Yay Government health care:(

[tyflier]

Yes it can, this is where we look to the example of how our government has done with what we have given it here, as well as what other countries have done when they have tried the same thing.

Mike-
Private ambulance services and hospitals are subsidized by the ".gov".

You don't get any mail from the USPS? Really? I call BS...

State Government is a subsidiary of the Federal Government. Kind of like your local Bank is a branch of the main bank. It operates independantly, but relies on funding and regulations from it's "owner". In this case, the Federal Government.

I'm not even going to continue on. Your definition of failure is obviously vastly different than mine, and we aren't going to change each others minds, so I will let you continue thinking that you can survive a day-to-day life in this country without any input from the Federal Government, without any subsidiaries of such, and without any programs instilled and regulated by the same.

Just be aware that it is all fake...

 

[mike17l]

Mike-
Private ambulance services and hospitals are subsidized by the ".gov".

You don't get any mail from the USPS? Really? I call BS...

State Government is a subsidiary of the Federal Government. Kind of like your local Bank is a branch of the main bank. It operates independantly, but relies on funding and regulations from it's "owner". In this case, the Federal Government.

I'm not even going to continue on. Your definition of failure is obviously vastly different than mine, and we aren't going to change each others minds, so I will let you continue thinking that you can survive a day-to-day life in this country without any input from the Federal Government, without any subsidiaries of such, and without any programs instilled and regulated by the same.

Just be aware that it is all fake...

Chris, I could survive with out them, could you?

Because some choose to suck off the proverbial government teat, I should not be forced to, or be forced to help them continue to.

All men are created equal, but all men are not equal.

 

[wade]

Mike-
Private ambulance services and hospitals are subsidized by the ".gov".

.

That is absolutely untrue. I am friends with the guy that owns the ambulance service here. He is a very wealthy man. He pays taxes for people who don't work and provides healthy care for illegal immigrants.

You tend to talk off the top of your head Chris with lots of words and little substance.

Good bye for real this time.

 

[danielle]

Chris you contradict yourself over and over twisting your own words, mine, and everyone else's for the sake of being argumentative- have fun with that it's as opaque saran wrap and not nearly as durable

We both know congress is not made of economists- however, like any any business government has financial advisors and yes they tend to advise along the party lines they agree with. Outsiders whether they listen to your version of "propaganda" or not still know how to add and subtract...I assume you do too. We have negative cash flow right now and need positive cash flow for a universal plan- this cash flow can only be obtained by initiating higher taxes and being we are in a recession that is not healthy. I never said all taxes are evil, government sucks, or any of the other bull you pull out of your arse when you need to be right- talk about reality try grounding yourself in it first.

As a Democrat I am not against all social programs nor have I ever called our government incompetent so why you quote the word in your response like I used is beyond me, but it is so you

I happen to feel our government has instituted more than enough programs to try and give people the opportunity to better themselves and yes I know no program is perfect, but adding more and more to a plate that overflowed a long time ago isn't going to help anything not to mention leave funding to pay for all of our government made amenities. We should focus on fixing whats broke now like Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare before taking on such a large task. Maybe we would learn something

You speak like the US has unlimited money and math doesn't apply- a negative plus a positive= a negative which will put us in worse shape then we are now.

 

[v_various]

This is my favorite, "The Chris & Wayde show" it's kind of fun (but isn't this a repeat from last season?)

I think Chris makes some good points, I know all my American friends who have moved here love the system Canada has. It is isn't perfect; but when you're young and just starting out as an adult in the states and can't afford to go see a doctor about the fact you're peeing blood (actually happened to a friend of mine - who is not "lazy" by any means), you have to know that there is something wrong.

There are lots of places all over the world that have healthcare programs, I think America is lucky there is such a large pool of different models to examine, to see what what works and what doesn't. I'm sure you guys will come up with something. I know if anyone tried to take away health care in Canada, their would be riots.

Canada is pretty awesome, it's not perfect but you couldn't pay me to move to the sates. I'm even getting money back on my tax return this year too, woot!

 

[wstphal]

Maybe I just get a little sick of hearing everyone make the same arguments..."Why should I pay for YOUR insurance?" "It's destined to be a huge failure!" "The .gov can't do anything right!"

Honestly, I would be quite happy to help pay for more people getting health insurance if I thought it was going to work. I am not so sure, given the track record of Medicare (works well now but rapidly going broke) and Medicaid (not working well and rapidly going broke). I feel that people who get adequate healthcare are more likely to be healthy & thus more likely to be able to work, pay taxes, take care of their children, do charity work, or do SOMETHING that contributes to social wellbeing.

