Most Americans Want Universal Health Care

[Zipp0 1]

they are willing to take a tax increase to get it. Well, folks, as this is a democracy, the politicians have a responsibility to make it happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html?hp

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[steveorino 7]

To those who have none, it would be welcomed. I'd welcome it because one of my sons has hard time paying for health insurance. It is a lot of money out of his pocket and he doesn't see the results as he is young and healthy.

On the other hand, I can afford private health insurance and I'd rather have it. I'm tired of the HMOs. IMHO they are an example of what universal health insurance would be like in the US. Your Dr. has to follow too many insurance "guidelines" rather than do what is best for you.

So my answer? Let those who want it pay taxes for it. For those who prefer private insurance, let them opt out. I feel the same way about social security BTW.

steveOrino

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

they are willing to take a tax increase to get it. Well, folks, as this is a democracy, the politicians have a responsibility to make it happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html?hp

Less than half said the government should guarantee health care if it meant their own insurance costs would go up.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

To those who have none, it would be welcomed. I'd welcome it because one of my sons has ahrd time paying for health insurance. It is a lot of money out of his pocket and he doesn't see the results as he is young and healthy.

On the other hand, if I could afford private health insurance I'd rather have it. I'm tired of the HMOs. IMHO they are an example of what universal health insurance would be like in the US. Your Dr. has to follow to many insurance "guidelines" rather than do what is best for you.

So my answer? Let those who want it pay taxes for it. For those who prefer private insurance, let them opt out. I feel the same way about social security BTW.

I think that what you are proposing would not really work out in reality. Think about it, who would'nt prefer private health care to socialized care?
One such group would definitely be made up of those who cannot afford to pay for private health care, because they are too poor and/or hav no stable source of income.
Another group would be made up of those who are "uninsurable" in the private sector, either because of demographics or because of pre-existing medical conditions.
These also happen to be the people that are most likely to take more out of the system than they put in, and that's exactly the reason why private insurance companies try as hard as they can to get rid of them.
One very likely scenario is that socialized health care will be de-facto the domain of those who have little to contribute but a lot to demand. Such a system will be affected by a largely negative overall balance and as such would not be able to operate for long, if at all.
I think the whole idea of "socialized anything" is (or at least should be IMHO):

everybody contributes as much as they reasonably can, everybody takes exactly what they need, not more but especially not less (i.e. nobody is left behind for any reason).

This is what gives it a "social value", what you are proposing sounds more like an alternative, government run insurance for those who cannot afford anything alse, and that's not strictly "universal health care".
Also the idea behind "universal" is that it should indeed be so, no exceptions are allowed.
Kinda like there cannot be "nearly universal" moral values, they are are or they aren't, universal that is (just messing with you a little ).
Just my .02 "socially cared for" Eurocents

Cheers,

Vale

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

they are willing to take a tax increase to get it.

From the article:

Quote

Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs to guarantee health insurance for all, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts.

Raise your hand if you think a $500 per year tax increase is gonna pay for universal health care. Man, if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Jib 0]

Most people want something for nothing until someone says you're probably going to die; so, we're not gonna try because our limited resources are better spent on someone else.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Zipp0 1]

$500 from every tax payer (more from wealthy tax payers), including those not needing government paid health care, could very well make it work.

Majority rules in the USA - or are you anti-democracy?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[steveorino 7]

And THAT is the problem with socialized medicine.
It sucks for the middle and upper class.

It is like when I took my daughter to interview at colleges 9 years ago. I was told I'd have to pay for most of her education. Why? Because I worked my butt off on three jobs and made about $60,000.

The other student there whose had no dad, because mom was never married. She had 3 kids by 3 different sperm donors. She didn't work, but lived on welfare. Her daughter got a 100% complete free ride, room, board, books , and meals for $0.

Guess who ultimately paid for her free ride? I did. I had to pay for my daughter and her daughter because i worked my butt off.

/rant

steveOrino

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

$500 from every tax payer (more from wealthy tax payers), including those not needing government paid health care, could very well make it work.

Where did you get that claim? From what I read, the $500 additional taxes was just a hypothetical "what if"?

[Shotgun 1]

I'd rather work my butt off and live in a country where everyone has access to education and good health care than work my butt off to live in a country where poor people get poor education and poor health care. Having healthier, well-educated people in our country (even if some don't work for it) would make it a better place to live IMHO.

