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

[Bonestorm]

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.

Wanting national heathcare and wanting this particular national healthcare plan are two very different things. Obama hasn't said he supports this type of proposal so you have some trouble from the start.

I think we'll end up with something like the Wyden plan in the end.

 

[blackascoal]

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

There are lots of doctors who do not agree with your first claim .. including the Physicians group that I posted which stands behind the legislation.

Without question, millions of healthcare workers, including doctors, will be needed .. thus opportunities in the medical field will expand exponentially. Any doctor or healthcare worker who can't find opportunity in such an environment doesn't want opportunity. Thus, there will be an explosion towards education and training that may be unparalleled in the US.

This removes one of the biggest impediments to American companies competing with their global competitors who are also not burdened with runaway healthcare for their employees.

In the end, Americans and the government will pay far less for healthcare than we currently do .. as evidenced by the fact that EVERY nation that has nationalized healthcare or something similar pays less for their healthcare than we do.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

you mean invest the money in stocks?

Privatization means taking the money out of the hands of the government. It does not mean that money all has to go into the stock market.

 

[blackascoal]

Wanting national heathcare and wanting this particular national healthcare plan are two very different things. Obama hasn't said he supports this type of proposal so you have some trouble from the start.

I think we'll end up with something like the Wyden plan in the end.

I agree that nationalized healthcare does not have to be according to this specific plan, but even this plan will be modified if and when it passes.

I also agree that Obambi has not talked about this specific plan, but Obambi is a pussy .. he has to be led ..this is why activists have gone into overdrive on this issue .. to push the pussy.

I like Wyden, but his plan is too complicated, it's state-based, requires states to enroll in a private healthcare plan, and requires voluntary contributions from employers. He's having a hard time figuring out the employer/employee relationship to his plan.

Bottom line, as long as it's nationalized and provides coverage for all Americans, it's a good beginning.

 

[Immanuel]

Wanting national heathcare and wanting this particular national healthcare plan are two very different things. Obama hasn't said he supports this type of proposal so you have some trouble from the start.

I think we'll end up with something like the Wyden plan in the end.

There are lots of doctors who do not agree with your first claim .. including the Physicians group that I posted which stands behind the legislation.

Without question, millions of healthcare workers, including doctors, will be needed .. thus opportunities in the medical field will expand exponentially. Any doctor or healthcare worker who can't find opportunity in such an environment doesn't want opportunity. Thus, there will be an explosion towards education and training that may be unparalleled in the US.

This removes one of the biggest impediments to American companies competing with their global competitors who also not burdened with runaway healthcare for their employees.

In the end, Americans and the government will pay far less for healthcare than we currently do .. as evidenced by the fact that EVERY nation that has nationaialized healthcare or something similar pays less for their healthcare than we do.

I stand more with DH on this one.

I do not like the idea of Nationalized Healthcare, but I see it as inevitable. This plan is just plain scary.

As for having plenty of opportunity in the medical field, yes, I agree because current medical professionals and those nearing completion of their training won't be able to afford to work on government wages. There will be a hell of a lot of opportunity because there will be few doctors.

Impediments to global competition -- yet, it destroys the Health Insurance industry. {/shrugs} Maybe they deserve it as they are a large reason we are in this crisis in the frist place.

I'm still waiting for a response from you on where you get your $1,600/year figure. I didn't see it in the OP or the bill.

Immie

 

[Don Quixote]

Privatization means taking the money out of the hands of the government. It does not mean that money all has to go into the stock market.

then where do you propose it be invested - remember that there will be an initial problem of having enough funds to pay retirees when the plan is implemented or do you propose only new members in the plan pay into an investment account - it would take at least two generations before a major payout (some payout occurs for survivors benefits and disabled before retirement age)

and how much do you think that new members should for the equivalent of ss and medicare

 

[Immanuel]

then where do you propose it be invested - remember that there will be an initial problem of having enough funds to pay retirees when the plan is implemented or do you propose only new members in the plan pay into an investment account - it would take at least two generations before a major payout (some payout occurs for survivors benefits and disabled before retirement age)

and how much do you think that new members should for the equivalent of ss and medicare

I do not believe that any privatization plan can take effect immediately. We would have to wean ourselves off of the current plan. It would take time and probably never benefit my generation. We cannot simply leave the current retirees who put their entire life's savings and hopes into the SS Plan.

