Who supports universal health care?

Who supports universal health care?

There are 258 comments on the Akron Beacon Journal story from Aug 13, 2008, titled Who supports universal health care?. In it, Akron Beacon Journal reports that:

WASHINGTON: Before the energy-price crisis, before the mortgage crisis, before the credit crisis and the banking crisis, there was the crisis in health insurance that is in reality a crisis in care.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Akron Beacon Journal.

First Prev
of 13
Next Last
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#261 Aug 28, 2008
Karkee wrote:
I sure as hell do.
I have amazing health benifits though my employer, as does my boyfriend. We are both blessed to have good jobs in two diffrent world wide fortune 500 companies, at 19!
However, I was very sick for a few months and had several ER visits, countless tests and dr visits, way to many percriptions ect and that all added up fast!
Our best friend was told to go to a free clinic for trouble with cronic depression. He ended up getting billed 2,000 bucks and sent on a goose chase to 3 places and never did get the help he needed becuase he doesn't have health care.
If you've seen Sicko you know what socialist medican isn't a bad thing. People don't mind paying higher taxes becuase they get good, free healthcare. And the hype about havign to wait forever and not choosing your own doc is a lie. Most goverments allow the patient to go anywhere. Yea Michael Moore can be a bit extereme but when you pay attention to the content and not him, you'll be shocked at how bad the American Health System is. People are denied services that are requried to save their lives, and people are turned away from places because they do not have insurance or the right insurance in case of an exterme emergency.
But we also live in a selfish country where most people wont pay higher taxes to "help thy neighbor". Which is a shame. We'd have a MUCH healthier nation.
Think about it.
I am glad you have good access to health care.

I think the problem is more than some don't want to pay for others to have health care. I believe they don't want others to have health care no matter what. Right now it would cost less if we removed the insurance companies from health care. We could provide health care for 45 million people at no extra cost. Once people started receiving health care regularly costs would decrease.

We could remove the onerous burden of buying health insurance for employees which is on companies. This would make them more competitive and increase business.

The only group that benefits from the current system is the insurance companies. If we simply got rid of the lobbyists for them, everyone else would benefit.

It would be good for businesses, individuals, families.
Marc

Philadelphia, PA

#262 Aug 28, 2008
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Payment for health care is very inefficient now and it does come from my pocket. I am paying a fortune and getting almost nothing for it. Most of the money goes into the pockets of insurance executives. I don't know why we should continue to make them rich. If they want to be rich, let them work for it.
The current health care system is unavailable to about 47 million as advertised, but the number is much much higher than that. For example; most with insurance do not receive health care because after paying the thousands of dollars for insurance they don't have the money for the deductibles. Most don't go see a doctor when they need to and its obvious that the statistical results for health care in the USA are way behind other first world nations. With what is going on now, we should not be considered a first world nation, and it we don't change it, we won't even be a second world nation.
You can blindly believe the bush propaganda about how low unemployment is or you can look it up for yourself. If they calculate unemployment the same way they did during Carter's term, unemployment is about 12%. You can't have 5% unemployment with massive numbers of people all looking for work. in 2004 the numbers were bad also. Unemployment went up after bush took office and has stayed remarkably high.
Yes, both parties are to blame.
I don't support Obama but I have never heard him say he wanted to raise taxes by $1 trillion dollars, that is just right wing propaganda. On the contrary, he will cut spending by $1 trillion dollars and that is taxes we won't have to pay, along with all the interest payments that would have gone along with it.
The last statement I agree with. The government is punishing the producers (workers) and rewarding the non-producers ( leisure class). We need to change the government so the laws don't favor the lazy leisure rich by stealing from the working class.
Where did you hear that Obama was going to cut spending by $1 trillion? Provide that information.

Here is some of Obama's tax plan:

Repeal Bush Tax Cut - which is a tax increase from 35% to 39.5%. How is this detrimental? Well about 70% of employment in this country is based on the smaller business. Not IBM, not GE. Of course, the small business owner may be the guy who works 16-18 hour days and if he pays himself $200k-250k.

