Reinstate reasonable taxation on the wealthiest among us. Next question please.

Right now the tax rate is criminal. 

Bing, Is that your opinion or a fact?

What do you think? Those are my opinions.

I agree with you. Did you base them on verifiable facts, or something else?

I just thought of it.

Actually it's our history, free market capitalism lead to the Great Depression, when government supplies a safety net the middle class grows, poverty lessens. Look at the taxation during the 40's, 50's and 60's as compared to the 80's and currently. Look at Bill Clinton's policies, taxing the most wealthy put more money into the economy and we had a boom. That was Reagan's tax cuts working 20 years after the fact.

So that was my opinion, and is usually the case, it is an informed opinion. 

Correction, that wasn't Reagan's tax cuts working 20 years after the fact.

Rightwingers DO NOT fund programs that help Americans.

On "No Child Left Behind", they impose governmental mandates on the states, and then fail to fund the cost.

OR, they simply add cost (like for the Iraq war) to America's burgeoning indebtedness.

Asking a Republican how they plan to FUND Government is like asking J. Wellington Wimpy how he's going to finance his next meal: "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

Haliburton gorges on hamburgers, and to the Rightwing, Tuesday will never come. 

What does that matter to you?  I.e., why didn't you ask a similar question of Novak's alleged "opinion?"

Bing's opinion is based on fact...

Warren Buffet (3rd richest man in the world) just stated that his  tax rate is 17%.  His secretary's tax rate is 30%.

Does the tag "Gilded Age" sound correct?

Sounds like Mr. Buffet has found some loopholes not accorded the common folk (although at a 30% tax rate, his secretary is not all that common, maybe he needs to cut his/her wages.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/business/13tax.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I can only surmise that Republicans actually have no plans to pay for healthcare.

I've been thinking. A dangerous thing, I know. Here's the thing though. Right now in the US, one of largest costs to large and small businesses alike is health care for its employees. Case in point, the big 3 automakers, drowning in health care costs for its legacy employees and current employees. What I find highly ironic is that we don't have big business lobbying HARD for universal health care in the US, as they would have a large benefit from seeing just such a system installed in the US.

What I was thinking, and I know that this is very simple, but what if every business in the US that now pays health care costs for its employees cut in half what they were paying out now, and dumped that into a fund for establishing universal health care for the US? I don't know how much money the insurance companies are making off of business in the US, but it would be a win-win for businesses across the country. Much lower costs to them, and they also look like the "good guys" for helping to fix the health care system in the country, even if it would be a self serving type of reward.

What say you all?

Alot of big business is pushing for universal health care because they figure they can manipulate it so they pay less than they are paying now.

If I recall correctly, it won't take much in the way of manipulating, given that other countries with universal health care have far lower costs that what we have here in the US.  Heck, just treating people when their problems are small will by itself probably reduce costs significantly.

what if every business in the US that now pays health care costs for its employees cut in half what they were paying out now, and dumped that into a fund for establishing universal health care for the US?

So you want to raise the price I pay for insurance? Cause that's what happens if my employer cuts what he pays towards my insurance. [or do I misunderstand your *plan*?]

Nice act of charity I suppose for those presently without insurance, but it would screw me.

Who exactly qualifies for Universal Health Care? I've never heard anyone of the candidates pressing for this get terribly specific about that.

Exactly, you will pay twice as much.

Well of course. This is why these socialist fixes make me nervous. Cause inevitably the middle-class ends up paying for them

On the bright side...The way things are going we'll soon be poor and eligible for all sorts of programs ;-)

Please show your math.

but what if every business in the US that now pays health care costs for its employees cut in half what they were paying out now, and dumped that into a fund for establishing universal health care for the US?...by magnolialover

Marv,

I believe Tommy's "math" was in response to magnolia's suggestion: [ if every business] cut in half what they were paying out now

If employers cut in half what they are paying out it stands to reason the employees would be making up that difference. Or the other half no longer being covered by their employer.

At least that's how I read it.

First, thanks for addressing me that way.  =)

I don't think it's as simple, though, as "cut it in half" and only half gets paid.

Too many other assumptions are left wide open.  Does everyone get coverage?  How is the plan administered?

Both of the questions to those might result in lower costs over all, thereby reducing the overall cost of insurance.  Keeping people healthy in the first place goes a long way toward keeping them away from expensive treatments that raise rates.

But ultimately, yeah, people will have to pay for their coverage.  You do anyway.  I get a yearly summary of my actual compensation from my employer, and they make a big deal of pointing out how much they're paying toward my health care.  I'd just as soon they pay me directly (ha!  we'll see if THAT happens) and allow a more even handed tax guarantee I get to see a doctor.  In the end, it'll probably cost less than what it does now. 

