Hello:

There are a couple of things I don't understand about the health care debate.

1) Everyone is talking about what happens if you don't have insurance. And everyone seems to think the government is going to offer their own version. I have heard this too.

Yet, nobody is talking about what type of plan the government will offer.

Simple questions such as:

What will the monthly premium be?
How much will the deductible be?
Will there be an out of pocket maximum, and if so, what will it be?
Will there be a prescription plan, and if so, how much will they cost?
What will the co-insurance rate be? (i.e. 20%)?
Can we see doctors we choose?
Will we need a referral to see a specialist?
What's not covered?

Furthermore, and this may not apply to everyone, but if anyone out there is opposed to any medical health plan provided by the government for the uninsured (what ever that health plan may be) and yet you are on social security and medicare (disabled and retired) then

SIT DOWN and BE QUIET.

There is a member of my family who hates Obama with a passion, and complains about his every move. And of course, this health care thing is on the top of his list.
Yet he is on disability and medicare, with humama.

Sorry, how can he debate this, when he himself brags about his wonderful health care plan, that is 100 times better and cheaper than my private plan at work.

I'm not saying that government run health care isn't socialist. I am saying that so is social security and medicare, yet nobody is complaining about that. The only thing they complain about is the fact that social security and medicare might not be around much longer due to lack of funds...

HUH??

Just come out and say it medicare people- you're fine with you're socialist health care plan, but you don't wan't younger, healthier uninured people to have it?

Before the 30's there was no social security. You worked, until you could work no more, and if you were lucky, you stashed a little money away somewhere to live off, most just moved in with one of the kids for them to take care of.

I have insurance now, but it wasn't long ago, I remember not having insurance, and it was that way for many years. Once I got very sick one October, while making $5.15 per hour. Dealth with that for 5 days, once my temprature got up to 104.5. But never went to the doctor. And fewer and fewer employers are offering health care to their employee's. At least I have been hard pressed to find one that does.

I'mm worried about this new government health care because I don't know enough about it, nobody is saying how much it will cost me. No one is giving any details, other than "it's socialist".

My official posistion:

If I can get a better plan through the government for my entire family at a cost of less than $800 per month, then sign me up, because that's what I'm paying Anthem for a $2000 deductable plan.

Both Medicare and Social Security are in essence bankrupt. When you come of age either they will have changed their eligibilty age ,and /or will consume much more of the income of your children funding this transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Both are ponzi schemes .

The rest of your question about the details cannot be addressed because no one knows in reality what is being proposed . Jon Conyers said :
"What good is reading the [health care] bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" Conyers thinks it's an antiquated notion that congressmen actually read legislation,and has made it clear he intends to vote on the bill without reading it. He is one of the leading proponents of the reform... but doesn't know what it contains.

No one denies that there are issues with our current system. But so far ,the cure appears to me to be worse than the disease.

You bring up several good points.

1) We don't know how the government will pay for all of this. We know it won't be through premiums... it will be through increased taxes. But it amounts to the same thing. But nobody in the Obama government is willing to come out and say how much our taxes will go up because of it. They're afraid to, because they know that if they are honest about it, nobody would back the plan.

2) I agree with you about Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. They are socialist programs. Actually, they are worse... they're Ponzi schemes, which if done by anyone else would make them illegal. Money being paid by me today is going to service people who are current beneficiaries. When I become a beneficiary, someone else's money will be paying for my benefits. A ponzi scheme is when money invested by one person is used to pay off another person's investment rather than being used to make money for the person who paid it in. Sounds pretty much the same to me.

I have been against Social Security forever. I backed Bush's idea of retirement savings plans. I'm also in favor of medical savings plans as an alternative to Medicare and Mediaid. I think that Americans do a better job of investing their money than the government does... and the government has proven that fact by taking all the money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and using it for other purposes.

So the point that I'm making is that I (and I believe the other Conservatives on this board who similarly support RSAs and MSAs) are pretty consistent in our beliefs that the government should stop taking our money "for our benefit" and let us handle our retirement and medical coverage issues ourselves.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I backed Bush's idea of retirement savings plans.

---

You mean like we have here in socialist Canada?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I think that Americans do a better job of investing their money than the government does...

---

No they don't. Given the alternative of willingly save money for the future or spend it now the average american will spend today's money and tomorrow's money as well as referenced by the crushing personal debt that most americans are willing to carry to get the consumer goods they thing they so deserve.

