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.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Give me results over ideology.

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.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Give me results over ideology.

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.

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

But that IS the proposal: let the gov't be the owner. If Uncle Daddy pays; Uncle Daddy decides.

The customer isn't the end user; the customer is the buyer.

Under gov't restricted healthcare, your choices will only be from among those the gov't CHOOSES to make available to you. You no longer exercise any choice but to accept the choices MADE FOR YOU.

By the gov't. By the next Republican Administration.

~faith,

Timothy.

You mean by the new incoming Democrat administration

there lies the difference and the improvement

[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 .

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

You mean by the new incoming Democrat administration

there lies the difference and the improvement

I wasn't suggesting the NEXT Administration would be Republican, although, that's not as unlikely as you hope.

But, there WILL be a NEXT Republican Administration, at some point. THAT Administration will control whatever of your rights you choose to cede to gov't.

You can't just plan for when 'your guys' are in office. Our electorate is much too divided for that.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

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.

[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 ?

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

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.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

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.

[nicurn001]

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 .

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

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.

[nicurn001]

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 .