States are the best place for healthcare!!

[Navy1960]

My honest opinion on healthcare as i've stated before many times is that the costs are high for a myriad of different reasons that I have posted on here. As for the majority of Americans I suppose that would depend on who your asking . if your the New York times and you poll 600 Obama supporters and 200 McCain supporter your going to get that majority. However, I won't deny that healthcare costs are out of control, but there are many factors that cause these costs to go out of control. As far as this being as bad as its stated in reference to the number of people uninsured, I have my doubts on that one when you deduct, from that 46 million , Illegal Immigrants, people that qualify for state Medicade but dont bother to sign up, and people that are at 300% of the poverty level, you end up with about 20 million uninsured. So roughly about 92% of Americans that want and need healthcare have it. I recognize this is a priority for the Obama Administration in order to fulfill a campaign promise. I will remind my democratic freinds however, you have been in control of Congress for a few years now and this is just now an issue? I will also remind you, you had the White House most of the 90's and congress for a few years then as well. So if healthcare were such a priority, when it failed under Clinton, why not, try it again then? Perhaps is it because as a campaign issue it serves to fire up the base? The fact remains there are several ways for healthcare costs to be controlled and Govt. back health insurance is not one of them. Let me make cite you a little example, if you have -1000.00 in your checking account and want something that costs 1500.00 do you intend to write a bad check to pay for it? One of these days you are going to have to pay for it. The fact is this nation no matter how noble your cause may seem simply cannot afford to provide healthcare to all it's citizens, never mind the constitutionality of the issue.

 

[auditor0007]

I apologize to Navy for being vulgar to him. He asked me not to and I think he has earned the right to ask for respect. My bad.

apology is accepted sealy and thank you , I understand and admire your passion for the issues and know that you mean well for your country and just the mere fact that you would be here as an advocate for your cause shows that. In this thread you can see that people are no so far apart on issues sometimes as you may think. They may disagree on forms , but in the end, I think that lowering the cost of healthcare is a damn good thing, it's how we get there is whats at issue, I really do believe that in your state for example, a program like the one they have in Mass. would be a good thing and would pass in over whelming numbers. In my state however, as most people I know at least have some form of insurance, the oppisite might be true. see what I mean?

I enjoy cursing back and forth, but only with people who like doing it back. If someone complains and is sincere, I really try not to be a jerk.

Ok, now back to healthcare.

1. Do they deny people in MA with pre existing conditions?

2. Are the costs in MA still too expensive?

Looks like in MA their solution is to raise costs, premiums, copays and tax cigarettes to pay for it. Doesn't say anything about bringing down costs. I think the MA solution is the solution that private insurers want.

Screw them. Single payer/public option will be cheaper and more comprehensive. It won't have to deal with the high administration costs, advertising or profits.

And you can stay with your private plan, so don't worry. In fact, the public option will bring down your costs.

Just the fact that the same people who were saying government will do a terrible job are now saying that the government plan will run them out of business, tells me they are crapping their pants, and thats great.

Healthcare should not be for profit. The profit part of it is harmful to patients.


If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care ... then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?" Obama said in response to a question at a White House news conference.

That's not logical," he scoffed, responding to an industry warning that government competition would destabilize the employer system that now covers more than 160 million people.

Individuals and small businesses would get to pick either the public plan or a private one through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. Eventually, the exchanges could be opened to large companies as well. "The public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies," Obama said.

We do not believe that it is possible to create a government plan that could operate on a level playing field," said the insurers' letter, signed by AHIP head Karen Ignagni and Scott Serota, the Blue Cross CEO. " Regardless of how it is initially structured, a government plan would use its built-in advantages to take over the health insurance market."



Obama takes on insurers over health plan - White House- msnbc.com

If individual states made health coverage mandatory for everyone, and most everyone had to purchase insurance, then rates would become more uniform. Those with pre-existing conditions would not be denied and would never be in a situation where they are forced to pay three times or more the going rate just to maintain coverage, which is what forces many out of coverage in the first place.

Secondly, if Co-ops were permitted to compete directly with the insurance companies, you would see many non-profits spring into existence and compete directly with the insurance companies. Over the long haul, it would probably drive most of for profits out of the health insurance business. Plans would become more uniform, but there still would be some choices, especially as it pertains to deductibles.

