Going Rogue

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sorry, Kazbates, not accurate. They passed a law limiting how much electricity a Television could use and be sold in California that was under 58" (150 cm) in size. TVs over 58" were exempt so all the Hollywood types could have their home theaters.....

Though it's pretty short-sighted to exempt above 58" in size - 42" is common now - this is the kind of law-making that encourages inventiveness. And given the energy troubles California have had over the last years, it's not a bad idea at all. Lots of people have televisions and lots of people buy new ones.

That I would and could endorse something like this is a good example of approving of a policy that does not exactly benefit me personally, but which benefit society as a whole - now as well as in the future. To me, it is shortsighted to only approve what benefit me - but that is what I hear right-wing people from USA state they do.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

But that is beside the point, the overwhelming majority of people covered under a government plan would be paying taxes into the plan. You, among others, seem to have it backwards, as if a few folk would fund it, while everyone else just sort of sits around doing nothing. Will some people who do not contribute taxes benefit, absolutely, but they represent a small minority – I can deal with that.

The only people funding it would be the working class.

Oh, goodie. More taxes. For something responsible people should be taking care of themselves.

I don't know where you live, but each time I go to a hospital, there are signs everywhere stating no one will be turned away for lack of funds.

You don't even have to be a citizen.

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Some quick stats from answers.com:



I'd say there's reason to believe that "a few folk will fund it" - I don't expect the percentages listed there to change much.

I've also read (I wish I could remember the link) that about 20% of the population utilizes about 90% of all government social services (welfare, food stamps, etc.)

The numbers above are not exact, but I believe the ratio is pretty close.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Ea

That I would and could endorse something like this is a good example of approving of a policy that does not exactly benefit me personally, but which benefit society as a whole - now as well as in the future. To me, it is shortsighted to only approve what benefit me - but that is what I hear right-wing people from USA state they do.

Its the way its being done, Ea. From the time I (and every schoolchild) was a young, I was taught littering was bad. I was taught why it was bad. To this day.......I can't litter. And if I see a child at school litter..........they go pick it up. I don't care how old they are.

We didn't need a law to force us not to litter. Education served that purpose.

But now, laws are being passed forcing people to do something they most likely would do anyway if the information were out there, and there are alternate choices.

We don't like being forced.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I don't know where you live, but each time I go to a hospital, there are signs everywhere stating no one will be turned away for lack of funds.

And whom pray tell do you think pays for that?

BOb

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

The government wouldn’t be “taking care of you” – it would simply administer a plan using tax dollars – that’s it, in a nutshell. Instead of paying an insurance company, your “premium” would be paid in the form of taxes. This is a simplification of course, but so is the idea that a government administered healthcare system is some sort of giant freebee handout to deadbeats. The government isn't “giving” you healthcare, any more than it is giving you free roads and bridges.

If you and others are so distrustful of government, might I suggest a move to Somalia? There you will find a delightful little example of what it’s like to live without all that dastardly government interference, and all those freely available, government “handouts.”

Resorting to asking me to move to another country is uncalled for and ultimately reduces the strength of your argument.

I don't mistrust my government. I've worked for them at both the state and federal levels. I probably have a lot more faith in our system than you do. I've seen the incredible good our government can accomplish. I've also seen the incredible waste that goes with huge bureaucracies. I just think they have enough to do without adding something as personal as healthcare into the mix. I know my government, the regulations would start pouring out and sooner or later someone would get the idea that if you are obese, you should start paying more, or if you smoke, or a genetically predisposed to cancer, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the healthcare system overhauled. I just don't think they know what they are doing and they are rushing the process to get it down before the next set of elections.

[pshrynk]

The hospitals are required by law, that to participate in Medicare they have to have the no turn away policy. It stemmed from one point where corporate hospital systems were sending uninsured people to a county or charity hospital and keeping those with insurance or lots of money.

It was sort of like the insurance companies who turn away those with expensive illnesses or dump someone when they get an expensive illness. Health Care reform should, in my opinion, have at it's core the rquirement that insurance companies cannot do that, so that they are on the same playing field as the hospitals.

It should also have the public option. And please read this sentence very carefully: NOT to "dictate healthcare" but to have an affordable insurance ption for those who are unable to get insurance from an employer or on their own.