It is said that much of the plan being debated is modelled after the Massachusetts system.
Both Forbes and the Washington Compost wrote about the Mass. Plan.
MAss Disaster - Forbes.com

The Ticker - Mass. Treasurer Rips Mandated Health Insurance - Economy Watch

In fact ;according to the State's Treasurer the plan has been a disaster ,chock full of unintended consequences...

Quote:

---

– The program has so far cost 30 percent more than anticipated.
– It already has a $9 billion shortfall projected over the next two years.
– Costs have risen 41 percent since the program's inception, well outpacing the rise in healthcare costs nationwide, which stands at 18 percent.
– We thought this program would mean fewer people would go to hospitals, which is the highest cost any insurance plan has to pay. In fact, fewer people are not going to hospitals.
– A Harvard study shows 60 percent of state residents are unhappy with the plan. The most unhappy? Those whom it should be helping the most — those making $25,000 to $50,000 per year.
– To cut costs, the program is now having to kick out legal immigrants.

---

And unfulfilled promises .

Quote:

---

They were promised affordable coverage. The plans were so expensive that 20% of the uninsured were exempted from having to purchase them. … Bay Staters were told they wouldn't have their current arrangements disrupted. Yet thousands of residents have had to purchase more expensive coverage after the new bureaucracy deemed their existing plans inadequate. … three years in, the successor uncompensated care pool is still spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Emergency rooms are more crowded than ever. …

---

This plan was bi-partisan and current Governor Deval Patrick (and occasional author of the President's best remembered speechs) will have political problems because of the way the plan has performed .But Mitt Romney will also take a hit on his national asperations over the failure of the plan because he also touts it as a possible model for national reform(alleged improved access at lower costs ) .
If this is the model for national health care reform then no thank you .

Exxactly Andrew I am worried because we know nothing about it and once it is in government control they can keep switching things to their liking and we have no say or no choice. I don't want them to say I have to pay $200. For their plan because they force me to have insurance when if I wanted insurance I could go get something that is already available for cheaper.

One good thing so far is that the longer they take revising it I am hoping the revisions are for the better (ON our behalf)

I don't know why they don't go with the fair tax and the retirement plans and things like Costa Rica has because it sounds fairer than anything we got. I heard around a year or two ago that Costa Rica is now the spot Americans are flocking to because of their retirement plans, taxation method and so forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is said that much of the plan being debated is modelled after the Massachusetts system.

---

No, this is not being said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You mean like we have here in socialist Canada?

No they don't. Given the alternative of willingly save money for the future or spend it now the average american will spend today's money and tomorrow's money as well as referenced by the crushing personal debt that most americans are willing to carry to get the consumer goods they thing they so deserve.

---

So you think everyone is as stupid as you are.

Sorry, not all people are short sighted. Not even most people are. Some people actually can see past today's lunch and plan for the future. That's why over 60% of Americans own retirement investment accounts in addition to Social Security... even though it isn't mandated. They are planning for their futures. Something which you don't think they are capable of.

Wrong again... as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So you think everyone is as stupid as you are.
.............

Wrong again... as usual.

---

Oh eliot, you are such a bundle of fun. You must have LOTS of friends!

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_i...s/viewpost.gif
It is said that much of the plan being debated is modelled after the Massachusetts system.

No, this is not being said.

---

As ususal you are right again .

Obama Eyes Massachusetts Health Care - TIME

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As ususal you are right again .

Obama Eyes Massachusetts Health Care - TIME

---

He's not modeling his plan after it, he's looking at the do's and don'ts by examining what is good and what is bad with MA's version.

You are aware that the author of the Senate version of the bill is fat Teddy Kennedy .
Health bill would fix what's broken - The Boston Globe

Included in the national bill is the mandatory coverage provision that the Mass . Plan has. That is one of many simularities . I'm right you're wrong . move on .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Included in the national bill is the mandatory coverage provision that the Mass . plan has.

---

That's a do.
What does Senator's kennedy's weigh have do with any of this? Oh yes, he's a democrat and you're full of hatred for them so you throw in a little insult.

I almost called him the swimmer also .

Wow, making light of the death of someone is not beneath you.

I agree with NK on this one.

We should all honor Mary-Jo Kopekni. I think that the date of her death should be declared a national holiday. Her sacrifice helped this country greatly by guaranteeing that Ted Kennedy would never be elected President.

She should've been honored years ago with the drumming of that disgusting person out of the Senate in a frog march .

Class acts.

