Bit of a pocket issue admittedly, but since comprehensive care should be comprehensive--
I think there needs to be a bit of reform as far as psychiatric health care goes, too. It's nearly all independent practice, and in NJ the waiting period for even a consultation through the sliding-scale system is between three and six weeks (south versus north, respectively). I understand there likely isn't a pressing need by and large for this sort of care, especially on an urgent basis, but it's sort of just a critical mass problem for low and middle-income families as far as I've seen. A lot of the patients get roped into patented medications that are hardly covered, if at all, and half the time by necessity. Add to this exorbitant co-pays and poor coverage for the ubiquitous out-of-network visits, as well as reluctance by most insurance companies to accept the validity of some conditions which are traditionally medicated,
and it sort of just becomes an overwhelming amount of costly bunk very quickly.
Aside from the rather nebulous claims to things like attacking monopolies and pushing what generics are on the market*, my ill-educated self thinks that, maybe as a band-aid fix, some incentive could be offered for psych. professionals opting in to the federal clinic system. This is important because, as I've been told, most psych. and therapists presently opt out because given the amount of education required, the desirable profit margins require that sort of medical vigilantism.
I mean, I have a chronic condition which, if I could actually afford and push myself to get back into caring for it, would cost approximately $340/mo, in addition to insurance premiums, on the top of start-up costs, and in addition to 'routine' diagnostics. This is under the Blue Shield/Blue Cross federal workers' insurance, and given my own inexperience insofar as careers go, I don't think I can nab a job with superior insurance, and I know for a fact that the rest of my record basically excludes me from privatized insurance by and large-- three cheers for chronic heart conditions, eh wot?
tl;dr-- I'd like to see psychiatric reform in addition, at least focusing on the proposed investigation into pharmaceutical monopolies and the pushing of generics. Some government incentive in the short-term for psychiatrists to opt into the existing federal infrastructure would be wonderful, and pressure on private insurers to honor more psychiatric diagnoses as chronic conditions requiring recurring care would be stupendous.
*As a corollary, I think it's a brolly lot that there exist wide varieties of medication for certain purposes, which have been on the market for more than a few years, and there can still not be a generic in the mix. Atypical antipsychotics, I'm looking at you!
So... does anybody have an idea what kind of tax increase we would see if there was universal healthcare in the USA? Be honest.
Obama's plan has a repeal of the Bush tax cuts plus an increased tax on medium/large businesses which would be in part offset by lower private healthcare costs.
I think in another thread I pointed out that if the government were to simply purchase private healthcare plans for 45 million uninsured people at the cost of roughly $400 per month it would be about 216 billion dollars per year. That's a kind of baseline figure for covering everyone without costs going down.
Of course, every plan out there includes ways to cut costs also.
What kind of tax increase would that be? I think something like a 5% increase on the top tax bracket.
So taxes something like we had in the 90s.
My company has excellent health coverage where I pay nothing every month except for a $20 co-pay so why would I be interested in UHC??
So... does anybody have an idea what kind of tax increase we would see if there was universal healthcare in the USA? Be honest.
Obama's plan has a repeal of the Bush tax cuts plus an increased tax on medium/large businesses which would be in part offset by lower private healthcare costs.
I think in another thread I pointed out that if the government were to simply purchase private healthcare plans for 45 million uninsured people at the cost of roughly $400 per month it would be about 216 billion dollars per year. That's a kind of baseline figure for covering everyone without costs going down.
Of course, every plan out there includes ways to cut costs also.
What kind of tax increase would that be? I think something like a 5% increase on the top tax bracket.
So taxes something like we had in the 90s.
My company has excellent health coverage where I pay nothing every month except for a $20 co-pay so why would I be interested in UHC??
Maybe because if healthcare premiums rise 90% over the next six years the way they have risen 90% over the last six then your company, as many companies have done, will make your benefits package less generous and make you pay more of it.
Or perhaps because you are statistically unlikely to work for that company for the rest of your life. Or perhaps because there is a possibility that your company will not survive for the rest of your life.
But ultimately, unless you are in the top income tax bracket, there is no real reason for you to be against it in terms of your own self interest.
