In fact ,the Republicans have offered more that 30 different plans just in the House of Representatives . But as it has often been pointed out here ,the 2006 and 2008 vote did count for at least one thing... the blocking of any attempt by the minority to get a hearing on their bills.
We were challenged to give specific legislations well here are some .

H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478.

HR3400 as an example specifically addresses the issue of the uninsured .
H.R. 3400 (Price) | Cover the Uninsured
But every one of these bills are Republican efforts to participate in the reform process.
For a long time now the Republicans have tried to address the issues of costs with tort reform ,and to increase competition by permitting Americans to shop for individual plans across state lines.

When this cro magnon subhuman lying sack of excrement Grayson compares our health care system to the holocaust ,I'm quite sure he must be talking about the multimillion babies that have been eliminated in our country since 1973 . Either that ,or ,Alan Grayson... you lie!

Edit Steve I did not see your posting #319 before submitting this . Kudos.. you beat me to it .

So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?

Quote:

---

The bill would provide a tax deduction and an income-related refundable tax credit for health insurance purchased by individuals (i.e. outside the group insurance market). The tax credit would be available only to individuals living in states operating a high-risk health insurance pool; and federal grant funding would be provided to states for such pools. Incentives would be given for employers to offer employees the option of a contribution toward other health insurance coverage in lieu of the employer plan. State insurance laws would be overridden to permit the sale of individual health insurance across state lines. Federal rules would be established and application of state laws preempted for insurance provided through association health plans and individual membership associations. Expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be prohibited for those with incomes above 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and restricted for those between 200% and 300% of FPL. States would be required to offer group coverage and other private coverage options under Medicaid and CHIP. Federal limits on medical liability claims would be established. Medicare physician payment would be modified. The bill would be financed through reduced discretionary spending, repeal of stimulus bill provisions and other provisions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?

---

ABSOLUTELY.

As I have posted elsewhere, part of the reason that medical insurance premiums being so high is because there are only a few companies competing in every state. In every state you only have about 3 or 4 choices of insurance companies, because insurance companies can only sell in states in which they have been "approved", and citizens can only by from insurance companies that are approved in that state. This limits competition and drives prices UP.

This change in law would mean that instead of 4 insurance companies to buy insurance from, we would now have roughly 1300 insurance companies to buy from... the full number of medical insurance companies operating in the USA. We would be able to choose any plan that those insurance companies offer, based on both price and quality. This would immediately increase competition between the insurance companies, driving prices down and quality of coverage up.

Competition is, in fact, one of the major free market solutions to driving insurance prices down. The concept is called "portability" in insurance jargon, and it is one of the centerpieces of conservative health care reform geared towards increasing affordability and accessibility.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?

---

Devil is in the details.
What is meant by LIMITS on malpractice? A hard dollar figure on non- economic damages, like $250,000 in some states?
What does modifed medicare payments? Up, down, or no change?
Certainly making national availability, and more competition among private insurance companies as well as letting people make their own purchasing is better than our current system.


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

ABSOLUTELY.

As I have posted elsewhere, part of the reason that medical insurance premiums being so high is because there are only a few companies competing in every state. In every state you only have about 3 or 4 choices of insurance companies, because insurance companies can only sell in states in which they have been "approved", and citizens can only by from insurance companies that are approved in that state. This limits competition and drives prices UP.

This change in law would mean that instead of 4 insurance companies to buy insurance from, we would now have roughly 1300 insurance companies to buy from... the full number of medical insurance companies operating in the USA. We would be able to choose any plan that those insurance companies offer, based on both price and quality. This would immediately increase competition between the insurance companies, driving prices down and quality of coverage up.

Competition is, in fact, one of the major free market solutions to driving insurance prices down. The concept is called "portability" in insurance jargon, and it is one of the centerpieces of conservative health care reform geared towards increasing affordability and accessibility.

Elliot

---

I'm all for this. I'm also for decreasing incentives for providers to do expensive and unnecessary tests that don't actually help patients get better. That's not to say I don't think people should get tests when they need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I'm all for this. I'm also for decreasing incentives for providers to do expensive and unnecessary tests that don't actually help patients get better. That's not to say I don't think people should get tests when they need them.

---

Of course people should get tests when they need them. And this would make such tests cheaper and more accessible due to increased competition.

But the need for such tests should be determined by the doctor and the patient based on medical need, not based on the doctor having to cover his a$$ with the medical malpractice attorneys.

As further evidence of Obama's dedication to our senior citizens, nursing homes (which admittedly quite often suck) are facing a crisis which will only get bigger under Obamacare.

