Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I want to see positive change in any form at this point, and I think we should work with the plan that Obama was elected by the people to bring into place. It was a pretty important issue for him, and I believe that a lot of people voted for him because of it.

Now, to be fair I consider myself a free-thinker, but I can follow a line as good as the next guy, it ain't rocket science. If the U.S. is truly unhappy about this there would be a lot more stuff going on because of it, people are trying to keep jobs, and get out of Iraq as a country, some kind of modernized health care and a general stance of pro-action for the countries problems is what we need.

If the people say it so, the wind does blow, and the bellows of these people are seeded in the soul.

halonachos wrote:Yes, and I don't believe in welfare. Throwing money at your problems doesn't solve anything.

Well, not to be a smartass, but poverty is something that is literally solved by money. No one is suggesting that money should be thrown at lazy people.

Anyway I got to go buy a textbook for my college classes because I got to work hard, thousands on welfare depend on me.

Well this about sums up your attitude, I'd say. I thought you were misguided until you mentioned Ayn Rand. Now I realize that you subscribe to a selfish and shortsighted philosophy that, if practiced on a wide scale, would lead to a collapse of civilization. Did you miss that lesson in preschool? Where sometimes it's ok to share? No, it's fine if you were too busy working that day.

Anyway, socialized medicine wouldn't be any costlier to most individuals than the current system. Take a look at Western Europe if you don't believe me. Once people stop crying about socialism and communism and look at the facts, this debate should be over quickly.

OP wrote:Anyway I got to go buy a textbook for my college classes because I got to work hard, thousands on welfare depend on me.

This is one of the things that is still irritating me but w/e...

HAIL OBAMA! GUIDE OF THE SOCIALIST LIGHTHOUSE!



DRINKS FOR EVERYBODY!

Personnally I do believe that Ayn Rand is a bit off of the deep end, I mean helping no one is bad, but you can be selective in helping people I believe. This is america, if I believe that welfare is stupid then I can, if others don't share my opinion then so be it.

A little girl once said that we should give as much money to the poor as possible. An adult asked her this: Well okay then, you can mow my lawn for $100. After that I'll take you to the store to buy food and clothing with that $100 and then you have to give everything to a homeless person. The little girl respondedwith why doesn't the homeless man just mow your lawn? the adult then said now you're thinking like a republican.

This example is not the same for all of course. I feel bad for the Iraqi vets coming home and being unable to find a job and those who want a steady income, but I don't have any jobs to offer. I believe that Obama was supposed to create some jobs for these folks, so far I haven't seen any.

Unfortunately, I do believe that what Obama is proposing is going to be costlier to both quality and economics of care. The care being proposed is, as I have said numerous times before, is the same as what we have now. People get treatment regardless of insurance if they show up to an emergency room or a free clinic(not a travelling fair), so why should I want to pay more if chances are that the "newer" plan will end up destroying the quality we currently have. People can and do see doctors regardless of insurance standing and the care given is the same. So again, why pay more for something that is potentially damaging?


I also believe this:
OBAMA=
One
Big
@$$
Mistake
America

halonachos wrote:A little girl once said that we should give as much money to the poor as possible. An adult asked her this: Well okay then, you can mow my lawn for $100. After that I'll take you to the store to buy food and clothing with that $100 and then you have to give everything to a homeless person. The little girl respondedwith why doesn't the homeless man just mow your lawn? the adult then said now you're thinking like a republican.

Unless they are also going to use the money to fund anti-gay rights and anti-arbortion she would be thinking more like a Libertarian. Without the moral indignation that the Republican party has merged with in the last 30 years or so it is Republican at all. Of course this is assuming this is a decent parable, which it isn't, or without flaws, which it has. It is cute, overly simplistic and has little basis in trying deal with real community problems in a pluralistic society, but it is cute.

halonachos wrote:Okay, listen. This medical care thing is ALREADY established in america and those without insurance would get the same care they get not even if they were insured. The hippocratic oath ensures that care will be given by a trained professional. The same illegal immigrant who received thousands of dollars worth of drugs because he decided to get coked up got the same quality of care that a young woman with insurance who was in an automobile accident received.