Double Capital Gains Tax - so if you sell a house that you purchased for $200k for $300k, assuming a 15% to 30% increase will cost you an additional $15k. Guess what, this affects everybody. Also, there is an underlying theory right now that the stock market is not stable meaning sell off now in anticipation that Obama becomes president. Stocks are subject to capital gains tax.

Elimination of Social Security Cap - right now, the cap is first $102k of income. Obama wants to eliminate the cap. So, the business owner making his $200k now gets hit with another $6k of social security taxes on his part and then another $6k on the company liability.

I have not even touched some of the other taxes such as death tax, etc.

Another liberal buzzword or phrase - "the lazy rich...". Ok. Have you forgotten that the rich provide jobs, provide the brains to start businesses, provide the capital to people to start businesses? Probably not.

Sir - publicly traded companies are owned primarily on what is called "common stock" (most are 98% on up). That would mean - you and I. That would mean if you have a pension, 401k, IRA that you most likely have some ownership in companies. The non-public companies - oh yeah, the "lazy rich" you are talking about tend to work long days and provide jobs and paychecks to the non-rich.

You absolutely should research and categorize your facts before posting. Seriously. I do not mind debating someone, but make sure you bring something to the table....
Marc

Philadelphia, PA

#263 Aug 28, 2008
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Me?? blame the republicans for their own actions? What was I thinking. We need to find someone else to blame for neo-con behavior. How about blaming the teacher's unions. They have no power. They can't even get teachers min wage salaries. They can't negotiate anything; so let's blame them. What difference does it make what party is involved with the teacher's union. They have no power to do anything.
I don't believe the teachers are really indoctrinating students at all. They can't teach anything so how could they teach some ideology?
I do know that some simply say that private schools are better, in spite of having equally bad results. I have seen private schools talk about wanting to do better, but they are typically a waste of money. If your standards are sufficiently low, you can give them lots of your money, but don't take mine. I don't want my money going to private organizations to indoctrinate kids. We need kids who can think, not like the parrots who support the current government.
You seriously need to do some research. Teachers union powerless?

Provide your facts and backup.
Marc

Philadelphia, PA

#264 Aug 28, 2008
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you have good access to health care.
I think the problem is more than some don't want to pay for others to have health care. I believe they don't want others to have health care no matter what. Right now it would cost less if we removed the insurance companies from health care. We could provide health care for 45 million people at no extra cost. Once people started receiving health care regularly costs would decrease.
We could remove the onerous burden of buying health insurance for employees which is on companies. This would make them more competitive and increase business.
The only group that benefits from the current system is the insurance companies. If we simply got rid of the lobbyists for them, everyone else would benefit.
It would be good for businesses, individuals, families.
Once again - who is going to pay for this? Your last few sentences sound great in theory. I will tell you how this will be paid for - and how YOU will pay for it in the end.

Here goes - now that you added your government healthcare - companies now pick up the tab in form of their corporate income tax (I will bet you were not aware that USA is near the top in the world at about 40%). A little secret for you - companies pass the tax expenses along to the consumer adding the cost to the product or service that you buy.

This is the same reason the idiots who bought into Obama's kool-aid about $1k handouts from oil company windfall profits. What do you think they are going to do? They are going to add it to the cost of gas (LOL).
Marc

Philadelphia, PA

#265 Aug 28, 2008
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you have good access to health care.
I think the problem is more than some don't want to pay for others to have health care. I believe they don't want others to have health care no matter what. Right now it would cost less if we removed the insurance companies from health care. We could provide health care for 45 million people at no extra cost. Once people started receiving health care regularly costs would decrease.
Second sentence is very comical. "They do not want others to have health care..." You have a choice - go buy it. Or - go ahead and work for a company who provides better insurance. I am sure as a former teacher and government shill that you had a good healthcare program for you and your family at almost full paid coverage.

