S/O Why universal health care frightens me

[Peek a Boo]

2/ To answer your question. No babies born to illegal immigrants or even legal immigrants on on work or study visas rather than permanant residence do not get citizenship in NZ or Australia. I'm really shocked that the US does actually!!

 

3/ I was wondering though, if you had a voluntary system would it only be the people who couldn't afford your current system who joined i.e the poor/retired etc? Because surely part of universal health care is that to a certain extent the more affluent help make it possible to pay for the less affluent.

 

 

#2 is part of the reason it's such a problem here --they are called "anchor babies" per that snopes link above. So the babies are the ones eligible for benefits, and the illegal parents are the ones collecting and spending food stamps and money. Then nobody wants to be mean and deport the family. So see? Australia is just not as compassionate as the US.......

 

#3-- this is where I wonder how many people arguing for UHC would put their money where their mouth is. If "a majority" of the people really want this --including rich Democrats in Congress-- would they be willing to join this voluntarily and agree to have wages garnished??? How many people arguing FOR UHC are just the poor? i see plenty of not-poor folk lobbying for this, so getting half of our population to voluntarily join shouldn't be a problem, right?

I tend to NOT appreciate government programs where NOBODY has a choice to join. America was founded on freedom FROM the gvt, and a few of us still want to see that maintained as much as possible.

 

We could do a little poll *here* to see how many people that support UHC are at which income brackets. But honestly, there's a lot of rich liberals who could help fund this if they wanted to. The running joke is that conservatives want to use their money to help themselves. Liberals want to use YOUR money to help others. If places like denmark can do it with a much lower population than we have, surely a voluntary system w/ the same number could work, dontcha think? How many people are funding the Australian system? Canadian system?

[keptwoman]

#2 is part of the reason it's such a problem here --they are called "anchor babies" per that snopes link above. So the babies are the ones eligible for benefits, and the illegal parents are the ones collecting and spending food stamps and money. Then nobody wants to be mean and deport the family. So see? Australia is just not as compassionate as the US.......

 

 

 

Yes it certainly sounds like Australia is stricter. On the other hand they take substantially more refugees and asylum seekers per capita than the USA so perhaps that balances it out somewhat :) As they tend to be reliant on the state for a while until they get back on their feet again.

[TXMomof4]

There was a story about the "anchor babies" on NPR the other day. In the EU, Ireland is the only country in which a baby born in that country is automatically a citizen and eligible for benefits. The story was about how hard they are working to change that because it is costing them a lot! I'll see if I can find the link.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes it certainly sounds like Australia is stricter. On the other hand they take substantially more refugees and asylum seekers per capita than the USA so perhaps that balances it out somewhat :) As they tend to be reliant on the state for a while until they get back on their feet again.

 

...and maybe if we got rid of the anchor baby loophole we too could afford to take in more refugees and asylum seekers ;) But if you look at the illegal immigrant numbers in America, I'll bet we're running neck and neck w/ your "officially legal" numbers in refugees and asylum seekers, lol.

 

I find it kinda ironic that I want the US to catch up to the rest of the world in how to define a citizen, and the UHC people want us to catch up to the rest of the world in offering universal healthcare.

 

I think we need to tackle our "citizen" issue first.

[ClassicMom]

The biggest hurdles to UHC in America are

1. Tort reform. Malpractice insurance is outrageous.

2. Immigrant reform. Enforce laws already on the books. I would go so far as to deny dual citizenship to someone who is born in the country if their birth was during the course of a CRIME --illegal immigration. See snopes article above. Sincere Q: do other countries offer dual citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants?

3. Keep it voluntary. You don't need to require every citizen fund it or participate in it. Countries do a UHC system w/ far fewer people than we have.

 

I agree with PeekaBoo here. But more than that. I think that major reforms to the heath care system would free us from the need of an UHC, or at least a more limited one.

 

1. above. In our area, doctors are leaving in droves because of this. Especially ob/gyn.

 

2. insurance politics. The insurance companies are buying up doctors offices and hospitals. If the doctors don't sell out, they don't get into the plans and don't make the money. They are also leaving in droves.

 

3. illegal immigration is a huge problem for the medical industry. Moreso in the west, but all over the country as well. It has to be dealt with no matter which side of the immigration issue people are on.

 

4. the drug companies also need to answer for their waste and therefore high-prices in meds. I've worked in or around the medical industry for many years and have seen first-hand the way that the drug reps throw money around to try to sell a new drug. It's sickening. And each and every one of them do it. Some doctors will refuse the kick-backs, but not many.

All of that comes out of the consumer's pockets.

 

Just reforming the medical system would save the country billions of dollars. This would allow for major changes within the system itself.

 

Just my $.02

[Blessedchaos]

I have not read any of the responses yet, though I will, but I do want to point out that the articles referenced in the OP pertain to the systems of the UK and Canada. Every country has a unique health care system, and neither of these countries have systems that closely resemble the "universal" health care system (which isn't even a true universal health care system, IMO) presented under democratic nominee Barack Obama, which is what I'm assuming the OP is referring to by her post (forgive me if I'm mistaken). His plan more closely resembles a social insurance plan. Every country's system is unique, as are their problems and issues. The US would be wise to develop a system of our own to meet our needs.

 

I highly recommend watching PBS's documentary, Sick Around the World:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

 

It outlines the systems in five different nations, each one unique, but each one would probably be considered a "universal health care" system to many in the US. The program is not political and it is very interesting and helps to understand some of the options out there and how the US could use what would work here while learning from the mistakes other countries have made.

 

No system is perfect, but I think the cost of not investing in health care reform would be far greater and more devastating than any cost associated with implementing it.

 

Note: I have now read through all the replies and the posters who explained how UHC works in their countries expressed what I was trying to say so much better than I could. Do check out the documentary though - I found it very interesting.

[keptwoman]

...and maybe if we got rid of the anchor baby loophole we too could afford to take in more refugees and asylum seekers ;) But if you look at the illegal immigrant numbers in America, I'll bet we're running neck and neck w/ your "officially legal" numbers in refugees and asylum seekers, lol.

LOL yes. That's my point. We take lots of refugees and asylum seekers, you have lots of illegal migrants with anchor babies. So perhaps we aren't so far apart afterall in the migrant issue in terms of healthcare.

[hornblower]

It does mean socialized care. Any belief otherwise is naive. The whole concept of UHC requires the government (aka taxpayers) to cover cost. This becomes socialized health care.

 

Well heck, now that you have socialized banking, why not keep going? :tongue_smilie:

 

hornblower, eh?

[Peek a Boo]

Well heck, now that you have socialized banking, why not keep going? :tongue_smilie:

 

hornblower, eh?

 

boy howdy....don't EVEN get me started on that!!!

 

rrrrrrrrr:ack2:

[astrid]

I highly recommend watching PBS's documentary, Sick Around the World:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

 

It outlines the systems in five different nations, each one unique, but each one would probably be considered a "universal health care" system to many in the US. The program is not political and it is very interesting and helps to understand some of the options out there and how the US could use what would work here while learning from the mistakes other countries have made.

 

No system is perfect, but I think the cost of not investing in health care reform would be far greater and more devastating than any cost associated with implementing it.

 

I've been meaning to dig up that link and post it here, but life has taken over for the past couple of days. YES, DO CHECK OUT THAT LINK. It's an excellent documentary.

 

I couldn't agree more--- the cost of NOT overhauling our system would be devastating. It is horrifying to me that in our supposedly civilized nation, the sick are left to die for lack of access to health care.

 

astrid

[astrid]

Because most of the veterans I know personally get abysmal care.

