If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

[Azure_Knight]

Then why don't all politicians (and everyone in a government job) switch their healthcare plans permanently to have the new proposed government health insurance (that is currently being pushed in Washington for your everyday American)? If it is so good, then why aren't they personally embracing it?

 

[Faye]

Because most of them are rich and the health care bill is for people who can't afford health care, a.k.a. poor people. Obviously, it wont be as good as the private health care.

 

[Tamagochi]

So America is finally getting public health insurance. And I thought I saw everything...

In my country it's common practice for politicians to use public services (I'm not sure about the rest of Europe).

 

[IndigoSensor]

The politictions should have to embrace and use the proposed medical system, because they can afford to buy their own insurance.

I don't have too much of a problem with the health insurance being proposed at the moment, and I have listened to both sides. I will have a problem if down the line people will no longer be allowed to get better insurance if they can afford it.

 

[mallory knox]

there is absolutely no chance of that happening.
I do not understand why people are scared that they will be FORCED to use public health care, it's quite an irrational fear to have.

It's the equivalent of thinking that if the goverment builds more trains you will be forbidden to have a car.

 

[just me]

The shortfall in the "clunker for cash" fund, which should have been such a simple thing, was grossly underestimated and was to last such a short time, is proof enough the administration should look this over much more carefully with much more time. One billion was taken from the economic stimulus package funds for the "cash for clunkers", already needing twice that again from the same fund appropriated for the economic and HOUSING problems. What does that tell ya?

 

[mallory knox]

You should have done it decades ago when everyone did it.

the problem is to have something new, it'll take a long time of fixing and adapting until it begins working properly.

and until then the people against it will be whining so much...

 

[just me]

That, my friend, is a natural form of generalization so untrue. Many of those opposed to it are trying to help get it worded in a much more acceptable way, thought out much more efficiently, and planned more professionally so they will understand better what they are biting into.

 

[Julia]

American politicians do have government health care. They don't have to buy insurance. It comes out of tax payer money. That's the real issue. How can they deny government health care to others when they enjoy the full benefits of it each and every day.

People with uber-health insurance plans could end up with less under a socialized medicine plan (which isn't even the issue here because everyone gets to keep their plans if they want), but for people w/o insurance like me, there is no way it could be worse than what I have. If I ever get cancer, the ER would treat me for immediate life-threatening symptoms until I'm stabilized, but cancer treatment is off-limits to me. I actually work in a cancer center part-time playing music, but know that it isn't something I could ever benefit from if I need it. Almost everyone I work with in the arts is in the same boat. I know the talking heads dig up horror stories about Canada's medical, but I hear about serious problems every day from the actual people around me.

My co-worker at the school where I teach, a 26-year-old musician, had a serious bike accident a year ago and has suffered from neurological problems since. Her latest series of tests cost her $1500. She was charged three times the amount the same procedures are billed an insurance company because the hospital has so many people who can't pay w/o insurance. They bill individuals to see which ones can absorb those costs, and they become their own "mini-insurance" companies so to speak. This girl makes well under $20K a year. She has been advised to not apply for health insurance until she can get a clear bill of health because the fees would be really high if she has a pre-existing condition.

There are also 50+ year-old women co-workers who have no health insurance and know the clock is ticking when they get their first breast tumor which they won't be able to afford to have removed. An older man I work with has had serious health problems and so now no insurance company will take him for less than $3,000 a month. These are not lazy people. Most have graduate degrees in their fields. They are intelligent, work hard, and plan the best they can, but they fall through the cracks because they are not part of a large corporation who can afford health insurance for its employees. It is obscene the real condition of medical care here in the U.S. I realize people with their Blue Plus plans can't imagine it. I know because I used to have one before I got divorced. Everyone adores you at the hospital and treats you like a queen when you are fully insured.

How many people would be willing to do away with public education? We believe that people, regardless of their start in life, have a right to be informed. Don't those same people have a right to live? I see universal healthcare as a more fundamental human right even than education (and I am a teacher). Should we do away with the police force or firefighters? These are all socialized programs. What if a person who is raped or robbed can't report the crime because they couldn't pay the fees? What if someone with a missing child had to pay $25,000 to have the police look for him, or pay $10,000 to have the fire in your home put out? Having those kinds of programs on the free market like healthcare looks obscene, and yet we accept that someone can't be treated for cancer unless they have the money to pay directly or for insurance. It is an irrational inconsistency to single out health care as not being a basic human right.

We support socialized programs like public education, police, and firefighters because we believe that the entire society benefits from these programs. It is also a way to lessen the gap between the haves and the have nots. How is medical care different? Isn't it even more fundamental to the well-being of society as a whole?

The politicians in Washington have exactly the help they have denied others. I am pretty tired of the scare tactics from such people about socialized medicine, even when that isn't what is being implemented at this point. I can't get scared when told the government is just going to let the old people die, or that people will die standing in line, because I'm already there. I hope they turn it around.

 

[mallory knox]

That, my friend, is a natural form of generalization so untrue. Many of those opposed to it are trying to help get it worded in a much more acceptable way, thought out much more efficiently, and planned more professionally so they will understand better what they are biting into.

you gotta start somewhere to make it work.

 

[just me]

you gotta start somewhere to make it work.

I agree, but compromise digests much better.

 

[Billy]

there is absolutely no chance of that happening.
I do not understand why people are scared that they will be FORCED to use public health care, it's quite an irrational fear to have.

