I am for a single payer universal healthcare system. I know that this separates me from a lot of conservatives, but remember, I am a conservative populist.
Here is why I am for universal heathcare.
1. Being a person in the healthcare industry (RN), I have seen way too many people unable to afford their medicines. I've seen people who don't go to a doctor because they don't have health insurance, and they end up turning a small problem into a big problem and the next thing you know, they wind up in the ER costing everybody big$$, since they can't pay the bill.
I know of a family of 6 where the husband makes barely enough to pay the bills, and his employer does not provide health insurance. This guy then caught a virus and ended up in the hospital for a week with NO insurance. He could not pay the bill, so his credit suffered bringing his family into a deeper financial hole.
This should not be in the richest nation on earth. Is it morally right that some guy who plays some sport or some actor makes 20million/year and my friend who works just as hard at his job can't even get health insurance. I believe this is morally wrong. It is time the rich pay their fair share and help fund health insurance for those who cannot afford it.
If you think about it, we already have single payer health insurance in the form of Medicaid now and it works GREAT for those who have it. All their meds and hospitalization is paid for except a small copay. We in the healthcare profession often say aloud that the poor have the best healthcare around.
2. Having a single payer universal health insurance would allow many people to quit their employer jobs and allow them to become entrepreneurs, since they now can afford health insurance apart from their jobs. One of the main reasons many people don't go out and start their own business is because they need health insurance for their family and can't afford $1200/month in addition to all their other expenses. If a universal plan picked up most of that tab, then one could start their own business.
3. Also, if the government picked up the tab for health insurance for the middle class, then companies would not have to worry about it, therby competing better with foreign manufacturers, for example in the auto industry. Ford, GM, Chrysler, have to compete with Japanese auto makers. A big expense for these companies is health insurance, which makes them less competitive against the foreign automakers.
4. The US government CAN afford it IF we stop wasting money giving out foreign aid and quit wasting money($500 billion) on a useless Iraq war. The less foreign entanglements we have, the more money we can spend on the american people for the biggest need, healthcare.
5. To pay for it do this: Income made over 300K/yr taxed at 40%, over 500k taxed at 45%, over 750K taxed at 50%, and over 1million income should be taxed at 60%. Why do the filthy rich need all that money anyway.
6. It is the christian thing to do (providing healthcare insurance to middle class people). Healthcare is a RIGHT not just a privilege. One cannot control it if he/she catches a virus and gets say, Multiple sclerosis, or Lupus. Therefore, since you cannot control it, and we all will need healthcare at some point, I believe it is a RIGHT.
Jimbo
6 comments:
Jim,
I like you, but I really have to disagree with you on this point. Universal health care will not make the U.S. more competitive. It will make us less competitive. You don't talk about this, but if the government runs health care, there are only two options. (1) The overall cost of healthcare will go up, or (2) the quality of healthcare will go down. Most likely it will be a combination of both.
Somehow we will still have to pay for our health care. Implementing universal health care does not mean our health care will be free - it simply means we will pay higher taxes instead of paying insurance premiums.
But don't take my word for it. Look at the countries which already have government health care. Canadians who can afford it come to the U.S. for MRI's because they have to wait years for one in Canada. And Canada is one of the better countries for government health care.
I once lived in Buenos Airies, Argentina. I knew a radiologist there who only worked half-days because he was exposed to too much radiation. (They couldn't afford lead walls at his hospital). My boss told me that under no circumstances should I go to a public hospital there, even in an emergency.
I agree with you that our health care system is less than perfect. But let's try and fix what is wrong, rather than throwing out the whole system and accepting one that isn't nearly as good as what we already have.
On the contrary, my wife's cousin and her family were missionaries to France for 10 years and they both say that the universal health care system is good in France. They had to pay nothing for all 3 of their babies being born. Here, if you have no insurance, I can't imagine how high the hospital bill would be.
Yes, taxes would need to be raised to pay for healthcare coverage for the working poor/middle class. But you don't need to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it. Just trim wasteful spending and raise taxes on all income over 300K/yr. It's time the ultra rich help pay the bill for those working people who can't afford health insurance. Maybe a single payer system is not the answer. How about just subsidizing health insurance for those who cannot afford it. There are millions of working people out there who cannot afford to pay for health insurance. We are a rich enough nation to pay a large portion of their health insurance premiums, while at the same time capping how much health insurers can charge people for health insurance.
The medical care for those births wasn't free. The bill was paid by the taxpayers instead of the parents.
And I'm glad you mentioned France. I don't know about the quality of their health care, but I do know their economy is a mess, so much so that they recently elected a conservative president to try to straighten things out. Our unemployment rate is 4.7%; theirs is 8.1%.
This idea that we can just "tax the ultra-rich" is a myth. Ronald Reagan drastically cut taxes on the rich, and in ten years, federal tax revenue doubled. And the share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. People were paying a lower rate, but the economy improved so much that total taxes went up.
Raising taxes has the opposite effect. The negative impact on the economy often causes total revenue to go down.
And good luck on cutting waste. People have been trying to do that as long as governments have existed. Government is, by nature, wasteful. As Reagan said, "Government isn't the solution to the problem; it is the problem."
Here is the bottom line: We CAN afford to pay for health insurance for those working lower and middle class people who do not have it from their Employers and can't afford it on their own. Not only can we, we SHOULD do it. It is the Christian and Moral thing to do. God's Word tells us to help one another out who is in need. These people are in need. Can't we ask someone who makes 1 million/year to pay a little extra in taxes?? Come on now. Let's get real. They can afford it.
As far as raising taxes on the ultra rich causing a "bad" economy. That is a myth. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and by 1998 the deficit went to $0.
Just sitting by and letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is not the kind of America I want to live in.
Trickle down economics is the correct name since only a trickle gets to the poor and middle class while the rich get richer.
Jimbo
LARRY just to let you know you have no clue what you'r talking about. Do you know how they find out who is unemployed. Someone who is looking for a job and has filed. so it say 4.7% or whatever. Lets throw in the homeless, people who get fired and just don't get another job. Drug Dealers. Halfway houses. ECT... we could include retired, teens, stay at home moms. The homeless probably make up 10% themselves
I am well aware of how unemployment is counted in the U.S. I will admit that I am ignorant about how France comes up with their number. I assumed they do it in essentially the same way. Are you saying that France counts the homeless, people who get fired and just don't get another job, drug dealers, halfway houses, retirees, teens, stay at home moms...? If they do, I think their number is meaningless. Drug dealers are hardly "unemployed." They just have an illegal business. And retirees and stay at home moms choose not to work.
By the way, retirees in this country already have government health insurance. And most stay at home moms are covered by their husbands' insurance.
Thanks for educating me though.
Larry
Post a Comment