"Single payer, government run and FREE"

That's the kind of healthcare plan Michael Moore just told Keith we must demand from our candidates. I wholeheartedly agree.

Moore insinuates that we Dems don't DEMAND enough, and that's true. ALL of our candidates should have health plans like that in order to be considered viable.

I lived overseas (Europe and South America) and was in the hospital in Hong Kong.

Their health care is free and good. I know. The doctor in Hong Kong saved my life.

free of course meaning that I don't have to pony up when I see my doctor, have tests done, etc. However it will cost in taxes. The thing is we have to decide as a society what we want to spend our money on - will it be death destruction and mayhem or will it be healthcare for all, education, housing, mass transit, real interstate rail, weaning ouselves off oil, and a load of other possible positive choices? When do we become a nation that really VALUES life and backs up all the pretty words with deeds? When do we decide that being an EMPIRE is a futile waste of precious time, energy, wealth and most of all lives? When does the human race grow the hell up and knock it off - there's just too much to do and no time anymore to waste.

I've been baffled by this country's choices all my life ~ how can people NOT vote for universal healthcare, to protect the planet we live on, to ensure liberty and justice for all, and on and on?? It seems so simple ~ and yet the greedy, fearful few are so often able to manipulate the good-hearted many.

One thing I know for sure ~ Democrats need to toughen up and hold leaders and candidates to higher standards. Why are Obama and Clinton our frontrunners when they haven't pledged to fight for the kind of healthcare we all deserve?

Martians pay for it? Grow up.

I think everybody understands that.

Combined between my employer and me we pay about 1200.00 bucks a month. My plan is pretty comprehensive but it does not cover everything. Now i wonder how much per person would the government charge to get the same coverage? What would the tax be?

According to their plans, the costs would be lower than what we pay now.

And it's really eye-opening to see how doctors working for the insurance industry are paid according to how many procedures they deny people. It's sicko alright!

Also, what would the plan impact be on the plans of union retirees? Would they still get the same level of coverage or have to give up their plans? Would their taxes go up to pay for the national plan thereby costing retirees more?

I'm not arguing against any of this, but we need to be prepared to answer these kinds of questions.

compete? Isn't that what free enterprise is all about?
Or is it about complaining about something and getting the gov'mint to fix it?

Just askin'. :shrug:

if your employer did not provide you with health benefits.

for Damn SURE...

And you'd get BETTER coverage...

whether we here believe in free enterprise or socialism, isn't it?

Whether or not healthcare is a right, like the right to police protection, the right to an education, etc.

Actually what we have here in the United States, and what exists in every other Western nation, is a mix of the two. Is the automotive industry Socialist? Is the Interstate highway system free enterprise? Clearly some things are better run by government than by private companies. Can you imagine a privatized Pentagon? How about if every roadway was a toll road? Sound good? Of course not.

The question is rather what services we collectively pay for through taxes (government run), versus what goods and services are better provided by private free enterprise. To me it is a no-brainer that basic health care should be the absolute minimum a citizen of this country can expect. It is one thing for the least among us to not be able to afford a Lexus, it is quite another to be unable to purchase basic health services.

I don't think anyone can say with any degree of finality what the actual cost will be but we DO know that we will save money overall. No one will be extracting a profit from the delivery of services for starters, and the cost of administering the program will be less than the administrative cost currently incurred reimbursing dozens of insurance companies is. Oh, and it WILL cover everything.

Who pays for it?

lawmakers, firefighters, police officers, prisons, and anything else managed by the government. Duh.

me.
In other words, not free.

No insurance company deductibles, etc.

if there's a fire at YOUR house YOU pay the fire department and the rest of us save money. You get mugged YOU pay the cops and save us money. You have kids say and I don't and your kids are in public school YOU pay more in taxes for the schools and I get a break. You live in a society you SHARE the costs of maintaining that civil society. You're going to pay taxes anyway what do want to spend that money on bombs, guns and death alone or something more positive? I'll probably get some libertarian response but who knows.

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

difference between "who gets" and "who pays."

Everyone pays according to their ability to pay except the very poor don't have to pay -- we take care of our brothers and sisters who are least able to take care of themselves...

Everyone gets all the Health Care they need...

Is that simple enough??? :shrug:

say free when you mean that someone else pays. Whether I object to paying or not has not been the issue here.

Try reading. Then respond...

No one has said "free health care".

