OK, here's a question...

[PLC1]

PLC, I agree that catastrophic insurance is far more important than what most people carry, but again, it's not the governments responsibility to provide it, at all. As far as the market reforms you mentioned, again, I fully concur.

One point of correction is in order though, I am far from being "young". I'm in my early 50's, and fully self insured. When I go to the doctor, I pay cash. When I paid for the emergency surgeries, while I did pay for them on a payment schedule, that was only because cashing out investments and paying the penalties wouldn't have made good economic sense.

No, it may not be the government's responsibility to provide catastrophic insurance, but it would be a net benefit, at least I think it would. The public pays one way or another for people who find themselves sick or injured and in need of care they can't pay for. Unless we are willing to just let them die, the most efficient way to provide care is a through a catastrophic insurance package.

You pay cash for medical care?

How do you manage?

I get an "explanation of medical benefits" from the insurance company whenever I have any charges. Usually, the charges are at least two to three times the sum of what the insurance pays + what I have to pay out of pocket.

Do you really pay what the care providers bill?

My wife got a bill, or at least an EOMB, from the hospital for an angioplasty, a fairly simple medical test that took less than a day, and didn't involve an overnight stay in the hospital.

$17,000

Of course, the sum of what the insurance paid and we paid was less than that, but was still outrageous.

Had it been you, would you have really paid the 17 grand???

 

[Bob the Builder]

I've checked into self insurance plans for just ME...and the averages that I was coming up with were in the $500 - $700 a month fee (don't know, nor do I really care where the hell BOOB was pulling his figures out of his ***) but they were not the 'norm' for this area of the USA. I had the option to hang onto my COBRA plan from the school district and that was going to run me $590. a month with a prescription plan {no dental either} and by the time that they just recently chopped and cropped the 'What they'll pay & What they'll cover' list again...most everything that I use daily as holistic medicine wasn't going to be covered in the prescription plan nor the doctor visits either!!!

And I've really never had anything that has to be prescribed for me other then my occasional migraine meds, pain pills for arthritis/fibromyalgia...so my impact on the health care provider is really limited but I've been paying out the BUTT for coverage that I never use!!! So when all of those healthy people pay into their insurance provider $500. a month for 5 years...they are basically paying for the other 2-3% of the policies that are 'NOT' the healthy insured!

It all comes back to the 'haves paying for the have nots'...regardless of how SOME don't want to see it that way!!!

Yaddi, yaddi, ya, more crap for the animal 'lover'! If the best you came up with was $500-$700 a month, either you went with a zero deductible and no co-pays, or you don't know how to shop. Celtic Basic PPO 80/20 with a $5000 deductible quoted out at $195.61 a month. On the other hand, Coventry One has a PPO, 70/30 with no deductible for $495 a month, and United Health One has a $1,250 deductible, zero co-insurance, for $650 a month, which is apparantly what you were looking at, which tells me that you're only interested in looking for excuses to whine about who "expensive" insurance is because you don't want to have to pay any deductibles.

You're not even intellectually honest enough to present an decent rebuttal.

 

[PLC1]

Yaddi, yaddi, ya, more crap for the animal 'lover'! If the best you came up with was $500-$700 a month, either you went with a zero deductible and no co-pays, or you don't know how to shop. Celtic Basic PPO 80/20 with a $5000 deductible quoted out at $195.61 a month. On the other hand, Coventry One has a PPO, 70/30 with no deductible for $495 a month, and United Health One has a $1,250 deductible, zero co-insurance, for $650 a month, which is apparantly what you were looking at, which tells me that you're only interested in looking for excuses to whine about who "expensive" insurance is because you don't want to have to pay any deductibles.

You're not even intellectually honest enough to present an decent rebuttal.

Does "80/20" mean you have to pay 20% of all charges?

Let's see:

The yahoo with no insurance crosses the yellow line, and you wind up in intensive care for $100,000 a day for three days.

A couple hours of surgery: $100,000

Three days more in the hospital: $50,000

Medication: another $3,000

Physical therapy and rehab: Three months at $5,000 per week or $60,000

Another $50,00 in miscellaneous expenses, and the total comes to $563,000, of which you pay 20%, or just over $112 grand.

