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 05-05-2017, 04:08 AM
 
9,911 posts, read 7,695,383 times
Reputation: 2494

Advertisements

For example have a tier of various insurances that are transparent and have various cost to them. In addition to, on some of these insurances can build your own insurance plan of what is covered and how much deductible is. In addition to, adjustable Medicaid. Adjusted insurance for individuals living below liveable income levels in their State. Public insurance covers percentage of care. With this can go to any health care facility in any State and receive care. The Doctor and facility determine the cost. The cost is told upfront to you. Can then shop around and see how much would be with the percentage covered by your insurance company. Also tax credits for individuals enrolled in this plan if they join a gym, don't smoke for six month's, have an annual physical, and so forth.

Also the State buys generic medication to distribute it to area hospitals at low prices. Government ends pharmaceutical patents, less red tape regarding medication a provider can prescribe, and bust up pharmaceutical monopolies.

Government ends patent on medical supplies and equipment as well.

2% national tax for individuals and 4% tax for businesses to help fund these plans. Tax rebate for Americans who opt out of Government insurance.

End mandates on businesses regarding health insurance.

Allow more places to establish and offer to the public to join Health Savings Accounts.

Legalize marijuana nationally. Excess tax on marijuanna, cigarettes, and alcohol to fund Universal Mental and Substance Abuse Care at Non-Profit or Public health facilities. Decriminalize heroin and set up safe zones to use. Use money from fines regarding heroin to help fund mental health and substance abuse service's.

National tax to provide Universal Healthcare to Active Military member's & their families, for individuals 70 & older (Can sipplement with private Insurances), Veteran's at VA facilities, 50% discount for National Guard & Reserve Members, and Disabled.

Tax for Catostriphic Healthcare.

Tax for Universal Cancer Treatment.

Public insurance offers no restrictions on sexual orientation, marriage, or reproductive male/female rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2017, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,020 posts, read 14,198,297 times
Reputation: 16747
:-:-: Why Tax Payer Subsidized Health Care Is Dangerous :-:-:

Although governments instituted to secure endowed rights are acceptable, allowing governments to impose the obligation to pay for the health care of others is not.

There are a host of reasons why it is dangerous and a threat to liberty.

Once government controls healthcare, not only does it have the literal power of life and death, it has the power to impose obedience to the dictates of that system. Obviously, if one participates in such a healthcare system but refuses therapy, won’t take medications, is uncooperative and thus wastes time and resources, it could be a criminal if not civil offense. It certainly may result in the loss of future services. And what about second opinions? Or third opinions? Isn’t that also a waste of public resources? Say good-bye to liberty.

On the opposite spectrum, what happens when the individual’s illness imposes a cost that is greater than what the bureaucracy will allocate? Shunting such patients to a hospice to comfortably die is not what most people would think of as benevolent universal health care.

There is one other aspect that no advocate of national health care wishes to consider - the self sacrifice for loved ones. It is not an uncommon practice for a family to sacrifice in order to care for a sickly member. In some instances, a sickly child will consume far more time, resources, and attention than the other healthy children. The parents and other family members willingly give up far more than what a bureaucrat would designate as “equitable.” In short, national health care is heartless, cold, and driven by budgets.

Before Socialism and government meddling, many private charities operated health care facilities, staffed by those who willingly chose a life of service to others. Frankly, I prefer to be cared for by selfless individuals than well paid professionals. Nor should we expect exemplary service from the lowest paid professional.

In short, national health care will be a boon to the bureaucrat, the politician, and the tax collector, but a curse upon the people stuck with the bill, and the patients who suffer under it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 07:19 AM
 
8,081 posts, read 6,957,002 times
Reputation: 7983
We tried this and the mouth breathers were afraid of death panels and government hands. Obamacare would've worked better with the public option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Formerly New England now Texas!
1,708 posts, read 1,098,877 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Why doesn't the Government create insurance to make private insurances more competitive....
Done already. The U.S. provides Medicare, and the states provide Medicaid, CHIP and SCHIP. There is also the federal VA, and federal policies given to government employees. If anything the federal and state governments are by far the largest insurers.

Would you like a VA policy? People die in waiting rooms at the VA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 08:03 AM
 
8,081 posts, read 6,957,002 times
Reputation: 7983
Quote:
Originally Posted by functionofx View Post
Done already. The U.S. provides Medicare, and the states provide Medicaid, CHIP and SCHIP. There is also the federal VA, and federal policies given to government employees. If anything the federal and state governments are by far the largest insurers.

Would you like a VA policy? People die in waiting rooms at the VA.
I think Medicare is a better analogy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 08:27 AM
 
9,911 posts, read 7,695,383 times
Reputation: 2494
Quote:
Originally Posted by functionofx View Post
Done already. The U.S. provides Medicare, and the states provide Medicaid, CHIP and SCHIP. There is also the federal VA, and federal policies given to government employees. If anything the federal and state governments are by far the largest insurers.

Would you like a VA policy? People die in waiting rooms at the VA.
This is for certain populations of people in the U.S. We are talking about an open market of various insurances that the Givernent has created. It's transparent with what coverages it covers and percentage of treatment it covers. Also allows you to build your own insurance plan to fit your needs. Governments only intervention is funding the plans via your deductions, copayments, and taxes. The Government has little say what or what treatment cab receive. Your care is laid out in front of you

Also taxes would better fund the VA and military in regards to universal care.

