DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Universal Health Care: Yay or Nay?

It doesn't make any difference if you lose everything you've worked for or will work for if you become ill GM! Didn't you know that? This si America. What were you thinking of?

Yes it is, why are you speaking Spanish? <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

... because this is America, of today. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Apparently it's the American way to expect something for nothing. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Ok Pit, let's redefine the debate a bit... the phrase "Universal Health Care" is a wonderful phrase.. I mean who wouldn't love for everybody to have great health care? *looks around*.. ok, no hands.... the question then becomes, who provides it?

I don't think there is anybody in this thread who will tell you that our health care system is perfect or is above needing some repair... the question then becomes this...

Do you want your health care mandated by, regulated by, and paid for by... the federal government of the United States of America? Do you want them making decisions as to when you can see a doctor, why you can see a doctor, when you need to see a specialist, what qualifies for coverage, how much things cost, how much doctors and nurses make, who gets priority in case of things like organ transplants, etc...

And if you can answer yes to that question... can you please give me just one example of one other similar enterprise that our federal government has EVER undertaken that would lead you to believe they would make health care better and not worse.... feel free to search through medicare, social security, subsidized housing, public education... pick whatever large scale endeavor you want to point to so we can all say.. "Ah-ha... see the government handled this and it worked out wonderfully."

Absolutely on the money. Don't try to pass me off as cruel and unfeeling because I don't want the government ANYWHERE near healthcare, they are far too involved as it is.

Seems I detect a bit of complaining concerning having to actually pay for your own medical care and drugs. How can that be? Why should it be Mr. Smith's responsibility to pay for his ulcer medication,his wife's BP meds or his kid's broken arm?

Surely the US Constitition provides for some unknown taxpayer to pick up the tabs for all other citizens...doesn't it?

What we need to do is to CANCEL ALL MEDICAL INSURANCE POLICIES and force the doctors,pharmacies and hospitals to compete for our business just as the car manufacturer, electronics manufacturer and retailer does.

Pay it out of your own pocket...take better care of yourself...pay the doc in hens if you have to but pay it yourself. Here is a hint...extended families and Church communities should be ready to assist in very serious situations.

Let the market rule the market for health care...or do we need the nanny state to remove that element of pride in taking responsibility for ourselves and loved ones.

Let's see,we preech to the world how they should be compassionate and kind to their people, We preech about human rights to the world.

Yet,in GM's daughters case,we have a girl working 47 hours a week but gets 10 grand in bills because she is sick?

I guess "basic human rights" is a matter of interpritation. But I think all American tax payers should have some form of health care if we plan tro tell the world about human rights.

If we can't have medical coverage for all "Amerticans" how can we possibly tell other countries what an authority we are on the issue?

And something for nothing? Or an affordable,readily accessable form of health care? There's a difference in having something available and giving something away. There'a a difference in having a lean put on your house because of a long term illness and something reasonable to insure that doesn't happen.

Then there's those who think these costs are fair. That we should pay for an illness for a lifetime and somehow that's a reasonable alternative.

If the person who is receiving the service is not the person paying for the service, then it sure sounds like something for nothing to me....

Again, if the health care is available but the person using it is not the person paying for it, then how is that different than giving it away?

Ok, what is reasonable?

Yeah, cuz extended families are all nice and close and willing to pitch in in crisises <img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif" alt="" />

Then the churches would be bled dry.

Look, fix medicaid so that anyone unable to afford decent healthcare can have it. Streamline the currently ridiculous paper trail, and stop frivilous lawsuits. It's one thing to get messed up in a surgery where someone has a good chance at recovery, but risky surgery, they should know coming in and shouldn't be allowed to sue.

If we paid the SAME amount we pay now for our healthcare, but in Canada's system, everyone would have excellent healthcare. Canada doesn't pay nearly what we do and it shows. The fact is our healthcare system is wasteful.

The best possible scenario I can come up with is not the perfect solution by a long shot and I'm sure it could be improved upon,but it's a start.

1. Have a government outline of a health insurance plan;
Major catestrophic coverage,free generic prescription refills,small OV co-pays,etc....... But a minimum standard already drawn up and in place. You could even vary it to be two to three varieties of health care coverage if you like.

Then,you permit all major insurance company's to bid on those policy's through current government contracting guidelines. Buying in bulk through competative bidding instead of thousands upon thousands of small employers buying health care independantly will stop the gouge in prices for health care coverage IMO

2. Government buys drugs in bulk. We do have a high cost of name brand drugs because of testing and law suits,etc.... to offset these costs. I understand this. But what if the drug companys were forced to be competative for huge drug contracts?

