GOP can go to hell.

a reply to: Grambler

what do you propose we do, let people just die?? seriously, we are a country that can't even allow doctors help terminal patients exit this world at a time of their choosing, we want to force them to stick around suffering through those last few days... how much taxpayer money would be saved if we just changed our way of thinking in this area? instead, well look at all the screaming that was done by the "life is sacred" crowd over Terry Schiavo. our society isn't capable of ignoring the sick and needy, to watch them suffer, so ya, there will always be at least the illusion that everyone that needs healthcare can obtain it, and it will fit most of the people. hospitals will take in the poor regardless of weather or not they have any way to pay them for their services. but, can our system survive providing essentially free care for all those who have no way to pay for the services they need? you take the gov't funds out of healthcare you don't really have that many choices as to what to do next...
either accept that some might not get the care the need and see grandparents, children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers die because they are poor...
or expect the healthcare to provide the care regardless, and I can probably assure you that charity won't cover that need and the hospitals will start taking huge losses, and either go under or get bailed out by the gov't.

if obamacare did not much of anything else, it did put the healthcare providers on more stable ground than they were before it was passed...

a reply to: deadlyhope


How can you afford to raise kids if you can't even afford to have them born?

Oh wait!

It takes a government to raise a child.

I get it now.

a reply to: dawnstar

Let people die? People die all the time. The problem is population growth. In Syria, a country torn by war, population continues to grow too fast for natural resources to sustain. Overpopulation is the cause of war. Anyone who tries to stop people from dying is doomed to fail. God creates life. God kills life. You can't fight God.

a reply to: introvert

That is an excellent point.

Sorry to butt in, but the key word was 'debt'. 40 trillion in debt. He compared this to a 20 billion dollar investment. They are not remotely the same.

a reply to: allsee4eye
in most western nations though, there's been a population decline..
and.. um... I am sure that if it was found that one of your coworkers was carrying tb all around your workplace, you would have no problem with the gov't forcing the person to get treated, in a nice isolation room in some hospital.. regardless of their ability to pay!!!

a reply to: Grambler

Those who pay nothing in taxes are the poor, not middle class, and already have full coverage, which are in Republican states, according to your source.

The middle class is paying at least 25% and that does not include the other taxes they pay, plus costs for insurance and healthcare costs beyond what the insurance companies do not cover.

Also, your source does not break down their income tax payments according to where the money goes. It says 45% just for healthcare, but that is incorrect.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grambler

what do you propose we do, let people just die?? seriously, we are a country that can't even allow doctors help terminal patients exit this world at a time of their choosing, we want to force them to stick around suffering through those last few days... how much taxpayer money would be saved if we just changed our way of thinking in this area? instead, well look at all the screaming that was done by the "life is sacred" crowd over Terry Schiavo. our society isn't capable of ignoring the sick and needy, to watch them suffer, so ya, there will always be at least the illusion that everyone that needs healthcare can obtain it, and it will fit most of the people. hospitals will take in the poor regardless of weather or not they have any way to pay them for their services. but, can our system survive providing essentially free care for all those who have no way to pay for the services they need? you take the gov't funds out of healthcare you don't really have that many choices as to what to do next...
either accept that some might not get the care the need and see grandparents, children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers die because they are poor...
or expect the healthcare to provide the care regardless, and I can probably assure you that charity won't cover that need and the hospitals will start taking huge losses, and either go under or get bailed out by the gov't.

if obamacare did not much of anything else, it did put the healthcare providers on more stable ground than they were before it was passed...

Here is the most important part of your post.

hospitals will take in the poor regardless of weather or not they have any way to pay them for their services. but, can our system survive providing essentially free care for all those who have no way to pay for the services they need?

And there we have it. People are getting care, its just a financial argument.

And so what is the solution, to force the government to provide essentially free care for all those who have no way to pay for the services they need through universal care?

You mention Terry Schiavo. Are you suggesting that the government should have had to pay to keep her alive no matter what the cost? Of course that is unfeasible.

It sucks, but we do place monetary values on life. For example, we have speed limits that go all the way up to 75 MPH. Surely keeping the limit at 5 MPH would save tons of lives from accidents. And yet it would devastate our way of life. So we make a decision that will keep a quality of life while maintain some safety.

I don't want to see anyone die of poor health care. I just feel that universal care will costs everyone far more, and will lead to poorer care in the long run. That doesn't make me heartless.

If a more free market plan would lower costs to reasonable levels where there wasn't all of the corruption we see today, it would allow charities or hospitals to treat even those that couldn't pay for a far more reasonable cost.

