Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[gadfly]

Two suggestions that were presented to me in regards to funding of Health care and National debt.
1 . Let upper class tax cuts expire in 2010.
2. Obviously to increase taxes. But to which class Upper or Middle? Forget the lower.

Interesting to me are the tax percentages.
Top tax on earned income Capital Gains Corporate Profits
1979 70 28 48
2006 35 15 35


What picture is painted?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

Interesting Kit and along the same lines I stumbled upon this.

Someone's opinion I may or maynot agree with.http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x6296630

bwahahahahaha

[Shawnee123]

[skysidhe]

Well kit I hear what you're saying but I cannot say I have been listening to it much. In fact ever since Bush was made president the first time I've been apathetic. This hate though reverberates through my layers of apathy. Even my beloved sister thinks we are going the socialist route. So I find a page that says out loud what my core beliefs are. I am reading it and agree. I think then maybe it's time to pay attention so I posted that link.

My gut instinct is to give health care to all but I need to read more first because I have only just began to pay attention. I have the white house’s fact sheet on health care reform and not because I am taking one source of information as gods truth. It is just a starting point for me.

So I can't say anything insightful or say anything with any kind of understanding because I don't really know what's going on here.
When I try to watch a little of the news, like this morning on Meet the Press all I see is everyone contradicting everyone else.

I do in my heart think we should go for it. I think if other countries can provide medical care so can we and why not adopt THOSE models?

I think people are seeing the devil in the details but I don't understand this. If we are bombing and invading countries we are patriotic. If we want to modernize a system we are socialists.

[Griff]

Danger sloppy writing ahead. I think the absurd over-reaction may push the center to the left on this. We do need to remember that a lot of this is payback for the Bush abuse we haters engaged in. It would be helpful if the left acted like adults if they want to get health care legislation done.

The anti crowd is pushing on multiple issues, I wonder how much organized crossover there is. My brother bought a box of ammo for his rifle in Connecticut and recently got a call from some outfit trying to get a rise out of him cuz Obama's taking our guns! I think it is interesting that his personal information was taken from the purchase and given to some organization claiming to be protecting individual rights.

[morethanpretty]

To me it looks like Health Care reform has lost and stupid has won.
People have swallowed hook line and sinker of fear mongering about death panels, regulated care (it already is idiots!), outlawing private care ect, ect.
See post #500 SD.

Call me pessimistic, but I think its too late and this measure of improvement has been lost to all the lies, ignorance and outright stupidity.

[Undertoad]

but how dare we try spend a tiny fraction of that amount to fund healthcare for those that can't afford it

Oh it's no tiny fraction. NOT AT ALL.

The House bill starts at 1 Trillion. To put that in perspective, the entire health care spending for *everybody*, public and private, is about 2.5 Trillion. And some people think the actual cost of the House bill is 1.6 Trillion... at this level the accounting gets messy, you know...

And so far, every health care approach we've ever enacted in this country has blown its budget to smithereens. The original 1965 warning on Medicare was that, unimaginably, its costs could someday rise to 3 billion dollars. Today it's about $300 Billion and roughly 14% of the entire US Gov budget.

We can't live with another one like that. This is why the cost-cutting part of the plan has to be in the biggest and boldest print. So far it has been the weakest part.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

To me it looks like Health Care reform has lost and stupid has one.

I just found that typo rather amusing amidst all the insanity this issue has caused.

As you were.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is why the cost-cutting part of the plan has to be in the biggest and boldest print. So far it has been the weakest part.

And that, I'm certain, could have been argued and a compromise could have been established, but the price point wasn't what the majority of the opposition was arguing. It was the concept, not the cost, of government provided health care that people have been furious over. At its core, this is disturbing -- that we are the most powerful country on Earth and will send our military to the other side of the planet at any cost under the banner of spreading democracy and goodwill, but we will fight each other so fiercely under the label of pro-American values because we do not want to extend a hand to a fellow citizen who cannot afford a life saving medical procedure. What does that say about us as a society and our culture? Our priorities? That there are groups that have risen up and gnashed their teeth, screamed some nonsense about how the constitution is being trampled upon when it was proposed that we might try to take care of our own as if it were some sinister concept that will take our country down the same path as the political group that exterminated the jews in the late 1930s. What. The. Hell.

