# Should The US Start Some Sort Of Universal Health Care System?



## Kane (Nov 13, 2005)

It seems that most developed countries, even the more conservative developed countries like Japan, have some sort of universal health care; 

http://www.nchc.org/facts/Japan.pdf

The US seems to be the only developed advanced country that does not have at least some health care. There are definitely many advantages and disadvantages to universal health care but fact still remains: millions and millions of Americans have no coverage.

IMHO social security should be privatized and while it may not be enough to cover the cost of basic/total coverage, it would provide a good amount to help cover the cost. Social security is anyways in my opinion a waste of time. You don't even get much money back when you retire and many demographic studies show there will not be enough people in the future to help cover all Americans in the US. If we were to use the money we pay to social security into universal health care I do believe it would be more effective.

Even if we were to privatize the schooling systems this would be smarter than keeping health care entirely private. Millions of Americans cannot afford health care monthly while most working Americans can make enough money to send their kids to school monthly. $1,000 every month for better quality private schooling is far more economical than a $3,000++ health care which millions of Americans cannot afford. And the cost to a small business owner to have medical coverage is ridiculous. 

That is not to say that the US shouldn't have private health care run alongside with universal health care for those willing to pay higher. Having private health care systems side by side can help alleviate the financial stress and reduce backlogs etc.

Privatized Health Care is not as much more 'competitive' since most research is conducted in universities. Canada has some of the top research facilities in the world (The University of Western Ontario is one example). 
   Incidentally, waiting lists are not horrendous but they are long if it is for non-emergency operations. However, the American system is not a good alternative.

   In any case isn't the government's job to protect the people? Even if you are a conservative we all know that Law Enforcement, Military, etc. aren't privately run. The Law Enforcement's job is to enforce the law so that there is order and peace within society. Firefighter's is to help put out fires as well as rescue people and animals from ditches and horrible natural situations. Similarly it should be the doctor's job to protect the people from disease and health hazards. When you dial 911 2/3 of the services are paid by our taxes to the government (police and firefighters). Why can't the 3rd 911 option (ER and medical needs) be covered by the government?

   I really think we need to put universal health care ahead of public education and more than anything else; that worthless system called social security .


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2005)

President Clinton attempted to fix this problem a while back.  I think he had some good ideas...but the lobbies were very well funded...and they won that round.

Basically, what he and the other dems wanted to do was create a system where the government would bargain and pay and pay health care costs for every american.  This program would get bids from multiple private companies in order to get everyone covered...keeping the competitive pressure and keeping costs low.  If one wanted to opt out of the program, one could apply for a voucher that one could use to bid on an insurance plan of ones own chosing.  The leftover costs would be kept by the person who opted out.  

The main reason this plan was suggested is that health care costs were skyrocketing at that time and that Americans were paying more in health care then any other industrialized nation.  Basically, 15% of our gdp was and is going to health care and that number is rising.  The highest of other countries where a single payer system was instituted is 11%.  

Our businesses are losing their competitive edge because of this.  We can't compete with countries that have single payer systems.  If we instituted a plan like this, we'd pump hundreds of billions of dollars back into our economy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 13, 2005)

One question....What nation has the greatest and most effective medical care and research on the planet?

That's pretty much a rhetorical question as any objective observer would conclude that the US has the most advanced medical care and research on the planet.  It's also expensive.  Which begs the question, if the US has the best medical care, and we are the only nation not to have universal coverage as a result of a huge bloated bureaucracy, could the two possibly be linked.  Are we really asking do we want the best health care, or the cheapest?  

I, for one, am happy to work to pay for health coverage so that if I need medical care, it's the best.  If you have to have surgery, do you want the best doctor or the cheapest?  I know what I want, and i'm willing to pay for it.  Those who desire everything be "paid for" by the government are usually ignorant of simple economics.

As UpNorth illustrated above, by noting "Clinton's Simple Plan", who's going to pay for it?  I know who's going to pay for that bloated bureaucracy.  The same people who pay for every other "universal" entitlement program....those of us who work will pay for those of us who won't.  I, for one, can afford my families health care insurance.  I can't afford yours too.  At what point did we decide that universal free health care should be an entitlement?  Isn't it enough that we have the best medical care on the planet, now we want it FOR FREE?!

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." 
Alexis de Tocqueville


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2005)

We desperately need some kind of universal health coverage. It's a human rights issue.

I was speaking the other night with a martial arts instructor who wanted to open a full-time school. Health insurance issues kept him at his old job and left him doing the rats part-time only. Is this kind of thing good for business?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> We desperately need some kind of universal health coverage. It's a human rights issue.
> 
> I was speaking the other night with a martial arts instructor who wanted to open a full-time school. Health insurance issues kept him at his old job and left him doing the rats part-time only. Is this kind of thing good for business?


  It is most definitely not a human rights issue.  Without the medical system we have now, many of the advances in medicine would not have even been invented.  Again, who's going to pay for it?  I can barely afford my medical coverage, why should I have to pay for someone elses?  It's all an attempt to get something for nothing by those who feel society owes them for just having been born.  What's furthermore, why should I have to get increasingly substandard care because someone else can't afford health insurance, just to be fair?

I'm glad your friend is wanting to start his own business, America is founded on that.  My problem is, however, that it is a "BUSINESS" and economics do apply.  He should consider the economic implications of doing anything like that.  If he can make money, he should do it.  If not, he should stick with the other job.

What's more, i'm not sure why i'm supposed to pay for this gentleman's health insurance because he's not happy with his lot in life and wants to pursue his hobby as a business, but doesn't think he can afford quiting his other job because he wants to keep his health insurance?  Why would anyone start a business they couldn't make a living at? And if they do, why am I suddenly responsible for subsidizing it? Why is this a human rights issue again?

And for those who claim that many people can't work,those people already have free health coverage paid for by me and you.  The idea of universal health coverage is one that seems good only on the surface.

I work two jobs, go to school AND have started my own business, just to keep health care coverage for myself and my family and provide for them.  Working two jobs and my own business on the side puts me in a tax bracket where everyone else starts coveting my money for their pet projects and entitlement programs.  Darn right i'm annoyed by that prospect.  If they want health coverage, then let them do what I do and work for it.  

