The health care industry is pushing their national health care plan and it makes me sick:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_go_co/health_...wAhka6J20S7zUm.s0NUE

I wouldn't take this so seriously except our President elect took a boatload of money from these bozos. Can he be above the influence?

For those who don't want to click the link, the insurance industry is pushing for a plan that would require them to accept all Americans regardless of coverage, provided we FORCE Americans to purchase health care coverage.

That's right: instead of requiring Americans to choose between health care and food, we would now require them to choose between health care and the roof over their heads, as health insurance is so cost prohibitive that the cost of premiums commonly exceeds the cost of rent. In our case, a law like this would put us on the streets, as we couldn't pay both rent and insurance premiums, and under this "plan", the government would seize the income for the premiums from our taxes if we didn't pay them.

Unless Obama is willingly to loudly and publicly denounce these thieves, it's going to be hard to convince many of us that his "change" mantra was more than just empty campaign rhetoric.

I think they should mandate ALL EMPLOYERS provide health coverage for employees and DEPENDANTS at a REASONABLE/AFFORDABLE cost (or even less than reasonable/affordable)to include PART TIME employees and give the tax penalties to companies who dont provide the insurance

I've got a counter-proposal: how about we put all the health insurance companies out of business and pass universal health care? Given the fact that insurance companies are the biggest cause of astronomical health care costs, why don't we tell them the gravy train is over, and exploiting sick people for a profit is no longer acceptable?

That's right--I'm talking socialized medicine. Go ahead and bring out your scare-tactic articles--I've heard it all before. And I've been to Canada, France, the UK and quite a few countries in Europe, so telling me how bad it is there won't work--I've seen for myself. Americans don't know what they are missing--and how badly they are being used and lied to to support an industry run by and for crooks.

quote:

Originally posted by Jawbone:
I've got a counter-proposal: how about we put all the health insurance companies out of business and pass universal health care? Given the fact that insurance companies are the biggest cause of astronomical health care costs, why don't we tell them the gravy train is over, and exploiting sick people for a profit is no longer acceptable?

That's right--I'm talking socialized medicine. Go ahead and bring out your scare-tactic articles--I've heard it all before. And I've been to Canada, France, the UK and quite a few countries in Europe, so telling me how bad it is there won't work--I've seen for myself. Americans don't know what they are missing--and how badly they are being used and lied to to support an industry run by and for crooks.

ICAM, and having lived in Canada for 35 years I know how good it can be.

I've said it before and I will say it again. While I do not think a universal health care system is the best option, I long ago conceded that it is better than what we have, and I would concede its implementation as a STEP towards a better system, not as the permanent solution.

But I am also very concerned. What Europe and the other countries except for Canada do not have are MASSIVE pockets of rural population distribution that in America at least, are historically annoyed when it comes to funding. And health care is a great example. This is the most remote area I've lived in, and also the first where there is NO "free" clinic where basic services are performed on a sliding scale basis. Even in Amarillo they aren't there (I checked).

This is a serious question: How do you propose we implement a health care plan that does not burden the people of rural America with having to drive hundreds of miles for medical care? How does Canada do it?

I have zero problem with discussing radical changes to our system. Desperate times certainly call for desperate measures. But we need to be careful not to adopt change for change's sake, and we need to make certain that a plan we implement addresses many of the most pressing problems.

I have friends who lost their month old baby to a staph infection a year and a half ago. Their baby was on medical assistance, and on their MULTIPLE visits to the ER, not ONCE did the doctors run the proper labwork to check for the disease, which the baby was released from the hospital with. How do we keep government funded medical care (which these was) from making the same horrible mistakes?

I must also point out the single most compelling reason why we will not get true health care reform in America.

NO President wants the loss of millions of dollars of insurance industry jobs on their hands, especially not in the height of a recession.

Folkie's got a point. We've already seen what a little government meddling in the private sector (the bailout) can do to the economy - just imagine what full-on nationalization of health care (a HUGE industry) would do to stockholder confidence.

There's some really strange proposals out there concerning the health care dilemma. Consider this one: Buy Health Insurance: Or Else!

Yeah, these proposals reek of Mafia strongarm tactics. That is completely appalling!

