DNC will refuse funds from lobbyists, PACs

[GraceAbounds]

Nationalized healthcare isn't the answer, I don't care what you say. Accountability and regulation is the answer, the government has refused to hold insurance companies accountable, and consequently the medical system as a whole, what you do with a system that is broken is fix it, you don't add more of what fucked it up to begin with....Which is the government.

That is a fundamental approach of the Dems I DON'T agree with at all, "let's add an agency to fix this".

Agree'd, though I disagree with not adding an agency. On top of regulating insurance companies we need a govt agency set up that can subsidized insurance payments for the poor and uninsurables so that all can be covered in this country.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Agree'd, though I disagree with not adding an agency. On top of regulating insurance companies we need a govt agency set up that can subsidized insurance payments for the poor and uninsurables so that all can be covered in this country.

They already have a system in place.....I am pretty sure there are hospitals that take anyone, we have them all over the place here...

And Johnny Q taxpayer covers that bill.

 

[GraceAbounds]

They already have a system in place.....I am pretty sure there are hospitals that take anyone, we have them all over the place here...

And Johnny Q taxpayer covers that bill.

I've already addressed these points in previous posts in this thread. If there was a working system in place people would not be dying for lack of insurance and 'real' care.

 

[Tim]

You pay dearly for the care in your taxes and you have absolutely no choice. You could have the exact thing here simply by choosing to have a healthcare insurance plan. Problem is people CHOOSE not to have insurance.

Have you priced out heath care recently? I just got a few comparative quotes for shits and giggles...

So I can expect to pay $3,000.00 a year PLUS $5,000.00 in deductibles PLUS 20% co-pay PLUS $40 per office visit and prescriptions my family may need and hope my wife doesn't get pregnant.

Well holy shit, sign me up. :smiley24:

But I guess your right, people have no problem affording this but just choose not to have it.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Have you priced out heath care recently? I just got a few comparative quotes for shits and giggles...

This is the same type of thinking that argues Alaskan oil is only good for two years use. It's a great selling point, but not realistic in the given scenario. (privatized health care)

 

[Tim]

This is the same type of thinking that argues Alaskan oil is only good for two years use. It's a great selling point, but not realistic in the given scenario. (privatized health care)

My point is that most people who don't have a health care plan is due to economics, not choice.

The above quote were the lowest 3 for my family in my area. If I didn't have health care through my employer, I would have a very hard time handling those costs. Not to mention the poor coverage I would be getting with those plans.

The insurance I currently have costs my employer over $600 a month. A mortgage payment for some....

 

[IntruderLS1]

For the sake of argument, I'll give you everything you've put down as complete and correct even in the altered sinario (And it may very well be). How much are your yearly taxes going to move in order for the government to administer this health care system?

As a general rule of thumb (and I can actually think of no instances where this isn't true), private citizens and private industry are able to do things cheaper than government.

I've seen or heard nothing to convince me that a national health care system will be any different.

Have you?

 

[Tim]

I am certain that it will be extremely difficult to do it right. I have little faith that the government is going to get it right the first time out. This isn't a simple brake job here. It has many facets to the problem that must be dealt with simultaneously for it to work.

But they way I see it is this... we already pay for the uninsured. They aren't refused life saving care whether they will ever pay or not. So these costs are already passed onto us, but it's done so, very inefficiently. There are great savings to be had with preventative care for everyone (even the uninsured), there is no arguing that. There are great savings to be had by stream lining the system and how it's run.
These are things that the private health care providers cannot fix. There needs to be system wide reform. There needs to be uniformity throughout the health care system for ALL of us to realize the savings that can be had.

We pay far more on health care than any other nation, yet we aren't even close to having the best health care system. That needs to be fixed and we can't just hope the free market solves those system wide problems.

 

[BreakfastSurreal]

i didn't read this whole thread... but I don't really think I buy it...they SAY that they won't take money...but I am sure somewhere there will be some type of money or PROMISE of money or power to someone.

 

[dt3]

There needs to be system wide reform.

Yes I took your whole post and made it one sentence

But I agree 100%, I just don't think the government running it is a viable option. What kind of profit margins do the insurance companies make? Why doesn't Congress call them on the carpet instead of their damn dog and pony show with the oil companies that ultimately solves nothing?

 

[Tim]

Yes I took your whole post and made it one sentence

But I agree 100%, I just don't think the government running it is a viable option. What kind of profit margins do the insurance companies make? Why doesn't Congress call them on the carpet instead of their damn dog and pony show with the oil companies that ultimately solves nothing?

So we all seem to agree that the system needs an overhaul... we just disagree with how it needs to happen.

One point I would like to make that seems to go along with this whole debate is... I think it's a real shame the hospitals are now for profit organizations. This was a change made back in the 1960's, before that hospitals were more of a public service. I believe that there are certain professions that should not be about profit, but about community service.

 

[dt3]

So we all seem to agree that the system needs an overhaul... we just disagree with how it needs to happen.

One point I would like to make that seems to go along with this whole debate is... I think it's a real shame the hospitals are now for profit organizations. This was a change made back in the 1960's, before that hospitals were more of a public service. I believe that there are certain professions that should not be about profit, but about community service.

Absolutely to both points. I was thinking about what I would do instead of nationalizing healthcare, and I came up with this (as a starting point, not as the final end-all solution): Why not give tax breaks to doctors who volunteer at city-sponsored free clinics? Something like for every 8 hours you put in there, you get "x" amount of dollars off your total taxable income for the year. Something like that would make more sense to me than creating yet another giant bureaucracy.

 

[Tim]

Don't get me wrong when I say "not for profit"

I strongly believe that the health care providers should be paid well... I just don't care for the Groups that own hospitals do so for profit. I see a lot of that here in Philly. And trust me... it's HUGE profit.

 

[Alien Allen]

Obama is a hypocrite and a fraud. The money will get to him. Otherwise he would not have gone back on his pledge to offer to to use public funding if his opponent did.

 

[Tim]

Obama is a hypocrite and a fraud. The money will get to him. Otherwise he would not have gone back on his pledge to offer to to use public funding if his opponent did.

He didn't participate in public funding as a simple matter of economics. He would have been a complete fool to do so. It is estimated that he will raise almost a half a billion for the campaign from Joe voter. Now if he were to agree to take public financing, McCain would have a huge advantage over him. With the way the system can be gamed and the 501 groups out there willing to invest millions in this campaign.

I am very glad he choose to forgo the public financing... actually, he is going with public financing. He's getting his money one voter at a time. The way it should be.

Hell, he is the first politician to ever get any of my money. :clap

 

[Alien Allen]

He didn't participate in public funding as a simple matter of economics. He would have been a complete fool to do so. It is estimated that he will raise almost a half a billion for the campaign from Joe voter. Now if he were to agree to take public financing, McCain would have a huge advantage over him. With the way the system can be gamed and the 501 groups out there willing to invest millions in this campaign.

I am very glad he choose to forgo the public financing... actually, he is going with public financing. He's getting his money one voter at a time. The way it should be.

Hell, he is the first politician to ever get any of my money. :clap

Oh it was smart politically but still he lied. Now that McCain is locked into public funding Obama decided it was not in his interest. No matter how you spell it it comes out liar and hypocrite. Have we not had enough dishonesty. and please don't give me the whine about the advantage McCain would have. That is nonsense.

 

[Tim]

McCain had no choice, he had no chance of being able to raise enough money to compete...

He changed his mind on this (lied) but I still see this as the right choice for him. Now if he were opting out of public finance so he could take in PAC money, then I would call him a typical politician...