I have not NEED of free healthcare so long as the government doesn't rob me of all my money to pay for everyone else's free healthcare.  At that point, I guess, i'll be in the same boat as everyone else...Thanks a lot.  

I have no interest allowing politicians to bribe me with my own money.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Nov 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Isn't it enough that we have the best medical care on the planet, now we want it FOR FREE?!


 
how are you so sure that you have the best medical care on the planet?
you stated that some doctors are cheaper than others, thereby saying that the quality of care you would receive from the cheaper doctor is not upto snuff. How could this be considered the best?

if someone you knew needed a liver transplant, but the cost of the surgery meant that person was going to die.......how is this the best medical care on the planet.

i live in Canada and by no means do i think we have the perfect system......but what i do know is this, if I, or a member of my family is injured or sick and they require treatment......they get it. If it requires the top orthopaedic surgeon at the hospital for sick children.....they get it.
if my daughter has an ear infection and needs a prescription for antibiotics...i dont have to worry about any kind of doctor bill.....i just go.

In my opinion the best medical care equals one that is easily accessible, and promotes a good relationship between doctor and patient that includes the time needed for both to develop a healthy living plan.

the best medical care in the world should be able to decrease the rate of morbid obesity which probably affects 30 million people......which are included in the approximately 130 million "obese" people. $70-100 billion dollars are spent annually in the US to treat it.
Could you imagine getting that ship under control so that those healthcare dollars could be spent somewhere else.....like maybe on the hardworking citizens that cant afford it, but could sure use it.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It is most definitely not a human rights issue. Without the medical system we have now, many of the advances in medicine would not have even been invented.



I agree. But does it matter to someone who isn't getting them?



> Again, who's going to pay for it?



The same people that pay for welfare and Social Security and such, I'd guess. It's always that way. You do it now through ER visits at county hospitals by those without insurance.



> I'm glad your friend is wanting to start his own business, America is founded on that. My problem is, however, that it is a "BUSINESS" and economics do apply.



Yes...but let's be blunt: Health care economics truly is different. It's not a simple supply-and-demand situation, and since life is in the balance, no price is too high. It's just not the same as saying if the  rent is too high he shouldn't do it.



> What's more, i'm not sure why i'm supposed to pay for this gentleman's health insurance because he's not happy with his lot in life and wants to pursue his hobby as a business, but doesn't think he can afford quiting his other job because he wants to keep his health insurance?



A fair statement. But again, I'd ask if it isn't good for the economy to encourage people to start businesses--as you indicate, the nation is built on that sort of thing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 13, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> how are you so sure that you have the best medical care on the planet?
> you stated that some doctors are cheaper than others, thereby saying that the quality of care you would receive from the cheaper doctor is not upto snuff. How could this be considered the best?


  I'm not sure I can educate on the free market principle, but in short...you get what you pay for.  The best doctor's are like the best athletes...They play where they get paid.  

Let me give you an analogy.  I once knew someone who worked for a company that employed truck driver's to deliver gasoline.  They paid their driver's $6.00 an hour.  Of what quality do you think those driver's were?  I thought so.



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> if someone you knew needed a liver transplant, but the cost of the surgery meant that person was going to die.......how is this the best medical care on the planet.


  So what your saying is...If one place has surgery that is first rate, but expensive, but if you receive surgery there you're going to recover nicely and a second place has poor medical care, but hey, "It's cheap".  You can afford it, but you'll likely die, the cuttrate place is BEST?! Now that's some logic.



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i live in Canada and by no means do i think we have the perfect system......but what i do know is this, if I, or a member of my family is injured or sick and they require treatment......they get it. If it requires the top orthopaedic surgeon at the hospital for sick children.....they get it.
> if my daughter has an ear infection and needs a prescription for antibiotics...i dont have to worry about any kind of doctor bill.....i just go.


 The difference, my Canadian friend, is that I can get world class health care, I don't have to wait months for surgery, and I can get ALL this...JUST BY MAINTAINING A JOB.  I have no concerns with health care...because I pay for healthcare insurance.  If someone is too lazy to work, why I should pay for theirs as well (As pointed out above, this does NOT include people who can't work, because they are ALREADY covered).  



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> In my opinion the best medical care equals one that is easily accessible, and promotes a good relationship between doctor and patient that includes the time needed for both to develop a healthy living plan.


  Well, that's nice...My definition of the best medical care is that which is NOT likely to kill me, and gives me the best chance of recovering from my illness...period.  That is best.



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> the best medical care in the world should be able to decrease the rate of morbid obesity which probably affects 30 million people......which are included in the approximately 130 million "obese" people. $70-100 billion dollars are spent annually in the US to treat it.


 Since those issues are lifestyle issues, not "medical care issues" your line of logic is a bit convoluted.  It's also running contrary to your assertion...that I should pay for the result of another person's lifestyle.  



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> Could you imagine getting that ship under control so that those healthcare dollars could be spent somewhere else.....like maybe on the hardworking citizens that cant afford it, but could sure use it.


 I work hard, and I can afford it.  I'm certainly not rich.  Maybe your under the illusion that those "hard working citizens" are as hard working as they are.


And you haven't answered my most basic question....Why should I have to pay for it?  The problem I have with the socialized medicine argument is that the people who support it think money comes from some sort of nebulous source.  We just print more if it, and that's it.  It has to come from somewhere.  Who's going to pay for it again? Their answer usually is "Someone else".


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The same people that pay for welfare and Social Security and such, I'd guess. It's always that way. You do it now through ER visits at county hospitals by those without insurance.


 
Bingo! I'd submit that the true cost, both monetary AND social of not having some sort of basic healthcare level in America is far, far higher than the cost of having one would be. I've worked in medical billing for the past fifteen years and I can tell you that uninsured are not only billed at an exponentially higher rate for the same services that insured are, but they often, through no fault of their own, end up having to declare bankruptcy - in which case ALL of their services are a W/O.

