Costly? We have the resources in this great country to provide for every man, woman and child. To not use them to save lives is criminal.
Of course we have the resources, but if it costs the govt $50 to provide the same medical services that a private company can provide for $12, we need to fix the gap before UHC can be possible.
I agree that it is about human life, and everyone deserves good care, but think of how unorganized it seems anytime you go to a government office? Have you every sought care at a county hospital? Its a madhouse.
We need to overhaul our govt before we undertake such a huge program.
so what confuses me is why you think I should pay for your healthcare.
Dude... You think it's cool to see sick kids without healthcare?
You think it's fine that in one of the richest nations in the world there are over 40 million people that have no healthcare and others... like myself that go to work everyday and let someone else raise my child...just so I can pay for healthcare?
You don't see that so much of it is just about the bank accounts of the wealthy and those who are trying to have power and control??? ...Without the people's best interests ever being taken into account.
Or...that's right... Why should the best interests of anyone other than yourself (Not to mention that everyone having healthcare and kids being raised by their parents if the parent chooses to do so IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF EVERYONE) be taken into account? Why should you care to put forth a dime so the kid standing next to you in the supermarket doesn't cough some TB into the air and make you sick. Hmmmm......
You don't see the need for and the benefit to all of us working together? One people?
Ugh. People like you make me so sick I need to use my $800/month healthcare.
Of course it should, but if they implement UHC too soon, and it doesn't work, then we'd be worse-off then we are now in terms of healthcare.
UHC isn't this great leap into the future. We have examples-working examples-that we can draw from. Europe is covering its citizens, the US is not. Some 40 million people are without healthcare, in the US. That's a crime, given our resources.
So there is a catch to life. given the current societal structure. That's criminal.
no. you asked if there was a benefit to keeping people alive. i took that as a cost/benefit analysis question. since 80-90% of the health problems people have in this country are preventable by proper diet and exercise, isn't the criminal part people treating their bodies like shit and then asking someone else to pay to fix them?
if it costs X amount of dollars to provide someone with healthcare and keeping them alive provides X amount of utility (tax revenue, volunteer work, etc.) then from a cost benefit analysis, yes it does make sense.
if you want to talk about it from a humanitarian standpoint, obviously its not okay to "let" people die. however, if like i said above most disease and illness is preventable, then shouldn't people just focus on taking better care of themselves? i'm for some form of a universal health care program, but i'm also more for a form of universal take care of your bodies program.
UHC isn't this great leap into the future. We have examples-working examples-that we can draw from. Europe is covering its citizens, the US is not. Some 40 million people are without healthcare, in the US. That's a crime, given our resources.
I disagree....the fact that UHC would require 1000s and 1000s of physical structures, a new computer system and new employees does make it seem like a great leap into the future.
Think of how few govt departments serve a huge chunk of our population...IRS and SSA are all that come to mind, and they don't require local physical locations everywhere in order to carry out their functions.
i'm for some form of a universal health care program, but i'm also more for a form of universal take care of your bodies program.
I certainly think a key to the whole thing would be the preventative health care that would be provided. Health and nutritional education...bloodwork, routine physical exams and screenings...etc...
I asked the same question of ffg.......do you think folks that go to public schools are getting a 'free ride'? Your tax dollars are paying for that system, whether or not you utilize it.
I dont think its a fair comparison. (schools and healthcare)
I disagree....the fact that UHC would require 1000s and 1000s of physical structures, a new computer system and new employees does make it seem like a great leap into the future.
Think of how few govt departments serve a huge chunk of our population...IRS and SSA are all that come to mind, and they don't require local physical locations everywhere in order to carry out their functions.
UHC works in many countries. What, we are 20 something on the rankings list. It doesn't take too many resources to make UHC to work. Other's are doing it, why shouldn't we, with our wealth?
Of course we have the resources, but if it costs the govt $50 to provide the same medical services that a private company can provide for $12, we need to fix the gap before UHC can be possible.
Why should anyone profit from health coverage? That's where this gap stems from. Its lives we are saving, it shouldn't be about the cost.
Dude... You think it's cool to see sick kids without healthcare?
You think it's fine that in one of the richest nations in the world there are over 40 million people that have no healthcare and others... like myself that go to work everyday and let someone else raise my child...just so I can pay for healthcare?
You don't see that so much of it is just about the bank accounts of the wealthy and those who are trying to have power and control??? ...Without the people's best interests ever being taken into account.
Or...that's right... Why should the best interests of anyone other than yourself (Not to mention that everyone having healthcare and kids being raised by their parents if the parent chooses to do so IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF EVERYONE) be taken into account? Why should you care to put forth a dime so the kid standing next to you in the supermarket doesn't cough some TB into the air and make you sick. Hmmmm......
You don't see the need for and the benefit to all of us working together? One people?
Ugh. People like you make me so sick I need to use my $800/month healthcare.
I'd be for a children's UNC plan. what I'm not for is people like commy who openly admit to not paying taxes and then turn around and ask me to pay for his healthcare. why should I?