Meanwhile, you lose your job because you can't work for a couple of months.

Tell us once again just how affordable health care is.

 

[Bob the Builder]

No, it may not be the government's responsibility to provide catastrophic insurance, but it would be a net benefit, at least I think it would. The public pays one way or another for people who find themselves sick or injured and in need of care they can't pay for. Unless we are willing to just let them die, the most efficient way to provide care is a through a catastrophic insurance package.

Here's my whole issue PLC1, if We The People really want the government to pay for ANY aspect of our health care, then We The People need to avail ourselves of the proper means of doing so, but invoking Article 5 of the US Constitution, and adopting an amendment authorizing it, but until such time as such an amendment is passed, it is completely unconstitutional on it's face, just like so many other things that the government is spending our money on. If you would, kindly direct me to the exact clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution where "health insurance" is addressed. If it's not there, Congress may not spend our money on it.

As far as being willing to let them die, I hate to sound "cold hearted", but if you really believe in Liberty, then you must be willing to step over the bodies of those who chose not to take care of themselves. If you want to help them, that is your choice, and it's one of the things that most of the groups I belong to spend a lot of our time, money, and resources doing, but it simply is NOT the federal governments responsibility, it's not their right, and it's not their duty to do so. At the most, it's an issue for the States to deal with, but more appropriately, it's something that each community should be doing for their own neighbors and fellow citizens. Frankly, I prefer the solution that Thomas Jefferson used in Virginia in the early days of our country, but actually expecting people to work in exchange for their room and board these days is considered by most on the left to be "cruel and unusual treatment"

You pay cash for medical care?

How do you manage?

I make an appointment with my doctor for my regular physical exams, and I pay him cash. If I have to have something special done, I pay him cash, or make a payment arrangement, just as I've done for the past 25 years. To be honest, I think he gives me a "cut rate" for paying cash since his office staff doesn't have to spend so much time dealing with damned insurance companies, filling out claims forms, and waiting to get paid. I don't know what your insurance company pays, but my regular annual office visit for a complete physical, including an EKG is $250. My wife's is about $350, but that's only because of the "female issues" above and beyond, so that's another whopping $600 a year, or $50 a month.

I get an "explanation of medical benefits" from the insurance company whenever I have any charges. Usually, the charges are at least two to three times the sum of what the insurance pays + what I have to pay out of pocket.

Do you really pay what the care providers bill?

My wife got a bill, or at least an EOMB, from the hospital for an angioplasty, a fairly simple medical test that took less than a day, and didn't involve an overnight stay in the hospital.

$17,000

Of course, the sum of what the insurance paid and we paid was less than that, but was still outrageous.

Had it been you, would you have really paid the 17 grand???

When my wife had to have an emergency gall bladder surgery about 14 years ago, it was over $25,000, so I set up a payment schedule, put in a lot of overtime, stocked grocery store shelves at night, even mowed yards on the weekend for extra cash and paid them at least $500 a month (more when I could) until it was paid off. As I recall, it took about 3 1/2 years, but that was the end of it. We had to get rid of the cable, lots of Hamburger Helper instead of steaks, had to keep the old car and truck instead of being able to get the newer models, ran regular instead of high test, wore sweaters in the winter to save on the heating bill and used fans in the summer instead of running the A/C, and whatever else it took to get it done, but that's just the way I was raised.

Now, if I had been carrying insurance on both my wife and myself (and our kids when they were still at home), it would have cost well over $700 a month for even the most basic coverage, with an incredibly high deductible, for more than 25 years. That's over $200,000.00 in insurance premiums. I didn't carry insurance, and invested the money instead, so now I can afford to pay cash when I go to the doctor, and even if there was a catastrophic situation, I'm covered.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Does "80/20" mean you have to pay 20% of all charges?

Let's see:

The yahoo with no insurance crosses the yellow line, <yaddi, yaddi, yaddi>

The last time I checked, there were just over 300 million people in America. Exactly how many times has your mythical situation happened in any given year?