I love demagogues (this is not aimed at halonachos but to the people who claim to spouse the ideas that he seems to base his arguments from). The illegal immigrant on drugs thing that the hardline republicans love was already old in 10.000 BC. why don´t we give it a twist for once so all can play the demagogue role?

The same illegal immigrant who received thousands of dollars worth of drugs got the same quality of care than the young woman with insurance who decided to get coked up before she parked her car on him.

But this is not the issue at hand. The problem is to give PREVENTIVE care to people without insurance so they don´t have to receive COSTLY emergency treatments. If your mythical uninsured "welfare mommas" has access to a obgyn doctor charging the system lets say 100$ for the visit and the pills perhaps she wont rise you insurance premiums because a month later she has to receive a 10.000$ operation due to a miscarriage. Mr Obama wants to extend that health care to all US citizens, if you don´t agree it´s your right but please don´t try to sell us the idea that your system works because it does not.

M.

halonachos wrote:
The same illegal immigrant who received thousands of dollars worth of drugs because he decided to get coked up got the same quality of care that a young woman with insurance who was in an automobile accident received.

You might want to try unloading your examples if you hope to be taken seriously in an argument.

halonachos wrote:
Speak to Thoreau. He believed that if he didn't believe in a cause he shouldn't have to pay for it , but he could decide to donate to whatever he did support. He even argued what if he didn't want to support anything at all.

Thoreau also believed that a good government would not govern, because a good government could only be sustained by those people who shared his individualist beliefs. The contradiction within that reasoning should be obvious.

halonachos wrote:
Ayn Rand Spoke for individualism and warned against serving others completely or even at all.

First, Ayn Rand was a moron who was never forced to trade on her own abilities in the way any of the characters in her novels did.

Second, Rand advocated a form of morality based on the sanctity of rational self-interest. This does not preclude holding a healthy interest in a larger society. It also does not necessarily endorse capitalism. She believed that it did but, as I said, she was a moron.

halonachos wrote:
And when you teach a man to fish he catches fish and can eat it, that's the whole idea of it. I believe that education is the answer, not money.

You claim to have experienced welfare. What would you have done without the program to support you when you needed it? You don't magically stop needing food while you're learning to provide it for yourself.

halonachos wrote:
Good thing I'm not wealthy, or that would be ad hominem and make your point invalid.

My point was already invalid, as it was based on an anecdote in the context of economic class. Much as your argument from "I know a poor person with expensive shoes" is invalid in the context of a debate on welfare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
The care being proposed is, as I have said numerous times before, is the same as what we have now.

The Obama administration hasn't even put forward a concrete proposal, so I don't really understand where you're getting that conclusion from.

halonachos wrote:
People get treatment regardless of insurance if they show up to an emergency room or a free clinic(not a travelling fair), so why should I want to pay more if chances are that the "newer" plan will end up destroying the quality we currently have.

The entire point is that you would pay less if there was a public option. As it stands doctors who treat the uninsured have no recourse to recover their losses. With national insurance this would no longer be the case; shifting the burden to those who have the capacity to pay through taxes.

halonachos wrote:Well okay then, you can mow my lawn for $100.

Wow... how big is your lawn?!? That sounds like a hefty price to pay what I would give a kid 10$ for and tell them to be happy about it, because when you get bills it only gets worse, and when you get a career you will learn how to charge the right price.

A lawn gets mown and it is. A rock gets moved and it is.

Money gets moved and it... hmm, I am out of money .

"Note"
If a kid can explain to me why I should pay more than 10$ for something that takes less than an hour (pros cut it in 10 minutes , and then finish the day up with a dozen more netting around 300-500$ a day, but that comes with the guarantee that they are a business before an individual, please don't get into morals over this, we know how it works).

BTW, I know at least 5 straight up BUMS in my area that I wouldn't even want in my area let alone doing chores around the house, ESPECIALLY if I had kids.

The concept that you are presenting of people working for everything is antiquated to say the least. Welcome to the age of the computer where technology determines the cap of your knowledge on the grounds that you cannot fly high enough or with powerful enough binoculars to be able to counter the common Joe Shmoe with a computer and networking skills. Yes, Obama IS good at the internets, and the bets are in mate, cash your chips.

