Record Number of Americans Lack Health Insurance

[one...two...tree 2,762]

it should be i the Bill of Rights..as it is the basic need for the pursuit of life

i feel the very same way about pizza! where is my subsidized pizza?

Don't be silly, Charles. All people get sick at some point in their lives, it's not

something we 'want' or can choose or control.

You've never heard of someone dying because they didn't eat pizza?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

You've never heard of someone dying because they didn't eat pizza?

me!

[Dan J 277]

it should be i the Bill of Rights..as it is the basic need for the pursuit of life

i feel the very same way about pizza! where is my subsidized pizza?

Yeah, food stamps.

But universal health care doesn't mean subsidized health care, you are still paying for it. Either with taxes or a separate premium.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You've never heard of someone dying because they didn't eat pizza?

me!

mmmmm....pizza.

[MissStacey 1]

Mmmm. That looks good!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

You've never heard of someone dying because they didn't eat pizza?

me!

mmmmm....pizza.

teaser

[GaryC 7]

It doesn't matter, with the way our congress works we will never have socialized medicine. (God willing)

Why is that? Congress represents the people, and the people want free healthcare.

Not all, or even most. I don't want it and a majority don't otherwise like you said the congress would have passed it. It's just a vocal minority that want it.

[mawilson 2,133]

It doesn't matter, with the way our congress works we will never have socialized medicine. (God willing)

Why is that? Congress represents the people, and the people want free healthcare.

Not all, or even most. I don't want it and a majority don't otherwise like you said the congress would have passed it. It's just a vocal minority that want it.

In that case you would be right, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

"Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access

to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the

tax cuts were more important."

[GaryC 7]

It doesn't matter, with the way our congress works we will never have socialized medicine. (God willing)

Why is that? Congress represents the people, and the people want free healthcare.

Not all, or even most. I don't want it and a majority don't otherwise like you said the congress would have passed it. It's just a vocal minority that want it.

In that case you would be right, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

"Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access

to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the

tax cuts were more important."

Look at how they framed the question. Do you want universal health care or the tax cuts. If what you say is true then why did Hillarycare meet with such a huge backlash? Some even blame that for the dems losing the 94 election. If that large of a majority want it then why hasn't congress dem or rep givin it to us? If that large of proportion of the population wants it then it seems to be a no brainer for them to give it so they can get re-elected.

[mawilson 2,133]

Look at how they framed the question. Do you want universal health care or the tax cuts. If what you say is true then why did Hillarycare meet with such a huge backlash? Some even blame that for the dems losing the 94 election. If that large of a majority want it then why hasn't congress dem or rep givin it to us? If that large of proportion of the population wants it then it seems to be a no brainer for them to give it so they can get re-elected.

I think it's the right way to frame the question, because they can't finance universal

healthcare without rolling back Bush's tax cuts (*sigh*).

If it didn't cost you a penny, you wouldn't say no to it, now would you?

However, universal health care comes with a price tag, so the question really

becomes "healthcare vs higher taxes". Still,

"Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs for a better

health care system, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and

forgoing future tax cuts."

[GaryC 7]

Look at how they framed the question. Do you want universal health care or the tax cuts. If what you say is true then why did Hillarycare meet with such a huge backlash? Some even blame that for the dems losing the 94 election. If that large of a majority want it then why hasn't congress dem or rep givin it to us? If that large of proportion of the population wants it then it seems to be a no brainer for them to give it so they can get re-elected.

I think it's the right way to frame the question, because they can't finance universal

healthcare without rolling back Bush's tax cuts (*sigh*).

If it didn't cost you a penny, you wouldn't say no to it, now would you?

However, universal health care comes with a price tag, so the question really

becomes "healthcare vs higher taxes". Still,

"Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs for a better

health care system, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and

forgoing future tax cuts."

If it meant losing my freedom to choose my own doctors and treatments your darn right I would still say no. The huge taxes it would entail is only one of the ways this turkey stinks. The idea of socialized medicine stinks from all the angles. I want no part of it.