If the a-hole doesn't have insurance, you SUE HIM, and take everything he currently, or ever will have, just like they did with OJ. Every time he gets $5 in his pocket, you walk up and take it.

Now, I don't know about where you live, but our local hospital has a fund for just those situations (which one of the groups I belong to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to every year). It's just for people who are in a dire situation, through no fault of their own (like your a-hole uninsured drunk), so that they're not bankrupted because of someone elses irresponsibility.

LATE EDIT:

Forgot to add one thing PLC, if you are hit by your a-hole uninsured drunk driver, your own automobile insurance will take care of your medical bills, which is why I'm a strong advocate of having full coverage. If you're too cheap to buy full coverage, you're asking to get stuck with some very high bills if you are hit, and you deserve what you get.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Mare, you're the one that brought up the CDC, and have demonstrated that you don't have the first clue what they do. They are not a hospital, or a healthcare provider, they investigate and look for cures for diseases, especially the particularly nasty ones, like Ebola.

As far as you not talking to me, that's your decision, and no great loss for me, but given your egregious lack of knowledge of pertainant data, you might want to pay attention and quit talking about things you obviously know nothing about.

Well lets see...if you keep telling everyone {except your little troll buddy} that you don't care/or want to discuss things with them because they lack {hmm whats that word ???} pertainant data {yes, that word, you can't spell it correctly} but you think you hold all of the pertinent data and only you have the pertinent information and only you have the all knowing ability to solve the health care dilemma...RIGHT!!!

So answer this question...WHY DO YOU COME HERE TO A COMMUNITY FORUM AND POST???

Ok, now, I'm waiting...tapping my foot waiting for your little troll buddy to follow me here and jump into the fray and come to your protection because you will need her assistance!!! LMAO

 

[PLC1]

Here's my whole issue PLC1, if We The People really want the government to pay for ANY aspect of our health care, then We The People need to avail ourselves of the proper means of doing so, but invoking Article 5 of the US Constitution, and adopting an amendment authorizing it, but until such time as such an amendment is passed, it is completely unconstitutional on it's face, just like so many other things that the government is spending our money on. If you would, kindly direct me to the exact clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution where "health insurance" is addressed. If it's not there, Congress may not spend our money on it.

The federal government does a whole lot of things that aren't covered in the Constitution.

You do have a good point, of course, that health care is not specifically covered. We might be better off to have the states provide a catastrophic care insurance, so we don't have to step over bodies as you suggest below. That way, we'd have not just one, but fifty different plans, and have a chance to compare them and see which ones work the best. Not only that, but the Constitution would not have to be amended.

Of course, if we were to do that, then I'd like to see the feds give up all of the extra Constitutional programs they have undertaken, wouldn't you?

You do realize that all of the above is an impossible dream anyway, don't you?

As far as being willing to let them die, I hate to sound "cold hearted", but if you really believe in Liberty, then you must be willing to step over the bodies of those who chose not to take care of themselves. If you want to help them, that is your choice, and it's one of the things that most of the groups I belong to spend a lot of our time, money, and resources doing, but it simply is NOT the federal governments responsibility, it's not their right, and it's not their duty to do so. At the most, it's an issue for the States to deal with, but more appropriately, it's something that each community should be doing for their own neighbors and fellow citizens. Frankly, I prefer the solution that Thomas Jefferson used in Virginia in the early days of our country, but actually expecting people to work in exchange for their room and board these days is considered by most on the left to be "cruel and unusual treatment"

As I said, it may not be the government's responsibility, but it is the most efficient way to deal with the problem of indigent medical care, as well as medical bankruptcies.

There aren't enough people willing to step over bodies to allow us to simply let people die because they weren't provident enough to have planned for medical emergencies, nor are charitable institutions going to be able to solve the problem

Currently, we are spending in the neighborhood of 17% of our GDP on medical care. That is nearly as much as the entire federal bureaucracy costs.

What we need to do is streamline the system and make it more efficient. What we have now is simply not affordable in the long term.