My reason for this is: Right now, Medical facilities have high prices because they must compensate for Medicare and Medicaid and uninsured patients. The insurance companies do not pay full fare, either. If everyone in the US had coverage to pay for medical care, everyone would, over time be paying basically the same price. Economics assures us of that. The lack of insurance for 45 million (or whatever) unisured patients going to ER's to get primary care is a huge driver for medical costs.

You will please note that I have not at any time said that the government should tell me how to practice, or where, or for whom, or in any capacity. The role of government in this approach to care is strictly financial. Will they bung it up? Probably. They keep stealing from teh Medicare and Soc Sec trust funds to pay for trinkets. But it would work better than what we got.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

200 years is an extremely short time in the scheme of things. perhaps our memories are long, perhaps we hold dear the addage of "never forget lest history repeat itself". our forefathers learned hard, very hard lessons and left us strict instructions as to their view/concept of government. we simply do not become complacent in the governance of ourselves.

No, 200 year is not a long time* - but in the latest 200 years we have seen some extremely radical changes to the way we view individual rights as well as the way a government should be run. Perhaps as great changes in the last 200 years as in the last 2000.

What I also don't get, is the impression that one who is recieveing government financial help, such as health care or housing, is reciveing this complacantly, without any feeling of need to reprocicate and pay back. I am personally quite aware of why I pay my taxes. I have gotten a free education, including a stipend to live on, I can get the health care I need - but I am also quite aware I am paying for it.

And I'm paying for it because it allows me a freedom of life that I would not have had, have I had to save up to pay for all the things that is provided. I fell safe that whatever happens it is extremely unlikely I should end up on the street. I have a relatively short work week and can afford to pursue my hobbies and spend time with my family, as well as take a one to two week vacation every year. I'm not 'rich' but I have never been in 'need'. Compared to much of the world I feel quite pampered - but I am also paying for it, and I am engaged in politics because I want influence of this process.



*An example: While the 'wounds' are pretty much quite healed, 1864 is still a significant year in Danish history - a year that most Danes are still aware of in some capacity.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not where the competition is eliminated. This is EXACTLY the issue. The costs are out of control because of coercion, regulation and NO competition for the existing private corporations. A Public Option will correct that.

(sorry I know I said I wasn't going to post on this topic again, but when a moderator HORSEPUCKY's me.... )

Do you mind if I (tongue planted firmly in cheek) horsepucky you too?

In my opinion the health reform discussion has focused way too much on who is doing the paying and not on the root of the problem. The reality is that there are only so many doctors to go around. When my wife and I moved into the Portland, Oregon area we looked around for a family doctor and had a pretty hard time finding one. Most of the clinics we called were not accepting new patients - their case load was too heavy already. So there we are, in a suburb of a major city, with a good income and good insurance, unable to find a doctor.

When we were in the birthing class getting ready for our youngest's arrival, the nurse teaching the class told us that in southwest oregon (a very rural area) women were scheduling medically unneccessary C-sections. Why? There were no available obstetricians on-call. The only way they could make sure an obstetrician was present at their delivery was to schedule an unneeded surgical procedure. A single-payer system won't fix that.

We simply need more doctors, or we need to alter other aspects of our system to use doctors' time more effectively. The best single payer system in the world won't help if there's no one to provide the services.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

And whom pray tell do you think pays for that?

BOb

Those that work and pay taxes.

Are you saying that if we allow this health care package thru that will change?

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Those that work and pay taxes.

Are you saying that if we allow this health care package thru that will change?

Yes. See my post above.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Those that work and pay taxes.

Are you saying that if we allow this health care package thru that will change?

Yes, that is exactly the point of health care reform. To allow people that have no insurance now so they don't get ANY heath care done unless they get so sick they have no choice but to go the the ER, which is the MOST expensive provider of health care out there. If these people are going to Dr. and getting well care and getting preventive care then we all spend less money paying for an ER visit because someone's baby gets H1N1 or twists their ankle. Remember these are cost we all pay indirectly through large insurance premiums which are due to those uncovered visit which the hospitals have to pay for by overcharging those people that do have more money.

If everyone is able to contribute an amount they can afford based on their income and have access to well care there is more money coming in from the participants to spread the costs out among a larger poll of people.

BOb

[Ea]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Its the way its being done, Ea. From the time I (and every schoolchild) was a young, I was taught littering was bad. I was taught why it was bad. To this day.......I can't litter. And if I see a child at school litter..........they go pick it up. I don't care how old they are.

