HillaryCare- The Dark Side

[Alhamdulillah 0]

the problem is, they won't.......

It could be set up like taxes now, based on income or family size. If you have more people in your household then you'd be responsible for more in taxes or if you make more money then you'd be taxed at a higher rate. There are ways to work anything like this in a smart manner... it's just a matter of getting someone to actually do it without all the govt officials, who are owned and operated by the ins and pharm companies, from brainswashing us against it.

In other places, there are free hospitals and clinics that anyone can go to and it's all paid for by the govt but there are also private clinics that you can pay to go to if you don't like the others. That could be an option here as well.

The problem is that no one is really trying to make a plan that would be in the best interest of the people of this country and they haven't been for a long time. All the decisions that are made are in favor of large corporations and greedy rich people.

The last argument I heard against univeral healthcare was "do you really trust the govt to regulate your healthcare?" My response was, and is, if YOU don't trust the govt then change it.... that's why you have a vote.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

the problem is, they won't.......

It could be set up like taxes now, based on income or family size. If you have more people in your household then you'd be responsible for more in taxes or if you make more money then you'd be taxed at a higher rate. There are ways to work anything like this in a smart manner... it's just a matter of getting someone to actually do it without all the govt officials, who are owned and operated by the ins and pharm companies, from brainswashing us against it.

In other places, there are free hospitals and clinics that anyone can go to and it's all paid for by the govt but there are also private clinics that you can pay to go to if you don't like the others. That could be an option here as well.

The problem is that no one is really trying to make a plan that would be in the best interest of the people of this country and they haven't been for a long time. All the decisions that are made are in favor of large corporations and greedy rich people.

The last argument I heard against univeral healthcare was "do you really trust the govt to regulate your healthcare?" My response was, and is, if YOU don't trust the govt then change it.... that's why you have a vote.

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

i've already got goverment administered health care - it's an obstacle course of hurdles to jump for treatment.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

You should like that. Progressive taxation on an ational scale is just another way for high-income high-productivity states (CA, NY) to be leached off of by low-income low-productivity states (AR, KS).

[Empress of Groovy 373]

When the average yearly health insurance premium for a family of four exceeds minimum wage, something is seriously amiss. The inefficient, inequitable way that that health care is financed in the U.S. is alarming and unsustainable. It's a multifaceted problem to be sure, but the revered "private market" has had plenty of time, at the expense of many, to come up with a solution. It's only become worse than anyone could have imagined. Why so many people in the U.S. dismiss some type of basic care for all as the first step toward communism is beyond me.

There's a reason that not one other industrialized country has a significant movement toward a U.S.-style system. It's a mess. I know that other countries have their problems, but many of us with spouses from these countries have seen firsthand the well equipped hospitals and excellent free care received. My father-in-law was on dialysis for three years and received a kidney transplant last year in the UK. He's been going to doctors at least one a week for months on end and has a drawer full of medications. He has received top notch care, and not once has he had to worry about the cost, or something not being covered, or a gigantic bill showing up in the mail. All his care was provided by the NHS. Even with a good plan in the U.S., he would have had copayments up the yin yang.

As my (English) husband says, who is in disbelief about how people here are forced to let health insurance access run their lives--is it not one of the first concerns when leaving a job?--"tax me, I don't care, just make it so I don't have to think about it." Indeed.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

So? What's wrong with those who are better off, helping those who are not as fortunate? Are we really so self centered as a society that we see it as a bad thing to help those who have less than us?

Perhaps, if it wasn't so expensive to get a college education, more people would be able to get out of low paying jobs and would then be able to contribute more themselves.

i've already got goverment administered health care - it's an obstacle course of hurdles to jump for treatment.

The point is, Charles, that it doesn't have to be but no one really cares to implement a working system.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Between my employer and me, healthcare premiums for my family of three exceeds 12K p.a. There's got to be a better solution out there. This virus of a red-tape laden, wasteful and solely profit oriented private system we keep alive here cannot be the answer.