 

Right. So why is that okay with us as a nation? Why are we not overhauling not only veterans care, but our entire system? Why are we, a civilized nation, allowing this substandard care for our veterans and our young and our old? Why are we not learning from other countries who manage very well? Here's a great video on the subject. It's a PBS "Frontline" piece, and very well done, IMHO. NOT political, either! :-)

 

Astrid

[Peek a Boo]

Right. So why is that okay with us as a nation? Why are we not overhauling not only veterans care, but our entire system? Why are we, a civilized nation, allowing this substandard care for our veterans and our young and our old? Why are we not learning from other countries who manage very well?

 

veterans signed up VOLUNTARILY to enter that system.

 

I absolutely agree we should overhaul it and show the REST of America what a great job the gvt can do w/ THAT first.

 

What i do NOT want to "learn" from other countries is how to garnish wages en masse and force people to enter a system that they might want to opt out of. We've had enough of that already --some REAL change in THAT department would be a welcome relief.

 

and since I've already mentioned my idea of a compromise wrt UHC, I'll just point back to my earlier posts on that :D

[SW in IL]

and I had to choose whether I'm going to buy him a birthday cake or buy myself an inhaler for my asthma. The birthday cake won out.

 

In any country, people shouldn't have to make these kinds of choices. And it's not just those who don't have insurance. Although I don't have health insurance coverage on myself, we have coverage on my son and I can't afford the deductibles. My son is having to reuse "1 use only" insulin syringes because I can't afford the deductible on a new box at the same time as I have to get 2 different insulins and test sensors so he can test his blood.

 

That's just unacceptable.

 

But, at the same time, I realize that in order for Universal Health Care to be considered, there must be a way to pay for it. As True Blue pointed out, as long as we don't restrict illegal immigration there's just no way.

 

Sue

[Heather in the Kootenays]

You're right people shouldn't have to make those choices. :grouphug:

[astrid]

And again I"ll ask.....

WHY is it okay to have people die? Since you value all life, Peek, as I know that you do, maybe you can explain to me WHY it is, in this nation of great wealth and power, that SOME people can afford to live and some people must die simply because they cannot afford life-saving health care? Are the lives of the rich worth saving more than the lives of the poor? Because when you get right down to it, that's what we do in this country.

How is that rationalized? Because seriously, it makes me lose sleep at night. Desperate times call for desperate measures. As British Chef Gordon Ramsay says, "We're in the ****s."

 

astrid

[Peek a Boo]

And again I"ll ask.....

WHY is it okay to have people die? Since you value all life, Peek, as I know that you do, maybe you can explain to me WHY it is, in this nation of great wealth and power, that SOME people can afford to live and some people must die simply because they cannot afford life-saving health care? Are the lives of the rich worth saving more than the lives of the poor? Because when you get right down to it, that's what we do in this country.

How is that rationalized? Because seriously, it makes me lose sleep at night. Desperate times call for desperate measures. As British Chef Gordon Ramsay says, "We're in the ****s."

 

astrid

 

i do value life. But I also value Freedom.

and i value Human Rights --including the right to NOT be involved in a gvt program.

 

In my own scenario, people who want to pay into a UHC system would be allowed to do so. Those of us who wanted to opt out would do our own thing.

some people don't WANT to be under the thumb of some healthcare program.

Some people simply don't LIKE going to the doctor --even if it was FREE.

some people find it reprehensible that the gvt takes money from one set of people and gives it to another at the point of a gun. They would rather DIE than live in such a situation.

 

i DO think it would be great for the gvt to run a voluntary system.

If indeed there are at least 5 million people who want to see a program like this put in place, then there should be no problem funding it. If there really are a MAJORITY of people that want UHC, then we would have MORE than 100 million people funding this --including rich Democrats and Liberals, no?

What's wrong w/ a voluntary system like that? If UHC is such a great idea, then it should be a cinch to get enough people signed up!

 

right now, we have people dying because they can't afford stuff. why can't they afford stuff? it's certainly NOT a single-variable issue.

 

We also have people dying cuz they make STUPID, stupid decisions.

 

so why can't people afford healthcare?

Have you SEEN our tax code? Social Security debacle? Tort laws?? malpractice insurance? regulation after regulation that companies pay through the nose for? People could use all that money to offer lower-cost services and people can use that saved money to BUY and INVEST in those lower cost services.

 

How about a retirement program like Congress has instead of the joke of SS we are FORCED into right now?

 

ironically, it's the POOREST and ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that have access to the best healthcare --show up and get treated, no questions asked, regardless whether you can pay.

 

desperate times? how about the fact that the US is the only civilized country that won't control its borders and gives citizenship to anyone born here? have you seen the illegal immigration thread elsewhere? NO WONDER the UHC system works in other countries --they are "meaner" than we are and actually deport illegals.

 

So if you want desperate measures, start lobbying for Congress to enforce our border laws and deport ILLEGAL people so we CAN get a handle on the healthcare costs in the US. Start lobbying Congress to give Americans more freedom in a retirement plan that pays a heck of a lot better than SS so older people have a viable income. Start lobbying Congress for tort reform so malpractice insurance isn't through the roof {that's another thing UHC systems in other countries have}.

 

I don't lose sleep over the fact that people might die --I can't control the choices people make for their own lives, even tho i do expect the gvt to enforce its basic laws of 'no killing people.' I do, however, lose a LOT of sleep that we want the gvt to take on such a HUGE task as mandatory UHC when they can't even handle the responsibilities they have NOW. Talk about a recipe for disaster.

 

I can actually think of LOTS of ways that we can reduce costs and open doors for people w/o trampling on freedoms that so many of us cherish. Many of them come from an Objectivist/ Capitalist/ Ayn Rand viewpoint.

 

So how do YOU see the gvt handling UHC w/ illegal immigrants? based on what other countries have done "successfully"?

[jennifero]

As a family that cannot afford private health coverage, the thought of having anything available is tempting. Right now my kids have Medicaid (soon to be CHIP) but my husband and I have nothing. The county hospital has a reduced cost plan that my husband qualifies for that has saved our lives. We would love to purchase insurance and have tried. Unfortunately, there is no way we can afford over $1000/month for coverage that wouldn't cover any pre-existing conditions for a year. With 7 family members, we have 2 with epilepsy, 3 with asthma, 1 with add, 1 with tubes in her ears, 2 with RAD, and 1 infant that is not gaining weight. Our maintenance medication alone would be almost $2000/month. Add to that the doctors visits and there is no way to make ends meet. My dh and I both work, but we cannot make enough to cover that. I am already starting to worry about next year when we will need to renew the kids insurance with the state. My dh and I have both been working as much as possible and are starting to earn more. We are about to be caught in the black hole of healthcare. We will earn too much for any help, but no where near enough to cover our bills. Unless our income can increase $3000 a month for a year (to get past the pre-existing condition clause), we will have to quit trying to get to the point of having our own insurance and making enough to live on. We can't sacrifice our kids health because we don't want to rely on the state for healthcare.

 

Our experience so far with Medicaid and the county program has been mixed. We were at the ER 16 times in 4 months because the wait for my dh to see a neurologist for epilepsy was over 6 months (2 to see the primary care doctor assigned so he could make the referral and then another 4 for neurology). The only thing we could do when he seizures were out of control was go to the ER. Our average time spent in the ER for each trip was 18 hours. When my dd broke her leg at church, we had no choice in orthopedic doctors for her to see. We typically waited 4 hours before being seen at her appointments. When her cast was removed and her foot turned inward 45 degrees, the orthopedic doctor would not see her. He sent us to the ER. The ER was upset because it wasn't an emergency. I agreed, but it was the only way for her to be seen by a doctors. She had to be admitted to the hospital, because it was the only way to have the necessary tests done and to get a referral to physical therapy. We don't even try to use the county system for anything urgent. The last time my dh tried to make an appointment with the doctor because he had strep, the wait was 3 weeks for the soonest sick appointment. Fortunately, we now make enough to pay for a visit to CareNow when one of us really needs it.

