Health care costs?
This coming from a party who wants universal health care for all. Yeah, that'll be cheaper...
wanting every american to have health care is a bad thing?
Wanting 5% of Americans to pay for everyone to have health care is wrong, yes."wanting every american to have health care is a bad thing?"
Who's gonna pay for it Bandit?
who cares? just slap it onto the deficit like Dubya has been doing and worry about it later
Cry me a en river. Nevermind that those 5% of American make 70% of the income off the backs of hard working Americans, or that some type of health care would lead to a healthier work force and less abstences.Wanting 5% of Americans to pay for everyone to have health care is wrong, yes.
Conservatives worrying about paying for something? Did I step through a mirror or something?
Buy now, pay never.
Well I say we tax where the money is. Dan your numbers are a little low...
who cares? just slap it onto the deficit like Dubya has been doing and worry about it laterConservatives worrying about paying for something? Did I step through a mirror or something?
Buy now, pay never.
So I take it you guys agree that it's a bad idea...
The basic Demo argument. That does not immediately translate into government-forced charity, however.wanting every american to have health care is a bad thing?
i think its a good idea, i dont mind taking home less in my paycheck if it means more people can be covered medically...but thats just me, i dont speak for all democrats and certainly no conservatives
How much less?
That's not the issue. You are certainly free to take however much you want out of your paycheck and donate it to the charity of your choice.
The issue is about what effects such a system would have on the quality and availability of health care going forward.
donating to a charity doesnt translate into more health care coverage for people, many of them use the bulk of their money for medical research
Donate to a free clinic.
free clinics are one thing, im more concerned about people being able to get and afford hospital care when needed
There are charities which provide free medical care.donating to a charity doesnt translate into more health care coverage for people, many of them use the bulk of their money for medical research
yeah, to a select few who are fortunate enough to get their care...i want it to be an equal opportunity thing for everyone, whomever and wherever they may be in the country, covering not just regular clinic visits, but hospital visits, operations, etc. as well
That's great. But we are talking about roughly (if that) 15 million Americans out of 300 million who may really need some type of coverage. There is no need to socialize the entire system to take care of those people.
There are major problems with what you are arguing for.
Also, one can take your argument and extend it to food, clothing, shelter, etc...
there are also problems with a system that leaves 44 million uninsured
First off the real number of those who are unintentionally uninsured is much less than 44 million. At least get that correct.
The heart of the problem is that a lot of people rely on 3rd party payers to pay for their medical care. That is what drives up health care expenditures since there is an obvious incentive to consume much larger amounts of care since you are paying a fraction of the true cost of that care.
The lack of insurance does not mean that someone will go without care in this nation.
I'm sorry, but you are arguing for something much worse. Simply put, there are some rather significant costs to having the government take over that industry. We don't have the government taking over the food, clothing, or real estate industries though arguably all of those industries provide something vital. The greatest myth is that there are segments of our society in which there are not market interactions or that the market will not function. In health care the greatest problem is government intervention.
Anyways, a look inside the numbers...
Health and Poverty
The Wall Street Journal
August 27, 2004; Page A12
Yesterday's batch of data from the Census Bureau is being handled as usual by our gloomy colleagues in the press: more Americans living below the poverty line, more Americans without health insurance. The same stories have been told year after year for so long that it's a wonder we're all not being evicted from emergency rooms to dine in dumpsters. We deal with the income numbers below, but let's first take up the problem of the health-care "uninsured."
The part of this picture that always seems to be ignored is that there are more Americans with various problems in part because there are more Americans. True, the Census Bureau reported yesterday that, by its methodology (more on that in a moment), there was a record total of 45 million Americans without health insurance for at least part of 2003.
But the total number of people with insurance also rose by one million to 243.3 million. Or to put it yet another way, while there are three million more people uninsured in 2003 than in 1996, the percentage of uninsured Americans was exactly the same at 15.6%. That's lower than it was in 1997 and 1998 and within the same range it's been for the past decade.
Ready for some more surprising news? The actual number of uninsured may be a third less than the Census figures claim, while another third of the uninsured appear to be wealthy enough to afford coverage.
How do we figure? Let's start with the fact that the Census Bureau counts as uninsured individuals who are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (or S-CHIP), but are not enrolled. This way of counting doesn't make much sense, since these individuals can enroll and have their expenses covered if and when they require health care.
In fact, John Kerry's health proposals single out this group for special attention, with his campaign literature noting that "Today, there are millions of uninsured children who are eligible for health care coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP but are not enrolled." But the hard truth is that making special efforts to enroll these people, as Mr. Kerry proposes, would make no actual difference in the number of people with access to health care.
And how many of such "eligibles" are there, both children and adult? Based on a review of the literature, Devon Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis estimates as many as 14 million. That figure seems quite possible, given that the Census Bureau finds more than 15 million "uninsured" individuals in households with less than $25,000 in income, in which many would be eligible for assistance.
And what about the "wealthy" uninsured? The Census data for 2003 show almost 15 million uninsured people in households with incomes above $50,000 (7.6 million of them in households over $75,000). That's hardly rich, but it's enough to afford coverage in most states if individuals treat health care with the priority it deserves.
Finally, another 18.8 million of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34, and many of them voluntarily (if unwisely) forgo coverage. Their gamble is actually encouraged by "guaranteed issue" laws in many states that reassure the irresponsible that they can avoid buying insurance until they get sick. This defeats the whole point of insurance, which is to pay into a pool when you're healthy so you can be covered when you do get sick. A young person who thinks he'll live forever is especially inclined to spend his marginal income on something other than health insurance if he knows he can buy it when he really needs it.
We don't point all this out by way of denying that there are some people with genuine difficulties obtaining health insurance. But there are a lot fewer than 45 million of them. The Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year that the number of those actually uninsured for the entire year is between 21.1 and 31.1 million. Perhaps the best proxy for who's really in need are the 14.8 million uninsured who the Census lists in households between $25,000 and $49,000 in annual income.
States like New York could do a lot for this group merely by getting rid of the state insurance regulations that make a basic policy roughly 10 times more expensive than it is in neighboring Connecticut. Better still, Congress could save poor New Yorkers from the tyranny of Albany by putting an end to our Balkanized and anachronistic 50-state insurance market and simply decreeing that there shall be nationwide commerce in health insurance. They could then buy policies issued in saner states or over the Internet. Equalizing the tax treatment for employer-purchased and individually purchased health care, as President Bush proposes to do, is another good step.
Election-year opportunism aside, the Census numbers are actually better news than advertised. An honest review of the numbers shows no crisis of uninsurance in America, and certainly no need to dump more health-care costs and services onto businesses and taxpayers.
Damn, can't we have a little fun in here without somebody getting their panties in a wad?
Hate the messenger, not the message.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote