A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health

[HM2VikingRN]

From Bloomberg:

Universal Health Care

Six in 10 people surveyed say they would be willing to repeal tax cuts to help pay for a health-care program that insures all Americans.

...

Most of the highest income group polled, those in households earning more than $100,000, support it. While more than eight in 10 Democrats say they like the plan, most Republicans oppose it.

Most of the highest income group polled, those in households earning more than $100,000, support it. While more than eight in 10 Democrats say they like the plan, most Republicans oppose it.

...

An agenda focused on health care and education spending would be better for the economy than returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, she said: ``In the end it would cut costs.''

By 52 percent to 36 percent, Americans favored health and education spending as a better economic stimulus than tax cuts

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=a2TWmuh3vHHI accessed today.

[pickledpepperRN]

Golly Gee you mean the gubment never spends more than it has? I knew the 8 trillion dollar deficit was a figment of my over active imagination. You think insurance premiums are high now? You ain't seen nothing yet, wait till universal coverage. ER wait will be twice as long as they are now with more people utilizing the ER as primary care.

Prophet, soothsayer, oracle, or augur?

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Government acts at the behest of corporations.

Not the other way around.

It works both ways, they are in bed together, friends with mutual benefits.

Either way, they don't have YOUR best interests, first.

THAT ought to scare the heck out of anybody wanting to place faith in the king and his courtisans to provide you with healthcare. . .

The gov't will NEVER be as invested in your care as you are. There is no 'beneficial patrician'. Pull back the curtain. That benefactor is nothing more than a tyrant.

~faith,

Timothy.

[pickledpepperRN]

WE are the government. Of, by and for the people and all that.

In addition to getting corporate money out of campaigns I think people need to stop re electing incumbants.

So many of my elected representatives local to federal and both parties start out committed to doing their best.

Then they sell out or just get lazy.

Have others experienced this?

Medicare still provides more care than private insurance with less waste. Because it is not for profit.

If there is curruption we need to be able to hold hearings, question witnesses under oath, and stop them from stealing the peoples money.

It has been done. "Medicare Mills" have been shut down and at least some of the guilty were prosecuted, paid fines, and did prison time.

Yet William W. McGuire, CEO of UnitedHealth Group ( the nations largest health insurer) received compensation of $124.8 million in 2005. That is money people paid for healthcare if they need it.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/02/14/united-health-ceo-earned-1248-million-in-2005/

WE taxpayer can work to STOP such waste when WE are informed, on the ball, and working together.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

WE are the government. Of, by and for the people and all that.

In addition to getting corporate money out of campaigns I think people need to stop re electing incumbants. So many of my elected representatives local to federal and both parties start out committed to doing their best. Then they sell out or just get lazy.

There is so much money floating around Washington, combined with the personality that would seek election, it is a practical impossibility that anybody you could elect WOULDN'T sell out.

Combine that with the fact that they've all learned to bribe the citizenry and poof - 90% re-election rates.

You are bribed.

THEY are free to consort with those that swell their coffers while ignoring everybody else.

This is an unchanging dynamic.

The cure is not how to change the character of gov't - they, I'm sure, are loop-hole proof from change seeing how they can write any law to sidestep any motivation to change them. They are, as they say, the foxes in the henhouse.

No.

The only cure for gov't is less of it. The less, the better. Our framers fully understood this concept. 230 yrs later, we are not better able than they to constrain the DIRECTION of an active tyrant/government. The best solution was designed by the brightest minds in the history of our nation: rather than direct the flow of tyrants, the best solution is to reduce the power of tyrants.

WE are the people. That doesn't mean that the elected class puts us first. That's downright delusional. Our framers didn't understand this to mean that the gov't would always act to do our bidding. No. They understood that big gov't undermines the autonomy you refer to. So. Our framers combined this concept of 'we the people' with a very healthy dose of limiting the gov'ts power to be something different. Amen, and Thank God for our forebears.

Putting faith in gov't is dangerous. Always has been. Gov'ts only excel at tyranny.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Medicare still provides more care than private insurance with less waste. Because it is not for profit. If there is curruption we need to be able to hold hearings, question witnesses under oath, and stop them from stealing the peoples money. It has been done. "Medicare Mills" have been shut down and at least some of the guilty were prosecuted, paid fines, and did prison time.

I cry foul.

Medicare is bloated, and wasteful. Or, would you like a powerchair, at no cost to you?

In addition, even if it was the panacea you claim, it's unsustainable. It does no good to look, as a model for the future, to a bankrupt model. The sooner we ditch Medicare to the curb, the sooner we can come up with a workable, LONG-RANGE model for healthcare for our seniors.

Medicare is bankrupt. Financially, and, morally. So very uncompassionate.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Our framers declared that 'WE the People' are our own gov't because they were secure in the limitations they had placed upon that gov't to be anything otherwise.

You propose removing those limitations BY THE ASSERTION that what those limitations protects, holds true, regardless of the protection.

It doesn't work that way. Give gov't the power you wish to give to gov't, and gov't will not be 'of the people'. It scarcely is now.

We the People no longer hold power over the gov't as we once did. That is because this gov't has sought, by selling out its checks and balances to each other, to break free from the harness and halter we placed it in.

Those limitations allowed gov't to do our bidding, at our will. Without them, gov't is nothing more than a wild animal, trampling all in its path.

'We the people' is nothing more than an empty platitude WITHOUT the limitations on the power of gov't that made it so. We the people are in control BECAUSE we CHOOSE not to let gov't be in control.

