A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health - page 18

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... Read More

  1. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from nicurn001
    Zashagalka , in respose 204 you tried to answer my question :-

    "Whilst I believe that we as RN may have the ability to research our healthcare and possibly be able to finance it, there are many consumers of health care who would not be able to do so , how is this group to be cared for ? "

    But in your response the consumer would have to be able to:-
    a) obtain insuranace ( no pre-existing conditions)
    b) be able to afford the premiums for the insurance.
    c)have a large enough income to pay for their uninsured expenditures .
    and / or
    d) pay enough taxes , so that any tax break would have a mitigating effect upon their healthcare expenditure.

    Then you went off on a Rhetorical rant about the uninsured expecting " Uncle Daddy "to take care of the uninsured's healthcare.I am a compassionate conservative, in that, I believe most uninsured simply do not have the wherewithal to manage there healthcare .But conservative enough that I wish to cover them in the most cost effective manner possible .
    There is the crux of our divergence of opinion .Why the uninsured are uninsured and how to ensure we can cover healthcare for everyone.

    I tend to beleive in "there ,but for the grace of good go I " ie. it is only circumstances that enable me to be able to take care of my healthcare .

    Whilst it appears that you believe that whatever the circumstances , it is the uninsured's fault they are uninsured it is for them to remedy this problem , without bothering me .
    I give people more credit than that. People can manage just fine without Uncle Daddy. Even when they DO access the great Uncle, they are very familiar with dealing with red tape. Managing to jump the hurdles of insurance would be no difficult.

    We have an EITC now that pays many in poverty back MORE than they pay in. It would be no small stretch to apply a different tax CREDIT (which applies, whether you pay in, or not) to cover basic insurance and HSA for the poor.

    Simply ending Medicare and covering only those seniors that actually NEED gov't asst for care would pay for such a program: covered paid catastrophic insurance plus HSA accounts for anybody that couldn't afford to do so, themselves. The result: universal access, for all.

    This, combined with prices returning to a market normalcy would make access universal, at a much cheaper cost to gov't.

    Gov't could take the balance and try to actually salvage SS.

    The cheapter route to universal access is first payer, market driven care.

    The gov't only excels at tyranny.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  2. by   nicurn001
    Miracles happen , I agree with something ZASHAGALKA says
    " You can't just plan for when 'your guys' are in office." Too True ,but that is a good thing , eventually the administration we don't like will be replaced by one to our liking.

    Re. response #222 . You seem to be saying funding of healthcare by goverment is OK as long as it is done in the manner you approve of ! ie." We have an EITC now that pays many in poverty back MORE than they pay in. It would be no small stretch to apply a different tax CREDIT (which applies, whether you pay in, or not) to cover basic insurance and HSA for the poor. ".
    So I guess we simply disagree upon how much assistance is offered to the uninsured ?
  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from nicurn001
    Miracles happen , I agree with something ZASHAGALKA says
    " You can't just plan for when 'your guys' are in office." Too True ,but that is a good thing , eventually the administration we don't like will be replaced by one to our liking.

    Re. response #222 . You seem to be saying funding of healthcare by goverment is OK as long as it is done in the manner you approve of ! ie." We have an EITC now that pays many in poverty back MORE than they pay in. It would be no small stretch to apply a different tax CREDIT (which applies, whether you pay in, or not) to cover basic insurance and HSA for the poor. ".
    So I guess we simply disagree upon how much assistance is offered to the uninsured ?
    Funding SOME healthcare is OK so long as the decision to do so doesn't force EVERYBODY into a gov't run system.

    I'm not uncompassionate. And, the issue, for me, isn't about money. It isn't ABOUT paying more taxes.

    It's about MY freedom to choose.

    I don't want the gov't to choose for me. We don't disagree on how much asst to offer the uninsured. I'd love to debate that, and would be willing to compromise far more than you'd imagine.

    I disagree with changing the basic nature and access of healthcare, FOR EVERYBODY, in order to cover some.

    See, it comes down to this: gov't asst is one thing. The argument for gov't restricted healthcare goes further: it goes on to say that nobody can have better access than anybody else. Universal access isn't enough; there must be equal access.

    In other words, I shouldn't be allowed, because I have the means, to buy a better policy. In other words, gov't restricted healthcare. Everybody must be restricted to a common denominator. That isn't fair; that's coercion. THAT I disapprove of.

