States are the best place for healthcare!!

I didn't say healthcare for all. I said a government option. You can keep your private healthcare. The public option is just another choice. You like having choices, right?

And I don't know if states are better than the Federal Government at doing this or not. A little late to suggest this, isn't it Navy? It is almost impossible to take you guys serious when you fought any and all solutions for sooo long and now that you know change is coming, here you are with all the answers. For years you only told us we couldn't, and now you have solutions? This is one of my problems I have with people on the right. Same pattern on every issue. Deny, argue, and then when you can't deny anymore, then tell us that you have the answers. Sorry, we got it from here. We know you don't want change. We know most of you have ok health coverage and you don't want healthcare for all because you worry it will hurt you personally. And healthcare went up 191% during Bush's 8 years. We didn't have enough democratic votes to make change. Now that we do, we don't need your help. We know you only want to slow up any/all progress. Sorry Navy, but you know what I am saying is true.

All of your concerns are either unfounded or can be solved. I don't have all the answers, but I know that you and the slick for profit ceo's can be very convincing. We will take what you say under advisement.

Do private insurers gouge medicare patients like they do blue cross patients? Do they deny medicare patients for pre existing conditions? Medicare works fine. We are just talking about expanding that to millions of Americans. We want the same thing John McCain gets. Seems to work for the Senators. Why can't we have that?

They aren't talking about taking over the healthcare industry. They're just going to be the middle man between the doctors and patients. Trust me, they can figure it out. And do it for less. And you can have a CEO and For Profit making your medical decisions for you. Go for it. In America you are free to do that.

You want a good example of bad contracting, just look at Haloburton and Blackwater. That's why we should not have FOR PROFITS running our wars either. Don't get me started.

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.

__________________

A New Dawn, A New Day..
.

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.

My point in this thread is actully quite simple, and that is that states that are demanding mandated healthcare that is run by the Govt. should be a state issue. In fact if a majority of a states residents desire Universal healthcare then my point is simply that the individual states should as a matter of course vote on that those issues and this issues does not belong at the Federal level as far as "public options" go.

__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz

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.

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.

__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz

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

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 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

__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz

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.