United States National Health Care Act (H.R. 676)

[Cancel10]

This bill is rubbish.

Having resided in two countries which have nationalized health systems, I can assure you the American way is far superior. Is it flawed? Of course, and there are certainly ways in which we can address those flaws. The government is NOT the answer. I'd sure as hell rather deal with the private sector than the government.

In the United Kingdom, it is not uncommon to wait for several months for a critical surgery. Granted, the wealthy are free to seek treatment in the United States. But the poor do not have a choice, and sometimes they die while waiting for treatment.

Canada might be able to but not the American government with today's political leadership.

Canada is definitely more capable (financially speaking), but I can tell you there is nothing spectacular about Canadian health care. Tens of thousands of Canadians cross into the United States every year to avoid the waiting list.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Well, as long as Tobasco says so, all evidence to the contrary must be wrong.

 

[ib1yysguy]

And when will you idiots figure out that waiting lists are for ELECTIVE surgeries. Unless you think a nose job is a "critical" surgery, that is.

 

[Cancel10]

You think liberals believe government should be in charge of securing your retirement for you?

You tell me. In every election cycle, liberals use SS to sway the elderly.

 

[Don Quixote]

Looks like in one fell swoop they are trying to drive insurance companies out of business and send medical professionals to early retirement. I suppose that medicine will be the next industry to be bailed out.

how about paying for doctors borrowing for completing medical school

See section 104 - Prohibition against Duplicate Coverage...

Private insurance providers are prohibited from offering the same services.

And

Section 202 - Payment of Providers and Healthcare Clinicians.

I read in there that the salaries healthcare providers would be required would be "fair". Fair by whose standards? The government decides how much a doctor can earn.

How about the question "Who pays for this?" - the same people that pay for it now, except that everyone pays

Well, of course there is the provision in there of increasing income tax on the top 5% of earners... BUT! Catch the next point!

(C) instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.

and

(D) instituting a small tax on stocks and bonds transactions.

That's right... the little guy pays for this.


Oh well, hey this is great... they are offering any medical professionals who lose their jobs 2 years severance pay (see middle of page 24). Ain't that just grand?

Oh, and here is the real kicker... a confidential electronic patient record system. Get ready for those little chips that want to force you to carry buried underneath the skin of your hand or on your forehead. F' That! - yes but it is also a recording of your health system on computers, and does not call for RFID chips

I didn't see anything in there guaranteeing coverage for abortions, but you can bet if it ain't there today, it will be soon.

abortion is considered medical care

This bill is a piece of shit worth nothing more than toilet paper.

so get ready to wipe your ass

**************************************************

Now, that being said, I agree we are headed for nationalized healthcare. WE ARE IN A HEALTH INSURANCE CRISIS! Many employers already can't afford to offer insurance and more are falling into those ranks every month. Employees can't afford to pick up the slack either.

But, once again, this is not the right step to take.

Immie

 

[Don Quixote]

Question: Where did you come up with the $1,600 estimate?



Social Security is a good idea but it has been run extremely inefficiently.

It should be privatized and I expect President Obama to come out with his idea on how to save it... and guess what privatization (at least partial) will be the key.

Immie

you mean invest the money in stocks?

 

[Don Quixote]

This bill is rubbish.

Having resided in two countries which have nationalized health systems, I can assure you the American way is far superior. Is it flawed? Of course, and there are certainly ways in which we can address those flaws. The government is NOT the answer. I'd sure as hell rather deal with the private sector than the government.

In the United Kingdom, it is not uncommon to wait for several months for a critical surgery. Granted, the wealthy are free to seek treatment in the United States. But the poor do not have a choice, and sometimes they die while waiting for treatment.



Canada is definitely more capable (financially speaking), but I can tell you there is nothing spectacular about Canadian health care. Tens of thousands of Canadians cross into the United States every year to avoid the waiting list.

will government administration of health be cheaper than health care administered by for profit insurance companies or even non-profits like kaiser permanente

 

[Don Quixote]

You tell me. In every election cycle, liberals use SS to sway the elderly.

perhaps, but ss is saving my bacon as it provides medicare and health insurance...i am permanently disabled...and as one doctor described by condition as a train wreck

 

[Cancel10]

And when will you idiots figure out that waiting lists are for ELECTIVE surgeries. Unless you think a nose job is a "critical" surgery, that is.