The problem with all of this is getting it all started. The insurance companies will do everything in their power to prevent this as they know it will drive them out of the healthcare business.

 

[sealybobo]

So now the argument isn't against socialized heath care as long as the STATES, rather than the FEDs, mandate it?

Interesting development.

Those of you who imagine that the States ought to do this task have far more faith in State governments efficacy and integrity than I do.

Better for the FOR PROFITS if healthcare is only reformed in 25 states rather than all 50.

I love it that you, me and Sarah see right thru Navy's arguments. Do you think he realizes it too or do you think he really believes Arizona gives a rats ass about the constitution?

I'm just surprised that 72% of America also isn't buying it.

And Sarah said the same thing I did. Basically Republicans have no say. They lost power because of things like this. Healthcare got out of control on their watch and they did nothing about it. Now why should we care what they think now? We can get healthcare reform without them. We just have to lean on these sellouts:

These Democratic Senators are against it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

These names are reported by The Hill
Update: Senator Jeff Binghaman (D-NM) says he supports a public option.

Good for you Jeff Binghaman. Sorry you have to give that money back to Blue Cross.


Next thing Republicans will do is blame Carter, Clinton, Freddy Mack, Fanny Mae & Pelosi/Reed for why healthcare is out of control. Just like they did with the economy. Hell, they even did it with the Iraq war. It was their doing and because people like Hillary signed on, they want the Dems to share equal blame.

 

[sealybobo]

My honest opinion on healthcare as i've stated before many times is that the costs are high for a myriad of different reasons that I have posted on here. As for the majority of Americans I suppose that would depend on who your asking . if your the New York times and you poll 600 Obama supporters and 200 McCain supporter your going to get that majority. However, I won't deny that healthcare costs are out of control, but there are many factors that cause these costs to go out of control. As far as this being as bad as its stated in reference to the number of people uninsured, I have my doubts on that one when you deduct, from that 46 million , Illegal Immigrants, people that qualify for state Medicade but dont bother to sign up, and people that are at 300% of the poverty level, you end up with about 20 million uninsured. So roughly about 92% of Americans that want and need healthcare have it. I recognize this is a priority for the Obama Administration in order to fulfill a campaign promise. I will remind my democratic freinds however, you have been in control of Congress for a few years now and this is just now an issue? I will also remind you, you had the White House most of the 90's and congress for a few years then as well. So if healthcare were such a priority, when it failed under Clinton, why not, try it again then? Perhaps is it because as a campaign issue it serves to fire up the base? The fact remains there are several ways for healthcare costs to be controlled and Govt. back health insurance is not one of them. Let me make cite you a little example, if you have -1000.00 in your checking account and want something that costs 1500.00 do you intend to write a bad check to pay for it? One of these days you are going to have to pay for it. The fact is this nation no matter how noble your cause may seem simply cannot afford to provide healthcare to all it's citizens, never mind the constitutionality of the issue.

Yes. We picked up enough seats to actually get this done. Hell, we're still waiting on the Minnesota Supreme Court to give Al Franken his senate seat. Its been 3 business weeks. What are they waiting for. They say they have other things to deal with. Tell me, what other things are more important than that Senate seat? Once he is seated, that's 60 votes and we can actually get this done. Hell, even with 60 we have 9 blue dogs who are working for the FOR PROFITS. It was 10. We are flooding their phones and emails and warning them what will happen if they continue to obstruct progress.

And as for your 92% have coverage theory, nice try. But that is how righties come up with their numbers. Fuzzy math.

And don't you dare say that medical malpractice lawsuits are a big part of the problem, because they only make up 1/2 of 1% of the total costs. Drop in the bucket. Single payer will have 3% admin costs, FOR PROFITS have 12%. Now add up the CEO's salary and the shareholders who want their money too.

And why couldn't Hillary get healthcare passed? Lobbyists and Newt Gingrich's run Congress. You know why.

And yes we can afford to give healthcare to everyone. What, every other country can and we can't? Yes We Can!!! AND, we will save money doing it.

And yes, taxes are going to go up. Companies will have to pay more taxes, but they won't have to pay for your insurance, so they'll save money. But because the money they spend on healthcare isn't called taxes, you get to lie and say YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP. That's misleading and you know it.

