Originally posted by: Specop 007
Great. Didnt take long to try and get this rammed through. Universal Healthcare! I dont know when healthcare became a RIGHT, but it seems it will be. Which is a horrible idea, as we know how well its working in Canada. Unfortunately the little guys will lap it up because it "feels good" that we're trying to help those poor downtrodden victims of society.
This sucks, I really hope this fails miserably.
Article
Senator wants universal health care plan
I totally agree with you!!!
We need universal healthcare like we need another hole in our head!!
I have worked in a private hospital for a number of years....free healthcare is NOT the answer!!
Most of these kids who think universal healthcare would be a fantastic think have no idea what exactly is involved!!
It would cost us so much in the long run it would cripple our economy!!
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press WriterWed Dec 13, 5:00 PM ET
Several business and labor leaders on Wednesday hailed a proposal to provide health care coverage to all Americans through a pool of private insurance plans.
A dozen years after Congress rejected a Clinton administration plan for universal health care, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record) offered a plan he said would provide affordable, private health care coverage for all Americans, except those covered through Medicare or the military.
"Employer-based coverage is melting away like a Popsicle on the sidewalk in August," Wyden said.
Wyden, a Democrat and a member of the Senate Finance health care subcommittee, said his plan would "guarantee health coverage for every American that is at least as good as members of Congress receive and can never be taken away."
The plan, dubbed the "Healthy Americans Act," would provide universal coverage for no more money than the country spends on health insurance today, Wyden said.
Wyden, a veteran of the 1990s health care battle, drew support from groups that have frequently opposed each other, including Andy Stern, international president of the Service Employees International Union, and Safeway Inc. CEO Steve Burd.
Stern called employer-based health coverage a relic of an industrial economy that is long gone, and said U.S. companies "cannot compete in a global economy when we put the price of health care on the cost of our products, and our competitor nations do not."
Stern said the health care system had failed to create jobs while adding to trade deficits and holding wages stagnant. For the nation's 46 million uninsured, "it is a failed moral policy as well," Stern said.
Burd said his California-based grocery chain had saved millions in health care costs by emphasizing preventative care and offering discounts for nonsmokers and others with lower health risks.
Left unchecked, health care costs will soon surpass net income for many companies, Burd said, calling Wyden's proposal a bold plan to restart a national dialogue on health care.
"Working together, business, labor, government, consumer groups and health care providers can collectively solve this problem," he said.
Wyden's plan is an outgrowth of work by the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, a 14-member panel that held meetings in 36 states and heard from 28,000 people about how to overhaul the nation's health care system.
The group, created in 2003 by legislation sponsored by Wyden and Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, recommended that the government take steps to guarantee that all Americans have basic health insurance coverage by 2012.
Wyden said his new plan would allow workers to carry their health insurance from job to job without penalty. More efficient administration and more promotion of competition for health care plans, he said, would allow greater coverage while costing no more than the government is paying today for health insurance coverage.
The plan would require that employers "cash out" their existing health plans by terminating coverage and paying the amount saved directly to workers as increased wages. Workers then would be required to buy health insurance from a large pool of private plans.
After two years, companies would no longer have to pay the higher wages. Instead, Wyden said, they would pay into an insurance pool, based on annual revenues and the number of full-time workers.
At Wyden's request, the Lewin Group, a Virginia-based health care consulting firm, reviewed the plan. The consultant said the plan would reduce health spending by private employers by nearly three-quarters and save $1.4 trillion in total national health care spending over the next decade.
Increases in premium payments for individuals and families would be offset by higher wages and subsidies provided under the plan, the report said. As an example, Wyden cited a worker who earned $60,000 last year, and received about $12,000 worth of health care coverage.
The worker's health insurance would be terminated but his salary would increase to $72,000, which would cover his health care coverage. The plan would bar workers from buying a "bare-bones" health package and pocketing the savings, Wyden said.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Specop 007
This sucks, I really hope this fails miserably.
why? for ideological reasons? the usa is just about the only first world country without universal health care. In the long run, it would save your country money and improve the overall health of the US population.
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
FINALLY about time we are getting healthcare.
Remember, elections have their consequences, time to cash in on some of that "political capital" bush used for to screw us for some good for once. :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Specop 007
This sucks, I really hope this fails miserably.
why? for ideological reasons? the usa is just about the only first world country without universal health care. In the long run, it would save your country money and improve the overall health of the US population.
That is so bogus...im the long run it would bankrupt this nation.......sorry...nice idea...but foolish!!