In the last thread that went horribly, horribly wrong, I confessed my ignorance of healthcare as a whole, and asked for some data.
Can anyone show me quality of healthcare in countries with socialized medicine vs privatized?
Also, I stated something along the lines that I would be all for govt. sponsored healthcare if I didn't have to pay any more in taxes and I could choose my doctor. Somebody said that wasn't farfetched (I forget who) and I ginuinely want to know how. It doesn't seem possible to me.
Also, I stated something along the lines that I would be all for govt. sponsored healthcare if I didn't have to pay any more in taxes and I could choose my doctor. Somebody said that wasn't farfetched (I forget who) and I ginuinely want to know how. It doesn't seem possible to me.
After some time, interior costs will drop and the benefits will be passed onto the consumer-- especially due to corollary measures like the standardization and modernization of record-keeping. You will likely still be paying some non-zero amount but it'll be stratified in a way benefiting the lower-income brackets.
As for choosing your own doctor, there may be exclusions in the single-payer systems idealized by Feral and others, but most professionals would belong to the same system and I don't understand why there would be bureaucratic interference at the entry level as to general practitioners and the like. For more intensive care, depending on how deep the government treads into the muck, you may be unable to pick and choose your specialists without probable cause (second opinions, etc.,) and probably still at a cost, but
at that point why are you complaining anyway mang just take the money and run and don't die
The proposals being put forward here in America provide a low cost government healthcare plan. Low income people get a subsidy so that this plan is very affordable. The subsidy is transferable and can be paid toward a private plan if you are disatisfied with the level of choice in the government plan. The plan is paid for by letting the Bush tax cuts expired and increased taxes on medium and large businesses.
Universal healthcare does not mean socialized, single payer, 100% government run healthcare.
Half of the aim of the healthcare proposals here in the U.S. is to jigger the system to work better so that the costs of private insurance comes down and the private market can provide for more people.
So you want to bring back the unprecedented economic malaise of the 90s, do you?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So... does anybody have an idea what kind of tax increase we would see if there was universal healthcare in the USA? Be honest.
Obama's plan has a repeal of the Bush tax cuts plus an increased tax on medium/large businesses which would be in part offset by lower private healthcare costs.
I think in another thread I pointed out that if the government were to simply purchase private healthcare plans for 45 million uninsured people at the cost of roughly $400 per month it would be about 216 billion dollars per year. That's a kind of baseline figure for covering everyone without costs going down.
Of course, every plan out there includes ways to cut costs also.
What kind of tax increase would that be? I think something like a 5% increase on the top tax bracket.
So taxes something like we had in the 90s.
I believe you stated earlier in the thread that one of the ideas was to take the money we're spending fucking around in Iraq and move it into a budget for a universal healthcare plan. IF what was done to create the money needed to put a plan like that in action was to not increase taxes, but to rearrange money already in the budget, I wouldn't have much of a problem with a universal healthcare.
As long as they don't absorb the entire industry, and let those of us who are already participating in the private system to continue to do so. Then I might put my vote behind it. But my pursuit of happiness doesn't need to be impeded by taking more money out of my pocket to support people that are not myself or my loved ones. I already let them take enough as it is.
So you would have the government pay for basic health insurance with some sort of subsidy.
But people could choose where to spend that subsidy and the provision of the actual health care stays in private hands.
This seems to be the school voucher debate all over.
I think that is basically how it works.
There is also the low cost government plan, a version of the plan available to all government employees currently, that would be offered to everyone.
If its anything like US Army care then fuck that. Anyways, I'm all for covering people without insurance though I don't think UHC is necessary, its overkill really and the Dems are just trying to get the poor vote. The State and possibly the Fed should cover those that are very poor, disabled, and of course need it. We shouldn't cover the folk that deny coverage from their employers nor the contractors/consultants that make a pretty good wage.
I believe you stated earlier in the thread that one of the ideas was to take the money we're spending fucking around in Iraq and move it into a budget for a universal healthcare plan. IF what was done to create the money needed to put a plan like that in action was to not increase taxes, but to rearrange money already in the budget, I wouldn't have much of a problem with a universal healthcare.