Cri$is ahead for nursing homes

Didn't he say there would be no cut in services for Medicare recipients? Yes, he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As further evidence of Obama's dedication to our senior citizens, nursing homes (which admittedly quite often suck) are facing a crisis which will only get bigger under Obamacare.

Cri$is ahead for nursing homes

Didn't he say there would be no cut in services for Medicare recipients? Yes, he did.

---

Do you want the government to ensure health care or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE

Do you want the government to ensure health care or not?

---

NOT.

It's not the government's job.

The government can't do it properly or efficiently.

And the government can't do it without taking MY money to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S costs.

So... NO.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And the government can't do it without taking MY money to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S costs.

---

Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.

Actually, I'm insulted that I'm being considered a neo-con because I don't want to pay for something where the price determines the level of care you get.

Socialize water. Socialize the freaking telephone system, or internet service.

Do NOT socialize something where the time and resources of the field are going to be completely taken up with people who would not be able to use the services if it were not socialized. Waiting longer for an appointment, for shoddier care, with fewer doctors in the field sounds like crap to me.

I can tell you this: As someone who has a MONTHLY doctor's appointment, do you REALLY think I'd get that kind of care if the welfare mom down the street could afford fertility treatments too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.

---

So libs and moderates don't think about the government confiscating their money to use for someone else? Right.

By the way, here's a nice little story on how much Obamacare would take out of our pockets, along with the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.

---

Perhaps they ought to. Then they wouldn't have to come HERE for their health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.

---

This is true some nations take a responsibility for the individual as an asset

And some countries (like Iraq, Russia, Sri Lanka, Poland and Chile, to name a few) are so corporate controlled--but by UNITED STATES based corporations--that there is practically nothing provided by the government for the average person. Ask the millions of people in those countries how much their US Aid has helped the average person, and how much the aid has helped major corporations.

I'll look at UHC when the government stops outsourcing the REST of its functions--including that of the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Actually, I'm insulted that I'm being considered a neo-con because I don't want to pay for something where the price determines the level of care you get.


Do NOT socialize something where the time and resources of the field are going to be completely taken up with people who would not be able to use the services if it were not socialized. Waiting longer for an appointment, for shoddier care, with fewer doctors in the field sounds like crap to me.

---

What this says to me is you think you are so important! So important that you should not be inconvenienced by that sick person who just happens to have less income than you. You need to get over yourself indulgent self and realise that medicine is for the sick, not the socialite who just wants to have a chat to her doctor

Who is John Galt ?
Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

The President's photo-ops with docs in white lab coats cannot mask the truth .
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009...1--300x300.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

What this says to me is you think you are so important! So important that you should not be inconvenienced by that sick person who just happens to have less income than you. You need to get over your self indulgent self and realise that medicine is for the sick, not the socialite who just wants to have a chat to her doctor

---

No... if I were so important, I'd say close public schools (I don't have kids), outsource public transportation (I NEVER use it). I'd say let people who can't afford it not EAT--get rid of welfare (I've never used it, even when I qualified for it).

If I were THAT important, I'd say screw people living on the streets--they don't deserve shelters! (Never used one). I'd say that people who can't afford to take care of their kids should be sterlized, and their kids given to those of us who are infertile (I placed a child for adoption--WILLINGLY--and I know how hard that is).

Seriously--my problem is that for the most part, if you have a JOB in the US, then you have health care. It may not cover EVERYTHING for the same price someone else pays (if you have a pre-existing condition compared to someone who does not), but you still can get basic coverage.

Even if you do NOT have health care, most doctor's offices are willing to work with you (I paid off a $15k dental bill over 10 years, from a time that I was unemployed and needed dental work)

If you live in the US, you have access to health care. Period. You just have to decide whether it's more important to have cable TV (or a TV at all!) than go to the doctor.

PS... Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

PS...Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

---

So I don't get it. How can you not see how vulnerable you are? What if your employer outsourced your work to another country, let you and 3/4 of your colleagues go all at once, you could not get another job, and you were still SCARED To DEATH. But now you can't even go to the doctor because it's that or lose your house? Instead of worrying about welfare mothers on fertility treatments--a boogeyman if ever I heard one--why not worry about someone basically just like you? Even the insured in this country are often one job away from disaster. You would be amazed how fast if can happen.

Let's say you have to have surgery and it goes a bit wrong and you are away from work for 7 weeks. Your boss says, "Gosh, we love you, Synnen, but we had to replace you and we really don't need two people, plus the new person is younger, cheaper and not sick. Good luck!"