ETA: As to the subtitle of this thread, one might want to remember that nobody is skilled in squandering our money like the administration we had over the past 7 years.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

You should like that. Progressive taxation on an ational scale is just another way for high-income high-productivity states (CA, NY) to be leached off of by low-income low-productivity states (AR, KS).

and what if i'm at the upper end of income in ks?

i think i support enough crack ho's as it is, ty very much.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Perhaps, if it wasn't so expensive to get a college education, more people would be able to get out of low paying jobs and would then be able to contribute more themselves.

This is Off Topic, but I disagree. Just because there are more college graduates won't mean there will be more jobs for them. A functioning economy will still need people for lower-skill (and therefore lower pay) jobs/

[Empress of Groovy 373]

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

i've already got goverment administered health care - it's an obstacle course of hurdles to jump for treatment.

Dealing with a private insurance company can be an obstacle course too. In fact, even getting insurance if you've been sick in the past is a nightmare.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

You should like that. Progressive taxation on an ational scale is just another way for high-income high-productivity states (CA, NY) to be leached off of by low-income low-productivity states (AR, KS).

and what if i'm at the upper end of income in ks?

i think i support enough crack ho's as it is, ty very much.

If you're upper end in ks, that proves my point. KS is dirt poor.

eta: If IT makes you upper end, that's not a good sign for the kansan economy

Edited January 29, 2008 by VJ Troll

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

You should like that. Progressive taxation on an ational scale is just another way for high-income high-productivity states (CA, NY) to be leached off of by low-income low-productivity states (AR, KS).

and what if i'm at the upper end of income in ks?

i think i support enough crack ho's as it is, ty very much.

If you're upper end in ks, that proves my point. KS is dirt poor.

eta: If IT makes you upper end, that's not a good sign for the kansan economy

actually, i'm classified now as technical services instead of it

i'm guessing on the upper end though in wages, taking into account the average in the county.

[kaydee457 13]

Between my employer and me, healthcare premiums for my family of three exceeds 12K p.a. There's got to be a better solution out there. This virus of a red-tape laden, wasteful and solely profit oriented private system we keep alive here cannot be the answer.

ETA: As to the subtitle of this thread, one might want to remember that nobody is skilled in squandering our money like the administration we had over the past 7 years.

Really, we'll see if that remains true if the improbable happens and HillBilly is elected........

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

You should like that. Progressive taxation on an ational scale is just another way for high-income high-productivity states (CA, NY) to be leached off of by low-income low-productivity states (AR, KS).

and what if i'm at the upper end of income in ks?

i think i support enough crack ho's as it is, ty very much.

If you're upper end in ks, that proves my point. KS is dirt poor.

eta: If IT makes you upper end, that's not a good sign for the kansan economy

actually, i'm classified now as technical services instead of it

i'm guessing on the upper end though in wages, taking into account the average in the county.

I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is there are pockets in this country where nominal wages are much higher than the national average. A progressive tax system disadvantages them the most, to the advantage of the rest of the country. Kansas benefits from it.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Perhaps, if it wasn't so expensive to get a college education, more people would be able to get out of low paying jobs and would then be able to contribute more themselves.

This is Off Topic, but I disagree. Just because there are more college graduates won't mean there will be more jobs for them. A functioning economy will still need people for lower-skill (and therefore lower pay) jobs/

You have a point. Not everyone can be rich.

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

i've already got goverment administered health care - it's an obstacle course of hurdles to jump for treatment.

Dealing with a private insurance company can be an obstacle course too. In fact, even getting insurance if you've been sick in the past is a nightmare.

That's the truth! It's ridiculous having a health ins agent/worker tell your DOCTOR that they won't pay for a certain procedure because they don't deem it medically necessary.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Perhaps, if it wasn't so expensive to get a college education, more people would be able to get out of low paying jobs and would then be able to contribute more themselves.

This is Off Topic, but I disagree. Just because there are more college graduates won't mean there will be more jobs for them. A functioning economy will still need people for lower-skill (and therefore lower pay) jobs/

You have a point. Not everyone can be rich.

The rich require an abundant supply of the poor.

I think Joe Pesci said that. Or maybe it was Voltaire.