[Vikonbarius]

Hillarycare, OJ in jail again? Is it really 1994 again?

[fhutiussk]

Crap she still doesn't have the balls to deal with the insurance companies, but we have the dough to pay them off?

[antipenq]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


she had the balls, so to speak, she didnt have the votes.

Shes learned that politics is the art of the possible.

Who else has a plan thats better? California SB 840 by Sen. Shiela Kuehl
Here's an overview. LINK

[snunsebrugs]

Why should everyone be forced to have health insurance?

[Gasfghj]

Tax and spend.

Good to see the democrats returning to their roots.


Anybody got stats on how many people die each year because of the lack of insurance today?

[shodulsilfeli]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Why should everyone be forced to have health insurance? People without health insurance get sicker and sicker until they are forced to go to an emergency room.

Emergency room care is the most expensive care there is.

Since uninsured can almost never afford to pay for their emergency room care, the cost is foisted off on the rest of us. About 1/3 of health insurance premiums is used to pay for the care of the uninsured.

Even this money is often not enough to pay hospitals for the emergency room care. More and more emergeny rooms are being closed down because of massive financial losses.

I hope this news doesn't give you a heart attacked because, who knows, maybe your local emergency room has closed down.

[duminyricky]

My local emergency room has not shut down. In fact, the local hospital has just come out in oposition to a new hospital being proposed. They state that there is more than enough capacity. Additionally, the hospital just announced record profits.

Hmmm....perhaps this is not the problem we have been led to believe?

Got stats on how many people have died because there is no emergency room?

It sure sounds like private health care is finding a way to pay the costs through the setting of premiums. Why should the government get involved?

Finally, the requirement for carrying insurance with respect to the requirement for carrying automobile insurance. First...states set the requirement for insurance...not the federal government. Second, the requirement is for liability insurance. There is no requirement to cover your own vehicle. A very poor analogy designed to sway the weak minded.

[enfoires]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It sure sounds like private health care is finding a way to pay the costs through the setting of premiums. Why should the government get involved?

The government is involved. Everyone that goes to an emergency room has to be treated! Regardless of ability to pay. So we already have universal health care.

Now why do we want the government to control another $110 billion of our money?

It is all about control folks. If you really want Big Brother....

[AttableBewNaw]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo
I'm skeptical about mandates until we know that the program is keeping costs down and subsidies high enough (MA had to revise its subsidy).

So you, like Cali, dont understand the moral hazard issue? Sorry, thats harsh, but I thought wed been over this.


But it looks like a decent enough plan, very similar to Edwards'. Better than I expected.

The key to all three plans is that they include a public health insurance component, and therefore a path to single payer.

Im not sure thats the most crucial aspect.

I could live with any of the three plans. They're much better than Richardson's univeral health care without rolling back the Bush tax cuts or Giuliani's universal health care by a fixed tax deduction independent of income.

The question, though, becomes which of the three are most willing to fight for the important parts of the plan (i.e. a public health insurance). Needless to say, I'm the most skeptical of Clinton's committment.

And needless to say, I see no basis for that.

[Kemapreedasse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Won't that mean that prices for everyone else go up? Taxes my man. Where do you think they will get the $110 billion?

And that is just the "projected amount". Once Uncle Sam gets ahold of it, then it will soon make social security look like a minor expenditure. The dems will, of course, claim that the rich should bear the burden for the good of society. Soon, the redistribution of income will be complete. Then, guess what? No more venture capital and the US becomes a second rate country. But you can get a free flu shot!

[WebDocMan]

Originally posted by PLATO

Taxes my man. Where do you think they will get the $110 billion?
Wait a minute. You're telling me that the US is going to spend a further $110,000,000,000 on this scheme? Don't you already have cash problems? Where will this money come from?

It's not possible to treat the market economy as some sort of source of infinite wealth - it just doesn't work that way. You usually end up making things worse than they were before, by screwing up something you didn't know would be affected in the way it was. It's like trying to perform brain surgery with a hammer and sickle.

