Healthcare (official thread)

[ekeen]

Originally Posted by sandgk

Greenspan is the one making that argument - and he is no Democrat. Republicans have to either look in the mirror and say that they are not being truthful to themselves and you, and all others, when they claim to exude fiscal repsonsibility - while continuing to spend more than they bring in with revenues.

I agree with that. Somewhere in that book he calls Republicans for getting away from what they stand for - fiscal responsibility. Maybe this is the kick in the ass the party needs.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is proposing 110 billion dollar a year universal life coverage. 110 is probably way too low an estimate for such a thing.... As long as the media plays fair with the coverage....which I know they won't do.

I can be truthful though and tell you that I live below my means.

[Big Papa]

Originally Posted by ekeen

I agree with that. Somewhere in that book he calls Republicans for getting away from what they stand for - fiscal responsibility. Maybe this is the kick in the ass the party needs.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is proposing 110 billion dollar a year universal life coverage. 110 is probably way too low an estimate for such a thing.... As long as the media plays fair with the coverage....which I know they won't do.

I can be truthful though and tell you that I live below my means.

I would rather the government spend 110 billion dollars a year so Americans could have health coverage than 12 billion a month in Iraq.

[ekeen]

Originally Posted by Big Papa

I would rather the government spend 110 billion dollars a year so Americans could have health coverage than 12 billion a month in Iraq.

I would not. Stabilization of Iraq and defeating terrorism will undermine OBL's grand uptopian dream of the spread of his religion of terror.

Americans have enough entitlements already. Why create a new class of undeserving, unthankful saps.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by ekeen

I would not. Stabilization of Iraq and defeating terrorism will undermine OBL's grand uptopian dream of the spread of his religion of terror.

Americans have enough entitlements already. Why create a new class of undeserving, unthankful saps.

Because we all know that universal health care has made the European economies so utterly lazy and inefficient...

...DUCK...the dollar just hit another record low against the Euro and Pound.

[Big Papa]

Originally Posted by ekeen

I would not. Stabilization of Iraq and defeating terrorism will undermine OBL's grand uptopian dream of the spread of his religion of terror.

Americans have enough entitlements already. Why create a new class of undeserving, unthankful saps.

Explain to me what kind of human being, or more specifically, what kind of American citizen does not deserve health care?

I would agree that defeating terrorism and killing OBL would be worth spending like that, but "stabilizing Iraq", if that is even possible, is not going to vanquish terrorism or make OBL throw up his hands in defeat. Problem is, right now, this war is creating more terrorists than it is defeating. The war and occupation of Iraq is OBL's greatest marketing prop. We know terrorism ran rampant in Afghanistan, but we did not commit the time or resources to getting the job done there before rushing into WMD removal/regime change/democracy spreading/whatever Bush's flavor of the month is this month in Iraq.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

Because we all know that universal health care has made the European economies so utterly lazy and inefficient...

...DUCK...the dollar just hit another record low against the Euro and Pound.

It is of course, so much more union to let the Employer shoulder the largest burden of health care costs.

DUCK ...

[ekeen]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

Because we all know that universal health care has made the European economies so utterly lazy and inefficient...

...DUCK...the dollar just hit another record low against the Euro and Pound.

The problem I see is that all the innovators are still in the US. Europeans are lazy. They work to live, not the other way around. Things go in cycles, didn't Reagan get criticized for running on a strong dollar - YES. Manufacturers hated it - once saw a bumper sticker, "Save the Unions, export Reagan."

Originally Posted by BP

Explain to me what kind of human being, or more specifically, what kind of American citizen does not deserve health care?

An American that fully expects something for nothing.

Otherwise, there is welfare for people that can't afford benefits. Welfare shouldn't be reserved for an illegal alien or some lazy SOB, but for a person of need, as it was intended to do.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by ekeen

The problem I see is that all the innovators are still in the US. Europeans are lazy. They work to live, not the other way around. Things go in cycles, didn't Reagan get criticized for running on a strong dollar - YES. Manufacturers hated it - once saw a bumper sticker, "Save the Unions, export Reagan."

Yeah Europeans are lazy, they are so [censored]ing lazy that they kicking ass on us right now with the value of their money. Nothing innovative in Europe? All the innovators in the U.S.? C'mon that's silly, just plain silly.
Innovation is happening in all the developed countries. Asia, Europe and America.

Originally Posted by ekeen

An American that fully expects something for nothing. Otherwise, there is welfare. Welfare shouldn't be reserved for an illegal alien or some lazy SOB, but for a person of need, as it was intended to do.

Health care is not welfare - at least not in my mind.