[mawilson 2,133]

If it meant losing my freedom to choose my own doctors and treatments your darn right I would still say no. The huge taxes it would entail is only one of the ways this turkey stinks. The idea of socialized medicine stinks from all the angles. I want no part of it.

Why do you think you would lose that freedom? Because employers will stop insuring

their employees, forcing them to use the free system?

Also, why does it entail huge taxes? How does the UK and other countries manage it?

UK taxes are not (much) higher than US taxes - the highest UK rate is 40% vs 35% here

(add the Medicare tax and state taxes and it will be more than 40% in most states.)

[Dan J 277]

Look at how they framed the question. Do you want universal health care or the tax cuts. If what you say is true then why did Hillarycare meet with such a huge backlash? Some even blame that for the dems losing the 94 election. If that large of a majority want it then why hasn't congress dem or rep givin it to us? If that large of proportion of the population wants it then it seems to be a no brainer for them to give it so they can get re-elected.

I think it's the right way to frame the question, because they can't finance universal

healthcare without rolling back Bush's tax cuts (*sigh*).

If it didn't cost you a penny, you wouldn't say no to it, now would you?

However, universal health care comes with a price tag, so the question really

becomes "healthcare vs higher taxes". Still,

"Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs for a better

health care system, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and

forgoing future tax cuts."

If it meant losing my freedom to choose my own doctors and treatments your darn right I would still say no. The huge taxes it would entail is only one of the ways this turkey stinks. The idea of socialized medicine stinks from all the angles. I want no part of it.

Who says you have to get rid of the freedom of choice? A one payer system covers everyone, but still gives you a freedom to choose your doctor. If its a private doctor, you probably will have to pay the difference.

Average monthly premium for family coverage is about $850-900. For the sake of this argument, lets say they pay half. So you have to pay about $450 per month and your employer pays about $450 per month.

Now if we switch to socialized health care and bring our costs more in line with other country's, and only keep the cost subsidization model as it is, only covering the elderly and poor. Your total premium goes from $900 to about say $500. Your employer chooses to continue paying their portion as it is, what will you do with the extra $400 per month you now have? If you really want to keep paying as much as you are, use the money saved, to choose private doctors.

It doesn't have to be part of the general tax deductions, if it makes you feel better, it can a separate deduction on your paycheck. Universal health care premium.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Two things I have to say about this...

1. Call it "National Healthcare" or "Universal Healthcare" but whatever you do, DO NOT call it "Free Healthcare." It is NOT free. It NEVER has been free, it's NOT free now and it WON'T ever be free either. I don't care what country you're looking at too. It may SEEM to be free (since you're not immediately shelling out money in some form or another), but make no mistake -- you ARE paying for it with your taxes.

2. I'm not completely against a National Healthcare system, provided that private avenues still exist. I think the idea that everyone has some form of "basic medical coverage" is a good one, but individuals should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to see private medical institutions and physicians. I think that's the part that scares many Americans. They believe that if National Healthcare were to become a reality, the opportunity for private healthcare would disappear (as it has in some places).

Even though I dislike the fact that companies (HMOs, PPOs, and so forth) have the power to basically dictate to patients which physicians they can see, what procedures they may undergo and how much medication will cost them, I don't believe for one instant that the United States government would run things any better. It's been my experience that when the government gets it's hands on something, it tends to screw matters up. Even when the government runs well (for it, anyway), it likes to create departments and then departments within departments, just to make things even more complex and confuse people.

So while I don't think that National Healthcare would be inherently "bad," I don't necessarily believe it would suddenly "fix" everything either. I doubt having the government control healthcare would really be the panacea that so many seem to think it'd be. Maybe it'd eventually work out (who knows, right?), but that'd probably be after a period of chaos and assuming the government actually got it's act together.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't believe for one instant that the United States government would run things any better. It's been my experience that when the government gets it's hands on something, it tends to screw matters up.

That's not necessarily true. Look at the IRS - they are doing pretty well, don't you think?

The government CAN run things well when they want to.