[Zipp0 1]

Maybe the daughter had an academic scholarship? And doesn't the daughter deserve a chance to better herself - or should she pay for the sins of her mother?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I'd rather work my butt off and live in a country where everyone has access to education and good health care than work my butt off to live in a country where poor people get poor education and poor health care. Having healthier, well-educated people in our country (even if some don't work for it) would make it a better place to live IMHO.

No doubt, but are there only those two choices?

steveOrino

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

And THAT is the problem with socialized medicine.
It sucks for the middle and upper class.

It is like when I took my daughter to interview at colleges 9 years ago. I was told I'd have to pay for most of her education. Why? Because I worked my butt off on three jobs and made about $60,000.

The other student there whose had no dad, because mom was never married. She had 3 kids by 3 different sperm donors. She didn't work, but lived on welfare. Her daughter got a 100% complete free ride, room, board, books , and meals for $0.

Guess who ultimately paid for her free ride? I did. I had to pay for my daughter and her daughter because i worked my butt off.

/rant

Frankly I don't see what you're example has to do with socialized medicine, unless you are referring to some sort of co-pay scheme based on income, where for example you start with the lower income group getting everything really for free and then as income goes up you get to pay progressively more.
These has (unfortunately ) been implemented here and there more as a stop-gap measure to increase contribution based not only on income but on a sort of combined income/usage metric. In other words a way of raising taxes without actually saying so .
This can be considered a perversion of the ideal social model, which is the one where, as mentioned previously, everybody contributes based only on income and takes based on their actual (in this case medical) needs. In the ideal system you should never get to pay more because you need more, this would strongly detract from the social aspect.
But even if this happens keep in mind that even in the worst case scenario you'll never get to pay for something really major (like an organ transplant) out of your own pocket, no matter how much you earn.
Also while you can live without higher education (although your lifestyle will probably, but not necessarily, be adversely affected) you cannot live without a heart or a liver (or any fatal but curable condition), so I fail to see such a strict a parallel between subsidized education (which is part of a wider welfare scheme) and socialized health care by itself.
Incidentally, personally I'm not a great fan of welfare, but as I'm sure you can tell have a completely different attitute towards health care, and see no contradition in that.

Cheers,

Vale

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

$500 from every tax payer (more from wealthy tax payers), including those not needing government paid health care, could very well make it work.

Where did you get that claim? From what I read, the $500 additional taxes was just a hypothetical "what if"?

I got that claim from inside my genius brain - a treasure trove of original and compelling ideas.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Maybe the daughter had an academic scholarship? And doesn't the daughter deserve a chance to better herself - or should she pay for the sins of her mother?

They both had scholarship offers, my daughter and her daughter. Her daughter got in free of charge to her. My daughter had to pay because I worked hard.

The world will be a better place when I'm a pyschologist. Why don't YOU pay for that. I mean I am by borrowing $40,000 dollars, but hey, why not have someone else pay?

steveOrino

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

$500 from every tax payer (more from wealthy tax payers), including those not needing government paid health care, could very well make it work.

Majority rules in the USA - or are you anti-democracy?

Those not needing government health care? Are you looking to exclude people from it? Who are you excluding? Why are you excluding them? What's up with that?

More from wealthy taxpayers? Why? Let them pay for what they use.

Quote

Majority rules in the USA - or are you anti-democracy?

Not the last time I checked. That's why we have a representative government - because the majority is usually a real asshole to the minority. Democracy is best exemplified by mob rule. Lynchings are my problem with democracy - 200 whites believe he should die, one black objects because he didn't do anything wrong. Well, in a de facto democracy like that, we see the joy and happiness that comes from it.

Democracy? That means, "FUCK THE RIGHTS OF THOSE IN THE MINORITY."

I AM anti-democracy. Because a Democracy results in grave injustices to the minorities. Thank goodness we have a representative government and a court that is insulated from mob rule. Thank goodness we had folks like Earl Warren who were willing to do the unpopular things that brought protections that the country disagreed with. Thank goodness we had guys like Carter and Ford who committed political suicide by doing what they thought were the right things, even IF they were unpopular decisions.

Mob mentality is for the weak. Show some balls and get away from the mob mentality.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

No doubt, but are there only those two choices?

'course not, there is always the "be a lazy bum and indulge myself" one, but that tends to be a tad bit tricky, at least in my experience

Vale

[Zipp0 1]

Maybe your daughter should have studied harder to get a better scholarship?

I appreciate the fact that you worked hard, but you shouldn't punishsomeone by denying them a good education because thier parents are not wealthy. This is what allows people to break the poverty cycle.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Maybe your daughter should have studied harder to get a better scholarship?