As for your last line - you are generalizing cost savings. Provide your research on how adding 47 million people to now a government managed single-payer system will save money. Go ahead. The answer to this is allow for a health savings account that is tax-deductible and can be carried over year-to-year. This would allow for folks to itemize what type of coverage they want.

While we are at it - lets give everybody a baby bond, a college education, a jeep, an airplane...LOL
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#266 Aug 28, 2008
Marc wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again - who is going to pay for this? Your last few sentences sound great in theory. I will tell you how this will be paid for - and how YOU will pay for it in the end.
Here goes - now that you added your government healthcare - companies now pick up the tab in form of their corporate income tax (I will bet you were not aware that USA is near the top in the world at about 40%). A little secret for you - companies pass the tax expenses along to the consumer adding the cost to the product or service that you buy.
This is the same reason the idiots who bought into Obama's kool-aid about $1k handouts from oil company windfall profits. What do you think they are going to do? They are going to add it to the cost of gas (LOL).
We are already paying the most in the world and we get very poor health care. Why should we pay two and three times what anybody else pays and still not let most people have health care. It is the poor and middle class who are subsidizing the wealthy.

You are already paying!!!! Why not get something for it?

I suggest reducing the burden on companies and you cry that it will cost too much. Come on, that doesn't make any sense.

Your little secret is kept a secret by the right wing spin machine because its not true. Companies are in business to make money. When they sell a product, they sell it for as much as they can. If they can sell it for less than it takes to make, they get a profit. If they can sell it for a lot more than it costs to make, they get a large profit. If they can't sell it for more than it costs to make, they don't make it.

You asked about how will Obama reduce spending by $1 trillion dollars? Its actually much more than that, simply by ending the Iraq war. Not starting another war with Iran would save another $5 trillion. Not dropping Nukes on Russia would save another $10 trillion. How much do you want to save?

You complain about the corporate tax being near the highest in the world, don't you find it amazing that for all that money we get almost no services at all? No security, no functional educational system, no health care, no infrastructure, no regulation of business, no ethics in government, no information system which is not extremely biased in favor of the government? We don't even get support for the constitution or the rule of law. You might ask what is all that money going to.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#267 Aug 28, 2008
Marc wrote:
<quoted text>
Second sentence is very comical. "They do not want others to have health care..." You have a choice - go buy it. Or - go ahead and work for a company who provides better insurance. I am sure as a former teacher and government shill that you had a good healthcare program for you and your family at almost full paid coverage.
As for your last line - you are generalizing cost savings. Provide your research on how adding 47 million people to now a government managed single-payer system will save money. Go ahead. The answer to this is allow for a health savings account that is tax-deductible and can be carried over year-to-year. This would allow for folks to itemize what type of coverage they want.
While we are at it - lets give everybody a baby bond, a college education, a jeep, an airplane...LOL
You have a choice if you are independently wealthy. Otherwise, just hope you never get sick or injured in your entire life time.

I quit teaching because of the exceedingly low pay. It was less than min wage and got another degree, this time in engineering. Found a job with good health care and noticed that it got worse every year. Now its about worthless. I am very tempted to forgo insurance because it is not cost effective. If I need health care, I have to pay most of it anyway, and it would save thousands. I have certainly paid many many thousands more into it than I received. I clearly would have been better off having never bought any health insurance at all.

If you can provide a reason why the right wing doesn't want to allow most people access to health care, go ahead, provide an explanation.

Health savings accounts are not practical until they can carry over year to year. You can only put into your health account money you know you will spend. You have to be able to accurately predict the future to get the benefit. Additionally this does very little to reduce the cost of obtaining health care. Just manipulates the way the taxes are paid. No Fix, just spin.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#268 Aug 28, 2008
Marc wrote:
<quoted text>
You seriously need to do some research. Teachers union powerless?
Provide your facts and backup.
I did. I told you I was in the teacher's union and I got less than min wage. They could not even get the school district to obey state law. They had no influence on curriculum. They had no influence on class size. I saw no influence on any aspect of teaching whatever.