We mean "Free at the point of service", without red tape, without teams of people working to deny you care, without fuss and muss, with much less overhead, just like the CIVILIZED world already has...

--------

If you make more than about 15-20 grand a year, yep, you may have to pay something.

If you currently have "health insurance" YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER may have to pay a little less than you and your employer do now or you may have to pay a WHOLE LOT less than you and your employer do now - it depends on your income...

If you currently don't have "health insurance" you will have the opportunity to get full coverage for considerably less than you would have to pay the for profit insurance corporation leaches for limited coverage and co-pays and deductibles and exlusions...

If you have any pre-existing condition, you will still have the opportunity to get full coverage. The for-profit insurance company leaches WILL NOT INSURE YOU now so you'd be a lot better off with HR 676 the law of the land.

If you are filthy rich -- you may have to pay more in taxes than you do now for your "health insurance".

--------

If you truly believe that each man is an island and that "I've got mine, Jack, now fuck you!" is and should always remain the motto of the U.S. of A. -- well then maybe you shouldn't call your congresscritter and demand that they support HR 676...

If you believe in community, in shared risk for a progressive shared payment, like fire departments, police departments, and believe in a basic right to health care on the same basis, as the entire CIVILIZED world has, than you SHOULD call your congresscritter and demand that she/he co-sponsor and support HR 676...

Read my post... It's in there...

without having to pay? Yeah..I guess so...but does that mean you'd like the fire department to ignore calls from poor people if their houses are burning? ..since they don't "pay"?

"free" and "someone else pays." Again, the issue of whether or not I object to paying for someone else's health care is not the issue of this thread. The issue is whether or not anyone's health care is "free."

It's "free" in the sense that police and fire protection is free, and public education is free ~ because they are seen as basic human rights. Nothing is paid at the time of service, and costs come out of the community pot. Jeez...

where is the money going to come from? Have you given any consideration at all as to how this extra money is going to be raised, or have you been spending all your time leafing through the dictionary to the "b" section to find a way to insult me?

But there are many posts trying to explain this to you and you're not listening.

The community pot is made up of our tax revenues. Society decides what gets paid from that pot, based on its values. Instead of funding faux wars and tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% (and lots of other dumb shit), everyone gets healthcare ~ just like everyone gets police and fire protection. Not so complicated.

be that as it may, you are still talking about additional tax revenue funding health care, and, therefore, it is not free. Nothing is free.
What are the numbers? "Free" healthcare implies a radical change, does it not?
If it does, then how much money needs to be raised for this "free" health care, and what is the source of the money?
Look, it is great to say "free" health care. Why not "free" food, and "free" houses, and "free" cars and "free" cable TV and "free" golf clubs?
I don't want my health care screwed around with. "Single payer" health care is a bad idea. Let's talk about how much it will cost to give "free" health care to the 15% or 20% of those folks who don't otherwise have it. And, let's talk about who, exactly, gets the "free" health care. Does my brother-in-law get it, who is otherwise completely able to work, but just chooses not to because it's hard to wake up every day and go into the shop?

It would be a radical change in that we would be putting our money where our mouths are. We would be answering the question Moore asks in his film (WHO ARE WE?) ~ and insisting that our spending decisions reflect that answer. Right now our choices reflect a culture that would leave millions of children (not to mention adults) without care or medicine when they are sick. Right now we're a culture where a few at the top get richer and richer and those at the bottom get poorer and poorer ~ and the middle class picks up the bill for all. Yes, it would be a radical change ~ sort of in the way it was a radical change to say that little kids could no longer work in factories for 12 hours a day instead of getting an education. All evolutionary advances in human rights involve radical changes ~ and we're up to this one. We just have to want it, expect it and DEMAND it.

if there are kids that don't have health care, let's give it to them. If we can tax the richest among us to do that, let's do that.
(By the way, "rich" in my mind means "net worth." If we are honest with ourselves, let's impose a tax on the "net worth" of people instead of their income. Why? Because taxing income discourages production. Taxing "net worth" discourages sitting around on fat butts doing nothing.)
In any event, this thread had a title which said "single payer" or some such. That says to me: "Flush the whole health care system so that we can help the 15% who don't have insurance."
No.
I think the 85% who have health care coverage would pay to insure the other 15%, particularly the kiddos. I sure would. But I would fight something which dumps the whole system just to try to fix those who don't have coverage.
And I wouldn't pay a nickle for health care for my lazy brother-in-law who sits around on his butt like he has a big net worth (I guess that's another discussion).