I had a job many years back. I worked there for 10 years. great pay but they provided no health insurance. as I got older I realized I should find a job that offers those benefits. you know what I did? I worked my ass off and got my masters and was able to find a great employer who pays 100% of my healthcare. I didnt ask for a handout. I worked hard and made it happen for myself.
people are fucking lazy, thats what makes me sick.
I'd be for a children's UNC plan. what I'm not for is people like commy who openly admit to not paying taxes and then turn around and ask me to pay for his healthcare. why should I?
.
I've paid plenty of taxes in my time, as have most working class americans. We've paid our dues, to get some of it back is not negative, but only what we are due.
I've paid plenty of taxes in my time, as have most working class americans. We've paid our dues, to get some of it back is not negative, but only what we are due.
Or do you prefer corporate welfare?
Paying taxes is an ongoing duty. Have you not utilized any govt services in the past?
so i started this thread for some free advice about a paper i just finished an hour ago.
Let me start by saying that there is nothing i hold in higher regard than the free market. with that said, what ive learned from real research is that the problem cant be fixed without some sort of governmental management.
What ive come up with for my public admin course is this.
Mandate universal healthcare at a federal level but create individual state agencies that oversee their own medical practices. The funds would come from state revenues chosen by state officials or the people. Every state can do things the way they want as long as everybody has access to basic health care.
Meanwhile, we could offer tax subsidies to employers and individuals who choose to remain in the private sector of medical insurance. This way there is still relevant competition in the market. The new federal agency's major function would be to work with the FDA and insure that doctors knew what to prescribe and at what rates. There would be massive oversight at both levels.
The proposition I made in my paper is much more extensive but I think it speaks to both conservative and liberal ideals. If u would like I can post a link to my myspace page where I post most of my papers.
some of your posts gave me good ideas and leads and i thank those who posted thoughtful genuine ideas.
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
What does health insurance have to do with knocking up a chick? I don't think you need an HMO ID card to tap/not tap some ass.
One of the primary reasons "chicks" get "knocked up" unintentionally is due to lack of access to reliable birth control (i.e. healthcare). This is why so many more poor women face unintended pregnancy than wealthier women.
And please don't say they shouldn't have had sex because:
A. That's a whole conversation that would need its own thread, and
B. That doesn't account for married women, women who are left with no choice but to use less reliable birth control, women who get raped or have birth control failures and can't afford emergency contraception, etc.
Mandate universal healthcare at a federal level but create individual state agencies that oversee their own medical practices. The funds would come from state revenues chosen by state officials or the people. Every state can do things the way they want as long as everybody has access to basic health care.
Meanwhile, we could offer tax subsidies to employers and individuals who choose to remain in the private sector of medical insurance. This way there is still relevant competition in the market. The new federal agency's major function would be to work with the FDA and insure that doctors knew what to prescribe and at what rates. There would be massive oversight at both levels.
Sounds quite similar to American's Health Insurance Plans' "Vision for Reform," no?
Sounds quite similar to American's Health Insurance Plans' "Vision for Reform," no?
I guess Im not familiar with that. I just researched raw numbers in America and compared those with Canada, GB, France and Germany. I came up with my proposition using logic not anyone elses ideas.
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
Does anyone fear that the govt may impose morality choices when deciding what sort of healthcare to provide?
Imagine if the current administration, or one with similar values, refused to allow UHC providers to perform abortions!
What if the govt refused UHC providers funding for birth control pills or methadone?
That is a really good question that I've often pondered as well. We already have the Hyde Amendment, which says federal funds can't be used to pay for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. My only consolation has been that if the new system is anything like the current Medicaid one, states would also contribute and could use their part of the funds to pay for abortions, etc. if they want to. Plus, right now it's primarily the poor people (and Native Americans and people who work for the federal government) who are screwed. If the wealthier people got this option taken away as well they probably wouldn't stand for it (I hope).
That is a really good question that I've often pondered as well. We already have the Hyde Amendment, which says federal funds can't be used to pay for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. My only consolation has been that if the new system is anything like the current Medicaid one, states would also contribute and could use their part of the funds to pay for abortions, etc. if they want to. Plus, right now it's primarily the poor people (and Native Americans and people who work for the federal government) who are screwed. If the wealthier people got this option taken away as well they probably wouldn't stand for it (I hope).
To play devils advocate, what if the Fed Govt refuses to fund a state's UHC if they perform abortions in that state?
Many years ago, the Fed strong-armed several states into raising their drinking age from 18 to 21 by threatening to hold back funding for highways if the states refused.
Comments
Of course we have the resources, but if it costs the govt $50 to provide the same medical services that a private company can provide for $12, we need to fix the gap before UHC can be possible.
Dude... You think it's cool to see sick kids without healthcare?
You think it's fine that in one of the richest nations in the world there are over 40 million people that have no healthcare and others... like myself that go to work everyday and let someone else raise my child...just so I can pay for healthcare?
You don't see that so much of it is just about the bank accounts of the wealthy and those who are trying to have power and control??? ...Without the people's best interests ever being taken into account.
Or...that's right... Why should the best interests of anyone other than yourself (Not to mention that everyone having healthcare and kids being raised by their parents if the parent chooses to do so IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF EVERYONE) be taken into account? Why should you care to put forth a dime so the kid standing next to you in the supermarket doesn't cough some TB into the air and make you sick. Hmmmm......