No, I wasn't saying take the money out of Iraq. That isn't a part of any plan that I know of - but it is sometimes used to point out that it isn't a crazy amount of money to spend.
In Obama's plan anyway, the cost is that the top income bracket would return to the tax rates of the 90s and most businesses (not the very small ones) would have some tax increase also. The benefit is that everyone is covered and the cost of most private plans decrease, lightening the burdens on businesses and individuals who already have private plans.
As long as they don't absorb the entire industry, and let those of us who are already participating in the private system to continue to do so. Then I might put my vote behind it. But my pursuit of happiness doesn't need to be impeded by taking more money out of my pocket to support people that are not myself or my loved ones. I already let them take enough as it is.
I don't know of any health proposal that limits participation in the private system. The cost of your private insurance will drop and more prevantative medical services will be covered by your private plan.
Unless you are in the top tax bracket or are the sole owner of a medium/large sized business the costs of your private insurance will drop and your taxes will not go up.
Well, my understanding is that the subsidy to afford the government plan can also be applied toward a private plan if you are disatisfied with the government plan. So, not much of a worry there.
Well, my understanding is that the subsidy to afford the government plan can also be applied toward a private plan if you are disatisfied with the government plan. So, not much of a worry there.
And from the rhetoric I'm hearing the federal plan is being based off of the insurance plan that members of Congress have. At worst the government plan would probably be similiar to whatever it is the post office uses.
Well, my understanding is that the subsidy to afford the government plan can also be applied toward a private plan if you are disatisfied with the government plan. So, not much of a worry there.
And from the rhetoric I'm hearing the federal plan is being based off of the insurance plan that members of Congress have. At worst the government plan would probably be similiar to whatever it is the post office uses.
My understanding is that the postal workers and the Congressmen both have the same federal plan.
I could be wrong about that. I'm going off of Obama's big healthcare speech and part of a three part series of speeches by Hillary.
I believe you stated earlier in the thread that one of the ideas was to take the money we're spending fucking around in Iraq and move it into a budget for a universal healthcare plan. IF what was done to create the money needed to put a plan like that in action was to not increase taxes, but to rearrange money already in the budget, I wouldn't have much of a problem with a universal healthcare.
No, I wasn't saying take the money out of Iraq. That isn't a part of any plan that I know of - but it is sometimes used to point out that it isn't a crazy amount of money to spend.
In Obama's plan anyway, the cost is that the top income bracket would return to the tax rates of the 90s and most businesses (not the very small ones) would have some tax increase also. The benefit is that everyone is covered and the cost of most private plans decrease, lightening the burdens on businesses and individuals who already have private plans.
Oh, I thought you said that Edwards plan was to take money being spent on Iraq and put it into a UHC plan for us. My bad.
No, I wasn't saying take the money out of Iraq. That isn't a part of any plan that I know of - but it is sometimes used to point out that it isn't a crazy amount of money to spend.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the amount we spend in Iraq is a crazy amount of money, especially for a new and persistent government program, and especially especially when government programs almost invariably grow and become more expensive.
The cost of Iraq is tolerable because it's - ostensibly, at least - a temporary outlay of cash. Appeals to the cost of the Iraq war are sort of like, "Well, we're making 6 payments on that TV we just bought. We can afford that, so let's buy a new house with a 30 year mortgage that increases our payments by the same amount."
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
No, I wasn't saying take the money out of Iraq. That isn't a part of any plan that I know of - but it is sometimes used to point out that it isn't a crazy amount of money to spend.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the amount we spend in Iraq is a crazy amount of money, especially for a new and persistent government program, and especially especially when government programs almost invariably grow and become more expensive.
The cost of Iraq is tolerable because it's - ostensibly, at least - a temporary outlay of cash. Appeals to the cost of the Iraq war are sort of like, "Well, we're making 6 payments on that TV we just bought. We can afford that, so let's buy a new house with a 30 year mortgage that increases our payments by the same amount."
Yeah, I know.
Believe me, I know. I worry about the budget.