If you have different information, share it. Show me where a teacher's union actually negotiated for decent salaries. Show me where they were successful reducing class size. Show me where they helped the teachers at all.
Marc

Philadelphia, PA

#269 Aug 28, 2008
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
We are already paying the most in the world and we get very poor health care. Why should we pay two and three times what anybody else pays and still not let most people have health care. It is the poor and middle class who are subsidizing the wealthy.
You are already paying!!!! Why not get something for it?
I suggest reducing the burden on companies and you cry that it will cost too much. Come on, that doesn't make any sense.
Your little secret is kept a secret by the right wing spin machine because its not true. Companies are in business to make money. When they sell a product, they sell it for as much as they can. If they can sell it for less than it takes to make, they get a profit. If they can sell it for a lot more than it costs to make, they get a large profit. If they can't sell it for more than it costs to make, they don't make it.
You asked about how will Obama reduce spending by $1 trillion dollars? Its actually much more than that, simply by ending the Iraq war. Not starting another war with Iran would save another $5 trillion. Not dropping Nukes on Russia would save another $10 trillion. How much do you want to save?
You complain about the corporate tax being near the highest in the world, don't you find it amazing that for all that money we get almost no services at all? No security, no functional educational system, no health care, no infrastructure, no regulation of business, no ethics in government, no information system which is not extremely biased in favor of the government? We don't even get support for the constitution or the rule of law. You might ask what is all that money going to.
Well you just answered your own point on the last couple of sentences. Why do you want more government? This is why I want limited government - just protect the country.

For company healthcare - I am getting something for it. Coverage. Again - companies who are self-insured tend to pay lower premiums on health care. They can control expenses amongst the risk spread within their own group. They also have a menu for employees to select from.

Provide facts that my point is not true about companies adding corporate taxes to cost of product. Sir - I am a business consultant. I know. The biggest reason companies are leaving the US is to avoid the red tape and complication of taxes.

Provide facts that the poor and middle class are subsidizing the wealthy - how?. This is just another liberal generalization with no basis. Yeah - the evil rich. You are arguing on emotion and not bringing facts to the table.
Marc

Philadelphia, PA

#270 Aug 28, 2008
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. I told you I was in the teacher's union and I got less than min wage. They could not even get the school district to obey state law. They had no influence on curriculum. They had no influence on class size. I saw no influence on any aspect of teaching whatever.
If you have different information, share it. Show me where a teacher's union actually negotiated for decent salaries. Show me where they were successful reducing class size. Show me where they helped the teachers at all.
Sir - that is YOUR union and YOUR argument which makes my point for me. The NEA is the strongest union in the country but has little regard for its teachers - at least in most area. I said it all along - it is not the teachers, it is the union and the government leeches that are part of it. One more thing - nothing against you, but if you got less than minimum wage, that is your fault. Why did you stay with that district?

Now - that said, I can speak for the eastern PA area where each year a district is going on strike. Some of the districts are amongst the highest paid in the country. People are getting fed up with the increased property taxes - but this is a different argument.
Marc

Philadelphia, PA

#271 Aug 28, 2008
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a choice if you are independently wealthy. Otherwise, just hope you never get sick or injured in your entire life time.
I quit teaching because of the exceedingly low pay. It was less than min wage and got another degree, this time in engineering. Found a job with good health care and noticed that it got worse every year. Now its about worthless. I am very tempted to forgo insurance because it is not cost effective. If I need health care, I have to pay most of it anyway, and it would save thousands. I have certainly paid many many thousands more into it than I received. I clearly would have been better off having never bought any health insurance at all.
If you can provide a reason why the right wing doesn't want to allow most people access to health care, go ahead, provide an explanation.
Health savings accounts are not practical until they can carry over year to year. You can only put into your health account money you know you will spend. You have to be able to accurately predict the future to get the benefit. Additionally this does very little to reduce the cost of obtaining health care. Just manipulates the way the taxes are paid. No Fix, just spin.
What reason are you talking about not wanting people to have access to health care? Who are you talking about? What folks do not have it?

