Health Care

Looks like its going to be a huge debate over the next year.
How should Obama handle it?

Donald Williams wrote:Looks like its going to be a huge debate over the next year.
How should Obama handle it?

In my opinion, Obama should not handle it. Though it is increasingly clear that Health Care is large a problem within the United States, all the tells me is that the fifty states should step up their game and figure it out.

the resolution to this simple, stop Capitalism within healthcare! private companies should NOT, I repeat NOT have discretion over the sick and dying. our government makes no money off of these companies, nor are they involved. it's incredible to me how to a company such as Humana, or Preferred are allowed by the gov. to decide whether someone is sick enough to be covered, whether the technology that could save they're life is "too experimental" or even decide if someone is too young to have gotten some disease, rendering them unable to receive medical attention. I'm not bashing capitalism completely, I'm saying it DOES NOT work in every situation such as this. there should never ever ever ever be a debate over whether someone who is sick should be treated or not, despite any previous health concerns. Greed is what has enveloped our nation, and Healthcare a proud supporter. money is not more important than a single humans life and it's disgusting to know that it's the other way around in reality.

I agree with you on that one, psychoslayer. Many of the larger corporations in charge of healthcare do everything in their power to increase revenue for the sake of being money hordes as opposed to research for new treatment and development of procedures.

The US needs a radical change in the way it handles healthcare, and my only hope is that Obama stays true to his word and does in fact turn things around.

I'm about as anti-fascist as they come, but I mean....National Healthcare is not a socialist movement. that's the argument that's been used by many republicans and a few Democrats since the Cold War. It was a simple device that effectively stopped further reforms for national Healthcare, even stopped Mrs. Clinton. If countries such as Cuba, France, Britain and Canada have this type of healthcare in place and thrive, with above average healthy populations, no hospital:patient debt, and medical technology not even the US has, what real argument is there against it? The Tax increase used to cover Americans wouldn't be anywhere near what patients pay to insurance companies every year. I wouldn't blame Obama one bit if we didn't have an int'l healthcare plan by the end of his term simply because, both Democrats and Republicans and even the actual healthcare companies are willing to spend millions of dollars towards lobbying for a continued use of private healthcare.

It would be nice if we shared the same system the British have. They just pay a ton of taxes, but free healthcare with the ability to choose your own doctor, etc. At least, that's what I think what its like over there, but I don't pay too much attention.

The British Healthcare is run by the NHS, and is relatively low on taxes, in fact American income tax (which is not even constitutional) is two fold higher than the average Britains healthcare tax.

Yes, I think the health of a countries citizens should not be run as a business. Without citizens sacrificing themselves to work every single day is what makes a country stand on its feet.

I don't think any corrupt company has the right to tell me that my family doesn't qualify for health care

I don't think any company has the right to drop a person who has been paying for health care for years because they finally are in need of it.

And I will never stand my companies treating the health of an individual as mere dollars and cents.

I stand for Universal Health Care.

It can not be said that a Health Care system under the federal government would be in line with the consititution any more than a federal income tax. In as much as I do not agree that large corporations should ever be permitted to monopolize an industry as dire as Health Care, the federal government should not either. The solution to Health Care is currently being viewed by the Obama administration in much the same way the Clinton did in 1993, by taking a governmental stronghold on the issue. Now, while my personal feelings indicate that nationalized health care can't work because New York does not have the same health concerns as California, I also feel that it is empirically denied. Any kind of mandated health care based upon the employer/employee relationship poses the inevitable issue of disregarding the unemployed; this and the fact that it ultimately limits the choice of the individual as to where/to what extent they insure was a large part of the proposals defeat. Obama's plan is similar in that they would both significantly raise taxes on small business owners, the scapegoat of many of Obama's policies already. And just like Clinton, it puts the control of health care in the hands of the employer, limiting individual choices and the quality of care. I take the side of the 10th Amendment, the States have the right (and at the moment- obligation) to choose their individual health care policies.

Paradigm wrote:It would be nice if we shared the same system the British have. They just pay a ton of taxes, but free healthcare with the ability to choose your own doctor, etc. At least, that's what I think what its like over there, but I don't pay too much attention.

Their healthcare quality is fairly poor though.

But yeah, I support tax funded welfare programs.

Having health care by way of taxes only increases red tape. This is what will occur;

Currently, employers pay for the insurance premium and a portion of the coverage.
So 1. The government will increase taxes to subsidize Medicaid or Medicare. 2. They will mandate that employers insure with the subsidized industry or face a penalty. 3. Because the price of insuring with the Medicaid/Medicare for all of their employees is so much higher than just paying the penalty, then that is what they will do- giving the emplyees a fraction of the money they gave them before and telling them to go get their own insurance. 4. The employee (that is paying higher taxes for this) goes out and gets coverage, but now they hardly have enough money to cover even the premium and no money at all to cover the insurance. 5. The consumer is now paying higher taxes, their premium, and tha majority of their insurance.

This hurts small businesses because they are going to face the option of paying for the insurance, or paying the less expensive penalty, though the penalty is at their bottom line as well. Small businesses will suffer because they won't be able to hirer on those ten new innovative workers, or they won't be able to expand to that next location.