    I have no specific problem with universal access. The free market, however, is the best means of access to the best quality at the cheapest prices for the vast majority of us. Let the market bring sanity to healthcare. THEN, assistance to those in need would be cheaper and more efficient.

    The gov't needs to get out of the way for the majority of us to seek care. That means ending the gov't backed, employer provision of healthcare. The gov't has conspired to price you out of the market. NO WONDER so many people are without coverage. That's your gov't, in action. Your gov't has put its lobbyists' interests ahead of your best interest. Imagine that.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 19, '07
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Exactly my point.

    The idea of gov't restricted care is ideological. It certainly has nothing to do with universal access. We could do that far short of a wholesale takeover of a large part of the economy.

    Besides, the free market has proven itself, time and time again, to be results driven. Higher quality, cheaper price.

    No matter how much you want to, you will never duplicate that with any monopoly, much less a gov't one. Think Ma Bell's black rotary landline with long dx charges vs. your cell phone with a national calling plan. In inflation adjusted dollars, your cell phone is cheaper. Much higher quality, much cheaper price. The difference: no gov't regulated monopoly.

    No matter how much you want to, you will never duplicate that with socialism. Gov't restriced care is socialized medicine. Those nations that have adopted it have no qualms about saying so. Those that want to adopt it here will go out of their way to deny the truth. The truth cannot sell. When it comes to selling socialized medicine Stateside, the truth is a PR disaster.

    Socialized Medicine: A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.)

    I agree. Results over ideology. The way here has a long, proven, track record: get the gov't out from in between you and your healthcare.

    Really, except for the true believers, how many people actually believe that the path to a 'results driven' system lies through gov't bureaucracy? Really? Is that truly your experience with gov't thus far? This efficient, friendly gov't that has only your best interests at heart: it's a fairytale. Most people, I think, actually do have enough real world experience when it comes to gov't to distinguish reality from this fable.

    THAT is why we don't have a gov't restricted system, now.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    My previous point remains:

    Does anyone really think that Australia, NZ, Canada, Germany, The UK (or the Scandinavian Countries for that matter) are any less free than the US or have less vibrant economies? With a single payer or mixed public/private system they are achieving better health results at a lower price. The funny thing about the Commonwealth fund data was just how well the UK performed vis a vis the US. The other countries can learn from us about right care but in every other area they have lessons to teach us. Social democracy and/or socialized finance of health care is not contrary to a free society.
  5. by   nicurn001
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA

    See, it comes down to this: gov't asst is one thing. The argument for gov't restricted healthcare goes further: it goes on to say that nobody can have better access than anybody else. Universal access isn't enough; there must be equal access.

    In other words, I shouldn't be allowed, because I have the means, to buy a better policy. In other words, gov't restricted healthcare. Everybody must be restricted to a common denominator. That isn't fair; that's coercion. THAT I disapprove of.

    Timothy.
    I don't know about other countries , but in the UK the NHS is the primary Healthcare system , but there is a private system , which you can access ,if you can afford to have a private insurance policy .NB. this is totally at your own cost , there is no opting out of NHS .

    Patients can and do use both facillities , some NHS patients are allowed to receive care at a private facillity if NHS cannot provide the service and vice versa .

    So it is possible to run both systems at the same time and I for one am quite comfortable with the provision of healthcare in a sytem were every one contributes to universal access , then if you have the resources you may pay for a private Healthcare insurance policy , for yourself and famuly if you wish .

    The above is why I don't view Universal Healthcare as Socialised Medicine .
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from nicurn001
    I don't know about other countries , but in the UK the NHS is the primary Healthcare system , but there is a private system , which you can access ,if you can afford to have a private insurance policy .NB. this is totally at your own cost , there is no opting out of NHS .

    Patients can and do use both facillities , some NHS patients are allowed to receive care at a private facillity if NHS cannot provide the service and vice versa .

    So it is possible to run both systems at the same time and I for one am quite comfortable with the provision of healthcare in a sytem were every one contributes to universal access , then if you have the resources you may pay for a private Healthcare insurance policy , for yourself and famuly if you wish .

    The above is why I don't view Universal Healthcare as Socialised Medicine .
    The problem here is that once you force people to pay for the sub-par system, most will not be able to afford premium care. You have demanded double billing.

    Keeping the system in the free market means that the majority of people can access superior care with their PRIMARY healthcare dollars INSTEAD of ON TOP of being forced to pay for a subpar system.

