We Need Universal Health Care Now!

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by newguy888

Wow...... I did not respond and I did not start this one.

Here's kudos for showing remarkable restraint........

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by ruger

What would the face of the united states look like if it was every man for himself?
Lets take a min. and think like a conservitive.
This a view of conservitive heaven.
You would have to pay for your own school for you own kids.
The single mom would be wearing a big scarlet letter for NOT MARRIED.
People how could not afford housing, there would be no programs to help them buy a home, with down payments, loan grants, just a tough love that Limburger talks about.
We would have a tax on the people for the military, the republicans love the military.
Social security would be repealed, it was a left over from the FDR social experiment that failed.
You need to make your own retirement.
Taxes would be taken down to what the repubichairs call fair, as walter williams [An idiot by any other name] says, " take each man and woman in the usa, divide the tax burden by that number and every one pays the same."
So the single mom who is trying to take care of her kid and work, would pay the same as limburger, I call that fair dont you?
The rich would return to the days of robber barons, the poor would be at the mercy of the rich.
The middle class would vanish.
Abortion would be a thing of the past.
Health care would be provided to only those who had insurance or could afford it.

Canada and Mexico would build their own fences to keep us out, because no one but the uber rich would live here.
I can see why they like these ideas. If I were the top 10
% of income in this country, I would love the idea.
Oh ya I would also have to be a selfish uncaring, as$hole. but that seems to be a prerequesit for repubichairs and conservitives.

By the way conservitivs, Hillary is taking this country by storm. good luck.

I think you need to move to China, was your family on Joe McCarthy's list or something??

[Beststash]

I think this is related....In the Austin paper today there was an article stating that for the city (Austin) they have a $1B unfunded healthcare liability for the retirees. With the new law now in effect, many in the government arena will be publishing some huge numbers for this "entitlement". Of course the law does not mandate that money be set aside for these liabilities and I think it will be interesting to see how they deal with it. Unlike the FED they are required to have a balanced budget every year or to make adjustments or cuts. The taxpayer will have to find a way because there is no choice. I would not be surprised to see government entities supporting some sort of universal care much like the private businesses are doing so today - simply to relieve that liability from them. At a minimum you will see benefits cut and the numbers will grow even larger.

Many have ideological reasons why they are against "universal care" but in the long run they will lose simply because of the numbers. I think the time is now to make changes before the situation becomes even worse. I have a feeling that employer based healthcare is going the way of the "gold watch". The "Greed is good" crowd has destroyed our healthcare system and we (the citizens) will have to put the pieces back together again.

Peace

[MasterBlaster]

Beststash:

Requirements to compute and project retirement and medical liabilities are bringing some sanity to state and local governments. At least now the numbers are on the table for all to see.

How one feels about the medical debate depends on where you stand. If you have reasonable healthcare now for you and your family you just might be reluctant to go to the government model some have proposed.

My personal feeling is that we should have a system like Australia has in which government provides a basic medical coverage for everyone. Then if you have a good job or can afford to pay you can buy into the private medical coverage system kind of like we have here in the US.

For those that think that a universal care system will cover everybody, provide for all of the best medications, provide every needed procedure without waiting, and not charge anybody too much....

Then I say you are dreaming

[mikex]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

So, let me get this straight. You think that Microsoft should spend twice as much to hire Americans and provide full health and retirement benefits for menial jobs and then charge twice as much for their computers (you don't really think they are going to give up their profits if they do all business in America, do you?). If Microsoft does this, then the people they hire who will likely make minimum wage will be able to afford the expensive, fancy technology because they now have good paying jobs.

Let's say for the purpose of discussion that I don't know the answer (for the moment). The answer lies in technology that most people don't even think about, but I'll let you have first shot on the grand solution.

How would you ensure that our standard of living is maintained, when the manufacturing jobs continue to leave the country, because Huan Lee and his family in China earn 50 cents an hour. I am all ears. I'm sure you heard Bush yesterday telling us that small businesses are the key, he told of a lady that started a small business baking bread or something, and this was a great example of how our economy is going to kick a$$. Wow. We bake bread and China makes the HDTVs, LCD screens, DVDplayers, every computer thingy you care to pick up in the store, plus all the rest. Oh but we can bake bread like there's no tomorrow!

[FIRE'd@51]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

I would also like to make a comment about the disabled man who cried about his family's healthcare situation during the democratic debate the other day. It sounds like he had a good job (I think he said for a Steel company?) for many years - didn't he say 36 years? Of course I don't know what his company benefits were like, but don't the union-type jobs usually have fairly good retiree health benefits? Although I do feel for his family's situation, I wonder if he is collecting social security disability....If not, then isn't it possible that his wife could find a job with health benefits? And I also wonder why, during those 36 productive years, didn't he purchase a disability insurance plan for himself, knowing that he was his family's primary care taker, and that if he were disabled, they would face financial hardship. Shouldn't that have been a priority? Why should America feel bad because he didn't plan financially for disability? There are three outcomes in life...we will either live a long, healthy life, die or become disabled. Everyone who has the means to should plan for all three possibilities.
Does anyone else wonder if that man was purposely placed in the audience to play an act?

