the US currently spends the most on health care with the least results ... it is my opinion that this entire debate can be summarized as follows:
Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.
wrong. you pay $150 because that is what people are willing to spend for a high quality product. if Nike shoes cost $15,000 per pair, no one would buy them. if they were sold for $10 a pair, the quality would not be as good.
The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money;
I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.
CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill
Washington, D.C. -- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.
Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion, coupled with the $583 billion revenue package reported today by the House Committee on Ways and Means, fully finance the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform, which will provide affordable health care coverage for 97% of Americans.
"This fulfills the strong commitment of the President and House leadership to enact health reform on a deficit-neutral basis," said Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and Chairman George Miller. "The reforms included in this legislation will help control health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage to all Americans in a fiscally-responsible manner."
The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the "donut" hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill’s long-term reform of Medicare’s physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory "pay go" legislation that is pending in the House.
you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?
its not that simple. I currently pay about $80 for my premium and my company pays about $250/300 or so. take that away, how much will my taxes go up? what business taxes go up as well?
and what about the people who maintain a healthy lifestyle and get an insurance plan that covers their needs. for example, a insurance rate of like $20 a month that yields a really high deducible. now, you want to raise their taxes to what?
and what about those who during tough times will temporarily cancel their insurance to save money and live a healthy lifestyle. I did that for a few years while I was out of college. but you want to take away that option for me.
and what happens when there are cost overruns. has the government ever been on budget with a program? no. but somehow they will start now? assuming they dont, how do you pay for it? raise taxes, print money, borrow?
yes, everyone's taxes will go up to cover the costs. how much - how can we know for sure?
lucky you with your costs....many of us aren't so lucky. i pay in way more than that, and our prices just went up again. perhaps with taxes, some will go up some, some others down, 'even out' the costs a bit....idk.
as to the person and the healthy lifestyle...hate to break it to ya, healthy people get cancer too ya know. so sure, while you can choose to play that roulette, long-term, it's unwise....so yes...yet again, you are correct...you'd have to pay in for healthcare whether you want to or not. kinda like i pay a lot of money for education even tho idon't have children. to me, both are a big part of civilized society....education and healthcare for all.
so it DOES all come down to you wanting to keep your 'choice' of having coverage or not having coverage, etc....not having the government force you to pay towards your healthcare or of others, etc. and hey, you're absolutely right....we ARE discussing taking away that choice from you or anyone. many of us are a-ok with it. you are not. we shall see what the majority really wants and what gets implmented. it's all we can do, let our representatives know our desires, and voice them.
in the long-term, many of us do see how, collectively...it IS in our OWN best interest...as individuals and as a collective community, to have ALL our citizens have access to healthcare. study after study proves just how cost-effective preventative healthcare is, how it improves longevity by preventing and/or catching diseases early....all of these things will improve quality of life, lifespan, and yes....keep our collective healthcare costs down. why is it do you think that we, with our private insurance, have some of THE highest healthcare costs, per person, than elsehwere? and it certainly isn't our 'quality of care'...it's our profit margins...and yea, our prohibitve costs linked to those profits ANd to the costs of not everyone having preventative medicine, getting sick, not getting the early/cheaper preventions or treatments...and it getting out of hand. and even amongst those who DO take care of their health, they too benefit...b/c they too can get sick out of no where.....and they would be more apt to go for regular check-ups, hopefully catching some of these diseases early...if they know they always have coverage. i know quite a few healthy-lifestyle folks, struck with cancer, for example. so yea....we ARE talking about taking away your choice to say no to healthcare, b/c some of us believe it's for the best for us all to have healthcare......
jlew......obviously there are costs....and surely in the trillions. however, that still doesn't mean we can't afford it. there will be savings, there will be costs...no one, including myself, has said otherwise.
I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.
somehow i missed this specific data too. however, i have heard this argument before. yep, we're trillions in debt and yes we would have to raise taxes. agreed. however, this does not mean we cannot afford it. it's been explained a few times, just how we could possibly afford it. you simply don't believe it. we don't need to borrow more $$$ or print more $$4 to make it happen...but you bet....taxes will be raised. however, i am a-ok with paying my $$$ towards a heathcare tax and healthcare for all, for life, rather than what we have now.....lots of my healthcare $$$ NOT going to healthcare, but to profits.
at least you recognize taxes will go up for everyone and you surprisingly care to no end how much that will be. you also recognize my choices will be eliminated. not the American way
I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.