I make an appointment with my doctor for my regular physical exams, and I pay him cash. If I have to have something special done, I pay him cash, or make a payment arrangement, just as I've done for the past 25 years. To be honest, I think he gives me a "cut rate" for paying cash since his office staff doesn't have to spend so much time dealing with damned insurance companies, filling out claims forms, and waiting to get paid. I don't know what your insurance company pays, but my regular annual office visit for a complete physical, including an EKG is $250. My wife's is about $350, but that's only because of the "female issues" above and beyond, so that's another whopping $600 a year, or $50 a month.



When my wife had to have an emergency gall bladder surgery about 14 years ago, it was over $25,000, so I set up a payment schedule, put in a lot of overtime, stocked grocery store shelves at night, even mowed yards on the weekend for extra cash and paid them at least $500 a month (more when I could) until it was paid off. As I recall, it took about 3 1/2 years, but that was the end of it. We had to get rid of the cable, lots of Hamburger Helper instead of steaks, had to keep the old car and truck instead of being able to get the newer models, ran regular instead of high test, wore sweaters in the winter to save on the heating bill and used fans in the summer instead of running the A/C, and whatever else it took to get it done, but that's just the way I was raised.

Now, if I had been carrying insurance on both my wife and myself (and our kids when they were still at home), it would have cost well over $700 a month for even the most basic coverage, with an incredibly high deductible, for more than 25 years. That's over $200,000.00 in insurance premiums. I didn't carry insurance, and invested the money instead, so now I can afford to pay cash when I go to the doctor, and even if there was a catastrophic situation, I'm covered.

If gall bladder surgery, which is relatively minor, cost $25 grand fourteen years ago, it would probably be double that now. Open heart surgery could easily cost a half of a million, and a major accident could run the same. Are you sure you are really ready for a medical catastrophe?

From what you have told me, I'm afraid you might be faced with the choice of simply dying, or allowing your wife to die, or leaning on the taxpayers to pay your bills.

I'm pretty sure that most of us would swallow our pride and lean on the government in such a situation. Maybe you're different.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Yaddi, yaddi, ya, more crap for the animal 'lover'! If the best you came up with was $500-$700 a month, either you went with a zero deductible and no co-pays, or you don't know how to shop. Celtic Basic PPO 80/20 with a $5000 deductible quoted out at $195.61 a month. On the other hand, Coventry One has a PPO, 70/30 with no deductible for $495 a month, and United Health One has a $1,250 deductible, zero co-insurance, for $650 a month, which is apparantly what you were looking at, which tells me that you're only interested in looking for excuses to whine about who "expensive" insurance is because you don't want to have to pay any deductibles.

You're not even intellectually honest enough to present an decent rebuttal.

You don't live in America do YOU???

I've worked for corporations that I have been part of the "TEAM" that have researched the best HMO/PPO that our money could buy for our employees, so I was able to utilize those very same said providers when I went in search for my personal coverage!!! But with your caustic/vitriolic attitude you would still find fault with my figures/numbers but I KNOW my figures/numbers and you just talk 'SMAK' and don't know **** from shinola about this topic and your so quick to anger about people challenging you with those points is just so evident. Frustration and anger walk hand in hand when you have been proven to be wrong!

 

[Bob the Builder]

The federal government does a whole lot of things that aren't covered in the Constitution.

Yup, they sure do, which is why 36 States either have, or are in the process of, passing 10th Amendment legislation, to compel the fed to abide by the Constitution, and have already put the Congress on notice that if they continue the way that they have been, that they will call a Con-con, and amend the Constitution specifically binding Congress to the 17 specifically listed areas of Article 1 Section 8 (or elsewhere as specifically listed) and nothing more.

You do have a good point, of course, that health care is not specifically covered. We might be better off to have the states provide a catastrophic care insurance, so we don't have to step over bodies as you suggest below. That way, we'd have not just one, but fifty different plans, and have a chance to compare them and see which ones work the best. Not only that, but the Constitution would not have to be amended.

Of course, if we were to do that, then I'd like to see the feds give up all of the extra Constitutional programs they have undertaken, wouldn't you?

You do realize that all of the above is an impossible dream anyway, don't you?