I don't like the fact about what is not set forth with this upcoming health care plan. It is no plan as far as I can see except to deny medical care due to a lot of red tape in order to qualify. Also the granny killing or should I say withholding treatment for dimentia patients amongst other things. Also what really rankles me is they keep saying that 40 million Americans don't have health insurance. Since when are only 40 million effected by this? It's more like 140+ million Americans not having health insurance. You must count all the illegal aliens and the poor folks and the unemployed. Who the blazes can afford $800 for a family a month for insurance? That's downright obscene if you ask me. $9,600 a year AND a $2,000 deductible on top of that besides. Yeow! I am quite sure you could have put that money towards something better other than insurance.

When I'm 65 and they want to cram Medicare down my throat and take out $100 of my old people's monthly check I'm going to tell them a big fat NO THANK YOU. I'll keep my money as I'm sure I'll have more important things to buy such as electricity at a bazillion dollars a month if Obama has his way and taxes the electric companies out of existence.

That health plan needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks before it's way too late. The same with the Cap and Trade. They both need to be stopped now before America has no money and we are all reduced to being peasants (or should I say slaves) for the government.

The politicians talk, talk, talk and don't bother giving Americans the little details such as how it's going to be paid for, paid for by whom, what it will cost monthly (or yearly or whatever) and if any American can walk into any doctor's office and get medical care - and will they have to prove they are American citizens and not illegal aliens? Other countries don't stand for illegal aliens being treated for free by doctors or hospitals - why does America literally cater to these people and actually encourage them to use the Emergency Rooms as family doctor's offices? They never pay one cent for ER visits - ever! But just let an American who has a home, good job, etc make an ER visit and wham they will get slammed with a huge ER bill that they must pay or get sued in court.

Back in 1974 I went to the ER in Florida for smoke inhalation from a house fire. I spent 4 hours in the hospital and my only "treatment" was inhaling oxygen, no meds, virtually nothing else, and no ambulance ride either. No X-Rays, nothing. For that treatment I received a bill for $450! (and this was in 1974!) I was not seen by a doctor either, just an intern. At that rate the cost of such treatment in an ER at today's rate would be $4,500!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

IWho the blazes can afford $800 for a family a month for insurance? That's downright obscene if you ask me. $9,600 a year AND a $2,000 deductible on top of that besides. Yeow!! I am quite sure you could have put that money towards something better other than insurance.

---

Well, my cost is about $240 every two weeks. It cost my employer about $800 per month. $240X26=$6,240/12= $520 per month of my own expense. But I can think of better things I'd like to do with the money.

My employer pays me well, and I have a low cost of living. (cheap house, all my cars are paid for $500 clunkers)

But I remember my first factory job (before they all went overseas) and I had good insurance for $25 weekly.

Why throw stones at a man who no feels them? Will your words change anything that happened in the past? Will it change the future?

Wow... childish is all I can say. Name calling...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

I don't like the fact about what is not set forth with this upcoming health care plan. It is no plan as far as I can see except to deny medical care due to a lot of red tape in order to qualify. Also the granny killing or should I say withholding treatment for dimentia patients amongst other things. Also what really rankles me is they keep saying that 40 million Americans don't have health insurance. Since when are only 40 million effected by this? It's more like 140+ million Americans not having health insurance. You must count all the illegal aliens and the poor folks and the unemployed. Who the blazes can afford $800 for a family a month for insurance? That's downright obscene if you ask me. $9,600 a year AND a $2,000 deductible on top of that besides. Yeow! I am quite sure you could have put that money towards something better other than insurance.

---

Actually, Twink, that is all taken into consideration in the 46 million figure.

There are approximately 10-12 million illegal aliens that are uninsured.

There are approximately 10 million uninsured people who have CHOSEN not to be insured and wish to use their money for something else.

There are approximately 15 million Americans who lose jobs and become uninsured until they find a new job... usually within 4 months.

There are another 10 million Americans who are uninsured for MORE THAN 4 MONTHS through no choice of their own.

There's your 46 million uninsured.

These numbers are taken from the national census.

Now... here's some questions.

Why should we be taxed so that people who are here illegally can be insured? They are here ILLEGALLY. They should not be given the same services as those who are here legally.

Why should you and I be responsible to pay for healthcare for people who have the means to buy health insurance but shoose not to? If someone chooses to buy a flat-screen TV or a new BMW instead of paying for medical insurance, why should you or I be held responsible for their decision?