See my previous post, that shows to have a UK style system in the US., it would cost the poor 20% more of their annual income, and the middle class 40% more. Do you not think this would ruin lives?

Now look at a free market system like Lasik eye surgery. This is not covered by insurance, and as a result in a world where almost every medical procedure has increased in price overwhelmingly, the prices have dropped considerably, and the quality has increased.

This is because people can shop around, and doctors compete and as a result get better at their service and charge lower prices.

This is an example of how a more free market apporach is far superior than universal care.

a reply to: dawnstar

In America population growth is too high to be sustainable. If not curtailed, could mean war like in Syria where population went from 4 million in 1960 to 20 million in 2010 because of welfare state.

a reply to: introvert

ya, they can have babies, with no worries whatsoever, so can the more affluent...
it's that small section in the middle of the two that aren't supposed to have babies that they can't afford.....
but, hey, maybe they could afford them if they weren't paying so much extra taxes to pay for the welfare for the rich and the poor, but we will never know, because well... what can I say...
just don't have sex, don't have babies, let's find out what the result would be when there is only rich spoiled brats and poor disadvantaged kids..

a reply to: Grambler

YES...ppl get care in the ER...

SOME care.

What about a heart TRANSPLANT? or Ongoing chemotherapy?



I don't WANT health insurance. I WANT healthcare.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Those who pay nothing in taxes are the poor, not middle class, and already have full coverage, which are in Republican states, according to your source.

The middle class is paying at least 25% and that does not include the other taxes they pay, plus costs for insurance and healthcare costs beyond what the insurance companies do not cover.

Also, your source does not break down their income tax payments according to where the money goes. It says 45% just for healthcare, but that is incorrect.

Yes, the people who pay no taxes would have to pay 20% in taxes, as they do in the UK.

They would be furious about this, because it is much cheaper for them to have the current system.

And fine, lets say that the 45% is total income tax in the UK, and that is about what it would be here (as opposed to the current rate plus 45% more).

You think that is cheaper? You think middle class people will be willing to pay 40%? You think millions of people that pay no income tax now will be happy to pay15% or 20%?

You are the one that mentioned other countries, and yet you have no argument that this would be cheaper or liked by the people of the US.

Where are your numbers for your plan, you know, that secret one that you can't talk about?

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Grambler

YES...ppl get care in the ER...

SOME care.

What about a heart TRANSPLANT? or Ongoing chemotherapy?

I don't WANT health insurance. I WANT healthcare.

Again this is a different argument than the financial one. You are trying to make a moral argument.

Then how much should we have to pay for the heart transplant? Medicare is 40 trillion dollars in debt. How much should future generations have to pay for our health care today?

Yes its fuzzy and warm to say everyone should have free care for everything. But what about the costs.

Well, lets see how heart surgey looks into those universal utopias.

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

www.latimes.com...

How would you like to wait half a year to get heart surgery?

And again, this is all being compared to the status quo, which I am not advocating. A system with more free market competitiuon would increase the quality of surgeries such as heart surgery, and lower costs, which would provide more access for more people.

a reply to: Grambler

Even in the USA there are wait lists for specialists.

Trying to make it SOUND like we have "insta-care" from orthopedic specialsts, cardiologists, oncologists...

Even WITH private insurance I've had to BOOK appointments 4 MONTHS out for a specialist personally.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Grambler

Even in the USA there are wait lists for specialists.

Trying to make it SOUND like we have "insta-care" from orthopedic specialsts, cardiologists, oncologists...

Even WITH private insurance I've had to BOOK appointments 4 MONTHS out for a specialist personally.

For heart surgery? I doubt it.

The point is what good is universal care if you can't get the care, or its crap, or it costs everyone so much in taxes that they can't afford their home or food.

Just wanting everyone to have care is noble, but if that solution makes matters worse, good intentions mean nothing.

a reply to: Grambler

I've had GREAT care in Europe, personally.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes, the people who pay no taxes would have to pay 20% in taxes, as they do in the UK.

That is untrue. That does not include the tax system they have in place for personal allowances after a certain income level, much like here in the US. The tax burden is much lower.

You think that is cheaper? You think middle class people will be willing to pay 40%? You think millions of people that pay no income tax now will be happy to pay15% or 20%?

You're not putting this in proper perspective. You don't understand the tax system, do you?

You are the one that mentioned other countries, and yet you have no argument that this would be cheaper or liked by the people of the US.

What does one have to do with the other?

Where are your numbers for your plan, you know, that secret one that you can't talk about?

I've addressed that issue. Where are your rebuttals to my posts that refute your ridiculous claims?