But, as I pointed out elsewhere, if it lowers the cost of my next car by $1100 bucks, and the cost of everything else similarly, it might balance out nicely.

I don't think it's as simple, though, as "cut it in half" and only half gets paid.

I agree, I think I [and Tommy also--though he can speak for himself of course] were just playing around with Magnolia's suggestion on how employers would help fund Universal Health Care by cutting what they'd pay presently towards employers [private] heath care. I don't think it's an idea that would fly, no matter how one crunched the numbers.

I'm willing to listen to the various plans about Heath Care, but I'll admit I'm wary whenever the government gets too involved. Government has a way of wasting incredible amounts of our tax dollars while [often] offering poor/fair services & tons of red tape. Not always of course...but I'm not sure how they'd handle such monumental program.

On the other hand many Americans are getting fleeced by private insurance companies. And some opt out of even having insurance because they can't fit it into their budget.

*Marv, I know we've had a pretty nasty *relationship* here, but I'm willing to turn the corner. We may not always agree, but I'm sure we can both be civil to each other. Who knows we might even get to be buds?*

but I'll admit I'm wary whenever the government gets too involved. Government has a way of wasting incredible amounts of our tax dollars while [often] offering poor/fair services & tons of red tape. Not always of course...

Not sure why.  It's in the area of health care that the government has shined!  Medicare is incredibly popular and successful, and runs with an overhead that insurance companies (and their stockholders) can only dream of.  Social Security is equally well run. 

It's when the insurance and pharma industries get involved that you see things such as "no shopping for low prices" on drugs introduced into government plans.  I don't think it's the government we gotta be wary of.

As for whether we'll be buds depends on what beer you bring to the MMFA picnic.

Marv, my beer tastes are simple...usually anything available will do ;-)

I usually just pick up Coors. 

My kids have gotten me to try some of those flavored brews like the local [Massachusetts] Nashoba Valley Blackberry Ale. I was skeptical at first, but it ain't bad at all. I'll bring some to the picnic.

I usually just pick up Coors.

It could have been such a beautiful friendship...  =) 

Ah so I'm dealing with a beer connoisseur ;-)

Maybe you can educate me on the better brews.

Tell ya what Marv, you bring the beer, & I'll bring the steaks.

BTW Snoop makes a great dip.

I'm not a beer anything, actually.  Just yankin' your chain.

And I'm not eating any dip that sits out in the sun.

Great point Marv!  I think that every one should be focusing on more AFFORDABLE health care so we can have more money in our pockets.  I pay every week and only go to the doctor once a year.  Now I think if I had invested that money for all these years I could probably pay out of pocket for my one doctor visit a year. 

Catastrophic care is why most of us carry health insurance, at least that’s why I do!  That’s the only thing that scares me.  I'd end up loosing my house if anything major happened without health insurance.

Exactly what evidence do you have it would cost twice as much. Most countries with universal healthcare have  LOWER per capita cost for healthcare than the US and that is virtually every industrial country in the world EXCEPT the US. I remember when my company had travellers insurance, now we can choose among several, the CEO of travellers made 250 MILLION dollars in one year. That is one person and 250 million dollars that didnt go toward giving one vaccine or setting one broken bone. Take all that money spent on ancillary programs that DONT provide any health care and that is a lot of money saved to actually PROVIDE health care.

Wouldn't Universal Healthcare be.......universal?

Wouldn't Universal Healthcare be.......universal?

Well yeah Monk on the surface that's what one would figure.

But I've never heard anyone actually explain it that way. My impression has been that it would be offered to those who presently didn't have health insurance or to those that wanted to opt out of an expensive private plan.

For instance would Paris Hilton be eligible? ;-)

My understanding has always been the the plan would be available to everyone. Yes she wouldbe elligible.

How we would pay for it? I'm positive there is a ton of money being wasted by the government needlessly. Some proper book keeping and money management would cover it.

How we would pay for it? I'm positive there is a ton of money being wasted by the government needlessly. Some proper book keeping and money management would cover it.

Yup, and I bet we could come up with a long list of wasteful spending...[starting with Iraq]

The problem here of course is getting those nitwits in Congress to knock off wasting our money. Maybe you have more faith in them than I do?

Which candidate has fully explained Universal Heath Care in terms of who'd be covered?

"The problem here of course is getting those nitwits in Congress to knock off wasting our money. Maybe you have more faith in them than I do?"

No, I don't. Not the current crop. (both sides) 

"Which candidate has fully explained Universal Heath Care in terms of who'd be covered?"

My understanding is that Universal meant Universal. Everyone would be elligible as long they were a legal resident of the country.

