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.

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

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 Tyranny is a outdated, outmoded, overused concept.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.

[sharona97, 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.

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.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

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.

[sharona97, BSN, RN]

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.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

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.

[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.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Catastrophic plans are bad social policy. See:

Under treated chronic conditions increase health costs.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

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.

I'm not speaking out of both sides of my mouth, at all.

First, I never said I'd never be sick. I SAID that God had enabled me with the means to help myself. I have good insurance, short and long term disability, good life insurance, and savings to back all of that up. I'm prepared. THANKS be to God.

Could my life be wiped out. It's possible.

As far as using the gov't system for a last resort. I think EVERYBODY should have that option, and so, it's not hypocritical of me to support such a concept. It's not that I don't believe in looking out for those in needs.

I just don't trust or support a gov't system that steals choice away from EVERYBODY in order to provide for the needs of some. I don't agree with gov't restricted care. I think we are far too rich a nation to settle for a fair share in a dismal, gov't outcome.

I just don't believe it's a good vehicle of FIRST RESORT. Gov't is a tradeoff - it's a tradeoff in both quality and cost: more expensive, lessor quality care. Gov't only excels at tryanny. That is the heart of gov't restricted care: we will take from you all choice but OUR choice.

No Thanks. We can do better than that for the vast majority of Americans EVEN AS we care for those not in that majority. 85% of Americans are covered with Insurance today. Return to the free market, and that number would push past 90% THEN we can look out for those left behind. We could do so, for FAR cheaper than Medicare.

How compassionate is it to use Medicare as a vehicle to push the gov't to the edge of bankruptcy so that it has no means to address SS? How compassionate is it to drop this expense on our kids? Gimme, Gimme, after all, I'm a 'boomer'. I'm entitled.

~faith,

Timothy.

[nicurn001]

i'm not speaking out of both sides of my mouth, at all.

first, i never said i'd never be sick. i said that god had enabled me with the means to help myself. i have good insurance, short and long term disability, good life insurance, and savings to back all of that up. i'm prepared. thanks be to god.

could my life be wiped out. it's possible.

as far as using the gov't system for a last resort. i think everybody should have that option, and so, it's not hypocritical of me to support such a concept. it's not that i don't believe in looking out for those in needs.

( i believe the best way to give healthcare to those in need is through a single payor system , which should be accessible to all , because after all it is my taxes that pay for that system . then if i wish to , i can pay for private insurance out of my private income .

as to the idea of wishing to opt out from the single payor system , then recieve vouchers to pay for private insurance , this idea is untenable because were would you stop . pacifists would not pay for national defence , vegetarians would object to subsidies for beef production etc.)

i just don't trust or support a gov't system that steals choice away from everybody in order to provide for the needs of some. i don't agree with gov't restricted care. i think we are far too rich a nation to settle for a fair share in a dismal, gov't outcome.

(the government does not steal choice , we give it the responsibility to make choices for us through the ballot box . realistically you cannot please all tha people all the time , so some choices will not please all the electorate .but at least we have the option of showing our displeasure at the next election .)

i just don't believe it's a good vehicle of first resort. gov't is a tradeoff - it's a tradeoff in both quality and cost: more expensive, lessor quality care. gov't only excels at tryanny.

(tyranny occurs where a government imposes it's will without , having to face an educated electorate at the ballot box . fortunately that is not the case here in the usa )that is the heart of gov't restricted care: we will take from you all choice but our choice.

no thanks. we can do better than that for the vast majority of americans even as we care for those not in that majority. 85% of americans are covered with insurance today. return to the free market, and that number would push past 90% then we can look out for those left behind. we could do so, for far cheaper than medicare.( as discussed earlier in this thread your proposition that a fmm is cheaper is not supported by available data )

how compassionate is it to use medicare as a vehicle to push the gov't to the edge of bankruptcy so that it has no means to address ss? how compassionate is it to drop this expense on our kids?

( the present administrations borrow and spend policies have pushed us closer to bankrupcy , not the finances of medicare or ss ) gimme, gimme, after all, i'm a 'boomer'. i'm entitled.

( frankly this is a failing in almost all of us , it's not a generational thing , we want everything now ,but pass the responsibility onto others , if we think we can get away with it)

~faith,

timothy.

as you said in your first paragraph ,i'm sure you can take care of yourself ,i accept that you care for those who are less fortunate . but the problem i still have is accepting that the free market is self regulating ( i remember the energy problems when , ca tried to deregulate its electricity supply, using the laws the energy producers wanted , to creat that free market) ,and that i should trust the altruism of some healthcare corporate executive , over whom i have no power or influence , rather than the elected government ( which although i may not have voted for was never the less elected by a majoity ) ,which must face responsibility for its actions at the next election .

[EmmaG, RN]

I'm sure I've missed a few posts as I've followed this thread along, but I fail to see where anyone has refuted the original premise: that a majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes in return for universal healthcare.

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

I'm not speaking out of both sides of my mouth, at all.

First, I never said I'd never be sick. I SAID that God had enabled me with the means to help myself. I have good insurance, short and long term disability, good life insurance, and savings to back all of that up. I'm prepared. THANKS be to God.

Could my life be wiped out. It's possible.

As far as using the gov't system for a last resort. I think EVERYBODY should have that option, and so, it's not hypocritical of me to support such a concept. It's not that I don't believe in looking out for those in needs.

I just don't trust or support a gov't system that steals choice away from EVERYBODY in order to provide for the needs of some. I don't agree with gov't restricted care. I think we are far too rich a nation to settle for a fair share in a dismal, gov't outcome.

I just don't believe it's a good vehicle of FIRST RESORT. Gov't is a tradeoff - it's a tradeoff in both quality and cost: more expensive, lessor quality care. Gov't only excels at tryanny. That is the heart of gov't restricted care: we will take from you all choice but OUR choice.

No Thanks. We can do better than that for the vast majority of Americans EVEN AS we care for those not in that majority. 85% of Americans are covered with Insurance today. Return to the free market, and that number would push past 90% THEN we can look out for those left behind. We could do so, for FAR cheaper than Medicare.

How compassionate is it to use Medicare as a vehicle to push the gov't to the edge of bankruptcy so that it has no means to address SS? How compassionate is it to drop this expense on our kids? Gimme, Gimme, after all, I'm a 'boomer'. I'm entitled.

~faith,

Timothy.

Timmy

There you go with the Tyranny thing again. Did you like the Tyranosaurus Rex

where do you get you numbers that 85% are covered with insurance. My 27 yo son cant afford insurance. Of course in my book he could and should be doing better for himself.

Medicare isnt pushing the Govt to the edge of bankruptcy. Not even close. You cant lay the blame there. The Bushie has made every attempt to use medicare money elsewhere. The illegal war by Bushie, has bankrupted us, put us in sebt to foriegn powers, primarily China. Has weakened the dollar, has skyrocketed the price of gas. Has shaken the housing market. Bush has ruined how the world looks at the US. Our Foriegn Policy has never been shakier.

Peace, Love ,Golf

Tommy