Originally Posted by Miscreantgnomie

when i ran a small business it ran me 1600 a month for healthcare for my family i payed it and thats that.

i didnt whine or complain that it was so much.

i just owned up and took the risk in a business and paid lots of taxes.

its part of the price of trying to suceed.

peopel act like people have 0 acess.. people just show up to hospitals for free health care and the hospitals eat it . we pay for it in the end but it happens.

free health care for all means we will have a bunch of doctors and nurses all retire quit etc becuase to make it affordable to all we need to give them less ... they will be told by politicians how much they can charge. how much they can make .. we will over regulate everything.. people that do 10 years of school will decide to become lawyers instead and help sue everyone.

it makes more sense then trying to be an over regulated doctor or nurse.

i just dont buy another failed huge goverment program they suck at running things i dont want them to run my health care.

they cant secure the borders they cant keep the budget in line they cant do anything right ..

Why on earth would you trust them to handle your health ?

Originally Posted by bigTlilODD

Isn't the cost of the war, only slightly higher than normal operating costs of the military? I mean it costs billions of dollars just to keep the military paid and in uniforms even without a war, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Miscreantgnomie

when i ran a small business it ran me 1600 a month for healthcare for my family i payed it and thats that.

i didnt whine or complain that it was so much.

i just owned up and took the risk in a business and paid lots of taxes.

its part of the price of trying to suceed.

Originally Posted by Miscreantgnomie

Why on earth would you trust them to handle your health ?

Originally Posted by goober

Iraq will end up costing an extra trillion over the already bloated military budget.
But not to worry, much of that money will be siphoned off by business's that overcharge the military and work it's way back into the economy by way of increased sales of BMW's and luxury yachts.

Originally Posted by Smith113

Poorly managed (by the government) healthcare is better than zero healthcare.

Originally Posted by noahath

I honestly don't get this man (ie Bush). He is vowing to veto a children's health care bill because it is too costly ($30+ billion), but he has no problem whatsoever is spending hundreds of billions in Iraq. I wonder ... if his administration had financial interests in health care as much as it does military contract companies would he still be vetoing? Oh didn I mention that the extra cost would not be borne by the tax payer, but rather by a tax on cigarettes? Kind of seems like a good idea to me.

Bush vows to veto bipartisan kids' health care bill - CNN.com

Originally Posted by Americano

It seems difficult to get the message across that a huge number of Americans have no health care because they can no longer afford it. Or maybe those who have it stick their heads in the sand?

Originally Posted by Steve

My problem with universal health coverage is who gets to pay for it.

I would love to see everyone have health insurance. I have it, and there have been a couple of instances where I was glad I had it. But I also pay for it. I don't have a problem paying for it, but the point is that I already pay.

So, let's say we want to have universal health coverage. Who's going to pay for it? Those who need it can't afford it. Ergo, the government will pay for it. And how will the government pay for it? With a nice, hefty tax increase.

I don't know a lot about the insurance industry, but I would hazard a guess that those who can't afford the monthly premiums for individual, or even family care, could pool together and get group coverage using money they can afford to spend every month.



My health coverage (medical dental, eye) is roughly $180.00 a month, through my employer. My company has, roughly, 500 people. Given the number of unemployed and uninsured people who work in this country, it would seem to me that group coverage for a group that size would carry a nominal cost, at best, and I'd further hazard a guess that there's an insurance company out there, somewhere, that would cover that group.

Done that way, those of us who are already paying for coverage for ourselves and our families wouldn't have to suffer the burden for someone else.

It's not that those of us who already have it stick ouor heads in the sand, it's that those of us who have it are already paying for it for our own families. Why should we pay for it for someone else's family?

Originally Posted by Americano

The problem being a majority of people who have no health care actually can't afford to pay anything. They're living at a subsistence level with no disposable income and that circumstance will become even more prevalent as the US continues its migration to a service economy.

Originally Posted by Steve

My problem with universal health coverage is who gets to pay for it.

I would love to see everyone have health insurance. I have it, and there have been a couple of instances where I was glad I had it. But I also pay for it. I don't have a problem paying for it, but the point is that I already pay.

So, let's say we want to have universal health coverage. Who's going to pay for it? Those who need it can't afford it. Ergo, the government will pay for it. And how will the government pay for it? With a nice, hefty tax increase.

I don't know a lot about the insurance industry, but I would hazard a guess that those who can't afford the monthly premiums for individual, or even family care, could pool together and get group coverage using money they can afford to spend every month.

My health coverage (medical dental, eye) is roughly $180.00 a month, through my employer. My company has, roughly, 500 people. Given the number of unemployed and uninsured people who work in this country, it would seem to me that group coverage for a group that size would carry a nominal cost, at best, and I'd further hazard a guess that there's an insurance company out there, somewhere, that would cover that group.

Done that way, those of us who are already paying for coverage for ourselves and our families wouldn't have to suffer the burden for someone else.

It's not that those of us who already have it stick ouor heads in the sand, it's that those of us who have it are already paying for it for our own families. Why should we pay for it for someone else's family?

Originally Posted by Steve

That's just not true. I truly believe that everyone can afford something. Maybe they have to give up cable, maybe they have to give up their cell phones. Sure, it might suck, but they could do it if they needed to. I know people without coverage, but who have boats, RV's, etc. They're fully aware that, should a medical situation arise, they'll pretty much be fucked, but they don't have coverage by choice. They'd rather have the toys. Furthermore, I don't think these people are necessarily in the minority. Given my personal experiences and acquaintances, I would need to see hard data suggesting otherwise before I would change my opinion.

I think everyone can identify with having, at some time or another, the need to "cut back". I know I've had to do it in the past. I did it. Sure, I gave up things I'd gotten accustomed to having, and I thought that sucked, but it had to be done...



So I should be forced to forego an insurance plan that I like?

Why?

If I can afford better coverage, or like being in a private group coverage program, why should I have to forego that so someone else can have insurance?

Why should I, or you, or anyone else have to forcibly give up something they've worked to have, so someone else can get something they haven't worked to have?