Kucinich is the only candidate right now who has proposed universal health care.  Others propose plans that involve private insurance companies.

Conyers introduced the plan, HR676.  It's essentially Medicare for everyone (you just remove the age limit.)

Summary of how it's paid for is at that link.  Here's a synopsis:  Establishes the USNHI Trust Fund to finance the Program with amounts deposited: (1) from existing sources of Government revenues for health care; (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% income earners; (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income; and (4) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

I like it. Pool everyone's resources for better bargaining leverage.

You misunderstand the plan. Look at the models around the world. The government wouldn't control health care they simply would provide the insurance. With a single payer system drugs would be cheaper, administration costs would go down and in many cases away altogether. There is nothing to indicate individual citizens would pay more because the entire system would be taken away from insurance companies. Every other industrialized nation does it. That's where many of our jobs have gone. That's why many corporations move over seas or up North so they can get under the weight of medical care. Leaving this to the private sector is disastrous.

Who would be eligible? I think the word UNIVERSAL gives you a hint to the answer of that question

I don't think this concept is earth-shatteringly new, but...

The CFO of my employer has reduced the company's cost of providing health care coverage while eliminating the cost to the employees.

His method is simple.  Buy the least amount of coverage with the highest deductibles, then the company simply pays all deductibles for its employees, in effect, giving the employees full coverage.

Our CFO estimates that this saves the company about $20k per month versus purchasing higher coverage. 

That's actually petty brilliant.

The sad reality is that politicians live in this world of vagueness,  devoid of specifics when it comes to detailing how they intend to pay for any of the stuff they put out there.  And it's because we don't demand anymore from them than broad, "tax the other guy more" mentality.

Until we do, they will never change.

"They believe you can expand coverage and hold down costs through more competition."

Ah yes, the free market can alleviate any of society's woes.

How long has the free market had to fix the problems we face with health care costs? 

How much longer shall we 'stay the course'?

When is this Republican dream of a free market health insurance industry that competes for the tltle of "best coverage for less money" ever going to be realized? 

I'd really like to know, because it appears the only competition we've seen so far is a race to see who can provide the least amount of coverage for the most money.

We place an undue burden on our own industries by making them carry the water for health care. It's a pro business policy to make the federal government the sole insurance agency. We are hemorrhaging jobs by foolishly believing that the free markets will take care of everyone. It's a myth. Tax the rich. Tax the trust fund babies. Eliminate corporate welfare. Allow the middle class to spend their earnings instead of paying off criminal rates to credit card companies and ridiculous health care costs. 

We are doing better employment wise than the countries that have universal health care so the linkage is weak.

That's bogus. For example how much vacation time do you get? What kind of benefits do you receive in the way of paid leave?  Unemployment  is a dubious statistic as many factors are left out such as people who have stopped working or tooka job with a serious pay cut.It's simple economics, if business no longer has to shell out for healthcare they have more money for pay, r&d and production. You're rebuttal is weak.

Since you want to "tax the rich", any many "rich" own businesses that employ the people you want to give a break too.......then who do you think will ultimately pay that tax?  Or lose their jobs?  Or get the shaft?  

Think beyond the first inning all the way to the end of the game for the real picture on how the score is eventually settled.

I suggest you do the same.  Look at the cost of a US produced automobile and note how much of that cost is due purely to the cost of healthcare for the employees and retirees of the company that sells the car.  Imagine what might happen to sales and the economy if those costs were significantly reduced, or taken out of the car sales equation altogether.

You didn't even address the "tax the rich" mantra always put up here to level the playing field.  And the ramifications therein.  Not surprising from you.

As for your health care costs being reduced by companies so their products will also be reduced........well, poof - there goes those costs, gone - in one felt liberal swoop.  What a relief.

He didn't say "Tax the Rich" - you did. It's a CONSERVATIVE mantra, pushed hard by those who live on a diet of Fox "News", talk radio and the WSJ. 

Follow along, I was responding to Bing's post who most definitely used the exact words "Tax the rich".

Tax the rich. It's more humane than Lemmy's suggestion that we eat the rich ; )

Eat the rich?  Eh.  Either too fatty, or for some, they spend so much time at the gym that they're nuthin' but gristle.

First Mötörhead reference ever, as far as I know, at MMFA!

Woo-hoo. My first, first! (maybe)

From the first time I heard DK, I've been a liberal punk. Rollins-Biafra 08

Those were not my exact words.

I think if I have to pay a certain percentage of my income in taxes everyone should have to pay the same percentage. Any loophole that applies to the wealthy in turn should apply to all citizens.

But it doesn't matter, I'm one of those kooks that think income tax is f***** and needs to go away.