I wonder how these same people would react if they found out that those who cannot afford a lawyer are offered public defenders paid for with tax payer money. How come no one is up in arms about giving aid to potential criminals that don't have enough or don't want to pay for their own lawyer? Public schools, a public police force, the fire department... all of these have private options. I want to see these people up in arms about UHC take such a verbal stand against those government provided services. Where's all that anger?

In the process of becoming this distrusting of each other, this afraid, we're hurting our communities. Not only that, but we're continuing to slide into disadvantage in the global market because we can't work these issues out.

The Woodstock site is also believed to hold an edge over the US states of Missouri, Kansas, Michigan and Alabama, which all sought to attract the plant, because health-care costs for employees in Canada are half those in the US, the Journal said.

We've lost countless jobs and lives because we can't work out something considered so simple and fundamental in every other industrialized nation on this earth. I'd just want to know why it is currently considered so courageous to stand up against the ideals of UHC and in favor of such petty selfishness.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...The House bill starts at 1 Trillion....

Over ten years. That's about a 10% increase more than current spending.

The total cost of the bill over 10 years is estimated at $1.04 trillion

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Over ten years. That's about a 10% increase more than current spending.

From your link:

Neither of the bills covers their costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting the House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. That takes into account the spending changes and revenue increases that would save about $219 billion and bring in $583 billion in new revenue over the same period. The total cost of the bill over 10 years is estimated at $1.04 trillion, and the bill intends to pay for the provisions with spending cuts and a new tax on the wealthy.

The Senate bill approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is less close to covering its costs. According to the CBO, the bill would increase the federal budget by $597 billion in the 2010-19 period, offset by a net savings of $48 billion. Details on the reform bill from the Senate Finance Committee were not available, but it may not include a public plan option and could impose taxes on employer-sponsored coverage.

While the bills make a number of financing proposals, some health experts argue they don't go far enough to rein in costs over the long term.

"There are no substantial proposals to change the system," said Victor Fuchs, Stanford University professor emeritus of economics, health research and policy. "You cannot increase coverage and reduce costs without making substantial changes to the way we finance care and organize the delivery system."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

[morethanpretty]

thanks for pointing it out.

[TheMercenary]

It comes down to some broad problems with the whole Bill which have raised most of the objections.

1. The devil is in the details and so far there are few details being released.

2. How is it going to be paid for.

3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations. Even the state of Mass has pretty much failed in it's process to enact universal care.

I think most people agree that something must be done.

And this from the news about Canada's national healthcare system:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...335rGu_Z3KXoQw

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It comes down to some broad problems with the whole Bill which have raised most of the objections.

1. The devil is in the details and so far there are few details being released.

2. How is it going to be paid for.

3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations. Even the state of Mass has pretty much failed in it's process to enact universal care.

I think most people agree that something must be done.

And this from the news about Canada's national healthcare system:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...335rGu_Z3KXoQw

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/01/2...e-system/3783/

Here is one of the posted remarks from the article you linked to.
August 17, 2009
8:57 am
Link

We in Canada are shaking our heads at the US paranoir over healthcare. We have universal healthcare in Canada and yes, every now and then we complain and bitch about waiting times, but man, we would NEVER give it up. Everyone is covered and you don’t go into debt when you are sick. You don’t pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance. Anyone can walk in a hospital or docter office and get ALL the help they need. Sometimes you may have to wait but if your life is in danger you are rushed through. To the American people - you are being bamboozled. Canada, England and most of the Europe has universal health care. I feel sorry for Americans. You have no idea. This isn’t about socialism or communism or whatever else your politicians and insurance agents tell you. It is about giving healthcare to everyone, those with money and those without. God help you.
— Margaret

I have a friend in Canada. He goes to the doctor and always gets treated. Even if it is a sore throat. They take a pre-emptive approach. He seems to get better health care than I.

I have an aquaintence who could not get treated for a serious illness who moved to Canada because she could not get the treatment here. She is doing so much better now and that is because of the Canadian health care system.

[DanaC]

3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations.

The NHS provides a damn good service in Britain. There are gaps, yes, but there are gaps in your system too. Personally, I'd say it is a model of success for all but a very few unlucky people.