There is also the moral component. We are a very wealthy nation and it is unconscionable to me that so many children do not have easy access to the services I took for granted as a child and that by the time many uninsured finally seek care (in an ER), it is too late for them or the cost of recovery is now 100 times greater than it would have been had they been able to have regular doctor visits. I don't drive on the Interstates in the Eastern part of the country, but I have no problem with paying for them because we are the same people and one nation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I agree. But does it matter to someone who isn't getting them?


 Then they know what they have to do to get coverage.  




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> The same people that pay for welfare and Social Security and such, I'd guess. It's always that way. You do it now through ER visits at county hospitals by those without insurance.


 Yes, so you want me to pay MORE...This time for otherwise able bodied people who won't pay for their own insurance.  




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes...but let's be blunt: Health care economics truly is different. It's not a simple supply-and-demand situation, and since life is in the balance, no price is too high. It's just not the same as saying if the rent is too high he shouldn't do it.


 Health care economics is no different than any other business.  You get what you pay for.  Lets look at those bloated bureaucracies around the world that provide universal healthcare.  If you had the choice, you'd be treated right here in the US.  Healthcare coverage is expensive but attainable by the average American.  Those that don't have it, are people who don't want to pay for because they believe some nebulous "other" should pay for it.  What's more, i'm paying the price and the result of the Universal Healthcare System would be a reduction in the quality of care.

As you say "Life is in the balance"...namely mine and my families, who have healthcare insurance.  So they can take a flying leap with their asinine universal coverage scheme.  




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> A fair statement. But again, I'd ask if it isn't good for the economy to encourage people to start businesses--as you indicate, the nation is built on that sort of thing.


 It isn't good for the economy to subsidize businesses who can't make a profit.  That isn't business and it isn't what the country is founded upon.  That's the beauty of owning your own business...you are responsible for you, your own success or failure.  If you need healthcare, you don't have a boss to complain too....you are the boss.  If he can't successfully make a profit on his business, why would he start one.  Capitalism is a beautiful thing....so long as we don't misunderstand what it is and what it isn't. 

That having been said, there are some excellent healthcare providers for small business that are affordable...and your friend can Cobra out for the next 6 months (I believe) and pay for his current healthcare from the company he's at.  :asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 13, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Bingo! I'd submit that the true cost, both monetary AND social of not having some sort of basic healthcare level in America is far, far higher than the cost of having one would be. I've worked in medical billing for the past fifteen years and I can tell you that uninsured are not only billed at an exponentially higher rate for the same services that insured are, but they often, through no fault of their own, end up having to declare bankruptcy - in which case ALL of their services are a W/O.
> 
> There is also the moral component. We are a very wealthy nation and it is unconscionable to me that so many children do not have easy access to the services I took for granted as a child and that by the time many uninsured finally seek care (in an ER), it is too late for them or the cost of recovery is now 100 times greater than it would have been had they been able to have regular doctor visits. I don't drive on the Interstates in the Eastern part of the country, but I have no problem with paying for them because we are the same people and one nation.


 
If you have no problem paying for it, then start a private organization and give money to it to provide healthcare coverage for the uninsured and underinsured.  From all the talk I hear about people having no problem with paying for it, you should be able to insure every person who doesn't have insurance in the country...and ALL that without having to pay for a bloated government bureaucracy, which would eat up much of the money anyway, AND without damaging the quality of care provided.  I think we just solved the insurance problem in the US.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Nov 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I can educate on the free market principle, but in short...you get what you pay for. The best doctor's are like the best athletes...They play where they get paid.
> 
> Let me give you an analogy. I once knew someone who worked for a company that employed truck driver's to deliver gasoline. They paid their driver's $6.00 an hour. Of what quality do you think those driver's were? I thought so.
> 
> ...


 
you do pay for those things......through taxes.
equating a truck drivers wages to the delivery of healthcare is a bit ridiculous....dontcha think?
And by your logic......there is no standard for *quality *medical care in the US. What if your super high paid surgeon is an alcoholic that pops amphetamines to keep his edge?
have you seen the rates for death due to misdiagnosis or mistreatment in the states recently? it's one of the top ten causes of death......it ranks higher than automobile accidents. Heck, you could almost say that the american medical system is the leading cause of death in the US.


----------



## JAMJTX (Nov 13, 2005)

*Should The US Start Some Sort Of Universal Health Care System?* 
It failed every where else, so why not have it fail here too?  It's a great idea.

Canada has universal health care too.  But if you look in the hospitals in the border states, they are all filled up with wealthy canadians who have the money to come here.  Wealthy foreigners come from all over the world to the U.S. because they know we have the best medical system in the world.

In countries that have universal health care, you will find that the people pay an astounding amount taxes to support it, the medical systems are bankrupt and health care is rationed and you don't get to choose your own Dr. or get a sceond opinion if you think the Dr. might be wrong.  In many of these countries, senior citizens do not get life saving treatment for illnesses that we can cure here.

What it amounts to is a government run HMO, and everyone knows how bad they turned out to be.  I would much rather maintain my freedom and have my medical decisions made by myself and my chosen Dr and keep the government out of it.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 13, 2005)

JAMJTX said:
			
		

> *Should The US Start Some Sort Of Universal Health Care System?*
> It failed every where else, so why not have it fail here too? It's a great idea.
> 
> Canada has universal health care too. But if you look in the hospitals in the border states, they are all filled up with wealthy canadians who have the money to come here. Wealthy foreigners come from all over the world to the U.S. because they know we have the best medical system in the world.
> ...


 
I think that you are going on the assumption that ANY national healthcare plan must REPLACE private insurance and private healthcare and must also be serviced strictly by government run clinics and hospitals. It does not have to be and SHOULD not be setup this way. It is a floor, IMO, not a ceiling. There is NOTHING wrong with wealthy members of a community paying for premium service at their own discretion. Also, do some checking on HMO's and their waiting periods and denials of service to PAYING customers. 

In regards to it failing everywhere else, I have friends from countries with universal healthcare and they love it. It definitely has some drawbacks, some a necessary component, other problems that can be eliminated with a proper setup, but to call it an absolute failure is inaccurate. We do pay for not having it in indirect and social costs, IMO, as much as those nations pay for having it.

