Universal health care knocking at your door

[James]

And why not? What were you expecting?

All of you who are against change have obviously not lived through much of it!

I remember being young in the South and the only people who supported full voting rights, school integration, and the end to white and colored rest rooms and water fountains were the blacks. Why do you suppose that was?

So many of you on this board don't understand that the current system is not sustainable. The only people who are in favor of the current system are those who control it and who benefit... the carriers, the agents, and those who are healthy and who are not hindered by it.

I don't think that is majority anymore... or if it is, it's not a large one.

Most of the people I speak to feel that any system is going to be better than the one we have. They may be wrong... but that's how they feel, and in politics (as well as economics) perception is the reality.

I remember George Wallace giving a speech in 1963 where he said "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . .segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever." We all know that George Wallace landed in the dust-bin of history.

I think a lot of you take a Wallace-like approach to health care. You want to perpetuate a system that does not work well, is not popular, and one in which most of the population will be better off if it changes.

Like Wallace did in the early '60s you want to perpetuate the ancien regime. Good luck with all that.

The system is going to change and our role in it (and perhaps the living we derive from it) is going to change. Get over it. Get out in front of it. It's going to happen.


Al

The only thing you have correct is the idea of things changing. Obviously that is the obvious, of course things change. Yet the idea of sustainablility isn't quite correct, what is unsustainable is the idea that National H/C is workable. It simply isn't, yet you comparison to racism here is way over the top and a analogy that I wouldn't make on a bad day.

 

[James]

Medicare is workable... has been for over 40 years.

Al

Medicare and Social Security is only sustainable if the demographics stay the way they have in the past 40 plus years. Fact is they are not staying the same so "NO", Medicare is not sustainable.

 

[Winter_123]

Medicare is workable... has been for over 40 years.

If we can maintain a military infrastructure the size we do, I have no doubt we can maintain a universal healthcare system. Every other country in the world does. I'm not saying it will be 'terrific' but it will be sustainable.

As for my analogy, my point is that there are a lot of people today who have their head in the sand and who support tired and worn-out paradigms in health care issues just as there were many (a majority in some states) who did the same when it came to civil rights issues in the 50s and 60s. The analogy holds as long as you understand the way I meant it. If you don't, than you will obviously reach the (incorrect) conclusion that you expressed.

Al

Quite so. The universal health care issue tends to get discussed here as being an issue about how the libs want to get the uninsured insured somehow. That is only part of the picture. The Michael Moores of the world are not firing up just the troops who want to see more people covered - his movie and the nerve that it hits is about the current system not working for *those who are insured.* We have seen post after post here about how this whole issue is not going to have any traction because Michael Moore is this or that or because of statistic X, Y or Z. The reality is that the issue is so large now that even the Republicans feel that they need to propose a solution, so the issue is here to stay in some shape or form and will be one of the major issues in the election, especially since it is already. The fact that Micheal Moore is a fat, ignorant, two-faced pig will not make that go away. And as discussed many times, people largely agree that medicare has been a good thing so when you ask people if they want a government run program sometimes it is not as scary as the conservatives would like to think. There is not a conservative in America who would have the brass to talk about eliminating medicare. People only hammer on it to improve it or cut the waste which is much different than saying it does no good and we should go back to where we were before.

Also, you have to see which direction it goes. A national health plan does not necessarily mean government run programs, it could also mean government subsidies to buy private insurance. In that case, all the insurance agents will line right up like little piggies at the trough and start arguing about how important it is that everyone have coverage. Could happen, ya think?


Winter

 

[TXINSURANCE]

The bigger issue is not NATIONAL HEALTH CARE it is STATE BY STATE Universal Health Care - it is very obvious CALIFORNIA will be the next casualty and they will all start trickling in after.

The Federal plan will be argued forever and nothing will be done, State plans will actually pass.

I worry about my family, my kids, my future - I am investing HEAVILY into my Indvidual book of business. If some goofy state legislator pass universal care and cuts me out - I AM IN BIG BIG TROUBLE.

