Obama offers universal health care plan

[mykidslovedogs]

47 million americans without insurance
I'm not the least bit interested in what which candidate says right now. Any of that is designed to get them elected and bears no resemblance to what they might actually do, if anything.

That's what I am afraid of.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

You're missing a very important fact, perhaps you didn't know this:

Under universal healthcare systems like in Canada & Europe, healthcare coverage and employment status are unrelated, as they should be. Employers are not responsible for providing health coverage for their employees. Why should they? You're covered for life regardless of your employment status.

In the US, healthcare is used as a way to discipline the work force and keep them working, because they're told that without health insurance their home and life's savings are at risk if they get sick. It is the ultimate blackmail perpetrated in a nation.

...

That's why I have repeatedly argued that we need to disassociate healthcare from employment. Originally, it got setup that way, because the government placed wage controls on employers, so the only way employers could attract workers and compete for labor was to be able to offer health insurance as a benefit....this became a cultural norm in our country...a HUGE mistake that is part of the reason we are in this boat as it is!

 

[OAG]

This is how England is going to handle reducing cost of ALL Government Paid Surgery that is required. Wonder how that would go over in the US -- smoke within 4 weeks of the surgery and YOU pay Government doesn't. So much for FREE health care for some smokers. Good intentions but......

Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused | the Daily Mail

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Actually the article says that smokers will still be treated for free, but they may have to wait longer...and this applies only to non urgent surgeries.

Seems like a fine idea to me: if you do something thats bad for you that you may choose to stop and elect not to, you wait behind people who are taking better care of themselves.

 

[OAG]

Title is a bit deceiving. Closer reading by CFB reveals the details. Really a good intention as I would think if one could quit for 4 weeks they should be able to continue or at least it would be a step towards quitting entirely.

 

[wildcat]

In the US, healthcare is used as a way to discipline the work force and keep them working, because they're told that without health insurance their home and life's savings are at risk if they get sick. It is the ultimate blackmail perpetrated on a nation.

Funny Free @ 49. That is my govt conspiracy theory --- glad to know I am not the only one who thinks up with those "strange" ideas.

 

[Free_at_49]

Conspiracy

Funny Free @ 49. That is my govt conspiracy theory --- glad to know I am not the only one who thinks up with those "strange" ideas.

Labor force discipline lowers wages and keeps Americans working for the capitalist system. But work should be voluntary, not enforced. Work makes you free -- "Arbeit macht frei"

 

[Martha]

The quickest way to a solution of the heath insurance problem is to require our legislators to buy insurance on the individual market.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

The quickest way to a solution of the heath insurance problem is to require our legislators to buy insurance on the individual market.

I watched part of the debate, and once again I was disappointed that no one asked the candidates what they thought about Wyden's plan. None of the [-]incomplete[/-] plans they are talking about seem to be as well thought out or cover as many people as Wyden's plan, IMO.

 

[Martha]

I agree. Though this thread was supposed to be about Obama's plan, no one really discussed it. It has a lot of problems, especially because it does not address adverse selection by requiring people to have insurance. Wyden's plan seems to be the most well thought out. But the politics of it all require the candidates to have their "own" plan. Silliness.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Another problem I have with Obama's plan (and also Edwards') is that they both keep the employer in the picture as the main provider of health insurance. That seems to inevitably lead to problems down the road as covered persons develop pre-existing conditions as they age. Wyden seems to understand that insurance should be linked to the individual, so he/she can never lose coverage.

 

[lets-retire]

Actually the article says that smokers will still be treated for free, but they may have to wait longer...and this applies only to non urgent surgeries.

Seems like a fine idea to me: if you do something thats bad for you that you may choose to stop and elect not to, you wait behind people who are taking better care of themselves.

The problem with this, is it is subject to the whims of those in charge. A perfect example was a friend of mine was diagnosed as an alcoholic buy the military, at a time when the powers thought it's younger people were drinking too much. Once he left the military he went to a civilian doctor, who was a retired O-6 doctor. The subject of drinking came up. This is when he was informed by the retired military doctor that the symptoms he described did not point to alcoholism outside the military. The doctor went on to advise him that when he was diagnosed, the military doctors were directed to lower the standard for consumption, so that almost anybody who drank could be diagnosed as an alcoholic.

I can see it now. I'm sorry Mr. Smith the three beers you drank last weekend exceeds our limits, so you will have to go to the end of the line and your surgery will have to be rescheduled. Does anybody else see flashbacks to Demolition Man?

 

[farmerEd]

The problem with this, is it is subject to the whims of those in charge.

Everything is always subject to the whims of those in charge...right now its the insurance companies who are in charge.

 

[Meadbh]

Health care in France: facing hard choices -- Lopes 177 (10): 1167 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

An interesting article about health care in France.....and check out the eletter at the bottom.

 

[Grizz]

Wanna know where your personal taxes might go if you get a system like our Canadian one? In most Canadian provinces, those in the top tax bracket of about 75K/yr pay around 45-50% combined provincial and federal tax, and your mortgage payments aren't tax deductable. I also have to pay into a provincial health care system about $60 per month for family of 4.

I would guess that our system is fantastic when one is old and not fabulously wealthy, since even though there are long wait lines for some procedures, if you have an urgent life threatening need for care, you're looked after immediately and ít won't cost you anything. Besides, if you are a Canadian with $$ and want that shiny new hip, you can just head to the States and have it done tomorrow.

Another problem that you Americans better look at before going this route is that emergency rooms here tend to get used like the family doc. It's free and probably often more convenient than booking an appointment at a 9-5 family doc, but those visits are brutally expensive and inefficient to the system (always remember, your tax money is "the system").

 

[MikeD]

I found this comic amusing.

Mike D.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Sticking a picture of a current emergency room between frames 3 and 4 would make it a lot less funny

Anyone get a bill from the post office for $32,000 for mailing a letter?

 

[Martha]

From the March 14, 2007 issue of JAMA, a study of about 2500 patients who had heart attacks found that those who had trouble paying for health care (18% of the group) were in markedly worse shape a year later. They were more likely to be hospitalized. Inability to afford medications was to blame for much of the disparity.

 

[jIMOh]

Let's just say Obama is elected, and he may very well be..he's attractive, smart and articulate, and he is good at promising the world. If his universal plan is implemented, what might the unintended consequences be?

I am an uper middle class American, who has my own busines and employs several people. If universal care is implemented, and let's just say my tax rates go up 10 to 20 grand per year (an estimate which I do not think is unreasonable), what might the unintended consequences be?:

1.) I might have to sell my home and downsize to something smaller (how many other Americans will be faced with similar choices, and what kind of economic impact will that have on the entire US economy?)

2.) I might have to fire one or two employees (who, by the way, I currently provide health benefits to). How many other small employers will have to do the same, and what kind of impact will that have on entire US economy?

3.) What about small employers who couldn't afford to offer benefits, but will now be forced to? How many of them will remain in business. How many people will lose their jobs? What kind of impact will that have on our economy as a whole?

These are all things that I think need to seriously be considered before any kind of universal plan is implemented. Politicians are very good at promising the world, and people stupidly elect them, without really understanding the ultimate consequences or without even really digging in and trying to understand the longterm impact to everyone.

4.) My mother or father might need an organ transplant or hip surgery in 10 or 20 years. Will they be able to get it, or will they be placed on a waiting list because costs have run umuck by then. These are the things I want people to think about.

when income tax rates go up, is there a different table for business taxes? I am sure you know how your business gets taxed... is it the same for all companies, or just small ones?