Vinny: I see you left a few things out of your usual misinformed post. For instance, it's a good thing that you didn't get that $12,000 per year policy. Had you done so, it would have been deemed a "cadillac plan", and you would have been taxed on the difference between $12,000 and the standard (which is currently considered to be $8000). The tax rate? 40%. So your government would have taxed you $1600 extra per year for that policy. In theory, the money would go for those deadbeats you so want to help, so I guess that extra $1600 wouldn't bother you. Your post has so much misinformation in it, I certainly won't cover it all, except to say, if you find your policy expensive now, just wait. Insurance costs are going up across the board, because the government is going to mandate certain provision, like guaranteed insurability for instance. That one provision is expensive, because now the insurance company cannot apply the underwriting process. They are guaranteed to get osme people with pre-existing conditions that they will get sandbagged with. So you're going to subsidize them my friend. That means sharply higher costs for everyone. OldTrader
Check out this article before you give out wrong information... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/21/senate.health.bill.expect/index.html It says...Insurers providing costly health coverage -- known as Cadillac plans -- would face a 40 percent tax on policies worth more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. Since I have a family, the 40% tax would be on plans worth over $23,000/year, not $8,000/year. Also, the tax would be on insurance companies, not families. I can't even imagine some family even paying $23,000/year for insurance. They may be better off without the insurance than paying that much. Once this bill passes and if a family is paying over $23,000/year for insurance, they may be better off just paying the fine each year than paying that outrageous amount for insurance. Personally, I hope all of the insurance companies go out of business. If countries in Europe can have government sponsored free healthcare, so can we, and I wish we would.
Trader, of course you are right. There will be an added cost associated with those who can not afford insurance. They will have to be subsidized. And there will be additional cost associated with covering those with pre-existing health problems. But we are all ready paying both of these costs indirectly. As things stand now, those that fall into these categories are not being denied access for treatment of acute conditions, but they have poor access to preventative medicine, and again, we are already paying for what access they do have. The problem with the present arrangement is that these vast hoards -- there are what, 35 million or so?-- of under and uninsured are adding far more cost than is reasonable, and we -- you and I-- are paying. Consider just those showing up at emergency rooms. If that alone can be cut out, then there should be significant savings. However the overall costs for those of us now insured should be little affected and perhaps our premiums will even come down some, because the insured pool will expand considerably and much of this will consist of relatively healthy individuals. And that is why, of course, that mandatory coverage is such an a critical component of the Bill. In my opinion, including a competitive and cost effective public option is essential. If this is not part of the final bill then I think your worst fears are likely to come true, because as far as I can tell that is the only meaningful check on insurance company rates included in the bill. Without competition we will be stuck with the current Cartel. This bill is an attempt, I think, to break the power of the Medical Cartel in the U.S. and introduce some competition. It's basically a free enterprise capitalist approach to the problem of runaway costs due to a lack of competition. I much prefer this to the alternative which is single payer socialized medicine, and I'm afraid that's where we are headed if this bill either gets killed or watered down too much to be effective.
Vinny, there is no such thing as "government sponsored free healthcare" It may be government sponsored, but it is not free.
I guess it depends on what you call healthcare and your wrong about English Healthcare. My Step Daugthers grandparents have lived in London all their lives. One of the grandparents father was a medical doctor. They say English Healhcare is a Joke. They would give anything to move the US.
That's the fun thing. You can emigrate form the US to the UK pretty easy. Since so many libtards think the healthcare over there rocks, why don't they just move and get it over with? Instant dream fulfillment. They don't because they know it sucks. Which is why there's a long ass line to get into the States.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks 37th in healthcare, while the U.K. is 18th.