Health Care Bill – What should it contain?
OK, everybody can find fault with what has come to be called ObamaCare. Let’s frame the discussion in another way and begin with a clean slate whether it be Romney’s slate or Obama’s slate.
Questions:
- Is there anything that should be in a health care bill, or should the federal government not be involved in any way in health care and why?
- What is one specific item you would like to see covered in a health care bill?
Truly, be constructive, succinct, civil, and specific.
I’ll begin with one item just to seed a conversation.
I believe that all children should have a minimum level of health care from birth to 18 years old. No matter who their parents are. No matter what their conditions, they should NOT have to be concerned about health care for emergencies, for disease, or anything in America. I believe that if we were to all pay a few dollars toward the health of our young, the cost per person paying would be very small to assure good health. I have no data but it would seem it could avoid hospital emergency costs in many ways.
I am saying a “minimum” level of care. Those able could certainly increase that level. The care could be provided through the existing insurance company base. I am not suggested we eliminate any part of that industry, although they should themselves provide some monitoring. While I feel the age should be to 18, I can see an argument for only birth to seven or 10 or so as a beginning program.
What else would you like to see for required coverage? How it would be paid for, or what would be your reasons if you feel there should be no required coverage? Try to write a response without labels and without a broad brush of right or left. Romney has had positions on health care, too.
Also, the extent of 'GOV. reg' as you put it on television hardware pales in comparison to how entrenched and intertwined govt is with health care, further making my point.
I would love to engage you in a wager over whether or not the so called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will in fact reduce costs. There is absolutely no chance of that happening. NONE. If you think the government can take over a huge portion of the US economy and reduce costs it might not even be worth replying to you. The fact that you could believe such rubbish almost makes making a wager with you unfair...the equivalent of taking candy from a baby. Of course, you'd never accept such a wager...libs, while quite keen on spending other people's money, are very hesitant to put their own money on the line. In the end it won't matter anyway...because the so called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be struck down by the Supreme Court any day now. Now, I'm hesitant to turn this into a debate about abortion, but since you brought up "a fundamental responsibility to respect a right to life," perhaps you'd like to offer your feelings on the "right to life" of a fetus.
only fair and nonprofit way. Being the only Country without health care is not something to be proud of. All Living Creatures need Food, Roof and medical care in order to reach their full potential. Stress is a killer, without access to Doctor..creates stress and worry.
blithe: lacking due thought or consideration It appears that your parents were quite prescient. Now, on to your insanely false premise that the US is the is "the only Country without health care." Where is the world would you get the idea that the US does not have health care? There are laws in this country that force...that's right FORCE...a hospital to treat a sick person that has no ability or intention to pay for the care that he will get when he presents himself at the emergency room. I'd like to find out what type of business you're in and see how'd you'd like such a requirement applied to you. Should a hungry person be allowed to show up at any grocery store or restaurant and demand free food? Should home depot be required to provide free tools for those that can't afford them? Should a lawn care company be forced to mow the lawns of people that can't afford to pay them? And one more thing...not only are you completely wrong about the US being "the only Country without health care," it's even worse than that. In spite of the strong arm of government regulating the healthcare industry nearly into submission, the US manages to be a world leader in healthcare. People from your favored countries with so called "free healthcare" routinely come here for treatment. Why would they do that?
Health-care is the labor of doctors, nurses, and others working in medical offices or hospitals. Health-care is the bandages, drugs, diagnostic machines, furniture, and buildings that are those offices and hospitals. Demanding someone else pay for those things for you is wrong. Insisting you have the right to it is wrong. A million heart wrenching stories can be told to justify a system where deserved compassion is equated with health-care. It isn't and in the end if you take another person's money to pay for something that you need you are a thief. If you demand the government establish a system to take another person's money, in this case forcing everyone to participate and pay, you support tyranny.
Do you honestly think that voluntary charity is the same thing as the govt taking my money under the threat of jail (and ultimately death) in order to redistribute it in the worst possible manner, with the worst possible unintended consequences, and the worst possible outcomes? Many years ago when charity was real and not monopolized by the government, those providing the charity could impose certain rules and yet still, strangely enough, the recipients actually seemed grateful. Not so much anymore now that receiving "charity" from the government has been declared a RIGHT by the govt. Maybe more people would be willing to participate in real charity if governments at all levels weren't constantly putting the screws to us by taxing virtually every single product we buy and every single activity we perform...to the point that probably not a single person in the entire country knows exactly how much money in taxes they pay. And one more thing..."third world status" is the natural state of nations. The past 200 plus years have shown that the most effective way to climb out of that pitiful status is a free market system. Yet here you are supporting a system (socialism and its relatives) that has time and again either kept countries at third would status or pushed them back into it.