 

The care we have received has not been anywhere near what it was with our previous insurance, but it has allowed my husband to get the medication he needs to be able to work. It has provided my kids with the care they needed for breathing problems. I know that the government running healthcare may cause problems, but I think that those problems are already there for people who don't work for large companies that provide insurance. I am praying that someone finds a solution to make healthcare something that everyone can at least work hard and afford.

[dawn of ns]

Just reforming the medical system would save the country billions of dollars. This would allow for major changes within the system itself.

 

Just my $.02

 

As a percentage of GDP the US spends almost twice as much as Canada and and the European average (here).

 

It's more expensive.

 

 

It has poorer outcomes on important measures like life expectancy and infant mortality.

 

I'd even argue it limits choices. What choices are taken away when you find yourself unable to afford insurance or burdened with horrible medical debts? Where's the concern about freedom from those outcomes?

 

It's not even expensive on an individual basis with extra taxation. From a blog post of mine awhile back (there's more at my blog):

 

Playing with math again. I just added Nova Scotia provincial taxes (they're in the higher half of provincial income tax rates) to my imaginary person (who's not too bright and doesn't deduct a thing) who's earning $37,885 and that brings their total tax load to a whopping $9384. I don't know what kind of state income taxes you guys pay so I'll leave that out. I'll say the person has a comparable health insurance plan to what our family does (it's about average for a family rate and around, I think, what a single person would have to pay if they had to do it themselves, not through an employer) do which would be $840 annually.

 

Total taxes and health insurance for the Canuck - $10,224

 

For the American earning the same amount (and who doesn't deduct anything) plus XXXX's coverage (it was sort of in the middle of our sample - $544/month) - $11, 801

 

I can understand discussion around what form of UHC the US might need. I can't understand completely dismissing it.

[keptwoman]

I've also seen quite a few threads here about peoples ability to see a doctor being restricted by insurance company rules on who they can see and what can be done. I think we have less restrictions with our government funded system than some in the US do with an insurance funded system.

[TeacherZee]

Quote:

As a percentage of GDP the US spends almost twice as much as Canada and and the European average (here).

 

It's more expensive.

 

 

It has poorer outcomes on important measures like life expectancy and infant mortality.

 

I'd even argue it limits choices. What choices are taken away when you find yourself unable to afford insurance or burdened with horrible medical debts? Where's the concern about freedom from those outcomes?

 

It's not even expensive on an individual basis with extra taxation. From a blog post of mine awhile back (there's more at my blog):

 

Quote:

Playing with math again. I just added Nova Scotia provincial taxes (they're in the higher half of provincial income tax rates) to my imaginary person (who's not too bright and doesn't deduct a thing) who's earning $37,885 and that brings their total tax load to a whopping $9384. I don't know what kind of state income taxes you guys pay so I'll leave that out. I'll say the person has a comparable health insurance plan to what our family does (it's about average for a family rate and around, I think, what a single person would have to pay if they had to do it themselves, not through an employer) do which would be $840 annually.

 

Total taxes and health insurance for the Canuck - $10,224

 

For the American earning the same amount (and who doesn't deduct anything) plus XXXX's coverage (it was sort of in the middle of our sample - $544/month) - $11, 801

I can understand discussion around what form of UHC the US might need. I can't understand completely dismissing it.

 

I wanted to rep you for that but apparently I need to spread it around before I do;)

 

I was actually sitting here this morning trying to do research on the average cost to US families who have health insurance and how much they pay in insurance premiums and in deductibles and in taxes so I could compare it to what we pay in taxes here plus our doctors payments, to see who ACTUALLY pays the most.

 

We do pay high taxes I'll give you that but it is done on a sliding scale. We do pay to see our doctors currently about $20 a time BUT with a maximum of about $150/year. In doctors is included ANYTHING at the health centre except the dentist and anything from the pharmacy, they have their own limits. Oh and you don't pay to see the mw when you are pregnant (who sees all pregnant women only women with complications see the ob/gyn, and you see the mw for contraception advice and papsmears etc) and children don't pay to see the doctor.

[Laura Corin]

I've also seen quite a few threads here about peoples ability to see a doctor being restricted by insurance company rules on who they can see and what can be done. I think we have less restrictions with our government funded system than some in the US do with an insurance funded system.

 

When I lived and worked in the US, my employer offered an HMO insurance plan, which severely restricted what doctors/hospitals I could see.

 

If a UHS becomes the major player in a country, then the best doctors work within that system, because otherwise they can't get the experience on their resumes to advance, nor can they work in the best teams. In the UK, most specialists work in the NHS. They may have a private practice on the side, where they work out of a private facility, but you will see exactly the same doctor through the NHS. Paying for private care is usually more about jumping waiting lists (less of an issue now that the queues are shorter) and the 'hotel' aspects of the private hospital being better (better food/decor).

 

A fun side note: the hospital shown in the UK section of the PBS documentary is where Calvin was born. At the time it was a very dreary 19th Century building. The care was excellent, however, and they've certainly spruced it up in the last eleven years.

 

Laura

[keptwoman]

If a UHS becomes the major player in a country, then the best doctors work within that system, because otherwise they can't get the experience on their resumes to advance, nor can they work in the best teams. In the UK, most specialists work in the NHS. They may have a private practice on the side, where they work out of a private facility, but you will see exactly the same doctor through the NHS. Paying for private care is usually more about jumping waiting lists (less of an issue now that the queues are shorter) and the 'hotel' aspects of the private hospital being better (better food/decor).

It's exactly the same here in Australia, and in New Zealand.

[Peek a Boo]

I'd even argue it limits choices. What choices are taken away when you find yourself unable to afford insurance or burdened with horrible medical debts? Where's the concern about freedom from those outcomes?

.

 

 

I think people in America and people elsewhere have different concepts of "freedom."

 

Most conservatives in America don't consider it FREEDOM if was purchased w/ someone else's money at the point of a gun. And make no mistake --if you defy the law too much, you will be hauled off to jail at the point of a gun if necessary.

 

and as I mentioned, there's more involved with the inability to afford healthcare than a simple lack of UHC.

[astrid]

i do value life. But I also value Freedom.

and i value Human Rights --including the right to NOT be involved in a gvt program.

 

 

I value freedom as well. That's part of the reason I"m vehemently pro-choice. :001_smile:

 

 

i DO think it would be great for the gvt to run a voluntary system.

If indeed there are at least 5 million people who want to see a program like this put in place, then there should be no problem funding it. If there really are a MAJORITY of people that want UHC, then we would have MORE than 100 million people funding this --including rich Democrats and Liberals, no?

What's wrong w/ a voluntary system like that? If UHC is such a great idea, then it should be a cinch to get enough people signed up!

 

 

Yes, it should be a cinch. But it requires someone coming up with a plan and then Congress buying into it. A tough sell, since so many of them are getting back problems from sitting on fat wallets stuffed with kickbacks from the drug lobbyists. It requires more than just a few rich people saying, yeah, it's a good idea. It requires, for once, the HAVES to look at the HAVE NOTS with more than just disgust and disdain. It requires, for once, the HAVES to put the greater good above their personal gain, comfort and convenience.

 

right now, we have people dying because they can't afford stuff. why can't they afford stuff? it's certainly NOT a single-variable issue.

 

 

I agree. Lots of reasons. Like they're so buried in medical bills that despite having insurance they cannot ever hope to pay that they file for bankruptcy. Like they're caring for an elderly parent who is hanging on, depsite the fact that their medicare and life savings stopped paying for the nursing home long ago. Like their abusive husband finally left, leaving Jane Q. Single Mom with four kids, no job, no child support, and no health insurance, and she's scraping every penny together to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. An inhaler would be nice, but for her, it's a luxury item.

 

We also have people dying cuz they make STUPID, stupid decisions.

 

 

Yes, there are people who spend money foolishly. There will always be those people. But I work with these populations daily, and I can tell you that what you see on the outside, and the assumptions we make about how people spend their money are most often very far off the mark.

 

so why can't people afford healthcare?

Have you SEEN our tax code? Social Security debacle? Tort laws?? malpractice insurance? regulation after regulation that companies pay through the nose for? People could use all that money to offer lower-cost services and people can use that saved money to BUY and INVEST in those lower cost services.

 

 

yes, yes, yes and yes. I've seen them. Repeatedly. I guess I'm not following your statements, which I've emboldened above. People could use the money? How would "people" have access to the money that companies save?

 

 

How about a retirement program like Congress has instead of the joke of SS we are FORCED into right now?

 

 

How does this relate to health care?

 

ironically, it's the POOREST and ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that have access to the best healthcare --show up and get treated, no questions asked, regardless whether you can pay.

 

 

Yeah. That's what Rush and the rest of them want you to think, and they really get off on bloviating about it over and over and over. I work with these populations every day. This is not true. It's just not.

 

desperate times? how about the fact that the US is the only civilized country that won't control its borders and gives citizenship to anyone born here? have you seen the illegal immigration thread elsewhere? NO WONDER the UHC system works in other countries --they are "meaner" than we are and actually deport illegals.

 

 

Again, you must listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot. Think there are no immigration problems elsewhere? Think again. Think we don't deport illegals? Just this morning "Maria" one of my Brazilian students failed to show up for class. Her neighbor stopped in to tell me that Maria called 911 on Saturday night because her boyfriend was beating the snot out of her. They arrested him, asked for her credentials, and then arrested her. She's in a federal prison in Maine, awaiting deportation. She has no criminal record, is taking English as a Second Language classes, has a seven year old daughter (who is staying with the neighbor, but a basket case, understandably) and her only crime is that working as a housecleaner, she's having trouble scraping together the $700.00 it takes now to apply for citizenship. It's hard for her to save---- she has to keep buying those darned inhalers for her daughter.

 

So if you want desperate measures, start lobbying for Congress to enforce our border laws and deport ILLEGAL people so we CAN get a handle on the healthcare costs in the US.

 

Sooooo.......just round them up. Wow....those well-manicured lawns will certainly be growing quickly; I"d love to see those bigshots out mowing their own lawns. Those fruits and vegetables we all enjoy won't pick themselves. Much easier said than done, Peek.

 

Start lobbying Congress to give Americans more freedom in a retirement plan that pays a heck of a lot better than SS so older people have a viable income.

 

Oh, you mean like investments? In the stock market that McCain and the rest of the Republican Keating 5 de-regulated a while back? Yeah. That worked out well. :001_smile: I'm glad my mom's SS isn't tied up in it.

 

Start lobbying Congress for tort reform so malpractice insurance isn't through the roof {that's another thing UHC systems in other countries have}.

 

Ummmm.....yeah. That's one of the things Obama wants to do.

 

I don't lose sleep over the fact that people might die --I can't control the choices people make for their own lives, even tho i do expect the gvt to enforce its basic laws of 'no killing people.'

 

Yeah. Me too. So why is it okay if we allow people to die because we don't provide them with basic health care? Isn't that an act of omission? If you really mean that you expect the government to follow it's laws of "no killing people" we'd better get everyone off death row and stop executing prisoners. But then again, prisoners are the ones with access to health care.

 

I do, however, lose a LOT of sleep that we want the gvt to take on such a HUGE task as mandatory UHC when they can't even handle the responsibilities they have NOW. Talk about a recipe for disaster.

 

 

NOpe, they can't handle the responsibilities they have now. That's why we need a radical change in leadership and a radical overhaul of health care, the banking industry, etc. But it's a darn good thing that our founding fathers and mothers didn't look at building a nation as a "recipe for disaster." They rolled up their sleeves and got started. No reason why we can't do the same.

[astrid]

I think people in America and people elsewhere have different concepts of "freedom."

 

Most conservatives in America don't consider it FREEDOM if was purchased w/ someone else's money at the point of a gun.

 

Okay, so let me get this straight:

 

Sooo...for the past seven years our government (conservatives) have been spending TRILLIONS of "someone else's money" (taxpayers) to purchase "freedom" for the Iraqis "at the point of a gun" (our armed forces.)

 

Gotcha. I think. ;)

 

astrid

[Blessedchaos]

Okay, so let me get this straight:

 

Sooo...for the past seven years our government (conservatives) have been spending TRILLIONS of "someone else's money" (taxpayers) to purchase "freedom" for the Iraqis "at the point of a gun" (our armed forces.)

 

Gotcha. I think. ;)

 

astrid

 

Astrid, I thought the same exact thing when I saw Peek's comment. Except now we're spending China's money. The American taxpayers will just be paying it back (with interest) for the next (who knows how many) years to come.

[astrid]

How right you are........

 

Astrid

[Peek a Boo]

Okay, so let me get this straight:

 

Sooo...for the past seven years our government (conservatives) have been spending TRILLIONS of "someone else's money" (taxpayers) to purchase "freedom" for the Iraqis "at the point of a gun" (our armed forces.)

 

Gotcha. I think. ;)

 

astrid

 

 

oh, i agree with you on that one :)

 

and i don't want to see the gvt do it AGAIN w/ a forced healthcare situation.

but it sounds like you want to say it's OK to do it in situation A [uhc] but not in situation B [gvt-approved war].

[Blessedchaos]

oh, i agree with you on that one :)

 

and i don't want to see the gvt do it AGAIN w/ a forced healthcare situation.

but it sounds like you want to say it's OK to do it in situation A [uhc] but not in situation B [gvt-approved war].

 

:confused1: But...no one is proposing this.

 

The democrats are offering a National Health Plan as an option for people who choose it.

 

Anyone who doesn't want it can keep their current insurance.

 

I guess I'm not connecting the dots between your argument and the form of uhc that is being proposed for the United States.

[Peek a Boo]

I value freedom as well. That's part of the reason I"m vehemently pro-choice. :001_smile:

I thought you said you valued life?

I don't support having a CHOICE to kill a human on demand. That's supporting death, not life. Your freedom to cut yourself ends at your own body --it doesn't extend to another human's.

 

 

Yes, it should be a cinch. But it requires someone coming up with a plan and then Congress buying into it. A tough sell, since so many of them are getting back problems from sitting on fat wallets stuffed with kickbacks from the drug lobbyists. It requires more than just a few rich people saying, yeah, it's a good idea. It requires, for once, the HAVES to look at the HAVE NOTS with more than just disgust and disdain. It requires, for once, the HAVES to put the greater good above their personal gain, comfort and convenience.

no, i think the tougher sell is that the gvt doesn't handle ANY of its programs very well, period. You think there won't be kickbacks in a UHC? really? With a voluntary UHC system, all those rich Democrats could show those mean conservatives how a UHC should be run. I can't wait to see it. But I don't think the richer Democrats would be willing to put their money where their mouth is. They will, though, absolutely be willing to put other people's money where they want it to go..

 

 

 

I agree. Lots of reasons. Like they're so buried in medical bills that despite having insurance they cannot ever hope to pay that they file for bankruptcy. Like they're caring for an elderly parent who is hanging on, depsite the fact that their medicare and life savings stopped paying for the nursing home long ago. Like their abusive husband finally left, leaving Jane Q. Single Mom with four kids, no job, no child support, and no health insurance, and she's scraping every penny together to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. An inhaler would be nice, but for her, it's a luxury item.

 

and that's just the tip of the iceberg. WHY are those bills so high? WHY do they not have the extra cash to spend on stuff? It goes waaaayyy beyond the healthcare industry.

 

 

 

Yes, there are people who spend money foolishly. There will always be those people. But I work with these populations daily, and I can tell you that what you see on the outside, and the assumptions we make about how people spend their money are most often very far off the mark.

 

I'm sure many assumptions fall off th mark. And quite a few hit spot on.

 

 

 

yes, yes, yes and yes. I've seen them. Repeatedly. I guess I'm not following your statements, which I've emboldened above. People could use the money? How would "people" have access to the money that companies save?

when companies can offer a lower, more competitive price, it saves people money. That seems pretty simple to me.

 

 

 

 

 

How about a retirement program like Congress has instead of the joke of SS we are FORCED into right now?

How does this relate to health care?

 

 

just One More Way to increase an individual's ability to cover costs. I figger if we're bringing up the expense of current healthcare, it is only logical to examine ways to increase the population's disposable income.

 

 

Yeah. That's what Rush and the rest of them want you to think, and they really get off on bloviating about it over and over and over. I work with these populations every day. This is not true. It's just not.

 

um, YEAH, it is true. you haven't looked at this article about Parkland Hospital, have you?

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

notice that's not a link to RUSH's site. There are tons more examples out there.

 

 

 

Again, you must listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot. Think there are no immigration problems elsewhere? Think again. Think we don't deport illegals? Just this morning "Maria" one of my Brazilian students failed to show up for class. Her neighbor stopped in to tell me that Maria called 911 on Saturday night because her boyfriend was beating the snot out of her. They arrested him, asked for her credentials, and then arrested her. She's in a federal prison in Maine, awaiting deportation. She has no criminal record, is taking English as a Second Language classes, has a seven year old daughter (who is staying with the neighbor, but a basket case, understandably) and her only crime is that working as a housecleaner, she's having trouble scraping together the $700.00 it takes now to apply for citizenship. It's hard for her to save---- she has to keep buying those darned inhalers for her daughter.

 

 

no, not Rush Limbaugh --right here on this very board. Have you read the illegal immigration thread? YES, other countries have illegal immigration problems, but NOT like we do. We don't deport NEARLY the same amount [statistically] of illegal immigrants that other countries do. AND we offer citizenship to babies born of illegal immigrants. Another bone-headed maneuver for the US.

 

 

So are you saying Maria was NOT an illegal immigrant? She did not enter the country illegally? Or she entered illegally and is trying to gain legal citizenship? I just want to be clear on what her "only crime" is and why she's sitting in jail.

 

 

Sooooo.......just round them up. Wow....those well-manicured lawns will certainly be growing quickly; I"d love to see those bigshots out mowing their own lawns. Those fruits and vegetables we all enjoy won't pick themselves. Much easier said than done, Peek.

 

So you are advocating NOT following the law for GRASS and FRUIT? Are you saying that grass was never mowed and fruit/ veggies never picked before illegal immigrants?

If the gvt [and PEOPLE] can't enforce one set of laws, what makes you think it will enforce new ones under a UHC system???

sorry --prove to me that the gvt can handle one set of responsibilities [that is adding tremendously to existing healthcare costs] and THEN we'll taklk about a forced UHC system.

 

 

 

Oh, you mean like investments? In the stock market that McCain and the rest of the Republican Keating 5 de-regulated a while back? Yeah. That worked out well. :001_smile: I'm glad my mom's SS isn't tied up in it.

 

yeah --like the kind OBAMA has --why isn't it good enough for the rest of the people? seems to be working well enough for him and every other Democratic Congressman. If Obama wants to give up his cushy Congressional retirement pension and rely on SS, maybe I'll vote for him. Go ahead and ask him. Betcha a dollar I already know the answer.

 

 

 

Ummmm.....yeah. That's one of the things Obama wants to do.

That's something LOTS of Congressmen say they want to do.

 

 

 

Yeah. Me too. So why is it okay if we allow people to die because we don't provide them with basic health care? Isn't that an act of omission? If you really mean that you expect the government to follow it's laws of "no killing people" we'd better get everyone off death row and stop executing prisoners. But then again, prisoners are the ones with access to health care.

 

I agree that we can halt the death penalty. I do think there's more in Human Rights issues about "not killing people" that are innocent vs killing people that are guilty, but that's another issue. Life in prison is good enough for me.

 

And now the discussion is entering the territory of freedom to act and freedom to fail.

 

i absolutely believe that the gvt should extend the FREEDOM to opt out of a gvt program to the citizens that wish to take that freedom. That's an act of OPTIONS for real freedom. I shared in another thread that i could see a system where people who haven't been having wages garnished for healthcare and end up under-insured and on the gvt program would be penalized by having wages garnished for X number of years [or till bill paid off] and automatically be put on the gvt system. I'm sure there are other ingenious ways to work it, but it would be easy enough to offer OPTIONS to maximize FREEDOM. No omission necessary unless one volunteers to be omitted :)

 

 

 

NOpe, they can't handle the responsibilities they have now. That's why we need a radical change in leadership and a radical overhaul of health care, the banking industry, etc. But it's a darn good thing that our founding fathers and mothers didn't look at building a nation as a "recipe for disaster." They rolled up their sleeves and got started. No reason why we can't do the same.

 

 

i do agree a radical change in leadership is necessary, and I don't think Obama is near radical enough. neither is McCain. which is why I'm not voting for either of them.

[Peek a Boo]

:confused1: But...no one is proposing this.

 

The democrats are offering a National Health Plan as an option for people who choose it.

 

Anyone who doesn't want it can keep their current insurance.

 

I guess I'm not connecting the dots between your argument and the form of uhc that is being proposed for the United States.

 

because when I've listened to Obama and other Democrats speak, opting out ISN't an option. But i would be tickled pink to see them do just what is proposed.

[Peek a Boo]

:confused1: But...no one is proposing this.

 

The democrats are offering a National Health Plan as an option for people who choose it.

 

Anyone who doesn't want it can keep their current insurance.

 

I guess I'm not connecting the dots between your argument and the form of uhc that is being proposed for the United States.

 

 

from Obama's site:

My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums.

 

EVERY American.

I don't have the option to 'opt out.'

 

If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”

 

YOU WILL HAVE IT. LAW.

[Peek a Boo]

:confused1: But...no one is proposing this.

 

The democrats are offering a National Health Plan as an option for people who choose it.

 

Anyone who doesn't want it can keep their current insurance.

 

I guess I'm not connecting the dots between your argument and the form of uhc that is being proposed for the United States.

 

I am seeing where they say children MUST be covered, period - you will not have the option to keep your children out of the system.

 

I'm not seeing where they explicitly say anyone can choose to opt out and they won't have to fund it either. but i'll keep looking......

[Peek a Boo]

ok, I'm reading on here--

 

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/03/a-detailed-anal.html

 

that Obama's is NOT a UHC system, which is fine by me as long as I don't have to pay for it. It also points out the few differences between Obama and McCain's plans too.

 

but since the thread was about UNIVERSAL healthcare, not Obama healthcare, I still come down against UHC. Obama's --or even McCain's for that matter-- is fine by me. They will ultimately need more variables addressed outside the healthcare industry.