That's how it works for social security.  Same percentage up to some magic number (now $90K?)

I don't think that "taxing the rich" is the solution, which is why I didn't address it.  If you take the burden of health care off the backs of businesses and create a universal program that everyone pays, then everyone will see an increase.

My point was that there is something like $1500 "tax" of sorts levied on every new car made in America because of the health care costs businesses pay.   America's competitors (Europe and Asia) in the car market don't have those costs attached to each new car, and that's a significant advantage.

On top of that, if everyone has insurance, they won't a) use emergency rooms as their primary physician, and b) won't wait until a small problem becomes a huge problem, thus requiring more costly remedies.  Both of these things reduce the overall cost of care.  And that would reduce the cost of the benefit. 

A cite for sorts for the $1500 per car number ($1100-$1500 per car, actually.)

The cost of providing health care adds from $1,100 to $1,500 to the cost of each of the 4.65 million vehicles GM sold last year, according to various calculations. GM expects to spend at least $5.6 billion on health care this year, more than it spent on advertising last year.

Wonder how much the extravagant CEO salary and fringe benefit package adds to the cost of an automobile made in the U.S.? I remember reading about the billions and billions in compensation FORMER CEO's continue to suck from auto manufacturers bottomline, it's obscene. But paying some more in healthcare for the people who actually make the company profitable is too much?

Obama was right. We have an empathy deficit in this country.

America has to decide what kind of nation it wants to be.

TODAY, the fact of life is that NOBODY can be turned down at an emergency room. This is because America is a COMPASSIONATE nation, and even those not enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid are due treatment because they are human beings.

However, handling the system this way is the MOST EXPENSIVE and INEFFICIENT way to fund healthcare. Rightwingers worried about being "screwed" if there is Universal Health Care don't seem to realize they are ALREADY PAYING the exorbitant cost of the current system, thru higher insurance premiums, higher taxes, and other ways.

The Hospitals get money from the insurance companies. Those who are not insured and show up at the Emergency Rooms for the most expensive of all care, THEIR cost is passed along, usually, to the hospital district, which is funded through taxes (usually on PROPERTY taxes).

There is some loss to the hospitals on the Emergency Room end, but the private insurance end makes up the difference (which means lots of billing is higher than it should be, and insurance premiums are ALSO higher than they should be).

And with this Status Quo, the hospitals are doing OK, the HMOs and Insurance companies are making out like bandits, the pharmaceutical industry is realizing gargantuan profits ... and none of THESE people wants the system to change. Only those who pay taxes, pay insurance premiums, or have to live WITHOUT insurance want the change. You know, the PEOPLE rather than the CEO's.

Now, the change the Rightwing would really want would be to a purely "market" system, with health care as a commodity like any other, and if you can't afford it, you DO WITHOUT.

Just like a car. If you can't afford the Mercedes, you go for the Ford. If you can't afford the Ford, get a bike, or walk. Do without. If you can't walk or ride a bike, well, you're just out of luck. You stay put. Don't whine, it's your own damn fault. 

This would mean Emergency Rooms would be closed to anyone without the funds to pay for treatment. This would, of course, drastically change the face and personality of America as a nation. We would become ruthless, cold, heartless, and impervious to any morality.

As long as America's Emergency Rooms are the FIRST resort to those without means, then the SYSTEM affects us all. It is OUR perogative to approve change. It is OUR duty to demand change from the status quo, because it's the most expensive and inefficient system imaginable. It harms everyone EXCEPT the big corporations.

Our choices are, go with the Rightwing idea of letting the poor, the indigent, the uninsured just DIE ... and thus not incur any expense to the rest of us, OR develop a system that controls the costs and directs care to the LESSER expensive means ... like prevention, NORMAL visits (instead of ER visits that are so expensive), and installing some sort of reasonable controls on corporate greed (for example, by bulk buying of generic drugs).

It's an insanely simple guideline: As long as America's Emergency Rooms cannot turn anyone away, then the system is NOT following the rules of consumerism, supply and demand, and COMMODITIES that are scarce and available ONLY to those who can afford them.

The current system is NOT the shining example of Capitalism that Rightwing promoters of the status quo, and vehement haters of any notion of "universal" care, would have us believe. The current system is the best of both worlds for the industry ... HIGH premiums from those who can afford them, and TAXPAYER bailout for those who aren't covered. Maximum profits, no downside ... TO THE INDUSTRY. On the other hand, it's the WORST system for THE PEOPLE. 

ONLY when the rightwing succeed in CLOSING the ERs, to where they can refuse service to any who cannot afford that service, can the rightwing demand that the Status Quo be maintained. Because we ALL NOW are paying a premium price for everyone's health care. 

Yeah, anyone who doesn't believe in universal care wants to see the poor and indigent die. I think it is a little more complex than you indicate Tex. Not saying you are wrong only I disagree in general. Why not just find a way to give coverage to those who really need it and don't have it and leave everyone else alone?

Don't condescend to me Tommy.

I don't intend to explain every minutiae when expressing my opinion. Don't assume I don't look beyond the first inning as you suggest. Profit sharing works well for the NFL and it's a similar concept. The one's who do very well pay into a pool that is distributed to others who don't have the market share. The result more teams benefit, the league as a whole creates a larger market of consumers and the owners who pay into the pool make more money than they would have otherwise. I'm going to extra innings, well beyond the first.

What blows my mind is how some treat taxation as this evil thing that must be avoided. Sorry but taxes are the price you pay to live in a free society and there was a time when the wealthiest among us like Henry Ford understood, if his workers could not afford his products he would not make any money. 

''We are doing better employment wise than the countries that have universal health care so the linkage is weak.''

 I'm not sure what 'employment wise' refers to but here in New Zealand, we have the second lowest unemployment rate in the world, and universal health care. i guess government-sponsored initiatives are easier to uphold when you don't have to spend half your annual budget on an illegal war. Australia, too, has universal health care, and an even more competitive economy than ours, with a larger population too....

I was intrigued by the concept I heard from John Edwards:  Don't eliminate the free market for health insurance.  Instead, have the government enter the free market and compete with the health insurance companies. 

With no lobbyists to pay, no CEO's to shower with bonuses, no shareholders to answer to, and lower administrative costs, I think it would really give health insurance providers a lot to think about.

Ah, yes let the market sort it out! Because corporate welfare, deregulation and allegiance to profit has been so effective in bringing down the cost of healthcare to every man, woman and child.

"Because corporate welfare, deregulation and allegiance to profit has been so effective in bringing down the cost of healthcare to every man, woman and child."

I think if the sstem wasn't set up to benefit the big corps and the playing field was leveled, the market could take care of itself. Unfortunately I don't see that happening.

There are serious flaws with the fundamentalist view of the market. The assumptions are that there is near-perfect competition, perfect knowledge by both buyers and sellers, equal accessibility, no organizing of sellers to inflate prices, both buyer and seller are equally powerful and that both buyers and sellers act rationally.

Instead, we have monopolies, deceptions, prohibitive accessibility, price fixing and irrational preferences. Why? Because the market is impersonal, it honors profit before people and places wealth above labor.

So long as people are viewed by companies as resources to be exploited as cheaply as possible instead of assets to be invested in the market will fail to understand the value of nurturance.

"Instead, we have monopolies, deceptions, prohibitive accessibility, price fixing and irrational preferences. Why? Because the market is impersonal, it honors profit before people and places wealth above labor. "

You are absolutely and sadly correct.

Not to mention people can shop around with even the most major of purchases, but many aren't afforded that luxuary when it comes to their health.

This fiasco of a war will cost a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it. The massive deficit created by the Conservative controlled government generated intrest rates so high that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II borrowed from the Social Securtiy piggy bank just to pay the interest and at the same time effectively putting Social Security at risk.

Conservative instigated tax cuts is a lie.  The truth is the money is being borrowed to put on the illusion of tax cut.

Combine the trillion dollar Iraq money down the toilet and the borrowed money to create the illusion of a tax cut we have a staggering amount of Conservative approved fiscal irresponsiblity.

That trillion dollars and borrowed money tax cut illusion could have paid for universal health care. 

Conservatives would rather flush the money down the toliet so they can declare there is no money for health care.

The problem with Conservatives is they lack the ability to see the damage they are doing. They will not see it until after the damage has been done and then use this damage as an excuse for staying the course with their ideology.

Isn't that something he should be asking George W Bush ? maybe that is why the president doesn't hold Town Hall meetings.

As Harlequin has pointed out, the first thing we do is stop this insane Iraq Money Shredder. We've already wasted enough over there to pay for healthcare reform for, how long...ten years or so? Of course, it depends on the program. There are ways to work out the costs, eligibilities, etc, if you have the political will. Second thing you do is kick all the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists out of the Capitol Building. (Okay, okay, I know you can't really do that).

The problem is that too many people are making too much money on the present system. I don't look for it to change in my lifetime.

First, the article compares apples to oranges...I don't think you have to justify cutting taxes the same way you have to justify increasing spending, in terms of "where's the money coming from?" It's not the government's money, it's the peoples, so if you're cutting taxes, you're giving it back, not spending it and having to justify it.

