Most Americans Want Universal Health Care

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I could rasie a vote as to who should be banned, you or me. Then, upon vote, one of us gets banned.

Don't do that - it would probably be BOTH of us.

Quote

What are your thoughts on things like the Constitution - something that is read quite often to direct conflict with the will of the people?

I think one of the major problems in the USA is determining who deserves protection as a minority or protected class. For instance, you can't deny someone a job because they are too old, but if they are under a certain age (40, 50??) it's not necessarily against the law.

As far as the constitution goes, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but it is obvious that the will of the people plays less and less into decisions made by our government. This, to me, is not a good thing. When the will of the people is no longer a factor, we no longer have a democracy, or democratic republic, or representative democracy - whatever you chose to deem it.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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

This must be a joke.

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.

Which results in $41/month. This is really generous offer, which could obviously buy the best health insurance available.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Zipp0 1]

I haven't used my health care in 3 years - at all. There are millions like me. Hopefully I won't need any significant care for many years.

That's why it could work. The healthy and young pay, but use the services very little. Then when they are old, they benefit from the young and healthy people paying, who also need little health care.

And yes, I realize the actual math is probably very different. The point is, people are willing to pay more taxes to cover themselves and their neighbors.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>there will be an increase in freeloaders - it's not a difficult point to
>understand - a lot of people work just for the health benefits alone

I think you are missing the point here. PEOPLE GET FREE HEALTHCARE NOW. It stinks, but then so will a lower-tier public program.

Some people work now for the benefits of having good health coverage. In the future, if a two-tier system is instituted, some people will work for the benefits of having good health care coverage, as opposed to the lower-tier minimal coverage.

Some people are lazy and don't want to work, so they don't get good healthcare coverage. They only get whatever they can get in an ER. They then never pay, and we end up paying for their medical bills. In the future, some people will be lazy and will not want to work. They won't get good healthcare coverage, only whatever they get on the bottom tier. They never pay for their healthcare, and we end up paying for their medical bills.

No change in motivations. Want good healthcare? Get a job. Want to deal with whatever the ER can give you? Then be a lazy bum. Works the same in both cases.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

PEOPLE GET FREE HEALTHCARE NOW.

Yes, and any affordable solution involves cutting down on what we get for free, not giving out more. Our present entitlement system is doomed in several years' time because it is drastically too expensive.

It's sheer fantasy to talk about expanding entitlements.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 2,400]

>Yes, and any affordable solution involves cutting down on what we get for free . . .

The only way that would be true is if there is no waste in the system right now. And that is clearly untrue. It's like claiming that the only way you can decrease your electric bill is to freeze in the dark.

>It's sheer fantasy to talk about expanding entitlements.

I'm talking about keeping "entitlements" (care) the same, just streamlining the whole process.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I'd rather work my butt off and live in a country where everyone has access to education and good health care

There is no such a country in this world if you mean "where everyone has free (prepaid by everyone's taxes) access to good health care".

I've lived in several countries which provide "free" public health care. They all have the same problem - a limited number of good doctors (because the best doctors go to private sector), and long waiting lines for visiting any specialist or treatment. It is typical to have a three to six-month waiting list for a CAT scan. Wanna see a dentist? No problem, you're scheduled on May 15th.

Another side of government-paid health care is that basically the doctors and hospitals have no reason to improve their services, because there is no need to compete for your money. The government pays the same amount to the best doctor, and to the worst doctor anyway.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

As far as the constitution goes, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but it is obvious that the will of the people plays less and less into decisions made by our government. This, to me, is not a good thing. When the will of the people is no longer a factor, we no longer have a democracy, or democratic republic, or representative democracy - whatever you chose to deem it.

Picture the Constitution as the performance limits on your car - a governor, if you will (nice analogy I came up with, eh?). You can still will the vehicle to do all kinds of things, but that governor will limit just how much you can do.

The Constitution limits governmental authority, hence laws against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. If a "pure" democracy is in place, then the will of the people prevails over established rules. The will of the people has this power in the US - it can be accomplished via Constitutional Amendment. In a sense, taking the governor off.

The US form of democracy is like our government - limited (although with recent court decisions, I do not think the federal government is limited anymore). This was because the founders realized the dangers of unlimited government and unlimited democracy and sought to control them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I haven't used my health care in 3 years - at all. There are millions like me.