Suddenly you are jobless--which can last for a year or more. The loss of income means can't pay your mortgage, so you have to move and sell at a loss. The disruption damages your marriage and other relationships. That and the illness trigger mild depression, which makes it harder to find work. Plus if you go to a doctor about the depression you'll have a SECOND preexisting condition...

And then there are people like me who have been self employed for the last 15 years. I have worked hard and supported myself and my kids. I worked at home so I could be there for my kids and I don't regret that.

But since 2003 my insurance premium has gone from $270 a month to $1400 every month. I need that money to pay for food, real estate taxes, house insurance, and gasoline so I can drive my son to school every day. It's not extra. AND work has become harder to find, so my income has dropped. I cannot afford it; I don't have a plan. I am soooo lucky, too, because I own my house outright. I paid off the mortgage when times were flush. Even so, I'm SCARED. Why do I have to choose between basic health care and paying my real estate taxes and home and car insurance? Besides food and electricity, those are my major expenses. (I don't HAVE cable. I don't have a new car. I wouldn't know what to do with a ski pole and I've never been to Club Med. And don't even ask what I think about the fertility industry.)

A couple weeks ago, I bought some new clothes--some pants and two sweaters-- for the first time in 2 years because I got some work and needed to not look like a street person. My spendable income is all going to Health Net. More like Health Noose.

I've never been on welfare and wouldn't be eligible anyway because I still have a house and a small income. I am ineligible for unemployment because I have been self employed. Just because people don't work for Microsoft or Coco Cola doesn't make them not human. I haven't done anything "bad" to deserve this situation.

And tell me to take a full time job with benefits. I am thinking about it (if I could even get one). But I would have to move away from the town I live in, and either turn my kids over to my abusive ex or tear my son away from his friends and his father, who he has a relationship with, abusive or not. Needless to say, there'd be a legal battle... Oh, is that expensive?

People here tell me things like, "ask Major Pharmaceutical Company" to give you free medicine, which sounds cool, except it has to be the right medicine and you have to fill out 10 forms for just that one medicine and prove you don't have any assets, which (shame on me) I still do. Plus, how do you pay the doctor, for tests, etc? (The costs are insane and I agree we need to bring those down.)

I am eligible for zip because I've been self employed and I'm not destitute (yet). If I spent all my time scraping together bits and pieces of health care from this free source or that, even if it covered everything, which I seriously doubt, I would not have time to work and contribute. How does that benefit anybody?

Maybe someone here who thinks the current system works well can help this person:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/pregna...nd-403532.html

I've BEEN without health care. It sucks.

But I CERTAINLY didn't get pregnant without health care.

Apparently what I thought was common throughout the US actually isn't: a married couple where BOTH work and have insurance through work.

If I lost my job tomorrow, I would still have my husband's insurance. When I was laid off 2 years ago, it was the FIRST time in my life I didn't have another job within a couple of weeks, even if that job was as a grocery store cashier or Walmart stockperson just to have money coming in.

Everyone in the US is one major anything--health crisis, car accident, flood, tornado, you name it--from being destitute.

I still think that fixing the system we HAVE is better than scrapping it and letting the government choose our health care. Our government chose the health care in the countries I named a few posts ago, and guess what? MORE people were jobless, MORE were destitute, there were fewer hospitals built, fewer clinics, fewer doctors, fewer available treatments. Ask the people who suffered in Sri Lanka after the tsunami in 04 what happened to the aid money OUR GOVERNMENT sent over to help with the aftermath--building schools, clinics, training doctors, etc.

I refuse to stand by and let our government do the same to the people in MY country.

Everyone needs water more than they need health care. I don't see anyone screaming about Universal Water Service. What about heat? I don't see the northern states screaming about Universal Heat Aid. I don't see those in the south screaming for Universal Electricity Supply--believe me, my electricity for ONE MONTH in Dallas in the summer was more than my car payment.

So... yeah, the current system sucks in many ways. Universal Health Care, run by our government, would suck more.

As far as answering that poor girl who got pregnant after losing her job---That's not a "fix the health care crisis" problem. That's a "fix how people are awarded help by our government" issue.

Fix welfare, not the health care system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Maybe someone here who thinks the current system works well can help this person:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/pregna...nd-403532.html

---

NK,

I just read this lady's story.

It doesn't point out the failures of private insurance... it points out all the failures of the GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PROGRAMS that are supposed to take care of those in need.

It proves that NOBODY can rely on the government to give them what they need, and shouldn't bother trying.

This woman, based on her income level, SHOULD be covered under Medicare. But she isn't. Why not?

