A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health - page 2

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   HM2VikingRN
    The claim that universal care would add 300/month to the cost of health insurance for families was a misstatement that ran against responsible and affordable proposals. We are paying an additional 30% per month for our health care because of administrative costs and profit attached to private plans. Assuming that we could deliver medicare for all at a 5% administrative cost that leaves 250 dollars per month that should be used to bring about universal coverage.

    Taking cheap shots against lower income people is vitriolic and I stand by my position that that behavior is objectionable.
  2. by   Jolie
    Quote from CRNA2007
    equal to or less than their insurance premium of course. I can guarantee people who make 100,000 or more a year are going to be paying more than their insurance premiums. Would you pay another 300/month on top of the $1000 you already pay for health insurance plus your current premium? This idea that government run health care is going to be some great win win idea is totally bogus. They already have a great Ponzi scheme going in social insecurity.
    Viking, Where, exactly is the "cheap shot against lower income people" that you find so "vitriolic...and objectionable"?
  3. by   HM2VikingRN
    It was in other posts within similar threads. This was an expression of general frustration with other posts.....
  4. by   leslymill
    It is not taking cheap shots. It is ignoring them completely and totally. There are two sides. We have to look at effects of cost I understand. That statement by itself does tend to have people think it is a bit selfish when confronted with the big picture.
  5. by   heartrn35
    You can put any spin on it you would like, or more truthfully you can put any label on it you would like. The truth is the gov't would control the purse strings. Not directly but indirectly. When the gov't says there can only be "X" number of medical centers that perform "said" procedure, because they found that only those that perform it frequently are any good at it. This means that only a certain number of those procedures can be performed. This is the basic idea behind Canada's system. The more I read of your post the funnier you become "The govenrment does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals." "Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds." I'm sure that the gov't wouldn't dangle the carrot to direct those "private practices" in the direction that they dictate as appropriate. Atleast when managed care started to do this practitioners were able to choose not to accept that insurance, with SOCIALIZED MEDICINE there will be no alternative. You either do it the gov't way or those gov't funds will stop.And the part about socialied medicine conjuring up images of gov't bureaucratic interference. I would love to hear of once small sector where the gov't came in and changed control from the private sector to gov't control where that sector was better off and the cost did not climb (without gov't dumping a bunch of outside money into it).Do a little reserch, just google: Canada, medical waiting list. I'm sure there are some stories that are false but in doing my own research paper I found documented cases of people with 90% left main lesions that had to go home and wait 2 weeks to a couple of months for thier bypass surgery. That is the one we call the "widow maker" the one they don't even wait till the next day to perform.
    Quote from HM2Viking
    See:

    Is national health insurance "socialized medicine"?

    No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.
    The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance. It does describe the interference by insurance company bureaucrats in our health system.
    http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...php#socialized
  6. 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?

    Quote from HM2Viking
    The claim that universal care would add 300/month to the cost of health insurance for families was a misstatement that ran against responsible and affordable proposals. We are paying an additional 30% per month for our health care because of administrative costs and profit attached to private plans. Assuming that we could deliver medicare for all at a 5% administrative cost that leaves 250 dollars per month that should be used to bring about universal coverage.

    Taking cheap shots against lower income people is vitriolic and I stand by my position that that behavior is objectionable.
  7. by   Alois Wolf
    I'd rather pay slightly higher taxes for National Universal Health Care than what I'm paying right now for Aetna HMO.
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Let's be clear here: a majority of American would support paying higher taxes to ensure that everybody is covered, if THAT's what you mean by 'universal care'.

    If you mean gov't controlled, single payor care, no. Once it is explained to people that gov't restricted care is LESS care for them, for MORE money in order to cover everybody, people aren't nearly so generous, either with their money, or their availability to seek care.

    THIS IS EXACTLY what happened in '93. All the platitudes about everything-for-nothing fell through. You can always promise that with the stroke of a pen and a gov't monopoly, the sky will rain manna. Better care for less money. Isn't that the pollyanna version of universal care.

    Except.

    Except.

    Enough people have more sense than that and actually examine what is being traded with a critical lens. What is being traded isn't just more taxes. If that were it, this poll would be relevant. No. What is being traded is access to the best healthcare system in the world for a fair share in a dismal outcome.

    It won't sell. It didn't sell. It's been tried. More than once. Platitudes are one thing. Get down to specifics and have a real debate about what you want to actually give up in the name of gov't restricted care, and THEN poll. It's a loser.

    I'll gladly go into 2008 with the Democrats trying to figure out how to tax the 'rich' for all this stuff that can't be paid for by any other means than defining the middle class as rich. The last time the true far left owned their candidate and he was brave enough to admit the amount of taxation it had in mind, Ronald Reagan carried 49 states.

    And here comes Charlie Rangal, with JUST that amount of taxation in mind. On cue, Hillary waffles and triangulates. . .

    2008 is starting to look pretty good for Republicans. I'd MUCH rather have the conservative position on this issue. In fact, I'm a conservative BECAUSE conservative means caring. . .

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 1, '07
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    My husbands medicare provides great service. he can choose his doctor. They pay in a timely manner.

    They only pay 80% so he has a supplemental policy for the 20% Medicare doesn't pay.

    So I think we could insure younger people who are not permanently disabled at less average cost than those currently covered by Medicare. And pay 100%.
    I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect but it also wouldn't be for profit. No advertising and lobbying budget.
    Your husband's great care is unsustainable. Even Viking, in his thread about social security, admits that unfunded entitlements such as Medicare is the must larger danger.

    So tell me, how do we greatly expand a program that is quickly leading the gov't to bankruptcy?

    I know the answer.

    Ration care and cut healthcare salaries. Both only possible with a gov't run monopoly.

    It's that simple.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  10. by   Jolie
    Quote from CRNA2007
    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?
    CRNA2007,

    I agree with your assessment. It is a bit ironic that the very poster who cuts and pastes endless writings to support his positions can only vaguely identify the vitriolic and objectionable cheap shots by stating that they were written in other similar threads.
  11. by   happydays352
    "2008 is starting to look pretty good for Republicans. I'd MUCH rather have the conservative position on this issue. In fact, I'm a conservative BECAUSE conservative means caring. . ."

    Conservatives and Liberals are the same in politics
    Politicians are politicians they don't CARE about PEOPLE


    I see virtually no difference between the two parties actual actions, we might as well have a one party system.

    After traveling and living abroad for most of my life I'm against the idea of health care system like Canada's. Most Canadians I've spoken to are dissatisfied with their health care system.
    That being said the health care system here isn't working either.
    God just reading this thread makes me depressed.
  12. by   Alois Wolf
    Yeah... even though I consider myself pretty liberal in my own right, I'm very non-partisan and I will vote for whoever I think will get the job done. Republican, Democrat, Independent or even Green...
  13. 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?


    Quote from leslymill
    Your right they are too selfish and don't care if some people can't make a desent living. It is just more important that they live high on the hog.

close