72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[Barb]

I'm sorry to hear that your brother died of cancer, Barb. But that does not negate the fact that our health insurance for cancer and heart disease IS the best in the world...hands down. Canada's healthcare you wait up to 8 weeks for radiation treatments.
If you don't think that the government coverage isn't going to pick and choose who lives and dies, then your naive.
You mentioned medicaid....that's a government run system isn't it? That should give you a heads up of what you can expect.
Barb, I'm not against health coverage for all, but there has to be a better one than the one we will end up with. I want it done right where there is a blend of private coverage with the assistance of the government. I just don't want to have to pay for mine, which isn't cheap, and then being taxed to pay for others. I'm retired, and pretty much on a fixed income.

Our health facilities, not our coverage. Major difference.
I'm too old to be naive. I didn't live this long not knowing when to duck. Anyway, thanks. You have a happy holiday.

I did noticed you had no comment about medicaid...I don't know why you wouldn't, it is a government run system. I also noticed you didn't acknowledge my idea toward a coverage for all. Nobody is too old to be naive, Barb...nobody. You have a good fourth of July also.

Meister, you didn't feel the need to address every point I made in my posts, why should I feel the need to address every point you make in yours? But for the sake of clearing that omission up for you, in a system where everyone is covered, everyone would be covered. I hope that helped. Incidentally, the public option does not preclude the private option, so your proposal has already been addressed in the system you're rejecting.

 

[Meister]

Our health facilities, not our coverage. Major difference.
I'm too old to be naive. I didn't live this long not knowing when to duck. Anyway, thanks. You have a happy holiday.

I did noticed you had no comment about medicaid...I don't know why you wouldn't, it is a government run system. I also noticed you didn't acknowledge my idea toward a coverage for all. Nobody is too old to be naive, Barb...nobody. You have a good fourth of July also.

Meister, you didn't feel the need to address every point I made in my posts, why should I feel the need to address every point you make in yours? But for the sake of clearing that omission up for you, in a system where everyone is covered, everyone would be covered. I hope that helped. Incidentally, the public option does not preclude the private option, so your proposal has already been addressed in the system you're rejecting.

If Obama does tax business healthcare, it will drive businesses away from offering that as a benefit, Barb. That would pretty much end any competition for your government run healthcare. They also want to put mandates on private insurance companiesThe government healthcare that could end up picking up just 16-17 million people, far short of the 45-50 million, and this would be a cost of around 1 1/2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Also Barb, I really don't feel like paying for illegals healthcare like Obama does. That is just flat out wrong.

 

[Barb]

I did noticed you had no comment about medicaid...I don't know why you wouldn't, it is a government run system. I also noticed you didn't acknowledge my idea toward a coverage for all. Nobody is too old to be naive, Barb...nobody. You have a good fourth of July also.

Meister, you didn't feel the need to address every point I made in my posts, why should I feel the need to address every point you make in yours? But for the sake of clearing that omission up for you, in a system where everyone is covered, everyone would be covered. I hope that helped. Incidentally, the public option does not preclude the private option, so your proposal has already been addressed in the system you're rejecting.

If Obama does tax business healthcare, it will drive businesses away from offering that as a benefit, Barb. That would pretty much end any competition for your government run healthcare. They also want to put mandates on private insurance companiesThe government healthcare that could end up picking up just 16-17 million people, far short of the 45-50 million, and this would be a cost of around 1 1/2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Also Barb, I really don't feel like paying for illegals healthcare like Obama does. That is just flat out wrong.

Meister, ask any business owner if they'd like to get out of the practice of paying a part of workers health insurance. Many already have. Hell, I used to do the books for my parents small business, and the payments were outrageous twenty some odd years ago. The insurance agencies are the problem, not the solution. They just add an unnecessary layer of expense.

 

[Care4all]

I did noticed you had no comment about medicaid...I don't know why you wouldn't, it is a government run system. I also noticed you didn't acknowledge my idea toward a coverage for all. Nobody is too old to be naive, Barb...nobody. You have a good fourth of July also.