There is so MUCH money in the business opposed to national healthcare that right wing talking points are paid for and distributed by conservative foundations. I really get after my left leaning friends for opposing items simply because they originate either with the current Admin. or from the conservative perspective, but the opposite is just as frequent.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 13, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I think that you are going on the assumption that ANY national healthcare plan must REPLACE private insurance and private healthcare and must also be serviced strictly by government run clinics and hospitals. It does not have to be and SHOULD not be setup this way. It is a floor, IMO, not a ceiling. There is NOTHING wrong with wealthy members of a community paying for premium service at their own discretion. Also, do some checking on HMO's and their waiting periods and denials of service to PAYING customers.


 Wow, you actually believe that the government will run this program differently than any other bureaucracy they've gotten ahold of?  How polyannic.  It isn't just going to be the wealthy paying for this project, as the term "Wealthy" is pretty nebulous.  It's going to be me.  So, instead of being able to afford "premium" healthcare, i'm forced to buy in to this government boondogle.  Thanks.



			
				Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> In regards to it failing everywhere else, I have friends from countries with universal healthcare and they love it. It definitely has some drawbacks, some a necessary component, other problems that can be eliminated with a proper setup, but to call it an absolute failure is inaccurate. We do pay for not having it in indirect and social costs, IMO, as much as those nations pay for having it.


 lol.  "They may love it" but if you had the choice, where would you get surgery?



			
				Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> There is so MUCH money in the business opposed to national healthcare that right wing talking points are paid for and distributed by conservative foundations. I really get after my left leaning friends for opposing items simply because they originate either with the current Admin. or from the conservative perspective, but the opposite is just as frequent.


 talking points aren't necessary to ask the obvious questions "Who's going to pay for it?"


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Wow, you actually believe that the government will run this program differently than any other bureaucracy they've gotten ahold of? How polyannic. It isn't just going to be the wealthy paying for this project, as the term "Wealthy" is pretty nebulous. It's going to be me. So, instead of being able to afford "premium" healthcare, i'm forced to buy in to this government boondogle. Thanks.
> 
> lol. "They may love it" but if you had the choice, where would you get surgery?
> 
> talking points aren't necessary to ask the obvious questions "Who's going to pay for it?"


 
I think that the anti-healthcare people are taking as a baseline for their talking points a government managed healthcare system rather than a form of basic national health insurance. Sure there will be inefficiencies, just as there are in all govt. work from builing highways to maintaining the armed forces. I would like to point out that our health system began having so many problems when, in the late seventies on, it became a for profit business. Now the free market is great, but it does have its downsides. 

I have private insurance to the max and even if we had a national floor of basic healthcare, I would not be effected. Again, you are making the jump from some sort of national health insurance for those unable to get it to socialized medicine. 

My point was that we already pay for NOT having it.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I've worked in medical billing for the past fifteen years and I can tell you that uninsured are not only billed at an exponentially higher rate for the same services that insured are, but they often, through no fault of their own, end up having to declare bankruptcy



I've read about this in the Wall Street Journal. It's amazing what the uninsured are charged for health care! If you don't have a big company negotiating for you, you can easily pay ten times the cost charged to others.



> There is also the moral component. We are a very wealthy nation and it is unconscionable to me that so many children do not have easy access to the services I took for granted as a child



I absolutely agree. This is the heart of it for me. It's a moral issue; a human rights issue.

By the way, the Interstate Highway system is technically a Dept. of Defense project--or at least it was initially (roads strong enough to allow for tanks etc. to be shifted around the country).


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

I think *JAMJTX* makes some good points. But, I'd still like to see us try.

I think *sgtmac_46* makes a good point that the U.S. is the tops for health care quality (though some people are now going to India for a bargain). But getting health insurance for small companies is not so easy, as insurance is about spreading risk...hard to do in a small company.

Suppose some jerk doesn't get health care for hsi or her kids. The kids suffer. Is that fair? I understand that Ireland has, or used to have, full health coverage for those under the age of majority. Is that a fair compromise?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I think that the anti-healthcare people are taking as a baseline for their talking points a government managed healthcare system rather than a form of basic national health insurance. Sure there will be inefficiencies, just as there are in all govt. work from builing highways to maintaining the armed forces. I would like to point out that our health system began having so many problems when, in the late seventies on, it became a for profit business. Now the free market is great, but it does have its downsides.
> 
> I have private insurance to the max and even if we had a national floor of basic healthcare, I would not be effected. Again, you are making the jump from some sort of national health insurance for those unable to get it to socialized medicine.
> 
> My point was that we already pay for NOT having it.


 That leap is not very far.  You still haven't told me WHY you and I (who have health insurance) should pay for OTHERS who don't.  That's all i'm waiting for.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think *JAMJTX* makes some good points. But, I'd still like to see us try.
> 
> I think *sgtmac_46* makes a good point that the U.S. is the tops for health care quality (though some people are now going to India for a bargain). But getting health insurance for small companies is not so easy, as insurance is about spreading risk...hard to do in a small company.
> 
> Suppose some jerk doesn't get health care for hsi or her kids. The kids suffer. Is that fair? I understand that Ireland has, or used to have, full health coverage for those under the age of majority. Is that a fair compromise?


 It might possibly be a fair compromise.  I have less of a problem with that than the idea of paying for health insurance for every man woman and child in the country, whether they need it or not.

"Hey, here's your voucher for the money you gave us so you can spend it on what you want, minus the cut we took for processing it through a bureaucracy"  Hey, thanks....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Here's an even better system....How about the US government get in to the health care business like any other company.  Those that don't have coverage can pay the US government as a provider, and the US government can roll all profits over to providing coverage.  This doesn't cost me a dime, you a dime, and the people who use it pay for it.  It doesn't get any fairer than that.  As a provider of services, the US government doesn't have to worry about a profit margin, they can simply pay out what they get in.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 14, 2005)

It is a good theory....but it would result in a need for a lot more money...shortages of doctors and nurses (because some people would go to the doctor for any little thing) and many more problems. A major raise in taxes would be needed and generally Americans don't like that.

