Do you support universal healthcare?

Welcome to the intellectual elite. Or perhaps old fools who think about things like civic virtue.

Totally support low bling political ads where the actual candidates have to speak for themselves.

No problem, it's nice to talk about the actual issues involved (delivering the care that actually needed and how to pay for it) rather than getting sidetracked.

Finnforest wrote: Sure, you could make the deductible amount slide based on a person's income.  But I still think even the poorest should have to start out of pocket, to encourage wellness, and because we all have to be part of the solution.  If they can't afford their base deductible, which in my opinion should go no lower than $2500, they would NOT be denied care, but would be expected to make minimal payments going forward to cover their part of the bargain.  I'd love to try something like this, which solves the economic devastation issue but still requires the individual to contribute a reasonable amount for what they use in exchange for the safety net.  Has anyone in Government suggested anything like this,  combining single payer with initial patient deductible?

Edited by Negoba - September 30 2010 at 21:23

It would make a huge difference. The costs you target are definitely part of the problem. 

Edited by Negoba - September 30 2010 at 21:06

Finnforest wrote: I wonder if it would work to have HSA for individuals to cover their own base yearly deductible of say, $5K, with single-payer protection for catastrophic care....or anything above the deductible.  That way patient is responsible for something, thus has incentive to be healthy and use care judiciously, but everyone has a safety net against the nightmare of a major illness.....no one loses their home or savings account to an illness. People who want to run to the Doc for every little sniffle will have to flip the bill.....but no one ever has to worry about losing everything to cancer.  Private profit insurance can get out of health care and find other ways to screw us, and taxes need only be expended for actual cost of care to those who rack up more than $5 K per year in expenses.  Substantial yes, but much less than single payer for EVERY single cent of care.   Ready to get roasted from both sides

GY!BE wrote: I don't because II think there's always a hidden agenda, especially in a capitalist system and a money based economy.

A money based economy? As opposed to what, exactly?

The bottom line from a healthcare worker. We can whine all we want about taxes, but the fact is that the U.S. has a large and growing population of uninsured working poor. Obviously they cannot afford to pay out of pocket for catastrophic injury/illness. Doctors are bound by Hippocratic oath to care for people in those situations, regardless of whether they can pay for it or not. Either doctors and healthcare staff does the work for free, or some method of providing payment publicly must be in place. Right now, the associated states (using the word 'united' is an utter farce at this point) have a terribly inadequate system to compensate in these cases...which is why safety net hospitals across the country are going under. In other words, universal healthcare is a fact of life but nobody wants to call it that so it doesn't get fixed to a point where it works and hospitals can stay open.

So what's it going to be? Change the rules of engagement? No more Hippocratic oath. You're sick and poor so you have to die now?

And you want to know what private insurance gets you now? I work in an oncology department for which the insurance that covers us will not even pay for the oncologists we work with. Its pure fantasy to think that 'for profit' insurers are going to get us any kind of fix for the current crisis. They make their money by NOT PAYING! There are a lot of people on this board, I am sure more than a couple have some idea what the out of pocket is for Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia for just the workup and induction chemo. Not counting the months of support and maintenance therapy. 

Regardless of which side of the fantasy pitch you are on, if you are in the U.S., DO NOT GET SICK!   

ExittheLemming wrote: BTW (as an aside) ain't americans taxed on all their global income by the US government?

Good question. I'm no expert, but I think that individuals pay income taxes on all their global income, but corporate income tax only applies to money earned domestically. I might be wrong, though.

thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: It all falls down to consent. You held the view that you haven't given your consent. i have always agree with the social contract view. You have given it.  Also, another thing: the only way to eliminate taxes is to eliminate all kinds of services altogether. If you have those services, you have to pay for them. You pay through taxes (like roads, etc).  You can't give consent unknowingly. It goes against the definition of consent. That's why we have all these date rape cases where the girl gets super drunk and the guy is like "but she gave consent" and the judge is like "uh uh, you can't give consent if you're super drunk." If I believe that I have not given consent, I have not given consent, by definition. Also, I am happy to pay for services that I use. I pay for the food I eat, the clothes I wear and the TV I watch. Why would eliminating taxes force me to give up these things? I would pay for roads I walked on (I don't have a car), or that were used to ship in the goods I buy. Why are taxes necessary for me to pay for these things? Of course I'm talking about services provided by the government.  In a different issue, do you think consumption taxes are better? Maybe you "agree" to pay them when you agree to buy something? Or are they as bad as income taxes?  Yes, I much prefer consumption taxes, because you can choose how much you want to pay based on how much you consume. Paying too much in taxes? Consume less! Much, much better.

The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: It all falls down to consent. You held the view that you haven't given your consent. i have always agree with the social contract view. You have given it.  Also, another thing: the only way to eliminate taxes is to eliminate all kinds of services altogether. If you have those services, you have to pay for them. You pay through taxes (like roads, etc).  You can't give consent unknowingly. It goes against the definition of consent. That's why we have all these date rape cases where the girl gets super drunk and the guy is like "but she gave consent" and the judge is like "uh uh, you can't give consent if you're super drunk." If I believe that I have not given consent, I have not given consent, by definition. Also, I am happy to pay for services that I use. I pay for the food I eat, the clothes I wear and the TV I watch. Why would eliminating taxes force me to give up these things? I would pay for roads I walked on (I don't have a car), or that were used to ship in the goods I buy. Why are taxes necessary for me to pay for these things? Of course I'm talking about services provided by the government.  In a different issue, do you think consumption taxes are better? Maybe you "agree" to pay them when you agree to buy something? Or are they as bad as income taxes?

Yes, I much prefer consumption taxes, because you can choose how much you want to pay based on how much you consume. Paying too much in taxes? Consume less! Much, much better.