Gov healthcare
- Thread starter DS
- Start date
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
I would be willing to pay all the premiums that UPS pays for me right now, which is about $10,000 a year, as long as I was able to retain my coverage. I have no problem with paying for routine lab work and physicals, as long as my catastrophic risk was capped at say, $5,000 per year.
That's me, with my income. A family of 4, making maybe $50,000 after taxes, should not be required to spend more than $3,500 out of pocket in a year. IMHO. That's 7% of their after tax income.
A family at the poverty line, and up to maybe 150% of the poverty line, shouldn't pay anything out of pocket.
That's obviously a matter for serious debate, since YMMV, and everyone has a different threshold for what they may consider appropriate.
1989
Well-Known Member
So your upside is paying $833 a month with a $5000 cap (15,000)...What would be your down side? If you had $100,000 in assets (cash, cars, toys) you would spend 15% of your money to protect it? That seems a bit pricey to me. If you only had $50,000 to protect it would be a no brainer. Go without for a while. 30% of your net worth isn't worth it.
tieguy
Banned
klein
Für Meno :)
tieguy
Banned
ObamaCare? Ask the British and Canadians
What about England?
Civitas, a nonpartisan British think tank, recently scolded the British National Health Service (NHS) for "putting the patient last." Why? Civitas blames the government-run health care system's monolithic nature, lack of competition, and the burdensome and wasteful regulation, redundancy, oversight and meddling by government — including some 69 public bodies besides the Department of Health, such as the Care Quality Commission and the Environment Agency. This means the NHS serves the bureaucrat, not the patient.
What about our neighbor to the north, Canada?
After all, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said that if "starting from scratch," he'd emulate their "single-payer," government-run system. Tell that to the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, the equivalent of the American Medical Association.
"We all agree that the system is imploding (emphasis added). We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," said Dr. Anne Doig. "We know that there must be change," she continued. "We're all running flat-out. We're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands." She said the Canadian model has some "very good things," but "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now — if it keeps on going without change — is not sustainable."
What does the current president of the Canadian Medical Association suggest? Competition.
Health care and insurance are not "rights." Freedom of speech is a right. A fair trial — in which one is judged by a jury of one's peers — is a right. Protection against government discrimination based on race or religion or against being victimized by unreasonable searches and seizures are rights. One is no more entitled to health care or insurance than one is to a Lexus or a mansion or courtside seats at a Los Angeles Lakers game. Desirable? Sure. A "right"? No. Yet unlike the Lexus, extending health care to the unfortunate is a moral imperative. That's the definition of charity. But it's not a constitutional right.
Health care and insurance are commodities. Without government intrusion, excessive regulation and mandates, they would get cheaper and more affordable. Free market competition — the same system that gives us ever-cheaper flat-screen televisions and cell phones with more power and ever-expanding functions — remains the greatest wealth-producing system with the most widespread benefits known to humankind. It gives us cheaper and higher-quality elective surgeries, such as laser eye surgery, face-lifts, hair transplants and liposuction. Inexplicably, the President seems to understand this. He recently said, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. — It's the post office that's always having problems."!!??
What about England?
Civitas, a nonpartisan British think tank, recently scolded the British National Health Service (NHS) for "putting the patient last." Why? Civitas blames the government-run health care system's monolithic nature, lack of competition, and the burdensome and wasteful regulation, redundancy, oversight and meddling by government — including some 69 public bodies besides the Department of Health, such as the Care Quality Commission and the Environment Agency. This means the NHS serves the bureaucrat, not the patient.
What about our neighbor to the north, Canada?
After all, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said that if "starting from scratch," he'd emulate their "single-payer," government-run system. Tell that to the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, the equivalent of the American Medical Association.
"We all agree that the system is imploding (emphasis added). We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," said Dr. Anne Doig. "We know that there must be change," she continued. "We're all running flat-out. We're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands." She said the Canadian model has some "very good things," but "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now — if it keeps on going without change — is not sustainable."
What does the current president of the Canadian Medical Association suggest? Competition.
Health care and insurance are not "rights." Freedom of speech is a right. A fair trial — in which one is judged by a jury of one's peers — is a right. Protection against government discrimination based on race or religion or against being victimized by unreasonable searches and seizures are rights. One is no more entitled to health care or insurance than one is to a Lexus or a mansion or courtside seats at a Los Angeles Lakers game. Desirable? Sure. A "right"? No. Yet unlike the Lexus, extending health care to the unfortunate is a moral imperative. That's the definition of charity. But it's not a constitutional right.
Health care and insurance are commodities. Without government intrusion, excessive regulation and mandates, they would get cheaper and more affordable. Free market competition — the same system that gives us ever-cheaper flat-screen televisions and cell phones with more power and ever-expanding functions — remains the greatest wealth-producing system with the most widespread benefits known to humankind. It gives us cheaper and higher-quality elective surgeries, such as laser eye surgery, face-lifts, hair transplants and liposuction. Inexplicably, the President seems to understand this. He recently said, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. — It's the post office that's always having problems."!!??
klein
Für Meno :)
ObamaCare? Ask the British and Canadians
What about England?
Civitas, a nonpartisan British think tank, recently scolded the British National Health Service (NHS) for "putting the patient last." Why? Civitas blames the government-run health care system's monolithic nature, lack of competition, and the burdensome and wasteful regulation, redundancy, oversight and meddling by government — including some 69 public bodies besides the Department of Health, such as the Care Quality Commission and the Environment Agency. This means the NHS serves the bureaucrat, not the patient.
What about our neighbor to the north, Canada?