Firstly @ wrexasaur, it is an example the money is out of proportion of course its a silly way to say that we should let the homeless work for themselves to earn their pay. Now you said that you don't want those bums to be around you so they will most likely not be hired by you for pettly manual labor. Are you more willing perhaps to just give them some cash if you happen to go by them?

@ Migeulsan.

See the funny thing is I actually did a round for 12 hours in an emergency room at a hospital in a neighboring city(norfolk). Now, an illegal immigrant came in and was having severe reactions to something. Testing proved it to be cocaine. The guy's heart would've stopped and he would've died. Another funny thing is that he had a catheter put in and when he came round it was removed. Unfortunatley he wasn't off of the high and ended up urinating on me, an ER tech and the curtains surrounding the little area.

Am I saying our system is perfect, no, but name one that is. There are free clinics that offer free birth control, free HIV screening, free condoms, free anything relating to illness or prevention. Is it the same care Magic Johnson can afford no, but the guy probably has 7 private physicians. Exaggeration of course.

In the current system hospitals foot the bill for the uninsured patients, in the newer proposal the government a.k.a the people will foot the bill. Either way I lose money and everyone else loses money. There's no need for a new systemwe need to fix the old one and we can do it without running up a billion dollar bill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another website said that one way to rid the US of this healthcare issue us for companies to pay their share for healthcare costs meaning lowering the cost for employees so they can use the plans offered by their employer. I agree with this and I also believe that we should lower industrial taxes on our corporations so that they don't lose too much income. Also it says that the government cannot haggle prescription drug costs with the providers like insurers can so that should also be fixed.

Look at that, industry gets lower taxes and pays more for employee care. Government can get lower prices on the drugs they give to medicare patients, amazing. So far I only see savings. As a bonus the corporations with the lower tax can afford more employees or more raises, this means that the average income tax would increase and provide income for the government.

BTW I do believe in the trickle down effect, lowering industrial taxes is going to have a constant effect unlike the stimulus package which gave a finite amount of currency to certain businesses.

I got a great plan, let's shut down all this UHC stuff, talk about reforming the current system and not worry about it for 15 more years. gak we already did that...

You know that's exactly what will happen if this falls through, everyone will forget about health care reform and it'll be the status quo for another decade.

Personnally I believe it can be worked out, I think there's a senator in oregon working on a different plan for reform that supposedly does not increase the current debt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I saw it on CNN, but can't ind it again, anyways he talked about small business finding ways to cheaply get healthcare for their employees.

He's going to drop it like it's hawt once this is over. The Dems can't even fight past the blue dogs, the biggest pack of pussies south of the mason-dixon line. Do you really expect a senator from Oregon to build up enough support to fight the lobbyists?

He said he had 14 other senators on board IIRC.

Anyway I believe that making businesses pay more for their employees' healthcare and allowing small business to give healthcare plans for their employees is they way to go, not a national plan.

Isn't that a national plan anyway?

Legislation will have to be passed to mandate some level of insurance payments by businesses. There will need to be an agency to check if they are doing it, and some kind of law enforcement to deal with the businesses that don't.

It sounds rather complicated and bureaucratic, and expensive.

The increased insurance payments will eat into business profits, and reduce competitiveness and staff salaries.

The reason the rest of the developed world has universal healthcare and the U.S. doesn't is because we have by far the most refined sense of "as long as I'm okay, F@&$ everybody else." The stuff that health insurers get away with is ridiculous, but they know they're safe as long as a majority of Americans have health coverage. Nobody gives two $hits about the system until THEY'RE the one lacking health insurance and with a pre-existing condition that means either they can't get coverage or it's priced beyond their ability to pay.

In America, there are no problems until it happens to ME.

/rant

Awesome, 14 mystery senators in the chamber that can't initiate a spending, revenue or appropriation bill. That's guaranteed to get stuff done.

halonachos wrote:Anyway I believe that making businesses pay more for their employees' healthcare and allowing small business to give healthcare plans for their employees is they way to go, not a national plan.

