So, "free universal" health care is good?

[jspande]

Originally Posted by SeeTheUSA

Okay --- we all agree this health care thing is way complicated.

Perhaps we should instead discuss why all four of my grandchildren, ages 2, 4, 4, and 7, effectively have car payments. Coupons books for the loans to arrive when they're old enough to pay taxes . . . from the IRS!

Your grandkids, too . . .

Maybe our leaders can chunk in yet another couple of billion bucks and burden even more future taxpayers.

That's an important point - we have been passing debt along to next generations way too much.

But there is a question whether this stimulus money will end up costing your grandchildren money or saving them money. Stimulus spending has a ripple effect and can actually reduce the debt long-term if it speeds up recovery and hence increased tax revenues more quickly so the deficit is reduced. We may not know that for some time.

I believe it was on one of the news programs this past weekend that it had been determined that Food Stamp money in the Stimulus package produce $1.75 increase in the economy for every $1 while for tax cuts it was only $1.03, This is because Food Stamp money is spend almost immediately while quit a bit of the tax cut money gets saved for a rainy day.

And remember, the "clunkers" get recycled, not destroyed, so that's more jobs and savings on resources.

[Jim Stewart]

OK, no offense, but you must have a lot trees to hug in your world!

You are however, on to something, if people start saving and not spending, the problem never gets solved. Then again, if they spend and do not save, they create the same problem all over again.

Now I will Liberal bash for a moment, so please forgive me. It is interesting that Liberals now believe in trickle down economics, give to the poor and they will spend the money right away. Give it to the middle class and they will save it. My Moderate friends used to say give tax cuts to the wealthy and they will higher more of the poor, then they will spend the money we pay them and that is how trickle down economics work.

The difference my friend is that Liberals believe that you give food stamps to the poor and it will keep the economy moving and the poor will stay poor. The Conservatives believe that you give the poor a job and they will no longer be a Liberal!

The glass is neither half full or half empty, it is polluted and if we drink from the cup of mythical beliefs in an unrepairable system, we are doomed anyway!

[Lindsay Richards]

And remember, the "clunkers" get recycled, not destroyed, so that's more jobs and savings on resources.

Great Taxpayers make a $4,500 investment and get $100 worth of scrap metal. This is nonsense. No way is his a good investment. Even the poiticians pushing this don't. The whole purpose is the reduction of global warming which is quickly being proved to be a real boondoggle. The arguement that it reduces purchase of foreign oil seems a little weak when these same politicians will not allow us to get our own domestic oil and have put almost all of it out of bounds including shale oil which would solve the problem and nuclear which would solve our problem.

[Lindsay Richards]

Some factual information on the Canadian system by 20/20.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/...on-health.html

[Sixpack98]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

Some factual information on the Canadian system by 20/20.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/...on-health.html

Sorry, I don't consider John Stossel as being credible and take his opinions with a grain of salt.

[Hooligan]

Ecker: As usual, thoughtful and informative responses. Jim and Lindsay thanks for good insight.
The system needs correction, lots of room for improvement . There is no need for wholesale re-invention at enormous cost and doubtful improvement. Or for socialization..

Bear in mind, President Obama has had almost nothing to do with any of the proposed legislation. He has left everything to the Congress, and they have had a field day obligating trillions with no concern as to where the money goes, (Supporters and a California mouse got a bunch) or where it will come from. Stimulus money, bail out money, mortgage money, Cap and Tax or Healthcare, just send it up. Don't read it or discuss it, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. (Just send the grandkids the coupon books)
With Healthcare, again most people are satified with their coverage. Reportedly 85%, so if you you want me to support a change to my healthcare, I need to know exactly what is proposed, how it actually effects me and everyone else and at what cost. What the President said in the campaign, at the townhall meeting or over a beer in the rose garden photo op doesn't mean much, because until Congress gets done with it--- he does not know how that healthcare plan will affect me either..