On the other hand, it isn't as if this is money that's being blown on candy and popcorn. The need seems to be clear and increasingly urgent, the solution seems to me to make the system more stable and sustainable in terms of decreasing the cost of private plans by taking on part of the costs of the heaviest healthcare consumers and forcing increased spending on preventative care.
Out of curiosity, when was the last time a project of comparable scope was implemented in such a way that it was actually a good thing? I can't think of anything that isn't more than half a century old, but I can think of plenty of NCLB acts and Departments of Homeland Security.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
No, I wasn't saying take the money out of Iraq. That isn't a part of any plan that I know of - but it is sometimes used to point out that it isn't a crazy amount of money to spend.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the amount we spend in Iraq is a crazy amount of money, especially for a new and persistent government program, and especially especially when government programs almost invariably grow and become more expensive.
The cost of Iraq is tolerable because it's - ostensibly, at least - a temporary outlay of cash. Appeals to the cost of the Iraq war are sort of like, "Well, we're making 6 payments on that TV we just bought. We can afford that, so let's buy a new house with a 30 year mortgage that increases our payments by the same amount."
This shouldn't morph into a debate about Iraq and I really don't want to be the leading factor of it becoming one, but essentially Iraq is a catastrophically ineffective 4 year program with a cost of somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars (closer to the 2 trillion) if we were to up and leave right now. We aren't, so there's 2 more years to assume into the price plus all the economic costs of having a clusterfucked oil rich country killing itself for awhile. I can't think of any other program that's comparable in terms of money pissed away for no tangible silver lining type benefit gained.
I do agree with you, though. The idea that 'hey, we have a 10 trillion dollar deficit so what's a few billion more dollars wasted' isn't a very good foundation to build anything off of. I don't see many people actually doing that, though.
Out of curiosity, when was the last time a project of comparable scope was implemented in such a way that it was actually a good thing? I can't think of anything that isn't more than half a century old, but I can think of plenty of NCLB acts and Departments of Homeland Security.
I don't even know what parameters you are setting.
It seems to me like federal health programs, the department of homeland security and the NCLB act are extremely disimilar things. What is the unifying thread there? Things the government did?
Shinto on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
What Will said. Basically, the creation or ambitious expansion of major government endeavors, as compared to things like, "Oh, let's change this number in this program" or "Let's tweak this parameter for that program." It just seems like lately, when the government aims high, it misses big. I'm skeptical of the fed's ability to do something on this scale and not fuck it up, likely as a result of excessive political in-fighting that fundamentally borks everything the initiative was set up to accomplish.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Well, like I said, you'll be casting a very painful vote for Rudy McRomney this year Jeff. You are fundamentally against any plan it seems to me, just as you eventually come down to being fundamentally against any Democratic candidate. Somehow, that ultimately makes your objections less credible to me.
Otherwise - from the 80s through the 90s the government was scaling down and since January of 2001 George Bush has been in charge. No one is going to argue that the period between 2002 and 2006 was a period of incredibly poor government and that the current president seems to have a singular talent for it.
Otherwise - from the 80s through the 90s the government was scaling down and since January of 2001 George Bush has been in charge. No one is going to argue that the period between 2002 and 2006 was a period of incredibly poor government and that the current president seems to have a singular talent for it.
Otherwise - from the 80s through the 90s the government was scaling down and since January of 2001 George Bush has been in charge. No one is going to argue that the period between 2002 and 2006 was a period of incredibly poor government and that the current president seems to have a singular talent for it.
I disagree, GW rocks!
He makes me pine for the days of Nixonian corruption. At least Tricky Dick did some good things along with the horrible shadow government type stuff.
Otherwise - from the 80s through the 90s the government was scaling down and since January of 2001 George Bush has been in charge. No one is going to argue that the period between 2002 and 2006 was a period of incredibly poor government and that the current president seems to have a singular talent for it.
Well, like I said, you'll be casting a very painful vote for Rudy McRomney this year Jeff. You are fundamentally against any plan it seems to me, just as you eventually come down to being fundamentally against any Democratic candidate. Somehow, that ultimately makes your objections less credible to me.
