Sure I can claim that. There really isn’t that much difference. A healthy society needs education and a healthy population to flourish. They go hand in hand. Would you disagree?
What does this have to do with your first claim?
This is an all-to-common tactic. You don’t concede you were mistaken earlier; you simply shift to discussing something else.
Do you acknowledge that you said Romney’s plan required mandatory accounts, and that you used this to suggest that it was hypocritical to support this while opposing the mandatory provisions of Obamacare?
And do you now acknowledge that you were mistaken in claiming that Romney’s plan calls for mandatory accounts?
As a general proposition, no, I don’t disagree. But when the particulars of obtaining each goal – education and a healthy population – are disclosed, I might disagree with those particulars.
Because there are differences between public education and the version of UHC currently in law, it’s not necessary for consistency to favor both or neither. The particulars of each plan may make one palatable and the other not.
I’m not seeing any way Romney’s plan CANNOT be mandatory without a starvation option.
Do this, or the govt’ll let you starve seems of fair assessment of a move to such a ‘voluntary’ program.
Naturally, Romney would mince words over this distinction.
But make no mistake, he’s advocating it because he thinks it’ll appeal to the conservatives who could put him in the running for president in 2012.
I never mentioned the term hypocritical. I merely noted that perhaps the actual trouble conservatives have with Obamacare has little to do with there being a government mandate involved. That’s possibly just a bit of smoke hiding the real basis of their objections to the program, whatever those may be.
My experience in New Zealand which has free public healthcare is very positive. I had a bad motorcycle accident a year ago - helicoptered to hospital, 16 days treatment for head injury and a broken C4. No bills, no claim forms, simply good medical care. Hard to see how that could be better.
I know a chap in the US who has developed a heart condition and is trapped in his job. He cannot leave because his health cover is not transferable. Under a public system this issue wouldn’t exist.
As for drugs, in New Zealand we have a government organisation called Pharamac which buys all medicines used in the public system. Individually we can pay for non-approved drugs if we want to, personal choice.
To me its a no-brainer. When you are sick the last thing you and your family need is financial stress.
Sorry, but this is just not true.
Employer group plans cannot deny coverage and under the current rules as long as your friend maintains their existing coverage until the new employer’s plan goes into effect, the only thing they would have to meet is the re-booted yearly deductible.
Unfortunately the real world says that not all employer plans are the same (or do not exist in the new workplace) or the new workplace offers limitations that make it more expensive to make the move, also, just like the new republican rep that complained why this coverage delay was present in the US House of reps, conditions could mean that treatment can not wait that delay. And also pension benefits are usually reset.
And we have not dealt with the the job lock for would be entrepreneurs. (Harder to get health care on your own and very expensive to give it to the workers of small companies)
No idea how I missed that one coming out. Thanks.
No one except you is characterizing the decision to not participate and rely on other support systems, such as family or private savings, as a “starvation option.”
No, it’s not. How about, “Do this if you’ll need the safety net; if you have your own safety net, then don’t, because this is a conservative program and we believe in individual responsibility and not a nanny state.”
Cite?
Cite?
Here’s the quote in question from Romney’s editorial:
First of all, it’s clear that he’s just throwing out the sketchiest of ideas. How anyone an go from that statement to the idea that there would be “mandatory” anything is beyond me. Once could easily add an opt out option to our current system with the proviso that you have an “unemployment account”. Or, having something like a tax deductible IRA type account to supplement the existing system.
In America over half our bankruptcies are caused by medical problems. I bet you can’t match that in New Zealand.
Here was the original claim:
To a rebuttal that group plans cannot, by law, deny preexisting conditions, you respond:
But this objection is true of any job move. Not all health plans are the same; not all jobs are the same. But it’s not true (or at least unlikely in the extreme) that the “chap’s” current policy is so unique that its features wouldn’t be duplicated at many other employers. A short coverage delay is offset by COBRA coverage for the month that isn’t covered, so he retains his current coverage at the same cost it was the prior month.
Pension benefits may be reset for any job change; this has nothing to do with health care.
True.
But this presupposes that health care is some sort of right. Working for a small company means less chance to advance and less flexibility to avoid job loss when a cut occurs and fewer benefits like education reimbursement… but you don’t object to those detriments to working for a small company, because you don’t regard less chance to advance and less flexibility to avoid job loss when a cut occurs and fewer benefits like education reimbursement as rights. You see those as competitive benefits. But health care, you believe, is different.
I don’t agree.
And only in America, among developed nations, we have that “choice” regarding health care.
What is noticeable is that you left out that the people that see the current situation do not dare going on their own because of a preexisting condition. It may be seen as if we are claiming a right, but I see it more as common sense in lights of a horrid recession it is madness to keep small companies from developing in the USA while other nations do not have that problem.
BTW that was not me the one that made the original point, I did not respond to you.
And there I see that you are not living in the current world.
I wish I had the previous job with benefits, but I have to keep my head above the water with the current part time job (many Americans have nowadays) with no benefits.
And yet I do not see it as a detriment, I’m learning a lot in the sense that I could become by own boss in the educational field in the future and if the economy improves, but I will have to knock on wood for a while that I do come down with a disease or suffer an accident, and seeing how you are so prone to very silly presumptions, I will have to assume you suppose that people like me deserves that. (Interesting that I do get educational training as a benefit of my no-health care benefits job, that makes business sense, but the health care is not.)
Now why this growth in by cranium is not going away?
I meant to say that: “but I will have to knock on wood for a while that I don’t come down with a disease or suffer an accident before that.”
Also to say: Now why is this growth in my cranium not going away?
But that only applies if your new company offers benefits and if they hire you full time (many jobs these days are not full time to avoid paying benefits) and if you are not starting your own business (or consulting).
And BTW, COBRA does not offer former employees insurance at the same cost they were paying before, you have to pay the employers contribution as well. And you are paying fro it with post-tax dollars.
Is there any more reason to believe that the reasons for opposing Obama’s healthcare plan have anything more to do with ‘grave constitutional matters’ than to believe all the noble reasons were told were behind our invasion of Iraq ?
I’m just not seeing much call for being charitable to the Republicans on this one. They’ve repeatedly said they want Obama to fail, and IMHO, have done considerable damage to the national interest in working toward that goal.
Why isn’t this latest judicial attack just more of the same?
On that note, I found out that I preferred (Actually, it would had been impossible to make the COBRA payments) to pay the rent and eat than paying what the previous employer was paying for my health care. Indeed, after I looked at the amount I remember thinking that it would not had been hard to hire one extra set of hands for every 5 employees that they had.
IIRC there are even dopers that left the US to start their own businesses because of that nonsense.
I will have to add that **Bricker **doesn’t seem to remember what a stretcher and twister of the truth is the Virginia Prosecutor, strange as he also acknowledged in the Pit thread about Cuccinelli (Already linked) that Cuccinelli is prone of using silly (or extremely misleading or fake research) fig leaves in his attempts to get his way on the courts.