Meister, you didn't feel the need to address every point I made in my posts, why should I feel the need to address every point you make in yours? But for the sake of clearing that omission up for you, in a system where everyone is covered, everyone would be covered. I hope that helped. Incidentally, the public option does not preclude the private option, so your proposal has already been addressed in the system you're rejecting.

If Obama does tax business healthcare, it will drive businesses away from offering that as a benefit, Barb. That would pretty much end any competition for your government run healthcare. They also want to put mandates on private insurance companiesThe government healthcare that could end up picking up just 16-17 million people, far short of the 45-50 million, and this would be a cost of around 1 1/2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Also Barb, I really don't feel like paying for illegals healthcare like Obama does. That is just flat out wrong.

A proposal to tax CADILLAC Healthcare plans, over 17,000 dollars a years is what is on the table.

This means ALL health care plans are still tax deductible up to the 17k mark, which is above the average cost for a health care plan for a family.

The reason this is being proposed is because the BIG WIGS of corporations are not taking out the insurance policies that those making 100k take out, they are taking out insurance policies that are deemed Cadillac Policies that COST $100K A YEAR for the health Insurance policy, and our government has been giving the corporations buying these cadillac policies for these CEO'S who have been taking a tax deduction for the full amount, the full $100,000, each and every year...

Why should we the tax payers, give a deduction for yearly health insurance in the amount of $100,000 a year per CEO? They should get the same deduction as every person in America gets, the $17k, and no more than that...which is fair.

I think the proposal to 'cap' the deduction has merit.

Care

 

[ba1614]

IMO the 'cap' deduction certainly does have merit! I only wonder if that will apply to the 'Cadillac' coverage the folks in government have?

 

[Care4all]

IMO the 'cap' deduction certainly does have merit! I only wonder if that will apply to the 'Cadillac' coverage the folks in government have?

yes, it is my understanding that it would cover congress as well, if they take out plans that are Cadillac plans over the cap amount.... they would be taxed on the amount OVER the capped deduction of $17k or whatever the cap ends up being once legislated.

 

[Political Junky]

I did noticed you had no comment about medicaid...I don't know why you wouldn't, it is a government run system. I also noticed you didn't acknowledge my idea toward a coverage for all. Nobody is too old to be naive, Barb...nobody. You have a good fourth of July also.

Meister, you didn't feel the need to address every point I made in my posts, why should I feel the need to address every point you make in yours? But for the sake of clearing that omission up for you, in a system where everyone is covered, everyone would be covered. I hope that helped. Incidentally, the public option does not preclude the private option, so your proposal has already been addressed in the system you're rejecting.

If Obama does tax business healthcare, it will drive businesses away from offering that as a benefit, Barb. That would pretty much end any competition for your government run healthcare. They also want to put mandates on private insurance companiesThe government healthcare that could end up picking up just 16-17 million people, far short of the 45-50 million, and this would be a cost of around 1 1/2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Also Barb, I really don't feel like paying for illegals healthcare like Obama does. That is just flat out wrong.

Those who hire illegals should have to pay for their healthcare.
If no one hired them, they wouldn't be here to do the work that Americans refuse to do.

 

[PixieStix]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Well, color me surprised. 72% of Americans are stupid...duh!

 

[Trigg]

Wow they interviewed less than 900 people.......................hardly an accurate cross section of America.

 

[Derek_Plumber]

The name of this thread is

"72% of Americans support government run healthcare"

Sounds like health care is a done deal, OR ELSE!​

 

[Meister]

Meister, you didn't feel the need to address every point I made in my posts, why should I feel the need to address every point you make in yours? But for the sake of clearing that omission up for you, in a system where everyone is covered, everyone would be covered. I hope that helped. Incidentally, the public option does not preclude the private option, so your proposal has already been addressed in the system you're rejecting.

If Obama does tax business healthcare, it will drive businesses away from offering that as a benefit, Barb. That would pretty much end any competition for your government run healthcare. They also want to put mandates on private insurance companiesThe government healthcare that could end up picking up just 16-17 million people, far short of the 45-50 million, and this would be a cost of around 1 1/2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Also Barb, I really don't feel like paying for illegals healthcare like Obama does. That is just flat out wrong.

