Actually, I don't. It's above my pay scale. Someone else is going to define and devise a way forward and I don't expect to agree with all of it just like I don't expect you to. But... I DO expect you to agree with the need to work it out somehow. And I also expect you to give some leeway to the idea that it's going to be expensive. I expect this from you because I believe that you actually belong to the largely mythological group known as 'compassionate conservatives.' I agree this should be done wisely and I agree that the cost is going to hurt. But I expect you to agree that if we are going to sustain painful costs as a nation, this ought to be a priority. I expect that of you because I respect you. This move is long overdue. I agree that money is a problem but, after all this time, I have a hard time believing will and cynicism are not bigger ones. I can't define a basic plan for you. Until last month I believed I was fully covered because I had full insurance coverage through work. As it turns out, I was supposed to have somewhere between $5-8,000 dollars just lying around to drop in co-pays without missing it. And I guess I was supposed to have another couple thousand for related expenses. And that's with full coverage. So it turns out my plan sucks. I'm not saying I know the solution. I'm just saying this is the LAST place we should be cutting corners and the last place we should be worried about the deficit -- especially since we've been historically willing to spend, spend, spend on less worthy causes in the recent past.
I don't want to derail the thread, but do you have any earthly idea what would happen if the U.S. cut all foreign aid? Another question: Just how much do you think the U.S. spends on foreign aid? Foreign aid is a phony bogeyman.
What I do know is that there are complicated questions on how, when, where and why and honestly who cares. I am thankful there are smarty people working on this and I know this can be figured out in short time. The simple question is should national health care be reality? Yes.
We could cut the billion dollar tank shaped like a dragon: <object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FDRAGON_TANK_article.jpg&videoid=96876&title=Obama%20Axes%20Pentagon%20Plan%20To%20Build%20Billion%20Dollar%20Tank%20In%20Shape%20Of%20Dragon" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FDRAGON_TANK_article.jpg&videoid=96876&title=Obama%20Axes%20Pentagon%20Plan%20To%20Build%20Billion%20Dollar%20Tank%20In%20Shape%20Of%20Dragon"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_axes_pentagon_plan_to_build?utm_source=videoembed">Obama Axes Pentagon Plan To Build Billion Dollar Tank In Shape Of Dragon</a> Cutting defense spending and cutting defense isn’t the same thing. A very good example of this is the multibillion dollar program that some Air Force generals are backing to replace all the W76 warheads in the US arsenal. There is nothing wrong with the US bombs. Nothing that exists can stop them. But these generals want "cool new toys" (like stealth polymer evasive warheads even though there's nothing for them to actually evade) and when they spew some BS about a threat to national security everybody just jumps to attention without even looking. Invoking "national security concerns" shouldn't be a magic pass for these guys to get whatever they want without any legitimate cost/benefit analysis. For the past 30+ years, that is exactly what it has done. Some policy wonk says "national security" and nobody will dare challenge their funding requests, no matter how silly. For instance, do we really need to spend millions of dollars for a prototype steam engine robot that can power itself by consuming the corpses of enemy soldiers? Really?
I understand the idea that national healthcare is just the "right thing to do" and I've come over to that viewpoint recently. But what really moved me at first were the projections of how healthcare costs would continue to spiral upwards if nothing was done. As a practical matter, the risk of doing nothing or too little became greater than the risk of bold action. IMO, cost control is just as important as expanding coverage, which is why some sort of public option is probably necessary. I'm with you that the details on what should be covered are tough.
Bankrupt the country? If you switched to any other first world country's system you would save close to a trillion dollars and still have 100% of your people insured. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf I'm don't understand how the fact that the US system is incredibly wasteful keeps getting overlooked. One of the biggest reasons you need to reform your system is to save money. Of course much of that extra trillion goes into the pockets of the heath care insurers so you can be sure they'll do anything they can to maintain the status quo, or something very close to it.
In Canada the Federal government sets certain minimum standards and kicks in money but the provinces manage the plans. There are some differences between provinces, therefore, but here is what's covered by Alberta's basic health care plan. http://www.health.alberta.ca/AHCIP/plan-benefits.html
Old people are already covered by socialized medicine. I don't see why the poor and young don't deserve it.
There are actually two issues related to cost. Costs are spiraling everywhere and that's an issue even in countries with universal health care, but apart from that the US system is just extremely inefficient. Here's the link again from my other post. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
I don't really understand this term "socialized medicine" either. Do you talk about your fire departments as socialized fire protection, and your police forces as socialized law enforcement? Health care is a basic service that a government should provide for it's citizens, and like other such basic services, like the army, fire protection and law enforcement, it is best managed by a government in one way or another.
It's the stigma that you don't have a choice of which HMO/PPO provider to get into, each of which normally pre-chooses 4 or 5 local doctors that you can go to.... ::shrugs::
Wow -- is this actually a sane, content-rich, well-humored thread on an important topic. Kudos all around! Seriously. I'm as pro-health-care-reform as the next guy, but I really, really don't understand the huge rush, and I worry that the push is more "do something while we have this unusual majority in both chambers" than "we must fix it ASAP." I'll try to keep an open mind, but I don't really like the new high-end tax to fund this. It should be funded by being smarter and more like (as Grizzled points out) the smart systems around the world.
Please keep this Republican garbage out of here. If you don't have an alternative plan, then don't say anything.
