2 ideas on healthcare

Originally posted by sh76
$49/month is free, for all intents and purposes (unless you mean per person; then a big family would have to pay a significant amount).

If it's based on means and only low income people would be eligible, then all the government is really talking about is relaxing the Medicaid requirements. If that's really all they're talking about then it won't solve the p ...[text shortened]... to referrals. So, really, what's the point?

Either do it right or don't do it at all.

You're being disingenous; there's a lot more to the proposals than merely the public health insurance plan.

People should be able to get health insurance, period. If all they can afford is $49 a month, then that's all they should be asked to pay.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes. People pay National Insurance. It's a tax.

I see nothing wrong with people paying an affordable premium.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being disingenous; there's a lot more to the proposals than merely the public health insurance plan.

Okay; so educate me. What's the difference between expanding Medicaid and providing health insurance for those who can't afford to pay premiums?

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; so educate me. What's the difference between expanding Medicaid and providing health insurance for those who can't afford to pay premiums?

I have no idea what you are talking about. How does a public health insurance plan where the participants pay an affordable premium = "expanding Medicaid"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see nothing wrong with people paying an affordable premium.

What part of that didn't you understand?

I was referring to not having to pay when you get treatment - being "free" in that sense. Of course there is National Insurance. People who can afford private treatment still pay the NI. People who are too poor to pay NI, don't.

Originally posted by FMF
I was referring to not having to pay when you get treatment - being "free" in that sense. Of course there is National Insurance. People who can afford private treatment still pay the NI. People who are too poor to pay NI, don't.

I understand all that. But just because the UK does it a certain way, doesn't mean there aren't other ways to do it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I understand all that. But just because the UK does it a certain way, doesn't mean there aren't other ways to do it.

Well I certainly have not been championing the U.K. system. I simply brought it up because some of the Americans here, not you of course, seem to claim that universal health care is 'impossible', sometimes for what seem like clutching-at-straws reasons, despite the fact that versions of such a system exist throughout the industrialized world. One poster even refused to consider European models, for instance, because apparently Europe is an orange whereas the U.S. is an apple, and that is that.

Originally posted by FMF
Well I certainly have not been championing the U.K. system. I simply brought it up because some of the Americans here, not you of course, seem to claim that universal health care is 'impossible', sometimes for what seem like clutching-at-straws reasons, despite the fact that versions of such a system exist throughout the industrialized world. One poster even ref ...[text shortened]... stance, because apparently Europe is an orange whereas the U.S. is an apple, and that is that.

My personal preference would be for a single payer system akin to Canada's. But that's just not politically possible in the US in 2009.

In general the people in the US without health insurance just can't afford the premiums that private insurance costs which run into the thousands of dollars yearly. The government could tax and transfer enough money to them to pay the private premiums, but that gives the private companies no incentive to cut costs. A competing public health insurance system funded at least in part by reasonable, affordable premiums would put downward pressure on health care costs.

EDIT: The right wingers here are way out of touch with public sentiment. Americans support universal health care by a wide margin. To wit:

In a poll taken earlier this year by Lake Research, 73% of respondents favored a health plan that gives them the choice between a private plan or a public health insurance plan. Only 15% preferred to have only the choice of a private plan. And the preference for a choice between public and private health insurance plans extends across all demographic and partisan groups, including Democrats (77😵, Independents (79😵 and Republicans (63😵.

In fact, this is one of the most popular parts of President Obama's health care reform proposal -- which a Diageo/Hot Line poll found last week had overall support of 62% of the voters.

What's more, private health insurance companies are very unpopular. Only 7% of Americans say they trust private health insurance companies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/four-reasons-why-giving-c_b_216070.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
In a poll taken earlier this year by Lake Research, 73% of respondents favored a health plan that gives them the choice between a private plan or a public health insurance plan. Only 15% preferred to have only the choice of a private plan. And the preference for a choice between public and private health insurance plans extends across all demographic and partisan groups, including Democrats (77% ), Independents (79% ) and Republicans (63% ).

Is that the way they asked the question?

"Do you want to have the choice of public or private insurance or do you not want to only have the choice between private insurers?"

"Do you want to be able to choose between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream or do you want to be forced to choose vanilla ice cream?"

Originally posted by sh76
Is that the way they asked the question?

"Do you want to have the choice of public or private insurance or do you not want to only have the choice between private insurers?"

"Do you want to be able to choose between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream or do you want to be forced to choose vanilla ice cream?"

Vanilla ice cream, which only 7% are happy with, is the only choice you seem to want to give them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Vanilla ice cream, which only 7% are happy with, is the only choice you seem to want to give them.

Come up with a proposal wherein the chocolate ice cream doesn't cost them $12/cone in taxes and where they don't have to wait 5 months between the time they're hungry and the time they get the ice cream and I'll consider it.

Edit: This ice cream business aside, all I meant was that I'd like to see how those questions were actually worded, because if they were worded how the article seems to indicate they were, the results are borderline worthless.

Originally posted by sh76
Come up with a proposal wherein the chocolate ice cream doesn't cost them $12/cone in taxes and where they don't have to wait 5 months between the time they're hungry and the time they get the ice cream and I'll consider it.

Edit: This ice cream business aside, all I meant was that I'd like to see how those questions were actually worded, because if they were worded how the article seems to indicate they were, the results are borderline worthless.

Your opinion of worthlessness is, of course, worthless.

Unlike you, most Americans are tired of a health care system that costs far more than any other system in the world and delivers unsatisfactory results. The poll makes clear what other polls have said for more than 50 years; the American public want universal health care and don't want it run by the private insurance companies.

I feel the pain of the pampered upper middle class, but if I have to wait 5 months for an elective surgery rather than having some working class kid die from a treatable illness because his parents couldn't afford health care, I'll deal with it. Sorry you can't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your opinion of worthlessness is, of course, worthless.

Unlike you, most Americans are tired of a health care system that costs far more than any other system in the world and delivers unsatisfactory results. The poll makes clear what other polls have said for more than 50 years; the American public want universal health care and don't want ...[text shortened]... illness because his parents couldn't afford health care, I'll deal with it. Sorry you can't.

thats more of that left wing propaganda. You give me a case of a case of a working class kid dieing from a treatable disease because his parents could not afford it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your opinion of worthlessness is, of course, worthless.

Unlike you, most Americans are tired of a health care system that costs far more than any other system in the world and delivers unsatisfactory results. The poll makes clear what other polls have said for more than 50 years; the American public want universal health care and don't want ...[text shortened]... illness because his parents couldn't afford health care, I'll deal with it. Sorry you can't.

Whatever.

Again, you ignore my point about the survey's language and come back with a typical, par-for-the-course, couple of insults to go along with your usual serving of sanctimony.

I'll respond again when you make a point that's relevant to my point.

Originally posted by sh76
Come up with a proposal wherein the chocolate ice cream doesn't cost them $12/cone in taxes and where they don't have to wait 5 months between the time they're hungry and the time they get the ice cream and I'll consider it.

Edit: This ice cream business aside, all I meant was that I'd like to see how those questions were actually worded, because if they were worded how the article seems to indicate they were, the results are borderline worthless.

Part of the problem is that you have only 100 scoops of chocolate on hand and 500 people want it. No matter what "universal ice cream plan" you propose, 400 of these people won't be able to get chocolate - at least not now.

The free market approach raises the price of chocolate until only 100 people are willing/able to pay that price. An alternative is to ensure that everyone can afford to pay for the chocolate, but make 400 of these people wait.

Or else we can find ways to greatly increase the production of chocolate so that there will be enough for everyone.