Obama offers universal health care plan

Not scare tactics, but a realistic possibility, and no, I don't think it will happen to everyone...but only the middle class and wealthier Americans. If you dig into the history of Canada's universalized system, you'll find that within 4 years of implementation, income taxes went up something like 40% after implementation.. something to think about.... (I'd have to go back and get the exact figures...if anyone is interested.)


Go ahead and lock the thread.....censorship is a typical solution from left-wingers who want to shut up anyone who has a different opinion or concern that they want to put out to the public.

Here comes Thelma and Louis again. If you make over $250,000 a year your taxes will go up. Sorry! Ask the average (not rich ones) Canadian if they want to exchange their health care system for the US system and you will get a solid no. One thing they don't have in Canada is health insurance agents. That also saves a lot of money.:)
 
. . . Show me an actually plan from start to finish...who it will cover, how much coverage, how much it will cost every tax payer etc. . .

Oh, now I have to call "b#llsh!t". You can't tell me any of those things for the POS we call a healthcare system today. If someone could give you that information for a proposed plan, you would have absolutely no way to compare it to what we currently have to deal with. :rolleyes:
 
I think we all have missed the boat by not buying health insurance company stock. These poor companies that one person seems to care so much about have done pretty good. United Health Group only increased its revenue by 54% to 71.5 Billion with a big B in 2006. I really feel they needed to be protected. Bring on National Health Care.


UnitedHealth Group realized diversified growth across its business segments and generated earnings from operations
of nearly $7.0 billion, up 37 percent over 2005.
> Revenue was more than $71.5 billion, a 54 percent increase over 2005.
> Cash flows from operations reached more than $6.5 billion, an increase of 60 percent.
> Diluted net earnings per common share were $2.97, an increase of 29 percent over 2005.
 
Oh, now I have to call "b#llsh!t". You can't tell me any of those things for the POS we call a healthcare system today. If someone could give you that information for a proposed plan, you would have absolutely no way to compare it to what we currently have to deal with. :rolleyes:
(this is stargazer08 using DH's account)
Sqeeeee, no need to be a potty mouth:(
Hmmm, well I for one know how much tax I pay, how much is taken from my paycheck for my health insurance and how much I pay when I go to the doctors office. What I have NO idea of is how much it will cost me to subsidize health care for everyone under Obama's plan. Our kids are already going to be burdened with SS and Medicare and now another huge government run plan? FYI,DH and I are ER'ing at the end of June and universal coverage would benefit us since we will no longer be working and are about 18 years away from Medicare.
 
(this is stargazer08 using DH's account)

Hmmm, well I for one know how much tax I pay, how much is taken from my paycheck for my health insurance and how much I pay when I go to the doctors office. What I have NO idea of is how much it will cost me to subsidize health care for everyone under Obama's plan.

Really? - What did the Iraq war cost you?:rolleyes:
 
Why can't we just solve the problems that make health care unfordable? If I could pay a reasonable price for the product I wouldn't need insurance at all. When technology advances it should drive down costs, but that doesn't seem to hold for the health care industry - why?
 
Here comes Thelma and Louis again. If you make over $250,000 a year your taxes will go up. Sorry! Ask the average (not rich ones) Canadian if they want to exchange their health care system for the US system and you will get a solid no. One thing they don't have in Canada is health insurance agents. That also saves a lot of money.:)

It's probably going to be more like if you make more than $50K-$75K/yr. I already told Cute and Fuzzy that if my taxes go up 10 or 20 grand per year, I'll have to fire one or two employees (that's less revenue for the gov't). That's not a question of "if". It will happen. I simply can't afford to continue to pay my employees if my taxes go up that much. Being that the average cost of family coverage right now runs around 10K per year, if we cover all Americans, and if only the people who gross more than $250K are going to pay for it, I don't think a tax increase of 10K or 20K is that unrealitic. If I am going to be in that boat as a small employer, I'm sure there will be many others. Can you estimate what kind of impact that will have on our economy?