Ok, now explain to me WHERE in ANY of the Obama administrations rather shady, unresolved and not fully released plan for a reformed healthcare do the "small businesses" come into play? taxes paid by all citizens for their healthcare goes directly and only to the federal gov. and business owners are allowed the OPTION of taking a larger increase in taxes for government assisted healthcare for employees. They will not be forcing anyone to subsidize with this plan, and employees will have the OPTION of accepting insurance benefits, including current benefits or going ahead and taking an increase in taxes for federal coverage. Employers who accept this federally assisted healthcare can only benefit because the tax increase is nothing compared to the premiums they currently pay, and those who choose to keep their current benefit package will not be penalized for that action. and I'm only saying this out of what has been released of the plan, for all you or I know, there may very well be changes and businesses may suffer from penalties put in play after a fully drafted version of this new healthcare is established. we may both be completely wrong by the end of it, but do not say this will or will not happen for sure until the 1000 page printed draft currently in congress is condensed or expanded.

It's not a matter of small businesses paying higher taxes to the government through nationalized health care (that would be every general member of society), and it is not a matter of forcing citizens or small businees to subisidize (that would be the federal government) and it is not a matter of choosing whether or not they want to insure with their employer (it is a matter of choosing where they want to insure and for how much they would like to insure)- so perhaps I was unclear. You don't have the option of accepting an increase of taxes so that the federal government can nationalize health care. First, you should note that a good majority of employers currently pay their employees premiums; Second, the tax increase to cover what the President's plan is would have to be significant enough to substantially subsidize the industry, meaning that the partial cost of premiums being paid now wouls still be lower than the overall, longterm tax increase.

I do have to agree with you that we could both be totally in the dark about what is actually going to be passed.

I understand what you were saying, my entire rant was only partially aimed at you, not the whole thing, I was just filling people in on what you had left out. and yes, Obama openly admitted that this plan would cost a substantial amount of money, and in the long run will cost more to turn the cogs in the opposite direction of capitalism, but the average american will be paying less in taxes by the end of, say, 2015 than they had been paying to the premium increasing private companies who stand on a slick, and tediously shaky pedestal of greed and detachment of human emotion. I'm not sure about you, but I would rather pay a little more now for guaranteed coverage of any and all health problems, over continuing to pay inexorably higher rates to a company guaranteeing nothing more than a monthly bill and possible coverage. This plan cannot be examined only in financial loss, but in humane gain.

and yes, but that's the bittersweet truth of our system. A bill goes in harmless and comes out more destructive then before its original conception.

I gotcha, but I didn't really feel like I left anything out. Paying more for standardized coverage isn't the way I work. The majority of the problem now is not tedious coverage- it's lack of any coverage at all- this won't be solved by nationalized health care. As I previously stated, it ignores the growing number of unemployed in the US- and as far as human gain goes, they aren't gaining anything. A good idea would be to first put the states in charge of mandated health care, and then set up a series of regional clinics that would use people like med school students to help increase their knowledge, get credit hours, and help out with the basics before the problems can develop into anything worse. Then they deal with any more pertinent concerns with the state mandated health care, if it were to increase taxes then it would be 1. Constitutional and 2. Inevitably less than the federal gov't.

And that is a huge problem in politics, any intent- whether liberal or conservative- is often stifled by political expedience and gain, making it corrupt.

even your plan will call for dramatic tax increases. and you have no possible assumption as to how much it would cost for a plan like that to take effect. you're saying that in a biased sense with no evidence to back it up. and States couldn't afford a feat like that if they wanted to. even with assistance federally. I do like the idea of individual states being given sectioned power over the federal government controlling all of it, but it's harmful to both parties, therefore inconcievable in reality. if your plan were in the national newslight over international healthcare I would support it, but the fact of the matter is, it's not. and on the subject of constitutional viability, our government was revised from the original articles of confederation (giving states power over federal gov) for a reason. people are just as scared and suspicious of giving states' rights as they are federal rights, and a good lawyer can argue you into the ground over whether either plan is constitutional or not. I mean, people pay a tax every year that's legally unconstitutional.

agreed.

Just like you were stating that a tax increase for an expensive piece of legislation over a course of time would be less expensive than a premium- it lacks evidence. How is giving power to the states harmful to both parties, I would like to note that that makes no logical sense, it is the way it should be, it is empirically proven to work best. I definitely can not see why regional clinics would be financially inconcievable either, to set up a tent with some free labor ( that benefits all involved) sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

alright, draw there then. it's harmful to both parties because neither parties support state fronted legislation. there are small portions within the parties that do, generally they're more conservative but not enough to make a national impact yet. I would like to see them make one, but at the moment we can only wait and support. when you said clinic I figured you were talking about a fully functional clinic with the equipment to sustain any and all health emergencies. regional health clinics set up like the Red Cross have limited resources therefore would not serve the most efficient medical care. if giving power to the states is empirically proven to work best why is it the AofC were revised into our current constitution? the AofC were incredibly unpopular to the parties of the day and to all folk in general except of course the New England region.