You have officially lost this argument. Move on to Iran or abortion or stem cell or outsourcing jobs. Oh yea, you lost those issues too.

 

[sealybobo]

apology is accepted sealy and thank you , I understand and admire your passion for the issues and know that you mean well for your country and just the mere fact that you would be here as an advocate for your cause shows that. In this thread you can see that people are no so far apart on issues sometimes as you may think. They may disagree on forms , but in the end, I think that lowering the cost of healthcare is a damn good thing, it's how we get there is whats at issue, I really do believe that in your state for example, a program like the one they have in Mass. would be a good thing and would pass in over whelming numbers. In my state however, as most people I know at least have some form of insurance, the oppisite might be true. see what I mean?

I enjoy cursing back and forth, but only with people who like doing it back. If someone complains and is sincere, I really try not to be a jerk.

Ok, now back to healthcare.

1. Do they deny people in MA with pre existing conditions?

2. Are the costs in MA still too expensive?

Looks like in MA their solution is to raise costs, premiums, copays and tax cigarettes to pay for it. Doesn't say anything about bringing down costs. I think the MA solution is the solution that private insurers want.

Screw them. Single payer/public option will be cheaper and more comprehensive. It won't have to deal with the high administration costs, advertising or profits.

And you can stay with your private plan, so don't worry. In fact, the public option will bring down your costs.

Just the fact that the same people who were saying government will do a terrible job are now saying that the government plan will run them out of business, tells me they are crapping their pants, and thats great.

Healthcare should not be for profit. The profit part of it is harmful to patients.


If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care ... then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?" Obama said in response to a question at a White House news conference.

That's not logical," he scoffed, responding to an industry warning that government competition would destabilize the employer system that now covers more than 160 million people.

Individuals and small businesses would get to pick either the public plan or a private one through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. Eventually, the exchanges could be opened to large companies as well. "The public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies," Obama said.

We do not believe that it is possible to create a government plan that could operate on a level playing field," said the insurers' letter, signed by AHIP head Karen Ignagni and Scott Serota, the Blue Cross CEO. " Regardless of how it is initially structured, a government plan would use its built-in advantages to take over the health insurance market."



Obama takes on insurers over health plan - White House- msnbc.com

If individual states made health coverage mandatory for everyone, and most everyone had to purchase insurance, then rates would become more uniform. Those with pre-existing conditions would not be denied and would never be in a situation where they are forced to pay three times or more the going rate just to maintain coverage, which is what forces many out of coverage in the first place.

Secondly, if Co-ops were permitted to compete directly with the insurance companies, you would see many non-profits spring into existence and compete directly with the insurance companies. Over the long haul, it would probably drive most of for profits out of the health insurance business. Plans would become more uniform, but there still would be some choices, especially as it pertains to deductibles.

The problem with all of this is getting it all started. The insurance companies will do everything in their power to prevent this as they know it will drive them out of the healthcare business.

And it doesn't have to drive them out of the business. They can stay in the business and give themselves nice fat salaries. We just want the FOR PROFIT taken out. Non Profit CEO's still make good money.

You know what people haven't discussed yet? Perscription drugs. What will happen with that?

 

[Navy1960]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 10th Amendment

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.

In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING

So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?

It's too late for that. If any Repub was interested in Healthcare legislation, they would have taken this up long ago when they were in charge.

The Democrats now have it, we have a president who intends to get UHC done and America wants it.

You're not keeping up with the news. Universal health insurance is off the table for all practical purposes because no one has been able to come up with a plan for universal coverage that will not either require some sort of large middle class tax increase or trillions of dollars of new debt. So, having failed to deliver on their primary promise of universal health insurance, the Congressional Dems turned to a public plan in the hope of showing some sort of victory, but it is a virtual certainty that it will not pass the Senate. It is uncertain at this point if the Dems will be able to deliver any major health insurance or health care changes.

