If Congress were to take a vote on a health reform bill today, Democrats and Republicans would find a surprising level of agreement-so much so that the broad outlines of a consensus plan already are taking shape.
Sick or healthy, rich or poor, all Americans would be guaranteed access to health insurance.
In fact, they'd probably be required to purchase it-perhaps through mandates in the law that would include stiff tax penalties for anyone who tried to opt out.
Newly created insurance marketplaces would make finding a plan as easy as shopping for cheap airfare. People could keep their coverage, even if they switched jobs. And they might be able to choose between private insurers and a government-backed plan.
But here's the catch-none of this would come free, with the wealthiest Americans likely to face higher taxes to help pay for coverage for all.
It's hard to believe that only three months ago, health care advocates worried that President Barack Obama would drop the health reform issue from his first-year agenda. Now, with an August deadline to pass a bill, a compromise that once seemed unimaginable is considered quite possible, both sides say.
Same old Republican fearmongering that we've all heard hundreds of times before. And all centering around the false premise that "ObamaCare" means "rationed or restricted access to doctors, therapies and care." Article also ignores polls which show that a plurality of Americans favor a public option, the most recent of which by the NYT was linked to just a few posts up!
let us not front about what UHC actually is, a redistribution of wealth and nothing more. And how is that just?
Amazingly, countries with UHC like the UK and Canada still have millions living in poverty, despite this "redistribution of wealth" - 13.2 million in the UK (22% poverty rate), 3.5 million in Canada (11.4 poverty rate). Amazingly, despite the UHC "redistribution of wealth," the poverty rate was not significantly lower than in the U.S., which was 12.5% in 2007. It would appear that UHC is really really bad at redistributiing wealth. But the poor in countries like the UK and Canada can at least take heart that one thing they won't have to worry about, is access to affordable health care.
why, thank you. i've got more - fixed news, fox noise.....
same old republican fearmongering that we've all heard hundreds of times before. and all centering around the false premise that "obamacare" means "rationed or restricted access to doctors, therapies and care." article also ignores polls which show that a plurality of americans favor a public option, the most recent of which by the nyt was linked to just a few posts up!
let's take a look at the article because some of the points are valid. here are the 6 points it makes.
number 1: less access to timely health care, especially by trained specialists
this is valid and logical. we have a fixed number of current doctors working as fast as they can and will have an influx of patients. we cannot increase the number of doctors unless congress increases the number of residency and fellowship spots. that should take congress about 5 years to get on. even if they were to pass it immediately, it will take at a minimum of 3 years (quickest fellowship) to see any meaningful increase and well over a decade to be at levels the population needs. there will be waits, at least temporarily
number 2: less access to state-of-the-art drugs that are proven to cure serious diseases, like cancer
like it or not, this is likely true too. less profit means fewer trials put out means fewer new drugs.
number 3: less access to modern medical technologies that lead to earlier diagnoses, safer treatments, and better outcomes
a combo of true and false. in the short run there will be absolutely no change unless the gov't is going to sell all the mris we have. in the long run, it may or may not affect the advent and inclusion of new technology into medicine
number 4: less access to choice of doctor and choice of treatments for patients and families
the first part is probably false, the last part is likely true.
number 5: less access to choice of health insurance coverage
who knows
number 6: less access to the leading innovators and innovations in health care
Amazingly, countries with UHC like the UK and Canada still have millions living in poverty, despite this "redistribution of wealth" - 13.2 million in the UK (22% poverty rate), 3.5 million in Canada (11.4 poverty rate). Amazingly, despite the UHC "redistribution of wealth," the poverty rate was not significantly lower than in the U.S., which was 12.5% in 2007. It would appear that UHC is really really bad at redistributiing wealth. But the poor in countries like the UK and Canada can at least take heart that one thing they won't have to worry about, is access to affordable health care.
A redistribution of wealth does not mean there will be no one in poverty. It means that money or property is taken from one group and used by another. Pretty sure this fits the exact definition of redistribution of wealth. Thanks for the statistics though.