Those who are uninsured for 4 months or less really aren't a problem. They will be insured shortly. Do we really need to set up an entirely new nationalized health care system in order to cover those who are only going to be uninsured for a couple of months? Isn't there a more cost-effective way to help these people get through those 4 months than spending $23 trillion over the next 10 years on nationalized health care?

The real issue is with the 10 million or so Americans who are uninsured for longer periods. This is less than 3% of the population. Do we need to set up an entirely new system, at a cost of $23 trillion over 10 years, to cover 10 million people? If we just handed them each $1500 per month to pay for their own health care, the cost per year would only be $180 billion... much less than the $2.3 trillion per year that we would be paying for nationalized health care.

I am curious... where did you get your 145 million uninsured figure from? Do you really think that 45% of Americans are uninsured? That doesn't jive with any numbers I have seen.

Quote:

---

When I'm 65 and they want to cram Medicare down my throat and take out $100 of my old people's monthly check I'm going to tell them a big fat NO THANK YOU. I'll keep my money as I'm sure I'll have more important things to buy such as electricity at a bazillion dollars a month if Obama has his way and taxes the electric companies out of existence.

---

If health care is nationalized, you won't have a choice. That money will be taken from you and you WILL be on the government medical system, whether you like it or not.

Quote:

---

That health plan needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks before it's way too late. The same with the Cap and Trade. They both need to be stopped now before America has no money and we are all reduced to being peasants (or should I say slaves) for the government.

The politicians talk, talk, talk and don't bother giving Americans the little details such as how it's going to be paid for, paid for by whom, what it will cost monthly (or yearly or whatever) and if any American can walk into any doctor's office and get medical care - and will they have to prove they are American citizens and not illegal aliens? Other countries don't stand for illegal aliens being treated for free by doctors or hospitals - why does America literally cater to these people and actually encourage them to use the Emergency Rooms as family doctor's offices? They never pay one cent for ER visits - ever! But just let an American who has a home, good job, etc make an ER visit and wham they will get slammed with a huge ER bill that they must pay or get sued in court.

Back in 1974 I went to the ER in Florida for smoke inhalation from a house fire. I spent 4 hours in the hospital and my only "treatment" was inhaling oxygen, no meds, virtually nothing else, and no ambulance ride either. No X-Rays, nothing. For that treatment I received a bill for $450! (and this was in 1974!) I was not seen by a doctor either, just an intern. At that rate the cost of such treatment in an ER at today's rate would be $4,500!

---

Yep.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewc24301

Well, my cost is about $240 every two weeks. It cost my employer about $800 per month. $240X26=$6,240/12= $520 per month of my own expense. But I can think of better things I'd like to do with the money.

---

We all could. Buying medical insurance is a CHOICE. You can spend the money on that, or you can spend it on something else. That's the advantage of private health care. Under Obama's plan, you would have no choice... you would be FORCED to be in the system, whether you want to or not. And you will pay for it in taxes, whether you want it or not.

BTW, if you think that $520/month is expensive, how much do you think the government will have to tax you in order to cover the cost of nationalized health care. I can guarantee you, based on what other countries have to charge for nationalized health care, it's more than $520/month. And the service won't be as good.

Quote:

---

My employer pays me well, and I have a low cost of living. (cheap house, all my cars are paid for $500 clunkers)

But I remember my first factory job (before they all went overseas) and I had good insurance for $25 weekly.

---

I remember when I paid $45/month for medical insurance (I was single at the time). I had a generous employer.

But that was then and this is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Why should we be taxed so that people who are here illegally can be insured? They are here ILLEGALLY. They should not be given the same services as those who are here legally.

Why should you and I be responsible to pay for healthcare for people who have the means to buy health insurance but shoose not to? If someone chooses to buy a flat-screen TV or a new BMW instead of paying for medical insurance, why should you or I be held responsible for their decision?

---

Hello El:

Good questions. We should provide them with care, because we do anyway, as you've mentioned before, in our emergency rooms. So, it would be CHEAPER if we bought them insurance instead...

Now, if you're saying that these people shouldn't get treated at ALL, then we can have THAT conversation... (Yes, it's true - I know you think they should go without, and I'm just waiting to pounce.)

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

BTW, if you think that $520/month is expensive, how much do you think the government will have to tax you in order to cover the cost of nationalized health care.

