Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Gov't Health Care Even If Taxes Rise

Don't talk about what you don't know. American has by far the most violence and violent gun deaths in the WORLD. Sadly and ironcially there is no base of health care to cover this.
Stupid cliche not even true.
DO NOT TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW!!!!!
 
I'm very happy every time I go to Europe; it's beautiful. It has that old world charm, warm people, great scenery, and a whole lot more.
That's what you base your opinion on?
Then I waste my time here.
 
Funny, all my canadian friends who moved here said their healthcare in canada sucked ass, and that they were happy to pay a little more each month for real healthcare in the states. That their monthly payment was far cheaper than the tax difference they paid in canada for healthcare.

I trust them over you any day.


The US is a big country with many cultures, making a blanket statement about gun crime is a joke. More children die each year in swimming pool deaths than by guns. I guess we should outlaw swimming pools.

You are buying into the medias BS anti-gun rhetoric.




Quote from TorontoTrader2:

I am very happy with my public healthcare system here in Canada.

Don't talk about what you don't know. American has by far the most violence and violent gun deaths in the WORLD. Sadly and ironcially there is no base of health care to cover this.

Is this a concidence - that unhappy, stressed people shoot each other? Europe has little gun crime. Must just be a big concidence..
 
Quote from traderdragon2:

Anyone who believes the standard of living in Europe is higher than the USA hasnt done their homework, plain and simple.

There are easy to find studies proving this is not the case. Go google.

You must mean this joke of a piece
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005242

Cause GDP per capita matters sooo much to most of the population. It's like deriving financial success of the average American based on Wall Street bonuses.
Having a car is a standard of living factor in USA? It's a necessity and one of the biggest consumer debt drivers of this country. It's a burden, not a luxury.
I won't even bother to mention the other obviously wrong conclusions in that piece.
Europe's higher standard of living is not just based on how much money they make per year, whether they have a car or how big their living space is.

Just because socialized healthcare may work somewhere else doesnt mean it will work here.
....
There are way too many differences between the US and europe to simply assume what works there will work here.

I won't argue that, I already said that the plan will not be successful because it omits the real problem.

Want to know how it will work here? We already have it, its called medicare and its a complete failure.

Medicare is retarded, it's meant for old people and poor people. You cannot even get it if you have more than $2000 in liquid assets & cash. You get more eligibility with kids, like single parent status (I think) but even then you have to prove that you are poor.
So think of the average "middle class", who is not eligible for medicare but can't afford it out of pocket. Either they get raped by the health insurance company, since benefits only get downsized nowdays, or they get bills they can barely afford to pay.

Now some people want to expand that complete failure to everyone. Yipee!!!!! :confused:

Bottom line, there is a problem and it's growing. Ideally, the job growth, wage growth and benefits should take care of that. But this is the era of endless cost cutting and jobless "recoveries". Meanwhile hospitals are pressured to make more profit and the physician groups are demanding more pay (that's why the became doctors, after all). Insurance rates are skyrocketing, so people cannot afford insurance and lose their company benefits as jobs are being offshored. When they need vital treatments they get slammed with huge bills, which they can't pay. So the hospitals & doctor groups jack up the rates to cover the very probable risk of nonpayment (as well as the health insurance companies underpaying). Just one vicious cycle.
Obviously the capitalist element of USA is failing at this matter. And the politicians are pretty much run by lobbyists. So there is not much of a choice.
I thought Kerry's plan was reasonable, btw.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Here is an idea. Why not try this. Anyone that wants to opt in for a universal health care plan by the government gets a tax increase. Those that don't opt in, do not. In other words, if I don't want it, I don't have to pay for it. Fair enough? I'm curious what the left has to say about that? Discuss....

Funny, none of the pro-universal health care crowd wanted to respond to this. Hmm...
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Also, I've mentioned this before on previous health care threads. Say we do have a universal healthcare program. I'm all for it under a few conditions. All smokers, drug users and anyone that is obese has to qualify for a separately funded program.

If you want free healthcare, you have to at least meet the government half way and take care of yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't be smoking, drinking, eating double cheeseburgers, injecting and get free healthcare.

Or this......:p

So much for open debate.
 
Quote from Hydroblunt:

You must mean this joke of a piece
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005242

Cause GDP per capita matters sooo much to most of the population. It's like deriving financial success of the average American based on Wall Street bonuses.
Having a car is a standard of living factor in USA? It's a necessity and one of the biggest consumer debt drivers of this country. It's a burden, not a luxury.
I won't even bother to mention the other obviously wrong conclusions in that piece.
Europe's higher standard of living is not just based on how much money they make per year, whether they have a car or how big their living space is.