[astrid]

Uhhhhh.....I feel like lots of my points were missed, and your arguments have become circular. Don't have the time to rehash it all out, but I will say this---- the ONLY CRIME 'MARIA' COMMITTED WAS THAT SHE WAS HERE ILLEGALLY, ON AN EXPIRED TRAVEL VISA, TRYING DESPERATELY TO BECOME A CITIZEN. BUT SINCE HOMELAND SECURITY TOOK OVER THE PROCESS, IT'S NOW OFTEN *YEARS* AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BEFORE PEACEFUL IMMIGRANTS CAN LEGALLY ACHIEVE CITIZENSHIP.

 

So many of your comments make me just downright sad, Peek. We most move towards understanding and tolerance if we're to thrive once again as a nation.

 

astrid

[astrid]

Sweden has proportionally to the populations as a whole a very high number of asylum seekers and they are entitled to basic care for any "emergency" medical care. Most people here consider this a basic human right. There has even been a bit of an outcry because a lot of people think they should also be treated for ongoing medical conditions. None of this bankrupts the system.

 

EXACTLY!!!! IT'S A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT!!!!!!!

 

astrid

[Peek a Boo]

Uhhhhh.....I feel like lots of my points were missed, and your arguments have become circular. Don't have the time to rehash it all out, but I will say this---- the ONLY CRIME 'MARIA' COMMITTED WAS THAT SHE WAS HERE ILLEGALLY, ON AN EXPIRED TRAVEL VISA, TRYING DESPERATELY TO BECOME A CITIZEN. BUT SINCE HOMELAND SECURITY TOOK OVER THE PROCESS, IT'S NOW OFTEN *YEARS* AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BEFORE PEACEFUL IMMIGRANTS CAN LEGALLY ACHIEVE CITIZENSHIP.

 

So many of your comments make me just downright sad, Peek. We most move towards understanding and tolerance if we're to thrive once again as a nation.

 

astrid

 

 

How can we move towards "tolerance" if our own citizens won't enforce our laws? i mean, if we're into full disclosure, I gotta admit to some sadness in reading how you are portraying someone's situation:

 

maria's "only crime" wasn't needing money --her crime was that she was in the country illegally.

 

Do i think our immigration system needs to be overhauled? uh, yeah --ALONG WITH most of the other poorly-managed gvt programs out there. And you wonder why I am hesitant to trust OUR gvt to a UHC system? Is Obama willing to dismantle Homeland Security?

 

Howzabout we now research how Sweden handles their illegal immigrants?

did you read all of that post/thread?

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=546747&postcount=4

 

Illegal immigrants are called paperless here and are often treated through underground networks where the doctors don't charge for the treatment. There is currently a lot of debate going on about these patients here, but not from a "they are costing us so much money" perspective but rather from a humanitarian perspective where it is recognised that these people do not get the care that the rest of us get. These are often women and children who have been traumatised by was and conflict in their home countries something that is often exasperated by the fact that they are living hidden with very little contact with the outside world.

 

Sweden does enforce deportation. The state transports people who have been denied right to remain.

 

and

 

As to what happens to children born to illegal immigrants: They do not have the right to remain unless one of their parents have the right to remain.

 

The US isn't enforcing deportation --they are letting a LOT of it slide for the very reasons you mentioned. Letting it slide will NOT give us the same result as they get in Sweden where they ENFORCE deportation. It was also mentioned that Ireland is the only EU nation to give carte blanche citizenship to illegal immigrants. That's something else that would need to change for us to succeed like Sweden.

 

and per that snopes link about Parkland --these illegals are already GETTING that "Basic Human Right."

 

and... back to it being a UNIVERSAL healthcare system --I don't believe Sweden's is voluntary --no freedom to opt out. I want the freedom for all the reasons I've stated above.

 

Of course a lot of this sounds circular --so many variables are interdependent. You want to accomplish stuff one way w/ my money, i want to accomplish things different ways with my money. Will the liberal side "tolerate" my views only if I am paying into some gvt program? Or does that tolerance only extend so far? I'm willing to tolerate a voluntary program to provide healthcare for people. I don't see much from the other side tolerating my opinion to remain separated from that.

 

i do agree a lot of points are being missed on both sides, but i think more than that, i simply don't consider the points you HAVE made to be ones I want to embrace.

 

but ultimately, that's ok :D

That's what freedom is about ;)

[Blessedchaos]

from Obama's site:

My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums.

 

EVERY American.

I don't have the option to 'opt out.'

 

If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”

 

YOU WILL HAVE IT. LAW.

 

I don't want to stray too far off the O/P's intended discussion, nor do I want to begin a political debate, but I do want to point out that in my admittedly limited following of this election, I have seen and read on numerous occasions that Obama would not mandate coverage for anyone over the age of 25. There are plenty of articles online available attesting to this (just google it) and he has said so during every debate I have seen. That was one of the biggest differences between he and Hillary Clinton - she wanted to mandate coverage and he didn't. His reasoning was because he believed that everyone who wants healthcare would opt to get it if it was affordable. I think that is the reason behind the verbage on his website.

 

However, he would mandate coverage for anyone under age 25. Like the law on education which states that children between compulsory age must receive an education, but that the type of education may be chosen by the parent (public, private, charter, home, etc.), mandatory insurance would require each American under this age to carry some form of health insurance, leaving the choice of type of coverage up to that person (or parents for minors).

 

Really, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this. Aren't our children deserving of health care? Just like some see abortion as a basic human rights issue (right to life), some see health care the same way. If you don't have it you can die. Period. Yes, I suppose the very wealthiest could possibly "opt out" and afford to pay cash for catastrophic situations (though I doubt they would be wealthy afterward), but the vast majority of people would be financially devastated. Yet, catastrophic situations happen every day. People get cancer, people get into horrible freak accidents, terrible things happen to good, hard working people and children all the time. Someone has to pay the unpaid/unpayable debts, and it comes back to those of us who have insurance in the form of raised premiums and limited medical care. Daily, more and more people are being forced to "opt out", simply by not being able to afford basic medical care, or by having a pre-existing condition, or by being too overweight, and the list goes on. Most of the rest of us who still have it are so limited in coverage or choices that we may as well not have it at all. So much for freedom.

 

My opinion is that there is a point to which the freedom of the individual has be put second to what is best for a society as a whole. Don't get me wrong - I am very much for personal freedoms and choices, but not to the point where large groups of people are being harmed to protect the freedoms of a few.

 

It would not benefit our society to do away with our mandated education laws that protect so many children from educational neglect (because, let's face it, some parents just don't care) just because we want to protect the freedoms of those who would like to choose to "opt out" of providing some type of education for their child; there is still wiggle room within the laws to allow for personal choices. Likewise, it doesn't benefit our society to have people not receive proper health care because they can't afford it, can't qualify for it, or their coverage is too limited. Sick children cannot learn and sick employees cannot be productive. Mandated insurance for children still allows for personal freedom within the mandate; it just doesn't allow children and young adults to choose not to have it at all.

 

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that a uhc system is the only way to solve the problem, but it is one way. I'm not saying that Obama's plan is even the best way to approach the situation here in the U.S., but I personally think it's a step in the right direction.

 

These are only my opinions. I will discuss them, but I will not debate to defend them, just as I wouldn't want to put anyone else in a position to have to defend what they believe. Off my soapbox now...:tongue_smilie:.

[Jill- OK]

veterans signed up VOLUNTARILY to enter that system.

 

...not all of them.

