Another Health Care debate...

And for that phospher some or other. If you believe in global warming, you need to see a psychiatrist!!

Keeganino wrote: The changes that are coming will be like a half assed flor and stringer job. Not worth the time put into it.

You summed up my thoughts with just two sentences that most on here should be able to relate to.

Keegan,
I'm on your side. The loss that your friend suffered from the cancer was absolutely compounded in a devastating way by the current system. No doubt about it. My point is that the current system is broken and what is coming isn't going to be any better except for a few but it will be worse for many more. They aren't going to make the necessary cuts to fund this thing properly and the American public can't take much more so will we be better off? I don't think so, but that's just me.

I agree with you on many points Steve, but I am not so sure that it would turn out like you say with all the welfare kids crowding your family doctor's office.

Oh and my friend did not just lose her house. She lost her house, her business, and her car. So now she has no means to contribute back to society. How is that helping? How much revenue did the government just lose by taking all that from her? Oh but now she is eligible for government housing, health care, and food stamps. WTF!!!!!!! The system took a contributing member of society and turned her into a leach. You tell me Steve, sounds great right? If she had died it would have all worked out...

Keegan,

Take the link I sent you on their tax rates and do the math for yourself to see what it would cost. For my income, it would cost me around $12,500 per year more in taxes to live in Canada and have "free" health care. That doesn't count dental, vision or prescriptions. From the sounds of it adding the dental, vision and prescriptions would probably cost me about $2000 more a year. My normal out of pocket costs for co-pays probably offsets that so we'll call that a wash. In my particular situation, my benefits from my company pay a big amount of my premiums and my total cost per year is about $5,000 to cover my entire family. With that being said, it would cost me around $7,000 more every year to be under Canada's system. That assumes no increase in my pay and no tax increases. That's a pretty big difference in my mind and doesn't seem like a "no-brainer" but something worth carefully considering. If you start talking to Canadians, you'll find they still have some similar problems with rising costs. They are also dealing with issues to improve on areas of mismanagement of the funding and operations.

By the way, the reason I couldn't find anything about exemptions or deductions on their tax website is that they don't have any. They can't write off property tax, mortgage interest nor do they have and exemptions or credits for things like we do.

You're right. The money IS there to fund NHS.....IF the politicians would cut all of the other wasteful spending out of the budget. That will never happen and is the reason I can't really say that I'm for NHS. I'm only for it if they cut out all of the pork barrel spending and that's just not going to happen, ever, period. To be sure, Obama's plan will only cost me and my family more money for the same or less coverage than I currently have, the do nothings at the bottom of the chain will be crowding my doctor's office (with all of their welfare receiving kids) instead of the ER and your friend with breast cancer...well she'll be able to keep her house. Sounds like a great plan, right?

Guys, the real issue here is cost and implementation. I think everyone, even the die hard right wingers, would like to see all people have healthcare coverage. Say Yes! However, our country can't stop spending money to demonstrate some fiscal restraint on other things long enough to win us over to the idea. The current system is broken and unsustainable for sure as are many other government systems. Personally, I'm fiscally conservative but liberal on many of the social issues. Whoever made the comment about being supportive when it began to be felt in the wallet is right on. My social agenda takes a big time back seat because I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE MONEY TO GIVE!!!

The amount I'm taxed from the feds, the state of SC, my county etc., makes me unsupportive of pretty much any additional tax for ANY reason. The fact that the people who take this tax money from me can't manage it makes me unwilling to support ANY measure that would give them more of it. I am taxed and tapped out financially and it ain't from living beyond my means.    Someone asked if taxes had gone up under Obama. I guess the simplest way to look at that question would be to look at my tax bracket and the percentages and provide the answer, but I don't think it's that simple. I don't know if my federal income taxes have risen under Obama and I'm guessing no one else does either. However, it seems that every time I turn around, the county, town, state or someone else is wanting to implement a penny sales tax to cover this, that and the other. Maybe all these tax increases are because those entities don't get as much from the feds as they used to. I don't know. Here's one that really chaps my a$$. I have an investment property in Myrtle Beach, SC that I pay property taxes on. I also get a separate tax bill for the furnishings and appliances inside. I don't feel that there should be an additional bill for this and hope you all would agree but guess what, I have to pay this even if it is unfurnished and has no appliances. Obama, Bush before him and all stewards of my money (republicans, democrats, independents etc.) are doing a crappy job of managing it. I do feel sorry for the folks who are struggling significantly because of a lack of healthcare coverage. Nobody asks for cancer or other significant issues, but the recently approved healthcare bill isn't going to improve those situations because paying for that coverage hasn't really been addressed. It seems that most of those involved think that merely passing the bill automatically makes for healthy, happy people. That is the easy part in my mind. How do you pay for it is the bigger questions. Aren't insurers still going to be administratively managing this new government healthcare?   Doesn't that mean that their costs will still be a part (and problem) with the new system?

