|
To me, universal health care means affordable and accessible to all.....not free or government run (socialized).
And from what I have read, the Obama plan, at least in the short term, is based on that concept.....there is little to suggest that it means "socialzed health care for all."
Persons currently covered through an employer-based plan (the vast majority of those with health insurance now) could continue with their current plan, where many have a choice of coverage at varying costs. Employers would receive tax incentives to lower or stabilize the cost of the employees share.
Not socialized.
Small businesses would be encouraged to create health pools through regulatory relief and tax incentives and then offer their employees a choice of coverage at varying costs similar to the federal government employees plan.
Again, not socialized....but a choice of private providers through a centrally managed program that might be government administered.
To the comment that "people who work their asses off and still don't have healthcare are typically not earning enough to pay ANY taxes" is just incorrect, IMO.
There are millions of working people paying taxes and just not able to afford health insurance....primarily because they work for small businesses who dont offer insurance and have to purchase health insurance on the open market and can expect to pay at least $12-15,000/yr for the most basic family coverage.
Which was why the SCHIP program was expanded by Obama this year (after being vetoed twice by Bush) to cover 4 million more children of working families making up to more than twice the poverty level threshold. Many (most) of these workers certainly pay taxes.
That leaves, the unemployed and the option here is Medicaid, not the best option but better than none, IMO.
Bingo....universal coverage - accessible and more affordable...not free or socialized.
|