I appreciate the fact that you worked hard, but you shouldn't punishsomeone by denying them a good education because thier parents are not wealthy. This is what allows people to break the poverty cycle.

And you shouldn't punish somebody who does well by denying them the opportunity to pay for their own education by making them pay for everyone else's.

Guess what - I spent my formative years in Section 8 housing. It turns out that I found ways to pay for my own education. There are ways, but it takes effort to find them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I'd rather work my butt off and live in a country where everyone has access to education and good health care than work my butt off to live in a country where poor people get poor education and poor health care. Having healthier, well-educated people in our country (even if some don't work for it) would make it a better place to live IMHO.

No doubt, but are there only those two choices?

I'm sure there are other choices, but since you were talking about working your butt off only to watch someone else get a "free ride," I stuck with those two choices.

And growing up on welfare with a mom who can't seem to stay in a stable relationship? Doesn't sound like much of a "free ride" to me. Personally, I would have been happy to see that she was using the educational resources available to her to make a better life for herself.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Those not needing government health care? Are you looking to exclude people from it? Who are you excluding? Why are you excluding them? What's up with that?

Those already WITH health care don't need government help.

Quote

More from wealthy taxpayers? Why? Let them pay for what they use.

Sorry, that's not how it works in a society.

Quote

Mob mentality is for the weak. Show some balls and get away from the mob mentality.

The weak, eh? I can't believe you would be so intellectually dishonest as to compare the need for health care in the USA and the part democracy may play in the process to social injustices like slavery. Democracy ended slavery and brought about social reform that changed this country for the better. Protecting the minority is a part of what Democracy does. In this case it will protect the less fortunate by providing them with health care.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

$500 from every tax payer (more from wealthy tax payers), including those not needing government paid health care, could very well make it work.

Where did you get that claim? From what I read, the $500 additional taxes was just a hypothetical "what if"?

I got that claim from inside my genius brain - a treasure trove of original and compelling ideas.

And an active imagination.

Personally, I think guaranteed healthcare for all Americans is a great idea. What concerns me is how to implement a universal healthcare program that doesn't involve dramatic cost increases, while maintaining the quality of care.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

In the 2006-2007 Alberta budget health care expenditures were estimated at ~8.3B $Cdn for ~3.5million people. It works out to ~2500/capita/anum. At 1$CDN= $0.86 that is about
$2150.00 per year.
For that we have elective surgery waiting lists of months and even years. Non critical, necessary treatment (you know early stage cancer) has shorter waiting lists, but they can still be lethal. Last week a woman was flown to Montana to give birth due to a lack of neo-natal beds in Calgary (or anywhere else in Alberta).
Remember our healthcare prices are way less than yours for virtually any treatment or drug.
Some sort of blanket coverage needs to come to the US, but the 'everyone in the same boat' system is collapsing here.
BTW Most of us also have some sort of private secondary coverage for prescriptions, semi-private rooms, dental etc. Those costs would be over and above the gov's estimates.

Source: http://www.gov.ab.ca/budget2006/#

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Maybe your daughter should have studied harder to get a better scholarship?

I appreciate the fact that you worked hard, but you shouldn't punishsomeone by denying them a good education because thier parents are not wealthy. This is what allows people to break the poverty cycle.

The scholarship was based on finacial need not grades. My daughter was an honor roll all state cc runner.

The girl whose mother chose to be a baby breeder and collect welfare had a greater need than the dad who was already working 80+ hors a week to feed his family. It may seem fair to you but not to me, and I'm hardly a cold hearted guy.

steveOrino

[miked10270 0]

Quote

they are willing to take a tax increase to get it. Well, folks, as this is a democracy, the politicians have a responsibility to make it happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html?hp

Socialised Medicine does tend to be more efficient. It often looks poor compared to America's system because most countries don't put as big a percentage of their money into it. Also, it covers stuff that a private health insurer won't ever consider like chronic ailments and care of the elderly.

I'm sure that AMericas politicians will approach this in a careful and considered manner.

A major priority would of course be a fact-finding tour of countries with Socialised Medicine. I'm sure they'll all want to see at first hand how a country (like, say, Britain) manages its Socialised Medicine System during major population movements (like, say, the 2012 Olympics). Then they can compare that with their findings of the 2008 Olympics in China.

Yeah... I can see how Socialised Medicine would need a great deal of looking at.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.