That would be morally wrong.

Immie

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

then where do you propose it be invested - remember that there will be an initial problem of having enough funds to pay retirees when the plan is implemented or do you propose only new members in the plan pay into an investment account - it would take at least two generations before a major payout (some payout occurs for survivors benefits and disabled before retirement age)

and how much do you think that new members should for the equivalent of ss and medicare

1) It should be optional... give investors the choice of index funds... Wilshire 5000, Treasury bond, Agg Bond. Done. Or they can choose to let the idiots in DC continue to run their money.

2) As for coming up with the funds.... regardless of whether they privatize or not... they still have to come up with the funds to pay ongoing benefits. That said, I do not think there is any benefit for those currently using SS or getting close (50+) to go into private accounts.

3) Bottom line... this ponzi scheme was doomed to collapse. It has not been adjusted appropriately for increases to average life expectancy. It was not designed to pay for people for 20+ years. It was not designed to withstand an aging population.

4) As for your final comment... I did not follow exactly what you were trying to ask.... If you will clarify it, I will do my best to address it. Thanks.

 

[blackascoal]

I stand more with DH on this one.

I do not like the idea of Nationalized Healthcare, but I see it as inevitable. This plan is just plain scary.

As for having plenty of opportunity in the medical field, yes, I agree because current medical professionals and those nearing completion of their training won't be able to afford to work on government wages. There will be a hell of a lot of opportunity because there will be few doctors.

Impediments to global competition -- yet, it destroys the Health Insurance industry. {/shrugs} Maybe they deserve it as they are a large reason we are in this crisis in the frist place.

I'm still waiting for a response from you on where you get your $1,600/year figure. I didn't see it in the OP or the bill.

Immie

Again, there are lots of doctors who don't agree with you .. and if there is a shortage of doctors, perhaps we could import some from Cuba, which has the highest doctor-to-patient ratio in the world .. or perhaps we could act like intelligent people on our own and figure out how to solve this problem.

Doctors having to make less money, which by no means makes them poor or even middle-class, is no impediment to pursuing healthcare for all Americans.

Nor should the fate of insurance companies be an impediment.

Additionally, Canadian doctors don't have to consider the high costs of running a private practice, the high costs of malpractice insurance, or more market competition for patients. Thus, although the average salary for doctors in Canada varies between $211,000 - $233,000 a year, or about $80 - 100,000 less than their American counterparts, they do quite well .. in fact, sometimes better than their American counterparts who have to factor in those additional costs.

Doctor shortages .. I'm real sure we as a nation can figure that out.

The $1600.00 cost to a family of four should have been real easy to find .. but here is just one of the places ..
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org...s/united-states-national-health-insurance-act

It's also in the Physicians for a National Health Program site that I posted.

 

[Immanuel]

1) It should be optional... give investors the choice of index funds... Wilshire 5000, Treasury bond, Agg Bond. Done. Or they can choose to let the idiots in DC continue to run their money.

2) As for coming up with the funds.... regardless of whether they privatize or not... they still have to come up with the funds to pay ongoing benefits. That said, I do not think there is any benefit for those currently using SS or getting close (50+) to go into private accounts.

3) Bottom line... this ponzi scheme was doomed to collapse. It has not been adjusted appropriately for increases to average life expectancy. It was not designed to pay for people for 20+ years. It was not designed to withstand an aging population.

4) As for your final comment... I did not follow exactly what you were trying to ask.... If you will clarify it, I will do my best to address it. Thanks.