I am actually, and am aware that this one issue is the reason why healthcare has not been shoved through congress like the Stimulus. Still there are many democrats in Congress that are still pushing for the so called "Public Option" among them Chris Dodd as early as a few days ago. There seems to be a few cracks showing and from what I understand some have even hinted of dropping this to show some sort of moral victory by passing anything.

ut, as frustrating as it is to you and to me, I don't know if we have the votes to pass a strong public health care option. What I do know is that whether we can get there or not is still an open question. What I do know is that I plan to fight hard to convince my colleagues on the committee and in the full Senate that we need a public option. What I do know is that I'm going to need your help.

Sen. Chris Dodd: A Strong Public Option

 

[toomuchtime_]

My honest opinion on healthcare as i've stated before many times is that the costs are high for a myriad of different reasons that I have posted on here. As for the majority of Americans I suppose that would depend on who your asking . if your the New York times and you poll 600 Obama supporters and 200 McCain supporter your going to get that majority. However, I won't deny that healthcare costs are out of control, but there are many factors that cause these costs to go out of control. As far as this being as bad as its stated in reference to the number of people uninsured, I have my doubts on that one when you deduct, from that 46 million , Illegal Immigrants, people that qualify for state Medicade but dont bother to sign up, and people that are at 300% of the poverty level, you end up with about 20 million uninsured. So roughly about 92% of Americans that want and need healthcare have it. I recognize this is a priority for the Obama Administration in order to fulfill a campaign promise. I will remind my democratic freinds however, you have been in control of Congress for a few years now and this is just now an issue? I will also remind you, you had the White House most of the 90's and congress for a few years then as well. So if healthcare were such a priority, when it failed under Clinton, why not, try it again then? Perhaps is it because as a campaign issue it serves to fire up the base? The fact remains there are several ways for healthcare costs to be controlled and Govt. back health insurance is not one of them. Let me make cite you a little example, if you have -1000.00 in your checking account and want something that costs 1500.00 do you intend to write a bad check to pay for it? One of these days you are going to have to pay for it. The fact is this nation no matter how noble your cause may seem simply cannot afford to provide healthcare to all it's citizens, never mind the constitutionality of the issue.

While polls do show the majority of Americans support the goals of universal coverage and lower insurance costs, an ABC/Washington Post polls shows that while most Americans are satisfied with their own health insurance and health care, they do not believe the Obama/Dem plans will improve things.

58% are very concerned that the current Dem efforts will reduce the quality of health care they receive and another 23% are somewhat concerned it will.

55% are very concerned the Obama/Dem efforts will reduce their health insurance coverage and another 27% are somewhat concerned they will.

62% are very concerned that Obama/Congress will increase their health care costs and another 22% are somewhat concerned they will.

56% are very concerned that Obama/Congress will limit their choice of doctors or treatments and another 23% are somewhat concerned.

56% are very concerned they will sharply increase the federal deficit and another 28% are somewhat concerned they will.

Health Policy

 

[midcan5]

Some states are so poor they can hardly afford education. People will cross borders and make up addresses just to get service. This like so many economic issues requires a large pot to feed the multitudes, not a hodgepodge of complex nonsense.

 

[Navy1960]

While the income distribution of the uninsured is skewed toward those with lower incomes, Figure 2 shows 27% of the uninsured have incomes above 300% of poverty, with one-in-ten (11%) uninsured above 500% FPL.(4) That the uninsured comprise non-trivial percentages of middle and upper income individuals is surprising. Those with incomes above 300% of poverty should generally find employer insurance affordable. Data from employers shows that average single coverage premiums for employer sponsored insurance represent 2.0% of income at 300% FPL, and average family coverage premiums represent 4.7% of income for a family of four at 300% FPL (with a higher percentage for smaller families).
Overview of the Uninsured in the United States: An analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey: Issue Brief

sealy these are not statistics from some random Republic site and are not skewed in anyway. they are merely there to show you that this 47 million number is not the number you think it is. Yes, 20 plus million people is a lot of people, and costs need to come down so that those AMERICANS can have affordable access to healthcare. However, your assertion that we have the 2 plus Trillion dollars to pay for this is completely off the mark. You do realize this nation must borrow the money for this don't you? Tell me again what the unemployment rate in MI. is now? 12 plus percent? Do you think bankrupting the Federal Govt. to pay for healthcare, bailout car companies, banks, and provide money for pet programs is going to bring employment back to MI.? If so your going to be very surprised. Trust me sealy there is nothing in this healthcare arguement I cannot tear apart that has been presented with facts. statistics, those have been already debunked, costs the CBO and Lewin Group took care of that, Implementation of plan you no doubt have seen what the Arizona legislature is up to on that, so no based on what the democrats are doing in congress by not having enough votes to pass this public option at least so far, I have not lost this arguement yet. . It is like so many of the other recent things that have been put forth in congress attempts to swindling you and me out of money so that people in Washington can stay in power. I suggest sealy and I mean this in all sincerety that those who want healthcare provided for them should take it to a state level, or go about it in a different manner. As for the Abortion issue, don't assume that all Republican march in lock step on that issue because this one doesn't