Can you stay on track, or must you continue to deflect?

a reply to: Grambler

A universal health care system will drive up costs

In the beginning every program drives costs up but over time the prices will start going down.

just as guarentee government loans has driven up the price of education.

Wrong banks drove up the cost of education.

And who will pay for it? Thats right, future generations.

The poor and middle class will pay for it like always. After all the elites pet in the WH is giving them even more tax breaks. Funny how they don't whine about that welfare.

Just like social security right?

You mean the social program that had a trust fund until it was emptied out by Clinton and Bush?

You mention Terry Schiavo. Are you suggesting that the government should have had to pay to keep her alive no matter what the cost? Of course that is unfeasible.

did it sound like I was suggesting that??? they claimed that cutting her feeding tube would be cruel because she would suffer too much, but then they were insisting that she be kept alive in that state, which I kind of think was really rather painful, for over a decade!!
no, I am one of those who believes that as long as one is in sound mind, one should be able to opt out of life on their own terms, not be forced to linger around in pain. I don't believe that they should be pressured to opt out, I don't believe that they should be forced to... but they shouldn't be forced to remain in a damaged body living in pain longer than they wish.

I'm not really sure I agree with the idea of universal healthcare really...
but you are wrong when you say that the system before obamacare was sufficient for all.
a person with good insurance and a person on medicaid can develop trust with the doctor the choose, the doctor has a record of their previous health issues, what medicine she is on, ect... they usually don't have to pay full price for the medications they need. a parent who's child has health insurance or is on medicaid enjoys the same benefits...
but well, the person, or child who isn't insured and not on medicaid, well, they might take on one doctor for awhile, end up unmanageable medical debt, stop getting care for awhile, then eventually find another doctor to start building a relationship with, the result can be that their medical records are incomplete, and the care they recieve is hampered because of it. they might not have the money for that expensive prescription when they need it and go a few days to a few weeks, or forever without it. and if they are a child, they might miss school from time to time because they have to wait for the inhaler to be refilled, they just might end up in high school, decide they want to join the service and be disqualified because they had a collapsed lung as a child and their medical records are lacking as to just why that was.
or heck, try getting on disability when you don't have the medical records to substantiate that your are disabled!!!
oh, goodie, when it's my time to leave this world, I can go to the er and hope that they will be able to postpone my death for a time.... but why would I want to then???

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, the people who pay no taxes would have to pay 20% in taxes, as they do in the UK.

That is untrue. That does not include the tax system they have in place for personal allowances after a certain income level, much like here in the US. The tax burden is much lower.

You think that is cheaper? You think middle class people will be willing to pay 40%? You think millions of people that pay no income tax now will be happy to pay15% or 20%?

You're not putting this in proper perspective. You don't understand the tax system, do you?

You are the one that mentioned other countries, and yet you have no argument that this would be cheaper or liked by the people of the US.

What does one have to do with the other?

Where are your numbers for your plan, you know, that secret one that you can't talk about?

I've addressed that issue. Where are your rebuttals to my posts that refute your ridiculous claims.

Can you stay on track, or must you continue to deflect?

I understand the taxes just fine. I understand that the total numbers given for the UK system the entirety of the income tax.

I am not ignorant of economics, unlike you who think that the unemployment number is really 4.4%, something so astounding that even a person with almost no knowledge of economics could realize is a joke.

The fact is that people in the US would pay the taxes they have now in addition to what the costs would be. using the total UK number as a base for what it would be in the US seems legitimate, seeing as how the US spends far more money on other services (defense, welfare, etc.) than the UK.

There are other factors that will make the US system more expensive. Obesity, the fact that doctors get paid more, are just a few. Again, it seems likely that the US would at least be paying as much in toatal taxes per person as the UK after universal care.

Given these huge differences, the best thing to do would be to look at universal plans that have been suggested in the US, such as Bernies plan, an see what it would cost.

But I forgot, your super secret plan is way different and better than Bernies (you havent mentioned how yet). Have you reached out to congress yet to let them know you have single handedly developed a super secret plan that will solve health care?

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Grambler

A universal health care system will drive up costs

In the beginning every program drives costs up but over time the prices will start going down.

just as guarentee government loans has driven up the price of education.

Wrong banks drove up the cost of education.

And who will pay for it? Thats right, future generations.

The poor and middle class will pay for it like always. After all the elites pet in the WH is giving them even more tax breaks. Funny how they don't whine about that welfare.

Just like social security right?

You mean the social program that had a trust fund until it was emptied out by Clinton and Bush?

Um yeah sure Clinton and Bush were bad. But I am sure if we give the government total control over health care, then we won't get corrupt people!

Oh and how long until medicare becomes profitable and isn't 40 trillion dollars in debt?