EXACTLY.
that is the biggest obstacle to UHC.
many have said the same.
it's not the 'cost' of the healthcare...it's getting rid of the corporate involvement!
how about regulated the insurance industry instead of eliminating it?
at least you recognize taxes will go up for everyone and you surprisingly care to no end how much that will be. you also recognize my choices will be eliminated. not the American way
seriously...you argue round and round an issue...instead of simply focusing on what TRULY bothers you about it. THIS is your issue. and i have said from day one of COURSE taxes will go up - duh! but more than likely, my actual out of pocket costs won't...they could even be cheaper......who knows? all i DO know is the ideal of EVERYone having health coverage, every single citizen, for LIFE....is worth it. as i said, i see it in the same light as education, and i personlly believe it is our responsibility to have education and healthcare access for ALL. and actually...it IS the american way, if it is deemed the will of the people.
why bother with the insurance industry?
we don't need a middleman. i don't think there is any need to have a for profit nature within the healthcare system. i personally do think it should be a governmental system. again, where you and i disagree. why should some stockholder benefit from my healthcare costs? no thanks. stocks are for products...i don't think healthcare should be a product.
face it, you and i see this fundamentally in a differnt light. i don't have aproblem with that. the only thing i 'argue' is when you say it's impossible to fund and so on.
and yea....doesn;t it seem like right now, the plan IS to regulate it somehow? that's how we're starting anyway, and i'm good with that. it's a step in the right the direction. however, i think UHC is the ideal goal.....you don't.....we shall see, in time, what all of america wants.
I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.
this is talking about the current bill in congress. not UHC. try to keep up
hey, what's with the cute one liners...?
anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...
I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...
anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...
I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...
this bill and UHC are two vastly different things.
and i have said from day one of COURSE taxes will go up - duh! but more than likely, my actual out of pocket costs won't...they could even be cheaper......who knows? all i DO know is the ideal of EVERYone having health coverage, every single citizen, for LIFE....is worth it. as i said, i see it in the same light as education, and i personlly believe it is our responsibility to have education and healthcare access for ALL. and actually...it IS the american way, if it is deemed the will of the people.
why bother with the insurance industry?
we don't need a middleman. i don't think there is any need to have a for profit nature within the healthcare system. i personally do think it should be a governmental system. again, where you and i disagree. why should some stockholder benefit from my healthcare costs? no thanks. stocks are for products...i don't think healthcare should be a product.
I understand where you are coming from here. but I dont think the government is any better and far worse actually at providing a high quality product.
face it, you and i see this fundamentally in a differnt light. i don't have aproblem with that. the only thing i 'argue' is when you say it's impossible to fund and so on.
nothing is impossible if you raise taxes, borrow, and print money. doesnt mean its the right thing to do
anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...
I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...
this bill and UHC are two vastly different things.
I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option (a gov't run program), then how can we pay for UHC (a gov't run program)...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option (a gov't run program).. oh my, does that mean UHC (a gov't run program) is actually attainable and affordable...
anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...
I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...
this bill and UHC are two vastly different things.
I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option (a gov't run program), then how can we pay for UHC (a gov't run program)...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option (a gov't run program).. oh my, does that mean UHC (a gov't run program) is actually attainable and affordable...
sounds like you just want to lump together everything the government does as an equal "(gov't run program)"
tell me then, is social security and medicare affordable and sustainable?
and i have said from day one of COURSE taxes will go up - duh! but more than likely, my actual out of pocket costs won't...they could even be cheaper......who knows? all i DO know is the ideal of EVERYone having health coverage, every single citizen, for LIFE....is worth it. as i said, i see it in the same light as education, and i personlly believe it is our responsibility to have education and healthcare access for ALL. and actually...it IS the american way, if it is deemed the will of the people.
why bother with the insurance industry?
we don't need a middleman. i don't think there is any need to have a for profit nature within the healthcare system. i personally do think it should be a governmental system. again, where you and i disagree. why should some stockholder benefit from my healthcare costs? no thanks. stocks are for products...i don't think healthcare should be a product.