Originally posted by PLATO

And that is just the "projected amount". Once Uncle Sam gets ahold of it, then it will soon make social security look like a minor expenditure.
Who did the financial analysis? Was it a proper bunch of impartial economists, or was it semi-partial bureaucrats, or was it a set of completely biased party hacks? A lot depends on who projected this figure.

[Elitiachirl]

When it comes to the upcoming US election, my support for Ron Paul grows with every statement made by everyone else.

[S.T.D.]

I trust the insurance industry to screw me over however it can.

[Piediahef]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Because it's done horribly at the moment? A lot of poor folks don't have insurance coverage and the US spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country.

And yes, it is about control. I'd rather have the government regulating the insurance industry tightly than giving them a relative free hand. I trust the government more than the insurance industry (I don't know anyone that actually does trust the insurance industry, actually). Regulation is far different from government control.

The US spend more per capita because we have the best facilities in the world. All brought to you by private enterprise.

I am interested on what any Canadians and British might have to say about government health care. ????

[LoloLibia]

Originally posted by Aeson
I should add that I also trust the government to screw me over however it can... just that I also trust they are significantly more incompetent at doing so.
Hahahaha


"I am from the government...I am here to help"

Love your country...fear your governmrnt.

[jarsbars]

Originally posted by PLATO


Regulation is far different from government control.

The US spend more per capita because we have the best facilities in the world. All brought to you by private enterprise.

I am interested on what any Canadians and British might have to say about government health care. ???? yeah, look at the huge movement in Canada to drop national health insurance. WTF?

[casinobonuswer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You may be disappointed . While the Brits like to complain about the NHS, they overwhelming prefer it to our system of private insurance companies.

Just looking for info. Not prejudging their systems. However, any plan that requires a new outlay of $110 billion better be a damn good one.

And you are saying the US spends so much because the people who can actually afford things are paying for super expensive procedures while people who can't pay get nothing except when they have an emergency situation? So good health care is only for the rich?

If you have ever been to an emergency room then you will know that the vast majority of people in there (both with and without insurance) are not experiencing actual emergencies. Also, your county has a local health department that will already provide a significant amount of free non-emergency care for low income people. Noone needing treatment is denied due to inability to pay...that is already the law.


And the Democrat plans are far from government control. None of the main candidates have called for a single payer system.

The dems plan is NOT that far from government control. It is the beginning of shifting the health care system from private funding to government funding. Everyone knows that where the funding comes from is where the control actually is.

[ViagraFeller]

Originally posted by aneeshm


"Underlying most opposition to the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

Imran, most economists who support the free market do so precisely because they do not trust the individual agents that constitute it. aneeshm the current US system is hardly a "free market" product. Its a product of years of institutional inertia and layers of govt regulations of various types.

First, most people historically havent bought their own insurance, theyve gotten it from employers. This was orginally during WW2, when govt wage controls were in place, and employers, hungry for labor, tried to get around them with free benefits. Its been preserved by the inertia of union contracts, and by govt tax incentives. Some firms in industries whose work forces have shrunk, now face massive legacy costs for retiree insurance. Thats a crisis on its own. We have govt provided health insurance for the elderly and the poor - that you get if it youre poor, but lose it when youre not poor, is a disincentive effect. We also have a nascent program for kids. We have laws that require hospital ERs to take people who are uninsured, which results in abuses and major costs. In response to the sad stories of people who cant get insured cause of pre-existing conditons, we have laws requiring an employer who offers insurance to cover pre-existing conditions of new employees, subject to some very complex caveats. Due to horror stories about HMOs and levels of care, we have laws regulating HMOS.

All in all its a giant, expensive regulatory nightmare right now. Not some beautiful Adam Smithian free market.

[Asianunta]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


US is already becoming a 2nd rate country...

JM

[sbgctsa]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


and who's paying for that NOW? Or do you beleive in a free lunch? insured individuals by paying market based premiums


...did you just choose not to read my earlier post? Free lunch? Who said anything about that?