You don't see the need for and the benefit to all of us working together? One people?
Ugh. People like you make me so sick I need to use my $800/month healthcare.
Of course it should, but if they implement UHC too soon, and it doesn't work, then we'd be worse-off then we are now in terms of healthcare.
no. you asked if there was a benefit to keeping people alive. i took that as a cost/benefit analysis question. since 80-90% of the health problems people have in this country are preventable by proper diet and exercise, isn't the criminal part people treating their bodies like shit and then asking someone else to pay to fix them?
if it costs X amount of dollars to provide someone with healthcare and keeping them alive provides X amount of utility (tax revenue, volunteer work, etc.) then from a cost benefit analysis, yes it does make sense.
if you want to talk about it from a humanitarian standpoint, obviously its not okay to "let" people die. however, if like i said above most disease and illness is preventable, then shouldn't people just focus on taking better care of themselves? i'm for some form of a universal health care program, but i'm also more for a form of universal take care of your bodies program.
I disagree....the fact that UHC would require 1000s and 1000s of physical structures, a new computer system and new employees does make it seem like a great leap into the future.
Think of how few govt departments serve a huge chunk of our population...IRS and SSA are all that come to mind, and they don't require local physical locations everywhere in order to carry out their functions.
you didnt answer my question. you admit to not paying taxes. so why should I, a tax payer, be obligated to pay for your healthcare?
I certainly think a key to the whole thing would be the preventative health care that would be provided. Health and nutritional education...bloodwork, routine physical exams and screenings...etc...
I dont think its a fair comparison. (schools and healthcare)
I'd be for a children's UNC plan. what I'm not for is people like commy who openly admit to not paying taxes and then turn around and ask me to pay for his healthcare. why should I?
I had a job many years back. I worked there for 10 years. great pay but they provided no health insurance. as I got older I realized I should find a job that offers those benefits. you know what I did? I worked my ass off and got my masters and was able to find a great employer who pays 100% of my healthcare. I didnt ask for a handout. I worked hard and made it happen for myself.
people are fucking lazy, thats what makes me sick.
Or do you prefer corporate welfare?
Paying taxes is an ongoing duty. Have you not utilized any govt services in the past?
If a pvt company can provide service for 1/4 of what it would cost the govt, the gap is due to inefficiency, not profit.
Let me start by saying that there is nothing i hold in higher regard than the free market. with that said, what ive learned from real research is that the problem cant be fixed without some sort of governmental management.
What ive come up with for my public admin course is this.
Mandate universal healthcare at a federal level but create individual state agencies that oversee their own medical practices. The funds would come from state revenues chosen by state officials or the people. Every state can do things the way they want as long as everybody has access to basic health care.
Meanwhile, we could offer tax subsidies to employers and individuals who choose to remain in the private sector of medical insurance. This way there is still relevant competition in the market. The new federal agency's major function would be to work with the FDA and insure that doctors knew what to prescribe and at what rates. There would be massive oversight at both levels.
The proposition I made in my paper is much more extensive but I think it speaks to both conservative and liberal ideals. If u would like I can post a link to my myspace page where I post most of my papers.
some of your posts gave me good ideas and leads and i thank those who posted thoughtful genuine ideas.
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
One of the primary reasons "chicks" get "knocked up" unintentionally is due to lack of access to reliable birth control (i.e. healthcare). This is why so many more poor women face unintended pregnancy than wealthier women.
And please don't say they shouldn't have had sex because:
A. That's a whole conversation that would need its own thread, and
B. That doesn't account for married women, women who are left with no choice but to use less reliable birth control, women who get raped or have birth control failures and can't afford emergency contraception, etc.
Sounds quite similar to American's Health Insurance Plans' "Vision for Reform," no?
Imagine if the current administration, or one with similar values, refused to allow UHC providers to perform abortions!
What if the govt refused UHC providers funding for birth control pills or methadone?
I guess Im not familiar with that. I just researched raw numbers in America and compared those with Canada, GB, France and Germany. I came up with my proposition using logic not anyone elses ideas.
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
If companies didn't profit, they'd lose investors, etc.
Plenty of hospitals are non-profit organizations.
That is a really good question that I've often pondered as well. We already have the Hyde Amendment, which says federal funds can't be used to pay for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. My only consolation has been that if the new system is anything like the current Medicaid one, states would also contribute and could use their part of the funds to pay for abortions, etc. if they want to. Plus, right now it's primarily the poor people (and Native Americans and people who work for the federal government) who are screwed. If the wealthier people got this option taken away as well they probably wouldn't stand for it (I hope).
We could go round and round for hours on this, my friend.
To play devils advocate, what if the Fed Govt refuses to fund a state's UHC if they perform abortions in that state?
Many years ago, the Fed strong-armed several states into raising their drinking age from 18 to 21 by threatening to hold back funding for highways if the states refused.
I don't think they can do that. Plus, seems like it would violate Roe v. Wade.
imho, they wouldn't be violating roe/wade because abortions would still be legal, just not free.