I understand where you are coming from here. but I dont think the government is any better and far worse actually at providing a high quality product.
face it, you and i see this fundamentally in a differnt light. i don't have aproblem with that. the only thing i 'argue' is when you say it's impossible to fund and so on.
nothing is impossible if you raise taxes, borrow, and print money. doesnt mean its the right thing to do
and cost, loss of choices and quality of care...all have been covered.
again, outside of being able to choose NOT to have healthcare, i don't see any lack of choice. i have next to no choice as it is now. i think that is a small price to pay. the cost and quality of care we have debated back and forth numerous times already, and i foresee UHC being able to handle them both satisfactorily. you've not provided me with any real information that would make me think otherwise. of course, i know you disagree too. (again, if you remember...also why we stopped 'debating' elsewhere on the topic, realizing neither of us were going to alter)
christ jlew......higher taxes are out of pocket costs, yes.
however, if i currently pay say $300 a month towards health insurance....and INSTEAD pay $300 more in taxes...my out of pocket costs remain the SAME. you see? THAt was my point. there is nothing to suggest that my out of pocket costs will absolutely be higher...they could be lower....just don't know. i already addressed this above. i said, some may get raised, some may lower, some may remain flat...all to balance out the overall costs. of course i cannot answer this definitivelty. and this again covers 'raising taxes'.....yes...they will! but again, does not mean it will cost me more out of pocket....and there is nothing to suggest we will need to print or borrow $$$. man, you like to rehash those speculations. and yes, raising taxes Is the right thing to do...if it means healthcare for all, for life.....and most especially if, overall....the 'collective cost' really is no more, maybe even less (no more profits for stockholders!) than it is now. and yea...there is nothing to suggest quality of care will suffer, tho i know you believe it will. again, i point you to the 'healthcare rationing' thread for our current quality care as one example.
anyhoo....once again, i have personally reached my impasse on this discussion with you. we honestly have nothing else to say. i find it exasperating really, rehashing the same information...and yea...saying things, the same things, in different ways....to no avail. i have no *need* to convince you of my pov. and there comes a point of 'passing the day'...and just being tedious, and i am there. if you say anything else later that annoys me...i'll certainly pop back in :P...and/or when others pop in and comment. otherwise...i'm outta here. i think i need to obsess over the philly 10.31 show some more..... catch ya on the porch! have fun!
didn't we cover this?
we all pay for heathcare now...
my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor
In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks
there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that
thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.
*that ALONE would probably save billions...maybe more. couple that with our new tax contributions (individuals + private companies) in lieu of payments to an insurance carrier = funding for UHC. i think we can afford it, i do believe it's doable, just thinking of these 2 issues alone....more than possible.
it's getting RID of the 'for profit' nature of healthcare, and all these for profit organizations based around it that is the REAL problem, tho it shouldn't be....
ALL of this, in a concise little nutshell is it for me. we can afford it, we can continue our quality of care, we can continue funding innovative research and we can have healthcare coverage for all, for life.
hell, if france can do it....we certainly should be able to, right?
(no insult to my frenchie friends ....just playin' along)
and cost, loss of choices and quality of care...all have been covered.
again, outside of being able to choose NOT to have healthcare, i don't see any lack of choice. i have next to no choice as it is now. i think that is a small price to pay. the cost and quality of care we have debated back and forth numerous times already, and i foresee UHC being able to handle them both satisfactorily. you've not provided me with any real information that would make me think otherwise. of course, i know you disagree too. (again, if you remember...also why we stopped 'debating' elsewhere on the topic, realizing neither of us were going to alter)
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.
christ jlew......higher taxes are out of pocket costs, yes.
however, if i currently pay say $300 a month towards health insurance....and INSTEAD pay $300 more in taxes...my out of pocket costs remain the SAME. you see? THAt was my point.
there is nothing to suggest that my out of pocket costs will absolutely be higher...they could be lower....just don't know. i already addressed this above. i said, some may get raised, some may lower, some may remain flat...all to balance out the overall costs. of course i cannot answer this definitivelty. and this again covers 'raising taxes'.....yes...they will! but again, does not mean it will cost me more out of pocket....and there is nothing to suggest we will need to print or borrow $$$. man, you like to rehash those speculations. and yes, raising taxes Is the right thing to do...if it means healthcare for all, for life.....and most especially if, overall....the 'collective cost' really is no more, maybe even less (no more profits for stockholders!) than it is now. and yea...there is nothing to suggest quality of care will suffer, tho i know you believe it will. again, i point you to the 'healthcare rationing' thread for our current quality care as one example.