We didn't need a law to force us not to litter. Education served that purpose.

But now, laws are being passed forcing people to do something they most likely would do anyway if the information were out there, and there are alternate choices.

We don't like being forced.

That was not what I meant - how would you enforce such a law anyway? On second though, what I was primarily thinking of was laws that hits us in the pocket. Such as making TV's that consume an exessive amount of energy more expensive than energy effient ones - in this case in a state that has problem with producing enough electricity. As I think you are quite aware you can ask people 'please' but of course they don't. This is a way of enforcing it. And you can't tell me that having a large television is a 'right' Not compared to living, having a home, seeing your chilcren grow up, getting a good education

Here, energy is quite expensive beacuse of taxes. Thus people are cutting down on use, through upgrading, and if in new houses, installing much more energy efficient solutions. That, in the end, drives development of more energy efficient solutions as well as cuts down on CO2 pollution.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

You will please note that I have not at any time said that the government should tell me how to practice, or where, or for whom, or in any capacity. The role of government in this approach to care is strictly financial. Will they bung it up? Probably. They keep stealing from teh Medicare and Soc Sec trust funds to pay for trinkets. But it would work better than what we got.

Your thoughts are logical and well said, but you have way more faith in what the roll of government will be.

The simple fact that our legislators haven't read the bill, that no one knows what it will cost, and that no one can explain what it will or won't cover, is just too much for me to accept.

And to have a sitting president tell me that it will be passed regardless of what the country may want, is incredibly arrogant.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Ea

I don't quite understand you. Basically you are saying that yes, it is written into your bill of rights that you should fear a 200 year old - and out-dated - form of government because this is the kind of government you could get.

And honestly, you sound as if you're talking down to me as well. I am quite plainly bewildered. I my view, basic and preventive healthcare helps not only the ones recieving it, but one's country, people and nation as whole, as it as an entity stays healthier and more competitive.

Our form of government is not out-dated. It is still viable. The problem is the corruption of the original tennents by those who have come into power since the Constitution was written. Government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a solid form of government. Unfortunately, many of those in charge have forgotten this.

Originally Posted by pshrynk

The hospitals are required by law, that to participate in Medicare they have to have the no turn away policy. It stemmed from one point where corporate hospital systems were sending uninsured people to a county or charity hospital and keeping those with insurance or lots of money.

It was sort of like the insurance companies who turn away those with expensive illnesses or dump someone when they get an expensive illness. Health Care reform should, in my opinion, have at it's core the rquirement that insurance companies cannot do that, so that they are on the same playing field as the hospitals.

It should also have the public option. And please read this sentence very carefully: NOT to "dictate healthcare" but to have an affordable insurance ption for those who are unable to get insurance from an employer or on their own.

My reason for this is: Right now, Medical facilities have high prices because they must compensate for Medicare and Medicaid and uninsured patients. The insurance companies do not pay full fare, either. If everyone in the US had coverage to pay for medical care, everyone would, over time be paying basically the same price. Economics assures us of that. The lack of insurance for 45 million (or whatever) unisured patients going to ER's to get primary care is a huge driver for medical costs.

You will please note that I have not at any time said that the government should tell me how to practice, or where, or for whom, or in any capacity. The role of government in this approach to care is strictly financial. Will they bung it up? Probably. They keep stealing from teh Medicare and Soc Sec trust funds to pay for trinkets. But it would work better than what we got.

As you are an insider , your insight is very helpful. I worry that the new system would be open to all but ultimately paid for by the working class who are already baring the burden for so many other things. Having said that, if they could come up with a system that did not over burden the working class, gave everyone equal footing in the healthcare arena, and did not reduce the coverage that I (and my family) have in the current scheme, I would be all for it.

As it is, when my son turns 22 next July, he goes off our health insurance. Since he has had some trouble adjusting to college courses, he will be in school for another year (or two ) after that. It will coast me $270 per month for his healthcare. The government won't pick that up for me nor will he be able to get free healthcare through medicaid because he lives at home. Even though he does not have a job and is over 18, they still look at my husband's income to justify non-coverage. Mind you, I'm not complaining. It is what it is and we will make the payments, but no one is helping us out any. Why? Because we are the working class.