To correct a half-truth..John McCain proposed a tax on employer provided health care as part of a package that included a $5000 dollar tax credit to purchase your own private health insurance. Convenient to leave out the tax break, because the present proposals only go for the money..

[georgetown350]

Originally Posted by Sixpack98

Sorry, I don't consider John Stossel as being credible and take his opinions with a grain of salt.

I agree...... That clip was annoying to watch as it was full of exaggeration and lies.

[W4RLR]

Originally Posted by WW

The government now runs several health care systems including medicare and military health programs. I don't think that anyone who participates in those programs would like to see them go away. If you are a participant, how would you fare if the program went away? Could you afford private insurance? Would the private insurance be any better? Why don't all americans deserve at least what you have?

I don't like the proposal that retired military must pay for their health care under the proposed legislation. I see the camel's nose peeking through the tent and eventually service members will be paying for their own health care because "everybody has to pay". Military health care IS compensation in its own right. Now that I am service connected disabled, uninsurable in the private sector, and unemployable by anyone other than my spouse's business, having to pay for something I EARNED galls me.

But that's all part of the "change" that is heading our way. There's even a proposal that the Department of Veterans Affairs bill private insurers for treatment of service connected injuries if a disabled vet is lucky enough to find a job. Think that will improve his or her employment chances?

This whole mess makes me ill.

[widowson1968]

I wonder if the "best" indicator of the value of this proposed Universal Health Care legislation is the entire Congress's willingness to adopt same for their use. I wonder.... Oh never mind. Have a great day.

Jack

[chasfm11]

Originally Posted by jspande

While I do not propose a Canada-style system and therefore shouldn't be put in a position of defending it, I believe you do our friends to the north a great insult. After all, polls show Canadians prefer their system to ours overwhelmingly. If it's even remotely as bad as you, and others, say, they'd have to be pretty stupid or even insane, right?

Please supply the source of the "polls" showing that Canadians prefer their system over ours. I agree that that Canadians are satisfied, even pleased with the care they get under their system. Like our system here, some are pleased and some have problems. The real question is about the majority.

Interestingly, there is a very recent Rassmussen poll that shows that Americans are more satisfied with their current healthcare now than when this healthcare debate started. While all of us can grumble about what we have, when they start showing us the alternatives, what we currently have doesn't seem quite as bad.

IF there were one, just one, example of a Federal program that showed signs of proper management, there might be an argument in favor of healthcare being run by them. There are thousands of examples of programs that demonstrate that the Federal government cannot run a program according to the reasons it was setup. THe is absolutely no reason to believe that healthcare will break that mold. It doesn't matter which party is in power - the failure is universal and some of the mismanagement falls into the "collosal" category. I personally believe that my life and the life of my DW are at stake in this discussion, depending on what medical condition that we get in our advancing years. I'm sure that the board setup by the Federal plan will offer more morphine than treatment for far too many people. I do not accept that they will do a better job in this regard than the insurance companies.

[hondo122]

By Karen Heller
Inquirer Columnist
In the midst of having a national dialogue on race and class, perhaps it's time to launch one about civility. You cannot conduct a dialogue between people of different backgrounds or differing opinions until you agree to listen first.
Frankly, I'm not sure, with all that President Obama has on his plate, that he needs to be solving racial conflicts or addressing police conduct, too. It was in the midst of trying to grapple with health care last month that one question railroaded the national dialogue.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius came to Philadelphia on Sunday to discuss health-care reform. She was accompanied by Pennsylvania's own political mood ring, Sen. Arlen Specter.
What she was treated to was relentless booing, perhaps an orchestrated grassroots effort by opponents but a dumb one at that. You do not boo the secretary of health and human services. Sebelius arrived at her position after being a successful centrist governor of Kansas. She knows far more about health care than most people.
You do not boo Specter, either. He knows more about health care than most people, too. Indeed, every time you open your mouth, you are not listening or learning.
A public health plan is not socialism, as critics roar. It is a choice. And the president has opened up the dialogue, by having a passel of congressional committees. consisting of members of both parties, elected by the American people, working on viable solutions.