She should be covered under her state's All Care program, but she isn't. Why not?

BECAUSE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ARE DISMAL FAILURES.

Yep... government-run health care... this woman is the POSTER CHILD for what's going to happen under government-run health care.

Thanks for making my case for me, NK. Not that you'll ever admit it.

Elliot

Just to further make my point about government-run health care...

Would anyone care to take a guess as to which insurer denies the most claims by patients (as a percentage of total claims)?

Here's the answer... from the AMA 2008 Health Insurer Report Card.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upl...reportcard.pdf

Check out page 5 of the report card.

http://biggovernment.com/files/2009/10/AMAdenials.jpg

The answer is MEDICARE. Medicare denies more claims than any other insurer, and more than double the national average for private insurers. Even the WORST private insurer (AETNA) has a better record of approving claims than the government does.

The government, which Barack Obama has claimed will be better at granting claims that the rest of the insurance community denies actually has a record of DENYING MORE CLAIMS than those private insurers.

Why would anyone trust the government to do a better job at managing health care than private companies do when they ALREADY have done a worse job?

Why would anyone want a government-run health care program that models itself after Medicare when Medicare is such a poor model?

Elliot

I just wanted you guys to help her - no one did.

NK--

Doing some research first. Want to be able to give her decent answers. Also at work, so my answer time is delayed on some things.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I just wanted you guys to help her - no one did.

---

That's because the government has gotten in the way... there's not much help available at this point, except for charity. If the government hadn't gotten involved in the first place, there might have been some sort of recourse. Now she just has to hope that her appeals to the various government agencies work out to her benefit.

I hate to suggest it, because I hate this organization, but she might get some help during her pregnancy from Planned Parrenthood. They are SUPPOSED to help women who are pregnant get the care they need during their pregnancy. That is their STATED mission. I just hope that they don't try to convince this woman to get an abortion rather than carry to term. They are SUPPOSED to be a good resource for help to pregnant women in need.

That's pretty much all I can suggest right now. The government screwed her good, didn't they?

Feel free to take my response to her.

Elliot

NK,

Some websites that might be of assistance to this woman:

Birth Mother - Financial Assistance

Financial Assistance for Pregnant Women, Mothers and Children

Although the 2nd link says "adoption services" the link is a general information site for financial help for pregnant women in general, not just those putting children up for adoption.

Feel free to pass them along.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

PS...Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

---

So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is ridiculous. It's not health care, it's a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is rediculous. It's not health care, its a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

---

Because the procedures that would make me "well" would also make me infertile. We're trying all the OTHER stuff first, before resorting to that route. My insurance, believe it or not, covers quite a bit of the cost of infertility treatments, ESPECIALLY if the infertility has a medical cause.

I've had more tests that you'd believe, all covered by insurance. I pay a $20 co-pay every month, and my doctor keeps me up to date on non-surgical options that may help me.

I'm "scared to death" of surgery for personal reasons, related to being infertile. I'm not going into my entire background here--read back on my posts for the last 2 years if you want the whole story. My insurer, I repeat, has been nothing but supportive, giving me directions to labs covered under my plan, and letting me know when I need referrals, and making sure that I'm getting the information I need to make sure I STAY covered.

I don't see how anyone could think that the GOVERNMENT can handle health care better! Look at New Orleans for a good example of how well the GOVERNMENT would handle your health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is rediculous. It's not health care, its a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

---

Perhaps it is because the OTHER WAY that you are proposing is one that has been proven over and over again to be a dismal failure wherever it has been tried. So much so that the countries that have tried it are trying to change their systems to be closer to ours. So much so that people from those other countries tend to come HERE when they have really serious medical issues rather than rely on the OTHER WAY that you are proposing.

Or perhaps it is just because we have all seen the wonderful way that government has handled health care here in the USA that gives us pause not to adopt such a system. We've all seen what VA hospitals look like, and how the VA system has abandoned its patients. We have all seen the Native American Health System that exists on the reservations, and we want no part of that form of health care. We have seen that Medicare and Medicaid are broke and are bankrupting every state in which they operate, and we don't want to follow those systems into bankruptcy.

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that we have seen the competence and brilliance of the typical government bureaucrat and don't want such a person dictating our health care decisions. We have all had to deal with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the US Post Office, the IRS, and various other federal and state agencies. We have seen the calibur of ability of the typical government employee... and we are far from impressed with that level of ability. Not to mention their lack of compassion, empathy, ability to think outside the box, critical thinking skills and common sense. Skilled employees get hired by private companies where they can make more money. What is left to work for the government is the dregs that nobody else would hire. We do not want these people making health care choices that effect our lives.