A redistribution of wealth does not mean there will be no one in poverty. It means that money or property is taken from one group and used by another. Pretty sure this fits the exact definition of redistribution of wealth.
In other words, you claim UHC to be a "redistribution of wealth" yet totally ignore the consequences of such redistribution.
Why, thank you. I've got more - Fixed News, Fox Noise.....
Same old Republican fearmongering that we've all heard hundreds of times before. And all centering around the false premise that "ObamaCare" means "rationed or restricted access to doctors, therapies and care." Article also ignores polls which show that a plurality of Americans favor a public option, the most recent of which by the NYT was linked to just a few posts up!
I've heard ABC being called the All Barack Channel. Each side has its cute, and somewhat accurate names. Where there's smoke...
Regardless, no one knows how this is all going to end up. Maybe neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are correct. Even President Obama does not know what's going to happen. No one knows.
According to statistics, in 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person. I have health insurance and my total health expenditures this year have been $0. I don't smoke, drink, use drugs, engage in promiscuous sex or illegal activities, I never "accidentally" got pregnant nor had a baby I couldn't afford to care for. I exercise regularly, eat healthy foods, and drive within speed limits. I went to school so that I could make a living for "me and mine". I made a decision as a youth to take care of the one body I have. I have been fortunate, I acknowledge, but good fortune tends to go hand-in-hand with preparation. I have prepared all my life for good health, and my good health, I believe, is a consequence of how I treat myself. If everyone took good care of their bodies, I suspect the cost per person would be significantly lower - low enough that health care expenditures would not be a problem.
On the other hand, I may have a stroke tomorrow and need medical help for the rest of my life.
In other words, you claim UHC to be a "redistribution of wealth" yet totally ignore the consequences of such redistribution.
Wrong. The consequence of the redistribution is that they get free health care (or rather health care off the backs of others). That in itself has monetary benefit.
Look you're not going to win this argument because UHC is a textbook example of redistribution of wealth. You're just wrong in this instance.
Wrong. The consequence of the redistribution is that they get free health care (or rather health care off the backs of others). That in itself has monetary benefit.
Look you're not going to win this argument because UHC is a textbook example of redistribution of wealth. You're just wrong in this instance.
How arrogant. Just because you and conservatives call UHC redistribution of health does NOT make it fact.
Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.
Once again: for threads like this to remain open, please remember the Terms of Service and post your opinions WITHOUT aiming caustic or belittling remarks at other members.
Regardless, no one knows how this is all going to end up. Maybe neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are correct. Even President Obama does not know what's going to happen. No one knows.
But we do know that the current system is costly, cumbersome and fails too many people. We do know how costs will increase if nothing is done.
Insurance Premiums On The Rise
Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose by 119 percent from 1999-2008, while wages grew by only 34 percent, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Health Spending, In Billions 1960-2018 (projected)
Annual health care expenditures in the United States have gone from $27.5 billion in 1960 to $2.24 trillion in 2007 and are projected to reach $4.35 trillion by 2018. Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Health Expenditures Accounts (NHEA).
how arrogant. just because you and conservatives call uhc redistribution of health does not make it fact.
call me arrogant all you want but it doesnt change the facts. redistribution of wealth, by definition, (let me highlight that again by definition) is when money or goods are taken from one group and given to another. this is often used for taking goods/taxes/income from the more wealthy of society to pay for programs for the poor. uhc fits both of these definitions, plain and simple.
other examples of redistribution include: graduated income tax used for social programs, welfare, inheritance tax among others.
you agree with redistribution of wealth- it goes hand-in-hand with much of your political ideology. you just dont like the connotation that comes with the term redistribution of wealth because it can (and has been in the past) used as leverage in media bytes and has closely been linked to socialism in mass media.
I've got more - Fixed News, Fox Noise.....
Pierrette
76 Posts
Faux News...hahaha, that is so clever!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/23/obamacare_kiss_your_access_goodbye_97122.html