[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Originally Posted by Jolie

I guess vitriol is in the eye of the beholder. I find CRNA's posts refreshingly honest.

But not based on fact. At least the ones I've read so far.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

what costs the consumer more? Profit to insurance companies? Or waste, fraud, and abuse by the Federal Governement. Need we be reminded of the $600 hammer or the $900 toilet seat? What cheap shots are you referring too? Or is that one of the left's typical diversionary tactics when you cannot stand by your ideas with facts?

You're the one using diversionary tactics. Strawman arguments get you nowhere.

Now. Can you tell us what your objections are to single-payor national health insurance?

[Alois Wolf]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

Source for doubling/trebling our taxes if a universal or single-payer plan is enacted. Thanks.

I guess this would be a good time to find sources for my info too.

Income Gap

National Debt

Social Security/Medicare going Bankrupt

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

Please tell me who is more selfish. Those who continually pay a greater burden of the taxes in this country or those who continually reap those taxes without contributing to them?

Just to clarify your post here... are you saying that only those who pay taxes should reap the benefits from those taxes?

Careful

[oldiebutgoodie]

Well, throughout this debate we are talking about single payor.

I think that one issue is that health insurance is basically linked to employment, which is a bad idea.

So, how can we "unlink" it?

1. National Health insurance
2. Give it all to the free market, and let everybody duke it out.
3. Maybe set up groups that aren't based on employers? What about groups underwritten per state?

Frankly, I'm not nuts about National Health Insurance, or the free market. If somehow groups could be underwritten that aren't linked to employment, that would spread out the risk. Unfortunately, I am not a policy wonk, so this is about as far as I go...

Interesting debate, however.

Oldiebutgoodie

[Alois Wolf]

I have a question.

Are insurance companies on the private or public market (can I buy stock in... say... Aetna)? And would it help if they were public if they aren't... would it hurt if they were made private? This is just a question for my general knowledge and to add a new facet to the debate.

[pickledpepperRN]

Here is a recent article about Aetna shareholders

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...24102007-1.htm

[Alois Wolf]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Here is a recent article about Aetna shareholders

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...24102007-1.htm

Oh my... I guess now would be a nice time to change over to another plan that I'm offered at my job.

[steelcityrn]

Insurance companies and pharmacutical companies are a business, in it to make a profit. They are all listed with the dow jones, you can buy stock in them. They will never be in the business to lose money, or provide services as a non profit. The future will continue to push more and more people without coverage r/t cost. This country has to change the way healthcare is provided. Im sure we can take what is being done in Canada and improve on it. Record profits are being reported everyday in the medical field. Of, course you can see some smaller hospitals not doing well, but they usually get obtained by some giant, and then profits start rolling in again. I have met many patients unable to pay for cancer treatments, yet record profits are being made to tx cancer. Its time for a change.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Originally Posted by oldiebutgoodie

Well, throughout this debate we are talking about single payor.

I think that one issue is that health insurance is basically linked to employment, which is a bad idea.

So, how can we "unlink" it?

1. National Health insurance
2. Give it all to the free market, and let everybody duke it out.
3. Maybe set up groups that aren't based on employers? What about groups underwritten per state?

Frankly, I'm not nuts about National Health Insurance, or the free market. If somehow groups could be underwritten that aren't linked to employment, that would spread out the risk. Unfortunately, I am not a policy wonk, so this is about as far as I go...

Interesting debate, however.

Oldiebutgoodie

Something like what Romney did in Massachusetts ?

Key Details of the Bill

by Vikki Valentine
NPR.org, April 5, 2006 · Legislators say that by providing every Massachusetts resident with health insurance, the costs of health care are actually lowered.
For instance, the way the system works now, employers who offer insurance also have to pick up part of the tab for the cost of care for the uninsured at hospitals. By having more employers provide insurance, and having fewer uninsured people, these costs to employers go down. Analysts also say that adding more healthy people -- who use less care -- into the insurance system keeps deductibles and premiums down for all.


A look at how the bill would affect employers and individuals:


Individuals
As of July 1, 2007, all individuals must have coverage.


-- Those below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (about $38,500 for a family of three), but not eligible for Medicaid, will have their private insurance plans subsidized at a sliding-scale rate.


-- Children whose families earn below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will be given free coverage through Medicaid.


-- Individuals with incomes below the FPL ($9,600) will have premiums waived on private insurance. (Currently most childless adults, no matter what their income, are not eligible for coverage under the state's Medicaid plan.)


-- Those who can afford insurance will be increasingly penalized for not buying coverage. In the first year, they'll lose their state personal income tax exemption.


-- Family coverage will be extended to cover young adults up to the age of 25.


-- Allows the use of "health savings accounts" with cheaper high-deductible "catastrophic" coverage plans. HSAs allow consumers to invest money and withdraw it "tax free" to cover health-care costs.


Businesses
All employers who have more than 10 employees must contribute to employee health-care costs.


-- Employers who don't provide insurance will pay an annual fee of $295 per full-time employee.


-- Encourages private insurers to offer more low-cost options.


-- Creates a "health insurance connector" to help individuals and businesses find affordable private coverage.

Health Care for Everyone?
We've found a way.

BY MITT ROMNEY
Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT BOSTON--Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me, "If you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance." I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: "You can find a way."
I believe that we have. Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008213



A compromise like this might be the way to go. Given the choice of this or maintaining the status quo, I could back this program.