This is because you are not going to see a doctor every time you have a sore throat. And if you do, you'll have to pay your copay, and probably face the insurance premium increase next year.

But when people have free health care, seems like they tend to see doctors more frequently, and for reasons they would never visit a doctor if they have to pay for the visit.

Quote

That's why it could work. The healthy and young pay, but use the services very little.

They also pay very little. Just compare the insurance rates for 25yo and 55yo.

Quote

The point is, people are willing to pay more taxes to cover themselves and their neighbors.

Yes, but only in theory. Tell them they'd have to pay the full amount of their doubled montly insurance premium (to cover them and someone else without insurance), which would be close to $1000/month, and see how many people are willing to pay extra $12,000 per year in taxes.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Everyone does not work in the USSR or in China.

Bill, they did - at least in USSR being unemployed without a valid reason (serious illness, disability etc) was a felony, punishable by jail time. The reason - everyone was seriously underpaid for what you did, and that where the government earned the money to produce more nuclear warheads.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[DaVinci 0]

Heres the problem with your rant.

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.

Hey if it was only 500 bucks and the level of care was as good as I have right now...sign me up.

Oh snap, then *you* say this :"$500 from every tax payer (more from wealthy tax payers), including those not needing government paid health care, could very well make it work."

See you want it free, but wants OTHERS to pay for it...Sure you claim that you are willing to pay PART, but you want the brunt of it to be paid for you.

I would rather the GOV give tax breaks to companies to provide health care as a benefit. Than you get yours free while I pay for it.

[billvon 2,400]

>Bill, they did - at least in USSR being unemployed without a valid
>reason (serious illness, disability etc) was a felony . . .

Yes. But some did in fact not work, because there was no real incentive to do so, and enforcement was spotty at best. Unemployment hovered around 5% when it was surveyed in 1989, despite the claims of Soviet leaders that "there is no such thing as unemployment in the USSR."

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Both good points. Which is why I am for an official two-tiered system. The lower level (basic preventative care, basic ER services, most pediatrics, catastrophic coverage) should be covered by the government. It effectively is now - people who can't afford healthcare just show up at ER's and are treated. If we standardized such care we could do it for much less money.

The second tier would still be private, and would include elective surgery, transplants, more complex reconstructive surgery etc. That way people could still choose what sort of more advanced medical services they wanted.

Problem is that transplants would be a touchy subject.

I can already hear the cries of, "You are going to let them die since they don't have money!"

[billvon 2,400]

>"You are going to let them die since they don't have money!"

Basically, yes. A good incentive to get additional healthcare coverage, eh?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Which results in $41/month. This is really generous offer, which could obviously buy the best health insurance available.

Funny enough, I think thats about what my GF pays for Blue Cross...Maybe 50/mth.

So you can get insurance that is not super expensive....Not great insurance but better than nothing.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That's why it could work. The healthy and young pay, but use the services very little. Then when they are old, they benefit from the young and healthy people paying, who also need little health care.

Social Security is set up that way and it is on a bad path...How would this be different?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>"You are going to let them die since they don't have money!"

Basically, yes. A good incentive to get additional healthcare coverage, eh?

While YOU may be willing to let them die...many will not and will try and make that covered as well.

See the slippery slope? Hey, I think health care would be great....I just think that the best chance we have of getting it is to make it economicly a great idea for any company to provide it. Like give tax credits for companies, and individual contractors.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Yes. But some did in fact not work, because there was no real incentive to do so, and enforcement was spotty at best.

The restrictions did are slightly relaxed with Mikhail Gorbachev. Note that most of "unemployed" were actually mothers on maternity leave - you were allowed to take up to 3 years(!) of maternity leave in USSR.

Quote

Unemployment hovered around 5% when it was surveyed in 1989, despite the claims of Soviet leaders that "there is no such thing as unemployment in the USSR."

The Soviet Union as we knew it basically ended up in 1989, and things were loosening since 1986. There was still little agony, and the separation completed in next two years in 1991.