Being skeptical about passing a good plan in the current political environment doesn't really make me "fundamentally against any plan". I just want to maintain some healthy skepticism, here. Do you honestly think that Obama's plan would enter congress and come out unscathed? I would like to know what, for example, the plan is to make such an endeavor palatable to enough Republicans that it can make it through. I don't want another $400B Medicare reform plan to happen, and at a time when our nation is sort of hemorrhaging money, that strikes me as reasonable.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2007
Well, I'm in no position to defend Bush's domestic agenda. IMO, NCLB wasn't so much a concerted attempt to improve education so much as a system designed to affect a more punitive approach to public schools with an eye towards installing a privatization trojan horse. I guess it succeeded in that large-scale standardized testing is the norm, but it's kind of failed in that punitive approaches don't seem to have the desired effect on the quality of public education.
DHS is a mess because it wasn't founded with a solid premise, was executed almost intentionally haphazardly with incompetent leaders, and overstepped into jurisdictional wrangling with the CIA, NSA and DoD. If its scope had been limited to incorporation of the FBI, INS, ATF, customs, securities and the Coast Guard it would have been a lot more tenable.
Basically I can't really think of any recent ambitious domestic programs. Maybe the most recent were Johnson's anti-poverty stuff or the civil rights act, both of which were really quite effective. Clinton's Americorps was a great program as well, and was slashed by the Republican congress pretty much entirely out of spite. I mean - a CCC for college tuition; how great is that?
Since the end of the cold war, there's only been a single Democratic administration, and that one was hobbled by a intransigent congress for all eight years. I really don't trust Republican presidents to enact domestic initiatives with any seriousness - there's just a philosophical aversion to government even entering the domestic sphere
Well, like I said, you'll be casting a very painful vote for Rudy McRomney this year Jeff. You are fundamentally against any plan it seems to me, just as you eventually come down to being fundamentally against any Democratic candidate. Somehow, that ultimately makes your objections less credible to me.
Being skeptical about passing a good plan in the current political environment doesn't really make me "fundamentally against any plan". I just want to maintain some healthy skepticism, here. Do you honestly think that Obama's plan would enter congress and come out unscathed? I would like to know what, for example, the plan is to make such an endeavor palatable to enough Republicans that it can make it through. I don't want another $400B Medicare reform plan to happen, and at a time when our nation is sort of hemorrhaging money, that strikes me as reasonable.
Wouldn't that depend on knowing the outcome of both the presidential and the congressional elections?
And what is the risk if healthcare costs continue to rise the way they have been over the past six years for another six years? What happens if premiums double again?
Otherwise - from the 80s through the 90s the government was scaling down and since January of 2001 George Bush has been in charge. No one is going to argue that the period between 2002 and 2006 was a period of incredibly poor government and that the current president seems to have a singular talent for it.
I disagree, GW rocks!
He makes me pine for the days of Nixonian corruption. At least Tricky Dick did some good things along with the horrible shadow government type stuff.
Least they were competent about being corrupt then.
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2007
Also worth mentioning wrt universal health care: this program as it's been proposed is largely a cost-shifting from unofficial ad-hoc channels to official channels with an eye towards overall cost savings. The fact that other nations with similar systems have a higher quality of health care with a lower individual cost gives me some optimism.
And also it's not as though the current system is any good. It's a goddamned mess with perverse incentives piled upon perverse incentives, and no minor tweaks (tort reform lolz) can really address what's fundamentally wrong with it. It's a textbook case of the private market simply being unable or unwilling to sensibly or economically address a widescale public need.
Found this interesting site about health care cost stats. I was wondering why its been increasing and it seems its because of our poor health, fatties, smoking and heart disease. Makes sense, unfortunately.
Basically I can't really think of any recent ambitious domestic programs. Maybe the most recent were Johnson's anti-poverty stuff or the civil rights act, both of which were really quite effective.