While I lived in Canada I resided in Urban as well as rural areas. While the rural areas meant a bit more of a drive to see a Doctor it was not that far to go, never more than 30 miles. In Canada there are small communities scattered all over and around larger metropolitan areas. Now if I needed a specialized type of treatment, it is true I would have had to travel to Vancouver to get it, but that is not the normal day to day situations. For the basic healthcare it was not inconvenient and pretty close by. Even when my mom passed away, the hospital where she was originally felt that they couldn't care for her the way she needed and so they sent her to a hospital that could better deal with her situation, it was all paid for, and the care she received was excellent, even though she died there would have been nothing further they could have done for her. I never found a reason to complain.

Has the economic divide grown so wide that our policymakers are all "haves" with no concept of what life is like for the "have-nots"? Without the buffer of a robust middle class, the economic theorists on both ends of the issue seem unrealistic in their view of the situation.

I'm reading possible explanations for the shrinking middle class and the role of "trickle down economics" in its malaise. It's hard to find unbiased views.

Here is a set of interesting questions used to spark critical thinking in high school students. Not bad for us, too:

• What evidence is there that Reaganomics works?
  
• What evidence is there that Reaganomics has not worked over the last eight years?
  
• What alternative economic theory can be implemented today that will bring greater benefits to and expand the middle class?
  
• What policies would you recommend to bring greater equity to the middle class and why?
  

Pro-Quest Teachable Moment

Doglover,

Thanks for relaying your experiences in Canada. It's helpful to have some perspective.

The problem, as I see it, with even a 30 minute drive is that it is definitely a burden for people who can't make the trip. Owning and operating a car has become so expensive that we are strongly considering moving to a big city so that we can ditch the car and use public transportation. Put simply, most of the people on minimum wage who have cars are probably uninsured or underinsured, and a lot of folks can't afford a car. So that 30 mile drive might as well be 300.

Another problem we have here is that in order to adopt a system like Canada's, we would need to totally scrap the current system and start over. And much as we might want to see that happen, there are too many politicians on the dole of these corporations for that ever to happen. And Barack Obama effectively put the nail in the coffin of public finance, virtually assuring that no politician will be elected without heavily appealing to special interests.

One other thing (and the reason I posted this): I wasn't kidding about choosing between health care and rent. I know our financial situation, and if a mandatory health care law is passed that seizes our assets if we don't pay, it WILL put us on the streets. We don't have the money to pay both.

quote:

This is a serious question: How do you propose we implement a health care plan that does not burden the people of rural America with having to drive hundreds of miles for medical care?

Isn't that happening now? Even if they open a rural clinic you would probably have to drive a long ways to get specialized treatment. At least with UHC, you'd be able to afford the treatment.

You have focused on the problem with implementing UHC, folkie--it cuts too many people's profits. The oil companies only have a 6 or 7% profit margin, compared to 30% and higher profit margins enjoyed by the pharmaceutical companies. And I have news for anyone who is against socialized medicine: we already have it. We the taxpayers support Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the VA system. We just don't get very much for our money, and we are being gouged far worse than we were by Fannie mae and Freddie mac. It's going to take a revolution to bring about the kind of change we need, or else a full-scale economic meltdown, which is the way we are headed.

Actually, we have SOME health care in rural communities. And can you please explain to me how giving people health care will help them if they can't ACCESS the health care? I could put a free clinic on the moon accessible for all the world's citizens and boast worldwide universal healthcare, but in reality it would do no good.

And before you say "well, relocate", let me remind you poor people have no MONEY to relocate. It requires a minimum of $2000 to relocate even 100 miles away, and that's 2 months' pay for a minimum wage worker.

Telling the poor "you have free health care, you just have to get to it" is a "let them eat cake" approach, Jawbone. Every citizen in the Texas Panhandle pays the same federal taxes as every citizen in Dallas or Austin, yet we get fewer services. And UHC proposes to provide us with even LESS services. But we will pay the same taxes as people who have full access.

This is an aspect of UHC that is completely unacceptable. We have no public transportation, and, if the UHC proponents have their way, will have no health care. I've LIVED 60 miles from health care, before, Jawbone, and without transportation, and I can tell you it is NOT a situation that we should be in.