    The analogy is public schools: sure, you can send your kids to private school, but you must pay twice.

    I favor vouchers: the ability to combine my contribution with my FREE choice.

    Same, same.

    Saying you can opt out is a cop out. Sure you can, but only for the rich. So, instead of a wonderful system for the many, we are going to create a dismal system for the majority where only the rich can afford to opt out.

    See, you've created a double billing to seek free choice. THAT is the gov't restricting your options. THAT is gov't restricted healthcare.

    It won't sell. Most of us just don't trust the gov't that much.

    And besides, what does any of this have to do with univeral access? It doesn't. It's an ideological agenda.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  7. by   nicurn001
    Quote from zashagalka
    the problem here is that once you force people to pay for the sub-par system, most will not be able to afford premium care. you have demanded double billing.i don't accept the premise that universal healthcare is sub par ,see some of earlier response giving evidence to dispute this premise.

    keeping the system in the free market means that the majority of people can access superior care with their primary healthcare dollars instead of on top of being forced to pay for a subpar system.in the present system ,my care is not superior to that which i received through the nhs in the uk ,nor is it superior to that offered to retired people here in the usa.

    the analogy is public schools: sure, you can send your kids to private school, but you must pay twice.

    i favor vouchers: the ability to combine my contribution with my free choice.

    same, same.

    saying you can opt out is a cop out. sure you can, but only for the rich. so, instead of a wonderful system for the many, we are going to create a dismal system for the majority where only the rich can afford to opt out.you could reverse this arguement by saying ,why should i be forced to buy private insurance , which means i am subsidising the rich ( larger pool of insured = lower risk therefore reduced premiums !)

    see, you've created a double billing to seek free choice. that is the gov't restricting your options. that is gov't restricted healthcare.i already have double billing to subsidise private insurance. i have to pay taxes to cover those who cannot access private insurance , which i cannot access, then i have to pay for private insurance ( or risk loosing all i have ,to pay healthcare costs).

    it won't sell. most of us just don't trust the gov't that much.and they trust healthcare corporations

    and besides, what does any of this have to do with univeral access? it doesn't. it's an ideological agenda.universal care/ access = access for all to healthcare.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    each year due to changes in our coverage ,we don't know if we will be able to maintain our relationship with our pcp . this is one benefit ( of many )in single payor system .
  8. by   teeituptom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I give people more credit than that. People can manage just fine without Uncle Daddy. Even when they DO access the great Uncle, they are very familiar with dealing with red tape. Managing to jump the hurdles of insurance would be no difficult.

    We have an EITC now that pays many in poverty back MORE than they pay in. It would be no small stretch to apply a different tax CREDIT (which applies, whether you pay in, or not) to cover basic insurance and HSA for the poor.

    Simply ending Medicare and covering only those seniors that actually NEED gov't asst for care would pay for such a program: covered paid catastrophic insurance plus HSA accounts for anybody that couldn't afford to do so, themselves. The result: universal access, for all.

    This, combined with prices returning to a market normalcy would make access universal, at a much cheaper cost to gov't.

    Gov't could take the balance and try to actually salvage SS.

    The cheapter route to universal access is first payer, market driven care.

    The gov't only excels at tyranny.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Timmy you sure like that word Tyranny. Not a word I agree with even with the Gov't eroding away at our freedoms base.

    With the way the world is going anyway, the way the price of gas is going, the way the market is fumbling, the way the dollar is devalueing, the problems in the credit and housing industry. Tyranny is a outdated, outmoded, overused concept. Along with socialism. There is no cheaper route. The alledged free market will never return to normalcy the way we know it. Maybe to a new normalcy. Meanwhile Im enjoying golf while I can, Then Im heading south to mexico, venezuela, colombia. Somewhere peacefull.
  9. by   sharona97
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    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.
    This is not one of my rants, but rather a prayer for you, that you never get so ill in your young life that you will need that uncompassionate care of Medicare.
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from sharona97
    This is not one of my rants, but rather a prayer for you, that you never get so ill in your young life that you will need that uncompassionate care of Medicare.
    I will NEVER be sick enough in my YOUNG life to qualify for Medicare.

    Maybe when I'm older. But then, IF I CAN AFFORD TO PROVIDE FOR MY OWN CARE; why should you? If I ever should NEED that care, that would be one thing.

    Medicare is uncompassionate because it's a transfer of wealth from the young to the old - WHETHER THEY NEED IT, or not. People used to work hard, their whole lives, in order to make a better life for their children. Now? Gimme everything and put it on my children's tab. I don't call that compassionate. I call it selfish.

