Please explain the healthcare resistance

[defysgravity]

Also Stem.....our constitution in the 10th amendment say's "The powers not delegated to the U.S. BY the Constitution, (in this case a U.S. run and governed health care industry) nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".
Spindrifter touched on the state run aspect in his previous post. Unfortunatly, as he said, the commerce department clause wording and definition get all screwed up now...
There are a number of states who are using the legislative process, through our state attorney generals, to try to wrestle this away from the feds and make it a state issue, rather than a federal mandate.
In Idaho, and maybe some others, our state is creating legislation to codify as state policy that everyone in the state of Idaho (legally, of course) is and shall continue to be free from government compulsion in the selection of health insurance options. Basically opting out.
If passed, here's what it will do....It will declare as public policy that regulation of "securing health care services" (benefits and insurance) is a power reserved to individuals and states, not Congress. It disallows penaltys and fines related to not buying it. And it will specifically obligate the state attorney general to enforce the act.
In essence Stem...it is an attempt to get back to allowing the states to govern themselves......just as our Constitution intended.
So Stem..just to get an idea of the gall of some politicians in this country....we have senators in New York who will introduce bills and policy's that will 100% affect another state, such as Idaho, but not there own and that person is not elected by anyone in Idaho.....
This is the best place in the world to live,....and I've been on 6 out of 7 continents,...with the greatest display of history, independence, freedoms, opportunity, hope, charity, defense, resolve and......well you get the idea.
I'll never trade flags, no matter what.

 

[skibreeze]

I Pay 36% of my gross income and 50% of all overtime/extra shifts witch is not planned work.
Also there's taxes on everything you buy here (28%) and all of this contributes to maintenance of the country and it's citizens.

A government controlled health care system where everybody can get help is in my opinion a investment, an investment to keep all of the country's citizens in work, making money for growth....
But as I understand you do not want this bill due to the immigrant's? So you do not have to pay for them...(?)
If this is the case then yes: I understand where the resistance comes from, but are there really that many immigrant's in the US??

Wow, 36% of gross income! That's insane, with my business, I paid about 8% factoring in gross income last year and sales taxes here are less than 8%. You can keep your system, I can't afford it.

 

[ruffryder]

Wow, 36% of gross income! That's insane, with my business, I paid about 8% factoring in gross income last year and sales taxes here are less than 8%. You can keep your system, I can't afford it.

are you comparing corporate tax to personal income tax? If not, how did you get your rate so low? I get taxed around 20%...

 

[jcrjet]

Stem, a majority of Americans still believe that we can make personal decisions better than a government bureaucrat. If you want to snowmobile, a potentially dangerous pursuit, it should be your responsibility to deal with the consequences of your actions, not your fellow taxpayers. Having health care provided by the government allows government almost unlimited potential to interfere with our day to day lives. Also, government has proved time and time again that it is woefully inadequate to run almost anything, let alone a social program that encumpasses nearly twenty percent of the total economy. It is illogical to think that government can reduce health care costs while maintaining current levels of service. Government can not create, it can only take from those who do. They can meddle with who pays the bills, but ultimately the bill comes due.

I couldn't agree more. I don't want my taxes to double, I already pay enough! I don't want to work for others, I work for me and mine. I made my educational and financial decisions early on in life in such a way that allows me to live a lifestyle that few can achieve. Why would I want to give that up? Is it ethical for the government to take from the haves and give to the have nots? Socialism at its best.

 

[Pinner]

I don't want my taxes to double, I already pay enough!

What nobody seems to get is that your current health care system costs your country (in dollars) almost twice the GDP as other countries...
And from what I hear alot of personal hardships that are unheard of in other countries.

The socialism argument is silly, open your eyes, your surrounded by "socialism".

From the dogcatcher to the CIA and everything in between is socialised...

 

[V-Man]

Norway has 3 million people. The US has 300 million. What may work for the small guy doesn't work for the big guys.

