Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wait until the "company health perk" dries up. millions will then suddenly be crying out for UHC. Pity it is going to take the illness and unnecessary deaths of "richer America" to spur on the Health Service, but that is what's going to happen. Same thing with oil. It has taken the rising cost and "pain" at the pumps and travel and high prices of goods, for the American people to suddenly realise there is a problem. The same will happen with health care.
For everyone's information, the Connecticut program is based on a sliding-scale payment system based on your annual wage and compared to the poverty level. The amount is $250 per person at poverty level and scales upward with higher wages. The problem I see is that, those in poverty will continue NOT to buy the insurance "until something happens". Unless Connecticut is making it mandatory that everyone gets insured and PROVE it, people won't do it. It is similar to car insurance, people choose not to pay for it and there is no "Prove it" system in place other than getting caught. Once they are caught, they buy it and show up to court and get a lower fine... then they let it lapse again. Connecticut's program is not a socialized program so I approve of it. State's should be managing their own health care system for their own residents. California should not be knocking on the doors of the residents of Alabama and ask for more money to pay for their illegal immigrants. It doesn't solve their illegal immigration problem or their continued problem with providing them with health care (as illegal immigrants will keep coming to California - you can thank the Federal government for that).
As for Social Security it was PROMISED that only 2% would go to social security... they broke that promise and now its 15%... it was NEVER a retirement plan and people are in denial still that it is... It is still NOT a retirement plan and there are NO plans in making it into a retirement plan.. why? Cause the government can't dip into it and use it for their own purposes... Those who support Social Security are more afraid of losing what they put in there as well as those depending on it in the future... they are an irrational group of people who don't realize that if you are 40+ you can STILL depend on it, that's why attempts to abolish isn't as easy, their irrational fear that it won't be there when it easily CAN be...The young people paying into it can easily set up their own retirement plan... an actual REAL retirement plan but can't when 15% of their income is siphoned off for insurance instead of a retirement plan... that's a scam but the government doesn't want to lose its piggy bank and their fearmongering stops any attempt of fix for it... even Obama is suggesting INCREASING the 15% and increasing its effect by stealing more money from other people... fearmongering instead of fixing it by getting rid of it and replacing it with a REAL retirement plan and not insurance... Democrats love it because it increases the money they can use for SOMETHING else (their private piggy bank) instead of retirement... thanks... no thanks.... people need to brighten up a bit about the truth of social security... you want retirement income? Get a retirement plan... I don't know ANY company that sells retirement insurance except the federal government and making it mandatory that you pay for it... but then its nice to have automatic deposits into your piggy bank isn't it...
Effective July 1st Connecticut will begin a program to make affordable health insurance to the states 400,000 residents without it. Called 'Universal' the so called 'Charter Oak Health Plan' was a compromise between the republican Governor and veto proof house and Senate Democrats.
It is both private and government run, Payment will be based on household income- a 'sliding scale' with a maximum of $250 for those up to 300% of poverty. Some will be pay as little as nothing to $75 a month.
Deductibles per year max out at $600 for those at the top of the income scale.
Average deductible will be about $200 per year. $10 co pay for generics, $15 for other drugs. 1 million dollar maximum. Lab tests etc- 20% co pay. No cost for emergency room visits.
We shall see how this hybrid plan between the Government and private sector works. It will be administered by the DSS (Dept of Social Services) DSS: Connecticut's Charter Oak Health Plan
That's sad, liberals can't wait to ruin our great country.
To reduce the wait times at city ERs we should have free clinics nearby to handle the non-emergency need of the uninsured.
I think an entirely government run health insurance system would cost less than any system with private insurance companies involved. Government do not need to make a profit to remain operating and this reduces the cost.
You can not possibly think that the gov can be more efficient then the private sector.
Government is the most inefficient organization out there.
MA's healthcare spending is already out of budget and getting out of control.
Profit spurs innovation which in turn spurs new treatment, people seem to forget that. If there is no profit in the medical industry, there is not going to be any innovation for creating new treatments.
Healthcare costs are expensive now because of the government. From the inept HMOs to the lack of tort reform to the FDA which is an administered joke are causing the huge rises in health cost. My doctor pays $10k a month for insurance, who you think that gets passed along to?
Now yes, I admit drug companies are making excessive profit on their products, but the key word is "their products" they invested in them, they developed them, the products would not be around if it was not for them and in the end, it is their product, no more than if you made something in your house that someone should be allowed to tell you what to sell it for.
I personally think it is unethical and disgusting for people to make excessive profits on the well being of humans, but no one can regulate it or legislate it, it is just something that happens and always will happen.
Government is very inefficient, anything the gov does the private sector can do better. That has been proven time and time again and is in progress now of being proven.
Now? It's always been this way. Social Security was at the brink in the 70's and 80's and the solution was to bump us up to 15.3% tax rate for something that isn't going to be around. (FYI: SS started at 2%)
If they can't handle Social Security, which is pretty straight forward, what makes you think they can handle healthcare?
The problem with SS is that the government doesn't just earmark that money for SS and rather uses to spend on other things. Of coruse if health care should become Universal then it needs to be that the money is spent ONLY on the peoples healthcare PERIOD.
I grew up in Michigan. I lived in Oregon. In Oregon, the entire attitude toward medicine was different. I gave you an example of it. You call that "a personal choice". That's what culture is-- many, many personal choices individuals make that are popular in an area.
What do you think culture is but personal choices? Again.. I am not saying THAT is not cultural.. BUT it is not cultural based on what region of the U.S you live in.. Becasue here in NY and in other states I'm sure you'd find people who feel that way and I'm sure you'l l find people who DO go to the Dr. a lot in Oregan. It has NOTHING to do with where you live in hte U.S!! There are plent of people here in NY that feel the same way as you do about going to the Dr. and they don't live or come from Oregon. That was my point.
But, if 60% of one state prefers not to go to the doctor, but 60% of another state prefers to go to the doctor, why would you oppress either with a system that's suited to one group's preferences more than the other?
That's the thing about freedom... It's the right to make a decision the next person doesn't approve of.
Well.. you conveniently left out the rest of that statement that talks a bout WHO pays for someone else's "decision" to be underinsured.....WE the rest of the people do when treatments go unpaid for and the cost gets passed on to the rest of us.
That will never happen. Ever. You will get the health care of the poor and the middle class will be further eliminated and, because of the 70% taxes we'll be paying, moving up will be impossible... and the current powerholders who are making promises to you will get exactly what they want: power solidified.
All you are talking about is just "fear".. period. The system works in many countries that are at the top of the list of some of the BEST healthcare systems in the World. The richest nation in the world, and the most powerful.. which is us.. ranks pretty pathetically on that list. Britian has it AND they ALSO have PRIVATE health insurance that supplements their UNIVERSAL shoudl they feel that their UNIVERSAL health coverage isn't adequate. They have PLENTY of choices.. and they still have poor, middle class, upper middle and the wealthy people as well.
My argument, from start to finish, is for a level of freedom. What is yours? That people shouldn't have freedom? That state of Florida is unable to make a decision without you? That, somehow, when you bring in Texas and California, Florida will be better off because decisions are out of their direct hands?
I just don't understand you socialists. I just don't understand how you look at the world and say "I'm smarter than you. You will do as I say."... For what? Because your husband has a job... Christ...
First of all..let's stick to ONE subject.... healthcare.. because i"m not talking about suddenly having EVERY thing we do determined by a central government and eliminate states individual governing.. You are assuming that is what Iwant.. and you couldn't be more wrong..
But let's face it here.. the healthcare system in the U.S is atrocious.
And if being a socialist means that I am compassionate enough to feel that everyone deserves to have their health covered so that they can continue to live.. and simply because they are a secretary or a store clerk makes them less deserving of good healthcare than a CEO... then I guess I am a socialist and proud of it. Most people who cant see or understand the argument are either rich and can already afford everything they ever need and are blessed that way... or are middle class and THINK they are NOT and are upper middle or rich.. alot of the arguments against it are all based on fear.. fear that someone is going to get something they don't deserve.. adn by that i mean that the schlump on the couch that doesn't work will get healthcare while the rest of us work to pay for it.. but I will say it again.. THEY ALREADY ARE!! The wealthy can pay for anything they want by themselves.. the poor get everything for free.. and the middle class work their proverbial butts off and will never be able to afford what they need to afford.. healthcare as it costs today.
And probably this won't come about in the very near future.. it's on the forefront because of a Presidential election.. but every time it does come up.. it becomes more and more important to address.. because more and more people are finding themselves in trouble with being underinsured, uninsured (because they can't afford the premiums) and so on . As the cost keeps rising astronomically many employers, in order to compete in a global market, will start to cut benefits..and cutting what is covered and isn't.. and then more and more peoples eyes will be opened to how broken and disfunctional the system is.
Hehehehe... you ask the uninsured how much they can afford to pay a premium... the answer? ZERO dollars... they are asking someone else to pay for their premium as well as any medical treatment or drugs... in return you get... nothing...
In return you get a health service for everybody, that includes your whole family ( Granny too ) without pre conditions and you can also afford private health care if you so wish for much less than you are paying now. Simple economics if you like to put it that way. To say the private sector is better than the govt in funding and running companies. Is that why so many private hospitals are having huge problems, A&E going bankrupt and people dying unnecesarily when their ambulances are being redirected because of FULL A&E depts.
Perhaps, but it gets back to the issue of income tax rates being skewed to be higher for those wealthier. In Connecticut that might not be much of an issue, but in states with great progressivity in their rates, such as California or Ohio, this might be more of a problem.
newto I think this is more equitable than what's currently happening though. This is upfront, and allows people of lesser means to afford healthcare. Whats been going on is all or nothing situations, where a cold becomes pneumonia, requiring hospitalization they can't pay, which in turn gets passed off onto the state or higher rates for all people who do have insurance walking into the ER.
Healthcare is still an insurance policy. It's not carte blanche. The tax liabilities you've currently been paying through passed along costs back to the state might mean the overall tax burden goes down. Something for you to take up with the individual state I think.
Hehehehe... you ask the uninsured how much they can afford to pay a premium... the answer? ZERO dollars... they are asking someone else to pay for their premium as well as any medical treatment or drugs... in return you get... nothing...
Thats just an assumption.. have you actually ASKED someone uninsured what they can pay.. NO.. you are just assuming that someone wants a free ride!! Give me a break. If you asked ANY of those that don't have insurance or have inadequate insurance what they could afford theyd tell you a realistic number.. but the reason they don't have it is because they can't afford it period.
And before anyone gives me the BS about they can and just choose not to.. it's BS.. becasue the only people that are choosng NOT to have insurance are the young and foolish who think they are immune and nothing bad could happen to them!
This whole argument is pointless really.. we've argued it to nauseum on other posts.. and quite frankly we get nowhere. .
The bottom line is this..thos eafraid ofa Universal Plan don't want anything to change.. but their "way" of healthcare just isnt' working folks!! PERIOD!! They staunchly defend a flawed system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
