So with the New Health Care Reform passed through the House. Who is for or against it?? Why or why not?

I am not in favor. My opinion (whether it's right or wrong) is why should we pay for the people who are too lazy to get a job just so they can have health insurance? Now it's different if they are disabled and unable to work. But these people who won't get off their butts to get a job shouldn't get subsidized health care that we, tax payers, are paying for!

Edited November 8, 200916 yr by TN_girl21

Cuba is south honey. If you start walking now, you can be there by Spring Break.

Btrie,

What is wrong with doing what you have been doing since you started to work? It's not like you don't pay for others through other things now. Ohhhh I get it. Since someone made it really clear that you would be paying and the cat is out of the bag thus making you fully AWARE that you would and have been paying, you have a problem. Jeez. Another one that likes to bang their head against a wall............

How fortunate that there was a full time position available that you could move in to. Otherwise you would have had to stay PT without insurance and if you needed healthcare, would have just had to pay for it out of pocket. Good thing you didn't get cancer and have to pay for that. I heard it can be a tad expensive!!

We better get the word out quick to all PT workers: Hey you slackers - just apply for FT work and get that insurance. It works everytime.

No. I would have looked for work elsewhere and if ins. wasn't included, then I would have bought it myself. Why should I pay for your HC? Or anyone elses for that matter. If they want to take care of all of us, what's next? They will provide our food? That's a necessity you know. without it people will die!

Hey, 85% of all americans are satisfied with their health care. If the 15 % who aren't or don't have any need it, then gov. should allow them to get on the medicaid program that is already instated instead of revamping the whole dang thing and expecting the whole of us to get on a plan that the gov. wants us on. This issue is about government control, not provision for the few without insurance in this country.

Btrie,

I think you sumed it up when you said you didn't give a damn about anybody else but you and your needs. I, on the other hand, care about my neighbor as well as myself. Thus I wish for all to have some form of healthcare, regardless. Oh, by the way, there are some people in the world who will never be able to make enough money to afford healthcare. Just a fact. ALso, nothing wrong with the contempt you show. Just stop having arguments about something you don't give a damn about because you have no critical solutions. I expect since you don't give a damn and in my book shouldn't have a damn thing to say on the subject, you should place your energy elsewhere. Here, I look for a discussion and ideas, not "i don't give a damn". Fug it, why did you come to speak on a subject you don't give a damn about, except when it relates to you AND have NO solutions or ideas that are constructive? Pleeze don't say because I can.......that would be sooo lame.

Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government, and is managed by the states. Among the groups of people served by Medicaid are certain eligible U.S. citizens and resident aliens some adults and their children, and people with certain disabilities.

The government already has this set up for those who need it. Why don't they use it? Also, all the government needs to do is raise the income guidelines on Medicaid so that the poor who don't have insurance can get on it. So simple, HC solved! Then they can leave the other 85% of who are satisfied with our Ins. alone!

I don't get why they don't just let those without HI get on Medicaid. Unless that's not the governments ultimate goal here. You know, to give the poor HI. Do they think we are stupid? Obviously. Their ultimate goal is to socialize this Nation, not help those that are dying in the streets without Health Insurance! Yeah right!

The FAIR way to run this country and afford you the things that you expect and need your country to provide, is for everyone to pay their fair share to make it happen.

That's the word! FAIR share. It would be great if all we had to pay was our Fair share. But that's what's unfair. It's not a fair share. It's bankrupting this Nation. Don't you get it? We don't have enough money to make this a Utopia for everyone. Let's just be satisfied with what's within our financial means. huh? We can't all pay for everyones HC, energy assistance, retirement, food, college expenses and on and on it goes! People need to take responsibility for themselves and if the government is willing to take that responsibility for them they will allow it. That's why we have so many dependant people in this country. All the gov. is doing is enabling them to be dependant. Let's face it, spending is out of control. We just can't afford anything else.

PG,

What exactly do you mean when you say we will become socialized? What exactly is wrong with being socialized? What country is comparable and how has that country faired being socialized?

Give a straight answer.....I dare you......

Socialism is not a bad thing on paper. If everyone worked their fair share.

Unfortunately, we have an entire under class living on the dole; smoking crack and popping out illegitimate kids like they are going out of style.

In order to socialize health care, us taxpayers would have to fork out even more money than we are now and the quality of health care would suffer because doctors would only earn a fraction of what they do now.

Lets face it, most good physicians are not in it just to make people healthy. They like their yachts and beach houses in the Carribean.

Stop subsidizing bastards and put the majority that are abusing disability to work and maybe then we can take a shot at socializing certain aspects of our country.

As for paying taxes for the roads and the security of this country, I am happy to do so. I served over 5 years proudly in the military. Can you say the same BJean?

Oh yeah and tax the $hit out Patty and those damn churches that want to have a say in politics but give nothing.

Oh yeah and tax the $hit out Patty and those damn churches that want to have a say in politics but give nothing.

Churches happen to the be the people who make up this country, not the building that sits there. The bible says that the church is God's children, the people. Therefore, we are already taxed. The people need to have a say in politics. And, the people give plenty to this nation. Christians are the fabric of America. It is the Christians who live here that give the most to society. The food pantries, charities and organizations that help people, donations to catstrophies, etc.

The Problems with Socialized Health Care

This link shows all the countries that have socialized HC and the problems that go along with it.

What about those "40 million without health insurance"?

Socialists often parrot the "40 million without health insurance" cliche as an excuse for the U.S. government to force a totalitarian health care system on its citizens. I assume they are referring to the CBO report, "<A href="http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4210&sequence=0">How Many People Lack Health Insurance and For How Long?" which shows that many uninsured are without insurance for a short period of time only.

Also note that "without health insurance" does not mean "without health care".

• 40 Million Without Health Insurance?
  Before we conclude that our society is in desperate straits because 40 million lack health insurance, let’s look at the figure in full context and consider what it may or may not mean. - Tibor R. Machan, January 26, 2004 [strike the Root]
  
• The phony health-care crisis
  Many of the uninsured include young, well-educated, healthy people, who are unlikely to get sick. - Larry Elder, September 22, 2000 [TownHall.com]
  
• Miscounting the Uninsured
  Although many of the uninsured would like coverage, a number have chosen to be self-insured. These people are not poor. - Doug Bandow, Bradley Smith, Lawrence Reed, April 15, 1994 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]
  

By KARL ROVE If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make.

The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.

Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.

Who covers the rest? Government passes the bill for the outstanding balance to providers and families not covered by government programs. This cost-shifting amounts to a forced subsidy. Families pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else's health care as a result, according to a recent study by Milliman Inc. It's also why many doctors limit how many Medicare patients they take: They can afford only so much charity care.

Fixing prices at less than market rates will continue under any public option. Sen. Edward Kennedy's proposal, for example, has Washington paying providers what Medicare does plus 10%. That will lead to health providers offering less care.

Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone.

Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare -- the purest form of a government-run "public choice" for seniors -- will start exceeding its payroll-tax "trust fund" in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period.

Medicare and Medicaid cost much more than estimated when they were adopted. One reason is there's no competition for these government-run insurance programs. In the same way, Americans can expect a public option to cost far more than the Obama administration's rosy estimates.

Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors. If you think insurance companies are bad, imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier, with little or no competition and no concern you'll change to another company.

In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American. Republicans have plans to achieve this, and they must make their case for reform in every available forum.

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute

1.There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?

2."Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

3.Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

4.Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

5.Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

6.Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

7.Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

8.Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

9.A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

10.Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

so⋅cial⋅ism 

–noun a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

This idea erodes the belief in free enterprise.

free enterprise

 

–noun an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.