Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Craig234
Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?
My employer pays half of the $550/month total fee... and I sincerely doubt that they'd pass that money to me if they were relieved of their half of the payment. In fact, I know they wouldn't!
You also never answered my question (shocker!)... will UHC cost my wife and I more than $2700/year in increased taxes? YES or NO?
The cost of your insurance is $6600/year at $550/month, not $2700.
As tempting as it is to fling trickle-down economics back at republicans and say that your employer being freed of the cost would end up giving you even more benefit, I'll make the obvious point that in general, employees will come out ahead by lowering the costs of healthcare overall and freeing employers of that cost - it can be done legislatively, it can be done with tax credits, there are ways, but you are not going to simply be left with the total cost of UHC and no relief from the employer no longer having that expense.
And UHC will cost less overall, I suspect, as the reduced overhead from the bloated system now would more than make up for the cost of adding the uninsured.
Could there be some exception? Yes. Am I going to worry about the people who would be too selfish to pay a little more when most benefit a lot? No.
Frankly, Palehorse, I wouldn't mind if you go find yourself some nation of the selfish where people live in the poverty of the free market, until you understand modern society a bit.
Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff
Who the fvck are you to tell me which of
my primary concerns are irrelevant?! "one minor negative"?! HA!!
I'm sorry, but degrading the quality of care available to
my family, "for the greater good," is entirely unacceptable.[/quote]
REPEATING - pay attention - the issue is your saying any degradation at all makes you not accept it, without looking at any benefits you get on the other side.
I'm someone who uses a little logic to tell you which of your primary concerns are absurd. You did not answer the question, you just said 'HA!' - so I'll repeat:
If you had one minor degradation in one part of your health care from UHC, and a number of larger improvements on the other side, why is that a problem?
My point was you should not ask if there would be any degradation - but any net degradation on balance.
From there, IF there's a net degradation, we can debate whether it's reason enough not to get UHC, but it's yet to be shown there would be any net degradation.
If you meant net degradation - once again you did not write what you meant.
Look how bad it is in Canada and the UK, who have a combined population of less than 100 million people... now imagine the crappy service we'll get with over 300 million citizens!
no fvcking way. lower quality medical care is NOT an option, and I will do everything in my power to prevent you from making it happen.
So, guns are going to come into this, eh?
I think we need to do better than Canada and the UK, and that we can.
I understand you will stand in the way of progress as usual. You can still move to that nation of free market poverty...
So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.
things are not that black and white. I do care about everyone, but I refuse to carry
everyone on my back.
I
choose to help as many as I can, whenever I can. But, I am damn sick and tired of others, such as you, telling me who and what to support.[/quote]
That's because you have Government Derangement Syndrome, where you are paranoid of the public actually acting as a group to do anything but kill people for our ruling class's benefit, and insist on crippling the public's ability to act by limiting it to 'volunteer charities' which are capable of only relatively minor activities, not the things society actually needs. Yet again I'll refer to lessons you did not learn from the attempts with 'voluntary taxation' with the Articles of Confederation.
That's 100% bullsh*t. You know damn well that it won't be given back as salary.
Quite the opposite. You will get it back in some form of salary or the new healthcare benefit's tax cost, IMO.
I want to knwo what this is going to cost ME. Quit dodging the g'damn question and tell us (roughly) how much my wife and I will have to pay in taxes because of UHC.
I can no more tell you the exact cost before the actual program is decided than you can tell me how much the rest of the Iraq war will cost me before we know what's going to happen.
I can tell you more than you can tell me though - that the cost is expected to decrease with the huge bloat taken out, whatever program is selected, so there's a benefit compared to continuing the current system, while the costs of your war are open-ended - you can't say almost anything about that. Just sayin', you don't need to know exact costs for agreeing to a policy.
there are no fvcking tradeoffs when it comes to the health and welfare of my family! If there is even the slightest chance that our quality of care would go down, then the entire UHC idea is not an option. period.
You sound utterly paranoid and reactionary. How do you get anything done? I can tell you - it's because you limit your insane requirements to government programs, because of your Government Derangement Syndrome. First, there are tradeoffs - take a deep breath - if your family got 2 things worse in their care and 50 things better in their care, those are called tradeoffs. You then decide and weigh how you feel about them. They exist, no matter how much you squint your face and wave your fists in the air and say they don't exist.
Second, there's a 'slight chance your qality of care will go down' under today's system - in fact, a larger chance than that - as the costs continue to skyrocket faster than income.
So, are you going to be consistent and say you refuse to continue the current system since there's a chance the quality of your care will go down? Of course you won't, because you're not a grownup, you're a child with a keyboard who will fight any progress in society like all those with GDS do. Coming soon: your cries that I'm trying to put Stalin in charge of America.
You know g'damn well that the wait times will be delayed by months, not "seconds." Quit playing games.
You're the one playing games - I was wasting my time explaining the concept to you. I find those things unacceptable too and expect them to be prevented in any system we adopt.
I an not saying 'let's have England's system'. There are definitely problems we should not take from a system like that.
I have no problem paying a very tiny increase in taxes to provide free healthcare for children under the age of 18 whose parents make less than $30,000/yr.
Adults are on their own. If they need coverage, then they can get an education and a decent job like the rest of us. If that requires them to work three jobs, and go to school for ten years, then too fvcking bad!
They will work for it, pay for it, or die. period.
I simply refuse to allow you, or anyone, to place my family in peril as a result of your proposed lower quality healthcare.
screw that...
Well, mister 'you are entitled', our system has built-in problems for many people and we need to be more fair than that. I'd do the same for you if you were in that situation.
Our society is wealthy enough to afford this - and in fact, that's not even the issue, given the current huge expenses. I don't think you are open to any of the rational debate on this - see GDS above - so there's not much point. I'm not going to pretend to give you the specifics that don't yet exist; what I am going to say is that I've concluded that the current system is so full of bloat and waste that I think we can do a lot better, and provide healthcare to everyone, of better quality for most, if we do it right, and that we should.
I'm wide open on how we do that, to find the low cost and the guarantees of quality best available.
Missing from all your posts is one word on how broken the current system is and how it's going to fall apart one way or another for many people.
Go back in history and you will see people just like you who strongly opposed social security, the government improving labor laws, Medicare, and so on.
I'm against bad government programs. You're against a lot of good ones.
Facebook
Twitter