 Second, I don't think the gov. participating in the health care market as both a universal insurer for those that cannot afford another option AND as a carrier you may elect to use via paying premiums is a bad idea at all, and I do think it will help lower premiums for private insurers. I think the principle of the gov. participating in the market rather than regulating it or taking it over completely goes along a lot better with the American way.

May I remind you it is the governments money. the Constitution states only the federal Government can print money. This " it is your money" bs that Bush and associates is just bs, simple and clear designed to attract votes. has nio basis on fact.

The gov prints it for economy adhesion. If businesses decided to stop using it and switch to the Euro, they could, as long as they had US dollars to pay their taxes in. The people earn it and it's theirs to do with.

 It's just paper, anyway. The real worth in money is the capital it represents, which is purely economic, since we're off the gold standard.

 Sorry Wolf. If it was the "governments", I don't think it would be possible to speculate on currency/foreign currency, or exchange currencies, at least how we do it today.

that doesn't fly. The federal government prints the label " legal tender " on every bill and unless you barter services with another person, that is the only form of value the federal government operates on. If I can pay my taxes with gallons of water I would. We as citizens accept this mponey as remuneration for services.

The Republican "tax incentive" approach only helps those who already have insurance, which is good, as far as it goes. It does nothing, however, to help those who cannot afford insurance or cannot get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. These are the problems most in need of a fix, and I don't hear the Republicans proposing ANYTHING to help these two groups.

I agree that, if one accepts that the health care situation in the US needs a new plan, tax incentives are not a complete one.

I don't see why people would be opposed to health care coverage to those who make enough to not qualify for medicaid but not enough for private coverage. That being said, the government should not have the ability to tell you what coverage you will have. If one wants to maintain their coverage they have at their job they should be able to continue as such. Everyone should oppose "Universal Coverage" if it means taking away ones ability to chose their own coverage in terms of a government plan or private plan. Those who can afford it, need to pay for it. When you pay for something you should have a choice in what you are paying for. There are issues that are more important than this right now. It's not as though a large portion of our populace is without insurance.  

All good points. If government was the only healthcare provider, I think many people supporting universal and unitary coverage would be surprised at how much getting a letter from the Fed saying your procedure isn't medically necessary will look like the one you get from the private insurer saying your procedure isn't medically necessary.

Good point. However, who would you rather have making that call...a disinterested Federal Bureaucrat, or a Corporate Bureaucrat who gets a bonus for disallowing your treatment?

This is one of those RightWing talking points that needs to be debunked right off the bat.  Health Care coverage should not be about getting what you can pay for.  There should not be a different level of care for the rich, it is morally wrong to think this way.  Why should a poor seven year old suffering from cancer receive a lower quality of care than a rich kid? 

Beside that, it is inefficient.  Imagine if we had to build two roads everywhere.  One for the rich, which had high maintenance, etc and one for the poor with little maintenance.

Well, see, you miss the point. In general, the Republican view is that it SHOULD matter what you can afford. If you pin them down, they have no problem with the poor kid getting less treatment. It's just his tough luck. If I'm being unfair to the Republican point of view, I hope that one of them will show me where I'm wrong.

I guess with universal coverage no 7 year old child with cancer will receive less than stellar treatment. The best private plans have limits. The key would be to reinforce medicaid coverage for those poor children who can't afford to be on a good private plan. but, I guess all republicans like to see 7 year olds suffer with cancer if their families can't afford good health insurance. Tough luck kid. Jeez!!!!

No, they don't "like" to see it. They just aren't willing to help pay for it. They'll shake their heads and say "what a shame" like anyone else, but vote against the bill that would fund care for such children.

You may be right about that, I don't know. Still, the medicaid system as it is, is pretty good at covering all children who need it. Children don't die and suffer needlessly in this country. That would be ridiculous.

Well, I certainly hope you're right. Maybe Medicaid could be expanded to cover those who just can't afford it or can't get it. Tennessee tried such a system, but it failed, largely because they didn't control enrollment, and people from other states signed up. It just collapsed under it's own weight.

Plus, there is a large percentage of our populace without coverage!  37 Million people, many of the single women and children.  This is 10% of the US population.  How can you say there are more important issues? 

Wait, maybe because you have great coverage already and don't have anyone close to you without coverage who has been through the hell so many have when their health turns bad, through no falt of their own, and their insurance provider does everything in their power to deny them coverage.

Your "let them eat cake" attitude is obvious as is your ignorance of this issue

37 million people is inacurate as is the 47 million stat used by Michael Moore. Pleease!!!!!