---

Hello again, El:

Well, we've done the math before, but suffice to say, when TRUE universal health care is offered, we'll be able to apply the TRILLIONS of dollars that the health insurance industry is now making as profits, to Andrews monthly bill.

I don't know. With TRILLIONS of $$$'s available, I think the government, even as bad as it'll manage the system, will STILL save Andrew money, and give him better services too.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

Good questions. We should provide them with care, because we do anyway, as you've mentioned before, in our emergency rooms. So, it would be CHEAPER if we bought them insurance instead...

Now, if you're saying that these people shouldn't get treated at ALL, then we can have THAT conversation.... (Yes, it's true - I know you think they should go without, and I'm just waiting to pounce.)

excon

---

Actually, what I think is that they should pay out of pocket. If you can afford insurance and CHOOSE not to buy it, then you should pay out of pocket. I sure as heck shouldn't be the one paying for it.

And if I said that if he doesn't pay for it but can afford it, then yes, he should go without... then what?

What exactly happens when he goes without? He dies?

His choice, not mine. See my signature below... "Your life, your funeral."

Cold? Hard? Unforgiving? Heartless?

Yep.

So what?

I find it cold, hard, heartless and unforgiving for someone to say that I OWE THEM MY MONEY TO PAY FOR THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY CAN AFFORD FOR THEMSELVES.

If you can afford health care and CHOOSE not to pay for it and expect ME (or the government with my money, or the hospital by charging me more) to pay for it for you, well, I got nothing for you.

If you die because you didn't buy the insurance you can afford or refuse to pay out of pocket even though you an afford to do so, frankly, it wouldn't bother me in the least, and it would in fact be beneficial for the rest of us who AREN'T feeding at the public trough.

So if you want to jump on me for saying that, feel free. 'Cause I got nothing for the jerk who makes a decent living, can afford medical care, and chooses not to pay for it because he knows that he's covered anyway. He's a leech and I got no compassion for him whatsoever.

My question is why you DO feel compassion for such a person. Why do you feel that this person is OWED something? WHy do you treat him like a victim, when he's the perpetrator, the guy who's taking YOUR MONEY when he doesn't have to?

So... go ahead. Jump, froggy, jump.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Well, we've done the math before, but suffice to say, when TRUE universal health care is offered, we'll be able to apply the TRILLIONS of dollars that the health insurance industry is now making as profits, to Andrews monthly bill.

I dunno. With TRILLIONS of $$$'s available, I think the government, even as bad as it'll manage the system, will STILL save Andrew money, and give him better services too.

excon

---

And where will these trillions come from?

They don't exist now. The medical insurance companies don't have trillions of dollars. Combined together they MIGHT have about $1 trillion. They sure as heck don't have the $2.3 trillion that it will cost to nationalize health care. So where will that money come from?

From us, dummy. That's where.

So... in order for this plan to work, we need to take the trillion or so dollars that the insurance companies make, plus all the money for medicare and medicaid, plus either print more money (something that you have claimed you don't support) or tax us for it, in order to get the $2.3 trillion to get the system working for 1 year.

And then do it again next year. And the year after that.

Have you ever lived in a country with a 70% or 80% tax rate?

If this goes through, you will.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

My question is why you DO feel compassion for such a person. Why do you feel that this person is OWED something? WHy do you treat him like a victim, when he's the perpetrator, the guy who's taking YOUR MONEY when he doesn't have to?

So... go ahead. Jump, froggy, jump.

---

Hello again, El:

We disagree only in our description of the un-insured... You call him a perp. And, while I don't doubt there are perps amongst them, most ARE victims.

The difference between us, is that you're willing to let the victims go uninsured just to make certain that the perps don't get something for free... ME?? I'm willing to let a perp get over on me, as long as the victims are taken care of.

Now, we can argue about what percentage of the uninsured are victims as opposed to perps. But, I'll bet you'll call them ALL perps - even the innocent children of perps are perps in your eyes. Not mine.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

We disagree only in our description of the un-insured.... You call him a perp. And, while I don't doubt there are perps amongst them, most ARE victims.

The difference between us, is that you're willing to let the victims go uninsured just to make certain that the perps don't get something for free... ME??? I'm willing to let a perp get over on me, as long as the victims are taken care of.

Now, we can argue about what percentage of the uninsured are victims as opposed to perps. But, I'll bet you'll call them ALL perps - even the innocent children of perps are perps in your eyes. Not mine.

excon

---

I was very careful to choose what I said.

