Sunday, March 21, 2010

Health care

I hope everyone against a government health care system has their kids in private schools, don't drive on roads, and won't call 9-1-1 when their lives are on the line and they need police or their house is on fire. I hope these people also won't ever collect social security or use Medicare. These systems are socialized. Just like the new health care system, whatever it is (who can keep up with it right now?), will be.

I had someone try to counter this with, "At least I won't be fined if I don't pay." Well, first off, we don't know what this bill will actually do. There've been changes so fast I don't think the media can keep up. But she's wrong anyway. If you withhold taxes because you don't want to pay for public schools, roads, etc., well, you'd be going to jail for tax evasion.

Health care and life should be rights, not privileges. Once upon a time, social security and Medicare were just as controversial. Now, if you were take those things away, people would be screaming bloody murder and calling for a mutiny. It would cost so much less money for someone to be able to go to the doctor for preventative treatment or at the start of a problem, like a UTI, rather than to have to wait until an ER is necessary, then find out that waiting resulted in that UTI turning into a kidney infection requiring hospitalization that the person can't pay for, which the hospital subsequently writes off as a loss, meaning that much less to pay taxes on, a loss which the taxpayers will ultimately subsidize. May as well get that person a script for Zithromax at the start and save everyone time and money.

Universal health care was controversial in Canada and the UK too when stated, and now look. Those people receive better care than Americans. We only have the best health care it we can access it. Right now tens of millions of families don't have access.

6 comments:

  1. I don't know why anyone wouldn't know what is in it the bill they passed throguh the Senate and House has been online since Christmas eve. It requires you to have a government approved insurace plan which will cost about 50% more once in effect than they do now, fines of 2% for non compliance, and Higher FICA of 2% and an estimated income tax increase of anywhere from $500-$1000 dollars per month per family with lower incomes getting a subsidy back from their taxes at the end of the year.It is not for everyone only those who can pay qualify all other lower income will still get Medicaid.Oh and probably the reson your local hospitals are going no midwives is because of this bill.This is not universal healthcare.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here it is:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03590:
    if you want to read it.Again this is not universal healthcare only those who have an income will be required to buy insurance Mediaid and Medicare will still cover the poor and elderly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There just plain needs to be universal coverage.

    The last amendments to the online document is back in December. The *final* bill has been revised so much over the past months. I believe there's been a lot of sensationalism around this. I don't doubt there will be some tax increases, but I do not believe it will cost the average household an additional four figures a month. The only fines mentioned were against employers.

    The local hospitals claim the nurses aren't comfortable with the midwives. Uh, the nurses banded together in unanimous support of the midwives.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No the Senate bill that was signed into law is the exact same bill as what I posted. There is no difference. You are talking about the "reconciliation bill" that has not been passed yet and sicne the Senate does not like probably won't be passed.Believe me I've read the whole thing and know what is in there so the sensationalism about how good this thing is didn't phase me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No the fines are 2% of income per family per month that you go without coverage. The IRS is incharge of enforcement. Like I said I paid very close attention and actaully read the bill. FICA is to go up per paycheck it is 15.3% now it goes up quiet a bit with the passage.I forget the percent but they said average worker would pay $500 a month up to $1000 per month for higher incomes.Just because they didn't mention it,doesn't mean they aren't there.I wish more people would've read it rather than let people tell them what they were supposed to believe. Propaganda is a very powerful thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, first off, this law won't get us to universal coverage. In fact, it will get us to a lower percentage of coverage (only about 85%, by Congress' own estimates) than the existing Massachusetts law. It will also preempt some of the good provisions of Massachusetts law. That's my own basic objection to "Obamacare": it makes things worse, as opposed to "Romneycare", which made things better (for Massachusetts). (Although it's not fair to give Romney all the credit for the Massachusetts plan, as it was in reality a compromise between Romney, a Republican governor, and a Democrat controlled legislature. Getting good ideas from both sides was part of what made it such a good health care plan.)

    I don't think the objections to this law are to the idea of universal health care. Rather, the objections are to the terrible implementation.

    For example, the Massachusetts system allowed for a gradual transition to individual control of health care, rather than having to go through health care plans that are designed primarily for the benefit of employers rather than individuals. The federal law pretty much mandates employer control. I suspect the midwife thing is a symptom of this: employers, being institutions, are more comfortable with the power in the hands of other institutions like hospitals, rather than in the hands of individuals like midwifes.

    The UK, by the way, has terrible health care compared to the U.S. We have family in the UK and can vouch for this based on direct comparisons of people of the same age and with the same medical problems. Canada is inferior to Massachusetts, based people I know who have lived in both places, though it might be superior to California.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.