That is absolutely false. I have lived in the United Kingdom as well as Canada. I can assure you the wait list is not limited to "elective" surgeries such as nose jobs. Sick people often wait months for critical treatments/surgeries, including treatment of cancer. Even the Canadian government will admit to that.

Why don't you set aside the childish remarks and stick to the facts.

 

[Cancel10]

perhaps, but ss is saving my bacon as it provides medicare and health insurance...i am permanently disabled...and as one doctor described by condition as a train wreck

I am sorry to hear about your condition. Just to let you know, I have no objection to SS doing what it was designed to do. What I oppose is the political pandering of the Democratic Party to our senior citizens.

Furthermore, I think SS would function better at the state level with better oversight and a more reasonable tax structure. Having 15% of my income confiscated for something which is likely to never benefit me in any way is unacceptable.

 

[Don Quixote]

SS was advertised to be that retirement by the new deal programs of FDR. It wasn't until the late 70s, early 80s that SS was moved from its own budget pool to the general budget category. Thats what started the beginning of the end for SS.

please do try to be somewhat knowledgable about a subject before making a complete moron of yourself.

lbj transferred the money in the ss trust fund to help pay for the viet nam war

he converted it from a vested system to a pay as you go...can we say ponzi scheme

then the congress critters decided to use the phantom money is ss to 'balance' the budget

i paid for ss all of my working life and medicare for most of my working life

ps: my first ss card had the words 'not to be used for identification', that is not there anymore

pps: there are no trust funds that have not been ravaged to 'balance' budgets

 

[Topspin]

Boom goes the dynamite. Wish we had a few dozen who think like BAC in Louisiana politics. I have a Vitter to trade in. This will pass and fuck the insurane racket. Republican will look at weak and stupid as Obama's calling out of Mcain and Cantore looked.

 

[blackascoal]

That is absolutely false. I have lived in the United Kingdom as well as Canada. I can assure you the wait list is not limited to "elective" surgeries such as nose jobs. Sick people often wait months for critical treatments/surgeries, including treatment of cancer. Even the Canadian government will admit to that.

Why don't you set aside the childish remarks and stick to the facts.

Having lived in Canada it's surprising that you don't know that Canada does not have a nationalized healthcare system .. nothing like what is being proposed here.

1) Canada is a federation and it has at least 10 or 13 healthcare systems, all unique to specific provinces. The only thing national about them is the minimum standards the government sets. Each province is required to provide healthcare to visitors from other provinces to recieve government assistance, but each province runs its own healthcare system. This adds to the wait time for many.

2) Even within a province, the entire health care system is not "nationalized" or "socialized" - only one important element of the system is. In all the provinces, the main component of the health care system that is "nationalized" (i.e. state-owned and run) is health insurance.

Hospitals and clinics there are owned by municipal governments, some are part of universities, and most are privately-owned not-for-profit corporations. The doctors are employed by the hospitals or clinics, or working in for-profit family practices or self-employed .. usually not employed by the provincial or federal government. The provincially-run health insurance agencies won't tell you which family doctor you have to see, or which hospitals you must visit. Again, adding to the wait time.

Many people have private health insurance, which they purchase themselves or get through an employer, to cover things like dental work, eye glasses, or prescription drugs. The provincial plans cover everything from emergency room treatments to routine checkups, tonsillectomies to chemotherapy, necessary weight-reduction surgery to physiotherapy.

Although wait time is a serious problem in Canada, generally speaking, life-threatening problems are dealt with in a reasonable amount of time .. thus, if one needs heart surgery, they'll get it quickly.

The system in Canada is not the same system being proposed here, and given American resources, we should be able to avoid the problems of wait time that Canada has.

