Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

I'm not from the US and it wont affect me so I really couldnt care whether the US adds to their debt or not. I'd be willing to debate the actually system and how it will work but the cost I really couldn't care about personally.

---

Well I am from the US, and I care deeply about the burdon being placed on me, my future children, and my future grandchildren. So forgive me for caring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

Your asking these questions repeatedly and no one including your fellow Americans are answering them. Maybe right now no one actually has the answer.

---

Ah, so no one actually has the answer. That's pretty much my point. The Pres., Pelosi, and Ried keep going on and on about how this will be "deficit neutral", and "won't raise taxes on the middle class". But NO ONE knows how that is possible.

Isn't that a question that needs to be answered? Isn't that a pretty important issue? If the question of how to pay for such a program doesn't matter, then why not just put in place all the programs we want? Money doesn't seem to be an issue? We can all just print as much money as we want to pay for all the programs we want with no consequences down the road, right? That's a cool world you live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

I'm not from the US and it wont affect me so I really couldnt care whether the US adds to their debt or not. I'd be willing to debate the actually system and how it will work but the cost I really couldn't care about personally.

Your asking these questions repeatedly and no one including your fellow Americans are answering them. Maybe right now no one actually has the answer.

---

This is the really comical part. Those from the UK, Finland and Canada are trying to tell the Yanks it will work, and the Americans on the board say it wont. I think they know their country.....

THey are not getting a plan like Canada or the UK, they are getting...well that is the problem, there are 5 different plans on the table, all expensive and a mish mash of stuff. A horse designed by a committtee....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Mark I'm afraid your post shows how little you understand about the difference between the Canadian system and the US, or the free market and how it coexists with state provided services..

---

I understand from talking to Americans ( I am in the US as much as I am in Canada)their health plans and they always ask me about mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

You don't turn left to go right, and it should be pretty darn clear that Obama's proposals are shoring up the current US system rather than destroying it and starting again which is what would be required to copy the Canadian (or anyone else's) model..

---

It isn't going to shore it up if he taxes employers on top to pay for the new premium and gives them a tax break if they send their employees into the state run system. THAT is one of the proposals that was floating

If he had a cogent plan that was well spelled out WITHOUT a state run alternative, and HAD Tort reform, it would likely pass....Obama hasn't really put a plan out, his party has about 3 proposals on the go...all with a public option that is creating the backlash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

You and others keep talking about how private healthcare companies will be priced out of the market and quit. You really think companies will leave a lucrative market because there's some hard competition out there, state or private funded? You think there'll be widespread longterm political support for state provided healthcare insurance 'flooding' the insurance market and undercutting private insurers at great expense to the taxpayer? You think they won't lobby to protect their existence let alone their profits? Private insurers do and will continue to channel funds for the majority of US citizens to provide for their healthcare..

---

The problem is Dylan is many of the proposed reforms are going to make the playing field unequal. When the regulator of the system is now playing in the game, it is like having the referee on the other team. The Gov't will make sure they will get people to their plan, even if they have to change the rules to make going anywhere else more expensive.

I think the insurance co's need a boot in the @ss in the US, but I don't think the Gov't should be competing with them AND regulating their industry at the same time. THAT is a conflict of interest, and sorry, like Americans, I don't trust the gov't motives on this one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

If Obama is going to 'nationalise' the US health system he wouldn't be proposing what he's proposing now. With his large political capital (at least he had at the start of this proposal) he would have scrapped the entire current system and started from scratch. He'd have to. You can't nationalise in any other way.

---

He has blown this political capital because Pelosi, Reid and the loons in Congress have written a bill with the public option right up front. Most Americans have seen how the gov't has screwed up medicare and medicaid and how they are broke. They don't trust them.

You can have the best idea in the world, but the way these idiots are selling it, it wont fly. This is NOT the best idea in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Well I am from the US, and I care deeply about the burdon being placed on me, my future children, and my future grandchildren. So forgive me for caring.



Ah, so no one actually has the answer. That's pretty much my point. The Pres., Pelosi, and Ried keep going on and on about how this will be "deficit neutral", and "won't raise taxes on the middle class". But NO ONE knows how that is possible.

Isn't that a question that needs to be answered? Isn't that a pretty important issue? If the question of how to pay for such a program doesn't matter, then why not just put in place all the programs we want? Money doesn't seem to be an issue? We can all just print as much money as we want to pay for all the programs we want with no consequences down the road, right? That's a
cool world you live in.