Japan seems to embrace insurance still even though they have a health care system....AFLAC has a great penatration in Japan for its policies....seems they want to be protected. (insurance in America gets a bad name...and isn't though of in such regard. Don't get me wrong some insurance is rediculious but it is those who seem to abuse the system that make it bad for all)

Good theory yes.....will it work in America ... I don't think so.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That leap is not very far. You still haven't told me WHY you and I (who have health insurance) should pay for OTHERS who don't. That's all i'm waiting for.


 
We ALREADY do. Every time the healthcare provider I work for has to write off bills due to bankruptcy or other uncollectable status, we have to make up the difference somewhere else - YOU AND I then PAY more. Also, many illnesses are not treated until they are in the advanced stages when treatment is less successful and more COSTLY. By that point, the person will often receive some form of state assistance (Medicare, Medical, etc.), for a far more costly bill than the routine exam that could have uncovered the condition would have cost.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> We ALREADY do. Every time the healthcare provider I work for has to write off bills due to bankruptcy or other uncollectable status, we have to make up the difference somewhere else - YOU AND I then PAY more. Also, many illnesses are not treated until they are in the advanced stages when treatment is less successful and more COSTLY. By that point, the person will often receive some form of state assistance (Medicare, Medical, etc.), for a far more costly bill than the routine exam that could have uncovered the condition would have cost.


 
How about the US government get in to the health care business like any other company. Those that don't have coverage can pay the US government as a provider, and the US government can roll all profits over to providing coverage. This doesn't cost me a dime, you a dime, and the people who use it pay for it. It doesn't get any fairer than that. As a provider of services, the US government doesn't have to worry about a profit margin, they can simply pay out what they get in.

The problem?  That wouldn't satisfy many people, because they not only want healthcare, they want it for free (paid for by someone else).  Many people feel free healthcare is an entitlement they deserve.  They don't care who foots the bill (as long as it isn't them).  Just get those darn rich people to pay for it.  Many people can afford healthcare...They just don't want to spend their money on it if they can get the government to give it to them.  Nobody can tell me this isn't the mentality, because I see it every day.  It's an entitlement mentality that says "Healthcare is too important for me to actually have to budget money and pay for."  It's offensive and it's destroying this country.

Again, let the government get in the healthcare provider business and allow uninsured and underinsured to be their customers at a lower cost.  The government can provide care devoid of the profit motive mark-up.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

The govt. runs several such programs, as I recall from when I was a civilian employee of the Army with USPS health coverage. (Yes, that's the post office!) Expanding that isn't a bad idea.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The govt. runs several such programs, as I recall from when I was a civilian employee of the Army with USPS health coverage. (Yes, that's the post office!) Expanding that isn't a bad idea.


  I would agree with such a program...It puts the burden on the end-user and still allows them affordable healthcare WITHOUT the whole class-warfare line of attempting to get others to foot the bill.

I think the government should assist uninsured and the underinsured with coverage...but they need to assist them by providing them a low cost service made possible by eliminating the need to turn a profit, not by confiscating money from others to pay for it.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

I could get behind this plan--certainly, for a trial. We see the problems with the Canadian and British approaches...we need a different approach.

It would be a big step forward.


----------



## Kane (Nov 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46, I understand exactly what you are saying but it doesn't solve any the fact that millions of Americans cannot get coverage due to very high cost. Most working Americans on the other hand can pay for their child's schools as well as their retirement but health care is now a day is getting too high.

As I explained before the government still exists no matter what. Why don't we privatize law enforcement, military work, and firefighting? The quality would most likely improve due to competition between rival police forces. I think you see my point. 


While I do think most things of life should be let to the people some things should be run by the government. Police, military, and Firefighting should be let to the government to do because the government's main job after all is to protect the people. This includes to a certain extent from disease.

Do keep in mind though not all firefighting is done (as you know) by the government, there are many volunteer organizations and such that do the same task. If we do something similar with medicare, that is; provide *basic* coverage for all people but with private health companies running along side this should be all we need. And I think if we were to privatize social security and possibly schools, the taxes wouldn't as high as they are right now (if social security and schooling are privatized).

I can't think of a better solution. There are many hardworking Americans I believe that cannot afford health care, why should they be denied it? There are advantages and disadvantages in having universal health care but if we at least provide the fundamentals such as ER coverage then that maybe the only thing we may have to do.

Of course its not that simple but we need to figure out something in the near future to solve this problem. Is there a good alternative? Not that I know of. Having some sort of universal health care with private health care side by side should work the best.


----------



## Kane (Nov 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I could get behind this plan--certainly, for a trial. We see the problems with the Canadian and British approaches...we need a different approach.
> 
> It would be a big step forward.



Yes I agree. By looking at the problems that Canada and Britian ran into we may be able to create an even better system.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Yes I agree. By looking at the problems that Canada and Britian ran into we may be able to create an even better system.


 
The point is, however, the plan that we just proposed allows affordable health insurance for the underinsured and the uninsured...by allowing the government to act as a provider.  The cost are borne by consumer (the insured) who pay a montly premium, just as they would any other insurance provider.  The difference, however, would be that the government would have no need to make a profit, therefore keeping costs and premiums at the lowest level possible while still maintaining adequate coverage.

If what we really want is affordable health insurance, this would be the fairest system.  It puts the burden on the end-user, not those who have no desire to participate or who are already paying for their own insurance.  If our goal is coverage, not entitlements paid for by confiscatory programs, this is the best system and would avoid the problems inherent in the socialized medicine programs of other countries.


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 14, 2005)

every single person deserve the right to have Health care and our country should e able to provide this through a goverment agency. Think about it a family of 5 pays anywhere like 868.00 a month for HC, that is a mortgage to the average person.My family works, wife school teacher and me ex. and the outside companys kill you with high premiums, if the US stepped in to control it more people could afford it. GIVE AMERICANS THEY HEALTHCARE WE DESERVE, WITHOUT GETTING RIPPED OFF FROM PRIVATE MONEY HUNGRY COMPANYS.
Terry


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The point is, however, the plan that we just proposed allows affordable health insurance for the underinsured and the uninsured...by allowing the government to act as a provider. The cost are borne by consumer (the insured) who pay a montly premium, just as they would any other insurance provider. The difference, however, would be that the government would have no need to make a profit, therefore keeping costs and premiums at the lowest level possible while still maintaining adequate coverage.
> 
> If what we really want is affordable health insurance, this would be the fairest system. It puts the burden on the end-user, not those who have no desire to participate or who are already paying for their own insurance. If our goal is coverage, not entitlements paid for by confiscatory programs, this is the best system and would avoid the problems inherent in the socialized medicine programs of other countries.


