Jump to content

Free health care for all?


Flashermac

Recommended Posts

I've managed to spend an extraordinary amount of time since arriving in U.S. the middle of October on getting health care for my wife and 4 kids. Just catistropic insurance runs $350.00 a month. About two weeks ago, my son received health care from the state of Kansas Healthwave program, which covers the health care of a family of six that makes less than $56,000 a year. Since I made considerably less than that for the last 3 years, it wasn't hard to qualify but a lot of paperwork. The step children didn't qualify because of the law restricting coverage to foreigners that haave been here at least 5 years. That law was changed last week, so hopefully, they will be covered soon. Old Hippie, I may have just changed my mind about universal health coverage (with it being the lessor of several evils). For myself, I coulod care less. I'll take my chances that, for the next 9 years, I can stay relative healthy and get on medicade when I turn 65. But,, this isn't an option for my wife and kids. I'm opposed to the current system, where employees depend on health insurance provided by their employers and the employers choose the health care policies based on their need, which may or may not coorespond with their employee's needs. Why should the self-employeed, the unemployeed and those that work for employers that don't provide health insurance be at a great disadvantage in having to get individual health insurance packages, which are quite a bit more than the group health insurance policies offered to businesses. I'm also opposed to true universal, free health care coverage because of the strain such a system would impose on the health care system. When people receive a service for free, they tend to overuse/abuse that service. I don't trust politicians to get that right. It should be interesting to see what Obama comes up with and how many compromises he has to make. It is an indictment of the U.S. health care system when I can't find a U.S. doctor to look at my left eye, which has had cateract surgery and had gotten blurry over the last two months. I'm going to spend $950 on an airline ticket to go to bangkok in March and have the doctor at Rutnin that operated on the eye in the first place, look at the eye and, hopefully, fix the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

By the same token, why should I be required to pay taxes that support medicaid or medicare? why shouldn't we all be allowed to keep our tax money and be on our own?

 

All the years you worked, you were provided health insurance right? who paid for that? employer? you? The taxpayers?

 

The bottom line is, people cannot afford insurance, people cannot afford to pay for medical care, and people work their whole life to die broke from medical expenses. So what is your solution? Because the current options are not very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think its safe to assume that the Major League Umpire's Union provided very good health insurance. I think if you took a poll of whether health care in the U.S. needs to be completely ovehauled, any American that works for a company that provides good health care would be against it, including members here in that situation. If I were in that boat, I'd probably not want health care altered. However, most americans now have crappy health insurance or none at all. I think you will see a radical change in health care in the U.S. over the next 10-15 years and what Obama does will be just the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should an employer be obligated to pay anything for an employee's health benefits?

 

HH

 

 

 

So you are saying the employee should bear the cost, or the government?

 

I feel ALL should bear SOME of the cost of the HIGH cost of healthcare in the US. Employers, employees, and the government (who should be keeping these costs at reasonable levels through legislation and/or discussions with the providers and insurers). There is no reason at all that a country of our stature cannot provide at least a BASIC level of decent health care for all no matter what their financial status at any given moment: employed, unemployed, retired, disabled, etc.

 

Healthcare costs are outrageously expensive and only those with high income or large employers who provide insurance coverage for their many employees can afford 'decent' healthcare.

 

At the moment many employers are shuffling off these costs to the employees and the government. WHy? Because it is getting too expensive for any one to afford to cover. And I agree that the the employers should not bear the full burden of this. But if they do not (and many now do not) and it is too expensive for even the largest corporations that employ thousands and even millions and get a good cut rate from the insurance companies for this - how can a simple hourly rate employee afford this?

 

How is it that all other large rich 1st world countries can afford to have universal healthcare for their citizens and we in America, the supposedly richest country on the planet cannot do the same? Canada can? But America cannot? The UK can but we can't? Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavians can, but we can't?

 

Bullshit. Compassionate conservatism? We can borrow money for wars to bomb goatherders back to the stone age (which they are nearly in still anyways), we can borrow money to help the poor Wall Street robber barons and undisciplined banks and big business thieves, yet more and more of our American families are without even the most basic of healthcare services because, get this now, we cannot afford it? Again, I say, bullshit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should an employer be obligated to pay anything for an employee's health benefits?

 

HH

 

 

 

So you are saying the employee should bear the cost' date=' or the government?

 

How is it that all other large rich 1st world countries can afford to have universal healthcare for their citizens and we in America, the supposedly richest country on the planet cannot do the same? Canada can? But America cannot? The UK can but we can't? Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavians can, but we can't?.

[/quote']

 

Well, you managed to reply to my question without answering it.

 

Anyway, I'll try to answer yours.

 

The countries you mention do not come close to paying their proportionate share of world "policing" or foreign aid. They don't have the huge population that inhabits this country. Those countries do not have millions of illegal aliens for which the courts have generously obligated U.S. citizens to pay for their schooling and medical expenses. They don't have, for instance, the vast networks of highways, or the number of airports to staff and maintain. They don't have the same number of miles of border which should be protected. I am sure I could go on and on. I just asked a simple question as to WHY an employer should be burdened with an employee's health insurance. I don't think that because an employee can't afford it is a very good answer.