Sir - I hate to be blunt, but nobody has a "right" to healthcare. You have a choice to buy coverage. To say that you have a right to healthcare is to imply that you have the right to the services, the time, the assets of a doctor or a company (drug manufacturer).

I agree with your point about HSA. One of the remedies would be to allow for carryover, which yes, some of the Repubs have stressed, namely Mitt Romney. Again, I am not republican, but a libertarian.

I am happy that you found a job by the way in engineering. You made my point from a prior post - you had worked to better yourself which is great. I am doing the same.
just plain mad

Akron, OH

#272 Aug 28, 2008
socialists and welfare recipients would love it. i think it is the dumbest idea there is.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#273 Aug 28, 2008
Marc wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir - that is YOUR union and YOUR argument which makes my point for me. The NEA is the strongest union in the country but has little regard for its teachers - at least in most area. I said it all along - it is not the teachers, it is the union and the government leeches that are part of it. One more thing - nothing against you, but if you got less than minimum wage, that is your fault. Why did you stay with that district?
Now - that said, I can speak for the eastern PA area where each year a district is going on strike. Some of the districts are amongst the highest paid in the country. People are getting fed up with the increased property taxes - but this is a different argument.
I was in the NEA. They had no effect. I can't rationalize any blame on them any more than I can blame the Iraq war on a pebble in the street. If you think it can actually do something, tell me what. They can't really call strikes because some right wing activist judge will "legislate" that it is illegal. The teachers ought to get lots more in wages. They are paid so poorly, many teachers have very low self esteem because society treats them so badly.

I didn't stay in teaching because of the low pay, like I said. That district paid the state average for new teachers so going somewhere else was unlikely.

Yes, I got retrained and found new employment. The division of the company I was in had 2200 employees. Ten years later they had 400 employees and I was one of them. They fluctuated to 600 and down to 375 over the years. They essentially were a corporate welfare company. All their funding came from the government and each program was dumped as soon as it was over. That is why I left that company. I have been at many other companies since and all are having huge financial problems. The last three companies combined have not provided a pay increase in the last 7 years. I know many talented engineers looking for work.

I understand that with the bush administration you are unhappy about such huge tax increases. I oppose them as well. Most school districts have huge budgets but very little gets into the classroom. Most goes to GOP red tape like No Child's left behind. It used to be that the administrator for the school had an office in the high school. Now there are huge separate buildings to provide work space for administrators to fill out all the GOP required red tape.

This has been in the platform of the GOP all my life. I have watched them add regulation after regulation on everything they don't want, like education or health care. Then they say they want to get rid of regulation on the little guy but instead they eliminate the few shreds of regulation on large companies; all the while keeping the regulations on people.
Marc

Philadelphia, PA

#274 Aug 28, 2008
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I was in the NEA. They had no effect. I can't rationalize any blame on them any more than I can blame the Iraq war on a pebble in the street. If you think it can actually do something, tell me what. They can't really call strikes because some right wing activist judge will "legislate" that it is illegal. The teachers ought to get lots more in wages. They are paid so poorly, many teachers have very low self esteem because society treats them so badly.
I didn't stay in teaching because of the low pay, like I said. That district paid the state average for new teachers so going somewhere else was unlikely.
Yes, I got retrained and found new employment. The division of the company I was in had 2200 employees. Ten years later they had 400 employees and I was one of them. They fluctuated to 600 and down to 375 over the years. They essentially were a corporate welfare company. All their funding came from the government and each program was dumped as soon as it was over. That is why I left that company. I have been at many other companies since and all are having huge financial problems. The last three companies combined have not provided a pay increase in the last 7 years. I know many talented engineers looking for work.
I understand that with the bush administration you are unhappy about such huge tax increases. I oppose them as well. Most school districts have huge budgets but very little gets into the classroom. Most goes to GOP red tape like No Child's left behind. It used to be that the administrator for the school had an office in the high school. Now there are huge separate buildings to provide work space for administrators to fill out all the GOP required red tape.
This has been in the platform of the GOP all my life. I have watched them add regulation after regulation on everything they don't want, like education or health care. Then they say they want to get rid of regulation on the little guy but instead they eliminate the few shreds of regulation on large companies; all the while keeping the regulations on people.
I blame both parties. This just did not happen in 2000 when Bush came aboard. But if you look, the NEA had endorsed Hillary. Bottom line for me at least is that I want little government intervention as possible. I advocate the opportunity for ALL kids to be able to select a school of their choice. Now, that all said - education is a two-way street where parents are accountable as well. I think that is one of the biggest problems with kids today.