 

[auditor0007]

My honest opinion on healthcare as i've stated before many times is that the costs are high for a myriad of different reasons that I have posted on here. As for the majority of Americans I suppose that would depend on who your asking . if your the New York times and you poll 600 Obama supporters and 200 McCain supporter your going to get that majority. However, I won't deny that healthcare costs are out of control, but there are many factors that cause these costs to go out of control. As far as this being as bad as its stated in reference to the number of people uninsured, I have my doubts on that one when you deduct, from that 46 million , Illegal Immigrants, people that qualify for state Medicade but dont bother to sign up, and people that are at 300% of the poverty level, you end up with about 20 million uninsured. So roughly about 92% of Americans that want and need healthcare have it. I recognize this is a priority for the Obama Administration in order to fulfill a campaign promise. I will remind my democratic freinds however, you have been in control of Congress for a few years now and this is just now an issue? I will also remind you, you had the White House most of the 90's and congress for a few years then as well. So if healthcare were such a priority, when it failed under Clinton, why not, try it again then? Perhaps is it because as a campaign issue it serves to fire up the base? The fact remains there are several ways for healthcare costs to be controlled and Govt. back health insurance is not one of them. Let me make cite you a little example, if you have -1000.00 in your checking account and want something that costs 1500.00 do you intend to write a bad check to pay for it? One of these days you are going to have to pay for it. The fact is this nation no matter how noble your cause may seem simply cannot afford to provide healthcare to all it's citizens, never mind the constitutionality of the issue.

Here is the biggest problem with the current situation. A lot of people are happy with the coverage they have. What they do not understand, is that their employers, the ones actually providing that coverage, are not happy and are on the brink of no longer providing that insurance because the cost is becoming unsustainable.

If everyone who is so happy with their current insurance had to pay for that coverage themselves, a great many would no longer be so thrilled. When we look at the numbers both real and actual, we find a very disturbing problem. We know that we are currently spending about $7900 per year per person in the US for healthcare. The medium income for a family of four is around $70,000. Do the math; based on those numbers, a family at the medium income level is spending 45% of their income on healthcare.

Now, we know that isn't the real case. Those are the real numbers, but a great deal of that is being subsidized through taxes for Medicare by those with much larger incomes. However, even the actual dollars for that family of four are extremely high. We know that the average health insurance plan for a family of four costs $12,000 per year. Add to that $2000 in Medicare taxes per year for the medium income earners in a family of four, and then tack on $2000 more in out of pocket expenses. Also, include an additional $1000 per year in miscellaneous taxes that filter into healthcare spending, and you're at $17,000 per year.

That equates to 24% of total income, and it is around 29% of after tax income. And that is for those who are at the medium income level. Anyone under the medium income level is paying an even higher percentage of their income for healthcare. As it stands now, everyone is predicting that costs will double in the next twenty-five years, in real dollars. So, twenty-five years from now, those at the medium income level will be paying close to 60% of their net income for healthcare.

Well, that's just not going to happen. No matter what anyone thinks the solution should be, the solution will come in the form of some type of rationing. This idea that we just need to tweak the system a bit is not going to work. Nothing has worked over the last thirty years to reduce costs, and the only way costs will be reduced, or at least stabilized is by some form of rationing, whether we like it or not.

And if we do not do something drastic to curtail these costs, we will fall behind the rest of the world, as business here will no longer be able to compete in the global economy. Our standard of living will be reduced dramatically, and all the talk of how great America is will be of the old days, not the future.

