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.
IMO, you can throw the whole "people have a right" discussion out with the wash. All that does is create a lot of ideological mudslinging BS back and forth.
My concern is much more pragmatic, and something that most conservatives should be onboard with - if they thought it through. It is difficult enough to compete in a global market without the artificial burden of a broken health care system put on the backs of American businesses.
It is killing the economy and making US jobs disappear. And this is just the beginning. Wait a few more years.
Anybody for status quo is going to kill us as a viable global power.
PS saw pgquests last entry. Most of these businesses have no unions. It is not a union issue. Intel, Qwest, small businesses across America -no unions. Yet they still ask for assistance from the government to solve this crisis.
See the bolded statement above.. Oh wow, that's it the debate is over, we should go to socialized medicine right now...
True. They just end up going out of business. Point is they are all saying they can't keep going the way they are and function in the United States competitively. Large businesses and small businesses. Employer assistance is the backbone of the entire health care system.
As you suggest, some are dropping health care...which then puts more of the burden on the remainder. For most midsize and larger companies they have to offer health care as part of the benefits package or qualified candidates are going to work for somebody else.
I'm stating I dont have the answer, never claimed to have the answer.. I'm simply question if national healthcare is the solution.
No one has explained how nationalizing healthcare would lower the amount spent on healthcare by the average american ($10,000 a year), nor has anyone explained how nationalizing it lowers this figure without cutting coverage.
People complain left and right about the current private system because insurance companies denies coverages for certain proceedures but national healthcare still means that the private insurance companies oversee your care, someone tell me how this changes?
I can only see the next debate, hospitals and doctors offices in financial trouble because the government then dictates 100% of what they get paid. What then? Are we going to privatize hospitals, then put doctors onto the federal payroll?
Until I get some answers to, what I consider very valid questions, I will continue to be against any taking over of a privately run enterprise. I continue to believe that you do not move because your roof springs a leak.. you fix the system. Yeah, if your roof is collapsing you consider starting over, but is the roof collapsing or does the leak need fixed?
thats a good thing, provided people stop the name calling and simply discuss the issue at hand. I think we're all civil adults but the name calling of some does little to support an argument.
If there is no consensus then the choice is EXTREMELY EASY. Those who want to go into a socialized program by the government can opt-in to a program where their salary is reduced by a certain percentage. Those who don't want to go into a socialized program can continue with their privatized insurance program WITHOUT paying into the socialized program. The socialized program can ONLY pay what they have from the contributions of those who opt-in and not touch any monies from other taxes or collections. All the employers can give those two options to the employees.. Simple solution. I am fine with that as it allows me a CHOICE in the matter instead of being forced I don't want... Everyone will be insured through this program...
If there is no consensus then the choice is EXTREMELY EASY. Those who want to go into a socialized program by the government can opt-in to a program where their salary is reduced by a certain percentage. Those who don't want to go into a socialized program can continue with their privatized insurance program WITHOUT paying into the socialized program. The socialized program can ONLY pay what they have from the contributions of those who opt-in and not touch any monies from other taxes or collections. All the employers can give those two options to the employees.. Simple solution. I am fine with that as it allows me a CHOICE in the matter instead of being forced I don't want... Everyone will be insured through this program...
People want that with Social Security.. we're not allowed to opt out..
One interesting aspect of this debate - lack of guaranteed, fully-paid health care for kids probably increases America's abortion rate relative to other developed countries. America has long had a higher rate than countries in Europe, or Japan. Part of the reason may be that, if you have a kid in America, you have to consider the cost of that kid's health care. What happens if the kid is autistic, or has cancer, or needs any sort of special medical treatment? Even WITH coverage, deductibles and uncovered expenses can put you in the poorhouse. So, it's easier just to abort.
This is actually a rising concern as prenatal screening gets better. If you are pregnant with a child that you KNOW will probably require a half-million dollars worth of care before his 5th birthday, what else can you do?
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.