The implementation piece of it, well that's a whole 'nother issue. The local governments seems to do a pretty decent job of managing some emergency services such as fire, police, emergency support etc, but they pretty much stink at the rest of it. I cannot imagine that a health care system management by the government would be any different than it is for me now except that I'd be paying more and getting less.

I wonder if they could pull up a wakeboarder. Although, their wake would probably be pretty small.

Where's the emoticon that has the character eating popcorn when you need it.

phospher wrote: Keeganino wrote: Okie Boarder wrote: Phil, Speaking of global warming...here is an interesting editorial comment I saw a week or so ago... If you really, truly, and whole-heartedly believe in anthropomorphic global warming and the policy being put forward by the IPCC and environmentalist politicians, then you MUST accept the following premises. First, you must accept as FACT that the main cause of global warming is CO2. Second, the primary human activity driving the production of excess CO2 is ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Third, all energy consumption beyond what is essential to your survival is excessive. YOU should try turning off power on things you don't NEED, permanently. For example, turn off your computer, turn off your TV, turn off your radio, turn off your water heater, turn off your AC/heater (for 90% of the year), turn off all but 1 clock, etc, and NEVER turn them back on. If you REALLY believe in "making a difference", then YOU should make a personal choice to stop living a 21st Century lifestyle. Make a genuine effort to live a 19th Century lifestyle. Don't tell me that it can't be done. If you and all the rest of you "environmentalists" took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and start living a 19th Century lifestyle, energy consumption would be reduced by as much as 20% to 30% (assuming there are as many of you as you people say there are). That would be a real difference, and you wouldn't need to constantly badger people, like myself, that don't buy into the anthropomorphic global warming farce, because we can see through the bad science and the Marxist masters behind it. The fact is, YOU won't make that commitment. You and 99% of all environmentalists, aren't willing to actually give up the very things that YOU believe are "changing the climate". Why should we that don't take as fact the anthropomorphic global warming farce have to take instruction from a blatant hypocrite? This is where competition and innovation will solve the problem. Hydrogen powered transportation, efficient LED lighting, and alternative energy sources such as wind will greatly reduce our impact on the environment. We can have our cake and eat it too, we just have to figure out how and be willing to make some changes. This guy is over the top and the reason most people will not even try to curb their energy consumption. Personally I've taken steps in my life to minimize my carbon footprint. But I see a bit of a conflict of interest here and "The Rapture" comes to mind.

So you don't use your Correct Craft anymore?

Keeganino wrote: You can buy steak and lobster with food stamps but you will be hungry for the next two weeks. Transportation is a necessity but poor people don't need a BMW. The bus works just fine. The BMW is a reward for being monetarily successful as is the lobster. Sorry but health care should not be a reward it should be a right. There is a solution out there if we want it. The truth of the matter is that historically Americans do not change until their pocketbook forces them to.

So, what should be the right regarding health care? Should a person get every medical service available or just certain ones deemed necessary? Does the poor person receiving health care for free get the standard surgery that corrects their problem adequately, but leaves more scarring and requires a longer recovery or do they get the state of the art robotic guided surgical technique?

Keeganino wrote: Okie Boarder wrote: We can do the same thing those countries are doing. All it takes is raising taxes on everyone that makes a decent income. That would impact you, I'm sure. Are you willing to be taxed to the tune of 60-70% of your income to ensure all people like your friend are cared for without breaking them financially? If you never paid another dime in premiums, copays, denied claims, and were never at risk of losing everything you own because you get sick I would say hell yes. You would not be paying much more if any than you are now but the problem is solved. No brainer to me.

Have you really looked at what these countries have done? Take Canada as an example. They pay those kinds of tax rates yet people at certain income levels still have premiums. Just the tax revenue alone isn't enough to sustain it so they still have to charge those that can affrod to be charged. I'm not sure about every detail on co-pays, but I've found a lot of information out about premiums. I also have not checked to see if their premiums or other costs go up every year like ours do. That would be good to dig back into. They do have the benefit of not going bankrupt over medical costs, as long as it is deemed necessary by the rules that are in place.