It should not be optional. The "tax" should continue but the funds should go to an account in the employees name and NOT ever go through the government's fingers. It should be a payroll deduction similar to the way a 401k works. Edit: maybe I am misreading your "optional", optional as in plan to put it in or are you saying the average worker can opt out of the plan?

Again, there are lots of doctors who don't agree with you .. and if there is a shortage of doctors, perhaps we could import some from Cuba, which has the highest doctor-to-patient ratio in the world .. or perhaps we could act like intelligent people on our own and figure out how to solve this problem.

Doctors having to make less money, which by no means makes them poor or even middle-class, is no impediment to pursuing healthcare for all Americans.

Nor should the fate of insurance companies be an impediment.

Additionally, Canadian doctors don't have to consider the high costs of running a private practice, the high costs of malpractice insurance, or more market competition for patients. Thus, although the average salary for doctors in Canada varies between $211,000 - $233,000 a year, or about $80 - 100,000 less than their American counterparts, they do quite well .. in fact, sometimes better than their American counterparts who have to factor in those additional costs.

Doctor shortages .. I'm real sure we as a nation can figure that out.

The $1600.00 cost to a family of four should have been real easy to find .. but here is just one of the places ..
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org...s/united-states-national-health-insurance-act

It's also in the Physicians for a National Health Program site that I posted.

You use an advertisement for the plan as your proof text? Give me a break. That is not proof.

As I said, this year they might start it out at $1,600/year but how long before that skyrockets?

And your physicians group has the smell of being a lobbyist group and I must say seems about as reliable as a union.

You do make a good point about the cost of running a private practice and malpractice insurance. I will grant you that point, but in my humble opinion that in no way compensates for putting our healthcare into the hands of a government flunky.

Immie

 

[blackascoal]

It should not be optional. The "tax" should continue but the funds should go to an account in the employees name and NOT ever go through the government's fingers. It should be a payroll deduction similar to the way a 401k works.



You use an advertisement for the plan as your proof text? Give me a break. That is not proof.

As I said, this year they might start it out at $1,600/year but how long before that skyrockets?

And your physicians group has the smell of being a lobbyist group and I must say seems about as reliable as a union.

You do make a good point about the cost of running a private practice and malpractice insurance. I will grant you that point, but in my humble opinion that in no way compensates for putting our healthcare into the hands of a government flunky.

Immie

Irrespective of your low opinion of people who work for the government, I once worked for the government and found many government employees among the brightest and most hard-working that I've ever encountered in my many years in the corporate world.

If THAT physcian's group bother you ..try these ..

US doctors support universal health care - survey

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.

Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.

"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035

Beyond that, I have health insurance, but my perspective is not based on what's best for me, doctors, or insurance companies, rather it's based on what's best for this country.

 

[Cancel10]

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.

While it may differ from what is being proposed in the United States (I have not read the entirety of the bill), Canada most certainly does have a nationalized healthcare system. Provinces are required by the Federal government to operate a single-payer health insurance program; there is no way to opt out, as I believe Alberta has attempted in the past. The fact that it is administered at the provincial level does not make it any less socialized.

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.

If I remember correctly, as a non-citizen I paid about $700 per year to enroll in OHIP (Ontario's health program). I considered it very reasonable, and my one personal experience with the system (a fractured ankle) was nothing to complain about. That said, I have friends and family who have been affected negatively by the system. My friend Lorah's mother (for example) died last year when OHIP decided she was "not viable" and essentially allowed her to die.

thus, if one needs heart surgery, they'll get it quickly.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

 

[Immanuel]

Irrespective of your low opinion of people who work for the government, I once worked for the government and found many government employees among the brightest and most hard-working that I've ever encountered in my many years in the corporate world.

If THAT physcian's group bother you ..try these ..

US doctors support universal health care - survey

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.

Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.

"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035

Beyond that, I have health insurance, but my perspective is not based on what's best for me, doctors, or insurance companies, rather it's based on what's best for this country.

