A Question For American Voters

onelongsong

i recently read about the democratic debates in las vegas and couldn't believe what i read. first; the issue of illegals obtaining drivers licenses. drivers licenses are a state matter and the federal government cannot interfere with state matters so the issue is moot. next; is universal healthcare. "Clinton charged that Obama's health care plan isn't truly universal because it doesn't require people to buy insurance."
so if everyone is required to buy insurance; how is it universal healthcare?
now; if we're going to have universal healthcare for americans; won't non-americans, ie: those who don't qualify; have to be rooted out. this again will bring crys of discrimination and as always; the government will buckle and offer healthcare for those here illegally. not one candidate mentioned where this money will come from. it won't come from the rich. we have too many loopholes and profits can be reinvested via trusts.

so; here's my question: does anybody believe these clowns?

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

i recently read about the democratic debates in las vegas and couldn't believe what i read. first; the issue of illegals obtaining drivers licenses. drivers licenses are a state matter and the federal government cannot interfere with state matters so the issue is moot. next; is universal healthcare. "Clinton charged that Obama's health care plan isn't truly universal because it doesn't require people to buy insurance."
so if everyone is required to buy insurance; how is it universal healthcare?
now; if we're going to have universal healthcare for americans; won't non-americans, ie: those who don't qualify; have to be rooted out. this again will bring crys of discrimination and as always; the government will buckle and offer healthcare for those here illegally. not one candidate mentioned where this money will come from. it won't come from the rich. we have too many loopholes and profits can be reinvested via trusts.

so; here's my question: does anybody believe these clowns?

No I don't believe them. I will state it again, as much as I would love to see every US citizen have affordable health coverage I don't want our government anywhere near such a program. I understand that the easiest way to provide universal healthcare would be through our federal government it would only become a bogged down, mismanaged, beaurocratic nightmare (much like Social Security and the Medicare Prescription Drug program are right now). It would turn into a bottomless pit of tax dollars.

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

No I don't believe them. I will state it again, as much as I would love to see every US citizen have affordable health coverage I don't want our government anywhere near such a program. I understand that the easiest way to provide universal healthcare would be through our federal government it would only become a bogged down, mismanaged, beaurocratic nightmare (much like Social Security and the Medicare Prescription Drug program are right now). It would turn into a bottomless pit of tax dollars.

since you brought it up; i considered applying for the part D Rx program. what stopped me was that it covers the first $3200 or something like that. my monthly Rx cost me $2600 so that means it would cover just over a months Rx. what kind of program is that?

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

since you brought it up; i considered applying for the part D Rx program. what stopped me was that it covers the first $3200 or something like that. my monthly Rx cost me $2600 so that means it would cover just over a months Rx. what kind of program is that?

A shitty one that is costing us billions in tax dollars. The federal government would not negotiate a lower rate with the pharma companies. So we are paying retail for the prescriptions at those prices it is hard to pay for all the prescriptions for everyone enrolled in the program. Biggest waste of tax dollars I have seen, with th exception of the the war in Iraq.

Skitch Patterson

Its cute that Hilary is running on the same "healthcare reform" platform that her husband did... and never followed through on (regardless of reason).

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

A shitty one that is costing us billions in tax dollars. The federal government would not negotiate a lower rate with the pharma companies. So we are paying retail for the prescriptions at those prices it is hard to pay for all the prescriptions for everyone enrolled in the program. Biggest waste of tax dollars I have seen, with th exception of the the war in Iraq.

there is an option though. i went right to the pharma companies and they do have a program. i now pay $80/3 months for my Rxs. they mail them to me; except narcotics. those are mailed to the doctor and i pick them up there.
i qualified even with my income so keeping government out of the medical field works.

blackredyellow

Something really needs to be done about our current healthcare system... in the past year, I know of 3 relatives or close friends that have basically been screwed out of either getting insurance totally, or preventative treatment, only to have needed more costly treatment later that has cost either them or taxpayers more in the long run.

As much as I am afraid of gov't getting involved in something this big, a government funded single-payer health care systems seems to have more positives than negatives at this point.

And as far as paying for healthcare for foreigners here, what is the difference now? Anyone can go to an emergency room and get some sort of care.