I agree that this is an issue that falls within the purview of the States, and not the federal government, and being able to shop from among many different plans would be a vast improvement over what we have now, competition in the marketplace and all that, but at the same time I'm not convinced that the various State governments can do any better than where we are now. I really do feel that tort reform, kicking illegals to the curb, and going after hospitals and doctors that engage in "price gouging" is the best way to handle it. There are entirely too many doctors who only charge what they do because of the incredibly high malpractice policies that they're required to carry. Another area that I think would help is for all of the States to adopt "loser pays" laws when it comes to lawsuits.

As far as it being an "impossible dream", all I'll say to that is, we'll see what happens with the 10th Amendment legislation that's being worked on. If it passes, Congress will have no choice but to limit themselves once and for all.

As I said, it may not be the government's responsibility, but it is the most efficient way to deal with the problem of indigent medical care, as well as medical bankruptcies.

There aren't enough people willing to step over bodies to allow us to simply let people die because they weren't provident enough to have planned for medical emergencies, nor are charitable institutions going to be able to solve the problem

Currently, we are spending in the neighborhood of 17% of our GDP on medical care. That is nearly as much as the entire federal bureaucracy costs.

What we need to do is streamline the system and make it more efficient. What we have now is simply not affordable in the long term.

I really have a serious problem believing that the government can run anything efficiently. In fact, I can't name a single government agency that is the paragon of efficiency, can you? While I agree that there is a lot of work to be done, I keep coming back to a very old addage "if government is the answer, it's got to be a REALLY stupid question"!

As far as our spending 17% of our GDP on healthcare, a major chunk of that is due to the baby boomers and geriatric care, which will be on the decline in another 10 or 15 years, so do we really want to throw our hands in the air and give up when we're so close to being done with it? Another area is illegals, and I think we all know how to handle that. Then there's the sickly, weak-willed, mamma's boys (and girls) who run to the doctor every time they get the sniffles. Frankly, if you're not running a 101' fever and you go to the doctor, they ought to charge you quadruple for wasting their time and making everyone else wait for your silly a$$!

If gall bladder surgery, which is relatively minor, cost $25 grand fourteen years ago, it would probably be double that now. Open heart surgery could easily cost a half of a million, and a major accident could run the same. Are you sure you are really ready for a medical catastrophe?

From what you have told me, I'm afraid you might be faced with the choice of simply dying, or allowing your wife to die, or leaning on the taxpayers to pay your bills.

I'm pretty sure that most of us would swallow our pride and lean on the government in such a situation. Maybe you're different.

I am different. First of all, if I really had to, I could put my hands on just over a million. I'd have to collateralize all of my investments, land, and everything else I own and have spent a lifetime working for, but it can be done. I know that most people aren't in that situation, which is why I've made it clear from the beginning that I'm NOT the "average guy", but I'm in the situation that I am because I sacrificed, lived modestly, worked my butt off, and saved instead of trying to "keep up with the Jones's", just like my parents and grandparents taught me to do because of what they learned living through the REAL depression. The fact of the matter is that most people today fall into two catagories, they either fell into the trap that FDR set up for them, or they've spent their lives avoiding it like the plague, and trying to warn everyone they know about the pitfalls that await them when they become dependent on the government.

Oh, and one other thing, if, God forbid, I was to come down with some catastrophic disease, I would rather die than to leave my wife bankrupt and destitute. I saw a cousin of mine go through that, and he literally bankrupted his family, and left them in debt for more than a decade after he died, all because he wasn't man enough to have the clarity of thought to realize that there was no chance in Hell that he was going to make it, so he kept grasping at every straw that the doctors threw out there at him, and the only thing that happened was that his doctor got to buy a bigger house, a nicer car, and a boat, while my cousins wife wound up bankrupt, living in a trailer, and driving a 15 year old beater, and she STILL curses him almost every day.

I guess it all boils down to one simple concept with me, you're either a man (woman), or you're a child. If you're a man, you take responsibility for yourself and your family, and you do that without running around with your hand out looking for a "free ride". If you don't, and you do run around looking for a hand out, looking to the government to take care of things for you, looking for someone to bail you out every time you get in a scrape, then you're nothing but an overgrown child, and it's LONG past time that you grew up!

