Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP PS DAR, I liked the article in post 52. I think it did a fair job of laying out the pros and cons. And, I agree with Kar2oonMan, in post 55 that the weakest of all the con arguments is that we'll be laying off lost of insurance paper pushers.
Originally Posted By jonvn I believe DAR mentioned that he worked for the insurance industry. I think that informs his opinion somewhat.
Originally Posted By alexbook >><<And will wages then rise immediately upon the company getting out from under the burden today - nope.>> This I think will be very true if one works for a mega-corp. For smaller firms it might be different.<< I've mostly worked for small businesses, and I'd be shocked if any of them offered to raise my pay to compensate for discontinuing health insurance.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>On the other hand, my mega-corp employer loves to gives us "total-compensation statements" that highlight costs such as insurance.<< This is an interesting idea. I've often heard from employers that my paycheck is only a small part of what they have to pay to keep me, but I've never seen any actual numbers. How does it work?
Originally Posted By DAR <<PS DAR, I liked the article in post 52. I think it did a fair job of laying out the pros and cons.>> I'd recommend that site overall, it gives pretty reasonable arguments on a number of topics. <<And, I agree with Kar2oonMan, in post 55 that the weakest of all the con arguments is that we'll be laying off lost of insurance paper pushers. >> But that would be taking jobs away from people.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I am sure the best of the insurance industry folks could be valuable to a new kind of health system. Of course, lots of insurance industry jobs would go away, but the system we have now flat doesn't work and leaves millions of Americans out.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP Any time the economy changes, jobs change, we don't have that many jobs for carriage makers, whip makers, and the economy no longer needs 1/2 to a 1/3 of the population to be farmers. I'm all for job transitioning programs, but we can't not do something solely because some people will lose their jobs, if most will benifit. If the workers at insurance companies are losing their jobs is the only reason not to make this change (and it isn't) its a really poor reason.
Originally Posted By DAR <<but the system we have now flat doesn't work and leaves millions of Americans out.>> So sacrifice a few for the benefit of others?
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP Such is generally the nature of society. We generally aim for the most good for the most people, knowing some one somewhere won't have it as good.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, when the others is most everyone, and they don't have adequate health care, and the few others are people who will have to simply find another type of job, then yes.
Originally Posted By DAR I have to ask these questions. It seems that a majority people just want to switch to universal health care. And while we need to fix the system and it may help out in the short term, I feel that a lot of people aren't looking at the long term picture of what could happen twenty or thirty years down the road.
Originally Posted By DAR <<and the few others are people who will have to simply find another type of job, then yes>> Right screw those people. Who cares if they lose their jobs.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I feel that a lot of people aren't looking at the long term picture of what could happen twenty or thirty years down the road.>> Sure we have. I expect that in twenty or thirty years health care in the United States would be as good as it presently is in Western Europe and Canada. We ALREADY cover the most expensive groups to cover... the elderly and the poor. Why not extend that coverage so that the increasingly squeezed middle class will also have access to this care. We are already paying for the care of others with our taxes. Why not pay for ourselves?
Originally Posted By dsnykid I'm curious DAR, what do you think will happen 20-30 years down the road? Perhaps it will help me see where you are coming from.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Right screw those people. Who cares if they lose their jobs.<< It isn't that no one cares. But the status quo is not working. It already is layer upon layer of paperwork, red tape, imbalanced coverage. We should continue with a system that is really hurting millions of people in order to hang onto jobs for others? That makes no sense. And the insurance industry does all it can to not have to pay claims, which really screws people. The insurance companies often get in the way of a doctor and the patient doing what's the best thing. The reality is that more and more companies are not offering health care insurance, leaving people to fend for themselves. What happens is that taxpayers wind up paying super high ER rates for what might have been a routine office visit if the person was able to have insurance. I don't want to see some crazy, disorganized, overnight change. But change of some type is needed. It's not going to be easy, that's for sure, because the insurance industry has a lot to lose.
Originally Posted By DAR <<And the insurance industry does all it can to not have to pay claims, which really screws people. The insurance companies often get in the way of a doctor and the patient doing what's the best thing.>> So the best way is to punish those that are just doing what their job is. The bigwigs at these companies aren't going to get screwed. It's the proveribal worker drones that do.
Originally Posted By DAR <<I'm curious DAR, what do you think will happen 20-30 years down the road? Perhaps it will help me see where you are coming from.>> Well I can see a higher tax rate. I can see premiums rising even more.
Originally Posted By ecdc DAR, you keep saying it will cost more but don't back it up with any evidence. Those of us arguing for universal health care have dozens of other countries, *all* of which pay less per person for health care than we do, to back us up. Estonia's health care system is better than ours. Estonia! All we seem to have in the "con" column is supposedly a bunch of people abusing the system (but we're not told how), and higher costs (but we're not told why). This works very well in other countries (and certainly far better than in our country) so no one would be stumbling into this blindly. It's ironic that you're so worried about someone's job but seem to shrug it off when someone will die from lack of health care because you don't want to pay more.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder DAR, what's supposed to happen to DlandJB's friend in post 34?
Originally Posted By dsnykid Dar, I would like to say I see where you are coming from now, but I can't. You are throwing out predictions with nothing to substantiate them, and it's getting frustrating. I read your other posts, most of which seem to be well thought out and informed and I have to wonder what has you so tied up in knots about this that your using "Because I say so" as the basis of many of your statements. With Universal Health Care, I pay $156 less a month for Health care than I did in Texas yet have more coverage. My company there kicked in very little, whereas my company here kicks in a full prescription benefits and 80% dental package at a cost to me of $3.00 a month. As a senior citizen in Canada, my father pays a maximum of $25 a month for prescriptions, even though the actual cost is well over $2000. Seniors and children get optical covered here as well and if for some reason you can't afford the health care premiums of $44.00 per month, you are subsidized once you provide proof of income. Yes, we still have secondary insurance available to cover prescriptions, dental, and optical, so the insurance companies are not exactly suffering. What about Universal Health Care are you so dead set against? And please say more than "I think my taxes will increase" unless you have statistics to back this up.