Furthermore, my ignorance of this issue pails in comparison to your nonsensical use of a false stat to appeal to folks to have them forego a choice of insurance. Ronald Reagan once said that the scariest nine words were " I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". If people need it then fine, I have no problem paying taxes for those people. For people who want to buy their own or stay with coverage offered by their employer then they should be able to that is all I am saying. Sorry to irritate your socialist volcano.

So, in your omnicient wisdom, what is the correct number? And where did you obtain that number? And what is wrong with Michael Moore's number?

Guess I shoulda "read the thread" - for now, I may find the answers in your later post.

Read below my friend. There is no reason to become personal here. The numbers speak for themselves. If you don't like them I can't help that. They are there for all to see. Research the numbers in the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor statistics for yourself.......great one.

And yes Michael Moore is lying to simply over sensationalize the issue perhaps to put more fannies in the seats. Even if it were his motive, that's just capitalism baby.

Whether his number is inflated or the number given to you no doubt by someone else is deflated in the grand scheme of things doesn't de-legitimize the complaint that our privatized for profit by law health care system is deeply flawed. 

Parse all the numbers you want it still sucks. When people are paid specifically to find ways to deny people health care because it's more profitable to do so is morally repugnant. Not to mention highly unethical. But anything for a buck right? Just don't get sick. 

All that may be true sir, but it deosn't change the fact that the constitution was not created to foster socialism either. I am a firm believer in the idea that "Promote the General Welfare" means providing NEEDED assistance to those who need it. My use of the Reagan quote was to demonstrate that; despite the good things government can do there has to be a limit in how much it can control the will of the individual. Again, I have no beef with providing health coverage to those who need it. For those who can pay for their own, they should do so. Why give a free ride to someone who has a cadillac already? If I don't want government coverage how can the government force me to accept it?

"Why give a free ride to someone who has a cadillac already?"

Because that's who we are, that's what Americans do. We share the risks and we share the rewards.

When the guy with the cadillac has to pay while the needy do not, that's when rabid conservatism rears its ugly head. That's when the indignant Republican scowls the refrain, "I got mine, now go get yours and stay out of my wallet!"

But where in any of the liberal/progressive Universal Healthcare Plans do they insist that choice be eliminated?

For example, Edwards wants to lay down the gauntlet and facilitate competition by letting people choose between a public plan or private plan. Affectively, he's telling the private sector to put up or shut up. I am totally down with that.

I don't disagree with a plan like Edward's espouses in general. My discussions here have been with BITTERMARV and IOWADEM who seemingly are espousing universal coverage for everyone regardless. The kicker is that if some don't want that, then they are being a burden to society somehow. To me that is ridiculous. To give someone who resides in the top 10% of income earners government health care when they can afford their own flies in the face of true liberalism...you know, the kind espoused by JFK,FDR, and LBJ. Cover the folks who need it and leave tose who don't want it alone.

So, to keep rabid conservatism from "rearing it's ugly head" we should give the rich universal medical care? That is interesting.

Absolutely. They are always complaining that the privileged are discriminated against by liberal policy.

My turn.....back up your assertion here. Who specifically has said that liberal policy disciriminates against the wealthy and what have they specifically said which leads you to this assumption?

Basically as I understand the arguments, as formulated by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Boortz and even our own poster Tommy that progressive taxation punishes the wealthy. They call it wealth redistribution, I believe, or class warfare.

But note that I wrote privileged, not just wealthy.

So, if a black kid gets an additional, however many few, points on a standardized test to compensate for educational inequities, there is usually a reflexive call of reverse discrimnation. From where and whom do these calls hail? Usually from talk radio or the rightwing blogs.

My false stat?  Please enlighten me then with the correct number of uninsured people in this country.  Exactly how many children need to be denied propoer health care for you to think this issue is important?  One million, two?  Please shine your light of understanding on us.

My appeal to emotion is purposeful. I mean to engage you on a visceral level.  However, my desire for a single payer/universal health care plan is based on logic and economics.  It will make our country stronger, more competitive, a source of pride, not embarrassment, and in the end will save money, save lives, and be infinitely more fair and just.

Yeah, your false stat. I backed up my statments so the burden of proof is on you. Where did you get your 37 million number and how do discount the fact that the stats you use are skewed and you fail at any rebuttal of the 10-14 million included in your number who are eligible for medicaid but simply do not apply. If you want to engage me on a visceral level don't insult my intelligence by using non factual data to support you emotional argument. One last time, I don't want government coverage but I don't mind paying more from my pocket for those who NEED it. Why would you want to give me coverage when I can afford my own?

You're Reagan quote typifies the deep flaw in conservative ideology. that the government is a bad thing to be shunned.

Read the Constitution please, our government has responsibilities outlined in the Preamble, you can stop reading right there.