Watch out for predators

If you are currently employed and insured, congratulations, you have won the health-care lottery. The minute you're out there fending for yourself, best of luck. You're swimming with the sharks now. Specifically, you're swimming with insurance companies in the business of making big profits, whose executives regard the term preexisting condition as akin to leprosy or, worse, their own financial loss.
"They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit," former Cigna spokesman Wendell Potter told PBS's Bill Moyers. "So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor." Which would be a public plan.
A third of U.S. companies didn't offer health insurance in 2007, when the economy was in far better shape. Almost 90 million people, about one-third of the population under 65, were uninsured sometime during 2006 or 2007.
One thing America is producing in surplus is Americans without full-time employment, who go from being insured to uninsured or underinsured. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies and many hospitals remain focused on profits.

Time to talk

So this seems the best possible time to discuss better choice and public options, to create competition that might drive down administrative costs and profit margins, a boon to us all. Our medical experts, technology, and hospitals are the envy of the world. Any ailing foreign mogul or sheik worth his Swiss bank account heads here first. Our coverage and care of all Americans, not just those lucky enough to pay, are another matter entirely, remaining the most expensive - the Gucci bags of medicine.
In 2000, the World Health Organization rated the United States' health-care system 37th, behind that of Costa Rica, two places above that of impoverished Cuba. A report by the respected foundation Commonwealth Fund last year reaffirmed that America has the world's costliest health care, largely due to $156 billion in annual administrative insurance costs, yet among eight industrialized nations it ranks last in preventable mortality.
So our health care is impressive, advanced, expensive, and sometimes deadly. Those fools can shout at Sebelius until they're hoarse, but it won't alter the inadequate situation we have now.
A country's success is based not on cumulative wealth or military might, but on the care and education of its citizens.
In this regard - and listen well - we are the envy of no one.



Just a thought

[rick_d]

Originally Posted by georgetown350

I agree...... That clip was annoying to watch as it was full of exaggeration and lies.

True - pure John Stossel fantasy!! Personally, I don't really care what the U.S. does with their own medical system. But, no government in Canada, either Liberal or Conservative, has dared to try and put it back into the hands of private insurers since Universal Health Care was implemented over 50 years ago. If they tried, they would be hounded out of office and banished from Canada. Despite what others say, we like it and it's staying.

[rick_d]

Originally Posted by chasfm11

Please supply the source of the "polls" showing that Canadians prefer their system over ours. I agree that that Canadians are satisfied, even pleased with the care they get under their system. Like our system here, some are pleased and some have problems. The real question is about the majority.

So, you want a source for a poll showing that Canadians prefer our system over the U.S.?

Well, here's just one of many you can look at which shows "the vast majority of Canadians, 91 per cent, felt that Canada's health care system was better than the United States." In polling terms, that's darn near unanimous!!

This poll was conducted by The Strategic Counsel surveyed 1,000 Canadians and 1,000 people in the United States.



Here's the source of the story:


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...9?hub=Politics

As a Canadian, I can vouch for the accuracy of this poll because in all my 65 years, I have never, ever run across another Canadian who prefers the U.S. health care system over ours. In fact, that is probably one of our biggest nightmares!!

If you would still like more polls showing the same thing, just ask, I'll be pleased to post them.

[Chuck Linn]

RRAY the VA has been billing private companies when they can since at least the 50s if you were lucky enough to find private insurance the VA would try to bill them but usually the ins co’s refused to pay or made up nonexistent policy details. I had a blue cross policy with no detectable and whenever the VA billed them they came up with a $1000 detectable that was not in the policy anywhere.
I and any disabled vet has had socialized medicine since the day they took their first oath so I for one am all for getting rid of the insurance companies with all of the ways they find to turn down claim until a lot of times when the patient dies then they don’t have to worry about it any more