What would you like to see in health care reform?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gift_from_God

Guest
Greetings from the Great White North

Without producing any hate, tell me if you would support health care if it looked like this;
  1. Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
  2. Taxpayer money will not cover abortion
  3. You don’t personally pay health bills, just prescriptions
  4. Since Americans already pay among the lowest taxes in the developed world, they can live with them heightened just a little bit.
  5. The rich should be taxed more because they aren’t going to miss na extra few percent and the lower and middle class are taxed less.
Tell me what you think and if you’re against it, tell me why.
 
Gift_from_God said:
Greetings from the Great White North

Without producing any hate, tell me if you would support health care if it looked like this;
  1. Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
  2. Taxpayer money will not cover abortion
  3. You don’t personally pay health bills, just prescriptions
  4. Since Americans already pay among the lowest taxes in the developed world, they can live with them heightened just a little bit.
  5. The rich should be taxed more because they aren’t going to miss na extra few percent and the lower and middle class are taxed less.
Tell me what you think and if you’re against it, tell me why.
Click to expand...
Hey I’d be all for it.

but I’m afraid that here in the former colonies, too many people still have the frontier mentality on this issue. Any form of governmental intervention — nyet! And if you for economic or bodily reasons can’t stand on your own two feet — too bad!!!

I’m not seeing anything resembling Christianity in many of the objections to HCR on the forum.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
BTW GFG:

Just out of curiosity: How do the conditions you describe compare with what exists in your own country?

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
I don’t think it will ever be fiscally responsible to have people generally pay nothing for their health care. Really, if you are not too poor to be able to do so, I think you should pay a percentage of your health care costs. The only way to truly balance the need for care with the avoidance of unneeded care, is for each person to know what things cost, and have some personal stake in keeping costs lower.

And no solution that has the federal government in charge of health care decisions will ever be something I am in favor of. The US is by far too large for that ever to work efficiently. I mean, I’ve lived in the UK, and theoretically I was eligible for NI coverage (I had the NI card and everything) but I never could get added to a doctor’s books because I couldn’t find one that was accepting new patients. Fortunately, I didn’t get sick, but I had to give up on dental care as well, since the only way I could get a cleaning was to go to the dental school.

And I’m not sure that “a little bit” is the amount taxes would be higher. I was talking to a Canadian co-worker once who said he wasn’t bothering to work extra to get a promotion, because the government would take such a large part of it that it wouldn’t be worth it. What happens when you tax the “rich” (defined by some as anyone who makes more than 75K a year, which in some parts of the country is about enough to live in a one-bedroom apartment with a very cheap car) too disproportionately, is that people work less hard, because it’s not worth it to work more, and the country produces less. The your tax base shrinks, and you have to raise taxes again, this time probably for everyone, because your increased taxes are now bringing in about the same money as you were getting before with the lower rates.

If I thought it would work with a country our size, and if it included a conscience clause for health care professionals, and did not cover expensive elective reproductive services (like in vitro) or cosmetic surgery, I wouldn’t be against it particularly.

It’s not that I want poor people to have to do without needed health care. But I think that there is a much better way to ensure that, than having the government take over health care. And while I agree that basic health care should be available to everyone, I’m not sure I feel the same about all health care. For example, does every person really have a right to, say, $500,000 in health care in a year? When in other countries $500,000 could provide health care and food for several villages for quite a while? And not only that, but the people who worked hard for the money had to do without a lot of stuff because they had to pay so much in taxes?

I’m just unconvinced.

