I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

btw - another big part of the equation outside of REMOVING the FOR PROFIT portion of healthcare, which would save probably billions in not more....is this:

profit drives innovation. I do not want that taken out of the healthcare system

decides2dream wrote:

my current contribition towards my healthplan = new healthcare tax
my employer's current contribution towards my healthcare = new helathcare tax
current employer's who do not offer any healthcare coverage = new healthcare tax
those without any coverage but employed = new healthcare tax

this is the EXACT opposite of what I'd like to see in America. higher taxes for all to support a system controlled by one incompetent entity.

decides2dream wrote:

see?
many, many more contribute towards healthcare costs for ALL.....so not "free"...but sure, free for some. but the VASt majority will pay into the system, perhaps even LESs than what we pay in now b/c more streamlined, no private insurance BS, no profit.....that we could afford to offer healthcare to those who truly need it but can't afford it on their own. it is NOT a definite that we actually will pay more, at all...just WHO we pay will change. no more insurance company, and all towards healthcare services.

ah if it were only this easy. FORCING companies to pay health coverage via tax would drive many of them out of business.

if that were 100% true, why does the government fund so much medical research? it's NOT all about profits to be innovative.


again, it may be higher taxes...but it is NOT more out of pocket expense, it may well could be less. but the idea needs to be researched. as to the 'incompetent entity'........government sure as shit runs a LOT of things, and while i am not saying they deserve gold stars for all they do :P.....it's not all inept, and nor does it HAVE to be, either. change is possible.

again - not saying it is 'that easy'....b/c obviously i am oversimplifying simply to show it is doable. as to forcing companies to pay taxes towards healthcare....again, if they are trading their current contributions instead to taxes, same difference no? as to some smaller companies.....perhaps it would be too big of a burden, but of course...i am making a broad outline here. obviously, like anything else...there would have to be limits and exceptions, etc....but yes.......overall, they are making their $$$ off of americans, so sure, they should contribute to the health of americans. again, while i am not 100% sure, i do imagine foreign companies contribute tax towards UHC, and again, they manage to stay profitable.

we need to follow a new model...CREATE a new model. it IS possible. that's all i am saying.......




vinny, vinny, vinny....cmon now......as ed would say: hope. hope is the underdog!
work with me here, try and imagine things differently....and positive. again, it is possible.......

Commy wrote:

and why do meds cost 50% less in Canada? Or 90% less in Cuba?

slightofjeff wrote:

I've heard the "it works in other countries" line, too. And maybe it does.

However, I was recently on a flight home from New York, seated next to a guy from England. We get to talking, as often happens on cross-country flights, and he told me he was on his way to the States for knee replacement surgery.

He wasn't going to get it back home, because there was a three-year waiting list. His doctor told him he needed the operation. If he didn't get it, the pain would quickly move from "uncomfortable" to "unbearable" to "excruciating."

But to get it from the government, he'd have to wait three years.

He said screw it. He'd pay for it himself and get it now. In the United States.

I know this is just one man's story. Maybe government-run health care works for some people. But I look around at everything else the government gets its fingers in. Without fail, everything they touch turns to shit.

I'm fine with the health plan I have now. I don't need or want the government's.

jlew24asu wrote:

maybe I'm not. but heres the difference. me and my employers pay our health insurance voluntarily. there was a stretch of my life where I had none. I knocked on wood that I didnt need to go to the Dr. was that smart? no. but it was my choice. and also, no one requires my employer to subsidized 80% of my insurance. they do it mostly to stay competitive for good workers.

what do you think will happen with the government starts forcing itself on everyone and every business to come up with its share of healthcare tax? fuck that.

you people ( ) seem to think we are just going to easily shift around Trillions of dollars and let our government completely control our healthcare system and maintain top quality of care. we are agree to disagree. I just dont think its that easy or the right thing to do.

I do however think things can be improved. they always can.

jlew24asu wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

maybe I'm not. but heres the difference. me and my employers pay our health insurance voluntarily. there was a stretch of my life where I had none. I knocked on wood that I didnt need to go to the Dr. was that smart? no. but it was my choice. and also, no one requires my employer to subsidized 80% of my insurance. they do it mostly to stay competitive for good workers.

So in that case, when you had no insurance what would have happened if you were in a serious accident where you were taken to a hospital, had surgery and spend considerable time in an ICU before dying. With no insurance it would basically be up to the hospital to pick up the tab for potentially millions of dollars of medical care, in a system you weren't even helping to pay for. Considering hospitals can't turn away people how is that a fair system? You say it is your choice but you are basically counting on other people to give you a free ride if something catastrophic happens.

bullshit. I would have been stuck with those bills.

catefrances wrote:

hmmm... this makes me ponder what exactly you think your government is responsible for.

jlew24asu wrote:

to protect us for foreign threats, write and enforce laws, and provide services

catefrances wrote:

for me government means providing for those who cant. and to me thats the majority.

jlew24asu wrote:

I strongly disagree. this is America we are talking about the MAJORITY are doing just fine.

catefrances wrote:

i have never been insured in my life. but then again i dont get sick (touch wood). but dont get me wrong i have had need for the public health system. usually when ive given birth. i walked out of my local hospital with a healthy child(on 4 occasions). and no bills. and for that i am thankful. there have been other times.

jlew24asu wrote:

why have you never had insurance? are you physically able to work? why should I be forced to subsize your hospital bills? (although I would support subsidized child birth costs, granted the best care stays available)

catefrances wrote:

and those other times have included the health of my son(which is ongoing).

catefrances wrote:

i accept the system isnt perfect. but i dont jump up and down and scream about its inadequacies. i accept them and know that what has to be done cant be done when I want it to be done, but when the system allows it. maybe as an australian i have a different mindset. it never ceases to amaze me that americans who supposedly have a government for the people and of the people, they are hesitant to embrace it or even allow it work for them. as i said before, what is it you think your government should be responsible for??? surely it must be more than 'national' security and collecting taxes.

jlew24asu wrote:

no, thats about it. your country has about 21 million people, thats about half the size of California. America is LARGE. its not as easy to provide care for 300 million people, and do it with high quality that we have come to demand and expect.