The U.S. employer-based health insurance market provides insurance coverage to nearly two-thirds of the population under 65. you want to take that away, meaning ALL of these people WILL pay higher taxes.
as well as those who choose not to have any and live a healthy lifestyle.
the US currently spends the most on health care with the least results ... it is my opinion that this entire debate can be summarized as follows:
Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.
wrong. you pay $150 because that is what people are willing to spend for a high quality product. if Nike shoes cost $15,000 per pair, no one would buy them. if they were sold for $10 a pair, the quality would not be as good.
The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money;
:roll:
In England they compensate the care providers based on the health of their patients
i.e....how many stopped smoking?, how many lost weight over one year? how many reduced their blood pressure
that promotes quality....
my doctor goes room to room billing insurance companies for the visit and writing prescriptions for whatever drug was promoted to him that week be a drug rep....is that better quality?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
In England they compensate the care providers based on the health of their patients
i.e....how many stopped smoking?, how many lost weight over one year? how many reduced their blood pressure
that promotes quality....
I absolutely support tax payer dollars going towards prevention and incentives to stay healthy
my doctor goes room to room billing insurance companies for the visit and writing prescriptions for whatever drug was promoted to him that week be a drug rep....is that better quality?
it's obvious jlew hasn't had the life experiences that are required to develop a good opinion on this subject
hell I would probably be in his spot if I didn't experience a lot of these things first hand
I pay about $450/month for a $5,500 deductible plan.....I have had this for four years and have NEVER used $1 of insurance because luckily we have been healthy and have not been billed more than our deductible
but it is a fact that every year my premium increases 20-25%....for what?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
In England they compensate the care providers based on the health of their patients
i.e....how many stopped smoking?, how many lost weight over one year? how many reduced their blood pressure
that promotes quality....
I absolutely support tax payer dollars going towards prevention and incentives to stay healthy
my doctor goes room to room billing insurance companies for the visit and writing prescriptions for whatever drug was promoted to him that week be a drug rep....is that better quality?
no. but I dont see how UHC eliminates this
uh....maybe follow the English system??? focus on preventative care instead of after the fact???
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
hell I would probably be in his spot if I didn't experience a lot of these things first hand
I pay about $450/month for a $5,500 deductible plan.....I have had this for four years and have NEVER used $1 of insurance because luckily we have been healthy and have not been billed more than our deductible
but it is a fact that every year my premium increases 20-25%....for what?
guess what. not everyone has the same plan as you. unfucking real the arrogance on you. you are probably very OLD and at much higher risk of developing health issues.
if you don't like the high cost or your insurance, drop your coverage. or change plans.
Comments
wrong. you pay $150 because that is what people are willing to spend for a high quality product. if Nike shoes cost $15,000 per pair, no one would buy them. if they were sold for $10 a pair, the quality would not be as good.
:roll:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... y-not.html
For Immediate Release:
July 17, 2009
CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill
Washington, D.C. -- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.
Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion, coupled with the $583 billion revenue package reported today by the House Committee on Ways and Means, fully finance the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform, which will provide affordable health care coverage for 97% of Americans.
"This fulfills the strong commitment of the President and House leadership to enact health reform on a deficit-neutral basis," said Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and Chairman George Miller. "The reforms included in this legislation will help control health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage to all Americans in a fiscally-responsible manner."
The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the "donut" hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill’s long-term reform of Medicare’s physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory "pay go" legislation that is pending in the House.
at least you recognize taxes will go up for everyone and you surprisingly care to no end how much that will be. you also recognize my choices will be eliminated. not the American way
this is talking about the current bill in congress. not UHC. try to keep up
how about regulated the insurance industry instead of eliminating it?
seriously...you argue round and round an issue...instead of simply focusing on what TRULY bothers you about it. THIS is your issue. and i have said from day one of COURSE taxes will go up - duh! but more than likely, my actual out of pocket costs won't...they could even be cheaper......who knows? all i DO know is the ideal of EVERYone having health coverage, every single citizen, for LIFE....is worth it. as i said, i see it in the same light as education, and i personlly believe it is our responsibility to have education and healthcare access for ALL. and actually...it IS the american way, if it is deemed the will of the people.
why bother with the insurance industry?
we don't need a middleman. i don't think there is any need to have a for profit nature within the healthcare system. i personally do think it should be a governmental system. again, where you and i disagree. why should some stockholder benefit from my healthcare costs? no thanks. stocks are for products...i don't think healthcare should be a product.
face it, you and i see this fundamentally in a differnt light. i don't have aproblem with that. the only thing i 'argue' is when you say it's impossible to fund and so on.
and yea....doesn;t it seem like right now, the plan IS to regulate it somehow? that's how we're starting anyway, and i'm good with that. it's a step in the right the direction. however, i think UHC is the ideal goal.....you don't.....we shall see, in time, what all of america wants.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
hey, what's with the cute one liners...?
anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...