 

[wade]

Betsy, I see you, Is Intermountain Health Care, the biggest owner of hospitals in the intermountain states a private corporation or a government entity?

 

[wstphal]

Betsy, I see you, Is Intermountain Health Care, the biggest owner of hospitals in the intermountain states a private corporation or a government entity?

That's a really good question! Officially it's a corporation (I don't know if it's owned by private investors or by general stockholders) but all hospitals are so intertwined with the .gov that they are quasi-governmental entities.

 

[tsst]

Really?
Anything you are not interested in the government doing, you don't think you should have to pay for?

I'm not interested in Social Security because it will be worthless by my retirement age. Even moreso for my kid. So why doesn't everyone that isn't going to benefit from Social Security stop paying into it? That sounds like a great idea! I don't like prisons, and I don't think they are working right, so why doesn't everyone that thinks prisons don't work, just stop paying for them. Public transit? I have a car. And it's a truck with 4wd, so I'll stop paying for roads and streetlights, too.

If the government is such a huge, wasteful, decietful, lying failure...why do you live here? I mean, if you are so fed up, so over filled and sick of the government and want nothing to do with t anymore...go somewhere else! there must be a country on this planet that hasn't made a total mess of everything it has touched the way you seem to think the US has, so just go live there, and you will no longer have to worry about what the government is "forcing" you to do.

I don't understand why everyone that thinks the US government is such an incredible failure, and destined to destroy everything they know and love doesn't just leave. Follow your buddy Rush Limbaugh, get out of the country, and go find out how much better it is everywhere else.

The reality is that this government is FAR from perfect. But it beats the hell out of anything else out there.

No but thanks for the offer!

 

[kathylove]

I have REALLY tried to stay out of this one...

since all of us probably are pretty well entrenched in our opinions, and only time will tell if if the Feds will make our unsustainable system better - or worse. Unfortunately, I suspect the latter - but HOPE for the former. And I guess I can't resist putting in my 2 cents worth.

I would have LOVED to see reform that would have used regulations to "tweak" the system, get feedback, and tweak some more, being careful not to make the situation worse than it already is. Some of that tweaking could have been letting people buy insurance from any company in the US - make them all compete! And maybe doing something to make it less likely that doctors spend zillions of dollars in extra tests or procedures merely to cover themselves in a possible lawsuit. And the fact that the lawyers usually come out ahead of anyone else in such lawsuits. And maybe one of the most important reforms could have been to give actual consumers of healthcare an incentive to shop for the best value.

John Stossel did a show on healthcare in which he compared it to grocery shopping. He tried to "shop" various hospitals for some tests and procedures and often couldn't even get a quote. They said the price was between them and the insurance company!

If we had adopted some sort of a plan sort of like the high deductible health savings account, in which the first couple thousand dollars came out of pocket, or maybe even a 50/50 split, then users would shop for value in the same way they shop for groceries or cars. For those unable to come up with the deductible, there could be payment plans or possibly subsidies. But people would not run to the emergency room for a runny nose if they were paying half the cost - they would go to a doctor, clinic, or maybe one of the nurse practitioners in the drug stores these days. I wouldn't have minded funding some more low cost clinics for non-emergency care. It is a lot cheaper than treating such cases in the ER. But I feel it is important that the actual users pay SOMETHING, just like for groceries. That which is "free" (or almost free) is not usually valued very much by recipients, and will often be abused. The fact is that people will do what works best for themselves and their families, not what is best in the long term for society. So it would be a good idea to make laws that take human nature into account. All of these changes could have been implemented without the grandiose and expensive legislation we have just passed. After seeing how these "tweaks" worked, we could have gone on to more changes as needed.

From what I have read, the above points have not really figured into this new legislation. Also, from what I have read, the insurance companies, while making megabucks, are still only getting about 4% of the total spent in the whole health care industry. Because it is so big, that means megabucks. Most people blame everything on the insurance companies - with some justification, I am sure! But if it is true that they only reap 4% (I do not know if it is true - it is the only figure I have read, though), then I find it hard to believe that layers of new government bureaucracy won't add AT LEAST that much to the cost. And the insurance companies will still be there, still needing to make a profit, too.

That is why I am very skeptical of this huge program. I don't feel it addressed some of the crucial problems, while creating more government bureaucracy. Time will tell - there is nothing I can do about it, anyway.

