Posted on 09/15/2007 2:56:27 PM PDT by Pencil
First, I humbly ask before you comment to read my entire post. Then feel free to comment however you wish.
I support universal healthcare, even if it means for the government to either mandate or subsidize medical care. I would prefer a mandate, as opposed to an unneeded subsidy, since people should be responsible for their own health. Here's why:
I'm sure you are aware of the jist of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. Essentially, what the law says is that regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay, hospitals must provide stabilizing care to anyone who walks through the hospital doors. Regardless of your position on this law (but I encourage a debate here over this law), the fact is that hospitals spend $34 billion in uncompensated care almost entirely because of this law (which was passed by a Republican Senate and signed by President Reagan).
National Coalition on Health Care
Another $34 billion is paid by private and public sources for the uninsured. $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket.
How much does it cost to get health insurance on average per annum? Under Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts, the average monthly cost of health insurance dropped from $335 to $175.
The Romney Vision
Of course, this happens for two reasons. One is that people who are stay healthy end up paying for the people who get sick. (However, it is not knowable who will stay healthy and who will be sick). Most importantly, however, the mitigation of risk allows insurance companies to charge a lesser overall premium without risking bankruptcy.
Let's say we took the $68 billion that is paid by other people subsidizing the health care of the uninsured. We then commit this fee to subsidizing mandated health insurance premiums for those who can't afford it. For the sake of argument, let's say all 40 million people who don't have health insurance can't afford it while everybody who has health insurance can. Let's multiply $175/month/person * 12 months * 40 million people. I get $84 billion.
$84 billion - $68 billion = An extra $16 billion, presuming we subsidize the health care of the poorest 13% of the population (40 million/300 million). Ammortized over the entire population, that's $4.44/American/month. With how much we're spending in other areas in the federal budget, I really wouldn't mind spending an extra $4 or $5 per month in monthly health premiums if that ensured continual medical coverage. (For the people that may argue I would lose incentive to work, I would be willing to exempt able bodied men and women are jobless and who refuse to accept appropriate guidance and in finding gainful employment.)
I look forward to a good discussion here and I expect some people to disagree with me. Just tell me why you think I'm right or wrong.
When has the government ever administered a plan wisely?
Here’s a better idea. Move to Canada or Cuba. Do not use any health care except what they offer. Get back to me in about 5 - 10 years and tell me how satisfied you are with your health care.
Just what's needed: more welfare.
I don’t think a mandated private health care program, like Mitt Romney’s program, has been tried anywhere on a national basis. I may be wrong on this though.
How is that universal Canadian healthcare working out? It is not. You have to wait and wait and wait for very needed and important procedures and surgeries, so some Canadians are forced to come here to get treated.
Hospitals have had endless subsidies from government, including that most operate entirely tax free despite the fact that their doctors and administrators get rich from their activities.
Requiring them to be good citizens in the community is not an imposition. What is unfair is that this obligation extends to gateway communities that bear the brunt of illegal immigration.
Outcomes with socialized medicine mean more people die.
Governement anything other than defense is a constitutional misuse of tax payer dollars.
For a noob you have a lot of nerve pushing Socialism on a conservative website.
IBTZ
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Now ya done it!
I think you’re being insanely optimistic. If the government took over health care, the costs would explode into the trillions, not the $84B you blithely assume.
There’s better solutions to the problem of uninsured patients who can’t or won’t pay for medical care than to hand it all over to the fed gov.
Marxism has been tried, failed and discarded. Read history.
The solution is to allow tax free or deductible individual health savings account, people spend their own money, and keep what they don’t spend. The free market is the most efficient means to control costs and guarantee access to all. Costs will fall.
:-(
We have enough government mandated socialism in this country. Socialism ruins everything it touches. It will ruin medicine here, just as it has everywhere else. I suggest that you read Solzynytsin’s(sp)”The Cancer Ward” for an eye opener on socialized medicine.
Here’s a moral question for you. You don’t have health insurance for whatever reason. Why do you think that it is ok, moral, right, correct for the govt to rob me at gun point to pay for your insurance?
Should I get robbed at gun point to buy you a car, a boat, a house? If not, why not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.