That's included in HR 3200. Employers with a payroll above $250k must provide health care to employees or pay 6% or 8% (depending on the size of the company) of the payroll to help finance coverage for the employees and those below $250k (if they choose to buy insurance for employees) will receive government assistance through the form of tax credits. Of course it's a very round about way of putting it in place considering the rest of the bill is over a thousand pages long and it hinges on the rest of the bill to provide for employees whose work won't provide healthcare.

halonachos wrote:He said he had 14 other senators on board IIRC.

Anyway I believe that making businesses pay more for their employees' healthcare and allowing small business to give healthcare plans for their employees is they way to go, not a national plan.

A healthcare policy based around hitting business for the increased costs has exactly zero chance of passing. There's been 70%+ support for healthcare reform since the Clinton healthcare plan was sunk. But it was still a political dead issue because the power groups in Washington didn't care. Then the car companies found out that healthcare costs per car were greater than other component. It was $2,000 or 3,000 hit that foreign manufacturers weren't paying. All of a sudden healthcare became an issue again.

A plan that hits businesses has no chance of getting up, none. I really wonder what the intention of the senators involved in the plan is. Is it to rally opposition to the Obama plan while claiming they're not obstructionist? Maybe, because it sure isn't to get their own plan passed.

And simply increasing the charge on business is missing the point entirely. You have a system that doesn't provide preventative care to millions, that costs around 50% more than other countries and provides poorer care. That hurts the competitiveness of your business by charging them. And the solution you prefer is to charge businesses more?

No the plan for the small business is to let them go to a "farmers market" of insurance which gives them more power so they can get coverage or something like that.


But I know that making business cover more costs will go down, but maybe if the government lessens the tax burden on said corporations it may go through.

America has one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. As of 2005 it had a 39% tax while in the UK and Australia they had a 30% tax. The private tax was at around 28% for america and about 25% for australia while the UK had close to 35%.

If we perhaps cut the corporate tax to about what european countries charge their corporations then maybe the corporations would 1) Stop moving to foreign countries, 2) Make higher profits, 3) Be willing to cover employee healthcare costs, etc.

I mean a major retailer making $1,000,000 would lose (rounding to 40%) $400,000 to corporate tax alone. So they would end up with $600,000 left to pay employees and give benefits and buy products, etc. If the tax was reduced(McCain wanted 25%) they would lose $250,000 having $750,000 left to do the same.

However, I don't believe that the federal government should demand that business does these things, but instead the federal government should do what it does to get state governments to go along. Give incentives. For example: If business A would cover 95% of their employees' healthcare costs then they get a nice tax reduction.

I'm afraid that whatever tax rate you set, some little craphole like Sark will set a lower one.

Okay, I've just read the last 4 pages. I think that my reason as to why the US should have National Healthcare can summed up in a few concise points.

-National Healthcare allows everyone to get treated when they are sick, regardless of race, social position, or bank balance.

-This is a good thing.

-See above two points.


It's really as simple as that. Bemoan taxes all you like, but if you think that people should be denied the right to good health(and thus, quite possibly, life) just because they don't have a good enough job, or enough moolah in the bank, you are the kind of person that disgusts me.

halonachos wrote:No the plan for the small business is to let them go to a "farmers market" of insurance which gives them more power so they can get coverage or something like that.

But seriously, why not just take the business out of the equation? Why should a person's healthcare be determined by whether he works at one company or another? Why not build a system where an individual can go out and choose his own coverage?

It would be a complete restructure of the system but this is the internet, the natural home of pie in the sky. I don't understand why no-one seems to be talking about that option at all.

But I know that making business cover more costs will go down, but maybe if the government lessens the tax burden on said corporations it may go through.

America has one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. As of 2005 it had a 39% tax while in the UK and Australia they had a 30% tax. The private tax was at around 28% for america and about 25% for australia while the UK had close to 35%.

You have to be careful with those direct comparisons of tax rates. The US rate quoted is the top marginal rate, whereas the Australian rate is the flat tax rate. In the US you can pay as little as 10% (I think?) while in Australia you pay 30% regardless of whether you generate $10 or $10 billion.