So here is what will happen. We will continue to ignore the problem, or we'll try to put bandaids on the problem, but it won't stop the infection. Eventually, the entire system will be revamped, and we'll end up with a system very similar to that of Canada, because that is about the cheapest system that is workable. In the end, those who want choice will lose their option of choice because they refuse to address the underlying problems currently.

 

[Navy1960]

Some states are so poor they can hardly afford education. People will cross borders and make up addresses just to get service. This like so many economic issues requires a large pot to feed the multitudes, not a hodgepodge of complex nonsense.

While I appreciate your passion mid, what is good for one states residents may not be the best thing for anothers. I know I would not want to pay the taxes that Mass. residents pay or be subject to the property taxes in Ca. however in both of those cases it's a trade off for living there as it is for where I live. Sometimes I think people forget it's called the United STATES!!!! and not just United. I had started another thread to show people some idea of the Arizona state house feelings on this matter, and many who have seen are quite surprised by it. Arizona is adopting a measure to thwart mandatory healthcare for our residents. and leave the choice to it's residence. It has passed the House and is on the way to the Senate. So I have to disagree with you, this is a nation of individual states all with different needs, not all of them completely homogeneous.

 

[sealybobo]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 10th Amendment

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.

In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.

MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING

So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?

It's too late for that. If any Repub was interested in Healthcare legislation, they would have taken this up long ago when they were in charge.

The Democrats now have it, we have a president who intends to get UHC done and America wants it.

You're not keeping up with the news. Universal health insurance is off the table for all practical purposes because no one has been able to come up with a plan for universal coverage that will not either require some sort of large middle class tax increase or trillions of dollars of new debt. So, having failed to deliver on their primary promise of universal health insurance, the Congressional Dems turned to a public plan in the hope of showing some sort of victory, but it is a virtual certainty that it will not pass the Senate. It is uncertain at this point if the Dems will be able to deliver any major health insurance or health care changes.

No, you aren't keeping up. And we aren't sure if its going to be universal healthcare, public, single payer, or a combination. But regardless, right wingers are against all of the alternatives.

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States.[1][2] It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.

And we are going to get er done. Just wait till Al Franken gets seated.

One down and 9 to go:

These Democratic Senators are against it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

These names are reported by The Hill
Update: Senator Jeff Binghaman (D-NM) says he supports a public option.

 

[auditor0007]

While the income distribution of the uninsured is skewed toward those with lower incomes, Figure 2 shows 27% of the uninsured have incomes above 300% of poverty, with one-in-ten (11%) uninsured above 500% FPL.(4) That the uninsured comprise non-trivial percentages of middle and upper income individuals is surprising. Those with incomes above 300% of poverty should generally find employer insurance affordable. Data from employers shows that average single coverage premiums for employer sponsored insurance represent 2.0% of income at 300% FPL, and average family coverage premiums represent 4.7% of income for a family of four at 300% FPL (with a higher percentage for smaller families).
Overview of the Uninsured in the United States: An analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey: Issue Brief

sealy these are not statistics from some random Republic site and are not skewed in anyway. they are merely there to show you that this 47 million number is not the number you think it is. Yes, 20 plus million people is a lot of people, and costs need to come down so that those AMERICANS can have affordable access to healthcare. However, your assertion that we have the 2 plus Trillion dollars to pay for this is completely off the mark. You do realize this nation must borrow the money for this don't you? Tell me again what the unemployment rate in MI. is now? 12 plus percent? Do you think bankrupting the Federal Govt. to pay for healthcare, bailout car companies, banks, and provide money for pet programs is going to bring employment back to MI.? If so your going to be very surprised. Trust me sealy there is nothing in this healthcare arguement I cannot tear apart that has been presented with facts. statistics, those have been already debunked, costs the CBO and Lewin Group took care of that, Implementation of plan you no doubt have seen what the Arizona legislature is up to on that, so no based on what the democrats are doing in congress by not having enough votes to pass this public option at least so far, I have not lost this arguement yet. . It is like so many of the other recent things that have been put forth in congress attempts to swindling you and me out of money so that people in Washington can stay in power. I suggest sealy and I mean this in all sincerety that those who want healthcare provided for them should take it to a state level, or go about it in a different manner. As for the Abortion issue, don't assume that all Republican march in lock step on that issue because this one doesn't

Many employers are no longer offering employer funded health insurance. And as the costs continue to increase, more will drop this benefit. Before long, only the big companies will be able to afford it, and eventually, even the big employers will no longer be able to afford it. Without some drastic changes, we will soon see the number of 45 million uninsured double, and then triple. And when these people do look for individual coverage, a great many of them will not be able to afford individual coverage due to pre-existing conditions as their rates will be doubled and tripled.