–Jen
 
Gift_from_God said:
Greetings from the Great White North

Without producing any hate, tell me if you would support health care if it looked like this;
  1. Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
  2. Taxpayer money will not cover abortion
  3. You don’t personally pay health bills, just prescriptions
  4. Since Americans already pay among the lowest taxes in the developed world, they can live with them heightened just a little bit.
  5. The rich should be taxed more because they aren’t going to miss na extra few percent and the lower and middle class are taxed less.
Tell me what you think and if you’re against it, tell me why.
Click to expand...
  1. Yes
  2. Given
  3. Impossible
  4. NOPE
  5. HECK NO
    If this were the extent of the package (or even just the first two) no.
I think the system should be based at the state level, if MA wants socialized, let them have it… Also, let each state enact the system in steps, so that the effect of the various pieces can be noted and corrected for.

All the federal government should do is : apply the existing anti-trust laws to insurance companies and open the market opened across state lines.

Within any given system real health care reform needs to happen (not just an insurance fix), including a heavy emphasis on preventive care (Higher rates for smoking? Sure. Other risky behaviors? Yup! I would actually go so far as to support a vice/luxury tax on high fructose sweeteners, fast food, frying oil, etc. (yes, knowing it would be passed on to consumers). The money raised from such a tax would go toward funding Medicaid/Medicare. Tighter restrictions on food stamps (only cover necessary food items, nothing subject to above tax).

I oppose no-copay plans because they favor irresponsibility. If we were all paying via taxes, a <$50 copay would help prevent hypochondriacs from sinking the system. If we controlled the costs in the markets, then having a copay generally lowers your premium or deductible.

As far as wealth redistribution through the progressive tax, this is fundamentally unjust (as in it denies justice and the equal right to private property). A consumption tax is far more reasonable (particularly a small luxury tax), as it allows anyone to avoid the burden by living frugally. Currently the poor don’t pay taxes, they tend to end up with a net benefit from the gov., the really rich pay most of the taxes, ala Marx.

Beyond those ideas there is the possibility of: health cooperatives, expanding HSA’s, small business and individual pools, penalizing ER abuse, etc.
 
Why the need to put “without producing any hate” on there? I’d like to see tort reform and sanctity of life attended to first. I seems to me the haters are those who think they know better than the average American what’s good for them.
 
Gift_from_God said:
Greetings from the Great White North

Without producing any hate, tell me if you would support health care if it looked like this;
  1. Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.No
  2. Taxpayer money will not cover abortion Yes
  3. You don’t personally pay health bills, just prescriptions No
  4. Since Americans already pay among the lowest taxes in the developed world, they can live with them heightened just a little bit.** What’s “just a little bit”?**
  5. The rich should be taxed more because they aren’t going to miss na extra few percent and the lower and middle class are taxed less. More than what? Less than what?
Tell me what you think and if you’re against it, tell me why.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with #1 because it encourages people to not get insurance until they want someone else to pay for it. Then they get insurance, essentially robbing those who have exercised responsibility by paying premiums when they didn’t need the care.

I don’t see the distinction in #3. Costs are costs. I think, at minimum, people should have to pay a portion, at least, of their own healthcare costs and certainly of their insurance costs. The exceptions being those with no ability at all to provide healthcare for themselves, (the truly poor) or who can provide very little of it (a lot of the elderly). Without having a stake in their own care, people will (and do, under all free programs) overutilize care.

Re #5. I’m not rich myself, but I am totally against raising the taxes of those who have earned it in order to provide a benefit to those who have not and who do not really need it. I also have a problem with defining what are really “high earners” as “the rich”. Small business people and farmers often have very high incomes, little of which is actually discretionary. If we’re going to “level the playing field” between people in the high end of the middle class (or whose business costs are high) and those on the low and middle portions, why stop with medical care? Everybody needs automobiles. Everybody needs food. Everybody needs clothing. Everybody needs heat for their homes and gasoline for their cars. Everybody needs education.

These discussions often remind me of the Amish; some of whom live around here. I have seen them in the doctor’s office. They do go to the doctor. They pay in cash; greenbacks, first having negotiated the amount of payment. The doctors’ offices will negotiate because there is no hassle with insurance or the government. No endless forms. Just a receipt. Frankly, for a $100 routine office visit, I would prefer that people (except the truly poor) have to pay it themselves. Amish people are not “high earners”. What they are is “low discretionary spenders”. They also help each other. And it works for them.

