Universal Health Care

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Wouldn't there be a higher tax revenue to offset the expense? Didn't I hear someone say that Obama wants to through 1 trillion dollars at the issue?

Indeed, Obama did say that. But again things are more complicated than they look. Yes, a universal system would require at least 1 trillion dollars start. But remember, as we speak there are different Federal Programs providing some form of assistance with health care to various people groups. For example you have Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, funding blocks for state programs, etc. The first step is to bring all of those programs and their funds under one umbrella program. So in a real sense a good portion of the 1 trillion dollars needed for the program is already in the budget, it’s just broke up over a myriad of different programs right now. They will do this because with a universal health insurance system there’s no need for SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans health care programs, etc. There would be a single all encompassing program. Estimates are that when all of these Federal monies are brought under the universal health insurance program umbrella a good portion (some estimates show as much as 50% to 60%) of the 1 trillion dollar budget would be in place. The remainder would be funded primarily by repealing the Bush tax cuts on only the top 2% of those who received them and according to Obama, “don’t need them, and didn’t ask for them.” I personally believe that there will also be a nominal tax increase, but it may not directly touch the middle class.

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Indeed, Obama did say that. But again things are more complicated than they look. Yes, a universal system would require at least 1 trillion dollars start. But remember, as we speak there are different Federal Programs providing some form of assistance with health care to various people groups. For example you have Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, funding blocks for state programs, etc. The first step is to bring all of those programs and their funds under one umbrella program. So in a real sense a good portion of the 1 trillion dollars needed for the program is already in the budget, it’s just broke up over a myriad of different programs right now. They will do this because with a universal health insurance system there’s no need for SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans health care programs, etc. There would be a single all encompassing program. Estimates are that when all of these Federal monies are brought under the universal health insurance program umbrella a good portion (some estimates show as much as 50% to 60%) of the 1 trillion dollar budget would be in place. The remainder would be funded primarily by repealing the Bush tax cuts on only the top 2% of those who received them and according to Obama, “don’t need them, and didn’t ask for them.” I personally believe that there will also be a nominal tax increase, but it may not directly touch the middle class.

Could you send me your credit card numbers,billing address, expiration dates and pin numbers, I have some dental work I need done and I would like to put it on your card.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

I think it was an unjust war from the beginning. But pragmatically, I don't think that even by 'winning' the war people will change when we pull out. I know many hope for a 'democracy' similar to Saudi Arabia.....but I can't see that happening.

I'm on your side on this topic at hand but again like I told Bro. Ron, the Iraqi war has many views, but the only right one is from within the country.

WMD's ? Nope. Nukes? Nope. Terrorist? Nope. So why did we go? Ohhh yeah! Biological weapons Sadam was using on his own people. Mass graves of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. A dictator that picked women off the street to play with in his rape-room. Thousands of dollars given to Palastinian terror groups to blow up civilians in Israel. Come on people, did we do it right? No. Should we be doing it? Yes. Bush offered twice the troops when we first went in and the commanders on the ground said "we don't need that many" They should have took the offer. We did not have enough troops to secure what we were occupying. And yes we are now the police until the Iraqi government can provide it's own. Front Page says 5 died today. Yet I have to "literally" dig through Yahoo,MSN, to find the story about the orphanage we raided were we found hundreds of children bound, naked and sexually abused by insurgents. Or the stories of the schools and hospitals "we" are building. (We is emphasized due to me being a member of the US Navy Seabees Construction Battalion)Troops playing with children or feeding the poor. Look, Bush is not the best we have had. But he is the best there was to choose from. He did not come into office knowing 9/11 was going to happen or knowing some rogue dictator was going to build nukes to "wipe a country off the face of the map". He came into office to lower taxes and build the economy which he did, and quite well I might add,. It offends me for you people to sit over here and say " its all for nothing". This website could not hold the stories of thankful Iraqi's I could talk about. I will gladly pick up my weapon again and go share a candy bar with an Iraqi child or knock some more doors down, kill 2 or 3 armed thugs and pull the woman from the back room, bleeding from between the legs, and carry her to a waiting ambulance. If that were your sister you might see things differently. If it were your mother going to the grocery store one day just to be taken off the street by the president of this country and raped for days at a time then maybe you would be the one praying everynight for someone, anyone, to come take the nightmare away. But instead you wake up every morning wondering what flavor latte you will have, while they wake every morning wondering which family member they will bury today. For the most part this war has no effect on your lives whatsoever.