I would have expected someone who claims to have lived in Canada to have known the differences in the systems and that Canada does not have a true nationalized healthcare system.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, it was never intended to be a retirement plan. Rednecks like your grandmother maybe weren't smart enough to figure that out, but it was never a retirement plan. It was ALWAYS a safety net to prevent abject poverty. And wow, amazing that you can sit here now and complain that SS doesn't give her ENOUGH money and therefore is a failure.

you are about as stupid as they come, you know that? you haven't had a damned clue about nearly everything of importance since i've been on here.

what you need to do is go back to school and actually learn something instead of spouting off liberal talking points while you blow your messiah.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What this bill is going to do is create a new healthcare system in america that is totally substandard, but made to serve the lower classes. This legislation will create a whole new HUGE beauracracy with it's main goal being to regulate the lifestyles of americans, determining who lives and who dies. All of this will be done while still providing the elites and upper classes with top quality medical care for any surgeries and treatments that would be too expensive to perform in the nationalized plan. This is why Belinda Stronach, the MP for Newmarket-Aurora and former cabinet minister, travelled outside Canada's health-care system to California for some of her breast cancer treatment earlier this year. Because she could afford to do it instead of waiting her 'turn' in the canadian system.

 

[blackascoal]

This is fun.

It should be noted that NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHICH HAS A NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, OR SOMETHING SIMILIAR, IS CONTEMPLATING ABANDONING THEIR SYSTEM OF HEALTHCARE AND REPLICATING WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

 

[blackascoal]

you are about as stupid as they come, you know that? you haven't had a damned clue about nearly everything of importance since i've been on here.

what you need to do is go back to school and actually learn something instead of spouting off liberal talking points while you blow your messiah.

Should he have been championing moving funds from Social Security into the stock market?

Would that have made him "smarter" than anyone?

Would anyone who has ever suggested such a ridiculous idea be considered smarter than anyone?

Did you ever suggest those funds be moved to the stock market?

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't think this has a chance in hell of passing but I'm glad it's being put out there, establishing the left flank in the healthcare debate. I mean, the Republican plan is to do away with employer sponsored plans and leave everyone to the mercy of the market. With that extreme on the right being the mainstream position, you've got to move the Overton window significantly to the left. This bill does that.

 

[Immanuel]

you mean invest the money in stocks?

DQ,

Your first response to me is difficult to respond to with a quote.

First response re paying for doctors completing medical school, there is nothing in the bill providing for that. Doctor's will be S.O.L.

Second response re who pays for this, I realize we all pay for healthcare. However, the sponsors of this bill want you to think that only the 5% who will get their income taxes raised will pay for it. Wanna bet they add to the SS tax rate so that most people never even notice it?

Third response re not calling for RFID chips... Yet!

Fourth re covering abortion, so you are saying that this is an attempt to get the government to pay for abortions for everyone?

Fifth in regards to wiping my ass with the bill, are you saying it is inevitable without changes?

And finally in response to the post I quoted, actually for the inexperienced investor or one who doesn't have tons of cash, I would recommend mutual funds and especially ones geared to the approximate year of retirement. I would never recommend stocks for the average Joe who was investing their retirement on a pay check by pay check basis. And despite the downturn in today's market, such an investment pattern over a working lifetime would do tremendous good for the below average Joe.

Immie

 

[blackascoal]

I don't think this has a chance in hell of passing but I'm glad it's being put out there, establishing the left flank in the healthcare debate. I mean, the Republican plan is to do away with employer sponsored plans and leave everyone to the mercy of the market. With that extreme on the right being the mainstream position, you've got to move the Overton window significantly to the left. This bill does that.

I disagree and believe this bill has every chance at passing as long as the courage is there to back it.

Let those who stand against it go to their constituents and tell them they don't support healthcare for all Americans .. then go have them tell that to businesses large and small that would benefit from this.

Additionally, most Americans want nationalized healthcare .. and in the face of all the trillion dollar giveaways to the rich, getting healthcare for less than half of what we gave away to AIG seems the least Americans can get out of this.