As to a couple of other random points that I remember from this thread:

It is true that you can avoid using any government provided services that you wish to stop using. However, since you can't avoid PAYING for them, it would not be very logical to waste your lifetime payments of taxes, social security payments, etc by refusing the benefits they provide, whether or not you agree with those benefits.

It is true the states get back money from the Feds - but where did it come from? From the residents of the states who have to jump through hoops and take "strings attached" to get the money back that probably should have stayed there in the first place! I have read that some governors refused to take federal money in certain cases because of those strings. But the residents of that state continued to pay into the Federal account just the same.

I would like to see more power retained by the states, as the Constitution stated. I think it is easier for smaller groups and individuals to "fight it out" at the state level and make changes at that level. Plus, I believe the founding fathers wanted some competition between the states. That way, various states could try out many ways of doing things. The most successful states would become models for the others to copy. And residents could fight the changes, or move to another state. Giving so much power to the Feds makes for a more homogeneous country and less innovation at the local levels.

And that is why I am generally against huge Federal programs, unless it is needed to defend our country or deal with issues between the states. IMHO, of course! Everyone else is welcome to their own opinion, as always!

 

[tyflier]

That is absolutely untrue. I am friends with the guy that owns the ambulance service here. He is a very wealthy man. He pays taxes for people who don't work and provides healthy care for illegal immigrants.

You tend to talk off the top of your head Chris with lots of words and little substance.

Good bye for real this time.

Yea, Wade...I am friends with a guy that owns a private ambulance service here in my town, as well. While he owns and operates the company "out of pocket", he absolutely is required to service government-funded insurance recipients, and his service absolutely is subsidized by the government for performing these services.

You cannot seperate public health and the government anymore. It just doesn't work.

And lest you forget...I have NEVER claimed that this HCR is "perfect", or even close. I have never claimed it will satisfy all of our problems as a society. I have never claimed it will be wildly successful, and a tribute to our government. I have never even claimed it will be better than what we currently have.

I have merely stated that in my opinion...it can't get much worse. That's it.

The rest of this entire "conversation" has been me and a few others trying to point out the flaws in the reasoning that predicts doom and gloom because of HCR.

You say the government has never successfully run a public welfare program. I point out several programs that seem to be doing precisely what they were designed to do for milions of Americans. But those don't count.

You say the government can't be trusted to run any sort of public welfare program, I point out that most of our public infrastructure is government funded. That doesn't count.

So...what does count?

I Medicaid and Medicare might not be making profits, but they are still performingthe duties that they were designed to perform for millions of Americans. You want them to do it without a loss. That requires taxe monies to pay for. Can't have that, though. No sir. That is unacceptable.

It's a losing battle. Every point you make has been offered a counterpoint. You don't want to accept them, so they "don't count". Fine. Stick to your guns. Truth is...it doesn't matter, because soon enough we will find out, one way or the other, whether the government is capable of adapting and growing this reform to accomodate the needs of the majority of the population.

That's the beauty of a Democracy. It doesn't need to satisfy everyone's needs...just the majority. And since our congress has deemed that at this juncture, thi8s is the most sound plan of action regarding health care, none of us really has any choice but to hold on for the ride, and see where it takes us.

See you on the other side!

 

[KJUN]

There is nothing about this topic I can say that cannot be said better by the below image. Doomsday predictions are pointless and silly. Do people just enjoy being afraid of monsters under the bed that much?

Is it better to ignore the shadow that might be a murderer hiding by your car instead?

 

[KJUN]

Chris, name one actual benefit provided bu the supposed TAX organization commonly referred to as the ATF? I bet it isn't a benefit in the eyes of people near Ruby Ridge or Waco......

 

[wstphal]

I Medicaid and Medicare might not be making profits, but they are still performingthe duties that they were designed to perform for millions of Americans. You want them to do it without a loss. That requires taxe monies to pay for. Can't have that, though. No sir. That is unacceptable.

The problem I see is not that Medicaid & Medicare aren't making a profit, but that they are rapidly going broke and Congress didn't do anything that will slow that down, and didn't figure out how to get more revenue for them. Either we have to SLOW DOWN the rate of increase or we need MORE TAXES. Soon neither of these programs will be performing the duties they were designed to do if we don't.

Now, admittedly, I am not in favor of more taxes, so I would have preferred a real attempt at seeing the underlying drivers of increased health care costs and setting up the opportunity for states to undertake experiments in controlling those drivers, but the thing that worries me is that the Congresscritters promised us health care for all but they sure didn't explain how they plan to pay for it.

