Myth busting universal healthcare

[jreeves]

Who do you work for?

I work in real estate management....

 

[Chris]

I work in real estate management....

So you pay for health insurance or your company pays?

 

[Glori.B]

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 1, 2007
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Majority Back Health Care for All

there's a big difference between the government guaranteeing health coverage for every american, which i think falls under protecting the general welfare...and wanting the government to be the administrator of a universal single payer plan, which i think would be the wrong way to go.

 

[dilloduck]

there's a big difference between the government guaranteeing health coverage for every american, which i think falls under protecting the general welfare...and wanting the government to be the administrator of a universal single payer plan, which i think would be the wrong way to go.

I owe you rep for that one----obviously from the mind of someone with super powers.

 

[DiamondDave]

there's a big difference between the government guaranteeing health coverage for every american, which i think falls under protecting the general welfare...and wanting the government to be the administrator of a universal single payer plan, which i think would be the wrong way to go.

Again... someone else misinterpreting what promoting the general welfare means...

Promoting the general welfare is not about providing individuals something.... it revolves around actions for the country with the populace as a whole (the populace as an entity)... The founding fathers never set up this constitutional republic to be a nanny state, an insurance company, or an allowance system.... the founding fathers never intended for the government to take over the personal responsibilities of the individual citizens of this country... and yes, you are to be responsible for yourself which includes you taking care of your medical expenses, you paying for your meds (or buying into an insurance type program on your own for your own expenses)....

 

[Chris]

there's a big difference between the government guaranteeing health coverage for every american, which i think falls under protecting the general welfare...and wanting the government to be the administrator of a universal single payer plan, which i think would be the wrong way to go.

A single payer system has inherent cost savings. Requiring everyone to pay an insurance company is the worst of both worlds.

 

[Charles_Main]

Universal coverage is cheaper. That is the point you are missing.

There are inherent cost savings in universal healthcare.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

I do not care how much you save. The end result will still be the Government not the private sector spending the money. Which will mean higher taxes, and or large deficits.

 

[Chris]

I do not care how much you save. The end result will still be the Government not the private sector spending the money. Which will mean higher taxes, and or large deficits.

That is wrong. Large deficits only come from tax cut and spend Republicans.

 

[jreeves]

So you pay for health insurance or your company pays?

Both

 

[Bern80]

That is wrong. Large deficits only come from tax cut and spend Republicans.

Wow, i mean just wow. Everyone knows balancing a budget or cutting spending isn't even on the left's radar. How exactley is your side planning on balancing the budget?

As to universal healthcare I can and have previoulsy gone on extensively as to why it's a bad idea. Here are just a few problems.

1) As Diuretic pointed out early on it works in Australia and Canada partially because the have a small population. The fact that we have over ten times as many people in our country to consider is going to be part of the problem.

2) The WHO list was posted in here as somehow proof that our system isn't working. But if one were to look a bit closer at how those numbers were derived you would see they put a heavy emphasis on cost per individual, Meanwhile in terms of efficiency and quality of health care we were ranked in the top 5 if I recall according to that very list.

3) Contrary to popular opinion universal health care will be far from preventative. All it will do is reprioritize people's pain. Right now if you need doctor you will be seen. To a very limited extent the prirotization currently goes those that are insured are seen first. Under UHC you will simply prioritzie people's pain to the point where we are only treating people when it is absolutely critical.

4) On an ideological note, why is your health my responsibilty? As such the actual cost of health care will go even higher, not lower, because while prices are high now, history has shown the government is thoroughly incapable of towing the line in saying we will not pay for this.

 

[jreeves]

That is wrong. Large deficits only come from tax cut and spend Republicans.

Sigh...

How many times are you going to repeat lies? Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the large deficits of this country. Social programs such Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Housing assistance, foodstamps, headstart programs, earned income tax credits and many, many more programs are by far the major contributors to large deficits, which were in most cases programs trumpeted by democrats.

 

[Chris]

Wow, i mean just wow. Everyone knows balancing a budget or cutting spending isn't even on the left's radar. How exactley is your side planning on balancing the budget?

As to universal healthcare I can and have previoulsy gone on extensively as to why it's a bad idea. Here are just a few problems.

1) As Diuretic pointed out early on it works in Australia and Canada partially because the have a small population. The fact that we have over ten times as many people in our country to consider is going to be part of the problem.

2) The WHO list was posted in here as somehow proof that our system isn't working. But if one were to look a bit closer at how those numbers were derived you would see they put a heavy emphasis on cost per individual, Meanwhile in terms of efficiency and quality of health care we were ranked in the top 5 if I recall according to that very list.

3) Contrary to popular opinion universal health care will be far from preventative. All it will do is reprioritize people's pain. Right now if you need doctor you will be seen. To a very limited extent the prirotization currently goes those that are insured are seen first. Under UHC you will simply prioritzie people's pain to the point where we are only treating people when it is absolutely critical.