Your tax rates are insane too. You may pay 36%, but your country's top tax rate is just shy of 50%, plus the massive sales tax. The top tax payers are probably giving the gov +80% of what they make at the end of the day. Isnane......

How much do you pay for a new sled over there?

 

[lucky13]

What nobody seems to get is that your current health care system costs your country (in dollars) almost twice the GDP as other countries...
And from what I hear alot of personal hardships that are unheard of in other countries.

The socialism argument is silly, open your eyes, your surrounded by "socialism".

From the dogcatcher to the CIA and everything in between is socialised...

you have a valid point, but we have our limits, and we will surender only so much. we will not let it get anywhere close to what you allowed your govermont to do to you

 

[defysgravity]

The system in Canada (maybe other country's also) has incredible waiting times to see specialists....people die while waiting.

 

[defysgravity]

And another thing Stem....many of us are of the opinion that health care should not be the governments top priority right now....it should be about job creation, get the economic engine of the U.S. moving again....

See, we know that when we are working and prospering, we can create the tools to solve our other problems. At this stage of the game, with Demo's focusing on one huge, historic hunk of health care, it
distracts from the much larger issue of our economy. Their focus was more about off year elections than the good of the nation with the health care bill. And now that a Repub. holds a seat from Mass., the majority is starting to back off on the health care and focus on jobs, wall street, etc....now that they can't ram anything at will through the Senate.

Repubs, on the other hand, are no less guilty. They should have focused some of their energy on creationg job legislation than trying to block the Dem's every move.

 

[Pinner]

The system in Canada (maybe other country's also) has incredible waiting times to see specialists....people die while waiting.

I know there are waiting lists for mostly orthopedics and the lines will get longer with the ageing population, seems every older person needs a hip or knee replacement...

The stories about people dieing waiting for care are just not true, propaganda in fact. Despite the much lower spending on health care Canadians live longer than Americans, as do most populations of developed countries.

As a country, your paying for caviar and getting spam.

I looked around for some waiting list information but didn't find much, we mostly wait for elective surgeries, serious things get attended to very quickly.

My Dr. told me the nurses get about 80 bucks an hr. on overtime and that's why elective surgeries have to wait, I thought it was a lack of operating rooms and a growing population.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I just think if the American public (everyone) got together and demanded a good, fair health care system for everyone at less cost, you would get it.

 

[duffman]

1 A buddy of mine where out trying to do some "Slednecking" on a ramp and overshot the landing, this resulted in two compression fractures in his back and a shattered bone in his ankle, he where picked up by the ambulance and taken to the hospital where they did a preliminary exam and found it impossible for them to repair the ankle due to lack of experience in this field. He was then put on a ambulance plane to one of our biggest university hospitals where they fixed his ankle. He was out from work the next 3 months and is now in the final stages of physio training.
He kept his job, he didn't have to pay for anything at the hospital and he got sick leave money from his job the first 14 days off before the state paid the rest of the sick leave.

QUOTE]

Stem, this is a great example of why I am opposed to government provided health care. Your buddy makes an idiotic decision, and gets badly hurt. I imagine the bill ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you and the other tax-payers have to pay the bill for your friend being stupid.

If you can not understand the problem with this situation you will probably not understand why the vast majority of Americans are opposed to single payer health care.

 

[Pinner]

Stem, this is a great example of why I am opposed to government provided health care. Your buddy makes an idiotic decision, and gets badly hurt. I imagine the bill ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you and the other tax-payers have to pay the bill for your friend being stupid.

If you can not understand the problem with this situation you will probably not understand why the vast majority of Americans are opposed to single payer health care.

Are you serious? Your not the first to make this type of statement so don't take it personal.

Do you really think the cost of health care was part of the decision making process? I don't think so.

Did you read my post? For what your paying already you should be able to pay for all the idiots in the world.

 

[Pinner]

Stem, this is a great example of why I am opposed to government provided health care. Your buddy makes an idiotic decision, and gets badly hurt. I imagine the bill ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you and the other tax-payers have to pay the bill for your friend being stupid.