You can't take down the protections of 'we the people' in the name of 'we the people'. it doesn't work that way. The process you describe is the process that removes 'we the people' from power.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

Our framers declared that 'WE the People' are our own gov't because they were secure in the limitations they had placed upon that gov't to be anything otherwise.

You propose removing those limitations BY THE ASSERTION that what those limitations protects, holds true, regardless of the protection.

It doesn't work that way. Give gov't the power you wish to give to gov't, and gov't will not be 'of the people'. It scarcely is now.

We the People no longer hold power over the gov't as we once did. That is because this gov't has sought, by selling out its checks and balances to each other, to break free from the harness and halter we placed it in.

Those limitations allowed gov't to do our bidding, at our will. Without them, gov't is nothing more than a wild animal, trampling all in its path.

'We the people' is nothing more than an empty platitude WITHOUT the limitations on the power of gov't that made it so. We the people are in control BECAUSE we CHOOSE not to let gov't be in control.

You can't take down the protections of 'we the people' in the name of 'we the people'. it doesn't work that way. The process you describe is the process that removes 'we the people' from power.

~faith,

Timothy.

I've been thinking this off and on all day . .. .as I take breaks from my stats test.

"We the people" "are the government" . . .. . just isn't completely true anymore.

Because, as you say, the government has been taking away the people's power . . .

And we are about to hand them more . . . our health care.

steph

[pickledpepperRN]

When will the next revolution begin?

You guys make freedom and democracy seem impossible.

I believe in the values of this country beginning with, "We the people of the United States".

We survived a civil war, and much worse than this.

We CAN continue to improve our great country.

I pray the malaise and powerlessness is temporary.

Pie in the sky returns to a free market that never existed is not a plan.

What is the PLAN to improve our country?

[nicurn001]

CRNA 2007 ,I am fully aware of the national debt and the policies that created that debt .So no itis not a figment of your imagination , it is a nightmare for my children created by a fiscally irresponsible administration that borrowed and spent it's way into this position . NB I care less what party was in power ,I would not be happy with any government that ran up such a debt .Having experienced both systems of healthcare provision ,I do not accept that universal care would be more expensive than the present healthcare system here .

Why would ER wait times be doubled , with everyone having a primary care physician through universal coverage ,there would be no uninsured to seek ER care.So you would have the potential to reduce ER wait times.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

When will the next revolution begin?

You guys make freedom and democracy seem impossible.

I believe in the values of this country beginning with, "We the people of the United States".

We survived a civil war, and much worse than this.

We CAN continue to improve our great country.

I pray the malaise and powerlessness is temporary.

Pie in the sky returns to a free market that never existed is not a plan.

What is the PLAN to improve our country?

We have very different ideas about institutional versus individual roles in such things. You can't have FREEDOM if you are a slave to the gov't.

And, as it happens, I don't particularly believe in democracy. Our framers had a healthy fear of mob rule. They didn't trust what a bare majority of 'we the people' would do to the minority. So, thankfully, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a REPUBLIC. When people say democracy today, what they MEAN is democratic Republic. There is a difference and the difference is in the curbing effect of mob rule.

And, the free market IS A PLAN. The less gov't interference, the more properous individuals become. My plan to improve the country is to LIMIT GOV'T AT EVERY POSSIBLE STEP. Not better regulate it; eliminate it.

The more we do that, the better we will be as a nation. I would vote in favor of a plan to force the gov't to reduce its spending, by 10% a year, until only those powers enumerated to it were funded. That would be about 30% of our current yearly spending. Take the rest, pay down the debt over 5 yrs (easy to do, once you wean out 2 trillion from our yearly 3 trillion dollar budget).

The gov't IS THE PROBLEM. It's the problem with healthcare, today. Expand its role in healthcare and you only multiple the problem.

See, I too, believe in this nation. The values of this nation started with a premise that We the People meant the gov't had - and should have - no real power over us. Federal gov't power was almost exclusively limited to foreign affairs. With that simple guideline, we set an example the world is still trying to emulate, over 200 yrs later.

I belive in the values of this nation. Turning our rights over to gov't, wholesale? That is a repudiation of those values. It is a repudiation of 'We the People".

~faith,

Timothy.

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

It works both ways, they are in bed together, friends with mutual benefits.

Either way, they don't have YOUR best interests, first.

THAT ought to scare the heck out of anybody wanting to place faith in the king and his courtisans to provide you with healthcare. . .

The gov't will NEVER be as invested in your care as you are. There is no 'beneficial patrician'. Pull back the curtain. That benefactor is nothing more than a tyrant.

~faith,

Timothy.

This is America, Tyrant free. Also beneficial patron free. Except for some of the ones hosting those marathon telethons for helf care

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

I cry foul.

Medicare is bloated, and wasteful. Or, would you like a powerchair, at no cost to you?

In addition, even if it was the panacea you claim, it's unsustainable. It does no good to look, as a model for the future, to a bankrupt model. The sooner we ditch Medicare to the curb, the sooner we can come up with a workable, LONG-RANGE model for healthcare for our seniors.

Medicare is bankrupt. Financially, and, morally. So very uncompassionate.

~faith,

Timothy.

Ditch medicare alright, replace with a long range model of heathcare for us.But change it to include all of us. Then you truly have UHC

Medicare isnt bankrupt, financially or morally even though Bushie and the Republicans have long wanted to ravage it.