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 07-26-2009, 10:43 PM
 
134 posts, read 231,497 times
Reputation: 65

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
I don't have an issue with everyone having insurance IF THEY WANT IT!

The current bill MANDATES insurance for everyone.

Do you think you, or the president, or congress, has the right to FORCE people to pay for something even if they feel they don't need it?
****FALSE. It does not MANDATE insurance for everyone. But make it accessible and affordable for EVERYONE. So if you want Insurance, even if you make min. wage at Walmart, you can. The problem isn't that people DON'T want insurance, it's that it is not affordable. We pay for those folks anyway. It's call the Emergency Room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2009, 06:51 AM
 
409 posts, read 1,459,390 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by db108108 View Post
There is no perfect health care system. Costs are increasingly exponentially, but especially in the United States. The only statistic that you really need to pay attention to is that 7% of health dollars in Canada go towards administration, while 31% in the US do. How do you explain that one, Republicans? Is that really defensible? The Democrats need to capitalize on that statistic - think of a commercial where a patient hands a $100 bill to a doctor, only to have a paper-pusher intercept it and rip off a third of it. So the patient has to cough up another $30. That's the key statistic.
It is interesting to note that the Canadian governmental (single payer) system is more efficient in terms of administration costs that the private U.S. systems. We often hear how inefficient government is and the risk of increasing the size of government (that it will turn into an out of control monster). There is so much waste in the U.S. system that it is silly. If you took control of that waste you could cover everybody in the U.S. without increasing the costs to those who are already insured.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2009, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,764 posts, read 39,731,146 times
Reputation: 8253
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmusica View Post
Health care should also cover only catastrophic situations beyond our control. The people who have low or no-deductable insurance are driving up prices for everyone else and helping to keep the uninsured uninsured. Deductables should be on a sliding scale across the board, based on income.

Ok, you had me till this ... we are a family of 5, we get yearly checkups and with 3 kids under the age of 10 ... well, if we only were covered for catastophic things (and who will define catastrophic ... ever wake up to a febrile seizure in a 3 year old? They're not necessarily life threatening, but I don't want to pay for the ER visit in full because someone deems them non-catastrophic ... been there, done that).

We have a 2K deductible through my husband's work health plan. We burn through that 2K in 6 months ... again, 3 kids ... my physicals and mammograms, his physicals, kids physicals and illnesses and injuries (my 9 year old is nursing a broken arm that requires us to visit a speicalized children's hosptial) ... you get the picture. We take care of ourselves as well we should .. an ounce of prevention! Are any of our health issues catastrophic? Well, it depends on who defines it. After we burn through the 2K, our insurance kicks into 80/20 mode ... we have to pay 20%.

So while I agree with you for the most part, the catastrophic care only is off the mark for most families. And you did hit the issue on the head with insurance companies piggy ways ... we're on the same page!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2009, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,764 posts, read 39,731,146 times
Reputation: 8253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Derf View Post
It is interesting to note that the Canadian governmental (single payer) system is more efficient in terms of administration costs that the private U.S. systems. We often hear how inefficient government is and the risk of increasing the size of government (that it will turn into an out of control monster). There is so much waste in the U.S. system that it is silly. If you took control of that waste you could cover everybody in the U.S. without increasing the costs to those who are already insured.
See, this is what I've been whining about since day 1 and now it seems that the media is picking up on it. Woo hoooo!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2009, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,764 posts, read 39,731,146 times
Reputation: 8253
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Side Houston View Post
****FALSE. It does not MANDATE insurance for everyone. But make it accessible and affordable for EVERYONE. So if you want Insurance, even if you make min. wage at Walmart, you can. The problem isn't that people DON'T want insurance, it's that it is not affordable. We pay for those folks anyway. It's call the Emergency Room.
Wal-Mart is actually praying each and everyday that gov't run healthcare comes to fruition!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2009, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,939,084 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Side Houston View Post
****FALSE. It does not MANDATE insurance for everyone. But make it accessible and affordable for EVERYONE. So if you want Insurance, even if you make min. wage at Walmart, you can. The problem isn't that people DON'T want insurance, it's that it is not affordable. We pay for those folks anyway. It's call the Emergency Room.
You might want to take a look at Title IV of the bill, which is headed "Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986". I believe it starts on page 167. (As an aside, I wonder how many of those supporting this bill have read that far.)

When you get there, you'll find this nifty little subheading;
Quote:
SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
An excerpt from section 401;
Quote:
TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified insection 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
So now the government is going to tell us what is acceptable health care, and is going to tax us if we don't purchase health care that it deems acceptable.
What country is this?

Last edited by Bill Keegan; 07-27-2009 at 08:43 AM.. Reason: Font & quote issues
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2009, 08:30 AM
 
409 posts, read 1,459,390 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
So now the government is going to tell us what is acceptable health care, and is going to tax us if we don't purchase health care that it deems acceptable.
What country is this?
Paying taxes is not a bad thing so long as you get value for your money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2009, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,939,084 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Derf View Post
Paying taxes is not a bad thing so long as you get value for your money.
Agreed.
Being taxed as a penalty for not purchasing health insurance deemed acceptable by the federal government is a bad thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2009, 09:18 AM
 
409 posts, read 1,459,390 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
Agreed.
Being taxed as a penalty for not purchasing health insurance deemed acceptable by the federal government is a bad thing.
Presumably you would gain acceptable coverage by paying the tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2009, 09:24 AM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,150,071 times
Reputation: 5941
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennySquirrel View Post
Here, this is what we have to look forward to.


YouTube - A Short Course in Brain Surgery
Here is what WE have now:

Huge profits by the FOR-PROFIT (not Health) Insurance business.


Americans, even those WITH HEALTH INSURANCE going broke, because of disease or accidents.

THAT is what Republicans WANT!

They want to destroy everyone but the wealthy who they worship as their god.
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 01:06 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