You are jumping to conclusions without the facts.

I saw this man interviewed on "Hardball with Chris Matthews".

The steel company he worked for (LTV) went bankrupt, and he lost one-third of his pension (the PBGC picked up the other two thirds) and health insurance for himself and his wife. He is on Medicare, so he has coverage, but his wife is only 56, so she won't be eligible for Medicare for 9 years. She is the one without health insurance, not him. He didn't say what condition she has, but you know how expensive guaranteed-issue (through HIPAA or otherwise) can be. With a 33% cut in his pension, which I'm sure wasn't COLA'd since it wasn't a gov't pension, paying for the health insurance for his wife apparently isn't possible.

This is a very sad story, which has happened to many folks through no fault of their own. Here is a person who worked hard all his life, played by the rules, and got screwed. It could happen to any of us.

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by FIRE'd@51

This is a very sad story, which has happened to many folks through no fault of their own. Here is a person who worked hard all his life, played by the rules, and got screwed. It could happen to any of us.

True - I didn't see the interview, and perhaps jumped to conclusions. However, what is wrong with his wife's ability to work? Is she also disabled? I didn't get that info from his appearance at the debate, and I apologize for missing the interview. I was working, but I'll try to catch it again on a rerun. Again, he said he did work for 36 years...we all know there are no guarantees in life. Maybe he counted on his pension, but at the same time, we should all plan for disability if we have the means to. His wife is 56. If she is not disabled, why can't she work and obtain benefits through employment? As a self-employed individual, I pay 15% taxes for social security, I pay taxes for Medicare, too. Plus, I pay for my own health insurance, I pay for my employee's heatlh insurance, I pay taxes for the public education system, and I work extra hours to earn enough money to put my kids through private school since the quality of the public education system stinks. Why should I also continue to work hard to pay for his wife's health insurance, if she is capable of working until age 65, while she sits around an enjoys early retirement?

[FIRE'd@51]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

Maybe he counted on his pension, but at the same time, we should all plan for disability if we have the means to.

What's wrong with that? Everybody who has a pension does that. It's not the disability that is causing him the financial hardship - it's the fact that the company that promised him the pension and healthcare went bankrupt and he ended up losing 33% of his income plus health insurance for his wife.

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by FIRE'd@51

What's wrong with that? Everybody who has a pension does that. It's not the disability that is causing him the financial hardship - it's the fact that the company that promised him the pension and healthcare went bankrupt and he ended up losing 33% of his income plus health insurance for his wife.

If he had had private disability insurance, the payout would have compensated for his lost income, and perhaps, he would have been able to afford health insurance for his wife in her early retirment.

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by mikex

Let's say for the purpose of discussion that I don't know the answer (for the moment). The answer lies in technology that most people don't even think about, but I'll let you have first shot on the grand solution.

How would you ensure that our standard of living is maintained, when the manufacturing jobs continue to leave the country, because Huan Lee and his family in China earn 50 cents an hour. I am all ears. I'm sure you heard Bush yesterday telling us that small businesses are the key, he told of a lady that started a small business baking bread or something, and this was a great example of how our economy is going to kick a$$. Wow. We bake bread and China makes the HDTVs, LCD screens, DVDplayers, every computer thingy you care to pick up in the store, plus all the rest. Oh but we can bake bread like there's no tomorrow!

Let's take this a step further. Let's say that Microsoft decides to only employ Americans. They must pay minimum wage and they are expected to provide rich health insurance benefits to each employee. This costs, perhaps, two, three, four or more times as much as it does to outsource. We can't expect Microsoft to cut back on making profits for the common good, so they have two choices. They can either cheapen the quality of their products to compensate for the additional cost, or they can charge more for their products. Let's assume they can make up for the extra cost by charging more for their products. I don't know too many business in America that don't count on Microsoft products to maintain productivity. Now that it costs, perhaps, twice as much, to buy office equipment & technology, other businesses are forced to either cut back on employment or charge more for their products or services, which ultimately has an impact on the overall economy. Is this all worth making minimum wage jobs available to more Americans?

[Martha]

Poor Ruger. Came to late to the party.

Ruger, there are many here who believe national health care is the way to go. We don't have a health care system in the US, we have a fragmented health care sector. This fragmentation leads to higher costs and far too many people falling through the cracks. It leads to confusion about what options a person has and the risk of missing out on an option available to you. And if you miss out, it is your own fault.

But, we have been around and around on the forum on this issue. A few here may have even changed their minds on the issue as a result of our many debates. If you care, write your congressmen and senators. And write the candidates as well, both democratic and republican.

