Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2012, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 6,293,835 times
Reputation: 1633

Advertisements

Anyone who is a net TAKER (Taxes paid - government benefits received < 0) should not be allowed to vote. Let those who actually pay for government decide how that government opperates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2012, 03:27 PM
 
4,255 posts, read 3,473,815 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
(Hopefully) the government option would be much less than the private option. If everyone is mandated to buy healthcare, the government should at least provide the option of not bankrupting oneself to obtain it.

The money still has to come from somewhere. The gvmt dosnt just "have" money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2012, 04:33 PM
 
2,674 posts, read 4,383,991 times
Reputation: 1576
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
The fact is that those on Medicare are very poor (at least they're supposed to be). The income limit on it is set at 75% of the federal poverty line, so $690 a month for a single adult. You can't expect those people to pay 20% co-pays or $1,000 deductibles.

Doctors (and other medical professionals) have a well-earned right to make a living, but they also have a duty to serve those who cannot afford their usual rates. If you look at old Catholic moral theology textbooks, you will read that doctors are sometimes obliged in conscience to offer their services for free; they presumably fulfill that duty today by taking on Medicaid patients.

I would favor an expansion to Medicaid that does have premiums, deductibles, and co-pays on a sliding scale. Minnesota has a program similar to this (MA-EPD); however, it requires that you be judged disabled. However, counting on somebody struggling to survive to pay deductibles or co-pays is not realistic.
Medicare doesn't have income limits, you're confusing it with medicaid.

Doctors provide a service, they in general are more caring than say a hedge fund manager, but they still have mortgages and employees to pay. That said, if medicare is made to be a money losing proposition, you will see fewer and fewer doctors accepting medicare as it would be tantamount to losing money on every patient you see.

This doesn't mean that medicare patients won't be see, but it will likely be in academic settings that have no prerogative to make a profit and not the local private doctor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2012, 04:48 PM
 
9,848 posts, read 8,268,003 times
Reputation: 3296
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
There should be a sliding scale where the working person can buy in to a new Medicaid category that is fully funded by the Federal government.
Wow, you think you are entitled to free stuff.
Are you working at all or enough to pay so much taxes that you can cover this or are you just day dreaming about the rest of us paying your bills?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2012, 04:51 PM
 
9,848 posts, read 8,268,003 times
Reputation: 3296
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post
Anyone who is a net TAKER (Taxes paid - government benefits received < 0) should not be allowed to vote. Let those who actually pay for government decide how that government opperates.
I know what you mean. That isn't Constitutional, but the way people vote themselves irresponsibly the treasury it makes sense.
At times it seems a tyranny of the majority and people these days are so classless in general they don't realize it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2012, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Duluth, Minnesota, USA
7,641 posts, read 18,085,270 times
Reputation: 6913
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyDay View Post
Medicare doesn't have income limits, you're confusing it with medicaid.

Doctors provide a service, they in general are more caring than say a hedge fund manager, but they still have mortgages and employees to pay. That said, if medicare is made to be a money losing proposition, you will see fewer and fewer doctors accepting medicare as it would be tantamount to losing money on every patient you see.

This doesn't mean that medicare patients won't be see, but it will likely be in academic settings that have no prerogative to make a profit and not the local private doctor.
I'm sorry, I meant Medicaid. I've been on it for over a year and still get it confused with Medicare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2012, 07:29 PM
 
4,538 posts, read 4,802,608 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
Wow, you think you are entitled to free stuff.
Are you working at all or enough to pay so much taxes that you can cover this or are you just day dreaming about the rest of us paying your bills?
Why don't you pay attention to my posts before commenting - do you see anywhere that I said 'free'?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 10:29 AM
 
4,538 posts, read 4,802,608 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375 View Post
The money still has to come from somewhere. The gvmt dosnt just "have" money.
The government does 'just have money' - it's called quantitative easing from the Fed - but that's another topic.

There is money to be made as a government run healthcare company - just look at the United CEO who drained over a billion dollars from the UCH coffers, and that company is still immensely profitable.

The government option could fund itself from payer premiums, and provide a lower cost option to payers who earn less than 100k.

This would leave the upper echelons for the private insurers, while helping to stem the on-going slide of the American middle class into poverty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:35 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top