It's the equivalent of thinking that if the goverment builds more trains you will be forbidden to have a car.

lol they already basically banned the Hummer and an assortment of other non-eco friendly vehicles... you serious? How about if the government gives more police guns, do you think they will try to ban those too? Oh they are, and they did in UK.

 

[Satya]

Then why don't all politicians (and everyone in a government job) switch their healthcare plans permanently to have the new proposed government health insurance (that is currently being pushed in Washington for your everyday American)? If it is so good, then why aren't they personally embracing it?

Since the point of the OP seems to already have been addressed, I would like to know what exactly don't you like about the plan?

I imagine you have all the same principled arguments against it. Namely, government involvement = bad, but rather than those old, tired arguments I would like to know what specific components of it are impractical or too costly in your opinion.

All too often I get into debates on these topics with people, only to find out they argue about it from purely an ideological point of view and that they know very little about what they are actually arguing against. For those types I would ask if they have read through the plan, know how much it will cost, know what the current problems are, and know any alternatives for the plan that they can substantiate would better solve the problems. Strangely enough, once I ask those kind of questions, people often disappear from the debate.

 

[Billy]

Since the point of the OP seems to already have been addressed, I would like to know what exactly don't you like about the plan?

I imagine you have all the same principled arguments against it. Namely, government involvement = bad, but rather than those old, tired arguments I would like to know what specific components of it are impractical or too costly in your opinion.

All too often I get into debates on these topics with people, only to find out they argue about it from purely an ideological point of view and that they know very little about what they are actually arguing against. For those types I would ask if they have read through the plan, know how much it will cost, know what the current problems are, and know any alternatives for the plan that they can substantiate would better solve the problems. Strangely enough, once I ask those kind of questions, people often disappear from the debate.

Well primarily i am against it because its cost is going to be gigantic, beyond anything we have ever spent before on a yearly basis.

I know I know Obambi said he is gonna stick it to the rich on this one, but heres the issue, the "rich" as he is saying dont make paychecks and dont pay taxes the way everyone else does. So there will be some sort of loop hole for them Obambi friends and family included who dont have to pay. But the billions upon billions will have to come from somewhere right? So quietly as they always do they will just up the federal withholding taxes taken from the middle class paychecks, instead of paying 200 or 300 a week in medicare taxes we will pay closer to 350-400 and higher. Imagine losing another 100 a week due to a new tax... another 400 a month out of your wallet, for some people who are living paycheck to paycheck thats thier car payment, or thier car insurance payments, or a portion of thier mortgage... this will do them NO good especially since car payments need to be made monthly, and most people are healthy and dont need health insurance until they are much much older. So basically thie is just going to make it harder and put MORE pressure on the shoulders of Average John and Jane Doe who goes to work every day and does the right thing. Juanita and her 12 children living illegally down the street on welfare will be able to get braces for her tax leeching family though, so yaaay!

No telling how much longer this will and can go, you can only steal from the rich to give to the poor so much until the rich decide to move to a new more rich friendly niehborhood. Far from the rich bashing taxes they put up with here.

I know several millionaires who recently moved to South America to an American Ex Patriot community fit with gucci stores, jamba juice and the works. How long before that becomes the new norm? Then where the hell will we be?

 

[Faye]

there is absolutely no chance of that happening.
I do not understand why people are scared that they will be FORCED to use public health care, it's quite an irrational fear to have.

It's the equivalent of thinking that if the goverment builds more trains you will be forbidden to have a car.

Calling it 'socialized medicine' and saying that the government will determine what doctors you see and what you do with your body is a fear tactic employed by opponents of public health care.

 

[BenW]

I imagine you have all the same principled arguments against it. Namely, government involvement = bad, but rather than those old, tired arguments I would like to know what specific components of it are impractical or too costly in your opinion.

I can't simply be against it by a matter of principle? I have to care about the pragmatic side of it?
That doesn't seem fair.

 

[IndigoSensor]

lol they already basically banned the Hummer and an assortment of other non-eco friendly vehicles... .

I think that is a good things. Cars need to have standards on how much emmisions they give off. I'm sorry, but no one needs a hummer. I understand that people will be angered by this because they want they want, but something needs to be done about carbon emmisions, and I see restricting certian cars to be a logical step.

 

[BenW]

I think that is a good things. Cars need to have standards on how much emmisions they give off. I'm sorry, but no one needs a hummer. I understand that people will be angered by this because they want they want, but something needs to be done about carbon emmisions, and I see restricting certian cars to be a logical step.

Maybe we should just shoot anyone who emits carbon, in the head?
Sure, it's completely unconstitutionally and morally repugnant, but it sure would lower C02.

Actually, it wouldn't, because the amount of C02 humans emit isn't even 10% of that which comes from other sources.

 

[mallory knox]

lol they already basically banned the Hummer and an assortment of other non-eco friendly vehicles... you serious? How about if the government gives more police guns, do you think they will try to ban those too? Oh they are, and they did in UK.

do you want to pollute?

i mean, even if you do, that's kind of something that concerns everyone.

Of course, that once again your post doesn't make the slighest sense.

it doesn't make a difference a vehicle is a vehicle and no one is stopping you from having one.

are you saying that banning guns would be a bad thing? confused.

 

[mallory knox]

Calling it 'socialized medicine' and saying that the government will determine what doctors you see and what you do with your body is a fear tactic employed by opponents of public health care.

I'm beggining to notice that.