So basicly,the drugs would be purchased by our government for national distribution to keep drug costs lower. That's why drugs manufactured in the U.S. are cheaper in Canada now.

Now you could pay for this insurance through your tax deductions at work,not a freebee. But since this defrays the cost of the employer for health care costs,it's also very friendly to small businesses.

Can you imagine how many small businesses simply can't afford to deal with the rising coists of health care? That way,every American would have access to health care,regardless of where they work at a more affordable price.

3. Cap law suits. Put a top end cap on medical law suits. By doing this,it will stop the ever increasing costs in insurance for physicians. This is yet another root problem for the drug companies as well. IMO- put more legal ramifications on the FDA who approves faulty drugs,than the people who make them. The FDA after all is the one who says when they can go on the shelf,not the drug company's.

I don't like government intervention at all,but when you can cross the border to another country and buy American made drugs cheaper than in your own country? Something needs to be done to get this under control.

So why the government would be the "administrator" of the health care,it wouldn't be "government" health care. The policy would be written upon existing health care providers.The drugs would meet the same standards and manufactured by the very same companys that make them now.

And the government would not be "giving away" health insurance or drugs,just a middle man to keep costs down for everyone who desires this coverage. It would be optional and not a mandatory system. It would IMO,create a situation to where top notch,private health care costs would also go down. I mean they couldn't afford to gouge you on prices because you have the government option if they do.

I know you won't like it,nor will many. But somebody has to get health care prices under control and the industry isn't doing it on their own. And it at least needs to be available in every work place without breaking small businesses backs.

I just need to say, Jules, I agree with everyone of your posts in this thread, 100%.

I happen to have a family member that works at, shall we say, a hospital in the area. Now, this certain family member doesn't discuss work when he/she is outside of work - not very much anyway. However, I do have some insight that many that are NOT in the health care business do not have....

Add to that, the county hospital here has given serious, serious thought about not performing births, if that's the proper term. Why? Insurance costs. Plain and simple, insurance. And that's a story in and of itself. The insurance companies tell YOU what they will pay for a birth, yet the insurance companies are more than willing to sue for any problem that arises............even 10 years later.

Okay, I'm done. Jules, you were doing a good job.

Pit, thanks for laying out a plan. I don't agree with parts but at least it's a plan... so here we go...

I'm just not as convinced of the cost savings by bulk purchase as you are I guess. The major insurance companies would include, in their bid, provisions for dealing with the governement... it would be a premium. And since you have the same insurance companies negotiating with doctors and hospitals, I'm not sure how the cost is going to be reduced... The National Association for the Self Employed and various small business groups already allow people to piggy back into bulk purchase health plans, they work ok, only without the government bureaucrats....

Then costs would have to be cut somewhere it's just a matter of where. It might be R&D, it might be quality control.. who knows, but the pharmaceuticals are going to make it up somewhere.

Unless the government is actually going to take possession of these drugs, store them, and distribute them, then they are doing nothing more than price fixing... which I say concerns me.

So are we making it mandatory that small businesses offer this option? I'm confused because later on you say that it's optional... what exactly is optional? It's optional for the person to pay their own or go the government route? Or is it optional for the small business to offer it or not offer it?

If you make the FDA financially liable for bad drugs then the meds that now take 7 years to get on the shelves would take 15 years. I'm not sure I agree with this at all.

The lawsuits part I agree with.

This is the part I don't understand.. I don't see how this happens. As it stands right now my company can buy insurance from any of a number of companies based on price and quality... so now we have one more option provided by the same insurance companies... what is the incentive for all of them to drop their rates?

The reason for this is because it isn't "an industry".. it's 4 or 5 industries intermingled... you have the pharmaceuticals, you have the health care providers, you have the hospitals, you have the insurance companies, you have the lawyers... it would take cooperation across many "industries" to get it done, that's why it's such a problem because none of them want to admit their own participation in rising health care costs... Ask any one of them... ask the doctors and they'll tell you it's the lawyers, ask the lawyers and they'll tell you they're just going after bad doctors, hospitals, and drug manufacturers... none of them will admit they are to blame even a little bit.

