Free health care for all?

[Hugh_Hoy]

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

 

I think the operative word in my comment was "obligated" and "I don't think that because an employee can't afford it is a very good answer." In other words, an employer should be out of the equation unless it is something bargained for between the employer and the employee.

 

That leaves some level of government or personal responsibility (or combination thereof) to address the issue. Perhaps a percentage of an employees wages? A health tax on the wages of the employed who do not have their own policies or otherwise covered. That should be something the public would go for. (You, as a "worker" get health insurance; your neighbor who sits on his ass at home gets a bottle of aspirin and a first aid kit. :smirk: )

 

HH

[Central Scrutinizer]

The obligation of 'employers' to help out with a national healthcare system would be in their taxes, same as the employees, same as everyone who has an income from whatever source (this should include corporate taxes as well as import taxes and duties). All citizens would pay into the program at some level (even if they do not care to use it - but that could also include a tax rebate if they don't use it, something that goes toward their personal private health insurance costs).

 

There are many ways this could be done, and hopefully in an intelligent and frugal manner. It can be done, it could be done in some way to benefit all (except the greedy cunts raping us all-but they'll still make their millions and billions, don't worry :smirk: ) and should be done, and I think... will be done. To say it can't be done efficiently and responsibily is pure baloney. It can be if those who usually screw these things up, the government morons who siphon off the monies for their pet projects, and the private sector 'providers' and leeches and their lobbyists that try to milk the system, are kept in check. That, as Steve was pointing out, is the main problem.

 

And let me say, as for the illegals and the courts, it is stupid and wrong to force us to pay for illegals, criminals, to use our public services. I totally agree, the courts are wrong and idiotic, and have said so many times before here. The illegals are a huge drain on our precious resources, our schools, our healthcare/hospitals, etc. and need to be kept out and/or kicked out. And we definitely need to start spending our tax dollars on ourselves and giving much much less to others. It's an abuse of the American taxpayers' trust these massive give-aways.

 

JMHO on it.

[Steve]

Overall my view on nationalized health care is that ideologically I'm against it (i'm a small L Libertarian) but I do think there is enough money for it be possible if that makes sense at all.

 

Although I'm against it for constitutional reasons (free speech for one), publicly financed congressional and presidential elections may be the only way we can ween politicians off the special interest money.

 

The American pubic wants national health care. I would even surmise that your average every day Republican wants it (HH notwithstanding). The Republican platform includes it even if they try and mask it as something else. Its going to happen. How its going to happen remains to be seen. Will it be done right or not? Probably not.

 

Lets do it right. That's all I'm saying.

 

[shygye]

No money for it? The USA spends 16% of GDP on health care while other industrialized nations spend like 10% of GDP. About 35% of every health care dollar goes to administration costs as opposed to 2% in other countries.

 

Those people that oppose national health care, ask them if they will sign up for Medicare when they turn 65.

[Hugh_Hoy]

I did because I paid into it and particularly because my previous primary insurer (which is now secondary insurer) requires it. Also, there are doctors who will not accept Medicare.

 

HH

[Old Hippie]

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

 

 

 

One point you are over looking here is the simple fact that in the USA, Medical insurance was/is provided to employees, by employers, as part of their over all compensation package. Basically, we give up salary for medical/other benefits. In other words, employers do NOT give us shit, we pay one way or another. Same as pensions etc...

 

All benefits have a dollar value and rather than give us the money and have us fend for ourselves, we take the benefits. I think the company prefers it this way, as it gives them a level of control.

 

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

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

 

 

 

One point you are over looking here is the simple fact that in the USA, Medical insurance was/is provided to employees, by employers, as part of their over all compensation package. Basically, we give up salary for medical/other benefits. In other words, employers do NOT give us shit, we pay one way or another. Same as pensions etc...

 

All benefits have a dollar value and rather than give us the money and have us fend for ourselves, we take the benefits. I think the company prefers it this way, as it gives them a level of control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH,

 

Correcto mundo. It really isn't a perk but a part of your total compensation packet. It is bargained for by the unions and does have a cash value that, at least when the company yaps about it or those union hating scabs that love to dis unions, is considered 'payment' in lieu of services, just isn't cash. Personally I'd rather have the cash value and decide for myself what health insurance company I want to use.

 

And yeah, the companies use it as a stick that way. Lose your job, go on strike, etc. and they stop your insurance as fast as they can, sometimes illegally. (Oh yeah, it was a "mistake", sure bossman. I believe in the tooth fairy too.) If you/people had the cash in hand instead and bought your own you'd be better off. Less of a sword of Damocles hanging over your head.

 

By the way, the US government is ALREADY the largest healthcare insurer in the country. They insure about 45% of all people having a health insurance (goverment employees, veterans, medicare/medicaid, etc.). Larger than any private healthcare insurance provider. You never hear many government workers (or the senators or congressmen who are also well covered by our tax dollars) complaining about their friggin' health insurance do you? Thought not. :smirk:

[cavanami]

Soooo, when my health coverage ends in two months, Imaybe I can sign on with the US gov health coverage...maybe I will be better off to hold my breath until hell freezes over!

[allistar]

I didn't know you turned 65 in two months?

[shygye]

I did because I paid into it and particularly because my previous primary insurer (which is now secondary insurer) requires it. Also, there are doctors who will not accept Medicare.

 

HH

 

Then you are a closet socialist! Why don't you just go pay for private health insurance and stay out of that nasty national health insurance (Medicare).