Those who hire illegals should have to pay for their healthcare.
If no one hired them, they wouldn't be here to do the work that Americans refuse to do.

You would think so, but Obama wants to pay for them...it equates to votes for the future.
I have found out that Americans will do any job for a fair wage...any.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Well, color me surprised. 72% of Americans are stupid...duh!

You missed my earlier post where i showed the political affiliation of those who took the poll. Over 70% of the respondants to the poll were registered democrats which skews the results.

If we took a poll of 800 registered republicans and 200 registered democrats i'm willing to bet you would have over 70% of respondants coming out in favor of not getting the govt involved.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?

Well, if we're going to talk about "worst outcomes", then I think we NEED to talk about life-threatening problems, and whether or not you're better off being in the US when it happens. I know if you're a prematurely-born baby, you're DEFINITELY better off being born in the US.

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Sorry, but the overall infant mortality rate is irrelevant. As I've said before, that comparison matters in regards to health care systems when it's a less-developed nation versus an industrialized one, but not in comparing two industrialized nations.

Premature infants, on the other hand, are a whole 'nother thing, if only because at least some other industrialized nations don't even count them as live births, let alone put out the effort to save them that we do. This also applies to babies born with defects like spina bifida. According to Health Statistics Quarterly AND the Commonwealth Fund (a source leftists love to cite when they can twist it to suit themselves), these children, along with people who have cancer, heart disease, renal failure, and almost any other potentially fatal illness, have the best chance of survival in the United States.

By the way, a little note about Canada and it's wonderful, "fair", "everyone gets such good care" system and the infant mortality rate you're gloating over: their rate, like every other country's, is a composite. While their OVERALL rate is 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, their rate for the poorest fifth of their population is 7.5 per 1,000, two-thirds higher than the rate among their wealthiest fifth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, if we're going to talk about "worst outcomes", then I think we NEED to talk about life-threatening problems, and whether or not you're better off being in the US when it happens. I know if you're a prematurely-born baby, you're DEFINITELY better off being born in the US.

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Based on what the bogus W H O REPORT. Laughable.

No, that's technically correct. According to the OECD and the National Center for Health Statistics, our infant mortality rate is around 7.2 per 1,000 live births. What leftists don't get after reading that statistic and running with it is WHY that is. The NCHS goes on to tell us that this is due in large part to the fact that the US doesn't have a homogenous population. Infant mortality varies widely according to factors like race, geography, and socioeconomic level. Race and genetics alone account for as much as 40% of the variation.

Oh, and as I keep pointing out, there's also the fact that some countries, like Switzerland, simply don't record babies with very low birth weight as live births, and we do. Since 1/3 of all infant deaths recorded in the US are to babies with very low birth weight, you can see how this would skew the numbers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Wanna do a little reading and get the real facts, or do you still wanna stick your head in the ground???
Is europes infant mortality rate superiority over the USA a myth or just that we use different standards? - Yahoo! Answers
Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality? | Coyote Blog

OMG, the wingut's Bible ... Newsmax. LOL

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

just below Costa Rica.
37 United States of America
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

You really ought to keep up on the news - the REAL news - on this topic if you're going to bloviate about it. The WHO measured quality of healthcare systems in that study by how socialized the systems were, directly and specifically. We didn't rank behind Costa Rica because our healthcare is ineffective. We ranked behind Costa Rica because we're not as socialized.

Call me after you buy a clue.

Part of the criteria is % covered. A wider % covered = socialism to you? My God. So by your standards, superior health care (and it is two words) depends on the level of specialness you feel. How enlightening. What color is the sky in your world?

Wrong, honey. Don't even try that fuzzy-wuzzy, emotional button-pushing with ME. "My GOD, you're just so mean, you want people to DIE!" Spare me, and tell me now if 8th grade is the highest maturity level you can manage in a debate.

