|
|
| Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better (465955) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 23 19:01:44 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Jun 23 18:08:24 2009. You made that up. None of those findings are factual at all, and none of those are from a real survey.Guess that you didn't read the polls run by Wall Street Journal, and by the New York Times. 30% is bullshit I can only aspire to reach the percentage set by you, the master in these parts of such. Look, I like a civil debate. I don't like name calling. If you don't want to engage in it, just don't. Plenty of other stuff here amenable to the usual shtick. It's only too high in NY and the states that have the most regulations. It is indeed expensive in New York. You have no evidence, like anyone here. You just have conclusions with no stated problems. Because when somethings expensive, I think of the gov't to solve it. I am not sure why you are attacking what I posted. I am not in favor of either the President's plan or bipartisan compromise bill. For the reasons that I gave, I don't believe that either plan will succeed in passage. I stand by my points that the cost of healthcare insurance is too high, and that we must first address why this is before launching into the issues now under consideration in DC. If you think that healthcare is affordable, good for you. Most of the country disagrees with you, whether it's deducted from their paychecks, whether they are self-employed and have to buy their own, whether they just can't afford it and also afford life's most pressing needs like food and shelter, or whether they paid all their lives to get into it after they become senior citizens. So perhaps it was a bit complicated for you to follow, so I will help for anyone who has a short-term memory problem, I think that we will first have to address health insurance costs, which means addressing the consensus points 1A [costs too high] and 2A [private insurance administrative overhead too high]. The Democrats' plan attempts to do so via dropping 2B [no penalty for not carrying health insurance] and 4B [private health insurance benefits ought not to be taxed], but in my view this makes their plan politically DOA unless they can show that costs really will decrease substantially. I have not seen that demonstration. I think that the bipartisan compromise bill, the so-called Wyden-Bennett bill (Healthy Americans Act) is also a political non-starter unless it makes a similar demonstration since it also contradicts 2B and 4B; for the uninitiated, it also contradicts 2A [a government sponsored healthcare plan or plans should be offered], which is the main difference with the Democrats' plan. For my own part, I think we should table efforts to reach universal coverage for now, as it's simply too expensive whether via either the state or the private sector. We ought to instead focus on helping those who can afford health insurance have it eat up less of their income and wealth, likely through reform of taxation. I think that health savings accounts (HSAs) are a decent idea, just that they're too puny to deal with the cost of health insurance under present law. In terms of controlling overhead in private insurance plans, that is a more difficult problem. Regulatory reforms may be necessary. Possibly the state should invest in installing more competitive entities in those parts of the country where overhead is a problem that can't be solved by less drastic or intrusive means. Finally, perhaps insurance isn't for everyone. There are a lot of financial wizards out there, some of them now unemployed. Perhaps the present health insurance product for everyone paradigm is incorrect. Maybe people could post bonds in lieu of purchasing catastrophic coverage and those could be traded. Anyway much of it is beyond my ken, but it seems correct to me that the same basic kind of health insurance for everyone is not a good idea, although it is now the one pursued. |
|
|
|