If you can not understand the problem with this situation you will probably not understand why the vast majority of Americans are opposed to single payer health care.

By this logic why should anyone who makes a dumb mistake and gets busted up get any kind of insurance ?

Dumb move... You pay cash...

People get seriously hurt because of bad decisions everyday, what should we do with them Duff? Let them die to save the insurance company money?

 

[duffman]

I have had to pay cash for all of my mistakes...........thus I try pretty hard to make fewer of them and make better decisions as a result.



Pinner, most of us agree that our health care system is far from perfect. There are many things I don't like about it. The disagreement comes in diagnosing and fixing the problem. At the core of the issue, "health care insurance" has nothing to do with your health. It is a financial matter.

 

[Pinner]

At the core of the issue, "health care insurance" has nothing to do with your health. It is a financial matter.

Exactly duffman! You hit the nail on the head, health care has nothing to do with finances nor should it!

When you get hurt or sick, dealing with an insurance company or worrying about money shouldn't be a concern but it is in the states for alot of people, is it not ?

 

[ruffryder]

Stem, this is a great example of why I am opposed to government provided health care. Your buddy makes an idiotic decision, and gets badly hurt. I imagine the bill ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you and the other tax-payers have to pay the bill for your friend being stupid.

and what were to happen if he were in the states? Oh, yah, his insurance company would pay for it. So what is the difference, the result to the one guy are different, maybe he would have to pay his deductible, and 20% of costs maybe...

 

[duffman]

and what were to happen if he were in the states? Oh, yah, his insurance company would pay for it. So what is the difference, the result to the one guy are different, maybe he would have to pay his deductible, and 20% of costs maybe...

First, let's assume he was un-insured. He still gets treated and lives. The hospital eats the bill, but comes after him for any assets he may or may not have. His absence from work is not covered, so he goes further in the hole. That is the consequence of his stupidity.

Next, let's assume he has health insurance. The fact that he purchased insurance, or sought out employment that provided it (one of my problems with the current system) means that at some point he has had to consider that there are consequences for his actions. He may still have the accident, but the financial loss is mitigated by the insurance that he purchased. Assuming the bill was $200,000, it still costs him $40,000 out of pocket. This is not a life-ending financial loss, but certainly enough to provide an incentive not to jump off ramps anymore.

When the state automatically covers everything, where is the incentive?

 

[ruffryder]

When the state automatically covers everything, where is the incentive?

The incentive to not hurt or kill yourself? I don't know about you, but my incentive has very little to do with money....

 

[ruffryder]

First, let's assume he was un-insured. He still gets treated and lives. The hospital eats the bill, but comes after him for any assets he may or may not have. His absence from work is not covered, so he goes further in the hole. That is the consequence of his stupidity.

agreed on this scenerio. If he goes bankrupt though, the hospitals eat the cost (which they turn over to everyone else in higher prices) and we all pay for that. So what is the difference if we paid it outright?

Next, let's assume he has health insurance. The fact that he purchased insurance, or sought out employment that provided it (one of my problems with the current system) means that at some point he has had to consider that there are consequences for his actions. He may still have the accident, but the financial loss is mitigated by the insurance that he purchased. Assuming the bill was $200,000, it still costs him $40,000 out of pocket. This is not a life-ending financial loss, but certainly enough to provide an incentive not to jump off ramps anymore.

agreed on this one too.. but I think you are getting hung up on the snowmobile jump thing. What percentage of people in the US are into extreme sports like that? I think it would be less then 1% of the total population. So "the incentive" would only at most effect a small amount of people, and therefore have a small effect on cost.

The more important question though, is how would your thoughts on the scenario above if falling off you ladder trying to install something, or being diagnosed with cancer and having to pay for treatment...

 

[snowmobiler]

who cares about the stupidly havenots.we all know everybody can snag a job with fluffy bennies or afford 700 a month.