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hehe, "screw us". The lack of such a thing is screwing you over a whole lot more.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hehe, "screw us". The lack of such a thing is screwing you over a whole lot more.
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hehe, "screw us". The lack of such a thing is screwing you over a whole lot more.
Why should I be financially for someone else's health problems?
By the way, I've had about $300,000 in back surgeries over the past couple years and I think I paid $20 in co-pay once because my mom didn't have $20 on her.
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Specop 007 - in your post title you say "screw us" - who is the "us" you refer to?
Originally posted by: Craig234
Typical response from a right-wing ideologue who has utterly lost any human perspective, moral perspective and common sense.
Government exists for the *serving of the needs of the public*, the welfare of the citizens, the benefit of the people, all those nice phrases.
Times change for rational people who are not locked into pretending the economy and technology are still in the 18th century. Our founding fathers looked forward to changes.
Medical care is something everyone needs available. Our economy gets the benefits of increased productivity by allowing some to be left out; the system not rewarding some people is built in to the way it works. Clearly, you are not one of the people who cannot afford medical insurance. Nor are you moral enough to care much about those who are.
When rational people look at the issue, they look at the costs to society of not having such insurance, the feasibility of providing it, the benefits of healthier people, the moral issue, and every industrialized nation on the planet but the US, and a majority of the public of our nation, has reached the same conclusion, that the government should offer universal health care. A right-wing ideologue, though, mocks the needs of the poor, mocks the need for healthcare, and demands the ideology be followed.
Some imagined catastrophe causes him to insist that healthcare must be kept as it is, while the tens of millions who need healthcare are ignored.
It's an utterly immoral, irrational approach. The debate points of the ideologue do not stand up. The ideologue is unaware of the influence of the propaganda of those who have a vested interest in the enormous profitability of the status quo continuing, and is unable to weigh that interest against the public's interest. Luckily, the ideologue is losing ground on this issue, and like countless others, society will progress in spite of him.
Originally posted by: Balt
I hate to break it to you, but you are already paying for Universal Healthcare. It's called the Emergency Room, and people without Healthcare go there every time they have a problem whether it qualifies as an 'emergency' or not.
It's a really bad and inefficient way of doing things, I assure you.
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Specop 007
This sucks, I really hope this fails miserably.
why? for ideological reasons? the usa is just about the only first world country without universal health care. In the long run, it would save your country money and improve the overall health of the US population.
That is so bogus...im the long run it would bankrupt this nation.......sorry...nice idea...but foolish!!
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Specop 007
This sucks, I really hope this fails miserably.
why? for ideological reasons? the usa is just about the only first world country without universal health care. In the long run, it would save your country money and improve the overall health of the US population.
Originally posted by: Shivetya
of course the big lie is that people don't have health care in this country.
WRONG.
Everyone can get health care in this country. There is a difference between having no health insurance and having no health care. But politicians like to rely on ignorance to sell people on the idea that both are the same.
Look, I have a sister who has no health insurance. She goes down to the local emergency room or whatnot and gets stuff I pay for for free. Looks like health care to me. Appendix removed - didn't cost her a dime. She qualified because of her income.
The government has been burdening private health care plans with all sorts of requirements in an effort to drive them under on purpose. The government does want healthcare to take care of you, they want it so you rely on them even more.
I work for a company that is private insursed. Our costs keep going up because of mandates that specific types of coverage be offered! Like WTF? Of course the cost is going to go up when you are being forced to pay for stuff that isn't life threatening...
Oh I know, but everyone deserves it and it will be best for everyone.
Wrong again. Two different family friends from Canada have both resorted to coming to the US for treatment because of the wait time to get it done in Canada. One came here after his local doctor didn't agree with the specialist about his heart condition. He came here and got prompt service for a condition that would have killed him. Another came here for knee surgery he could not get for nearly 3 months up there. Taking drugs and not being able to bend your knee was apparently an okay condition.
Go look into Canada's healthcare system. They are one of the few who increased spending only to see wait times increase!!! Worse, their own government acknowledges that the system is coming apart. Why? Because people don't have the ambition to enter the system anymore (who wants to be a doctor when it means being told who you can serve and when). Worse, what really hurts the system is people that abuse it. Going in for anything they perceive that is wrong with them. The "professional" patient as some call it.
People lambasted the drug program passed here because of its costs have no idea what its going to be when they try universal medical care. You think HMOs are bad? With government control who can you appeal to? Huh?