Government is representative of the people therefor is by proxy, We the people. If you despise it or fear it, you fear and despise the Constitution and the country. It doesn't read "everyman for himself" it doesn't endorse capitalism it endorses and protects liberties for the individual. 

I agree that people should have a choice. What I think should happen is that the government sets up an insurance policy for those who either can't afford it, or can afford it but have a pre-existing condition that precludes them from getting commercial coverage.

By the way, the CDC puts the number of uninsured at over 40 million. How many would it take for you to consider it an important issue?

Nerzog,

Those numbers are bogus plain and simple. The census bureau is the entity in which the numbers of those without insurance is derived. they use two surveys to garner this information, the ASEC (Annual Social Economic Supplement) and the CPS (Current Population Survey). The 47 million number is derived from the ASEC survey which the census bureau admittedly says under reports levels of coverage to the point where the data itself is questionable. These numbers derived from the ASEC survey discount those who are without coverage for a limited period of time due to job loss, change, etc. The CPS survey which gives a more difinitive picture indicates that there are approx. 23 million people without insurance for extended time periods. Taking that into consideration with a L.A Times article in April of 2006 which indicated that there are approx. 10-14 million people within the 47 million number who qualify for medicaid but just plainly don't sign up you would roughly have about 13 million people (conservatively) who are without insurance. The Bureau of Labor statistices also indicate that nearly 19% of the 47 million uninsured number make over 75,000 per year but don't have insurance. Seems to me that would be by choice. My point here is that those who use these bogus numbers to invoke a rallying cry to mandate a radical shift to universal health care are doing nothing more than using misinformation to achieve a goal. We know that is unacceptable. The problem as it is, is not as large as some would like the populace to believe.

Not always by choice. Many people can afford premiums, but no health insurance company will touch them because of pre-existing conditions. These people need some kind of relief, don't you think?

Good point. Again, I have no problem with "universal" coverage for those who absolutely need it. I just don't want it forced on me. I could utilize VA benefits anytime I wanted as a combat wounded veteran, but I have the means to pay for my own insurance. I just think that those who have the means to pay their own way should do so.

I agree that you should have a choice. I think conservatives are also guilty of using scare tactics in this debate. That's how they killed Hillary's proposal before it ever saw the light of day.

There's no reason a plan couldn't be put in place to help those who need it which allows those who can afford it to shop outside the system. The sticking point would be the same as with the school voucher scam...wealthier people who don't need the help will kvetch about paying taxes to help those who do need it.

Any government plan would also steal a lot of customers from the insurance companies. That would mean smaller bonuses for the CEOs, and smaller contributions to members of Congress...Therefore, it ain't gonna happen.

You are probably right about that. Anyway, if you want a clear and concise narrative of what happened to Hillary's health care proposal read Carville's "We're Right their Wrong"; great stuff.

"My point here is that those who use these bogus numbers to invoke a rallying cry to mandate a radical shift to universal health care are doing nothing more than using misinformation to achieve a goal. We know that is unacceptable."

Though I doubt your numbers and even your sources as  having an accurate depiction of the un-insured in this country even if it were conflated, does that mean that this and many other problems don't exist in our healthcare system.

The fact that you trotted out the socialist word leads me to believe you have no clue what a socialist system is as no one here has suggested such a thing.

And it appears you are burying the cold hard reality by finding something, anything to dismiss this issue.

You may doubt my numbers but that is your choice. Research the Census Buruea's survey methods and their own admission that the number of uninsured (used by those who espouse a socialist approach to health care) is an underreported stat as it pertains to actual levels of coverage. If that destroys your glass house so be it. Regardless of those facts, we can parse words all day long as well. Offering coverage (even if not mandated) to every citizen is a form of socialized medicine. I don't need it and I don't want it. I have my own. I don't mind paying more taxes for those who need it though. Why does that bother you so much?  

If you have universal coverage, then there's no need for a public or private plan.  Certain things are paid for, others aren't.  If you want something like cosmetic surgery, then you can pay for it yourself or get some sort of coverage for that.

Your concern should be about choosing your doctor, not choosing your coverage.  And the only universal plan I know of at the moment lets you choose your own doctor. 

That doesn't matter. What if I want to chose my own plan? Folks in Sweden and Britain are opting to pursue private plans to avoid waiting for medical procedures. What is wrong with that? The government shouldn't be in the business of telling me that this is your insurance plan like it or not.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Do it.  You'll have base coverage provided by whatever universal plan, and supplemental coverage from whatever plan you choose to go with it.  End result would be about the same amount of money spent by you for a comparable plan today, minus the 20+% overhead formerly diverted into the private insurer for the base coverage.  Win-win.

That doesn't fly with me. What i