I'd rather agree to contract with an evil profit taking insurance company and have plenty of options for coverage including cheap, catastrophic options if that's all I need, than give the government free reign to implement a Cadillac plan for everyone and than take another 20% of my income each month to pay for it. :rant: I'll only agree to a nationalized system of coverage if the plan stops at catastrophic coverage with preventive care built in. Anything beyond that is too much, and leaves no responsibility for recipients to share in or save for costs that are neither preventive nor catastrophic.

WE'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE LONGRUN before we just haphazardly vote someone in with big promises. Did you actually read the article I posted?
 
That sounds good. I wouldn't mind a burrito.:)

Here ya go.

I'll have to go engineer something reallly special if this doesnt settle down...
 

Attachments

  • sg1.JPG
    sg1.JPG
    10.5 KB · Views: 86
Free -

Take a look at this chart - notice the red line - social spending. Since the evil rich people are already paying for most of this (about 80%), how much more do you expect them to pay for healthcare for all? We know that Medicare and Medicaid together eat about 22% of the budget. If we cover the rest of America the same way,publicly, how much do you think that going to cost?

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fedcomp.gif
 
I'll bet this whole socialized education system and socialized retirement program stuff really gets you hot under the collar as well.

Not to mention thousands of your tax dollars going to build roads and bridges in places you've never been or will go to in your lifetime.

Thats just gotta burn you up.
 
Cut-Throat, news flash....we're talking health care here not the war! I have no faith that the government can do a decent job at handling universal healthcare. I have no idea what the solution is but I do know whatever the solution is it will require a well thought out plan...not a half baked idea to get the masses behind a candidate. You can promise the moon but if you have no PLAN on how to deliver it, it's just a bunch of useless babble. I recall the Clinton's used universal health care during one of their campaigns but didn't have success at getting their idea off the ground.
 
I'll bet this whole socialized education system and socialized retirement program stuff really gets you hot under the collar as well.

Not to mention thousands of your tax dollars going to build roads and bridges in places you've never been or will go to in your lifetime.

Thats just gotta burn you up.

Oh, please! You know that has nothing to do with my rant. I'm trying to be realistic here. Medicare and Medicaid already take up more of the national budget than defense, and that only covers less than half of Americans. I think we can safely say it will cost another $trillion dollars to implement "Medicare for All". You should be thinking about the impact to the economy, too. Nationalized Healthcare could have a serious affect on your retirement portfolio. If you think the defense budget is having a negative impact on the economy, wait until we have to come up with another Trillion to pay for national healthcare. I sure hope that none of your mutual funds are invested in anything to do with private healthcare.
 
MKLD, I get the impression that some people on this board have never ran or owned a business. Some people believe evil rich business owners sit back and collect all the money. That isn't always the case. I have been on both sides of that coin. There are good and bad points to being an empolyer and an employee. Money doesn't grow on trees and you can't keep taking from those of us who work hard, save a few pennies for the future and are willing to risk our home by using them as collateral to get a business off the ground or sustain it during a slump.
 
Its got everything to do with it. Some programs have to be for everyone, not just the rich or lucky.

As far as these random dollar amounts and scary outcomes, I doubt theres any basis in reality for any of that.

But i'll make a deal with you. I'll be glad to keep paying $1400 for health care if you can arrange to have refunded to me all the taxes I paid for public schools for the 30 years I didnt have kids, and all the taxes I paid for roads built more than 50 miles away from where I live. Oh yeah, and assure me that i'll get all the money out of social security I've put in.
 
C-T's point, I believe, is that if we weren't "wasting" money in Iraq, we'd have more to "invest" in a healthcare solution.

MKLD has good points about costs, rationing, etc., though, frankly, "solving" the issue of universal coverage does not necessarily mean we'll get a govt. healthcare system...