 

Some of them signed up and were promised free health care, for life.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't want to stray too far off the O/P's intended discussion, nor do I want to begin a political debate, but I do want to point out that in my admittedly limited following of this election, I have seen and read on numerous occasions that Obama would not mandate coverage for anyone over the age of 25. There are plenty of articles online available attesting to this (just google it) and he has said so during every debate I have seen. That was one of the biggest differences between he and Hillary Clinton - she wanted to mandate coverage and he didn't. His reasoning was because he believed that everyone who wants healthcare would opt to get it if it was affordable. I think that is the reason behind the verbage on his website.

 

However, he would mandate coverage for anyone under age 25. Like the law on education which states that children between compulsory age must receive an education, but that the type of education may be chosen by the parent (public, private, charter, home, etc.), mandatory insurance would require each American under this age to carry some form of health insurance, leaving the choice of type of coverage up to that person (or parents for minors).

 

Really, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this. Aren't our children deserving of health care? Just like some see abortion as a basic human rights issue (right to life), some see health care the same way. If you don't have it you can die. Period. Yes, I suppose the very wealthiest could possibly "opt out" and afford to pay cash for catastrophic situations (though I doubt they would be wealthy afterward), but the vast majority of people would be financially devastated. Yet, catastrophic situations happen every day. People get cancer, people get into horrible freak accidents, terrible things happen to good, hard working people and children all the time. Someone has to pay the unpaid/unpayable debts, and it comes back to those of us who have insurance in the form of raised premiums and limited medical care. Daily, more and more people are being forced to "opt out", simply by not being able to afford basic medical care, or by having a pre-existing condition, or by being too overweight, and the list goes on. Most of the rest of us who still have it are so limited in coverage or choices that we may as well not have it at all. So much for freedom.

 

My opinion is that there is a point to which the freedom of the individual has be put second to what is best for a society as a whole. Don't get me wrong - I am very much for personal freedoms and choices, but not to the point where large groups of people are being harmed to protect the freedoms of a few.

 

It would not benefit our society to do away with our mandated education laws that protect so many children from educational neglect (because, let's face it, some parents just don't care) just because we want to protect the freedoms of those who would like to choose to "opt out" of providing some type of education for their child; there is still wiggle room within the laws to allow for personal choices. Likewise, it doesn't benefit our society to have people not receive proper health care because they can't afford it, can't qualify for it, or their coverage is too limited. Sick children cannot learn and sick employees cannot be productive. Mandated insurance for children still allows for personal freedom within the mandate; it just doesn't allow children and young adults to choose not to have it at all.

 

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that a uhc system is the only way to solve the problem, but it is one way. I'm not saying that Obama's plan is even the best way to approach the situation here in the U.S., but I personally think it's a step in the right direction.

 

These are only my opinions. I will discuss them, but I will not debate to defend them, just as I wouldn't want to put anyone else in a position to have to defend what they believe. Off my soapbox now...:tongue_smilie:.

 

well, I agree with you that I mostly don't have a problem w/ Obama's plan, except for him mandating health coverage for kids --i still think that should be left to the parents. We should be able to handle their healthcare in whatever way we want to handle it --much like we do w/ education. I shouldn't be forced to sign my kids up for a program.

Unlike the [mostly] black and white issue of whether you are dead or alive, there are MANY avenues of handling healthcare for individuals. It would be nice to see America continue that freedom for those that want it. And as was shared in this thread, it's not just rich folk w/ money to burn that have issues w/ gvt programs. That is something that transcends socio-economic status, no matter how those who hate Rush or Bush like to portray it ;)

 

But to address an issue you brought up: sick children won't benefit from insurance if their parents don't want to use it [for whatever reason]. You would have to pull an Edwards and mandate *visits.* Does that mean we take away the rights of the parent so we can be managing the "rights" of the children? I've already mentioned that I don't consider ongoing healthcare a "basic right" that should be protected at the expense of another's rights, so I'll stop there on that one.

 

and sick employees/adults won't benefit from coverage unless they USE it. So your argument is playing right into Edwards' plan. You should send him a bill ;)

 

And no --you don't have to "defend" your statements if you don't want to. But this is a discussion board, so I'll just toss those points out rhetorically for anyone else to pick up or mull over if they so choose.

[Peek a Boo]

...not all of them.

 

Some of them signed up and were promised free health care, for life.

 

um, yeah --and that's what they are getting: free health care. It might not be the best, but it's free.

 

My point was they signed up voluntarily for this "free health care."

unless they were drafted. [don't even get me started on the draft....]

 

My other point was that i agreed it needed to be overhauled cuz THE GVT has done a horrible job MANAGING it.

[Jill- OK]

ETA: See my post below this for clarification, lol. I wasn't thinking of the VA system, but the regular upkeep for retirees to keep their insurance benefits.

[Blessedchaos]

well, I agree with you that I mostly don't have a problem w/ Obama's plan, except for him mandating health coverage for kids --i still think that should be left to the parents. We should be able to handle their healthcare in whatever way we want to handle it --much like we do w/ education. I shouldn't be forced to sign my kids up for a program.

Unlike the [mostly] black and white issue of whether you are dead or alive, there are MANY avenues of handling healthcare for individuals. It would be nice to see America continue that freedom for those that want it. And as was shared in this thread, it's not just rich folk w/ money to burn that have issues w/ gvt programs. That is something that transcends socio-economic status, no matter how those who hate Rush or Bush like to portray it ;)

 

But to address an issue you brought up: sick children won't benefit from insurance if their parents don't want to use it [for whatever reason]. You would have to pull an Edwards and mandate *visits.* Does that mean we take away the rights of the parent so we can be managing the "rights" of the children? I've already mentioned that I don't consider ongoing healthcare a "basic right" that should be protected at the expense of another's rights, so I'll stop there on that one.

 

and sick employees/adults won't benefit from coverage unless they USE it. So your argument is playing right into Edwards' plan. You should send him a bill ;)

 

And no --you don't have to "defend" your statements if you don't want to. But this is a discussion board, so I'll just toss those points out rhetorically for anyone else to pick up or mull over if they so choose.

 

Under the education laws, you are required to provide an education (you choose) to your child, and in most states the paper trail needs to show they are receiving some sort of education. But you aren't required to enroll your kids in the public education system. Under mandated child health insurance, you are required to provide health insurance (you choose) for your child, but there isn't anything forcing you to use it. You aren't required to enroll your kids in the public health plan.

 

There are going to be people out there who oppose any law, but I still see this as a way to protect a whole lot of kids who aren't being protected without it. I feel confident assuming that most kids not receiving adequate health care belong to parents who can't afford it or get it, not to parents who are against medical care for their children. For the few who are against it; again I don't think that the protection of their freedoms to not have insurance warrant the huge number of kids suffering for involuntary lack of it, when those few can simply choose other options within the law.

 

In addition, I'm not sure what individual rights supercede the life and well being of a person, especially a child. The right to keep money that would now have to be spent on an insurance policy for their child? :huh:

 

I think there is much we agree on, Peek. But we part ways in how far to take personal liberties, and at what cost.

[Jill- OK]

I think I understand what you guys are talking about...the VA system.

 

Am I right?

 

Veterans are eligible to receive free care...at certain facilities. You have to go to their facility, and yes, they're usually...not places that folks would choose, if they had a choice.

 

And in fact, most of the vets I know (with the exception of one, who is on disability, with no retirement, and has severely limited options) choose not to take advantage of it, but continue to pay to keep their benefits as they were in the military.

 

But I'm still confused, because I thought when someone referenced the similarity to a national health care system, they were referring to the military program (how it was changed, under Tricare. I believe the term is 'managed care' system, and what I've always heard compared to what we would see in a nationalized system.).

 

So...are you guys saying that a UHC program would look like the VA administration, or the military system?

 

Sorry...I was superimposing past conversations onto this one.