It gets more complicated again, because there's another 10% in Australia as GST, and various other taxes collected at a state level. I'm not saying who ends up getting charged more or less, just that it's very complicated and any straight up comparison is likely to be wrong.

If we perhaps cut the corporate tax to about what european countries charge their corporations then maybe the corporations would 1) Stop moving to foreign countries, 2) Make higher profits, 3) Be willing to cover employee healthcare costs, etc.

Jobs in every developed country are moving overseas. No tax rate can ever compete with a total employee cost of a $1 a day. The way you stop this is by not competing in low skilled manufacturing. Let stuff that adds little or no value go overseas, and focus on high end manufacturing, design, and other technical jobs. You protect high income jobs by focussing on jobs that actually add high value.

And I don't think any level of stuffing about with corporate tax rates will make companies more or less interested in covering employee health plans. An expense is an expense, and it cuts into profit.

What I am saying is this though, the federal government can't control certain aspects such as schooling. For example where I live I have a 6pt scale (A=100-94,B=93-86,C=85-78,D=77-70,E=69 and below) while others including the college I now go to have a 10 pt scale(A=100-90,B=89-80,C=79-70,D=69-60,E=59 and everything below). Now this is just to show that the federal government has no control over this, in fact the city does.


@ketara,

Anyone with an illness can see a doctor despite race, creed, etc already. There are free clinics, and charity clinics, and emergency rooms. Things are already set in place for care.
However each school doesn't allow drugs, alchohol, or tobacco anywhere near the schools. This is mainly because the federal government gives incentives to the city government(funding) if they comply with these rules.

All I am saying is that they do the same for business, stick a carrot in front of them to lead them in the general direction. I believe that wal-mart(oh, evil, evil) has many of its employees on medicaid because their plan is too expensive for the employees. If wal-mart was offered a discount on taxes for paying for their employees healthcare then they may nibble and eventually bite. So the government gets a little less taxes, but the employees then have affordable healthcare.

Yeah, about the taxes,it did say that you guys have a funny time frame for it as well. In america taxes is dependent on what you own and how much you make. I believe england is closer to what you own IIRC.

Ketara wrote:Okay, I've just read the last 4 pages. I think that my reason as to why the US should have National Healthcare can summed up in a few concise points.

-National Healthcare allows everyone to get treated when they are sick, regardless of race, social position, or bank balance.

-This is a good thing.

-See above two points.


It's really as simple as that. Bemoan taxes all you like, but if you think that people should be denied the right to good health(and thus, quite possibly, life) just because they don't have a good enough job, or enough moolah in the bank, you are the kind of person that disgusts me.

Yes but what does naitonal Healthcare do for you when you're old. There are certain big issue things going along with the Congress/Obama fiasco plan in that regard. Judging whether or not you get treatment based on your age vs. life expectantcy? Its all well and good if the system can treat the average broken arm. Big damn deal. Its another if the you've heart arythmia (spelling) at 65 and its recommended you take painkillers -er what? (actual Obama statement at last townhall). if the measure of your care is determined by your age then this is absolutely nuts. Again great for invulnerable 20 year olds, sucks for senior citizens. We vote (and still vote more than you BAH!)

I am not entirely sure how people think that paying for medical insurance is better than spending the equivilent amount on state healthcare?

Currently a tiny fraction of your tax will go towards healthcare, while you pay (through decreased wages to cover work health insurange) a considerable amount more for health insurance.

For a simple example, if you pay 10% of your wage in tax, perhaps 0.5% of that will go on healthcare for those without insurance.

You then effectively pay another 10% for private health coverage. Most of that will go into stockholders pockets and the general insurance organisation. The rest will go into treating other people covered by your insurance company who are ill.

I am just going to make up a figure here, but if 50% of your insurance goes back into healthcare, and 50% of it goes into the insurance industry, I would not be surprised.

Now, imagine a world where, for the sake of argument, you pay a special health tax of 10% instead of your insurance contributions. I would be vastly surprised if it turned out that more than 1% of this new tax was "wasted" (in the same way that 50% currently goes stright into the insurane company's pockets), while 99% would go straight back into the medical industry, leading to BETTER healthcare than is currently available.