    Means test it if you want to call it compassionate. Better - scrap it altogether and develop a program that provides catastrophic insurance AND tax credits to fund HSAs for EVERYBODY, no matter how old, that earn below 150% of the poverty level.

    Restore the free market to healthcare, so that healthcare IS affordable for more people.

    God looks out for me. A primary way He has done so is to enable ME to look out for myself, with HIS blessing. Thank you for your prayers, but I will be just fine. And if I'm not - THEN we should consider the gov't an aid of last resort.

    Not the first resort. I'm more compassionate than that.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 20, '07
  11. by   sharona97
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I will NEVER be sick enough in my YOUNG life to qualify for Medicare.

    Maybe when I'm older. But then, IF I CAN AFFORD TO PROVIDE FOR MY OWN CARE; why should you? If I ever should NEED that care, that would be one thing.

    Medicare is uncompassionate because it's a transfer of wealth from the young to the old - WHETHER THEY NEED IT, or not. People used to work hard, their whole lives, in order to make a better life for their children. Now? Gimme everything and put it on my children's tab. I don't call that compassionate. I call it selfish.

    Means test it if you want to call it compassionate. Better - scrap it altogether and develop a program that provides catastrophic insurance AND tax credits to fund HSAs for EVERYBODY, no matter how old, that earn below 150% of the poverty level.

    Restore the free market to healthcare, so that healthcare IS affordable for more people.

    God looks out for me. A primary way He has done so is to enable ME to look out for myself, with HIS blessing. Thank you for your prayers, but I will be just fine. And if I'm not - THEN we should consider the gov't an aid of last resort.

    Not the first resort. I'm more compassionate than that.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Timothy, In all seriousness you claim you will never be sick (thanks to the goodness of God Amen~) as you've also stated that unless you absolutely need the help of Medicare (whether you think it is a commpassionate or uncompassionate source of help is irrelevent here) you would then use it.

    This is speaking out of both sides of your mouth IMO. The gov't has programs for those traumatic and catastrophic illnesses that none of us, God's child or not may unfortunetly be hit with.

    God opened many doors in my life to enable me to receive all the great things He feels I deserve, and I walked out around with I'm just fine type of attitude too. There are mysteries to too many lives as to why , where, how come and it's these mysteries that some have evolved into greater understanding (pcn, open heart surgery, survival of cancer patients)you get it.

    But the monkey on the back seems to be who has the better idea, the total solution, the best answer. Will it ever be for the benefit and best for all at all times? Sometimes the old saying don't bite the hand the feeds you you could be true towards God as it is true for the American Government.

    My prayer still stands, I pray that you may never have to deal with, survive from, or have a glorous life change all due to an illness or unfortunate health event.
    I also hope that if that should ever come in your life, their will be programs to help you continue to fnction and pray no matter what your age is.
    Last edit by sharona97 on Nov 20, '07 : Reason: grammar
  12. by   NRSKarenRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I will NEVER be sick enough in my YOUNG life to qualify for Medicare.
    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Many nurses are one car ride or illness away from NEEDING Medicare when cautostraphic accident or illness strikes. Despite appeals from HR in our health system, less than 50% purchase short term or apply for long term disability insurance offered by health system. About 60% participate in our 403b retirement savings plan where health system will match .50c per dollar saved up to 6% of our salary.
    Medicare kicks in 18 months after declared permanent injury IF one has paid into it minimum of 5 consecuative quarters. Hope you have enough insurance and savings to cover you during this 1 1/2 years

    Our staff witnessed first hand lifes fate this year: Newly married clerk (with one yr old) husband was riding bike home from work when hit by car sustaining C5 injury with resulting quadraplegia-----he had NO health insurance provided by employer and they hadn't thought to add him to her policy ...after all young and healthy 30 year old.
    Agency just had a fundraiser to help cover uninsured costs while HR got him added to wives policy and I provided info on medical asssitance and attendent care services available in my state which he's now receiving.
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    I know a young man whose ESRD was originally diagnosed when he had a physical for college football.

    Thanks to Medicare he is an employable CPA. He is dialyzed 3 times a week.
    If he hadn't worked as a supermarket boxer for years proir to needing dialysis he would have had to be destitute before qualifyind for Medicare.

    As it is he works full time and is on a transplant list.

close