Certainly, starting a new govt. program without any idea of the real cost, or, even worse, sweeping those costs under the proverbial rug, has gotten us where we are today vis a vis deficits, unfunded liabilities, etc. Think prescription drug program for Medicare.

To paraphrase one Alan Greenspan, social programs are not economic decisions; they're political decisions. Theory says that a free-market is the most efficient at generating "overall" economic growth. However, maximum economic growth might not be the optimum outcome politically/socically.
 
I'll bet this whole socialized education system...
Actually, this is a problem. Look at the rise in inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending on education since 1920 (the 'constant 2004-2005 dollars' results are in the rightmost columns):

Total and current expenditure per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2002-03

1920: $401 per pupil
1950: $1511 per pupil
1960: $2286 per pupil
1970: $3812 per pupil
1980: $5157 per pupil
1990: $7009 per pupil
2000: $7827 per pupil
2003: $8468 per pupil

Again, these are all inflation-adjusted. So when will we stop giving a knee-jerk rubber stamp to school bond measures? No one can look at this and tell me the problem with the schools is that they need more money. It costs almost 4x as much in *real* dollars to educate a child today as it did in 1960. Is the education 4x better?

I support public education but the bottomless pit needs to stop. Too many people just can't say "no" to education, regardless of the facts.

And why should we think cost control is going to be better with government-sponsored health care?
 
Its got everything to do with it. Some programs have to be for everyone, not just the rich or lucky.

As far as these random dollar amounts and scary outcomes, I doubt theres any basis in reality for any of that.

But i'll make a deal with you. I'll be glad to keep paying $1400 for health care if you can arrange to have refunded to me all the taxes I paid for public schools for the 30 years I didnt have kids, and all the taxes I paid for roads built more than 50 miles away from where I live. Oh yeah, and assure me that i'll get all the money out of social security I've put in.

Give me a break! If you're really as healthy as you claim you are, why not just self fund your healthcare, and stop paying the $1400/mo? Better yet, why not just try again with a different carrier and buy a catastrophic plan? That liver issue is a fluke, and I can almost guarantee you an agent could get you covered under a different plan if you persued it. Your child could probably be covered under a Cadillac BCBS blue preferred plan for approx $100 or less per month, and then you wouldn't have to pay the family rate for guaranteed coverage anymore. You've bragged about how rich you are....Why are you wasting so much money on a Cadillac plan? You do have choices. Why should everyone else be financially burdened so you can keep Cadillac coverage that you don't even really need? Maybe healthcare costs would come down if people would stop buying Cadillac plans when they don't even need them. The mentality of purchasing a $1400/mo healthcare plan just so you can have a $100 office visit covered in case you need to go to the Dr. seems silly to me....especially if you're rich, and can easily afford a high deductible. :D

I don't think my figures are that unrealistic. I'm using actual data (ie..current cost of Medicaid and Medicare, and current cost of guaranteed issue family coverage to come up with some estimates.) I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that to cover all Americans, we might be looking at another $Trillion in today's dollars. That's how much Medicare and Medicaid cost, and that doesn't even cover half of all Americans.

We are always going to have to have some kind of National Defense budget. Obviously, it's way up there right now, and we might be able to move about 1/2 of it over to a nationlized plan if the war didn't exist, but we can't count on defense spending going down anytime soon, so if Obama really plans to implement a government managed healthcare system in the next few years, we've got to think about how much that's going to cost, and where the money's going to come from, and what kind of impact it's going to have on the economy. If you raise taxes by 10 or 20% to the middle class and rich, unemployment rates will rise, and that may mean possibly less income tax revenue for the government. Now, you've successfully punished the rich and at the same time, reduced revenue. What happens after that?
 