[mikex]

I see you have no solution. Very well. Unfortunately, it's going to get very bad before it gets better. The employment landscape is being changed by a force most people are completely unprepared for and don't think much about, and it isn't China et. al., its Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, and the fact that the old equation Labor = Money will be trashed to an extent not imaginable. That will happen because the labor we are talking about is human labor, and that, within 30 -50 years, is going the way of the dinosaur. I encourage everyone to read this fairly short article online:

Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain

Robotic Nation, by Marshall Brain

You are only just seeing the beginning, as the self-checkout kiosks begin to eliminate checkout workers.

Quoting:

Right now, a majority of people in America trade their labor for money, and then they use the money to participate in the economy. Our entire society is built around a simple equation: labor = money. This equation explains why any new labor-saving technology is disruptive -- it threatens a group of people with joblessness and welfare.
Autonomous humanoid robots will take disruption to a whole new level. Once fully-autonomous, general-purpose humanoid robots are as easy to buy as an automobile, most people in the economy will not be able to make the labor = money trade anymore. They will have no way to earn money, and that means they end up homeless and on welfare.
And -
Nearly every construction job will go to a robot. That's about 6 million jobs lost.
Nearly every manufacturing job will go to a robot. That's 16 million jobs lost.
Nearly every transportation job will go to a robot. That's 3 million jobs lost.
Many wholesale and retail jobs will go to robots. That's at least 15 million lost jobs.
Nearly every hotel and restaurant job will go to a robot. That's 10 million jobs lost.
If you add that all up, it's over 50 million jobs lost to robots. That is a conservative estimate. By 2050 or so, it is very likely that over half the jobs in the United States will be held by robots.
All the people who are holding jobs like those today will be unemployed.
American society has no way to deal with a situation where half of the workers are unemployed. During the Great Depression at its very worst, 25% of the population was unemployed. In the robotic future, where 50 million jobs are lost, there is the potential for 50% unemployment.

If you think this is far-fetched, read the article and be shocked.

The solution can be found there, but only after a period of time that will cause tremendous turmoil.

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by mikex

I see you have no solution.

Guess we better beef up our free education system, because we're gonna need a lot of mechanical engineers to design all those robots, a lot of systems engineers to design the logistics systems, and a lot of doctors to take care of all of the unemployed people who need free healthcare.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by Martha

Poor Ruger. Came to late to the party.

Ruger, there are many here who believe national health care is the way to go. We don't have a health care system in the US, we have a fragmented health care sector. This fragmentation leads to higher costs and far too many people falling through the cracks. It leads to confusion about what options a person has and the risk of missing out on an option available to you. And if you miss out, it is your own fault.

But, we have been around and around on the forum on this issue. A few here may have even changed their minds on the issue as a result of our many debates. If you care, write your congressmen and senators. And write the candidates as well, both democratic and republican.

Great post, Martha, per usual..........

No real answer, however I'm leery of the US govt running universal health care, given their track record.........

[MasterBlaster]

Mikex:

The end is near !

maybe the robots could fix the health care system.
Or at least they could wash my car and bring me a cold one.

Are health care robots only for the rich ? Or should we increase taxes now so that health care robots can be made to work on poor people ?

Will humanoid health care robots look slim and sexy, or will they look middle aged and dowdy ? Will the sexy ones wear those tight little nurse outfits ?

[mikex]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

Guess we better beef up our free education system, because we're gonna need a lot of mechanical engineers to design all those robots, a lot of systems engineers to design the logistics systems, and a lot of doctors to take care of all of the unemployed people who need free healthcare.

Oh dear, I feared this would happen - you didn't read the article did you. It isn't going to work like that. Well, when you get time or are interested - read it, otherwise your comment is invalid I'm afraid.

[mikex]

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Mikex:
The end is near !

The end of a certain lifestyle, yes.

maybe the robots could fix the health care system.

Not directly, no. But they will put the menial hospital jobs in the trash heap.

Or at least they could wash my car and bring me a cold one.

Yes they will.

Are health care robots only for the rich ? Or should we increase taxes now so that health care robots can be made to work on poor people ?

They will be for everybody.

Will humanoid health care robots look slim and sexy, or will they look middle aged and dowdy ? Will the sexy ones wear those tight little nurse outfits ?

Sure, you can get whatever look you want. Just no hanky-Panky, at least with the first few generations. But later ...

[ruger]

So by shipping jobs out of this country it is best for the........the mmmm... not the worker. Oh ya, the rich corporation. Yep thats how it helps.
When you let the corporations run the country they will do what is best for themslef, not the country.
I watched bush today at his press con, and I mean con.
When asked if he thought the coming housing problem was going to send the country into a ressission. He said he was smart enough to know he was not samrt enough to comment on the problem.
WHAT AN IDIOT, THIS IS THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD. I WISH I BELIEVED IN GOD SO I COULD SAY GOD HELP US.

When asked if he would support raising taxes on gas to rebuild the nations bridges, he said " I would as congress to...........mmmmmmm....pause pause pause pause put to priortise what needs to be done.
Do we have a chimp in the white house or what?
Calling this guy an idiot being nasty to iditos.