4) On an ideological note, why is your health my responsibilty? As such the actual cost of health care will go even higher, not lower, because while prices are high now, history has shown the government is thoroughly incapable of towing the line in saying we will not pay for this.

Everything in your post is wrong. Everything.

Clinton balanced the budget. Bush and Reagan created 90% of the National Debt with supply side economics, or as George Bush Sr. called it, "Voodoo economics."

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

1. EVERY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD HAS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. Size has nothing to do with it. We are the richest country in the world, and we have more resources than any other country in the world. We can do it.

2. What good is healthcare if you can't afford it. 47 million people in the U.S. don't have any health insurance.

3. Universal healthcare is not preventative? Boy, that's a head scratcher. A lot of people in America can't afford to go to the doctor, so they put it off until the condition becomes chronic and they end up in the emergency room, the most expensive care there is. So yes, if people have universal coverage it is preventative because they will go to the doctor sooner.

4. Why is my health your responsibility. Guess what? If you have insurance, and I have the same insurance, my health is your responsibility. That's how it works. A single payer system is the same way. There is only one insurance company and that produces cost savings so everyone can be covered.

 

[Chris]

Sigh...

How many times are you going to repeat lies? Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the large deficits of this country. Social programs such Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Housing assistance, foodstamps, headstart programs, earned income tax credits and many, many more programs are by far the major contributors to large deficits, which were in most cases programs trumpeted by democrats.

Supply side economics was Reagan's idea. Do a little reading on it and get back to me.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

 

[jreeves]

Everything in your post is wrong. Everything.

Clinton balanced the budget. Bush and Reagan created 90% of the National Debt with supply side economics, or as George Bush Sr. called it, "Voodoo economics."

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

1. EVERY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD HAS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. Size has nothing to do with it. We are the richest country in the world, and we have more resources than any other country in the world. We can do it.

2. What good is healthcare if you can't afford it. 47 million people in the U.S. don't have any health insurance.

3. Universal healthcare is not preventative? Boy, that's a head scratcher. A lot of people in America can't afford to go to the doctor, so they put it off until the condition becomes chronic and they end up in the emergency room, the most expensive care there is. So yes, if people have universal coverage it is preventative because they will go to the doctor sooner.

4. Why is my health your responsibility. Guess what? If you have insurance, and I have the same insurance, my health is your responsibility. That's how it works. A single payer system is the same way. There is only one insurance company and that produces cost savings so everyone can be cover.

Lie...national debt grew under Clinton. I can provide links if needed.

In addition...
The Democratic Congress's 2008 Budget: A Tax and Spending Spree
In January, a Democratic congressional majority was sworn in that was elected in part by promising fiscal responsibility. The Democrats specifically pledged to limit spending increases and employ pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting to keep the budget deficit in check.

As their first year moves toward a close, it has become clear that the members of this majority have failed to live up to their promises. In just 10 months, Congress has passed legislation that would increase federal spending by a combined $454 billion over 10 years and raise taxes and fees by $98 billion over 10 years and has passed a budget resolution that would bring the tax increase to a projected $2.7 trillion.[1]

Despite the Democrats' PAYGO pledge of no new deficit spending, legislation enacted thus far has increased spending much faster than taxes, resulting in an additional $356 billion in deficit spending.

 

[jreeves]

Supply side economics was Reagan's idea. Do a little reading on it and get back to me.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

Debt in the Reagan years grew under a Democratic Congress, which is ultimately responsible for tax and spend policies. But do keep repeating the same boring lies...its really funny and shows your desperation.

 

[Chris]

Debt in the Reagan years grew under a Democratic Congress, which is ultimately responsible for tax and spend policies. But do keep repeating the same boring lies...its really funny and shows your desperation.

The truth hurts doesn't it.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

 

[Chris]

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on 9/30/1980, was $907,701,000,000. On 9/30/1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the only president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt since the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton took office on 1/20/1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton took office), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw and approved almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.

 

[jreeves]

The truth hurts doesn't it.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

It's funny, that you attribute it to Reagan when in fact Congress is responsible for tax and spending policies...

 

[Chris]

It's funny, that you attribute it to Reagan when in fact Congress is responsible for tax and spending policies...

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on 9/30/1980, was $907,701,000,000. On 9/30/1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the only president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt since the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton took office on 1/20/1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton took office), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw and approved almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.

 

[jreeves]

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on 9/30/1980, was $907,701,000,000. On 9/30/1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the only president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt since the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton took office on 1/20/1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton took office), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw and approved almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.

Democratic Congress passed each and every dollar of the debt that was incurred during Reagan's Presidency