However in pre-1986 USSR there were really no unemployment, because if you were unemployed (usually after returning from the jail, as it was close to impossible to fire anyone), and go to an "unemployment agency", they would basically force a company to hire you (this was an easy thing, as there were no private companies, and all of them were owned by State). If course, they would not be able to make you hired as a salesman in a grocery store, or in a slaughtering and meat processing plant (which were probably the best employment opportunities in the USSR not linked with the Communist Party), but for a locksmith or turner - this was easy.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Funny enough, I think thats about what my GF pays for Blue Cross...Maybe 50/mth.

Yes, when you are young, at the age of 19 and have no diseases, you can get a plan with 5000 deductible you'll pay $50/mo for (with no dental coverage btw).
But this is the lowest price to cover only very young and healthy, which is not ever close to average.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Gawain 0]

Quote

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!

No sh*t!!

Quote

But now, as then, this concern did not translate into a consensus on what should replace it.

One question offered a choice between the current system and a national health insurance program covering everyone, administered by the government and financed by taxpayers. Thirty-eight percent said they preferred the current system, 47 percent the government-run approach.

Doesn't look like a majority to me. And true to fashion, the NYT didn't actually publish the poll.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[DrewEckhardt 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

The governent already has a universal retirement savings plan. If I wait to retire until elligible for full benefits, I'll need to live five years past my statistically expected lifespan to achieve a zero percent rate of return on my investment assuming they never increase the tax rate. Since that will be insufficient to sustain my current standad of living I need to put just as much into a private plan so the universal solution has doubled my costs. I want no part of a health plan that works like that.

A safety net where the government provides a minimum benefit would be fine and is what we already have with health care. Anybody can walk into an emergency room and get care whether or not they can pay for it. If they have a low income which makes them unable (as opposed to unwilling) to pay for private insurance there are government programs (Medicare as used by 44,000,000 people in 2001 and various state programs like Colorado's indigent medical care) that will keep creditors from going after them when they use the service.

Some level of preventative care to keep them from making it to the emergency room would be an improvement.

Extending the safety net from the quantifiably poor to the effectively uninsurable without requiring them to first bankrupt their families would be another.

But without competition any plan that tries to cover everybody is either going to be of insufficient quality (I get 1/3 of the retirement benefit I would with a private plan of the same cost) or cost far more than private alternatives.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

As I've said many times before, in an affluent country like the US, it's absolutely disgraceful that we don't have some kind of universal health coverage for everyone, especially the vast middle class that basically is screwed on health care when the bread-earner gets laid off from his/her job, or is self-employed, or is classified as an "independent contractor".

When you become inelligible for your employers' group plan you can pay for the same benefits for a year under COBRA at whatever your employer was spending on you (IIRC, the numbers were pushing $400 a month for an individual the time I used it; and I think my last employer with its no co-pay plan was closer to $500 for an individual or $1000 for a family).

After that, other group plans are required to cover you with no exclusion for pre-existing conditions. Various professional organizations offer group plans to their members which include self-employed people.

While potentially costly and hard to find, health insurance is available in all those situations.

Given no pre-existing conditions you can get other insurance. If your age is lower than average or you have more Y chromosomes than average it'll be less expensive.

Quote

If the NHS systems that exist in, say, the UK or Canada have deficiencies that most Americans are unwilling to live with, fine. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater and refusing to even consider the concept, why not use the other countries' systems as our R & D, and develop something better?

Because you can't work arround the bloat inherent in the legislative process.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

If the NHS systems that exist in, say, the UK or Canada have deficiencies that most Americans are unwilling to live with, fine. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater and refusing to even consider the concept, why not use the other countries' systems as our R & D, and develop something better?

Because you can't work arround the bloat inherent in the legislative process.

Shoulda listened to Hillary, folks. Blew your chance.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

That's why it could work. The healthy and young pay, but use the services very little. Then when they are old, they benefit from the young and healthy people paying, who also need little health care.

Social Security is set up that way and it is on a bad path...How would this be different?

Social Security has been a shining example of a government program that works quite well. Take off the cap and it fixes itself.

If a new health care plan worked as well as social security has, we'd be sitting in high cotton.

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

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

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.

No offence to your mother, but how many times do you give someone a leg up before you realize that they are not really interested in rising above where they are at.

Not sure what my mother has to do with any of this(?). Steve was talking about a girl who got to go to college for "free" since her mother was too poor to pay for it. If the girl was going to college, it sounds like she was interested in rising above where she was at.