That is good that you found another profession and seem to be doing well. Now - that said, if you liked teaching, some private schools might offer better package (one of the reasons why I like vouchers and choice). Some of the private schools in my area pay very well. Of course, they are held to a higher standard.
George N

Fountain Inn, SC

#275 Aug 28, 2008
Red wrote:
<quoted text>George, your greed and "I got mine" mentality is appalling. Wait until you lose your job and are suddenly without health insurance, and sudden illness strikes. You will sing a different tune, my friend.
My division closed when I was past 60. I simply paid the COBRA until I found other work, which was only a short time. I started preparing not only for retirement while I was in my 30s, but also prepared for contingencies such as sudden joblessness. I could have kept COBRA for 18 months and then transitioned to private insurance. Not cheap, but if you are prepared and keep your priorities straight, it is a "piece of cake"
bobbi

Hillsboro, KS

#276 Aug 28, 2008
I think the problem with health care is over regulation. gone are the days of a doctor charging $30 for a office visit. Now, he has to 'code' exactly for everything you seen him for during the visit. This is for billing AND legal issues. Secondly, malpractice insurance premiums have shot through the roof. Our government powers want to restrict our right to sue for whatever amount. Actually, the problem lies with a few doctors making alot of mistakes, and the AMA not revoking their license to practice medicine. The 80's and 90's brought us a time of CEO pay in every industry shooting to the stars. Someone had to approve this pay. Followed by government regulations and you see the mess we are in now. We ahve no one to blame but ourselves.
Latashia

London, UK

#277 Mar 26, 2014
This is the first time I had ever applied for a loan. I couldn't have asked for anything more from the staff that answered any of my questions to the application process. Once this had all been completed the money was transferred quickly into my account. I will definitely be recommending 911PDAY .COM ( http://goo.gl/44kQUQ ) too my friends and family.
Jaimie

Madison, WI

#278 Mar 27, 2014
I think people miss another angle.

ILLEGAL to disrupt someones medical, surgical or recovery cares.

Phd Md and higher all have liability insurence for when your insurence or payment plan is not in on a timely 6 month basis.

You neglected to audit DR or clinic or hosptial for duplicate billing and itemized court remainder which is less then $25 total for services and surgery AFTER their unlawful billing malpractice. And thru that case Maybe MEdical mapractice and unlawful services procedures and medications to you.

Illegal for a Dr not to render their cares and services Prepaid expertise.

Where would you NOT dispute your budget and accounts with IRS and courts. Medical is YOUR OWN IMMEDIATE family accounting and life and death scenerio correct.

Thru those audits IRS finds guilty of attmpted murder for life insurence or stock market gambling on civilian life forms with local bank and employers and state representatives and zipcode oridence groups and church groups for $2.5 million on their policies for allocating service or cares to put YOUR families in prison at a later date. Be ontop of yoru life to secure yoru spouse and childrens fates as well.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hillary Clinton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Donald Trump encourages Russia to hack Hillary ... 2 min Jaimie 13
News Texas Dems to DNC: Pick a Castro, Any Castro St... 3 min anonymous 1
News Poll: Trump supporters unfazed by reversal on s... 5 min Mite Be 215
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 6 min woodtick57 5,482
News Will Green Political Machine Foil Trump? 7 min tina anne 28
News Trump bounces into the lead 8 min WeTheSheeple 160
News Despite her many roles, Hillary Clinton still h... 14 min CZars_R_US 286
More from around the web