After all, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said that if "starting from scratch," he'd emulate their "single-payer," government-run system. Tell that to the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, the equivalent of the American Medical Association.
"We all agree that the system is imploding (emphasis added). We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," said Dr. Anne Doig. "We know that there must be change," she continued. "We're all running flat-out. We're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands." She said the Canadian model has some "very good things," but "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now — if it keeps on going without change — is not sustainable."
What does the current president of the Canadian Medical Association suggest? Competition.
Health care and insurance are not "rights." Freedom of speech is a right. A fair trial — in which one is judged by a jury of one's peers — is a right. Protection against government discrimination based on race or religion or against being victimized by unreasonable searches and seizures are rights. One is no more entitled to health care or insurance than one is to a Lexus or a mansion or courtside seats at a Los Angeles Lakers game. Desirable? Sure. A "right"? No. Yet unlike the Lexus, extending health care to the unfortunate is a moral imperative. That's the definition of charity. But it's not a constitutional right.
Health care and insurance are commodities. Without government intrusion, excessive regulation and mandates, they would get cheaper and more affordable. Free market competition — the same system that gives us ever-cheaper flat-screen televisions and cell phones with more power and ever-expanding functions — remains the greatest wealth-producing system with the most widespread benefits known to humankind. It gives us cheaper and higher-quality elective surgeries, such as laser eye surgery, face-lifts, hair transplants and liposuction. Inexplicably, the President seems to understand this. He recently said, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. — It's the post office that's always having problems."!!??
Ok first of all, the Canadian Medical Ass. is the same as yours (doctors, and physicians). Yes, we need more of them. I agree.
What does the American Medical Association think ?
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/virtual-town-hall-2009aug21.shtml
There is your answer !
P
pickup
Guest
Well, I am also interested in what the American Mafia Association has to say and after watching the video, I see that they are saying absolutely nothing worth saying.
klein
Für Meno :)
They said it's no reason, you can't have a national healthcare system like the rest of the world ! Did you miss that part ? They (AMA) want this.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
" WASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system."
"But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html
klein
Für Meno :)
Why would I want a link from the NY times, if I can go directly to the AMA website ?
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/virtual-town-hall-2009aug21.shtml
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Look, I know you have a difficult time putting a thought together but you asked what their stance was so I posted a link with the relevant quotes to their stance. Their spokesman told the finance committee that their organization opposed any government backed insurance for non disabled people younger than 65. Just in case you wonder why the finance committee that is likely where the real battle will take place over this latest attempt by our government to grab what little freedom we have left.
It is very simple so even you can understand why I would be left scratching my head when you ask that question.
Here are some of the things the AMA does support. I do not see why any of these things are important but you did ask.
"Rep. Bart Gordon (R-TN) intends to offer a series of three amendments to H.R. 3200 to address medical liability reform. The AMA supports all three amendments, none of which would interfere with currently enacted state laws or impede the future enactment of more complete medical liability reforms'."
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/gordon-medical-liability.shtml
"A broad coalition of physicians, patients, liability insurers and other health care entities recently submitted several proposals to Congress to ensure that medical liability reform is included in federal health system reform."
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/07/27/prsd0728.htm
"The status quo is unacceptable. The AMA has made clear its commitment to health reform this year. Congress must take action to expand coverage to the uninsured through a choice of plans and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions, include prevention and wellness initiatives, address medical liability reform and repeal the broken Medicare physician payment system that harms seniors' access to care. Without repeal, physicians face payment cuts of nearly 40 percent over the next five years that will force them to limit the number of seniors they can treat – right as the baby boomers begin aging into Medicare."
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/ama-affirms-support.shtml
Last edited:
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
In 1974, tuition was $750 a semester. I was getting paid $4.50 an hour. That's about $5800 a year. After Tax, maybe $4900. Minus $1500 for tuition, another couple hundred for books. Leaving me $3200 to pay livings expenses for the car, insurance, etc. I lived at home and paid my parents $100 a month for board. They were old fashioned and didn't want to take money from their kids. But they didn't pay anything else for me and my sister. We each paid our own way.
Nowadays, same school is charging $12,000 a semester, and part time pay starts at what, $8.50 an hour, goes all the way up to maybe $10 if you hang around long enough? In state tuition in Kentucky is around $4100 per semester. So if you make $9/hr, and work 20 hours a week (Air hub rarely goes 5 hours) You make $9300. After taxes, maybe $8000.
You can disagree with me all you like on issues and political outlook, but calling me a liar on a part of my life I remember all too well is b.s. on your part. UPS has been very, very good to me over 34 years, and I have no complaints on the rewards I have been able to accumulate through hard work, innovation, and smart investing. Because of UPS, I am fortunate to be in the top 5% of the working class. That doesn't change my opinion that today's kids who are growing up in circumstances that are the same ones I grew up in don't have near the opportunity to pull themselves up. In the economy, OR at UPS!
browndevil
Well-Known Member
I noticed he kissed a woman with a baby. I am assuming that is his wife and kid. I wonder if that birth was delivered by way of the VA. Just wondering I thought that speaker was a royal ***** and disrespectful to the congressman
tieguy
Banned
he was an ass. But our politicians need to hear it. They keep trying to alibi these public demonstrations as being part of some right wing conspiracies.
If they see enough pissed off voters then they may actually start listening. If they see polite submissive voters then they may think they can push their own agenda through without too much resistance.
The worst thing we who are concerned about political meddling with our health care can do is to politely voice our objections.
This issue is headed for one of two possible outcomes. Forced through or full retreat.