 

(Just in case I'm not mishearing, and you're saying the VA system is what national health care would look like...how is that comparable, when you can only visit one center? Well, actually, our state has two. ;-) Can someone guide me to a proposal for UHC that looks like that? I haven't seen any, but...I also haven't done that much investigating, to be honest. Are there other countries that have systems that are that limiting? That would be scary.)

[TeacherZee]

and... back to it being a UNIVERSAL healthcare system --I don't believe Sweden's is voluntary --no freedom to opt out. I want the freedom for all the reasons I've stated above.

 

Please understand a system before you decided to change what happens in it. You have to pay taxes in Sweden and like in the States you have no say how these are distributed. Some go to the health care system. HOWEVER there are private alternatives that you can go to exclusively to if you prefer. No is forced to use the public system. My sister and I use private dental care because for us it is actually cheaper right now as we are both grad students and one of the dental practices here has cheap deals for students. However we choose to use the national health system for our doctor because right now that is cheaper and easier.

 

Also with regards to deporting illegal immigrants this is done after a looooong process. It isn't that someone gets picked up by the police when they make a call to the police like what happened to 'Maria'. The process is there. And very few people actually get deported. Most go back voluntarily once they are denied asylum. They are still helped by the state to return. Please ask us about all of the Iraqis we are helping to go back or not sending back because of the situation there.

[Peek a Boo]

Under the education laws, you are required to provide an education (you choose) to your child, and in most states the paper trail needs to show they are receiving some sort of education. But you aren't required to enroll your kids in the public education system. Under mandated child health insurance, you are required to provide health insurance (you choose) for your child, but there isn't anything forcing you to use it. You aren't required to enroll your kids in the public health plan.

 

There are going to be people out there who oppose any law, but I still see this as a way to protect a whole lot of kids who aren't being protected without it. I feel confident assuming that most kids not receiving adequate health care belong to parents who can't afford it or get it, not to parents who are against medical care for their children. For the few who are against it; again I don't think that the protection of their freedoms to not have insurance warrant the huge number of kids suffering for involuntary lack of it, when those few can simply choose other options within the law.

 

In addition, I'm not sure what individual rights supercede the life and well being of a person, especially a child. The right to keep money that would now have to be spent on an insurance policy for their child? :huh:

 

I think there is much we agree on, Peek. But we part ways in how far to take personal liberties, and at what cost.

 

The differences in how to educate kids differs drastically from state to state --you aren't required to keep much of a paper trail AT ALL in TX and a few others. The healthcare equivalent would be me signing a statement --if anyone bothered asking-- that i was indeed taking steps to be mindful of the healthcare of my children. period. That I could certainly agree to :)

 

and like education, even homeschoolers differ on what they consider intrusive, so we aren't going to reach a clear consensus on that. but i do side w/ "less is better" when it comes to the gvt. Others would happily enter a voluntary system --and i think that should be a valid OPTION.

 

But the educational equivalent to this healthcare system is to either enroll in a public school/program or enroll in a private school/program --home school/program wouldn't be an option ;)

 

The rights in question are parental rights over how to direct their children's healthcare. If they don't WANT their children part of a system --for any number of reasons-- they should have that right to abstain completely. In the US, one is innocent until proven guilty. A parent should be allowed to act freely as an innocent party wrt their own children instead of being "forced" to make any other types of decisions that they may have issues with. That doesn't have to be monetary issues --there are some families like classicmom [and myself] that have philosophical issues w/ gvt programs in general. The Amish come to mind, but i haven't researched their healthcare system much to say how they would be affected by this.

 

Another word you used is "adequate" --what may be adequate for you may be overboard for others, and may be minimal for some.

[Peek a Boo]

Please understand a system before you decided to change what happens in it. You have to pay taxes in Sweden and like in the States you have no say how these are distributed. Some go to the health care system. HOWEVER there are private alternatives that you can go to exclusively to if you prefer. No is forced to use the public system. My sister and I use private dental care because for us it is actually cheaper right now as we are both grad students and one of the dental practices here has cheap deals for students. However we choose to use the national health system for our doctor because right now that is cheaper and easier.

 

Also with regards to deporting illegal immigrants this is done after a looooong process. It isn't that someone gets picked up by the police when they make a call to the police like what happened to 'Maria'. The process is there. And very few people actually get deported. Most go back voluntarily once they are denied asylum. They are still helped by the state to return. Please ask us about all of the Iraqis we are helping to go back or not sending back because of the situation there.

 

Um, i don't want to "change" your system --that's yours :)

What's being discussed is how your system would work over here in the US.

 

The difference in what you are describing and what is being discussed about the US is that this wouldn't necessarily be a "plain ol tax" deal -- we're talking about a system where if you participate then wages would be garnished. If you don't participate you could use your money to another venture. Since I don't WANT my tax money going to a general system I am not advocating FOR a UHC. i am, however, [as mentioned a few times now] supportive of a gvt-run program financed by voluntary participants.

 

And it is precisely because of systems [like yours?] where EVERYONE may be taxed whether they participate or not that some of us in America want to avoid a UHC.

 

I guess the other difference is that in America we DO have a say how our taxes are handled. It's not a very effective voice at the individual level, but everyone has the right to pull together and speak up for or against a tax and have it upped or removed.

 

I'm glad that most illegal immigrants in YOUR country leave voluntarily once they are denied asylum. That doesn't happen over here --they return again and again and again. Not to mention that many of the people here in the US don't bother reporting illegal immigrants because they are convinced that breaking the law about crossing the border isn't really that big a deal--- certainly not a "real crime." And i absolutely agree that refuges from a war zone deserve special protections. That's NOT what we have here in the US w/ illegals from Mexico.

 

Is every adult in Sweden required to be signed up under some healthcare plan, or can they completely opt out?

[Peek a Boo]

I think I understand what you guys are talking about...the VA system.

 

Am I right?

So...are you guys saying that a UHC program would look like the VA administration, or the military system?

 

Sorry...I was superimposing past conversations onto this one.

 

(Just in case I'm not mishearing, and you're saying the VA system is what national health care would look like...how is that comparable, when you can only visit one center? Well, actually, our state has two. ;-) Can someone guide me to a proposal for UHC that looks like that? I haven't seen any, but...I also haven't done that much investigating, to be honest. Are there other countries that have systems that are that limiting? That would be scary.)

 

 

shoot, i was just saying that the military healthcare --TriCare OR VA-- is/was entered into voluntarily. Not sure where anyone else was going w/ it.

[Audrey]

I wanted to rep you for that but apparently I need to spread it around before I do;)

 

I was actually sitting here this morning trying to do research on the average cost to US families who have health insurance and how much they pay in insurance premiums and in deductibles and in taxes so I could compare it to what we pay in taxes here plus our doctors payments, to see who ACTUALLY pays the most.

 

 

 

 

I did that little exercise this past April on my blog, when the question was asked "do you think you get your money's worth relative to the taxes you pay."

 

I figured in what we'd pay in the US at a similar income level, plus a quote on what it would cost to insure our family of 3 in a fairly low-cost group plan.

 

Turns out that my CDN taxes (which also cover our family's health care) are less than 1/4 of what I would pay in the US for taxes and health insurance.

 

I was shocked. I figured I was getting a heck of a deal, but I didn't know it was THAT good! :D

[Mommy22alyns]

Okay, so let me get this straight:

 

Sooo...for the past seven years our government (conservatives) have been spending TRILLIONS of "someone else's money" (taxpayers) to purchase "freedom" for the Iraqis "at the point of a gun" (our armed forces.)

 

Gotcha. I think. ;)

 

astrid

 

 

Dang... I tried to rep you, but I have to spread it around. NICEly said!