I would have even liked an up-front statement of "Here is which taxes we are increasing and how much" better than the airy-fairy hand-waving we got. At least then we could see what we were in for.

So yeah, we are all along for the ride. It'll be interesting!

 

[KJUN]

I know all my American friends who have moved here love the system Canada has.

I'm sorry to send out parasitic populace to you, but you are welcome to all of them.

 

[tyflier]

The problem I see is not that Medicaid & Medicare aren't making a profit, but that they are rapidly going broke and Congress didn't do anything that will slow that down, and didn't figure out how to get more revenue for them. Either we have to SLOW DOWN the rate of increase or we need MORE TAXES. Soon neither of these programs will be performing the duties they were designed to do if we don't.

Now, admittedly, I am not in favor of more taxes, so I would have preferred a real attempt at seeing the underlying drivers of increased health care costs and setting up the opportunity for states to undertake experiments in controlling those drivers, but the thing that worries me is that the Congresscritters promised us health care for all but they sure didn't explain how they plan to pay for it.

I would have even liked an up-front statement of "Here is which taxes we are increasing and how much" better than the airy-fairy hand-waving we got. At least then we could see what we were in for.

So yeah, we are all along for the ride. It'll be interesting!

I can't disagree with this. Absolutely there seems like the government should be loking at wider avenues. By all means, I agree that HCR is far from perfect. 100% I agree that there are current issues that need fixing.

But that doesn't spell imminent doom. It means there is still work to be done. It means that things are not perfect, probably never will be...but at least steps are being taken to try and get closer.

I don't know what HCR will mean for the economy, and neither does anyone else. We can sit here and make predictions all day long, from one extreme to the next. Truth is, they are all pretty much garbage until we, as a country and a population, know precisely what and how everything is going to change.

It's OK to be scared of the unknown. In my opinion, it is NOT OK to allow ourselves to stagnate as a country because of that fear. Your mileage may vary...

 

[wade]

Kathy as always that was a very well thought out excellent post. I will never live long enough to be as smart as you.

Betsy, also an excellent post. Why should the health care plan be so complicated that nobody can understand it and why don't we know exactly what it says? We all know it will cost something, why does nobody know how it will be paid for? I certainly would not pay for private insurance if I didn't know what was being offered and how I was going to pay for it.

 

[Outcast]

Here is a little bit from my experience growing up in Louisiana....
Roughly 60% of the population that is sitting around waiting on their SS checks and are on Medicaid and Medicare are physically able to get jobs that pay enough to where they can pay for their own insurance and stop leaching off of those .gov funded aids. If the government would have mandated that all of those go in for a checkup once a year or loose their checks, things would be a little better in my opinion, because less people would be leaches and would have been forced to either go to work because they are able to, or not, but it would not have to be on the governments shoulders.

I am tired of seeing people who can work for something, but refuse to, get the same treatment as those of us who work our butts off for what we have.

Just my two cents... call me what you want.

 

[wade]

Talk like that and I'll call you Aaron.

I understand what you are trying to say but I think you have made some errors. Most of the people waiting for their SS checks are retired people, not all but most. If the program worked the way it should, they paid money into the system all their lives and now that they are of retirement age, they are drawing out what they themselves put in. So I don't feel very comfortable calling them leaches.

Medicaid and Medicare are once again designed for people who are of retirement age. They paid taxes to the government all their lives and part of that money is now paying for their medical care.

Unfortunately, all three of those programs are not collecting enough money to sustain themselves.

I would agree that I don't like to see people collecting money for say Unemployment Insurance when they could be working. There certainly are people who fall into that category. Unemployment was designed to help people get past unexpected temporary unemployment. It is a good idea, one that your employer pays for out of his own pocket at no cost to you, I might mention. But there are definitely those who abuse the program. Right now with the current economy there are so many unemployed people they are paying out much more than they are taking in. That is being supplemented by the diminishing taxes being paid by those who are still working. The will eventually become a problem

Interesting note, as an employer, I have to pay unemployment tax on all of my employees. It is a percentage of the gross payroll. I have to pay on my own payroll as well. The more I make the more I pay. But as an employer, I am not eligible for unemployment insurance. If I run out of work I can lay off all my employees and they go on unemployment. But I am not eligible. Make sense of that for me.


I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to call you names.

 

[wstphal]

Just one little correction, Wade.
Medicare = almost only people over 65 + a few permanently disabled people
Medicaid = very low/low income (depends on the state) people + disabled people + "disabled" people