I see you've researched my families health issues about as well as you've researched the implications of a universal health care system ;)
 
I see you've researched my families health issues about as well as you've researched the implications of a universal health care system ;)

Hey - you're the one who said the only reason BCBS declined you was because of a silly bogus liver test from five years ago! ;) Oh wait - is there more to the story that you conveniently left out? Why not separate your coverage from your spouse's and get yourself an individual policy if you are really that healthy? I know you mentioned that your spouse has asthma. Did you know there are several carriers out there that now will cover asthmatics (depending on severity) in the individual market? Blue Cross and Aetna are among the few.
 
Last edited:
C-T's point, I believe, is that if we weren't "wasting" money in Iraq, we'd have more to "invest" in a healthcare solution.

True, but C-T is always complaining about our big deficits, so he has already earmarked the Iraq savings for deficit reduction. He can't have it both ways.
 
Ah yes, the piece of data taken from context, time frames also removed.

The BC/BS denial was 5 years ago, for a test 5 years before that. Both my wife and I currently have preexisting conditions for which absolutely no insurer will carry.

So we're sort of in need of the 'Cadillac' policy.

As far as the other 'data', its equally taken from context and disassociated from its purpose.

In the equation if a=b and b=c, you cant throw a little d, e, and f into it and decide that a=d+e+f. Many of these costs and 'taxes' already exist, they would be simply repurposed, not added in a second time. And are you really feeling good about comparing the costs of a program that services the oldest, least healthy segment of the population as an indicator for the costs of a broad spectrum of people?

Again, you're stuck on making up figures and problems that are unrealistic for a particular program that I dont think we can afford to NOT have.

But i'm not going to change your mind, its quite clearly made up. And I can assure that you will not change mine.

Perhaps it'd be beneficial to everyone concerned if you stopped blowing up any medical thread with these wild opinions? I've tried to have a little fun with it, but frankly its become boring and repetitive.
 
True, but C-T is always complaining about our big deficits, so he has already earmarked the Iraq savings for deficit reduction. He can't have it both ways.

I don't mean to defend C-T, nor do I speak for him. I was trying to use C-T on one hand, and MKLD on the other, to illustrate in part the pov of the left v. right, and then find a center... :p
 
Well - I can see from the chart that it's all Clinton's fault.

BTY - suited up last evening and hauled off to a 6th grade graduation - yes 6th graders graduate with certificates, awards, singing and free cake and punch. Parents take pictures and drag friends to attend. I talked to a few of the kids:

a. Volunteers to make a simulation model to totally solve the health issue - provided the parents are kept out of it.

b. Grown-ups are stupid and have it totally backward - need to reward good health/don't get sick/spend money in the first place - duh sort of like LYBM.

c. All volunteers would need to get witness protection and new identities in Missoula.

I gave up on the idea. Why ruin a good kid>

heh heh heh - like we're gonna solve it here. :D.
 
I don't mean to defend C-T, nor do I speak for him. I was trying to use C-T on one hand, and MKLD on the other, to illustrate in part the pov of the left v. right, and then find a center... :p
Unfortunately, the primary system in the U.S. prevents us from finding a sane "center" in power. It tends to give us lefty extremist versus righty extremist in the general election, and those in the middle generally lose because they can't capture their party's base.
 
Ah yes, the piece of data taken from context, time frames also removed.
Well, I'm not a mind reader...of course I used info. from your earlier posts to make a point. That's all I had to go by.

I think you're sadly mistaken on the cost savings you'd get by nationalizing. IMO, there won't be any savings....even if you can prevent some of the cost shifting by covering illegal immigrants and poor people with "better programs", there aren't going to be any savings. Once people have free access to unlimited care, costs, IMO will skyrocket.

Right now, the private sector makes up for about 1/2 of all health spending, yet even with all that profit taking, and broker commissions, and the admin costs, the private sector still covers millions more people than Medicaid and Medicare together, AND reimburses doctors at better rates, at about the same pricetag as Medicare and Medicaid. I don't see how the gov't will be more efficient.
 
Back
Top Bottom