The economy is good, the market is strong and the illegal immigrants are still a pain in the butt, but I get up to a sunrise, wake and have breakfast with my daughter before taking her to school and kiss my wife good morning. WHY? Because I killed some people over there that don't want me to have this. One day I will go back again and I might take a bullet this time, but I do so knowing it's because I want my family and all of you to go on enjoying the above. You want to open a forum about the war?, open it to troops and the citizens of Iraq, those who are effected by it. As for the rest of you, open a forum to gripe about the price of a latte, I've given you the right and freedom to that.

Lets not make this a thread on the war, most of you are not qualified to post.

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by Ron

The US has 1.4 Trillion Dollars to throw at a war it ain't winning.

1.4 trillion total over entire war as opposed to 1 trillion per year and growing.

You would have to define "winning".

I think it is winning.

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Ah, but again…what’s the alternative? No government schools? In Dayton Ohio the government schools did terribly. But the chartered private schools fared worse! LOL So you’re advocating what? Again all I can see in what you said is that you’re against having government schools for those who cannot afford to go to private schools. And most of the private schools would begin to experience a world of hurt if we began shipping all these students into them. You’d dissolve the public schools system causing tens of thousands of kids to not even have a chance? I see millions of kids all over the country wondering the streets without an education. That’s what I see in my mind’s eye as I read your words above. What’s the alternative? Why did so many of our founders believe in a public education?

Which of our founders believed in a government provided public education?

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by embonpoint

Which of our founders believed in a government provided public education?

Many times it was provided by the local pastor. The great Jonathan Edwards' father was a school teacher/pastor.

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

No. We have programs in place that would be combined into the universal health insurance system. For example Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, OPM (and sub programs), Veterans Health Care System, etc. would all be combined into a universal insurance program. Initially this is estimated to provide over 60% of the costs necessary for the universal health insurance system. This minimizes the increase in taxation greatly. The overall coverage would allow doctors to be paid (whereas right now they take a loss passed down to you in costs and premiums). When the doctors are actually paid, the loss will not be passed to you, thereby reducing health care costs for both doctors and patients and lowering your premiums. In addition the government will negotiate prescription drug costs with drug companies reducing your costs even more. As stated above this would eliminate our high deductibles and copays. The increase in taxes would be less than what you’re now paying in rising premiums, deductibles, and copays. You’d make money by accepting the tax increase and eliminating rising premiums, deductibles, and copays. Yes…by accepting the tax increase…you bring home more of your own money. And guess what….this money would go back into the economy and boost the economy over all. Businesses would also no longer face being gouged by rising premiums. As with Canadian and French businesses, it frees them to do more business and less healthcare cost management and provision. It would remove the redundant clerical nightmare of the corporate bureaucracy with a single national electronic records system. This accounts for over 30% of present health care costs. Thus boosting the coverage power of the system itself. You’d come out keeping more of your money, business would be liberated and pay less in taxes than rising premiums, and the economy would see a boost because individuals would have more spending power.



I wouldn’t call what we have now a “budget”. LOL

I hope that helps you understand my position better and answers your questions. Again, don’t just argue against the SOMETHING we are considering doing. Offer REALISTIC and VIABLE alternatives and explain how they would work.

God bless.

You argue for government efficiency and management in one breath and then mock it in the next.

Which is it???

You advocate an additional 1/2 trillion dollars per year (your figures) be put in to the hands of those who can't budget what they have now?

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Many times it was provided by the local pastor. The great Jonathan Edwards' father was a school teacher/pastor.

Exaxtly, they obviously believed in education and were intelligent and articulate, however, I do not recall their advocating state run education.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by embonpoint

Exaxtly, they obviously believed in education and were intelligent and articulate, however, I do not recall their advocating state run education.

In many ways they were our superiors.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by scotty

Love you Bro. Ron , really do. But with all due respect, if you haven't been there then you have no right to go there. There are places here the government needs to be helping our own, I will admit that. But if you stand for UHC...you would truley love what we are doing over there.

Originally Posted by scotty

I'm on your side on this topic at hand but again like I told Bro. Ron, the Iraqi war has many views, but the only right one is from within the country.
]Lets not make this a thread on the war, most of you are not qualified to post.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/B]

Not qualified to post?

What qualifies oneself?

When they agree 100% with you?

I got no qualms with the military. My family has a long history on both sides of being involved both in the Air Force & Army.
Canada has troops in Afghanistan, almost every other day there is news of soldiers either being hurt or being killed.

In fact there is a debate in Parliament right mow about us willing to stay longer if other Nato countries getting involved-militarily.

What qualifications does one need?

You guys in the US getting rid of your Colonial Status from Great Britain-good on you.

How does the rest of the world view you going into the Middle East?
As just another oppressor-period.

You guys may feel you are the World's cop, but that doesn't make it so.