I was talking abouty the guy who can afford his health care, but chooses NOT to. That is a perpetrator. He is perpetrating a scam on the public to get us to pay for his health care. And if you look at my breakdown of the number of total uninsured in this country, the number of people who choose not to be insured but can afford it anyway is roughly equal to the number of people who are uninsured through no fault of their own. The breakdown is roughly 10 million of each type of uninsured.

Now... you want me to have compassion for the guy who really can't afford insurance and isn't covered? Got that. Count me it. Let's get him covered. We can debate how, and it doesn't require nationalization of health care.

But the guy who is uninsured because he chooses to be? Tough $h!t. Pay for your medical care yourself or buy a policy. Or die. I really don't care which. But I ain't paying for it. He ain't a victim. If he's exoecting us to cover his medical needs, he's a leech stealing OUR MONEY. He's a perp, just as much as the mugger or the purse snatcher. He just uses a different technique.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But the guy who is uninsured because he chooses to be? Tough $h!t. Pay for your medical care yourself or buy a policy. Or die. I really don't care which. But I ain't paying for it. He ain't a victim. If he's exoecting us to cover his medical needs, he's a leech stealing OUR MONEY. He's a perp, just as much as the mugger or the purse snatcher. He just uses a different technique.

---

Hello again, El:

We don't disagree. We only disagree on how many of the uninsured fit that category. I don't think we're going to agree on what that number is.

Why?? I refer you to something Joe Conason wrote that, I believe, accurately describes our debate:

"If the current effort to reform American healthcare ends in frustration, much of the blame rests on our political culture's empowerment of deception and ignorance. Fake erudition is revered, every hoax is deemed brilliant, and prejudice is presented as knowledge, while actual expertise is disregarded or devalued."

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

We don't disagree. We only disagree on how many of the uninsured fit that category. I don't think we're gonna agree on what that number is.

Why???? I refer you to something Joe Conason wrote that, I believe, accurately describes our debate:

"If the current effort to reform American healthcare ends in frustration, much of the blame rests on our political culture's empowerment of deception and ignorance. Fake erudition is revered, every hoax is deemed brilliant, and prejudice is presented as knowledge, while actual expertise is disregarded or devalued."

excon

---

Are you describing your side of the debate or mine?

I can show evidence to back up my numbers based on an analysis of the census data. You may not like the Heritage Foundation, but they do great analytical work.

Can you show any evidence for your numbers?

Evidence... THAT, my friend is the difference between "fake erudition" and facts.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

We disagree only in our description of the un-insured.... You call him a perp. And, while I don't doubt there are perps amongst them, most ARE victims.

The difference between us, is that you're willing to let the victims go uninsured just to make certain that the perps don't get something for free... ME??? I'm willing to let a perp get over on me, as long as the victims are taken care of.

Now, we can argue about what percentage of the uninsured are victims as opposed to perps. But, I'll bet you'll call them ALL perps - even the innocent children of perps are perps in your eyes. Not mine.

---

Here comes the 'closet liberal' in me again I suppose. They're here and we have to treat them one way or another - be they illegal or not. OK? But I also agree with Elliot that those who can pay should.

But like I've said before, we do things a little differently here I guess in that our city sold the municipal hospital to Universal Health Care some years back. Part of the sale agreement was the hospital had to provide care for the indigent. This hospital has implemented a separate clinic inside the ER for non-emergencies and operates a large clinic on the other side of town for regular care.

So I'm just curious, with all the billions of dollars we spend on this type of care how many clinics of this type could be built and operated, with those who are able at least paying a percentage of the cost. It would free up ER's for emergencies and provide a place for those who fall through the cracks to get regular care. I don't know what it would cost but maybe that could be part of a multifaceted solution without completely remaking the health care and insurance industries and turning millions of ordinary Americans into health care peasants - while the haves, including these lawmakers who would exempt themselves from the plan, continue to be able to choose whatever they want or need.

Jumping tracks for a moment here..

LINK

Looks like Obama wrote a bunch of checks his butt can't cash.

But honestly, did anyone really expect any kind of health care bill without some tax increases across the board. I have already stated, that as long as it doesn't cost me over $520 per month, then I can only say I've done better.

The only trouble with an "across the board" tax to fund health care is that it would also tax those who are on a private insurer, they are already paying their own premium, yet they also have to pay a tax for others who don't have insurance.

Tricky, tricky. If I didn't have insurance right now, then I'd be backing this 100% But then, I would expect people who are comfortably insured to have somewhat of a bias on this whole thing.