More Small Businesses Stop Providing Health Insurance to Employees - News digest - Coverage newsroom - Coverage - RWJF

 

[sealybobo]

Some states are so poor they can hardly afford education. People will cross borders and make up addresses just to get service. This like so many economic issues requires a large pot to feed the multitudes, not a hodgepodge of complex nonsense.

While I appreciate your passion mid, what is good for one states residents may not be the best thing for anothers. I know I would not want to pay the taxes that Mass. residents pay or be subject to the property taxes in Ca. however in both of those cases it's a trade off for living there as it is for where I live. Sometimes I think people forget it's called the United STATES!!!! and not just United. I had started another thread to show people some idea of the Arizona state house feelings on this matter, and many who have seen are quite surprised by it. Arizona is adopting a measure to thwart mandatory healthcare for our residents. and leave the choice to it's residence. It has passed the House and is on the way to the Senate. So I have to disagree with you, this is a nation of individual states all with different needs, not all of them completely homogeneous.

No one is surprised at the Arizona GOP's reaction to Democrats ideas.

And it isn't mandatory healtcare. You keep posting lies/misinformation.

 

[Navy1960]

Some states are so poor they can hardly afford education. People will cross borders and make up addresses just to get service. This like so many economic issues requires a large pot to feed the multitudes, not a hodgepodge of complex nonsense.

While I appreciate your passion mid, what is good for one states residents may not be the best thing for anothers. I know I would not want to pay the taxes that Mass. residents pay or be subject to the property taxes in Ca. however in both of those cases it's a trade off for living there as it is for where I live. Sometimes I think people forget it's called the United STATES!!!! and not just United. I had started another thread to show people some idea of the Arizona state house feelings on this matter, and many who have seen are quite surprised by it. Arizona is adopting a measure to thwart mandatory healthcare for our residents. and leave the choice to it's residence. It has passed the House and is on the way to the Senate. So I have to disagree with you, this is a nation of individual states all with different needs, not all of them completely homogeneous.

No one is surprised at the Arizona GOP's reaction to Democrats ideas.

And it isn't mandatory healtcare. You keep posting lies/misinformation.

sealy I will keep posting the facts from reasonable sources, almost all of which do not come from what can even be remotly considered as Republican controlled. In fact I often quote from what are considered, liberal or Govt. sources for that very reason. The facts are simple, when you impose a so called "public option" and do so without making it mandatory as well as doing so without fixing other issues related to healthcare costs you have accomplished exactly nothing expect cause this economy to go even furhter into a hole. Now I know you want and need affordable healthcare many people do, I submit there many ways to accomplish this without bankrupting this country and do so in a manner that does not force people off their employer sponsored healthcare as well. I will agree with you on one thing, Arizona has a long history of seeing bad ideas for what they are and reacting to them. This is just one more reaction.

 

[Bern80]

When all other arguments fail, this is the GOP's fallback argument.

Here is the answer. American citizens have the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. LIFE baby!!!

And our government breaks up monopolies.

And we already have medicare and social security. Are those unconstitutional too?

If they are, then you have lost this argument a long time ago.

Now go vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul.

So in your perversion of the constitution you get to do whatever you want to do to your body but someone else has the obligation to pay for it. You realize that's what you just said, right?

 

[Bern80]

Some states are so poor they can hardly afford education. People will cross borders and make up addresses just to get service. This like so many economic issues requires a large pot to feed the multitudes, not a hodgepodge of complex nonsense.

While I appreciate your passion mid, what is good for one states residents may not be the best thing for anothers. I know I would not want to pay the taxes that Mass. residents pay or be subject to the property taxes in Ca. however in both of those cases it's a trade off for living there as it is for where I live. Sometimes I think people forget it's called the United STATES!!!! and not just United. I had started another thread to show people some idea of the Arizona state house feelings on this matter, and many who have seen are quite surprised by it. Arizona is adopting a measure to thwart mandatory healthcare for our residents. and leave the choice to it's residence. It has passed the House and is on the way to the Senate. So I have to disagree with you, this is a nation of individual states all with different needs, not all of them completely homogeneous.