There is still private insurance in Canada, also. I wonder why?

Okie Boarder wrote: Phil, Speaking of global warming...here is an interesting editorial comment I saw a week or so ago... If you really, truly, and whole-heartedly believe in anthropomorphic global warming and the policy being put forward by the IPCC and environmentalist politicians, then you MUST accept the following premises. First, you must accept as FACT that the main cause of global warming is CO2. Second, the primary human activity driving the production of excess CO2 is ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Third, all energy consumption beyond what is essential to your survival is excessive. YOU should try turning off power on things you don't NEED, permanently. For example, turn off your computer, turn off your TV, turn off your radio, turn off your water heater, turn off your AC/heater (for 90% of the year), turn off all but 1 clock, etc, and NEVER turn them back on. If you REALLY believe in "making a difference", then YOU should make a personal choice to stop living a 21st Century lifestyle. Make a genuine effort to live a 19th Century lifestyle. Don't tell me that it can't be done. If you and all the rest of you "environmentalists" took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and start living a 19th Century lifestyle, energy consumption would be reduced by as much as 20% to 30% (assuming there are as many of you as you people say there are). That would be a real difference, and you wouldn't need to constantly badger people, like myself, that don't buy into the anthropomorphic global warming farce, because we can see through the bad science and the Marxist masters behind it. The fact is, YOU won't make that commitment. You and 99% of all environmentalists, aren't willing to actually give up the very things that YOU believe are "changing the climate". Why should we that don't take as fact the anthropomorphic global warming farce have to take instruction from a blatant hypocrite?

This is where competition and innovation will solve the problem. Hydrogen powered transportation, efficient LED lighting, and alternative energy sources such as wind will greatly reduce our impact on the environment. We can have our cake and eat it too, we just have to figure out how and be willing to make some changes. This guy is over the top and the reason most people will not even try to curb their energy consumption.

Phil,

Speaking of global warming...here is an interesting editorial comment I saw a week or so ago...

If you really, truly, and whole-heartedly believe in anthropomorphic global warming and the policy being put forward by the IPCC and environmentalist politicians, then you MUST accept the following premises. First, you must accept as FACT that the main cause of global warming is CO2. Second, the primary human activity driving the production of excess CO2 is ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Third, all energy consumption beyond what is essential to your survival is excessive. YOU should try turning off power on things you don't NEED, permanently. For example, turn off your computer, turn off your TV, turn off your radio, turn off your water heater, turn off your AC/heater (for 90% of the year), turn off all but 1 clock, etc, and NEVER turn them back on. If you REALLY believe in "making a difference", then YOU should make a personal choice to stop living a 21st Century lifestyle. Make a genuine effort to live a 19th Century lifestyle. Don't tell me that it can't be done. If you and all the rest of you "environmentalists" took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and start living a 19th Century lifestyle, energy consumption would be reduced by as much as 20% to 30% (assuming there are as many of you as you people say there are). That would be a real difference, and you wouldn't need to constantly badger people, like myself, that don't buy into the anthropomorphic global warming farce, because we can see through the bad science and the Marxist masters behind it. The fact is, YOU won't make that commitment. You and 99% of all environmentalists, aren't willing to actually give up the very things that YOU believe are "changing the climate". Why should we that don't take as fact the anthropomorphic global warming farce have to take instruction from a blatant hypocrite?

One idea that I've always thought would work well would be a type of "work for care" type program. I think it is worth mentioning in this discussion.

The idea would be to take someone that is working poor or on welfare and put them in a program to help them out. They would receive the typical basic needs assistance that you gain from welfare while they are working to better themselves and get out there on their own. They would put in a certain amount of hours per day job searching or receiving some sort of training. Also, they would put a certain amount of hours in per day performing a service that helps the community or local government and would reduce operational cost for those entities. In return, they receive care during their time of need and a way to get back on their feet. Once they are out on their own again, if they struggle to afford certain things, like health care, they could still sign up to provide hours of service to be able to still receive the care they can't afford on their own. Ultimately, either a person pays their own way for the services they need or they provide their time to help offset the cost of it being provided to them.

phospher wrote: I mostly agree but the argument still stands. Most people don't want to pay a dime for the uninsured and a lot think they get more coverage than they actually do. Again, I side with humanity.

Actually, most of the type of people you are referring to would love to help those that are uninsured. My personal opinion is I would be glad to pitch in a dime to help pay for their coverage. But, they need to pitch in too. If the dime is too much, at least throw in a penny or a nickel.