My problem... and this is my overarching problem with the whole thing... my "umbrella" problem that you are going to have a hard time convincing away... once government gets involved, it's natural inclination is to get more involved.. and then more involved... and then more involved until ultimately, guess what? They control the whole shooting match. Have you ever seen our federal government be satisfied with just a little control or participation? Have you ever seen them be happy to serve just as "an administrator"? I can honestly say I have not. This is how I envision it going if something like your idea was ever enacted... the transition would be difficult, then there would be problems and bugs to be worked out, then after a few years somebody would audit the low bid insurance company or they would screw up, then the government, in their infinite wisdom, would say that they could do it better WITHOUT the low bid insurance company, then they would take over partial control and blahblahblah... it may take 20 or 30 years, but in the end, private insurance would all but cease to exist and the government would control it all because that's the way those inside the beltway think.....

Once again...why have a gov't program for health needs? Take care of your own situations.....if each person purchased a catastrophic health care policy for themselves or family and we shopped for efficient medical care we wouldn't need the gov't telling us how to do our business.

Listen I understand the huge bills that can arise....my son had cancer at age 3. His bills were astronomical and we paid them off for 8 years...but it is my job to do that. Is it fair??? Yes, it is but it is extremely trying.

I'm just tired of some folks avoiding their responsibilities when others pay more than their share.

As of now,the industry has no boundries as far as costs. And millions of garunteed policys are a way to keep prices down. I'm all for hearing your plan because you indicated we needed help in the health care department too?


So these same drugs are purchased this way in Europe and Canada with no problem. But as soon as America does it,there's a sudden change? Sorry,but there's already far too many countries now who operate that way for me to think it will impact it in the way you describe. Did you ever think we may be paying the bill now for cheaper drugs in other countries? That's my belief.


So the big drug companys that control "price fixing" now is okay? All they need to do is "fix the price" so we pay the same as Canadians for the same product. They can sale it to Canada at that price,but not to the U.S.? And who is fixing prices again? Sounds like the drug companys to me. If you sale the same product at a huge mark up in one country over another? That's not price fixing to you?


It would be a simple part of your employment that would be of no cost to the employer,but offered to the employee as a mandatory form to be filled out by the employee just as your tax forms are required to be. As of now,small businesses are trying to pay high co-pays. So it would be mandatory to offer it simply be giving the forms for the insurance to every employee. Wheather they choose to take it or to get some other company offered insurance,or private health insurance would be a choice of the employee.

So employers have the option of offering their own plan or not.Even now,many of the plans offered by smaller businesses are very poor at best. This would eleviate the part time problem we have at Wal-Mart and LOTS of businesses who do this that you just don't hear about like Emery Air Freight,Miejer Distribution and I could go on and on.

You can't protect your shareholders while not using legal loopholes to avoid insurance costs,right? And part time employees,as of now,often have no oppertunities for health care. This would insure them an option and stop so many companys from using the part time tactics to avoid providing health care. Because now there will be an option that has nothing to do with the company you work for at all.


Put drugs out quickly or safely? Expect accountability on the people who okays the drugs use or not? A sticky subject I know,but one of great concern IMO. Yeah,I knew I had you on the law suits part.
<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Just keep in the back of your mind that to solve this problem will take compromise as is usually the case with any major problem.

And you are right about it being a combination of several industrys and services. That's why there's no other way to deal with the problem than some type of government regulations. This problem will never be fixed without it.

Too many Americans aren't afforded a right to even get health care without a private health care policy,period. They are kept at levels below full time to make that legal. I'm for businesses succeeding,but not at the cost of the health of our nation. You have to draw a line somewhere and basic available health care is where I draw it.

Like I said,it's not the perfect answer,but we have to start somewhere. You yourself realise it's a big problem. You know there has to be some reasonable health care available to all working class Americans don't you?

First of all climb on down from your horse. Look around, there are no welfare families on this board looking for freebies. Id venture to say that aside from the few students the vast majority of this board is middle class and up. Myself included. Guess what, I cant afford to go to the doctor unless it is serious. Yes there is a local clinic I go to. You know what, they aint all that great. Thats why they are at the clinic and not doctors at a hospital. Im a small business, or in PA what they call a Self Proprietor. Care to take a guess how much insurance would cost me. About 1800 dollars a month. That is ridiculous, and like most on this thread I am not looking for handouts or anything free. What I want is a reasonably priced health care plan. If a national health care plan can bring those costs down to a more reasonable 500 dollar a month range I am all for it.