No one is surprised at the Arizona GOP's reaction to Democrats ideas.

And it isn't mandatory healtcare. You keep posting lies/misinformation.

Guess you didn't listen to Obama's interview with Dian Sawyer did you? he quite clearly stated this only works if everyone does it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

State control of your health care isn't any better than federal control of your health care.

Since when has any government program ever been successful? ....NEVER....costs always go UP...and government programs are always a mess.....always screwed up....just go to your local DMV to get a sample of government treatment....

In order to reduce health care costs we need to get the MIDDLEMEN out of health care....that means the Government, the Insurance Companies, and the Employers....

Our current system is a messy hodgepodge.....we need to go back to a simple free market system where people pay DIRECTLY for their everyday care....this would dramatically lower costs....you would see WalMart style health clinics pop up everywhere dispensing health care at low cost because people would pay out of pocket...and there would be payment plans for those who needed them...much like buying a car...(at least before the Big O took over the car companies)

...and for major medical...people would be able to buy low cost insurance plans because the insurance companies would not have to include costs for everyday health care which makes your insurance premiums jump sky high...

However, the Big O has other plans.....his method is going to foul up your medical service, cost you more, and create more government control over your life....which, of course, being the socialist marxist fascist that he is....government control is his ultimate goal...and control of your health care is one main direct route to power over your individual life....check out what Lenin said in my by-line...

 

[Navy1960]

Let me be clear here on the State issue, one is that this issue belongs to the States because it allows the voters in those states to choose whats best for them not some Washington based lobby group or Obama trying to fulfill a campaign promise. If a state so decided through a state wide ballot to offer, optional healthcare coverage to it's residents then thats the feelings expressed by the voters of that state and I have no issues with that. The bottom line though the best way to control costs, IMHO is to promote competetion allow for co-ops promote wellness programs and provide incentives for those employers that provide it, reign in malpractice , limit patent windows on drugs, and close the Illegal Immigration loopholes. All of that will bring cost under control. The real problem is having the courage to do it.

 

[sealybobo]

While I appreciate your passion mid, what is good for one states residents may not be the best thing for anothers. I know I would not want to pay the taxes that Mass. residents pay or be subject to the property taxes in Ca. however in both of those cases it's a trade off for living there as it is for where I live. Sometimes I think people forget it's called the United STATES!!!! and not just United. I had started another thread to show people some idea of the Arizona state house feelings on this matter, and many who have seen are quite surprised by it. Arizona is adopting a measure to thwart mandatory healthcare for our residents. and leave the choice to it's residence. It has passed the House and is on the way to the Senate. So I have to disagree with you, this is a nation of individual states all with different needs, not all of them completely homogeneous.

No one is surprised at the Arizona GOP's reaction to Democrats ideas.

And it isn't mandatory healtcare. You keep posting lies/misinformation.

sealy I will keep posting the facts from reasonable sources, almost all of which do not come from what can even be remotly considered as Republican controlled. In fact I often quote from what are considered, liberal or Govt. sources for that very reason. The facts are simple, when you impose a so called "public option" and do so without making it mandatory as well as doing so without fixing other issues related to healthcare costs you have accomplished exactly nothing expect cause this economy to go even furhter into a hole. Now I know you want and need affordable healthcare many people do, I submit there many ways to accomplish this without bankrupting this country and do so in a manner that does not force people off their employer sponsored healthcare as well. I will agree with you on one thing, Arizona has a long history of seeing bad ideas for what they are and reacting to them. This is just one more reaction.

Navy, I didn't question your source, but we all know the Arizona State Legislature is no better than the John Boehner run GOP, or Tom Delay GOP.

Healthcare is why we are in a hole. How many people have to lose their homes because of healthcare?

No one has any disposable income because of healthcare.

Companies can't afford to stay in America because they have to pay for healthcare.

Navy, explain this statement:

when you impose a so called "public option" and do so without making it mandatory you have accomplished exactly nothing except cause this economy to go even furhter into a hole.