The numbers are made up for ease of illustration, but the basic principal is the same. With a national healthcare system, you may end up paying less (as everyone would contribute to the health service via tax, rather than currently where a large chunk of your wage is taken out as health insurance, meaning that as everyone is paying, the burdon on the individual will be less) for a better service at the end of the day.

Exactly. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread the US system consumes 50% more GDP than European style national systems for roughly the same result.

I say roughly because there are many different areas within health where some nations are better or worse than others.

SilverMK2 wrote:I am not entirely sure how people think that paying for medical insurance is better than spending the equivilent amount on state healthcare?

Currently a tiny fraction of your tax will go towards healthcare, while you pay (through decreased wages to cover work health insurange) a considerable amount more for health insurance.

For a simple example, if you pay 10% of your wage in tax, perhaps 0.5% of that will go on healthcare for those without insurance.

You then effectively pay another 10% for private health coverage. Most of that will go into stockholders pockets and the general insurance organisation. The rest will go into treating other people covered by your insurance company who are ill.

I am just going to make up a figure here, but if 50% of your insurance goes back into healthcare, and 50% of it goes into the insurance industry, I would not be surprised.

Now, imagine a world where, for the sake of argument, you pay a special health tax of 10% instead of your insurance contributions. I would be vastly surprised if it turned out that more than 1% of this new tax was "wasted" (in the same way that 50% currently goes stright into the insurane company's pockets), while 99% would go straight back into the medical industry, leading to BETTER healthcare than is currently available.

The numbers are made up for ease of illustration, but the basic principal is the same. With a national healthcare system, you may end up paying less (as everyone would contribute to the health service via tax, rather than currently where a large chunk of your wage is taken out as health insurance, meaning that as everyone is paying, the burdon on the individual will be less) for a better service at the end of the day.

The problem of course, is that you're assuming incredibly falsely, that it will be cheaper via taxes than via insurance. Its a sweeping but accurate statement-there simply isn't anything that the US government does more cheaply than private. This is the same government that was going to spend tens of thousands so the FDA could have a meeting in Australia(!!!) and is just now thinking of such cost savings as turning the lights off after working hours. Brilliant! They don't have a clue.
Maybe your government is more efficient.

Add in that the impact upon Medicare is going to drive estimates of half the doctors currently in the sytem out of the system, and you have a horror story scenario. Turning existing healthcare for seniors in craptown is not the way to go. I'd better get off this topic before I land blows I can't recall as this is a big deal to me.

Frazzled wrote:Maybe your government is more efficient.

Ours seems to be relatively efficient for the time being, if Obama has half a brain, he will inform people in subtle ways to make some changes by voting for better reps in whatever areas they see fit.

After all we do supposedly vote most if not all of the important guys and gals in right?

Damn we must suck at voting... seriously though...

Would it be possible to get an idea of how much tax you would expect to pay on a wage of, say, $25,000 and how much you would then pay in health insurance (or how much health insurance you would get to "take your wage up to" and equivilent of $25,000)?

Assuming £1 = $1.60, your take-home pay would be $20,327.84

In other words, the stoppages for income tax and National Insurance amount to $4,672.16.

Health Insurance, basic state pension, unemployment insurance and state earnings related pension payments are all included within the stoppages.

Caculated here:

http://listentotaxman.com/index.php?c=1&yr=2009&age=0&add=0&code=&pension=0&time=1&ingr=15625&vw[]=yr&vw[]=mth&vw[]=wk

Ketara wrote:Okay, I've just read the last 4 pages. I think that my reason as to why the US should have National Healthcare can summed up in a few concise points.

-National Healthcare allows everyone to get treated when they are sick, regardless of race,AGE, social position, or bank balance.

-This is a good thing.

-See above two points.


It's really as simple as that. Bemoan taxes all you like, but if you think that people should be denied the right to good health(and thus, quite possibly, life) just because they don't have a good enough job, or enough moolah in the bank, you are the kind of person that disgusts me.

Edited it in for you there Frazzled. Regardless of whatever illness you have, or however old you are, you should be treated.