I won't argue that, I already said that the plan will not be successful because it omits the real problem.



Medicare is retarded, it's meant for old people and poor people. You cannot even get it if you have more than $2000 in liquid assets & cash. You get more eligibility with kids, like single parent status (I think) but even then you have to prove that you are poor.
So think of the average "middle class", who is not eligible for medicare but can't afford it out of pocket. Either they get raped by the health insurance company, since benefits only get downsized nowdays, or they get bills they can barely afford to pay.



Bottom line, there is a problem and it's growing. Ideally, the job growth, wage growth and benefits should take care of that. But this is the era of endless cost cutting and jobless "recoveries". Meanwhile hospitals are pressured to make more profit and the physician groups are demanding more pay (that's why the became doctors, after all). Insurance rates are skyrocketing, so people cannot afford insurance and lose their company benefits as jobs are being offshored. When they need vital treatments they get slammed with huge bills, which they can't pay. So the hospitals & doctor groups jack up the rates to cover the very probable risk of nonpayment (as well as the health insurance companies underpaying). Just one vicious cycle.
Obviously the capitalist element of USA is failing at this matter. And the politicians are pretty much run by lobbyists. So there is not much of a choice.
I thought Kerry's plan was reasonable, btw.




Hydroblunt,

I like your thinking. You are hired.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Funny, none of the pro-universal health care crowd wanted to respond to this. Hmm...

It was not worth responding. Kerry kinda outlined that in his plan. Makes no sense to selectively raise taxes for only those who want to opt-in. Simply make a reasonable gov. healthcare plan, those who want, pay their premiums & dedictibles. Those who don't want, use private insurance or none at all.
You play the selective taxes game and you will have people opting and opting out within the same year omitting the tax liability. So the tax raise has to be universal, so that it is available to everyone at any moment to opt-in.

Quote from Maverick74:

Or this......:p

So much for open debate.

Quite a few big corporates will have big problems with that. You are directly taking away business from fast food, defense/industrial, prison and tobacco. Especially when you talk about drug use, money is being spent to persecute it rather than educate & treat it. It's more profitable this way.

There is little profit in a healthy population.
 
Quote from ssternlight:

Personally,

I think universal health care is a great idea. I had it in the UK for a few years and it was fine.

If you want private health care then go pay for it as you do now. I don't think anyone else would mind. :)


And thats why US has #1 economy in the world. No thanks, I do not want to pay higher taxes so all of the fat asses will do nothing and get all of the benefits.

Social healthcare is socialism....... Yup worked fine in USSR too, right?
 
Quote from Hydroblunt:

It was not worth responding. Kerry kinda outlined that in his plan. Makes no sense to selectively raise taxes for only those who want to opt-in. Simply make a reasonable gov. healthcare plan, those who want, pay their premiums & dedictibles. Those who don't want, use private insurance or none at all.
You play the selective taxes game and you will have people opting and opting out within the same year omitting the tax liability. So the tax raise has to be universal, so that it is available to everyone at any moment to opt-in.



Quite a few big corporates will have big problems with that. You are directly taking away business from fast food, defense/industrial, prison and tobacco. Especially when you talk about drug use, money is being spent to persecute it rather than educate & treat it. It's more profitable this way.

There is little profit in a healthy population.

Actually this is not true. We currently use a similar program for traders who want to opt into MTM tax reporting. They have to choose by April 15th of the current tax year if they want to use MTM accounting for the following year. This allows them to deduct 100% of their trading losses vs the maximum of 3k per year. They can change back the following year but only before the fact. In other words, they can't simply change because it's advantageous to do so.

Those who want to be on a government healthcare plan, can state so BEFORE they have a pre-existing condition and for the next year. This will allow them not to jump on board when it's beneficial for them to do so. Personally I think this should be done on the state level and not the federal level.

As far as corporations not liking the healthcare plan for the healthy, you must have misread. The unhealthy would have a separate plan that they pay into or the government would separately fund or subsidize. All people would be covered, just not on the same plan. Think of it like a group PPO plan at work. You can choose to join the group plan or join an individual plan. Has nothing to do with corporate america profiting off of unhealthy people. BTW, corporate america makes just as much money on healthy people. Last I checked, vanity was one of the most lucrative business models out there from gyms, to nutritional supplements, cosmetic surgery, organic food, diet plans, etc.
 
Back
Top