I support both these ideas. No government health plan, because everyone will emulate Ida May Fuller and will want to take out a thousand times more than they put in. When millions of citizens take out millions of dollars, that’s many trillion of magic bucks that has to be printed out of thin air.
Only private plans or non-profits should pay health care costs to those who cannot afford it.
So, it works like this:
If you save up your money, you can expect to use that money to pay for your own health care or the health care of anyone you care about.
If you pay into a private plan, you can expect that money will be used only by participants in that plan.
If you give money to a health plan charity, you can expect that money will be used to pay health care costs for people who cannot afford health care – who might be really needy, but not necessarily anyone you personally know.
The government can provide a certain amount of inexpensive drugs like morphine, tobacco, crack or marijuana to the terminally ill, free of charge up to a limit. The laws will be changed to allow the elderly or the dying to take whatever drugs they like, including currently illegal “recreational” drugs.
I call this plan, SEPPUKU, for “sick, elderly patient plan: u kill urself.”
One of the side benefits is natural selection will make the populace healthier over time.
Then again, The Young Turk talks about a New York Times story claiming their will be no public option with the current UHC bill. The Finance Committee is going to push through a version that amounts to being bought out by big pharma. More people on insurance plans as they continue to jack up the rates is his take. He goes on to promote a Progressive Party, as neither of the ones we have offers real change.
He calls the plan a joke as it doesn’t reduce costs. He’s quite lefty.
Cenk is one of the best new voices on the left right now. He’s very direct, has a spine, and isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. And I somewhat agree with him…I’m afraid the already watered-down public option is going to disappear before the whole thing comes to a vote. The right is up in arms because we’re insisting on a public option. What they’re not thinking about is that the public option IS the compromise…it should have been single payer and devil take the damn insurance companies.
You are joking, right? Obama did not even want a debate. He wanted this pushed through congress before anyone knew what was in it (including him). Now that the legislation is being argued Obama, Pelosi and Reid are busy calling concerned citizens unamerican.
I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we fix the problems we have with the current system instead of blowing the whole thing apart. Most Americans are afraid of two things:
Losing insurance due to a job loss
Not being able to get insurance due to preexisting conditions.
Doesn’t it make more sense to work on these two problems before scratching an entire system that largely works for the vast majority of people?
$1000s per individual American
So, a trillion dollar war = $1000s from each American’s pocket.
A billion dollar “Cash for Clunkers” program = $1000s to about a million persons. Paid for by a few dollars from each person. Or a few million collected from each of thousands of rich persons. So maybe 1 in a thousand people get paid $1000s from their 999 neighbors who didn’t participate. I think this is bad, but not disastrous.
A trillion dollar UHC program (the kind that really satisfies the people who want it) = $millions to millions of people. If you’re not giving $millions to keep the poor alive, one side will complain the program is insufficient and amounts to killing millions of people. :dubious:
Exactly. The Religious Right believes that who helps the poor, and how, is more important than whether the poor are helped effectively. The important thing is the attitude of the giver, not the number of people who aren’t being helped.
So, if it is more effective for the government to take YOUR possessions and give them to the poor than to solicit goods from willing people, I guess that’s okay with you.
More back-of-the-envelope numbers: this trillion dollars is the cost for the next decade, but it’s back-weighted since it doesn’t start right away.
So let’s say that, once it gets rolling, this program will cost $150 billion per year. We’ve got just over 300 million Americans. $150B/$300M = $500 per person per year.
It’s estimated that if we keep the current system, insurance costs will go up by $7000 or so per family over the next decade.
That’s what the Gospels sure seem to say that Christians should believe. I’m not sure where the Religious Right people get their beliefs, but it damned sure isn’t from the Bible.
Now if you’re not a Christian, you’ve got perfectly good grounds for rejecting the value system of the Gospels. But we were talking about Religious Right types here, who supposedly follow the teachings of Jayzus.
No, but the Bible doesn’t equate taxation with theft, either.
But just for shits and giggles, suppose Peter had come up to Jesus and said, “a thief stole a bunch of stuff from me, sold it, and spent it on food that he gave to the poor!” What do you think Jesus would have told Peter?
Based on my reading of the Gospels, Jesus would have probably reminded Peter that he should have already sold his possessions and given the money to the poor, and he should rejoice that the thief essentially did that for him.
This isn’t saying that Jesus would have approved of the thief, but in this conversation, the thief isn’t Jesus’ concern, because Jesus isn’t talking to the thief. His concern is whether poor people were helped with Peter’s money (yes), and how Peter should feel about that (good).
Thanks for replying. $500 per year for 10 years is $5000. Very close to the $7000, if that number is true. So that argument seems to say the plan will save everybody money, if you believe it.
However, in order for the numbers to balance out, the average payout must also be $500 per year. I think a lot of people who cannot afford health care will want to spend at least $500 each year for doctor’s visits, etc. Even if they don’t need to, they will want it because they can. They cannot afford the deductibles or any out-of-pocket payment, so this money must be paid out from the plan.
There’s also going to be a lot of people with serious, chronic, long-term conditions that happen to be very expensive to treat. Sure, they are only a fraction, but it will require $100k to $1 million per year to keep them alive. I would estimate the incidence rate of “highly expensive medical need” is far greater than 1 individual per 1 thousand in a decade time frame. This money must also be paid out from the plan.
I am a selfish, lazy person. So I only want to pay for my own needs and I favor simple solutions. I will support a more complex proposal if it is better in every way than the simpler status quo. But in most of the proposals, someone gets stepped on.
How can this plan possibly pay for the large numbers of people who need over $100k of care per year to linger around for decades?
I do. And that $7000 is per year by 2019 - so quite a bit of money.
As far as the specifics go, you’re asking the wrong guy. Might try Ezra Klein during his next weekly chat.
But it’s clear that there are a LOT of ways to save money, because we’ve got not only a mindbogglingly complex health care ‘system’, but an astoundingly inefficient one as well. The Europeans, Canadians, etc. have a variety of different universal health care systems, and they’re all paying 40-60% as much per capita as we are, and with better outcomes for the most part.
The present mindbogglingly complex system is a sure bet for costs to continue to rapidly increase. Sure, the same thing could happen under ObamaCare, in whatever its final form turns out to be. But there do seem to be a lot of things in the various bills from committee that would bring about cost savings that would help pay for the extra expenses. Hopefully some of them will make it into the final bill, over the alleged deficit hawks’ objections.
Interesting way of looking at it. Perhaps you are right but I doubt JC would have wanted the well-to-do to part with their wealth from the tip of a Roman spear. You can make the argument that Jesus wants you to give, and He wants you to WANT to give, AND He might celebrate the fact that, even though you were robbed, at least the money was doing some good. But, I don’t think He would advocate theft.
No, but that’s not the question that the religious right folks are faced with - nor is it the question Jesus would have been faced with.
Well, no - but like I keep saying, that’s not the question. Bringing in the third party that’s not a part of the conversation doesn’t get you anywhere.
Y’know, Jesus did actually make an explicit statement concerning taxes in the Gospel. In fact, he had absolutely no problem with them. If he considered taxes theft, do you think he would have said to “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”?
It will be. Soon the “Silent Generation” will be dead for electoral purposes, the Baby Boomers will be old & frail. I’m a Baby Buster; we never expected Social Security to pay for us as currently constructed. We need an LBJ or T. Roosevelt for our generation to reinvent the federal government’s priorities, & if we get one, we can beat up any fogey who opposes us.