If someone has a job and is paying taxes (paying into the medical system), then I think they (and their families) should be eligible for health care.

onelongsong

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Its cute that Hilary is running on the same "healthcare reform" platform that her husband did... and never followed through on (regardless of reason).

the reason is that it won't work. hillarycare didn't work in the 90's and with a now greater deficit; it won't work in the 2000's. her plan requires everyone to buy insurance so how is this universal healthcare?
Clinton charged that Obama's health care plan isn't truly universal because it doesn't require people to buy insurance.
this is from the democratic debate in nevada. how does requiring everyone to buy insurance make it any different that what we have now?

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

the reason is that it won't work. hillarycare didn't work in the 90's and with a now greater deficit; it won't work in the 2000's. her plan requires everyone to buy insurance so how is this universal healthcare?
Clinton charged that Obama's health care plan isn't truly universal because it doesn't require people to buy insurance.
this is from the democratic debate in nevada. how does requiring everyone to buy insurance make it any different that what we have now?

I know Massachusetts now requires everyone to have insurance, and I read an article a while back that described a lot of the positives that came from it. I'll try to find that article...

onelongsong

blackredyellow wrote:

Something really needs to be done about our current healthcare system... in the past year, I know of 3 relatives or close friends that have basically been screwed out of either getting insurance totally, or preventative treatment, only to have needed more costly treatment later that has cost either them or taxpayers more in the long run.

As much as I am afraid of gov't getting involved in something this big, a government funded single-payer health care systems seems to have more positives than negatives at this point.

And as far as paying for healthcare for foreigners here, what is the difference now? Anyone can go to an emergency room and get some sort of care.

If someone has a job and is paying taxes (paying into the medical system), then I think they (and their families) should be eligible for health care.

that sounds wonderful. most people with full time jobs have the insurance coverage already available to them through their employer. instead of paying double or triple their tax obligation; as they would with government healthcare; they pay a portion of the premium or in many cases; the employer pays the entire premium.
you touched on the one point here. THOSE PAYING TAXES. universal means those paying taxes will pay for those who don't.

onelongsong

blackredyellow wrote:

I know Massachusetts now requires everyone to have insurance, and I read an article a while back that described a lot of the positives that came from it. I'll try to find that article...

are you sure that isn't car insurance? how can MA require the poor who cannot afford it to buy it? is it an attempt to make the poor leave ma?

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

there is an option though. i went right to the pharma companies and they do have a program. i now pay $80/3 months for my Rxs. they mail them to me; except narcotics. those are mailed to the doctor and i pick them up there.
i qualified even with my income so keeping government out of the medical field works.

Yes some pharma companies offer a discount on certain prescriptions, but not all. Also, though prescription medications do make up a large part of medical expenses, a lot is still spent on doctor's visits and hospital treatment.

Something has to be done though. I don't know about the regions where other's live but by me so far there has been 4 hospitals that have closed down and 2 more are on the chopping block because of funds.

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

that sounds wonderful. most people with full time jobs have the insurance coverage already available to them through their employer. instead of paying double or triple their tax obligation; as they would with government healthcare; they pay a portion of the premium or in many cases; the employer pays the entire premium.
you touched on the one point here. THOSE PAYING TAXES. universal means those paying taxes will pay for those who don't.

But that's how it is now... those of us who pay taxes pay for programs for those who don't.

The problem that I have is what you said above "most people with full time jobs have the insurance coverage already available"... what about those who don't? Are they just shit out of luck and go to the ER for things like colds so the waits (and costs) continue to increase for everyone.

Yes, taxes will go up, but if done right, employees will make more... If between my contributions and my employers, my families health insurance costs $1000 a month, that $1000 would now got to the healthcare portion of taxes.

With the huge overhead and things like the rediculous advertising budgets that health insurers have, I really can't see a gov't ran program costing as much to administer.

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

are you sure that isn't car insurance? how can MA require the poor who cannot afford it to buy it? is it an attempt to make the poor leave ma?

Nope, health care...

This is from the wikipedia entry on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_2006_Health_Reform_Statute). I hate using wiki as a source, but it at least gives you an overview....

"Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006, and requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain or purchase health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides nearly free health care for residents earning less than the federal poverty line, and subsidized access to health care for those earning up to three times the poverty threshold. The law established a new quasi-public regulatory authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority which required private insurance providers to create new lower-cost health insurance plans to be made available, and aids individual residents to purchase insurance coverage.[1][2] Incentives for residents to obtain health insurance coverage include penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan, of $219, for 2007, the amount of an individual's Massachusetts annual income tax personal tax exemption; in 2008, penalties increase by monthly increments, and can be up to half of the cost of an individual's health insurance plan.[3][4]"

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

Yes some pharma companies offer a discount on certain prescriptions, but not all. Also, though prescription medications do make up a large part of medical expenses, a lot is still spent on doctor's visits and hospital treatment.

Something has to be done though. I don't know about the regions where other's live but by me so far there has been 4 hospitals that have closed down and 2 more are on the chopping block because of funds.

so true; but my doctors see i have medicare and only charge me what medicare pays. i pay nothing out of pocket.

flywallyfly

onelongsong wrote:

so true; but my doctors see i have medicare and only charge me what medicare pays. i pay nothing out of pocket.

You are quick to point out how you dont pay taxes because of loopholes and trusts in numerous posts on this board yet you use medicare, a tax funded government program. Does that make you part of the welfare state and government intervention you rail against at a drop of a hat?

onelongsong

blackredyellow wrote:

Nope, health care...

This is from the wikipedia entry on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_2006_Health_Reform_Statute). I hate using wiki as a source, but it at least gives you an overview....

"Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006, and requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain or purchase health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides nearly free health care for residents earning less than the federal poverty line, and subsidized access to health care for those earning up to three times the poverty threshold. The law established a new quasi-public regulatory authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority which required private insurance providers to create new lower-cost health insurance plans to be made available, and aids individual residents to purchase insurance coverage.[1][2] Incentives for residents to obtain health insurance coverage include penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan, of $219, for 2007, the amount of an individual's Massachusetts annual income tax personal tax exemption; in 2008, penalties increase by monthly increments, and can be up to half of the cost of an individual's health insurance plan.[3][4]"

all states have medicaid for the poor. this is where the illegals burden our social service system.
now what about medicare? is medicare recognised or must an independent insurance be bought. i assume medicare is recognised.

it looks like MA is way ahead of the game. the other states should look at your system and learn that we don't need the federal government deciding what care and services my doctor should provide.
thank you for the info.

onelongsong

flywallyfly wrote:

You are quick to point out how you dont pay taxes because of loopholes and trusts in numerous posts on this board yet you use medicare, a tax funded government program. Does that make you part of the welfare state and government intervention you rail against at a drop of a hat?

if you had brain surgery with complications which resulted in a seizure disorder that cannot be managed because it was due to a brain bleed; you'd receive medicare too whether you paid taxes or not. at the time; i was making approximately $1600/week so i'm getting a nice monthly check. the money put into trusts is/was AFTER TAX MONEY. the organization i own now is a "non-profit" organization which means profits are moved around. since it's a ranch i have to live here to "watch over" things so all my expenses are paid by the organization and tax deductable. thus; i show no income. along with all the agricultural deductions ranches are allowed.
chances are that i've paid more in taxes prior to my surgery than you'll make in your entire life. i deserve what i receive.

onelongsong

what about drivers licenses for illegals? where do you stand on that issue?

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

what about drivers licenses for illegals? where do you stand on that issue?

not really for it, but could care less if a state wants to do it.

I understand the thought process behind it, making sure that everyone driving has a license and insurance, but in practice that wouldn't be the case anyway.

I don't really see what it would hurt... like the NY plan, you would need a foreign passport to get one, and besides driving, it wouldn't give you any other privileges.

onelongsong

blackredyellow wrote:

not really for it, but could care less if a state wants to do it.

I understand the thought process behind it, making sure that everyone driving has a license and insurance, but in practice that wouldn't be the case anyway.

I don't really see what it would hurt... like the NY plan, you would need a foreign passport to get one, and besides driving, it wouldn't give you any other privileges.

when you consider the number of legal americans driving without insurance; i don't think it would make a difference either.

however; if they had drivers licenses and gave an honest address; it would be easier to round them up. when i was in politics; illegals gave false addresses and false names. it's quite easy so i won't post it but if you're interested; i'll pm it to you. we now require anyone wanting ANYTHING from the state to prove they are in the us legally. we call it authorized presense.

where i think it would hurt is that it sends the wrong message.