Taxes would fund universal healthcare for those 70 and over eliminating the need for Medicare. This insurance can be supplemented with private insurances and individuals 70 & older stop paying taxes into this program. Plus with patents done away with more options for generic medications. With the State buying generic medications and distributing them to hospitals encourages non generic medications to lower cost to be competitive. Medication will be more affordable to all.


With facilities and Doctors having more of a say in care takes power away from the Government and Insurances when it comes to your health.

Saying to someone need to work less to be eligible for Medicaid would be done away with. Instead States would have adjustable Medicaid for all based on size of household and income. Your deductible be adjusted based off income. With a various tiers of insurances from all inclusive to a basic/shell insurance.

Taxes for catastrophic care and cancer treatment would ensure people can be able to utilize treatments to save their lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Formerly New England now Texas!
1,708 posts, read 1,098,877 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64 View Post
I think Medicare is a better analogy.
Really? Medicare doesn't cover glasses. Covers 80% of most doctor appointments, many drugs are not on a Medicare-D formulary and it is very hard to get an off formulary medication due to Obama Medicare rules (Medicare has been cut to help Obamacare). Medicare won't pre-approve anything, you are left to guess is a service is covered. Get too many blood tests in a period defined by Medicare, and you get the whole bill.

Deductibles for hospital stays are high. There are Medigap plans, but these cost several hundred dollars a month. They do not help with the donut hole or with Medicare D at all.

Medicare does not cover glasses, does not cover dental.

The donut hole, was "declared" closed by Obama, but still exists. It's about $6,500 this year. If you use more than a few drugs, you'll enter the donut hole and 50% increasing to 70% or 75% over time of your drug costs will be covered. You'll need to pony up $6,500 if you require expensive drugs.

Sound like a plan for you? Note, abortion, pre-natal care, not covered. Seniors are beyond child bearing age. This is the plan you'd impose on all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Formerly New England now Texas!
1,708 posts, read 1,098,877 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
This is for certain populations of people in the U.S. We are talking about an open market of various insurances that the Givernent has created. It's transparent with what coverages it covers and percentage of treatment it covers. Also allows you to build your own insurance plan to fit your needs. Governments only intervention is funding the plans via your deductions, copayments, and taxes. The Government has little say what or what treatment cab receive. Your care is laid out in front of you

Also taxes would better fund the VA and military in regards to universal care.

Taxes would fund universal healthcare for those 70 and over eliminating the need for Medicare. This insurance can be supplemented with private insurances and individuals 70 & older stop paying taxes into this program. Plus with patents done away with more options for generic medications. With the State buying generic medications and distributing them to hospitals encourages non generic medications to lower cost to be competitive. Medication will be more affordable to all.


With facilities and Doctors having more of a say in care takes power away from the Government and Insurances when it comes to your health.

Saying to someone need to work less to be eligible for Medicaid would be done away with. Instead States would have adjustable Medicaid for all based on size of household and income. Your deductible be adjusted based off income. With a various tiers of insurances from all inclusive to a basic/shell insurance.

Taxes for catastrophic care and cancer treatment would ensure people can be able to utilize treatments to save their lives.
My home planet is often referred to as Earth, sometimes informally Terra. What is the name of your planet? It seems so different. In case you didn't notice, socialized care takes away doctors discretion and hands it over to non-medical doctors. Every service a doctor provides must be coded, doctors are punished or can not use a non-networked patent file system. This means small offices really can't exist, as the vast majority of doctors are not IT experts. Doctors must farm our 30-40% of their gross income to companies or groups which they affiliate with to manage coding and mandated IT.

Off brand use of a drug, not covered. Many drugs, not covered. Doctor says get a muscle relaxant, turns out not to be found in some Medicare D plans. Doctors are hamstrung with Medicare, most won't touch Medicaid.

Your planet sounds so very different from mine, is the atmosphere mostly Tetrahydrocannabinol? On my planet it's mostly just nitrogen and oxygen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 11:38 PM
 
8,081 posts, read 6,957,002 times
Reputation: 7983
Quote:
Originally Posted by functionofx View Post
Really? Medicare doesn't cover glasses. Covers 80% of most doctor appointments, many drugs are not on a Medicare-D formulary and it is very hard to get an off formulary medication due to Obama Medicare rules (Medicare has been cut to help Obamacare). Medicare won't pre-approve anything, you are left to guess is a service is covered. Get too many blood tests in a period defined by Medicare, and you get the whole bill.

Deductibles for hospital stays are high. There are Medigap plans, but these cost several hundred dollars a month. They do not help with the donut hole or with Medicare D at all.

Medicare does not cover glasses, does not cover dental.

The donut hole, was "declared" closed by Obama, but still exists. It's about $6,500 this year. If you use more than a few drugs, you'll enter the donut hole and 50% increasing to 70% or 75% over time of your drug costs will be covered. You'll need to pony up $6,500 if you require expensive drugs.

Sound like a plan for you? Note, abortion, pre-natal care, not covered. Seniors are beyond child bearing age. This is the plan you'd impose on all?
Some sort of cheap public option offering the basics would be ideal while being able purchase private insurance for extras.

I think ACA would've done a lot better if public option was part of the package. But alas we met Sarah Palin that year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2017, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Formerly New England now Texas!
1,708 posts, read 1,098,877 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64 View Post
Some sort of cheap public option offering the basics would be ideal while being able purchase private insurance for extras.

I think ACA would've done a lot better if public option was part of the package. But alas we met Sarah Palin that year.
So Medicaid for all, with optional user paid upgrades? Maybe.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 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