 

[Bob the Builder]

You don't live in America do YOU???

I've worked for corporations that I have been part of the "TEAM" that have researched the best HMO/PPO that our money could buy for our employees, so I was able to utilize those very same said providers when I went in search for my personal coverage!!! But with your caustic/vitriolic attitude you would still find fault with my figures/numbers but I KNOW my figures/numbers and you just talk 'SMAK' and don't know **** from shinola about this topic and your so quick to anger about people challenging you with those points is just so evident. Frustration and anger walk hand in hand when you have been proven to be wrong!

Yup, sure do, and the only one that's getting "angry" here is you. As for myself, every time I read one of your posts, it's everything that I can do to keep from peeing my pants I'm laughing so hard!!

Your "team" obviously doesn't know DICK about researching the best HMO/PPO policies, otherwise they'd have found the ones that I did with a 2 minute web search, now, why don't you get back to your animals little girl, and leave intelligent discussions to the adults.

 

[Stormsmith]

by what right does the government take a huge chunk out of my meager paycheck to pay for healthcare: Bob the Builder

First of all, if I really had to, I could put my hands on just over a million. Bob the Builder

Bob, it sounds to me that you have lived a financially wise life, but I wonder how many kids today, freshly married, could afford a home, a child (and the med bills) and still find $500-$700 month to invest for their medical coverage, 25 years down the road.

Like you, I have a good home, investments etc, but unlike you, I'd rather not treat it like the ante up at a stud poker table. To me, medical insurance is more than insurance for my health, its insurance for a quality of life.

Like you, I've been lucky that neither I nor my significantly better half have had any serious medical complaints, other than trauma from minor accidents etc. But now, at 55, we know that good health is hard work and a bit of a crap shoot.

I'm uncertain as to why so many people worry about universal health care. Even today, you're paying for yourself, and chipping in for a lot of other people. A city of any size has more than one hospital, most of whom are competing for clients, and therefore offer a pretty full slate of services. There is a lot of redundency in this arrangement. Some doctors command pretty high fees, hopefully because they are particularly talented, but sometimes its the stonkingly massive overhead from super posh offices, equipment they don't use and of course mal practise insurance. And of course, private hospitals are profit driven, which is the number one reason why post operative complications leading to death result from unhygenic practises at the hospital.

Universal health care streamlines the system. In addition to reducing redundancy, hospitals would have a hard time billing $5 for a 5¢ syringe needle. Doctors as a collective, or pharmacuetical companies negotiate fees or contracts with the government, whether that's fed or state, to the advantage of the population being served. Overall, it is far more cost effective, and will provide you with good quality care.

Your complaint seems to centre on being forced to pay for people who won't help themselves. I'm pretty sure people on welfare etc are already covered, at least to some minimum standard, at your expense. I appreciate your position on self reliance, but for me, I don't mind paying the insurance just to ensure my home is safe, that I recieve health care in a timely fashion, and I don't mind chipping in for lower income people, including hard working young couples hoping to start a family, nor the elderly upon whose backs my country was built, after they came home from war.

I hope I don't come across as a holier than thou type, God knows that just ain't true, its simply how I look at enhancing society.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Universal health care streamlines the system. In addition to reducing redundancy, hospitals would have a hard time billing $5 for a 5¢ syringe needle. Doctors as a collective, or pharmacuetical companies negotiate fees or contracts with the government, whether that's fed or state, to the advantage of the population being served. Overall, it is far more cost effective, and will provide you with good quality care.

But therein lies the problem, universal healthcare doesn't "streamline" the system, unless you consider lowering the standards for everyone "streamlining". Look at the system in Canada, Great Britain, Germany, or any other country that has embraced universal "healthcare". The only thing universal about it is the long lines, crappy service (when you can get it), and people dying in the halls waiting for a simple procedure.

Your complaint seems to centre on being forced to pay for people who won't help themselves. I'm pretty sure people on welfare etc are already covered, at least to some minimum standard, at your expense. I appreciate your position on self reliance, but for me, I don't mind paying the insurance just to ensure my home is safe, that I recieve health care in a timely fashion, and I don't mind chipping in for lower income people, including hard working young couples hoping to start a family, nor the elderly upon whose backs my country was built, after they came home from war.