The welfare families already get free care, at least women and children anyway, illegal immigrants already get free care. The only people who cant get care are the honest hardworking Americans who dont have the luxury of a company sponsored insurance plan. Remember that, all you elitist who are against a national health plan. The only people you are denying care to are the backbone of our country, The absolute poor already get it, illegals already get it by going to the emergency room and just not paying. Wich is a big reason why it costs what it does. We are all already paying for it. Dont kid yourselves.

Pit, those damn Republicans just don't have compassion like me and you. I want Health care for everybody in America. Every last poor person should have it if the rich have it. I even want Health Care for the Illegal Aliens in our country. They get sick too you know. Matter of fact, I saw poor kids over in Africa with flys walking on them. I want it for them too. ...... I can't afford any more taxes so I WANT RICH PEOPLE TO PAY FOR IT. I'm a good Democrat. <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

No complaints from me about "paying" but I squeel long and hard while being "raped" by insurance companies, hospitals, and Doctors.


<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Sure lets cancel everbodys insurance so more people can die off, or lose their homes <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />


Let me kow when you find a doc, hospital, or collection agency that takes payments in Hens <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

First off let me say that I am against universal healthcare for political and common sense reasons. Second, I am an agent selling for health insurance companies and I would lose my job <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />. I actually work for the largest broker/agency in the state of Ohio in terms of lives insured under plans in which we are listed as the broker. We are the largest broker for MMO and the 3rd largest for Anthem in the state. We represent most others as well. We also specialize in partially self-funded plans utilizing TPAs. If we have universal healhcare, we will not get rid of the 'evil' healthcare companies. In 1993 the Hillary debacle was looking at a format that would utilize the existing companies to actually continue to administer the government health plan. They would still field the claims questions and administer the payment of the claims. They would also likely be in charge of prioritizing who needs care more. Simply put, it would be a mess. Companies in Canada often still offer health plans to attract employees because the government sponsored plan often doesn't cover certain items and the employees simply do not want to wait for their health care. Did you guys know, in Canada there is no coverage for the cost of the Ambulance? There is also no coverage for prescription drugs. Most Canadians by a supplemental plan to fill the gaps in coverage.

Here are some facts about health insurance in the US.

1. 150,000,000 (THAT"S MILLION!!!) scripts per year are given in the form of antibiotics in treatment of the common cold. We all know that antibiotics do not cure viruses (ie- the common cold). Not to mention the cost for going to the doctor just to get the prescription.
2. 2 out of every 3 scripts for Claritan are given out to people who do not actually have an allergy.
3. Obesity will soon take over as the number one driver of the cost of health premiums. Most times obesity can be managed.
4. People simply do not take care of themselves and do not do enough to take part in their own preventative care. Companies that are successful in implementing care management programs and wellness programs often see their rates stabilize or even decrease within 3 years. The key to success, financial incentives to the employees. The employees will not partake if they are not given money to do so.

Just some things to chew on from a guy who thinks about this every day and is pretty frightened about the political landscape that will be in Washington 1/1/07. Keep in mind, the dems aren't compassionate about those without healthcare, they are more concerned about having more control of your everyday lives.

No.

Nobody is denied healthcare as it is.

Putting it under some type of federal program will only bring down the quality of care.

Canada has universal health care. For that - and other reasons - we pay a lot of taxes. I look at as paying insurance even if you don't wanna. Wait times can be long for non-emergency things, but at least they're "free".

Yet it's also frustrating for people, like me... paying for health care with big taxes, yet rarely use the system. However, maybe someday I'll need it and it'll save me a HUGE hospital bill. Probably I'd be buying insurance all along if I lived in the U.S.

One of our big problems IMO is that health care unions (start with nurses) get paid loads, considering the cost of living in my area. But local hospital authorities are competing with the U.S. and other parts of Canada for the same professionals.

I remember yakking with someone about this at Amelia's, a bar near Hopkins (hotel bar).
This guy was in the health care biz - he wasn't a doc, I can't remember what he did - and he opined that when comparing the U.S. health care system with Canada's as far as how it benefits Joe Regular... it's six of one, half-dozen of the other.

You don't read or don't comprehend? Which one i it?

If you bothered reading my post,you wouldn't be paying for it. But you're so intent on following an example where diplomacy and common sense have been abandoned,no wonder you get so confused.

LOL.....unless you have found the "fountain of youth" and don't want to share......you will.


Yes, you would.....just as you are now.

Like I said, nobody is denied healthcare if they can't pay. it might not be as good or in as nice a place where I might be able to go....but then, why should it?

I don't mean to sound cold or anything, but if you can pay for something, it should be better.