I have a feeling it's that brother-in-law problem that keeps you from getting it ~ anger blinds.

(Just another little tweak.)

a net worth tax?

The rich folks would probably divest and send their cash overseas to hide it. But I do think the tax code is absurdly complicated and needs overhauling.

any worse than what the rich folks do to hide their income. Everyone's always talking about the "rich" paying their "fair share." The "rich" aren't those who "earn." The "rich" are those who "have."
Why should people be penalized for earning? If anyone has to be penalized, it's those who have too much.

and has no income, what happens?

Who do you think pays for THAT?

You're already paying for "the other 15%," but you're paying more than necessary, and the care is less than it should be.

barack4prez (if that's what his name is) is NOT reading our posts.

barack4prez (if that's what his name is) appears to be really pissed that he'd have to actually pay into a system that would treat someone who hasn't paid in as much as he has.

barack4prez (if that's what his name is) appears to think that Health Care should be the same zero sum game that the capitalist masters want EVERYTHING to be...


Ok, one more time, then fuck it...

1) We know nothing if free. Right now the U.S. has the most expensive "health system" by far and is 37th in outcomes. Right now the health insurance mafia gets most of the $7000+ per person paid out for "health care".

2) Read my post for the "source of them money". Also realize that employers who currently provide health care for their employees will save money, ones who don't will have to pay a little in payroll taxes for it.

3) "Why not "free" food, and "free" houses, and "free" cars and "free" cable TV and "free" golf clubs?" This is a common fallacy known as the red herring. It's bullshit, I hope you know that...

4) "Single payer" health care is a bad idea. -- Every thing's a bad idea if you don't know shit about it and refuse to learn...

5) Ah, we've got to the bottom line: "Does my brother-in-law get it, who is otherwise completely able to work, but just chooses not to because it's hard to wake up every day and go into the shop?"

So you ARE in the "I've got mine, Jack, so fuck you" camp...

Well THAT EXPLAINS IT...

I looked for your "source of them money" post, but couldn't find it. I'm also unsure of why anything I said was a "red herring" or why it was "bullshit."

Actually, the brother-in-law concept is a metaphor. I do have a brother-in-law who works, to the best of my knowledge. I used a metaphor to try to make a point. I'm sorry it got folks in an uproar. I'll be more literal from here on out.

In any event, my concern is that, once, health care is "free" then the actual cost will skyrocket while the care will deteriorate.

I understand the general idea that administration of health care is a big cost, but administration is necessary, isn't it? Who should do it? The government?

edited to remove brackets

eliminates a lot of waste -- that is the concept in general. The idea is that costs lower, and care improves.

But Moore's film explains that you have to factor in all the fees we pay and the huge profits that go to the medical industry. Right now we're paying enormous amounts for the same drugs that are sold at tiny fractions of our prices in Europe, where prices are regulated.

But better now than never. Whoever thought that big teddy bear of a man, Michael Moore, would become my hero? I first became acquainted with Michael when I read his book, "Angry White Men". I admired his intellect but thought he was naive. I was drawn into his stratosphere with "Fahrenheit 9-11". Now he looms bigger than life in my universe and I'm not talking about his size.

NO extra charges for ANYTHING by the people!

Just like fire and police and education...

Kucinich!
The rest are for mixed with private and having lived in France for 20 years, the French system is the best.

Or, as Michael suggests, demand that our other candidates comply with our wishes.

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"

-Matthew 25:41-45

I'm an Atheist but the words attributed to Jesus are pretty good ideas most of the time. I sure wish more people actually tried to live by them.

Moore asks in the film: WHO ARE WE?

Too many in this country are more concerned that they're paying for someone else to see a doctor. I actually had someone tell me that "everyone will run to the doctor every time they get a splinter in their finger"! We have turned into a country of 'us against them' or 'me against everyone else'. It's so sad.

There won't be enough for me. Funny how fearful this country is in relation to others ~ that's how those in power maintain their profitable status quo. Sad indeed.

wouldn't it be nice if people actually followed the guy's ideas for once.

if they tried, Mitch McConnell will stop it in the senate or bush will veto it. We need to go over their heads, take to the streets, shut down America until they listen.


Fuck asking, demand.

See who is actually on the side of the people.

Cool! :hippie:

Especially with Sicko in theatres. Polls show that healthcare is a top issue for people.

I'm really grateful to Michael Moore for the work he's doing ~ hope he takes on the media next.

goal.