 
This would be optimum, I agree, and certainly better than a completely socialized medical system. However, (there's always a however, isn't there), IMHO, this is unlikely. There are too many interests stacked against this. Also, the uninsured poorest among us must have some recourse to REGULAR healthcare. I really don't think it is an either/or situation here; socialized medicine or a Darwinian, survival of the fittest free market system. A balance can and must be reached. Sure, many will take advantage of this, but what exists that some people don't take advantage of?

I feel that, in the end, per scripture, we are our brother's keeper - even if it means that some will milk the system. Affordable healthcare for the majority, and some level of subsidized healthcare insurance for the minority who cannot (emphasis on cannot, not WILL not) afford it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

Again we're back to the idea that "Government" should take care of it.  Those who suggest this answer often don't understand WHAT the government is, and where it gets it's revenue.  The idea that we are going to pay for healthcare for all 300 Million people in the US is absurd.  If the argument is that millions can't afford healthcare, who's going to pay for it?  The whole point is they can't afford healthcare, so they obviously can't afford an increase in taxes to pay for a bloated bureaucracy.  So, we fall back on the idea that some nebulous "They" should pay for it.

More government entitlements designed to appease the masses and buy votes with the promise of wealth redistribution.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Nov 14, 2005)

so just let the ones that cant afford healthcare die....to make room for the ones that can?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091055?OpenDocument




> The principles are based on the evidence and conclusions reached in the committee's five previous reports, which documented the consequences of lack of health insurance. Among the findings, these reports noted that:
> 
> ¨ Uninsured Americans get about half the medical care of those with health insurance. As a result, they tend to be sicker and to die sooner.
> ¨ About 18,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year because of lack of health insurance.
> ...


 
If one looks at the numbers, one can see that a universal plan is obviously better for America.  By instituting a health plan, we would put billions of dollars back into our economy by saving money.  We would make American more competitive...perhaps encouraging new investment.


----------



## JAMJTX (Nov 14, 2005)

"By instituting a health plan, we would put billions of dollars back into our economy by saving money."

How do you figure this?
The average person would see a tax increase of more than what they now pay for health care.  The the 700 billion+ dollars that now gets spect each year on medical care and add that, plus all the extra expenses of managing the national system.  That is money that either has to come from a tax increase or federal borrowing.
Socialism is never good for the economy.  There still has never been a successful socialist system of any kind, in the U.S. or anywhere else.

Socialist countries have all failed miserably.   In the U.S. the "Social Security" has been bankrupt for decades and is hopelessly broken,  the socialized public school systems are now among the worst in the world.  I don't understand how anyone can even think that socializing the greatets medical system in the world can fix what little probelms there are.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 15, 2005)

JAMJTX said:
			
		

> Socialist countries have all failed miserably. In the U.S. the "Social Security" has been bankrupt for decades and is hopelessly broken, the socialized public school systems are now among the worst in the world. I don't understand how anyone can even think that socializing the greatets medical system in the world can fix what little probelms there are.


 
Sweeden failed miserably?


----------



## Kane (Nov 15, 2005)

Sweden and many countries of Europe may not be doing as well right, but this is because these countries are over the edge socialist. Better example would be Canada as it is in between Europe (socialist) and USA (capitalist).


----------



## Kane (Nov 15, 2005)

The problem still remains though: millions of Americans cannot afford even some of the basic coverage. Whether we work something out or go universal this problem needs to be solves quickly!


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Nov 15, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> The problem still remains though: millions of Americans cannot afford even some of the basic coverage. Whether we work something out or go universal *this problem needs to be solves quickly*!


 
good luck at this happening when fat politicians that can afford healthcare are making the decisions.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2005)

Sweden isn't doing so badly, though taxes are very high by our standards. Still, one adjusts to the system.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 15, 2005)

People bandy around the phrase "We have the best healthcare in the world!" as if it were true.  Actually, we only have the most EXPENSIVE healthcare in the world.

We have lower life expectancy at birth than Canada, France, Germany and Spain. We have higher infant, child and adult mortality rates.  We have a higher incidence of measles, mumps and other preventable diseases than Canada.  And we have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world.  Yet we spend nearly 15% of our GDP on healthcare...WAY more than any of those countries.  (World Health Organization)


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2005)

Yeah, but where else would you want to have surgery? Be treated for cancer? We do a lot of things better than others, and develop a great many new techniques and treatments.

Part of the expense is that _our_ pharmaceutical companies sell drugs developed here at a discount to other countries that can't afford the U.S. prices.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The difference, my Canadian friend, is that I can get world class health care, I don't have to wait months for surgery, and I can get ALL this...JUST BY MAINTAINING A JOB. I have no concerns with health care...because I pay for healthcare insurance. If someone is too lazy to work, why I should pay for theirs as well (As pointed out above, this does NOT include people who can't work, because they are ALREADY covered).


 
2000 report from the WHO  ranks the US 1 in terms of cost and 37th in terms of quality, lagging behind Canada (30th) and most European countries.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Sweden and many countries of Europe may not be doing as well right, but this is because these countries are over the edge socialist. Better example would be Canada as it is in between Europe (socialist) and USA (capitalist).


 
Actually the point was that Sweeden hadn't failed miserably. Someone was just confusing socialized medicine with socialism, and them going one better by confusing both with communism.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 16, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> so just let the ones that cant afford healthcare die....to make room for the ones that can?