 

There ain't no "free lunch".

 

HH

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HH, I agree there 'ain't no free lunch'. I used to be fervently against any kind of nationaized health care. Its a losing battle. Its going to happen.

If it has to happen, it will not work in the present way the government is run.

 

The number one problem with nationalized health care is that the providers and major players (HMOs, Doctors, AMA, Pharmaceutical companies, etc.) have more say with the Congress than we (the people) do. Any legislation will be for their benefit first and foremost and any benfit to the consumer is residual.

 

Until that changes ANY program that is developed will end up costing many times more than what is sold to us.

 

Medicare and medicaid was sold to the American people with a certain cost and that amount seems almost criminal now in terms of the actual costs. In fact, has there ever been any government plan or program of size that has ever been even moderately close to the cost we were told? Maybe there is one. Maybe you all can think of one but I guarantee you it will be the exception than the rule.

 

The no free lunch should apply to all. Including corporations. I'm all for maximizing profit. I'm a devout capitalist. However, corporations also get their own 'corporate welfare'. I'm no fan of social welfare. Seen it first hand. Had parents that were too proud to take it and half my childhood friends had it to some degree, however, what I've found is a double standard. Corporate welfare costs more but doesn't get nearly a tenth of the bad press that social welfare gets.

Sorry, off on a tangent.

 

I have a question for those that are for national healthcare. Why can't each state come up with its own statewide program? America is a huge, diversified country. Regionally as well as within each state there are different needs. Florida and Arizona may have more geriatric needs due to their high numbers of elderly. Other states may have pediatric and family care due to their high growth rates. Why does it have to be the federal government. If all 50 states had their own program each could learn from the successes and mistakes of other states. Perhaps just like super lotto, a few states could pool resources and create a entity to administer healthcare.

 

The money is actually at the federal level though I must say. The amount of waste is criminal. Although I am against national health care ideologically, the money is there if we used the money that is wasted on certain things. Pork as well as military. I've written before that I read once there was an estimated 1 trillion dollars that the GAO has said has just simply gone missing over a generation to the department of defense. They and the military have no accounting or any idea where it went. Black ops and skunk works does not eat up a trillion dollars. Millions maybe, tens of millions perhaps and some of that stuff may be needed or we wouldn't have drones and stealth technology but a lot of it has lined some pockets that there may be a revolt if the people knew where it all went.

 

We are near bankruptcy as a nation now. National healthcare under the present climate will be the death knell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HH,

 

"There ain't no "free lunch"."

 

No one is asking for a free lunch, they are asking for a lunch at an affordable price. What we have now is a McDonald's lunch at Waldorf dining prices.

 

And I did answer your question. I said ALL should have to bear some part of the costs, employee, employer, government, the insurance companies, the healthcare industry, etc. And I did say that I think the employers shouldn't have to bear the brunt of it all. You missed that part? :smirk:

 

Here it is again, and I quote: "And I agree that the the employers should not bear the full burden of this. But if they do not (and many now do not) and it is too expensive for even the largest corporations that employ thousands and even millions and get a good cut rate from the insurance companies for this - how can a simple hourly rate employee afford this?"

 

 

Cent

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

"The number one problem with nationalized health care is that the providers and major players (HMOs, Doctors, AMA, Pharmaceutical companies, etc.) have more say with the Congress than we (the people) do. Any legislation will be for their benefit first and foremost and any benfit to the consumer is residual."

 

And there, as per usual in our country, is the crux of the matter. Big business and their lackey bought and paid for government 'of the people' screwing the little guys as hard and as deep as they can.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should an employer be obligated to pay anything for an employee's health benefits?

 

HH

 

 

 

So you are saying the employee should bear the cost' date=' or the government?

 

How is it that all other large rich 1st world countries can afford to have universal healthcare for their citizens and we in America, the supposedly richest country on the planet cannot do the same? Canada can? But America cannot? The UK can but we can't? Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavians can, but we can't?.

[/quote']

 

Well, you managed to reply to my question without answering it.

 

Anyway, I'll try to answer yours.

 

The countries you mention do not come close to paying their proportionate share of world "policing" or foreign aid. They don't have the huge population that inhabits this country. Those countries do not have millions of illegal aliens for which the courts have generously obligated U.S. citizens to pay for their schooling and medical expenses. They don't have, for instance, the vast networks of highways, or the number of airports to staff and maintain. They don't have the same number of miles of border which should be protected. I am sure I could go on and on. I just asked a simple question as to WHY an employer should be burdened with an employee's health insurance. I don't think that because an employee can't afford it is a very good answer.

 

There ain't no "free lunch".

 

HH

 

 

 

Why does the USA provide aid to so many countries?

 

Why do the Iraqis get free health care are at our expense while many of our citizens go without?

 

Why do illegals get so many benefits?

 

Why is the border unprotected? Does anybody actually believe they will build a border around Alaska?

 

As for an employer proving health care: would it be wise to roll back all of the benefits employers do provide? If you say no to the rollback then why not say yes to healthare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...