We can’t all be like the Amish, but I think people should accept some responsibility for their own care, and not expect someone else to pay for them just because they don’t want to pay. Most people can pay for a goodly part of it.
 
Gift_from_God said:
Greetings from the Great White North

Without producing any hate, tell me if you would support health care if it looked like this;
  1. Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
  2. Taxpayer money will not cover abortion
  3. You don’t personally pay health bills, just prescriptions
  4. Since Americans already pay among the lowest taxes in the developed world, they can live with them heightened just a little bit.
  5. The rich should be taxed more because they aren’t going to miss na extra few percent and the lower and middle class are taxed less.
Tell me what you think and if you’re against it, tell me why.
Click to expand...
  1. To make a law saying that insurance companies cannot deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions is to put those companies out of business. When you have a pre-existing condition, all parties (you, the doctor, the insurance companies) know exactly what you need for medical care and what it will cost to provide. This ceases to make it insurance and simply a cost for you. If you want the insurance company to pay your medical bills at this point, you will have to pay for all your health care costs plus administrative fees plus a profit, so that would do you no good. Asking companies to go out of business to provide you healthcare would be as unethical as you not getting healthcare or going bankrupt to pay for it because thousands of people (not just CEOs) would be out of jobs. I agree with the poster who said that the better solution would be to open insurance sales across state borders to encourage competition.
  2. Nothing in life is free. If you are not paying for it, someone else is, and why should they pay for your bills? And someone is going to determine what bills you incur? If people go to the doctor for free, they will go for every little thing. Then someone will have to step in and start telling people what is and is not acceptable for someone to go to the doctor for. Instead of encouraging a healthy lifestyle, people will just run to the doctor when something goes wrong. In addition, people grow to be afraid of pain and death. Because they get the “easy” fix at no cost whenever they want it, they will expect to be healed from anything. This will encourage unethical medical practices, such as stem cell research.
  3. Americans pay the lowest taxes because we are the last country that is not socialist. We are also one of the most productive countries. The two go hand in hand, but I believe a poster has addressed this already. We like it this way.
  4. The burden of paying taxes should not be loaded onto the rich alone. Like other posters, I am not personally rich, nor do I intend to become rich. However, when you cease to allow people to reach their full economic potential, they will not. For those who are motivated by money, give them their reward. And ultimately, the rich are the ones who create jobs and economic growth, which will eventually come around to those who are not determined to be “rich.” In addition, it seems that these taxes are imposed as a “penalty” on people for making a lot of money, or on their employers to giving them high wages. It is not immoral to be rich - especially if you make an honest attempt to give to others. It is immoral to squash people’s dreams and stifle creativity and personal growth.
 
Gift_from_God said:
Greetings from the Great White North

Without producing any hate, tell me if you would support health care if it looked like this;
  1. Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
  2. Taxpayer money will not cover abortion
  3. You don’t personally pay health bills, just prescriptions
  4. Since Americans already pay among the lowest taxes in the developed world, they can live with them heightened just a little bit.
  5. The rich should be taxed more because they aren’t going to miss na extra few percent and the lower and middle class are taxed less.
Tell me what you think and if you’re against it, tell me why.
Click to expand...
Have a brother-in-law in Montreal, who I just visited over Christmas. He works as a department manager in a local supermarket with a modest salary. He paid over $5,000 in taxes to Canada & over $6,000 to Ontario. Healthcare in Canada is not free & not only the rich are footing the bill. All Canadians are getting taxed to death. I would rather pay a around $2,000 in taxes in the U.S. on the same salary & buy my own health insurance. Also, the economies of California & New York are in terrible shape, while they have some of the highest taxes in the U.S. How is it that states with low taxes or no state tax seem to do better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top