 The point, my friend, is that those who "can't afford healthcare" already have it...we call it medicare and medicaid.  The plan being bandied about here is to provide universal health coverage.  This is where this argument becomes purely an emotional one, when someone makes the above statement about "letting people die".  That's really a bit disingenuous.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 16, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> 2000 report from the WHO ranks the US 1 in terms of cost and 37th in terms of quality, lagging behind Canada (30th) and most European countries.


 
Nice try, but the WHO's asinine criteria is based on percentage of people covered, not actual medical care available.  Big difference.  All this does is do what is being done by some other folks here....distort the difference between quality of care and the medical insurance issue.  The WHO uses some wacky numerical system whereby quality of care is figured along with number of people it's available to.   It's nothing but a backhanded way for proponents of socialized medicine to attack the US system.

What they still haven't been able to show is what large numbers of people around the world who come to the US for healthcare understand....If cost isn't an object, the US is where you want to be treated.  Why?  Because the quality of treatment (not the number of people covered by "socialized medicine") in the US is far superior.

Come on, folks, this fallacious arguments are getting ridiculous.

At least in the US, if I want to have surgery, I can have it this week...In Canada, I get the privelege of waiting a couple of months or more....Great system...I'll keep paying for mine.  If others want health insurance, they should pay for it like I do....P.S.  i'm not "Rich".


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Nice try, but the WHO's asinine criteria is based on percentage of people covered, not actual medical care available.


By what scale is that quantified?


----------



## Brother John (Nov 16, 2005)

No.

I don't think that's the answer.

Your Brother
John


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 16, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> By what scale is that quantified?


 What scale should it be quantified?  An honest one would be on actual quality of available medical service.  The issue of medical insurance and coverage is another issue, and can be dealt with honestly by at least seperating it as such.  To make the claim that the US ranks where it did on the WHO's ranking, and then have to dig for the fact that the criteria was heavily weighted toward socialized medicine because it used total percentage of people covered as a huge deciding factor, is a bit disingenuous and seems very manipulative.  I simply don't like when someone uses "rankings" and distorted numbers to try and manipulate my opinion, that's what I take issue with....color me critical.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2005)

I waited four months for surgury.

My mother and father went bankrupt because of medical bills.  They were insured.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

Robert Reich had an interesting commentary on the public broadcasting program Marketplace last evening (or perhaps two nights ago). 

His premise is that employer sponsored health care amounts to a 126 Billion dollar a year tax break for businesses. Further, the majority of this health care tax break benefits the most wealthy in society, leaving those with the less, the least amount of benefit. 

He states that changing paradigm of employer sponsored health care, and eliminating the tax benefit would go a long way down the path of Universal Health care. 

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/11/16/PM200511166.html


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2005)

An interesting thought. However, I wouldn't want to do anything at this stage that might result in fewer people covered.

As *upnorthkyosa* indicates, it's not uncommon for the _insured_ to suffer under the burden of medical debt...the situation is bad enough as is.


----------



## Kane (Nov 17, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Actually the point was that Sweeden hadn't failed miserably. Someone was just confusing socialized medicine with socialism, and them going one better by confusing both with communism.



I was pointing out that Sweden and many other European countries have a decreasing economoy because they are too socialist. Canada on the other hand is in between socialist and capitalist, and isn't doing that bad in economic growth.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> At least in the US, if I want to have surgery, I can have it this week...In Canada, I get the privelege of waiting a couple of months or more....Great system...I'll keep paying for mine. If others want health insurance, they should pay for it like I do....P.S. i'm not "Rich".


 
When I needed surgery for an herniated disc, I had it in a week. At no cost.

Last August, while visiting family in NYC, I went to a hospital for waht looked like a knee infection. A 3 hour wait in emerg, 36 hours in the hospital, a few blood tests and IV antibiotic. Turned out to be nothing. The bill came to $12.6K.  

How often do we read in these forums about people describing injuries needing medical attention, but they won't go because they can't afford it. It is a crime that nearly 10% of your population can't afford medical coverage.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> When I needed surgery for an herniated disc, I had it in a week. At no cost.
> 
> Last August, while visiting family in NYC, I went to a hospital for waht looked like a knee infection. A 3 hour wait in emerg, 36 hours in the hospital, a few blood tests and IV antibiotic. Turned out to be nothing. The bill came to $12.6K.
> 
> How often do we read in these forums about people describing injuries needing medical attention, but they won't go because they can't afford it. It is a crime that nearly 10% of your population can't afford medical coverage.


 A little disingenuous to use an NYC ER as a representative of the entire US medical system.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2005)

> The point, my friend, is that those who "can't afford healthcare" already have it...we call it medicare and medicaid.


 
Medicare only covers senior citizens, and some disabled individuals, and Medicaid only covers those who are extremely poor:  For example, in New York State, a family of 4 must have a monthly income of less than $992/month.

That leaves the ineligible and the uninsured, for example a working poor family of 4 with an annual income of, lets say, $12,000--you know, the Walmart worker.  Definitely can't afford private insurance, but not eligible for Medicaid.  College students. Workers without employer-sponsored plans.  That amounts to about 45 million Americans.

Personally, I believe that if we cut out the waste and duplicative bureaucracy of multiple insurance plans, we could easily afford universal healthcare.  But, I find it really hard to argue for universal healthcare with people who simply believe that if you're lucky you can afford healthcare and if not, tough.  Look, that's what they believe, period.  Social Darwinism.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Medicare only covers senior citizens, and some disabled individuals, and Medicaid only covers those who are extremely poor: For example, in New York State, a family of 4 must have a monthly income of less than $992/month.
> 
> That leaves the ineligible and the uninsured, for example a working poor family of 4 with an annual income of, lets say, $12,000--you know, the Walmart worker. Definitely can't afford private insurance, but not eligible for Medicaid. College students. Workers without employer-sponsored plans. That amounts to about 45 million Americans.
> 
> Personally, I believe that if we cut out the waste and duplicative bureaucracy of multiple insurance plans, we could easily afford universal healthcare. But, I find it really hard to argue for universal healthcare with people who simply believe that if you're lucky you can afford healthcare and if not, tough. Look, that's what they believe, period. Social Darwinism.


 I always find it interesting when people refer to success as "pure luck" as if hard work and determination had nothing to do with it....people are just walking along one day and the success fairy said "Poof...you're now making money".  