Stop whining about your taxes, they are lower then your parents were at this point and the state of higher education, transportation, and other common goods show Americans aren't paying their fair share for an advanced society. Glad you like living in a third world culture and its obvious you believe that it is the norm because you and your types are leading us there destroying 200 years of progress.
If we could come together in a blending of ideas on health care (a compromise for each but good for all) it could work for everyone and even perpetuate our Democracy. Obviously Congress was not able to do that thus what we have. Even so, it is my understanding that with the passing of “ObamaCare” over 8 million uninsured children got healthcare or insurance. I still refer you to the original questions. My “opinion” was to seed the answers but most of the comments have been to disagree with my opinion, not offer original answers. One made 29% of the comments and more than that of the words and sarcasm, but little, if anything, constructive.
Many here will oppose me. That’s OK, I don’t understand your position either. It took a lot of words before Hertz stated that he is against all forms of public health care or insurance. We can work with that. I have several principles that have evolved throughout my life. They have served me well. A few years ago I saw another list that seemed to fit many of mine. It is one set forth by the Unitarian Universalists. I see little with which to disagree and still be an American… but I am sure many will. They (and I) believe in.. • The inherent worth and dignity of every person; • Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; • A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; • The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; • The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; • Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
"One made 29% of the comments and more than that of the words and sarcasm, but little, if anything, constructive." - Perhaps that's me you're referring to. In my defense, there's quite a bit of misinformation that needed correcting (for example, see the first sentence of this post).
Please tell me where I said that. I guarantee you that you have misunderstood and misquoted me, likely because you have your own preconceived ideas of what is right (your way of thinking) and what is wrong (my way of thinking), and couldn't possibly approach the subject with an open mind...despite your best efforts at trying to make us think that with the very premise of your article.
Since congress doesn't like the answer,either, nothing gets done. But it's not because of what you see on this thread.
So, if you're talking about federal legislation, my healthcare legislation has actually already been ratified...220 years ago: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And one more thing Rusty. One of your principles appears to be liberty. How do you define liberty?
To answer your other question I have been in several third world countries and fought in one that was taken over by the communists so I have seen and lived in more then a few third world countries. I do lead by example dear, I pay my taxes owed, I don't go to illegal tax shelters, and i volunteer for my community, I even volunteered for the military before the pay rates were livable. Your taxes in dollars may be 2x but your income is 4x your parents unless you have really slipped.
First of all, at a 70% federal marginal tax rate, almost nobody paid it. Who would be dumb enough to work those extra hours or days...so that 70% of those wages could be sent to the federal govt (and some more on top of that to the state govt)? That's the reason that whenever marginal tax rates are reduced overall govt revenue increases...resources that people were not using in order to avoid paying outrageous marginal tax rates are freed up and put to productive uses. Second, inflation has pushed many current workers into higher current brackets. It's what's called bracket creep. It's great for the politicians because it's a tax increase that they don't have to vote for. It happens automatically with inflation. Also you might have forgotten about is the drastic increases in social security taxes over the years. And the addition of state sales taxes in many states probably slipped your mind. And you might not have considered the costs of regulations. Because it's so difficult to track all the various ways govts tax us (income taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, phone taxes, electricity taxes, fees, tolls, licences, registrations, regulations, etc.) the best way to measure things is to look at overall govt spending. And for that there is no denying that the overall trend of the past hundred years is a gigantic increase in govt spending at all levels of govt.
The reality of the past 200 years proves that if govt starts to pass legislation on an industry...it will soon enough overwhelmingly control that industry.
One of the reasons I sound like a broken record is I'm trying to get you to understand economics. Your complete lack of understanding of basic economics should embarrass you. Yet, not only aren't you embarrassed by it, you embrace it, and go around posting things on the internet, showcasing your startling ignorance for the world to see. If you want to have a reasoned discussion of health care, first learn some basic economics.
The next president will have a major input on future Supreme Court decisions. More Obama care to come - screw State's Rights.