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.
so you are o.k. with the gov't increasing the income tax at least 10% to pay for this right??? across the board increase, not just the rich...
But then, you still will have to choose healthcare coverage, either from the gov't or employer or other private options, because it will be mandatory. So let's say another 5% of your income for premiums. Are you willing to do this?
If you are asking if I'd choose it over the current US system, yes. However, I think that we can do even better in the United States. I've told you before, my first option for health care reform would be John Conyers' bill H.R. 676 and H.R. 3200 is my second choice as long as it has the Kucinich amendment and the public option in it.
The WHO says so. If you think I'm going to take the word of some right-wing lunatic on the internet over a credible worldwide organization, you've got another thing comming.
No, you take the word of left wing lunatics at WHO.
My wife, who at the time she signed the policy was 22 and healthy, had a plan that cost around $90. But she had to pay $30 co-pay per doctor visit and she only got 3 per year. She had to pay $100 co-pay to go to the ER, and when she went we had to pay out of pocket for a good portion of the $1,700 bill anyway: lying bastards! I honestly don't remember what her deductible was. I think it was like $1,500. They also had some stupid rules about things they wouldn't cover. For example, If we had concieved a baby less than 6 months after signing the policy, we would have had to pay for all of it out of our pocket. In other words, the insurance company needs to get in your wallet before they'll cover you for a baby. I guess from a business perspective, this is a smart idea because they don't want to be paying for something that expensive if they haven't recieved alot of money first. Good business= insured paying thousands of dollars out of pocket to have a baby. This is a perfect example of why I think business and health care don't mix.
You want to trash the insurance company for not paying this and that and claiming they lied.
You probably just didn't read your policy to see what actually was and wasn't covered.
If you think their rules were 'stupid' you should have bought a different policy.
Like blaming Ford because your Mustang won't fly you to Paris.
No, you take the word of left wing lunatics at WHO.
This is a perfect example of why I call some right wingers right wing lunatics. When I cite a credible source, and the WHO is widely recognized as one in the field of political science, you suggest that it has no credibility. Do you actually think I, or anyone for that matter, am going to take the word of someone spewing his/her extreme right wing views mixed with a little GOP party line propaganda speech over a well respected international organization such as the WHO? The WHO has done extensive studies to come up with the rankings that put our health care system at #37. ( by the way, this study was done in 2000 when we had only 38 million uninsured; we now have 47 million and therefore we'd probably be even lower than #37 today) Then some right wing fanatic says " no we've got the best health care system in the world" and gives no critical analysis to back his/her claim up.
no its not. There are even plenty of insurance companies that won't even cover a pregnancy in which conception occurs less than 6 months after the purchase of a plan.
During the past decade the top 1% have tripled their wealth and now have as much as the remaining 99%. By simply removing the cap on the wage tax and allowing them to pay it at the same rate as commoners do there would be a surplus.
'Commoners', eh? lol
Well how bout this?
The lower 50% of wage earners (commoners to you) pay $0 income tax each year.
Many of them even come out ahead, paying $0 income tax AND getting more back besides. It's called EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit).
Many of those don't even wait till the end of the year, they get it IN ADVANCE in their paychecks. Advance Earned Income Tax Credit Questions and Answers (http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96515,00.html - broken link)
So I think that the 'commoners' come out pretty good, all told.
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.
I guess from a business perspective, this is a smart idea because they don't want to be paying for something that expensive if they haven't recieved alot of money first. Good business= insured paying thousands of dollars out of pocket to have a baby. This is a perfect example of why I think business and health care don't mix.