Again, I proposed a plan up-thread that would solve the problem for those 45 million workers without investing in some confiscatory scheme to make others pay.  Many don't like it because it doesn't punish those who work hard enough for their tastes.  

I proposed allowing the $12,000 per year employee to buy in to a US government run insurance program, that would benefit from not having to make a profit.  All those who are without insurance or who are underinsured would be able to buy in to this plan at a nominal monthly fee (far lower than many private plans).  The government would then provide insurance for them with the idea that those who are using the plan, are also those who are paying for it.  

This plan seems fair, it seems reasonable, and it seems like it would work, and all this without engaging in the "class warfare, others should pay for it" rhetoric we've heard too much of....which is exactly why we won't try it.  Too many people would rather sit around talking about how the rich "should get theirs" than actually solve the problem.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> A little disingenuous to use an NYC ER as a representative of the entire US medical system.


 
It was Jersey City actually. The point is that waiting times exist everywhere. And had been one the those 30 million without coverage, that little visit would have bankrupted me.

The Canadian system is not perfect, but universl coverage is absolutely worth it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 17, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> The Canadian system is not perfect, but universl coverage is absolutely worth it.



Ditto.

Getting medical attention when you need it is a must for everyone, not just those that can afford it.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 17, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> It was Jersey City actually. The point is that waiting times exist everywhere. And had been one the those 30 million without coverage, that little visit would have bankrupted me.
> 
> The Canadian system is not perfect, but universl coverage is absolutely worth it.



Lots of things are wrong with the Canadian system too, I have become frustrated and upset with some things that have happened in my families past, but not having to worry about having coverage to get my sick child the help they need is such a comfort, something I wouldn't give up for anything.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

To the anonymous troll who decided to tell me i've never worked in a poor community, i'll say this....not only HAVE I worked in a poor community, I grew up poor.  I'm still what many would consider poor.  I and my wife work two jobs apiece and I go to school to support our family (such spoiled opulance, I live in, I know). The difference is that I don't blame others for my place in the world.  But, then, I guess belief in hard work is the problem...The world would be a better place if we bought in to the victim mentality some apparently do...Then we could all blame each other for our problems and wonder around begging someone else to solve our problems for us.

What's more, I find it telling that they have nothing to say about my plan that provides healthcare AND allows them to take a hand in their own destiny.  Again, it's the same old class warfare rhetoric who's only purpose seems to be demonization of anyone who disagrees.  It's apparent compromise is not part of the agenda.  So be it.

"How about the US government get in to the health care business like any other company. Those that don't have coverage can pay the US government as a provider, and the US government can roll all profits over to providing coverage. This doesn't cost me a dime, you a dime, and the people who use it pay for it. It doesn't get any fairer than that. As a provider of services, the US government doesn't have to worry about a profit margin, they can simply pay out what they get in."

I don't see where that plan is 'unfair' or doesn't serve the purpose.  It is also not confiscatory in nature.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 17, 2005)

SgtMac,

I read your plan for healthcare and I have to ask, sorry if this was asked earlier.  It is late, my curiousity is peaked but my eyes are tired. 

You state that you want the government to make a rock bottom priced health care that the people that fall inbetween the cracks can afford.  They make too much for medicaid, yet too little to afford the high premiums.

Respectfully, I am following your line of thinking, however, I can only imagine this would piss off a large majority of American citizens that are lining the pockets of big HMO's with high premiums and cause more problems.  You say it won't be any money out of your pocket, but in my experience, nothing run by the government turns enough of a profit to be self sustaining, or maybe that is just Canada .  Another thing, who or what would determine that you make too little to afford high premiums, who would decided you could afford it?  The formula's variables would be great and complicated and could cause more problems in the long run.  People would end up getting through loop holes and getting this discount premium who don't deserve it.  Nothing is ever perfect.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

Lisa said:
			
		

> SgtMac,
> 
> I read your plan for healthcare and I have to ask, sorry if this was asked earlier. It is late, my curiousity is peaked but my eyes are tired.
> 
> ...


 It's not going to make them any madder than taking money from them in the form of confiscatory taxes, for a program they have no intention of using.  Again, they're not paying for the system.  

In addition, a system whereby 50 million Americans pay for healthcare coverage directly from the government, is FAR cheaper than a scheme where 300 million people are allegedly covered through confiscatory taxes.  

As for coming up with forumulas for who qualifies for programs, this is nothing new to the US government.  We already have programs for those who get free coverage through medicare and medicaid benefits.

I'm confident that a voluntary program, allowing people to buy in to a government insurance program would fill the role everyone wants to see the government fill with the uninsured and underinsured without the silly idea of covering every man woman and child in the country "whether they want to be or not".  

Of course, that's assuming that our REAL goal is affordable coverage for those who currently aren't covered, and not just a way to get the "rich" to pay for an entitlement program, because we think we shouldn't have to pay for it ourselves and, besides, "they deserve to pay anyway".


----------



## Kane (Nov 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> To the anonymous troll who decided to tell me i've never worked in a poor community, i'll say this....not only HAVE I worked in a poor community, I grew up poor. I'm still what many would consider poor. I and my wife work two jobs apiece and I go to school to support our family (such spoiled opulance, I live in, I know). The difference is that I don't blame others for my place in the world. But, then, I guess belief in hard work is the problem...The world would be a better place if we bought in to the victim mentality some apparently do...Then we could all blame each other for our problems and wonder around begging someone else to solve our problems for us.
> 
> What's more, I find it telling that they have nothing to say about my plan that provides healthcare AND allows them to take a hand in their own destiny. Again, it's the same old class warfare rhetoric who's only purpose seems to be demonization of anyone who disagrees. It's apparent compromise is not part of the agenda. So be it.
> 
> ...


 
Actually I like your idea . In fact this idea might work for not only health care but universal education as well (well maybe).

Regardless on what path we take, we really need to privatize social security, it is a waste for everyone in the country. This includes the poor considering that the retirement fund you receive from the government is enough to pay for maybe 1 month of living. It isnt the awnser.


----------