I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...
this bill and UHC are two vastly different things.
um yes. cost, lose of choices, and lowered quality of care have always been my concerns. why do you sound surprised?
higher taxes are out of pocket costs.
I understand where you are coming from here. but I dont think the government is any better and far worse actually at providing a high quality product.
nothing is impossible if you raise taxes, borrow, and print money. doesnt mean its the right thing to do
I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option (a gov't run program), then how can we pay for UHC (a gov't run program)...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option (a gov't run program).. oh my, does that mean UHC (a gov't run program) is actually attainable and affordable...
sounds like you just want to lump together everything the government does as an equal "(gov't run program)"
tell me then, is social security and medicare affordable and sustainable?
and cost, loss of choices and quality of care...all have been covered.
again, outside of being able to choose NOT to have healthcare, i don't see any lack of choice. i have next to no choice as it is now. i think that is a small price to pay. the cost and quality of care we have debated back and forth numerous times already, and i foresee UHC being able to handle them both satisfactorily. you've not provided me with any real information that would make me think otherwise. of course, i know you disagree too. (again, if you remember...also why we stopped 'debating' elsewhere on the topic, realizing neither of us were going to alter)
christ jlew......higher taxes are out of pocket costs, yes.
however, if i currently pay say $300 a month towards health insurance....and INSTEAD pay $300 more in taxes...my out of pocket costs remain the SAME. you see? THAt was my point. there is nothing to suggest that my out of pocket costs will absolutely be higher...they could be lower....just don't know. i already addressed this above. i said, some may get raised, some may lower, some may remain flat...all to balance out the overall costs. of course i cannot answer this definitivelty. and this again covers 'raising taxes'.....yes...they will! but again, does not mean it will cost me more out of pocket....and there is nothing to suggest we will need to print or borrow $$$. man, you like to rehash those speculations.
anyhoo....once again, i have personally reached my impasse on this discussion with you. we honestly have nothing else to say. i find it exasperating really, rehashing the same information...and yea...saying things, the same things, in different ways....to no avail. i have no *need* to convince you of my pov. and there comes a point of 'passing the day'...and just being tedious, and i am there.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
ALL of this, in a concise little nutshell is it for me. we can afford it, we can continue our quality of care, we can continue funding innovative research and we can have healthcare coverage for all, for life.
hell, if france can do it....we certainly should be able to, right?
(no insult to my frenchie friends
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I've posted this before..
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... care.htm... I agree with this assessment.
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.
ok ok I apologize. I see your point xoxo.
The U.S. employer-based health insurance market provides insurance coverage to nearly two-thirds of the population under 65. you want to take that away, meaning ALL of these people WILL pay higher taxes.
as well as those who choose not to have any and live a healthy lifestyle.
In England they compensate the care providers based on the health of their patients
i.e....how many stopped smoking?, how many lost weight over one year? how many reduced their blood pressure
that promotes quality....
my doctor goes room to room billing insurance companies for the visit and writing prescriptions for whatever drug was promoted to him that week be a drug rep....is that better quality?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I absolutely support tax payer dollars going towards prevention and incentives to stay healthy
no. but I dont see how UHC eliminates this
hell I would probably be in his spot if I didn't experience a lot of these things first hand
I pay about $450/month for a $5,500 deductible plan.....I have had this for four years and have NEVER used $1 of insurance because luckily we have been healthy and have not been billed more than our deductible
but it is a fact that every year my premium increases 20-25%....for what?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
uh....maybe follow the English system??? focus on preventative care instead of after the fact???
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
no of course not. I can only carry your opinion and nothing else. what arrogant piece of work you are.
guess what. not everyone has the same plan as you. unfucking real the arrogance on you. you are probably very OLD and at much higher risk of developing health issues.
if you don't like the high cost or your insurance, drop your coverage. or change plans.
uh.....maybe read what I said in the very same post you quoted. :roll:
I absolutely support tax payer dollars going towards prevention and incentives to stay healthy
Stick to the topic of the thread or begone.
Thread is being closed because it is being derailed.
Admin