Maybe someday I'll need it, but maybe I'll be one of those who sail through life without major health issues. I'm pretty spry at 39, all things considered. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />





Which was my point... six of one, half-dozen of the other - as far as how it affects my pocketbook.

The only real difference I see Lamp,is if you ever do have a long term illness,they won't put a lean on your property for outstanding medical bills.

That's the half dozen we're missing here. In our country,you work all of your life to pay for a home. Then when you get old and ill,they can end up taking it from you over medical bills that keep stacking up because your insurance doesn't cover nearly all the costs.

Here,unless your pretty damn wealthy,often times you work your entire life only to have it taken away from you for medical bills when you become old. Here,you don't work to get ahead,you work so you can lose everything you've worked for to major insurance companys and collection agencies because you bec ame ill. I've seen it happen time and time again. Pretty sad actually.

You had me thinking, untill this <img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif" alt="" />.
" Keep in mind, the dems aren't compassionate about those without healthcare, they are more concerned about having more control of your everyday lives."

Privatization of hospitals, has not been good to the lower and middle classes. Cost saving measures have led too inadequate support and malpractice problems. Healthcare answering too shareholders, instead of the needs of the patient.

Not trying to jinx you or anything....but spry or not, unless you just drop dead of a heart attack at 56 years old, things are going to start going bad.

I agree, I think one of the big problems in this thread is that National health care means vastly different things to each poster responding. To me its not some sweeping communist style regime where everyone is equal.

As Peen mentioned. Those who have more than your avg Joe are still going to have their own private plans and their own private doctors etc.
Life doesnt change for them. And they continue to reap the benefits that they earned in their lives. Higher end companies will still offer the "good" insurance as a perk to attract employees.

The poorest among us are already covered through various federal and state level welfare based healthcare.

The illegals and other poorest simply go to the emergency room, never pay and the cost for everyone gets jacked up.

IMO the 4 th group is where the National plan is needed. People who can pay something, but not 15 or 20 thousand a year. A more reasonable number. Not free. The people who work, Who pay their bills and who care about their credit reports because they do make enough money to buy a home. Yet cant afford insurance. This is where a National plan is needed IMO.

I completly agree Rage.
The wealthy and most big companys offer health care. But there are vast number of working class people who simply are getting left out.

Is our system so flawed that those who don't work,get treated better than many of those who do and will work? There in lies the problem. I haven't mentioned anything about "free coverage" for anybody. But if we have programs for people who don't work to have coverage can't we work something out for those who do try to contribute to the system and are honest,hard working Americans?

Right along with that, since we're talking about insurance, why not have universal life insurance? I mean, I just got my bill last week, and I'd love it if I didn't have to pay it since all you would pay it for me. That'd be great!

And to whoever posted about being self employed and paying $1800/ month for health insurance: I can see why you are in favor of reducing your costs. Problem is, you reduce yours, everyone else increases theirs.

Anyone stop to think what the auto companies are dealing with right now? You know, guaranteed health insurance for retirees? You know, the big 3 auto companies that are going down the drain? You know, the big 3 that can't can't make a profit? Health insurance is a big reason for that.

Now, put that on a national level......what do you get? See ya, u.s.

What happened to the "be responsible for yourself" ideal that was prevalent 50 years ago? I know what happened. People decided they would be better off if someone else paid for them.

Look at society now.........everyone blames someone else. Everyone wants someone else to pay......See a pattern here folks?

National health care? It will rapidly bring about a national failure. Like it or not.

Maybe someone will start a petition on a program for Ohio, and put it on the ballot. Maybe we will see something like this to vote on, during the presidential elections.

Also for those worried about Malpractice suits, they account for about 2 percent of healthcare costs. Congressional budget office report January 2004.

UAW's postition on Healthcare

Im marking that down <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Anyway heres a few facts for people.


The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 46 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.


http://www.pnhp.org/

Phooey!

Universal health care is a catchy phrase. It cannot, and will not work.

Check with the countries that have it. That should be proof enough for anyone out there that does think it would be good.

Heck, check with the posters on this board that live in countries that have it - see what they think of it. Got a diseese? The doctor will see you in 6 months. If the doc says you need a surgery, you can stop back in in about 12 months. Don't like it? Tough. You are now a number, not a person.

If you had bothered reading the thread,Lamp already told usd about Canada's health care. Seems pretty good to me.Not the doom and gloom picture you paint at all.