That being said I need to keep moving forward - and deal with it. I can not stop my momentum because of "what if"... we could also get hit with a nuclear bomb.... that doesn't mean I should sit at home and not work.

If all else fails I can do Life & P&C - although I will lose millions in renewals courtesy of our politicians. The good news is NOTHING is going to change OVER NIGHT. Watch the news, read you state / federal legislative updates - know what bills are being introduced and watch them very carefully so you have time to prepare and react when the $##@! hits the fan.

 

[James]

Quite so. The universal health care issue tends to get discussed here as being an issue about how the libs want to get the uninsured insured somehow. That is only part of the picture. The Michael Moores of the world are not firing up just the troops who want to see more people covered - his movie and the nerve that it hits is about the current system not working for *those who are insured.* We have seen post after post here about how this whole issue is not going to have any traction because Michael Moore is this or that or because of statistic X, Y or Z. The reality is that the issue is so large now that even the Republicans feel that they need to propose a solution, so the issue is here to stay in some shape or form and will be one of the major issues in the election, especially since it is already. The fact that Micheal Moore is a fat, ignorant, two-faced pig will not make that go away. And as discussed many times, people largely agree that medicare has been a good thing so when you ask people if they want a government run program sometimes it is not as scary as the conservatives would like to think. There is not a conservative in America who would have the brass to talk about eliminating medicare. People only hammer on it to improve it or cut the waste which is much different than saying it does no good and we should go back to where we were before.

Also, you have to see which direction it goes. A national health plan does not necessarily mean government run programs, it could also mean government subsidies to buy private insurance. In that case, all the insurance agents will line right up like little piggies at the trough and start arguing about how important it is that everyone have coverage. Could happen, ya think?


Winter

At one time Social Security was considered the "Third Rail" in American Politics. Well as we have seen, while not succesfull Pres. Bush put forth a plan to change SS and, got reelected. Obviously things are changing, exactly how it ends is anyones guess. I can only imagine that within a short duration of time Medicare will be viewed as a great negative and change will be necerssary. I am influencing my son and all I can that just because one ages doesn't mean that society as a whole has to go bankrupt or that being a senior doesn't give one any special rights. Personally why I can not succeed in senior products, I am for one sick of them and their pathetic attitudes for the most part.

Ps maybe we should take a lesson from our Native American way of life, if one can no longer be productive they should be sent out into the woods never too be seen again.

 

[hbkmat]

You can relate heallth care to the US postal service. Imagine if government was not involved there. No small towns would get mail and you could only deliver to major cities. instead the post office delivers everywhere everyday. And the way they do this is by having government monopolize that industry. It would work the same for health. Right now we have a real broken system, the insurance comanies only want people who are healthy and the government picks up all the people who are flat broke and unhealthy through there government programs. So all they would be doing is making money if they started picking up those healthy people.

 

[midwestbroker]

Could universal health care work? Maybe.

The problem is:
If there is a completely government ran program, they will not give it up. They will just keep throwing tax money at it until there is a revolt.

Taxes would rise.

In 2007, social security tax is 6.5% - Maximum wage base $97,500 max contribution $6,045. Medicare is 1.45% with no wage base and no max contribution.

Our government just has to say, we are going to give Medicare to all. This can be done with a 5% tax hike. People would droll over that and vote all day long for it. After all, most are paying more then that for their current health care in their mind.

Then it would be a 2% tax hike a year later, then 5% the year after that, then 6%. Before too long 20% of your earnings would be for health care, then 30%, until it is too much.

Now, take a person making $36K per year (I think the average is around there somewhere). $250 per month for group insurance. That is $3000 per year, or 8.3% of their income. Now, the group plan they gave up had a max out of pocket. Now they do not, since Medicare has no max out of pocket.

The second part of that is Part B of Medicare is $93.50 per month. Would the government just waive that? That is $1122 per year on top of the tax they are paying for as well.

Sounds great looks like a money pit.