Change a few more minds, and it might become the majority opinion - which would not, IMO, be a bad turn of events. You do know how much money gets sucked out of corporate coffers to fund health-care? - And, that cash outflow is at over the odds cost because they are effectively helping to subsidize the uninsured.

[Taosman]

A huge expense is Emergency Room visits for those who can't afford to have health care/doctors.
Affordable health care would greatly reduce those expensive E Room visits and save us all money.
That should be taken into account when we talk about actual costs of federal health care. This was brought up in another thread.

[BuckeyeMike80]

I don't really care what they do with an impending national health care system so long as

1) I don't have to sign up for it (otherwise known as the opportunity to have my OWN healthcare)

2) the Feds actually allow the private companies to be a part of the process, thereby diffusing the cost and bureacracy some.

I expect neither to happen however. These are politicians we are talking about here. They'll vote for whatever they think will get them elected, NOT what's best for the Country.

[ekeen]

[quote]

Originally Posted by sandgk

Yeah Europeans are lazy, they are so [censored]ing lazy that they are kicking ass on us right now with the value of their money. Nothing innovative in Europe? All the innovators in the U.S.? C'mon that's silly, just plain silly.
Innovation is happening in all the developed countries. Asia, Europe and America.

Europeans are lazy, their 'innovation' has nothing to do with the value of the dollar. It's the Fed that keeps printing greenbacks, which water down the value of our currency versus the rest of the world.

A weak dollar isn't all bad you know. The stock market continues to do well and a lot of American manufacturers like the weak dollar mucho.

Health care is not welfare - at least not in my mind.

Not to all but it could be to many. I'd rather not pay for a sure-to-be inefficient monstrosity.

Change a few more minds, and it might become the majority opinion - which would not, IMO, be a bad turn of events. You do know how much money gets sucked out of corporate coffers to fund health-care? - And, that cash outflow is at over the odds cost because they are effectively helping to subsidize the uninsured.

I think the tax laws could change the corporate coffer issue.

If given the opportunity to have MY own choice of health care or the choice of having state funded healthcare, I would rather have my own given the observations from France, Canada and Cuba.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Taosman

A huge expense is Emergency Room visits for those who can't afford to have health care/doctors.
Affordable health care would greatly reduce those expensive E Room visits and save us all money.
That should be taken into account when we talk about actual costs of federal health care. This was brought up in another thread.

The largest waste of money is the redundant duplication, state, by state, and HMO hegemony by HMO hegemony, of the administrative staffs needed to funnel those dollars, or halt care based on arbitrary rules. The only example I can think of from history that is less efficient in its use of funds would be the old Imperial Chinese Bureaucracies.

[Taosman]

"Not to all but it could be to many. I'd rather not pay for a sure-to-be inefficient monstrosity. "

But, you already are! You are paying for all those expensive E-room visits because many can't afford preventive medicine.
The average E-room visit is 4x the average doctor visit.

"What should you know before going to the E.R.? The national average E.R. visit costs $383, while the national average doctor’s office visit is approximately $60. Unnecessary E.R. visits can delay care for those with true emergencies, and cost billions of dollars." Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas - Doctor's Office Versus E.R. Visits

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by Taosman

"Not to all but it could be to many. I'd rather not pay for a sure-to-be inefficient monstrosity. "

But, you already are! You are paying for all those expensive E-room visits because many can't afford preventive medicine.
The average E-room visit is 4x the average doctor visit.

"What should you know before going to the E.R.? The national average E.R. visit costs $383, while the national average doctor?s office visit is approximately $60. Unnecessary E.R. visits can delay care for those with true emergencies, and cost billions of dollars."

So creating an entire Federal Bureacracy will fix that issue?

No it won't and it never will. Perhaps figuring out a way to get those costs under control would be a good idea instead.

But that won't sell in Iowa, so it won't happen.

ahh well I don't care, just so long as I can get myself out of the boondoggle entirely.

[Deety]

Taos, here's a question for you. I haven't made up my mind about nationalized healthcare yet, so don't take it as a position on that issue... I'm just curious.

I've heard you talk about the price of healthcare for you and your family, but from what I can gather, it sounds as though you've been in the upper 50% of earners throughout your life.

So given that the money for this sort of program has to come from some of us to go from others of us, are you willing to give and never take a penny back? Pay your full costs of medical care, care visits, medications, ER visits and ambulances... everything? The true costs, not co-pay or costs subsidized in any way. You planning to be one of the givers or one of the takers in that scenario?

I'm certainly for providing coverage for those who are physically unable to do the things necessary to secure healthcare for themselves... not sure including everyone in that plan would be a good thing.