<img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

It's going to be regulated soon arch. The skyrocketing health care costs simply can't continue. And as hasbeen said those who don't work get government health care for free now.

But a working American shouldn't be able to get it? You don't see a problem with that?

Well its good too see good ole Dennis Kucininch is still trying to help the working folk out.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich Tackles Health Care
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/november/rep_dennis_kucinich.php


The most likely solution will be the single payer system.

Our healthcare in the US is so expensive because of the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and medical complexes who can charge exorbitent amounts...because someone else is paying the freight.

No competition exists so the prices keep skyrocketing...eliminate the insurance and prices will drop immediately.

This may capsulize my problem with this Universal Health Care Insurance debate.
"To me its not some sweeping communist style regime where everyone is equal."......"IMO the 4 th group is where the National plan is needed. People who can pay something, but not 15 or 20 thousand a year. A more reasonable number. Not free. The people who work, Who pay their bills and who care about their credit reports because they do make enough money to buy a home. Yet cant afford insurance. This is where a National plan is needed IMO."

But don't you understand that the same folks who are struggling to pay all their bills and aren't covered by a plan will now be exactly the ones who must watch their income taxes rise thru the roof to pay for this. Those who do not or cannot work don't pay much in income taxes. Those who are illegal don't worry about reporting income so they don't pay income tax. Guess who is left? Since most of the lower end working class get tax credits to offset their tax liability it is the middle class folks who will carry the burden once again but this time in a most dramatic fashion.
If SSI is going broke in 20 years just think how much fun we'll have paying the taxes to cover Hillary Care 6 to 20 years from now.

If you think that this is an elitist/high horse view of life in America maybe it is.... but where do we go from here. Is Everyone is entitled to a home with 2-4 bedrooms? No one should be without a reliable car to get them from home to the lottery store. Food..Hell Yes! No one should have to buy all their own food should they?

FINANCING H.R. 676

THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

(IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL)



*Medicare For All would reduce health spending in 2005 from $1,918 trillion to $1,861.3 trillion (a savings of over $56 billion) while covering all the uninsured. Ninety-five percent of families would pay less for health care than they do today. This is a 3% reduction in over-all health care spending; what a family pays, business, and government for health care.



Sources of Revenue (2005)



&#8730;Government: $852.5 billion


Keep existing federal, state and local revenues that currently pay for Medicare (employer and employee payroll taxes of 1.45% each or $194 billion) and other federal and state programs.

&#8730;Employers & Employees : $441.6 billion
Implement a modest payroll tax of 3.3% on all public and private employers, while eliminating employer premiums for private health plans. This is in addition to the 1.45% payroll tax that employees and employers are already paying. So the total payroll tax is 4.75% on the employer, and 4.75% on the employee.



&#8730; 5% Health tax on the richest 5% of Americans; 10% tax on richest 1%: $221.8 billion


&#8730;Tax on stock and bond transactions: $144.6 billion
Anyone who buys or sells a stock will pay a transaction tax equal to one quarter of one percent of the purchase price. For example, a $100 stock purchase will be taxed a total of 50 cents.

&#8730;Close corporate tax shelter loopholes: $105.2 billion

&#8730;Repeal the Bush tax cut of 2001 and invest the Bush 'economic stimulus plan' of 2003 into health care: $206 billion


&#8730;Household: $65.9 billion
Since all medically necessary services are covered, including prescription drugs, the only expenses left for individuals will be over-the-counter drugs such as aspirin, elective cosmetic surgery, etc. This represents an 80% reduction in current out-of-pocket expenses.

&#8730;Existing non-patient revenues: $44.5 billion
Existing funds raised from philanthropic donations from individuals and foundations, and from hospital gift shops will continue to contribute a small percentage of the total budget.



Total budget: $1.861 trillion

*This progressive funding package was developed in 2001 by Tony Mazzochi (Labor Party) and Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (Harvard), with assistance from Dean Baker (Center for Economic Research and Policy). For more info, contact Joel Segal, Rep. Conyers, 202 225-5126.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.healthcare-now.org/resources/presentations.htm

Yes,you are being an elitist and nobody is talking about everyone owning their own home and yada,yada,yada.

We're talking about basic human rights of health care for all Americans. You do understand the concept of basic human rights don't you? Or was your life truely that sheltered that you begrudge peiople basic human rights to health care?

You promote spending 500 billion in another nation to destroy it and rebuild it,yet begrudge your fellow Americans health care? What continenet does your loyalty belong to? What nation do you wish to help? Your own,or everybody elses?