---

If you acknowledge that no one has the answer stop asking the question on
this thread over and over again. Your time would actually be better spent talking to your local or state representitives. Surely they would actually be interested in your opinions, what you want and would be able to provide you with more detailed information, after all they represent you in government.
The average forumer just doesn't know the intimate details of the US governments spending, debt or how it manages to finance anything. We definately can't tell you how you can or can't afford such programmes and what you need to do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

This is the really comical part. Those from the UK, Finland and Canada are trying to tell the Yanks it will work, and the Americans on the board say it wont. I think they know their country.....

THey are not getting a plan like Canada or the UK, they are getting...well that is the problem, there are 5 different plans on the table, all expensive and a mish mash of stuff. A horse designed by a committtee....

---

People from the UK, Finland and Canada are not trying to tell the Yanks it will work but are saying our systems aren't that bad for us. A debate on the system proposed would be interesting. The comical part is thinking we are selling you our systems, the US governent is trying to sell you a mish mash of our systems. Don't blame us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

If you acknowledge that no one has the answer stop asking the question on
this thread over and over again. Your time would actually be better spent talking to your local or state representitives. Surely they would actually be interested in your opinions, what you want and would be able to provide you with more detailed information, after all they represent you in government.
The average forumer just doesn't know the intimate details of the US governments spending, debt or how it manages to finance anything. We definately can't tell you how you can or can't afford such programmes and what you need to do about it.

---

So you don't have the economic details, but you do have all the medical and beurocratic details to tell us it will all be good? Interesting. And besides it's not me that says this can all be done "deficit neutral", that's Obama, and his gang. I'm asking the question how can that be?

You are going to add 30 million (using Obama's number) people to the system, increase quality of care, not add any taxes to the middle class, and do it all without adding a dime to the national debt. That doesn't pass the smell test. So aren't I asking legitimate questions?

This is a discussion forum. We all ask questions and discuss things we don't know the details on. I'm not even asking for something very detailed, just a general outline would be nice. But if you're going to be all for a program then shouldn't you have some sort of clue about how to pay for it. Especially when it is as massive as this program?

And I have talked to my reps. My Representative says that he's waiting on the final bill, but he is inclined to vote it down. One Senator is against it, and the other is fairly non-committal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

People from the UK, Finland and Canada are not trying to tell the Yanks it will work but are saying our systems aren't that bad for us. A debate on the system proposed would be interesting. The comical part is thinking we are selling you our systems, the US governent is trying to sell you a mish mash of our systems. Don't blame us.

---

But that's just it. The overwhelming majority of Americans are at least somewhat satisfied with their current coverage. Why are we going to do this massive take over? And don't give me the tired line of "it's a Public Option, they won't be taking away your insurance". Even Obama has had to back off that now. Now he is saying "There won't be anything to REQUIRE you to change" instead of what he's been saying for at least a year "If you like your doctor you can keep him. If you like your coverage you can keep it." You see he is being forced to recognize that many employers will drop health coverage if there is a "Public Option".

If the Dems were smart they would drop the "Public Option", add in some tort reforms, add some competition by allowing Insurance Companies to compete accross State lines, and a few other things. And I bet they get their bill because MOST people can agree to those type of things.

we need tort reform and allow for cross state selling and that is about all.
But all the politicians are lawyers so they are paralyzed when it comes to tort reform. Plus also we can eliminate all Foreign aid until our house is in order.

So it is a tax hike then.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27384.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So no one cares about adding a trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) to our National Debt? Don't you think that is something that should be considered in this debate? Is it not a valid question?

---

The US National Debt was created in 1790 when the US Treasury took over the responsibility of $75million from the states, which was effectively the costs of the revolutionary war.

The Civil War (or the "War Between the States" is you believed Rocky & Bullwinkle) added in 1865 terms another $3 billion to it, which as William Gibbs McAdoo (McAdoo-doo-doo push pineapple, shake a tree, McAdoo-doo-doo push pineapple, grind coffee) reported in the 1914 budgetary papers still wasn't effectively paid off until World War One.

Heaven only knows if you've paid off World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, The Cold War, Gulf War I, Gulf War II or Afghanistan, but I'd more than likely say probably not.

The simple fact of the matter is that the American People have never been able to pay for the effects of constantly being at war and either that means that Americans have never been taxed enough or that every single Government since 1789 has never had any intention of paying the debt off.