Those who choose not to have insurance in today's world of high health care cost are playing a real gamble, and they can't have any prospects for a successful future, for surely they will be filing for bankruptcy every time something major happens at a hospital.

You can be perfectly healthy, mowing your grass one day, one slip up and your foot goes under the mower and chops half you foot off. You're looking at a $30,000 bill easy, much more if there are complications. Risky risky...

Why not just charge those using the government plan a premium instead of levying a tax on everyone. Doesn't that sound fair?

Today's examples of quality universal health care...

Quote:

---

Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 7:45AM BST 02 Aug 2009

Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned.
Cuts to treatments would save the NHS £33 million. Photo: ANDREW CROWLEY

The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.

Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.

---

Now let's move closer to home...

Quote:

---

Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions

A Springfield woman's doctor hoped a new chemotherapy drug would help her but the Oregon Health Plan told her the treatment was not approved. Instead, the state would pay for assisted suicide. "I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said.

---

I love liberal compassion, don't you? Or is that what Obama means by "social justice," since we can't pay for everyone's chemo we'll gladly offer a lethal cocktail on the state's dime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewc24301

Jumping tracks for a moment here..

LINK

Looks like Obama wrote a bunch of checks his butt can't cash.

But honestly, did anyone really expect any kind of health care bill without some tax increases across the board. I have already stated, that as long as it doesn't cost me over $520 per month, then I can only say I've done better.

The only trouble with an "across the board" tax to fund health care is that it would also tax those who are on a private insurer, they are already paying their own premium, yet they also have to pay a tax for others who don't have insurance.

Tricky, tricky. If I didn't have insurance right now, then I'd be backing this 100% But then, I would expect people who are comfortably insured to have somewhat of a bias on this whole thing.

Those who choose not to have insurance in today's world of high health care cost are playing a real gamble, and they can't have any prospects for a sucessfull future, for surley they will be filing for bankruptcy every time something major happens at a hospital.

You can be perfectly healthy, mowing your grass one day, one slip up and your foot goes under the mower and chops half you foot off. You're looking at a $30,000 bill easy, much more if there are complications. Risky risky....

Why not just charge those using the government plan a premium instead of levying a tax on everyone. Doesn't that sound fair?

---

Yes it does sound fair. And if that were what was proposed, then great, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The only problem is that those who cannot afford to pay a premium to as private insurer also can't afford to pay a premium to a government insurer. Which means that we're back to funding this program via taxation of those who can afford it... and are already paying their own premiums for their own health care.

The other problem is that the goal of Obama is not to have a "public option", but rather have a single-payer system that everyone has to join. His goal is to get rid of private coverage. He doesn't want a public option, he wants a single-payer public system mandate. One that people would pay into based on their means via taxation, but that would provide the same services regardless of contribution.

Which comes back the basic unfairness of such a system.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Which comes back the basic unfairness of such a system.

---

Hello again, El:

Let me see. Single payer, where EVERYBODY is covered whether they have money or not, which allows for the wealthy to purchase additional insurance if they want to, is basically unfair??

Dude!

It's unfair to the health insurance executive who won't be able to put his children through private school off the backs of the sick... But, I'm not going to feel too bad for him. It's not like single payer gets rid of insurance... There's still plenty left... I'll bet those health insurance people can find jobs...

But, if it comes down to THEIR jobs or the solvency of the system, I vote for solvency. As a righty, it would seem you would too... But, for some reason you want to see us go broke. That isn't very conservative of you...

In any case, single payer is VERY FAIR to everybody else... By the way, single payer will SAVE money and EXPAND services too. Just ask the people who have it. Oh, that's right. You don't believe 'em.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Let me see. Single payer, where EVERYBODY is covered whether they have money or not, which allows for the wealthy to purchase additional insurance if they want to, is basically unfair??

---

Yep.

Any system, where those who put in NOTHING get the same benefits as those who pay their fair share is UNFAIR.

Quote:

---

Dude!

---

Dude yourself.

Quote:

---

It's unfair to the health insurance executive who won't be able to put his children through private school off the backs of the sick... But, I'm not going to feel too bad for him. It's not like single payer gets rid of insurance... There's still plenty left... I'll bet those health insurance people can find jobs...

But, if it comes down to THEIR jobs or the solvency of the system, I vote for solvency. As a righty, it would seem you would too... But, for some reason you want to see us go broke. That isn't very conservative of you...