The WHO report used five criteria, weighted as follows:

1) Health level, 25 percent - This factor can most justifiably be included because it is measured by a country’s disability-adjusted life expectancy (DALE). Unfortunately, as I've mentioned before, life expectancy in industrialized nations has very little to do with the healthcare system (by the way, it's correctly written as a one word when it's attributive, although it used to require a hyphenation under those circumstances. Don't EVER flatter yourself that you're qualified to correct my grammar and spelling.) and is mostly attributable to factors like race, geography, and education. Still, DALE is at least a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents, so its inclusion makes sense.

2) Responsiveness, 12.5 percent - This factor measures a variety of health care system features, including speed of service, protection of privacy, choice of doctors, and quality of amenities (e.g., clean hospital bed linens). Not directly connected to the health of the citizens perhaps, but important and desirable.

3) Financial fairness, 25 percent - A health system’s financial fairness (FF) is measured by determining a household’s contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households. The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal).

THIS is one of the factors I consider a measurement of the distribution of socialism, because it has nothing to do with how good the medical system is, and everything to do with how much the government is playing Mommy. The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. This is a value judgment
not applied to most other goods, even those regarded as necessities such as food and
housing.Most people understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage of their income on these items.

4) Health distribution, 25 percent

5) Responsiveness distribution, 12.5 percent - Health Distribution measures inequality in health level within a country, while Responsiveness Distribution measures inequality in health responsiveness within a country.

Strictly speaking, neither of these factors measures health care performance, because
inequality is distinct from quality of care. It is entirely possible to have a health care system
characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone. Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is “excellent” for most citizens but merely “good” for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly “poor” for everyone. Country B would score higher than Country A in terms of responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens. The same point applies to the distribution of health level. And this is how a country like Costa Rica can score higher than the US. As long as there's no disparity and EVERYONE has crap care, the WHO is happy. Sounds like every socialist nation in practice in the world during my lifetime.

And don't even get me started on the differences between overall attainment and overall performance, margins of error, sensitivity to weighting factors, etc. The WHO report is only conclusive and damning if you really wanted it to be anyway, were primed to believe it was, and are too dimwitted to dig any deeper.

(Factor explanations are from the Cato Institute, mixed in part with my own observations.)

 

[Political Junky]

If Obama does tax business healthcare, it will drive businesses away from offering that as a benefit, Barb. That would pretty much end any competition for your government run healthcare. They also want to put mandates on private insurance companiesThe government healthcare that could end up picking up just 16-17 million people, far short of the 45-50 million, and this would be a cost of around 1 1/2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Also Barb, I really don't feel like paying for illegals healthcare like Obama does. That is just flat out wrong.

Those who hire illegals should have to pay for their healthcare.
If no one hired them, they wouldn't be here to do the work that Americans refuse to do.

You would think so, but Obama wants to pay for them...it equates to votes for the future.
I have found out that Americans will do any job for a fair wage...any.

No, employers won't pay a fair wage to Americans as long as they can hire illegals cheap, and you know that.

 

[jreeves]

Those who hire illegals should have to pay for their healthcare.
If no one hired them, they wouldn't be here to do the work that Americans refuse to do.

You would think so, but Obama wants to pay for them...it equates to votes for the future.
I have found out that Americans will do any job for a fair wage...any.

No, employers won't pay a fair wage to Americans as long as they can hire illegals cheap, and you know that.

Tell that to the 9 + % of Americans who can't find any employment.

 

[Meister]

Those who hire illegals should have to pay for their healthcare.
If no one hired them, they wouldn't be here to do the work that Americans refuse to do.

You would think so, but Obama wants to pay for them...it equates to votes for the future.
I have found out that Americans will do any job for a fair wage...any.

No, employers won't pay a fair wage to Americans as long as they can hire illegals cheap, and you know that.

Where I live we don't have a problem with the illegals that I can see. I do see Americans doing the jobs...all the jobs.

 

[Political Junky]

Wanna do a little reading and get the real facts, or do you still wanna stick your head in the ground???
Is europes infant mortality rate superiority over the USA a myth or just that we use different standards? - Yahoo! Answers
Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality? | Coyote Blog

OMG, the wingut's Bible ... Newsmax. LOL

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.