cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Honored Advisor

Re: White House version:

Jump to solution

Thanks 

 

 

Someone needs to tell them our industrial base is in another country.  The folks named in that order will be hiding when we need national defense.

0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: Is this what you had in mind?

Jump to solution

Smokey you kind of lose me there in the "christian ethics/healthcare soup.

Are you saying it is a sin not to have health insurance?  Christians shouldn't need it?

Am I goin to hell for offering health care to my employees?

Health care is not available to those with ethics?

Or is it just the health insurance companies who are the devil and the holy federal government needs to save us?

 

and by the way I don't have to pay social security if I don't make a profit or pay taxes,  Lots of farmers struggle to get enough quarters paid in to qualify for SS.  They don't have to participate unless they show a profit on the only thing that might be mandatory------filing a tax return.

 

Crop insurance, government farm programs, diseaster programs --------none of that has mandatory participation.  I've had neighbors who never go in the fsa office or see a crop insurance agent.

0 Kudos

Re: White House version:

Jump to solution

Kay, that is nearly identical to the one that the Bush Administration put in place and such executive orders have been around in some form since the Truman Administration.

 

The big step up in that game came with Ollie North's REX 84 group in the Reagan years on martial law under "special circumstances."

 

Which doesn't mean it isn't of concern, only that nothing new is up.

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Supreme Court Decision & Farming

Jump to solution

SW, your story is one of, if not probably the best argument IMO, of having universal health care.
Some will opt out of insurance, and take the cash equivilant, and spend it on whatever,

others either can not or will not pay for insurance.

In all these cases, the rest of us who pay taxes will cover their hospital bills one way or another, in the form of higher taxes, and/or higher insurance.

If everyone were covered at least for hospitalization costs, emergency care, etc, at the basic level, AND if it were done right, it very well could lower the healthcare costs for those of us who pay taxes, and have our own insurance.

The reasoning is, we pay it anyway, and in cases like your employee, there would be a witholding from his check, so that he would pay into it the same as everyone else, making the per person cost lower.  This still does nothing to lower the overall costs, but with more people paying in, it makes the cost per person less.  The problem arises when the plan starts including all sorts of things beyond basic care, which will just drive the cost up, and wind up spending more money than we might otherwise.

If we had a basic universal plan, with the option to buy up any supplement you wished, I might be able to support that.

The Obamacare plan right now, the way it is written, I do not support.

0 Kudos
Advisor

Re: Supreme Court Decision & Farming

Jump to solution

What you propose and which sound quite reasonable and I believe would get alot of public support if laid out clearly to the public is very close to what the original Heritage Foundation proposal was, close to what Romneycare is in Massachsetts and close to what the original pre-politicized, pre-castigated by the "Nobama at any cost" crowd, pre-watered down and filled with concessions and exemptions version that passed by a hair  that is being reviewed now.

0 Kudos
Senior Advisor

Re: Is this what you had in mind?

Jump to solution

@smokeyjay wrote:
Spoiler
 

The federal mandate is not concerned whether one uses the benefits or not.  It only requires one to pay in and be a part of the pool of potential recipients. 

 

There's a philosophical and moral imperative component to the health care issue.  In the 50's and 60's, all health care companies were inclusive with their subscription policies, utilizing the commonality of risk sharing to lower costs.  It is based on the moral imperative that recognizes we all share the burdens and assist those in need.  We've gotten away from that.  In the late 70's and 80's, companies began "harvesting" healthy policy holders and underwriting lower premiums to attract them into the segregated pool, not to mention writing rules that justified the use of "pre-existing" conditions for exclusion. They weren't doing this because they believed healthy people deserved lower premiums and were shouldering an unfair burden of the cost of health care for the sick, it was a purely profit making motive to take advantage of the market pool.

 

Today, we are far enough removed from our Judeo/Christian ethical moral roots that most do not even think in these terms.  I find it ironic that evangelicals who believe strongly in God and believe that sin will be punished in the hearafter are so quick to abandon a behavior that recognized the moral imperative for social action, like health care.  That's why I do not believe their religious commitment to righteousness is genuine.  It's a hypocritical stand, like standing before one's parent, holding a cookie and denying it's even there.



There is NOTHING moral about FORCING one person to give money to another. The Christian will help because he/her believes it is the right thing to do.

0 Kudos
Senior Advisor

Re: Is this what you had in mind?

Jump to solution

I think you hit the nail on the head    r3020   

0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: Supreme Court Decision & Farming

Jump to solution

Nebr,  thanks-------but in a "please the publics demands"  setting, how do you keep it simple?? ------. -----AS LONG as there is the perception that someone else is paying we will get a mess.   Yet ,  it is me, the employer, who is responsible to see that the employee pays his taxes and possibly healthcare.  That fact alone creates the illusion of someone else is paying.  The employee never has to come to grips with the cost of what he pays in deductions.  When the remaining salary is not enough to live on-------it is the damned employer who doesn't pay a living wage.  It is the federal shell game ------collecting taxes early and before the payee gets the income.  Federal spending might be a little more under control if taxpayers had to write checks on a monthly basis.(or better yet, save for months and write one annual check. Deceit is sold as convenience. 

 

My story-----------I tried to impose my standard of living on someone else.  The employee who quit was the one I was trying to help.  Everyone else had insurance.  The group cheapened cost for the participants and gave the expense to a business that could expense it.  But The employee who left had three small kids, no insurance, and a pregnant wife.  I was worried for him, liked him as an employee--------------made a big mistake-----his life is his to live.   

 

Back to the original thought---------the court decision----Is there a bigger issue here than healthcare?  Are we at the threshold of an "attitude" adjustment in congress?  Are we going to see less "parenting" done in Washington?   Will this decision push us back to the "old west" or forward to the "Western Ukraine"?  Or will it be ignored or for it's lack of commitment?

Just seems like an interesting moment in history for the US!!!!!

0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: Supreme Court Decision & Farming

Jump to solution

As flawed as it may be, I didn't see any reason not to adapt the Medicare/Medicaid system to the needs of the rest of uninsured Americans.  I think that was the"single payer" option?

 

The real problem with healthcare in this country is that too much of our behavioral causes of illness are ignored, in favor of pharmaceutical attempts are remediation.  If you have ever looked at the meds orders of the average hopsital poatient over fifty, as I have, you know that they are largely walking sacks of chemicals. 

 

Sicj people are just a politically correct sieve to funnel pharma profits through...sad, but true.

 

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Supreme Court Decision & Farming

Jump to solution

I agree, the 'free' stuff gets taken a lot more than when you are paying for it.


That is why I would only favor universal care as a very basic plan.  Mainly, things that send you to a hospital or ER, with a few other things like long term care,  prenatal, and routine tests according to basic universal guidelines.  This would also come with some sort of co-pay.  You'd be surprised how many people on public assistance show up at my SIL's ER with a 'headache' because they know they will get a sample bottle of aspirin for free.  Charge them $10, when they can get the same thing  at Walgreen's for $5, and you eliminate most, if not almost all of that.

 

Want a private room?

pay for it, or buy a supplement.

 

Ditto things like cosmetic surgery, viagra, lipo, etc. 
If you want a checkup every two weeks, you can have it, but either pay for it, or get a supplement that will.

 

 

0 Kudos