---

So you see nothing unfair about the person who pays NOTHING into the system getting the same services as you do? You're OK with being FORCED to pay your full share while someone else benefits from your hard earned money? That's fair to you?

Quote:

---

In any case, single payer is VERY FAIR to everybody else...

---

Except to the guy who's paying into the system while someone else who doesn't benefits from his work.

Quote:

---

By the way, single payer will SAVE money and EXPAND services too. Just ask the people who have it. Oh, that's right. You don't believe 'em.

Excon

---

The people who have it have clearly said that their governments have limited their services and driven costs up. The governments that have those systems admit it. Their own government reports have shown it. Their own government-run polls of the beneficiaries of the system have shown it. It is YOU who don't believe 'em.

You seem to be the only person in the world who believes that you can expand health care by 46 million people, expand services to everyone, and have it cost less. Experts in the field, including those who are in favor of the system, have stated that the math doesn't work. But I guess you know better than all of 'em.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Experts in the field, including those who are in favor of the system, have stated that the math doesn't work. But I guess you know better than all of 'em.

---

Hello again, El:

It's a thankless job, but somebody's got to do it.

excon

No system of health insurance will work. As long as capitalists working for a profit are involved, you will have excessive costs. The Federal Government handles military health care and there are low to no legal costs, because you can't sue the government unless it wants to be sued. That also limits costs on excessive testing, since civilian doctors go overboard to protect themselves against a malpractice lawsuit. The military uses computers to track medical records, which is also a significant savings. And, if you think quality of medicine is not as good as civilian hospitals, think again. Military medicine has a licensure and credentialing process that all but eliminates quacks from performing medicine. I was in the system for 20 years, and still use it, and for every person who has been injured in military medicine, you will find significantly more in the civilian sector.

Charles Hugh Smith at [email protected] says it best when he writes;

The “Impossible” Healthcare Solution: Go Back to Cash

The expansion of health insurance and government entitlements created “free money” and thus the explosion of healthcare costs. The solution is simple and “impossible”: we all pay cash.

Here’s why healthcare (a.k.a. sick-care) costs cannot be reduced; the entire system is based on vast pools of “free money.” The corporate-America or union/government employee who goes to the doctor pays a few dollars for a visit and drugs; the “real cost” is of no concern. Ditto the “real costs” charged to Medicare and Medicaid.

The link between the “consumer” of healthcare and the provider has been broken for decades. There is no “free market” in healthcare — there isn’t any market at all. We live in a Kafka-esque nightmare system in which “some are more equal than others” and hundreds of thousands of dollars are lavished on worthless tests, procedures and medications for two reasons:

1. Because there’s “free money” to pay the bills

2. So-called “defensive medicine” in which worthless tests are administered to stave off random (sometimes valid, sometimes nuisance) malpractice lawsuits.

There is a solution so simple and so radical that it is “impossible” (and of course you’re reading it here): shut down insurance and all government entitlements, and return to the “golden era” of the 1950s when everyone paid cash for healthcare. Here are the costs of childbirth as of 1952 at one of the finest hospitals on the West Coast, The Santa Monica Hospital:

And here are the obstetrical rates:

Having a baby cost $30, which is today’s dollars is $244. A private deluxe room cost $23 or $187 in today’s dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s inflation calculator, $1 in 1952 is $8.14 in 2009 dollars.

What does it cost to have a baby now? $10,000? Or is it $25,000? Who even knows?

I know all the reasons “costs had to skyrocket”: we’re getting so much better care now, right? Actually, as measured by death rates and any other metric you want to select, there is simply no way to justify a 40-fold increase (or is it 100-fold?) in medical care costs. The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that.

In 1952, if something awful happened and a patient died, here was the response: “We’re very sorry.” Families weren’t outraged; they expected people to die and interventions were not expected to be miraculous every single time. Doctor Kildaire and all his imitators on TV had not brainwashed the public into reckoning that if someone died, a mistake had been made. They also hadn’t been brainwashed by the mental disorder known as “the American Legal System” into thinking that in every possible circumstance in life, there is liability, and the only question is where to pin it for the big bucks jackpot.

Stories about people suing doctors and hospitals for 5 times the value of a house ($1 million in today’s money would have been $120,000 in 1952, when you could buy a nice house for $20,000) simply did not exist in the 1950s. The cultural mindset that someone somewhere must be at fault and it’s a “right” to go after them did not exist. Since insurance was limited, there was no “free money jackpot” to go after, either.