The EPA, but that was more than 30 years ago still. There really haven't been many new programs made up recently since the country has shifted right from a little before Reagan until a couple years ago when we shifted leftward again. The only programs I can think of are all this administration, and I would say that that was a big problem leading to those programs just all out failing. Cronyism and needless bureaucratic infighting doesn't make for smooth transitions to new programs. The immigration thing would be the first joint program of large scale, but it may not make it out of the gate to even be screwed up, so... yeah.
moniker on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Found this interesting site about health care cost stats. I was wondering why its been increasing and it seems its because of our poor health, fatties, smoking and heart disease. Makes sense, unfortunately.
Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.
I didn't see anything about fatties, smoking or heart disease there. Now I'm not denying that we do have widespread health problems, but your link doesn't seem to talk about them.
Goddammit, you people, you're making me support Barack "I'm a Big, Fucking Liberal" Obama's health care proposal, and I don't want to. Stop being persuasive and reasonable!
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Goddammit, you people, you're making me support Barack "I'm a Big, Fucking Liberal" Obama's health care proposal, and I don't want to. Stop being persuasive and reasonable!
The reall horror will dawn on you when you realize that Hillary's plan is even better thought out.
Horror Jeff.
Horror.
I imagine it might be something like me waking up and realizing that I kind of like Tom Tancredo's immigration plan. *shiver*
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
I think there needs to be a bit of reform as far as psychiatric health care goes, too. It's nearly all independent practice, and in NJ the waiting period for even a consultation through the sliding-scale system is between three and six weeks (south versus north, respectively). I understand there likely isn't a pressing need by and large for this sort of care, especially on an urgent basis, but it's sort of just a critical mass problem for low and middle-income families as far as I've seen. A lot of the patients get roped into patented medications that are hardly covered, if at all, and half the time by necessity. Add to this exorbitant co-pays and poor coverage for the ubiquitous out-of-network visits, as well as reluctance by most insurance companies to accept the validity of some conditions which are traditionally medicated,
and it sort of just becomes an overwhelming amount of costly bunk very quickly.
Aside from the rather nebulous claims to things like attacking monopolies and pushing what generics are on the market*, my ill-educated self thinks that, maybe as a band-aid fix, some incentive could be offered for psych. professionals opting in to the federal clinic system. This is important because, as I've been told, most psych. and therapists presently opt out because given the amount of education required, the desirable profit margins require that sort of medical vigilantism.
I mean, I have a chronic condition which, if I could actually afford and push myself to get back into caring for it, would cost approximately $340/mo, in addition to insurance premiums, on the top of start-up costs, and in addition to 'routine' diagnostics. This is under the Blue Shield/Blue Cross federal workers' insurance, and given my own inexperience insofar as careers go, I don't think I can nab a job with superior insurance, and I know for a fact that the rest of my record basically excludes me from privatized insurance by and large-- three cheers for chronic heart conditions, eh wot?
tl;dr-- I'd like to see psychiatric reform in addition, at least focusing on the proposed investigation into pharmaceutical monopolies and the pushing of generics. Some government incentive in the short-term for psychiatrists to opt into the existing federal infrastructure would be wonderful, and pressure on private insurers to honor more psychiatric diagnoses as chronic conditions requiring recurring care would be stupendous.
*As a corollary, I think it's a brolly lot that there exist wide varieties of medication for certain purposes, which have been on the market for more than a few years, and there can still not be a generic in the mix. Atypical antipsychotics, I'm looking at you!
My company has excellent health coverage where I pay nothing every month except for a $20 co-pay so why would I be interested in UHC??
Maybe because if healthcare premiums rise 90% over the next six years the way they have risen 90% over the last six then your company, as many companies have done, will make your benefits package less generous and make you pay more of it.
Or perhaps because you are statistically unlikely to work for that company for the rest of your life. Or perhaps because there is a possibility that your company will not survive for the rest of your life.
But ultimately, unless you are in the top income tax bracket, there is no real reason for you to be against it in terms of your own self interest.
Can anyone show me quality of healthcare in countries with socialized medicine vs privatized?
Also, I stated something along the lines that I would be all for govt. sponsored healthcare if I didn't have to pay any more in taxes and I could choose my doctor. Somebody said that wasn't farfetched (I forget who) and I ginuinely want to know how. It doesn't seem possible to me.
