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.
I for one would be very interested in seeing more detail of the public/private plan models that the business executives and politicians are now pushing as a consensus to try to keep America competitive. Certainly not to suggest there are not details that would need to be worked through, but that clearly seems to be the right direction to head in.
Thank you -
So, in your opinion, and if you were in charge, how much would be OK for someone to pay for a co-pay? 10/20/40/100?
And, how about deductibles - for instance, I have a $5,000 deductible plan - is that too much? Too little?
Should taxpayers subsidize illegal immigrants having health insurance?
Should taxpayers subsidize someone having a baby?
And, would you, inasmuch as you are "in charge" allow people to totally opt out of your NHC program?
There are much too many numbers being thrown around here. Both sides have some good points, but none can be completely verified or quantified. But, really it doesn't matter. The point is that income redistribution, by taking from some to give to others, is unconstitutional and against the principles that the founders intended. No matter how one sugar-coats it, universal healthcare is a socialistic step toward more government intervention in the lives of U.S. citizens, providing more power for politicians and bureaucrats. If other governments want to take this step, they are destined to fail as this snowball continues to roll downhill, growing to the point of fascism and ultimately to communism.
There are much too many numbers being thrown around here. Both sides have some good points, but none can be completely verified or quantified. But, really it doesn't matter. The point is that income redistribution, by taking from some to give to others, is unconstitutional and against the principles that the founders intended. No matter how one sugar-coats it, universal healthcare is a socialistic step toward more government intervention in the lives of U.S. citizens, providing more power for politicians and bureaucrats. If other governments want to take this step, they are destined to fail as this snowball continues to roll downhill, growing to the point of fascism and ultimately to communism.
YES!!!!
But a lot of people aren't that concerned,it is more important to force all to pay.
From a purely philosophical point of view, I believe national health care should be provided as disaster insurance only. By this I mean all expenses over $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 per family would be covered 100% that year. The deductible would apply each year, regardless of continuing medical need.
Private insurance could be bought to cover the amount below the deductible, and this could be a lowered threshold, coinsurance or any other product the free market comes up with as a viable alternative. You would also have the option of not purchasing the private insurance, and just paying the deductible yourself.
But a lot of people aren't that concerned,it is more important to force all to pay.
Thus the reason that true fiscal conservatives will continue to have a much harder time being elected to public office. It's now come to a point where people only listen to politicians to see how much they are planning on giving to them. How popular can a candidate be if he supports everyone being held responsible for their own actions and depending less on the government. Though Ron Paul supports these principles, sadly he wouldn't have the support he does if not for his anti-war stance.
From a purely philosophical point of view, I believe national health care should be provided as disaster insurance only. By this I mean all expenses over $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 per family would be covered 100% that year. The deductible would apply each year, regardless of continuing medical need.
Private insurance could be bought to cover the amount below the deductible, and this could be a lowered threshold, coinsurance or any other product the free market comes up with as a viable alternative. You would also have the option of not purchasing the private insurance, and just paying the deductible yourself.
From a purely philosophical point of view, I believe national health care should be provided as disaster insurance only. By this I mean all expenses over $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 per family would be covered 100% that year. The deductible would apply each year, regardless of continuing medical need.
Private insurance could be bought to cover the amount below the deductible, and this could be a lowered threshold, coinsurance or any other product the free market comes up with as a viable alternative. You would also have the option of not purchasing the private insurance, and just paying the deductible yourself.
In theory, we kind of have that now. Someone who has a disaster and is not covered, becomes unemployed, and once they are unemployed they would be covered by disability, thereby usually qualifying for medicaid..
Note, in theory it should work but because it takes a year to get disability, it rarely works as it should.
You still have income redistribution today, the billing rate for medical procedures is partially built upon the lack of payments by those unable or unwilling to fund their received medical procedures. The unreimbursed costs are built into an overhead pool account and redistributed at the end of the year to build next year's billing rate. That is one reason medical cost per procedure is so outlandish today.
Thus the reason that true fiscal conservatives will continue to have a much harder time being elected to public office. It's now come to a point where people only listen to politicians to see how much they are planning on giving to them. How popular can a candidate be if he supports everyone being held responsible for their own actions and depending less on the government. Though Ron Paul supports these principles, sadly he wouldn't have the support he does if not for his anti-war stance.
What is ironic is that many of the inidividuals pushing hardest to reform health care now are the small private business owners and Company Executives, many of whom I am sure consider themselves hard working conservatives. They just can't keep up any more. I am all for individual responsibility and hard work. But I don't want to pay for the health care system inefficiency and profiteering. That is conservative thinking, I think.
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.