Irrespective (to use your word) of how doctors feel about the idea, the people that count are the end users. That would be me! And I do not want my options limited to one provider, the government which has proven itself time and time again to be extremely inefficient in most matters.

Immie

 

[Topspin]

It's coming and it will work, just getting insurance crooks out of the way will add a lot.
Dr shortage!!! What a joke, start letting kids on the honor roll 3.0 and higher in med school and prob solved.

 

[Immanuel]

It's coming and it will work, just getting insurance crooks out of the way will add a lot.
Dr shortage!!! What a joke, start letting kids on the honor roll 3.0 and higher in med school and prob solved.

Not if they have to pay the student loans back while making government wages for the rest of their lives.

As you can tell, I don't like the plan. I realize it is coming though maybe not in this format, but it is coming and regardless of how I feel about the plan, I do hope it works.

Immie

 

[blackascoal]

Irrespective (to use your word) of how doctors feel about the idea, the people that count are the end users. That would be me! And I do not want my options limited to one provider, the government which has proven itself time and time again to be extremely inefficient in most matters.

Immie

No, you would be end-user(singular), end-users(plural) are the American people and 62% of them want nationalized healthcare with 34% against it.

and they had this to say ..

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to insure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.

Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html

 

[blackascoal]

While it may differ from what is being proposed in the United States (I have not read the entirety of the bill), Canada most certainly does have a nationalized healthcare system. Provinces are required by the Federal government to operate a single-payer health insurance program; there is no way to opt out, as I believe Alberta has attempted in the past. The fact that it is administered at the provincial level does not make it any less socialized.

If I remember correctly, as a non-citizen I paid about $700 per year to enroll in OHIP (Ontario's health program). I considered it very reasonable, and my one personal experience with the system (a fractured ankle) was nothing to complain about. That said, I have friends and family who have been affected negatively by the system. My friend Lorah's mother (for example) died last year when OHIP decided she was "not viable" and essentially allowed her to die.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

I've never claimed it would not have problems, but aren't we the same Americans who believe we could conquer anything?

There are problems with systems in other countries, are we incapable of improving on those problems.

In spite of the problems, no country in the world is trying to abandon nationalized healthcare and I've seen no widespread citizen outrage about their healthcare system.

Americans on the other hand, are more dissatisfied with our system than they are in Canada or Great Britain.

There is no denying that our failed system of healthcare will have to change.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

BAC, after all the anecdotal evidence you've put forth and all the factual evidence that has been submitted to refute this grand nationalized health care, I'm starting to think that what you really want is for the healthcare field to completely fall apart so it can be rebuilt, kind of like a marine recruit. Am I wrong?

 

[blackascoal]

Not if they have to pay the student loans back while making government wages for the rest of their lives.

As you can tell, I don't like the plan. I realize it is coming though maybe not in this format, but it is coming and regardless of how I feel about the plan, I do hope it works.

Immie

You mean government wages of $233,000 a year. That's what they make in Canada and we're capable of paying them more. I'm betting there are lots of students who could pay back student loans when they make $233,000 a year.

Additionally, I'm real sure there will be many student grants given to ensure our acadamies are filled with young doctors.

 

[blackascoal]

BAC, after all the anecdotal evidence you've put forth and all the factual evidence that has been submitted to refute this grand nationalized health care, I'm starting to think that what you really want is for the healthcare field to completely fall apart so it can be rebuilt, kind of like a marine recruit. Am I wrong?

You're as wrong about my intentions as you are about "factual evidence."

Feel free to call the IHSP study "anecdotal evidence" if you chooose, but it's kinda silly to do so, especially given that IHSP has conducted research for members of Congress and state legislatures as well as NNOC/CNA, and received international renown for research studies on cost and charges in the hospital industry, the pharmaceutical industry, hospital staffing, and other healthcare policy.

I became familiar with IHSP while working for Congress, and I know the integrity of their work.

So you don't have to make bad guesses, I support this legislation because I think it's the best option to stimulate the economy, the best thing for Americans, and the best thing for my country.