It is such a jammed up political scam, I allow I may have missed something in my haste to condemn.
What am I missing? Please enlighten me. Please no Obama saids.

btk

Nothing to enlighten you with. It's a scam to even think the cost will be lower. Did you hear Bidden in front of the AARP? "We have to implement health care to prevent the country from going bankrupt". So we have to spend more to prevent us going bankrupt? How dumb does he think we are. Anyone who thinks you can provide health care to an additional 40 to 50 million people and lower cost is insane.

Only a couple simple reasons...

• The cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP is increasing as an unsustainable rate. Legislative action is needed to bring those costs under control. The free market has not accomplished that in over thirty years and there is no evidence that it can or will in the near-term future.
• Americans are not counted among the healthiest populations on the planet, not even close. That's in spite of the egregious costs we incur for such care compared to other countries.
• For a country that counts itself among the best educated and most economically advanced to have tens of millions of its people with no healthcare whatsoever is almost criminal to think of. Something needs to be done about this problem.

If you can think of other ways to solve these problems other than a comprehensive new set of laws and regulations, and probably taxes to pay for them, please share them with us.

Does anyone know or have an idea of THOSE WITHOUT HEALTHCARE in the United States.....how they breakdown...as how many on welfare, unemployed, employed, illegal immigrants counted, etc. ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

Does anyone know or have an idea of THOSE WITHOUT HEALTHCARE in the United States.....how they breakdown...as how many on welfare, unemployed, employed, illegal immigrants counted, etc. ?

I suppose it can be researched, Bucco. But I don't have a real precise answer other than it's a big number.

For one, I would support the idea of refusing to provide any government-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants or their families, even if by being born here they were "legal". But as far as those that are unemployed, on welfare, etc., I still believe that society has a responsibility to provide them with healthcare.

To reduce the number of illegal immigrants who are enjoying government-funded healthcare would require some pretty tough measures to tighten up our borders. You have often asked what the effect of proposed legislation might be on small businesses. What effect do you think not having ready access to cheap labor which is willing to work hard might have on small businesses? That's exactly the reason why we're not likely to see any significant immigration reform. But we're still stuck with tens of millions with no healthcare.

Kind of a Catch 22, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I suppose it can be researched, Bucco. But I don't have a real precise answer other than it's a big number.

For one, I would support the idea of refusing to provide any government-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants or their families, even if by being born here they were "legal". But as far as those that are unemployed, on welfare, etc., I still believe that society has a responsibility to provide them with healthcare.

To reduce the number of illegal immigrants who are enjoying government-funded healthcare would require some pretty tough measures to tighten up our borders. You have often asked what the effect of proposed legislation might be on small businesses. What effect do you think not having ready access to cheap labor which is willing to work hard might have on small businesses? That's exactly the reason why we're not likely to see any significant immigration reform. But we're still stuck with tens of millions with no healthcare.

Kind of a Catch 22, isn't it?

Millions without health care, millions without jobs, millions without cars, millions without cellphones, millions without cable TV, millions without.....

It's always easy to say that society needs to pay more taxes to provide "millions" with something. Where does it end?

If the goal is to provide health care for millions, why don't we give something else up to pay for that, instead of adding to the burden of the depleting pool of taxpayers?

Let's start by cutting the US Agency for International Development by half, and instead of trying to take care of the world, we spend that money here? How about an import tax all foreign-imported goods at an additional $1 for declared value of $1,000? Let's add to that a fine for every person illegal in the US at $1,000 to cover the cost of detention and deportation (most have assets which can be confiscated).

The government is no different than the average family - you want to buy something new and don't have any discretionary funds, then you must give up something to get the new item. The alternative is borrow the money from someone (like the Chinese) and then steal the money from someone else (like a taxpayer) to pay back the lender.

There are other options than higher taxes. If not, eventually, there will be no taxpayers left from whom to rob. Then what?

Originally Posted by Bucco

Does anyone know or have an idea of THOSE WITHOUT HEALTHCARE in the United States.....how they breakdown...as how many on welfare, unemployed, employed, illegal immigrants counted, etc. ?

Something on the subject from PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_...uninsured.html

Originally Posted by cologal

Something on the subject from PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_...uninsured.html

Thank you for the link....it helps....a few things jumped out at me, and this is not being unsympathetic at all...

43.1 % of the uninsured are NOT american citizens

21 % of the uninsured make OVER 50,000 per year (almost 8 % over 75,000)

88% of the uninsured were not born in the US !

Most of the children are eligible for Medicaid but the government has done a bad job in getting the info out.

About 85% of all americans are insured ! Used the Pop of 305 million and the sites estimate of almost 45 million uninsured.

Just these three things tell me that this needs some discussion ! Assuming I read the site correctly and did my math correctly.

This is not being unsympathetic...I am FOR health care, but now I am sure we are moving much too fast on this huge amount of money !

PS...Please check my math everybody !!

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Millions without health care, millions without jobs, millions without cars, millions without cellphones, millions without cable TV, millions without.....