As for choosing your own doctor, there may be exclusions in the single-payer systems idealized by Feral and others, but most professionals would belong to the same system and I don't understand why there would be bureaucratic interference at the entry level as to general practitioners and the like. For more intensive care, depending on how deep the government treads into the muck, you may be unable to pick and choose your specialists without probable cause (second opinions, etc.,) and probably still at a cost, but
at that point why are you complaining anyway mang just take the money and run and don't die
The proposals being put forward here in America provide a low cost government healthcare plan. Low income people get a subsidy so that this plan is very affordable. The subsidy is transferable and can be paid toward a private plan if you are disatisfied with the level of choice in the government plan. The plan is paid for by letting the Bush tax cuts expired and increased taxes on medium and large businesses.
Universal healthcare does not mean socialized, single payer, 100% government run healthcare.
Half of the aim of the healthcare proposals here in the U.S. is to jigger the system to work better so that the costs of private insurance comes down and the private market can provide for more people.
But people could choose where to spend that subsidy and the provision of the actual health care stays in private hands.
This seems to be the school voucher debate all over.
So you want to bring back the unprecedented economic malaise of the 90s, do you?
What's the opposite of stagflation? Growthility?
I think that is basically how it works.
There is also the low cost government plan, a version of the plan available to all government employees currently, that would be offered to everyone.
I believe you stated earlier in the thread that one of the ideas was to take the money we're spending fucking around in Iraq and move it into a budget for a universal healthcare plan. IF what was done to create the money needed to put a plan like that in action was to not increase taxes, but to rearrange money already in the budget, I wouldn't have much of a problem with a universal healthcare.
As long as they don't absorb the entire industry, and let those of us who are already participating in the private system to continue to do so. Then I might put my vote behind it. But my pursuit of happiness doesn't need to be impeded by taking more money out of my pocket to support people that are not myself or my loved ones. I already let them take enough as it is.
If its anything like US Army care then fuck that. Anyways, I'm all for covering people without insurance though I don't think UHC is necessary, its overkill really and the Dems are just trying to get the poor vote. The State and possibly the Fed should cover those that are very poor, disabled, and of course need it. We shouldn't cover the folk that deny coverage from their employers nor the contractors/consultants that make a pretty good wage.
No, I wasn't saying take the money out of Iraq. That isn't a part of any plan that I know of - but it is sometimes used to point out that it isn't a crazy amount of money to spend.
In Obama's plan anyway, the cost is that the top income bracket would return to the tax rates of the 90s and most businesses (not the very small ones) would have some tax increase also. The benefit is that everyone is covered and the cost of most private plans decrease, lightening the burdens on businesses and individuals who already have private plans.
I don't know of any health proposal that limits participation in the private system. The cost of your private insurance will drop and more prevantative medical services will be covered by your private plan.
Unless you are in the top tax bracket or are the sole owner of a medium/large sized business the costs of your private insurance will drop and your taxes will not go up.
Well, my understanding is that the subsidy to afford the government plan can also be applied toward a private plan if you are disatisfied with the government plan. So, not much of a worry there.
And from the rhetoric I'm hearing the federal plan is being based off of the insurance plan that members of Congress have. At worst the government plan would probably be similiar to whatever it is the post office uses.
My understanding is that the postal workers and the Congressmen both have the same federal plan.
I could be wrong about that. I'm going off of Obama's big healthcare speech and part of a three part series of speeches by Hillary.
He's pretty populist, and I know he favors immediate withdrawl, so it seems plausible that that would be his position.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the amount we spend in Iraq is a crazy amount of money, especially for a new and persistent government program, and especially especially when government programs almost invariably grow and become more expensive.
The cost of Iraq is tolerable because it's - ostensibly, at least - a temporary outlay of cash. Appeals to the cost of the Iraq war are sort of like, "Well, we're making 6 payments on that TV we just bought. We can afford that, so let's buy a new house with a 30 year mortgage that increases our payments by the same amount."
Yeah, I know.
Believe me, I know. I worry about the budget.
