people through a denial of service based on "lifestyle" and you may float the program for a while.

[Lanie]

Poor Bridget.:D

Why don't you tell me why it is a good idea? Actually just start with how "we're" going to pay for it and forget all the "ideas".


(Good to see you here, kiddo)

Nice to see you Shannon. :)

I think it's a good idea so everybody can be covered.

While we can go to an emergency room any time we like, there's different types of treatment we can't get in an emergency room. For example, a person who needs to get their Epilepsy or Diabetes medication prescribed again needs to get very expensive bloodwork done. The ER doesn't cover that. They'll take you in if the Diabetes causes one to go into a coma from not getting their medicine, but not the bloodwork.

In theory, we have a system to take care of the poor on that one. Problem is we have all these standards that all the poor is not covered by Medicaid or Medicare. Either they're not far enough below the poverty line. Or maybe they're technically above the poverty line, but need every cent to make it with their kids.

And did you know that a person needing a transplant has to pay money to get on a list? That's ridiculous.

[Lanie]

Universal health care is absolutely possible. The only question is what kind of health care? You can provide childhood immunizations, prenatal care, trauma care, and treat some chronic diseases but you can't offer MRIs, expensive diagnostics, transplants, many drugs, extended physical therapies, or a host of other expensive services.

This is why the French go to India, the Canadians go to the United States, and the Brits go all over. Some small, wealthy countries can provide U.S.-style health care but they don't have a U.S.-style population:.

The other big factor to consider is this: if the government is providing your health care, they have a vested interest in managing your private life toward optimal health. This is already happening in the U.K. where undesirables like smokers are denied non-life saving surgeries. While the smokers are the usual victims of any social crusade, the sheer numbers will soon enough point to the fat, the under-exercised, the drinkers, and the old. Eliminate all those people through a denial of service based on "lifestyle" and you may float the program for a while.

I thought all medical services were done under universal healthcare, but one had to be on a waiting list (another problem with UH).

You make good points. Do you think it would be possible for it to be like our school system where we have the option of private if we want?

[Space Gravy]

So if everybody had to pay with a piece of their paycheck, would it then be okay?

Hillary's plan would have required that everybody buy healthcare, including the poor.

Obama is going to require that health insurance be mandatory for children. I can't imagine the poor getting out of that one.

Will everyone pay the same amount or will it be prorated like our Federal Tax system where a reletive few carry the load for many?

How far did HillaryCare get when Bill was President?

True Story.

I have an employee who makes $19.00 an hour (which is an excellent wage in this part of the Country) with anyone from 8-10 hours of OT per week. This guy has 3 kids with the same woman he lives with. When it came time for him to sign up for health insurance he passed on signing up his kids because they can get Medicaire since they are the children of a single mom who doesn't have much reportable income (She cuts hair). You mean to tell me a social program is actually going to go away and be replaced by something where people like this actually contribute to paying the bills?

I also grow weary of the tales of the poor uninsured in this country when the company I work for offers single coverage in an HMO that will only cost the employee less than $15.00 per week and family coverage that costs less than $37.00 a week and most employees elect not to take it. Why would they pay for it when they can somehow work the system to get it for free. Yet, they all have cell phones, internet connections, ipods etc....

[Lanie]

Will everyone pay the same amount or will it be prorated like our Federal Tax system where a reletive few carry the load for many?

How far did HillaryCare get when Bill was President?

True Story.

I have an employee who makes $19.00 an hour (which is an excellent wage in this part of the Country) with anyone from 8-10 hours of OT per week. This guy has 3 kids with the same woman he lives with. When it came time for him to sign up for health insurance he passed on signing up his kids because they can get Medicaire since they are the children of a single mom who doesn't have much reportable income (She cuts hair). You mean to tell me a social program is actually going to go away and be replaced by something where people like this actually contribute to paying the bills?

I also grow weary of the tales of the poor uninsured in this country when the company I work for offers single coverage in an HMO that will only cost the employee less than $15.00 per week and family coverage that costs less than $37.00 a week and most employees elect not to take it. Why would they pay for it when they can somehow work the system to get it for free. Yet, they all have cell phones, internet connections, ipods etc....

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.

[Gingersnap]

I thought all medical services were done under universal health care, but one had to be on a waiting list (another problem with UH).

You make good points. Do you think it would be possible for it to be like our school system where we have the option of private if we want?

That's how they do it in most places. Universal is "basic" and working people buy supplemental insurance. France is a case in point there. No sensible French person with a job relies on the universal care.

Some countries have forbidden the "two tiered" system and they are paying for it.

Basically, you can't have "all" medical treatments under a government health care system. It's too expensive now. Back in the 1950s this was possible because frankly they couldn't treat a lot of problems anyway and they didn't have the technology and drugs we rely on today. Got MS? Have a nice 2 years until your painful death. Brain cancer? Sorry. Autism? We have a nice mental hospital for your kid.

It's a complex issue.