I do apolgize for my bombastic posts, I've been biting my tongue for a couple years avoiding such arguments .... a bit pent up Perhaps I'll return to my place in the back of the room, until the dust settles
Couple questions, would people be allowed to opt out of such a system? Or would we all be FORCED into such such arrangment with the government. It's certainly subject to debate, nothing is in stone although I would personally not let people opt out. After all, you're paying for the police or fire departments and you're not allowed to opt out, why should it be different with Healthcare. More important question is what to do with people who opt out, don't buy an alternative private coverage and than have a heart attack? Do you want to see people dying on the streets because they opted out? What may actually be a better approach is letting people pay up and get a better private insurance as opposed to basic government run coverage. Is this "$3000" a flat fee or do you envision it as a percentage of income? Would this percetange scale up with income brackets? Would this mean "raising taxes". Again there are different ways to collect the money - individual taxes or employer taxes or any combination of those, flat rate or percentage of income. The point is that the huge $10,000 - $15,000 "tax" employers pay to insurance companies will be completely eliminated, employers will keep the money and we will therefore have enough flexibility to pay more in taxes out of those savings. Without ANY price competition, how do you envision costs going down? There will be competition, hospitals, drug companies, doctors will remain private companies/practitioners and will continue competing. There will be no competition between insurance companies as they will be eliminated but let's face it, they are not competing right now either. If they (insurance companies) are competing, they are competing to weed out the sick people who need their services most or to deny as many medical services to their clients as they possibly can. This is not the kind of competition we want in Healthcare. The anwser to health-care costs raising is simple, GIVE THE CONSUMERS POWER TO DEFINE PRICES. I want to see you shopping around when you have a heart attack. Besides if 1 out of 100 americans gets seriously sick he will not be able to afford a $100,000 treatment anyway whether he as a consumer has power or not. That's why 100 people pay $1000 to buy insurance so that one of them could afford the treatment as everyone of them is concerned that he'll be the unlucky one to need it.
Well, I'll just finish by saying this is exactly why the Democrats have lost the house,senate and presidency. Even when most of the country believes we are on the wrong path, the Democrats are not a lock to win back much of them. You, like most liberals, refute the notation that they want to raise taxes, and then further describe your beflief that the government should be lean and mean put in charge of "extremely important services which the private sector for whatever reason has fail to." You go on to argue the government should take over the administration of the entire Health Care industry. The private sector has shown incredible iterest in providing Health Care and has actually being done so. Further, it could be argued that it does so in an exceptional manner. To fund this system, you'd impose probably the largest set of taxes in the history of mankind. (Hyperbole, no doubt, but perhaps true). You use Medicare as an example of government success which will be insolvent in a couple decades. Imagine the same government that "doesn't care about black people" during katrina, should be trusted with an additional 14% of economy. People aren't stupid, they vote republican.
Wow, what a short memory some people have. Hi Neophyte321, As far as I can remember Al Gore won by popular vote in 2000. And the decision to give presidency to Bush is VERY questionable. As far as house and senate are going. In case you forgot we had 9/11 in 2001, and then mid term election came in 2002. Do I need to say more? redduke
winning by popular vote is irrelevant that's our system care to guess what %age of vote clinton had in his 1st vs. 2nd election? i agree the vote was questionable. so was the butterfly ballot if u want to blame somebody - blame nader voters. or people who are too stupid to read a butterfly ballot. save for them, gore would have been president EASILY scary
You sir, are a communist. Please don't presume to know what is best for me. I will (and have) gladly pay for my own health insurance. I don't need anyone telling me which doctor, and when, I can see. And as far as the police and fire departments go, they are funded by local taxes and are far more accessible by their customers than some faceless bureaucrat thousands of miles away. As expensive as health care is it is still affordable by many who do not undertake their own personal responsibility, but would rather make payments on a speedboat since that is lots more fun. The last thing we need is yet another government agency to squander vast sums of taxpayer money in the search for a socialist utopia.
You sir, are a communist. If support for Universal Healthcare is your criteria then every Brit, Australian, Israeli, Japanese, Canadian, Irish etc.. is a commie. In fact the only people in the civilized world who are not communists are Americans. Please don't presume to know what is best for me. I don't presume, I know, 75% of americans share my POV and support Universal Healthcare. http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...222-7Jjp4Ckx_LsV4qI5rjzrENNIcAQ_20061020.html I don't need anyone telling me which doctor, and when, I can see. Really? How come then your HMO is telling you now to choose your PCP from their list (tough luck if your doctor is not on that list), how come your HMO will not let you see a specialist until you get a referral from your PCP, how come your HMO limits the number of visits you may have and decides for you which medical procedures you will or will not have. If anything the situation will improve, there will only be one list which will include all qualified practitioners, you can see anyone you want. And as far as the police and fire departments go, they are funded by local taxes and are far more accessible by their customers than some faceless bureaucrat thousands of miles away. Puhleeze, I bet you don't know the name of your town's mayor (unless you live in a big city) and have never heard the names of your state senators (OK maybe you have but 90% of americans haven't). Then again funding Universal Healthcare by local taxes is also a possiblity if it makes you feel better. The last thing we need is yet another government agency to squander vast sums of taxpayer money Developed countries with Universal Healthcare system spend 40-80% less on healthcare than the US and get better quality service and better results. in the search for a socialist utopia. This utopia exists in dozens of countries all over the world including free-market libertarian paradises like Hong Kong, Ireland and Singapore.
Support for Universal Healthcare is not the mark of communism. Mandatory compliance to government mandate is however. It is in fact the hallmark of communist philosophy. Just because 75% of Americans support the idea doesn't make it a good one. The majority of the electorate still believe in Santa Claus and have no idea what it will cost. They will support any idea that is "free", meaning someone else will have to pay for it. Politicians have been using this ploy for years to get elected. The current best example is the prescription drug plan now coming into force. The price will be high and it is not at all clear who will pay or how it will be paid for. This is hardly a convincing argument. As I recall HMO's were promoted by the government as a cure to existing problems. Now the are part of the problem. Any government program will come with a plethora of rules and conditions which will have detrimental effects...the law of unintended consequences. I do know who my elected officials are, and as far as local funding for a national program, that idea is totally unworkable. A national program requires mandatory national regulation. Any local input would allow for to much dissent. The fact that 90% of my fellow countrymen are ignorant of the situation is a sad commentary indeed and the reason that such untenable ideas gain as much traction as they do. Somehow I doubt this. Do you have anything other than political rhetoric as evidence?
LOL, I see now, when you call me a communist and when you call single payer Universal Healthcare system existing in a hundred countries "utopia" it is not political rhetoric, when I provide you with polls, statistics, facts and analysis it certainly is. Anyway: "Despite spending more of its gross domestic product on health than any other country (13.7%), the United States ranked only 37 out of 191 WHO member states; the United Kingdom, which spends just 6% of gross domestic product on health services, came out 18th. France spends 9.8%." http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7251/1687 http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm Do you also want me to provide you with links showing that Ireland, Singapore and Hong Kong have Universal Healthcare or you think you can google them on your own? In your previous post you said that you don't need anyone telling you which doctor, and when, you can see. Now you seem to agree that it's not really the case today and they actually do tell you which doctor and when you can see. You may want to try to be more consistent in your argument.