My "complain" is the fact that the government is exceeding it's authority by providing any healthcare, or any of the other "services", for anyone. As I said earlier, at the most, it's a State issue, at best, it's a local issue (city, township, whatever) to take care of their own. Veterans are already covered by the VA.

I hope I don't come across as a holier than thou type, God knows that just ain't true, its simply how I look at enhancing society.

Not at all, I simply don't believe that it's the federal governments job to "enhance" society. Their only job is to take care of the 17 specific areas authorized by the constitution, and to provide an environment whereby each and every one of us can stand an even chance to pursue happiness. Not to mandate it, not to provide it, just to give us all a chance to pursue it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Greetings Stormsmith and welcome to the HOP.

I'm uncertain as to why so many people worry about universal health care.

1. Its not the role of the Federal Government to provide healthcare.
2. It will be just as bankrupt and poorly administered as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
3. It will further erode our liberties as Americans are convinced we need to ban unhealthy products and punitively tax unhealthy behavior to bring HC costs under control.
4. It will result in HC rationing and a decline in the HC itself.
5. People with Healthcare Insurance will be taxed for having it, those without HCI will be taxed for not having it.

And of course, private hospitals are profit driven, which is the number one reason why post operative complications leading to death result from unhygenic practises at the hospital.

Blaming the profit motive for unhygienic conditions is absurd.

That's an actual photo of a cuban hospital, where there is no profit motive. Yes, that's doo-doo on the floor.

Here is a preview of what "Universal Healthcare", free of the profit motive, will deliver:

Sandy Karen was horrified when her 21-year-old son was discharged from the Naval Medical Center in San Diego a few months ago and told to report to the outpatient barracks, only to find the room swarming with fruit flies, trash overflowing and a syringe on the table. "The staff sergeant says, 'Here are your linens' to my son, who can't even stand up," said Karen, of Brookeville, Md. "This kid has an open wound, and I'm going to put him in a room with fruit flies?" She took her son to a hotel instead. -- Wa.Post

The profit motive provides competition, the hospitals and services that are not up to standards go out of business. Government anything, which doesn't operate on the profit motive, is subsidized by taxpayers and remains in business no matter how horrible the product or service is that they provide.

Universal health care streamlines the system. In addition to reducing redundancy, hospitals would have a hard time billing $5 for a 5¢ syringe needle.

There is simply no truth in either of those statements. Bureaucratic red tape doesn't "streamline" anything, although politicians are eager to sell you on such drivel because it expands their power over our lives.

As for the syringe analogy, its a result of cost shifting:

...American Medical Association made abundantly clear to Obama last week, doctors and hospitals would fight such a plan because they believe they would be underpaid. Insurers argue they could not possibly survive competition with such a powerful competitor, especially since doctors and hospitals would presumably try to compensate by charging private insurers more. (“Cost-shifting,’’ most health policy gurus agree, is already happening - Medicare and Medicaid underpay, so providers overcharge private plans, which drives up their premiums.) -- Boston Globe

A "public option" would spell the death of private insurance and usher in the age of a government monopoly over the healthcare industry.

I don't mind chipping in for lower income people, including hard working young couples hoping to start a family, nor the elderly upon whose backs my country was built, after they came home from war.

What's to stop you from creating a charity fund that helps the uninsured? You can chip in all you like, others can chip in their money too, and because its charity rather than a government program, nobody is forced to contribute.

 

[Stormsmith]

Bob and Gen:

I'll speak to yopur whole posts asap, but first a question:

Its not the role of the Federal Government to provide healthcare

My "complain" is the fact that the government is exceeding it's authority by providing any healthcare, or any of the other "services", for anyone

If the government is exceeding its reach by implementing a universal health care system, I wonder if you know why medicare, COBRA and medicaide etc have not be challenged in court as violating the constitution, or as not being part of the federal government's quarter?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That's an actual photo of a cuban hospital, where there is no profit motive. Yes, that's doo-doo on the floor.

....No doubt a result o' those "compassionate"-embargos.

​