On the other hand, it isn't as if this is money that's being blown on candy and popcorn. The need seems to be clear and increasingly urgent, the solution seems to me to make the system more stable and sustainable in terms of decreasing the cost of private plans by taking on part of the costs of the heaviest healthcare consumers and forcing increased spending on preventative care.
This shouldn't morph into a debate about Iraq and I really don't want to be the leading factor of it becoming one, but essentially Iraq is a catastrophically ineffective 4 year program with a cost of somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars (closer to the 2 trillion) if we were to up and leave right now. We aren't, so there's 2 more years to assume into the price plus all the economic costs of having a clusterfucked oil rich country killing itself for awhile. I can't think of any other program that's comparable in terms of money pissed away for no tangible silver lining type benefit gained.
I do agree with you, though. The idea that 'hey, we have a 10 trillion dollar deficit so what's a few billion more dollars wasted' isn't a very good foundation to build anything off of. I don't see many people actually doing that, though.
I don't even know what parameters you are setting.
It seems to me like federal health programs, the department of homeland security and the NCLB act are extremely disimilar things. What is the unifying thread there? Things the government did?
Otherwise - from the 80s through the 90s the government was scaling down and since January of 2001 George Bush has been in charge. No one is going to argue that the period between 2002 and 2006 was a period of incredibly poor government and that the current president seems to have a singular talent for it.
I disagree, GW rocks!
He makes me pine for the days of Nixonian corruption. At least Tricky Dick did some good things along with the horrible shadow government type stuff.
Being skeptical about passing a good plan in the current political environment doesn't really make me "fundamentally against any plan". I just want to maintain some healthy skepticism, here. Do you honestly think that Obama's plan would enter congress and come out unscathed? I would like to know what, for example, the plan is to make such an endeavor palatable to enough Republicans that it can make it through. I don't want another $400B Medicare reform plan to happen, and at a time when our nation is sort of hemorrhaging money, that strikes me as reasonable.
DHS is a mess because it wasn't founded with a solid premise, was executed almost intentionally haphazardly with incompetent leaders, and overstepped into jurisdictional wrangling with the CIA, NSA and DoD. If its scope had been limited to incorporation of the FBI, INS, ATF, customs, securities and the Coast Guard it would have been a lot more tenable.
Basically I can't really think of any recent ambitious domestic programs. Maybe the most recent were Johnson's anti-poverty stuff or the civil rights act, both of which were really quite effective. Clinton's Americorps was a great program as well, and was slashed by the Republican congress pretty much entirely out of spite. I mean - a CCC for college tuition; how great is that?
Since the end of the cold war, there's only been a single Democratic administration, and that one was hobbled by a intransigent congress for all eight years. I really don't trust Republican presidents to enact domestic initiatives with any seriousness - there's just a philosophical aversion to government even entering the domestic sphere
Wouldn't that depend on knowing the outcome of both the presidential and the congressional elections?
And what is the risk if healthcare costs continue to rise the way they have been over the past six years for another six years? What happens if premiums double again?
Least they were competent about being corrupt then.
And also it's not as though the current system is any good. It's a goddamned mess with perverse incentives piled upon perverse incentives, and no minor tweaks (tort reform lolz) can really address what's fundamentally wrong with it. It's a textbook case of the private market simply being unable or unwilling to sensibly or economically address a widescale public need.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
The EPA, but that was more than 30 years ago still. There really haven't been many new programs made up recently since the country has shifted right from a little before Reagan until a couple years ago when we shifted leftward again. The only programs I can think of are all this administration, and I would say that that was a big problem leading to those programs just all out failing. Cronyism and needless bureaucratic infighting doesn't make for smooth transitions to new programs. The immigration thing would be the first joint program of large scale, but it may not make it out of the gate to even be screwed up, so... yeah.
The website that says this?
I didn't see anything about fatties, smoking or heart disease there. Now I'm not denying that we do have widespread health problems, but your link doesn't seem to talk about them.
The reall horror will dawn on you when you realize that Hillary's plan is even better thought out.
Horror Jeff.
Horror.
I imagine it might be something like me waking up and realizing that I kind of like Tom Tancredo's immigration plan. *shiver*