Or perhaps it is because after studying the issues involved with health care problems, we have determined that the government lacks the ability or the resources to solve those problems, whereas the PRIVATE sector and the free market DOES have the resources to solve them.

Perhaps we have discovered that simply nationalizing health care doesn't solve the problems of the health care system. Making it government-run doesn't fix anything... the problems are deeper and more complex, and they will take a more complex set of solutions than simply handing them over to the government to mismanage.

Or, perhaps it's all of these factors combined... and a whole bunch more.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Perhaps
Or, perhaps it's all of these factors combined... and a whole bunch more.

Elliot

---

I understand your mistrust of government particularly a government that is regulation minded, my suggestion was never that your government take over the provision of health care rather they take over in part at least the provision of health insurance. There is a vast difference in the approach. The Free Market is an imperfect model when you are dealing with health services because of the inability of a large number of people to deal with the cost equation. A free market suggests setting no cap on cost. Look, the rich can get any health care they want, cost doesn't enter into it, but the poor cannot not. This is what needs to be corrected.

If the government stepped in to set up UHC, run by the government, it would not change the fact that the rich can get any health care they want, and the poor are still going to get less health care than they need.

What WILL change is that the middle class will be relegated to the SAME status as the poor, while the rich are still able to do whatever they want.

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

Again, if Congress were to set up a health care system for the average citizen that CONGRESS would use, then I'd think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

...and the poor are still going to get less health care than they need.

---

How do you figure that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

What WILL change is that the middle class will be relegated to the SAME status as the poor,

---

How did you come to that conclusion?

Simple: The poor get substandard care NOW, under government systems. Look at Medicare! That's a government health care plan, and no one that uses it is happy with it. Yes, people get SOME help under it---but not as much as they need, and criteria are random.

I believe the government could do WONDERFUL things with the current system-- but the truth is that if we go to a government system, the rich will still be able to afford to pay for private care, but the poor and middle classes will be stuck with whatever's available. What doctor do YOU know that finishes 10 years of school wants to work for a lower wage for more thankless customers? Doctors will FLOCK to private care---where they will be able to charge whatever they want, because only the rich will be able to afford them anyway. (if you want an example of a business that this has ALREADY happened to, look at the military: In Iraq right now, there is pretty much a 1:1 ratio of US Soldiers and Mercenaries--and the mercenaries are made up of former soldiers who wanted to get paid more to do the same thing.)

So---the POINT is that we, as a country, will have to pay more out of pocket to cover this new health program, which means that the middle class is hit hardest with the hike in taxes to pay for this. The poor all of a sudden CAN go to the doctor---if they can find a doctor to go to. Unfortunately, the middle class will be in the SAME predicament--they can go to the doctor, if they can FIND a doctor that can see them in a reasonable amount of time. Since the middle class will be dependent on the new system, as they will be unable to pay for private care, they'll be in the SAME lines for the SAME doctors that are just doing their time until they can escape to private practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Again, if Congress were to set up a health care system for the average citizen that CONGRESS would use, then I'd think about it.

---

I think that is what you don't understand about some other systems and this debate. That is how it must work if it is to be fair and deliver the right outcome for the poor. Nothing stops an individual from being outside the system but they are all in the pool for basic medical care, call it a right if you like.

So... you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

PS--Congress would NEVER give up their current tax-payer provided health care to go to UHC. Not a chance in HELL.

Health Insurance or Jail, according to Sen. John Shadegg, Ariz. The current items in the proposal are numerous new taxes, fines and Jail terms if you don't have health insurance
Quote Shadegg: " What the bills says is that this is a tax. If you don't buy health insurance and you don't by government-approved health insruance, then they will impose a tax on you and they told you how much the tax was. But unfortunately, the code says that if you don't pay thetax, that's a misdemeanor, and we can fine you more, in this case, an additional $25,000. And on top of that, we can put you in jail for up to a year.

So, the government will dictate to us how they will force everyone to buy insurance, that is a free enterprise, and will not create competition to reduce costs. This is Socialism, and not America.

[QUOTE=Synnen;2019107]

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

QUOTE]

What has happen in New Orleans has a lot to do with social engineering and probably not a lot to do with disaster relief. You cannot expect the government to permit a return to flood prone areas and you know as well as I do priorities change over time, and just maybe you should include the city in the blame game. The New Orleans thing was badly handled from the start and from right at the top, but then what could you expect from a man who had a war to fight.