******, this same government ruined education and now you want them to handle your medical coverage. Sheesh.
Originally posted by: Craig234
you're right, yllus, if the republicans did it. Hello, Katrina.
On the other hand, the democrats *could* do a great job at it. Admittedly, they might screw it up too.
"It will be anything but free. Enjoy the higher taxes. "
You forget all the benefits, of businesses freed of the costs and such. I suspect business could pay the full cost of this in taxes and come out ahead with the profit gouging reduced, not that it'd happen that businesses pay the tax.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Typical response from a right-wing ideologue who has utterly lost any human perspective, moral perspective and common sense.
Government exists for the *serving of the needs of the public*, the welfare of the citizens, the benefit of the people, all those nice phrases.
Times change for rational people who are not locked into pretending the economy and technology are still in the 18th century. Our founding fathers looked forward to changes.
Medical care is something everyone needs available. Our economy gets the benefits of increased productivity by allowing some to be left out; the system not rewarding some people is built in to the way it works. Clearly, you are not one of the people who cannot afford medical insurance. Nor are you moral enough to care much about those who are.
When rational people look at the issue, they look at the costs to society of not having such insurance, the feasibility of providing it, the benefits of healthier people, the moral issue, and every industrialized nation on the planet but the US, and a majority of the public of our nation, has reached the same conclusion, that the government should offer universal health care. A right-wing ideologue, though, mocks the needs of the poor, mocks the need for healthcare, and demands the ideology be followed.
Some imagined catastrophe causes him to insist that healthcare must be kept as it is, while the tens of millions who need healthcare are ignored.
It's an utterly immoral, irrational approach. The debate points of the ideologue do not stand up. The ideologue is unaware of the influence of the propaganda of those who have a vested interest in the enormous profitability of the status quo continuing, and is unable to weigh that interest against the public's interest. Luckily, the ideologue is losing ground on this issue, and like countless others, society will progress in spite of him.
And I doubt they'd have all the Democrats onboard. Not because they don't want everybody to have access to good medical care but because they don't believe the Government is up to the task of implementing it. I wouldn't mind spending the 6 grand on taxes instead of my Health Care Ins if I would be assured it would be just as good (which isn't all that great) but after what I saw our government do with Katrina and the WOT I don't also don't think they are up to the task.Originally posted by: J Heartless Slick
OP,
Do not get your knickers in a twist over this. The Democrats do not have a large enough majority in Congress to get something big like Universal Health care into law. They would need enough Republican votes to overcome GWB's veto. And I doubt that is going to happen.
Originally posted by: bobdelt
Originally posted by: Craig234
Typical response from a right-wing ideologue who has utterly lost any human perspective, moral perspective and common sense.
Government exists for the *serving of the needs of the public*, the welfare of the citizens, the benefit of the people, all those nice phrases.
Times change for rational people who are not locked into pretending the economy and technology are still in the 18th century. Our founding fathers looked forward to changes.
Medical care is something everyone needs available. Our economy gets the benefits of increased productivity by allowing some to be left out; the system not rewarding some people is built in to the way it works. Clearly, you are not one of the people who cannot afford medical insurance. Nor are you moral enough to care much about those who are.
When rational people look at the issue, they look at the costs to society of not having such insurance, the feasibility of providing it, the benefits of healthier people, the moral issue, and every industrialized nation on the planet but the US, and a majority of the public of our nation, has reached the same conclusion, that the government should offer universal health care. A right-wing ideologue, though, mocks the needs of the poor, mocks the need for healthcare, and demands the ideology be followed.
Some imagined catastrophe causes him to insist that healthcare must be kept as it is, while the tens of millions who need healthcare are ignored.
It's an utterly immoral, irrational approach. The debate points of the ideologue do not stand up. The ideologue is unaware of the influence of the propaganda of those who have a vested interest in the enormous profitability of the status quo continuing, and is unable to weigh that interest against the public's interest. Luckily, the ideologue is losing ground on this issue, and like countless others, society will progress in spite of him.
I need food too. We all need food. Why doesnt the gov't pay for all our food? Why stop there? I should get my vitamins, juice, and a home gym paid for by the gov't too. Its my right to have healthy free food, so I can prosper.
Originally posted by: bobdelt
Dude, why am I even getting my mba? I should be sitting on a porch drinking 40's, eating the gov'ts food, and going to the hospital when I get alcohol poisoning every night. It's starting to be real tempting to be poor. Which I'm sure will have great effects on the economy