It's always easy to say that society needs to pay more taxes to provide "millions" with something. Where does it end?

If the goal is to provide health care for millions, why don't we give something else up to pay for that, instead of adding to the burden of the depleting pool of taxpayers?

Let's start by cutting the US Agency for International Development by half, and instead of trying to take care of the world, we spend that money here? How about an import tax all foreign-imported goods at an additional $1 for declared value of $1,000? Let's add to that a fine for every person illegal in the US at $1,000 to cover the cost of detention and deportation (most have assets which can be confiscated).

The government is no different than the average family - you want to buy something new and don't have any discretionary funds, then you must give up something to get the new item. The alternative is borrow the money from someone (like the Chinese) and then steal the money from someone else (like a taxpayer) to pay back the lender.

There are other options than higher taxes. If not, eventually, there will be no taxpayers left from whom to rob. Then what?

Sounds good to me, Steve. This particular forum has been most educational, interesting sans antagonistic negative comments. Strictly issue-driven. Wonderful, just wonderful.

barb

ps....Well maybe one thus far; Just read 12ridehd.

Just a thought about those uninsured numbers:

I work in a company with terrible insurance. I think every employee with a working spouse has the spouse's insurance just because it's better for them and their family.

Now, I'll wager that in most two-worker families, the whole family is covered by only one's insurance. Does that drop the worker who is not taking his/her company's insurance into the "uninsured" cohort?

I am sure that when employers are questioned by the insurance carrier about the number of employees eligible for insurance, and that number is compared to the number using the available insurance, there is a gap. Is that gap added to the "uninsured" number?

I don't know, but it seemed worth wondering about.

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

Nothing to enlighten you with. It's a scam to even think the cost will be lower. Did you hear Bidden in front of the AARP? "We have to implement health care to prevent the country from going bankrupt". So we have to spend more to prevent us going bankrupt? How dumb does he think we are. Anyone who thinks you can provide health care to an additional 40 to 50 million people and lower cost is insane.

AGREED

Originally Posted by cybrgeezer

Just a thought about those uninsured numbers:

I work in a company with terrible insurance. I think every employee with a working spouse has the spouse's insurance just because it's better for them and their family.

Now, I'll wager that in most two-worker families, the whole family is covered by only one's insurance. Does that drop the worker who is not taking his/her company's insurance into the "uninsured" cohort?

I am sure that when employers are questioned by the insurance carrier about the number of employees eligible for insurance, and that number is compared to the number using the available insurance, there is a gap. Is that gap added to the "uninsured" number?

I don't know, but it seemed worth wondering about.

You have a valid point GEEZER ! These numbers have really given me pause and it bothers me with the generalizations about americans going without healthcare and 85% have it, and actually it is higher since over 40% of those "uninsured" are not even american citizens.

Then of course there is the "under insured" ! All of this bothers me because it does not seem like an issue that our congress should address in haste or in with such blatant policitism on either side.

It is easy to tell who knows the facts about health care in america and who is taking a position based on a bias.

When you debate your political biases please understand this one basic fact: There are people living in america who do not have health insurance for many reasons. However, there is not one person without medical care available to them.

I was an executive directer of a medical center. We could not and did not refuse our full sevices to anyone. We gave these services
even when the patient had no money, no id's , or could not speak englih.

When you say millions of americans are without medical care you just not know your country.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Thank you for the link....it helps....a few things jumped out at me, and this is not being unsympathetic at all...

43.1 % of the uninsured are NOT american citizens

21 % of the uninsured make OVER 50,000 per year (almost 8 % over 75,000)

88% of the uninsured were not born in the US !

Most of the children are eligible for Medicaid but the government has done a bad job in getting the info out.

About 85% of all americans are insured ! Used the Pop of 305 million and the sites estimate of almost 45 million uninsured.

Just these three things tell me that this needs some discussion ! Assuming I read the site correctly and did my math correctly.

This is not being unsympathetic...I am FOR health care, but now I am sure we are moving much too fast on this huge amount of money !

PS...Please check my math everybody !!

Thanks for doing the math Bucco. The 21% that make over $50,000 tells alot about priorities. It also includes many young people who realistically would rather spend their monies on other things.
Once you subtract the non-americans (19 million) and the people who make over $50,000 and chose not to purchase (9.5 million) it sheds a new light on the urgency factor.

Originally Posted by Keedy

Thanks for doing the math Bucco. The 21% that make over $50,000 tells alot about priorities. It also includes many young people who realistically would rather spend their monies on other things.
Once you subtract the non-americans (19 million) and the people who make over $50,000 and chose not to purchase (9.5 million) it sheds a new light on the urgency factor.

I know I will be slammed for this but.....

$50,000 sounds like a lot of money but that is about the starting salary for persons with a college degree. Then you have to look at the amount of their college loans...I have a niece and nephew both MD's they make about that, interns and resident, and you wouldn't want to know the amount they owe. (they do get healthcare) Then you need to factor in where these people live...any big city has big housing and cost of living.

It is not all black and white....