So many reasons to be against government controlled health care…

There is no comparison between government care and private health insurance.  My family was uninsured after my husband got out of the Navy.  Even after I got my first job outside of the home, I could not afford the health insurance.  Coverage for just me would have been one week's paycheck.  Coverage for my family would have been three weeks paychecks.  I just couldn't afford it.  I did sign my boys up for Medicaid and it was HORRIBLE.  I tried to make my son an appointment and was told they could not get him in for TWO MONTHS!!!  What good does that do me?  The office had signs everywhere that stated what is and what is not an emergency but if you couldn't wait TWO MONTHS to see the doctor (who wasn't a doctor but a nurse practioner or a PA) you had no choice but to go to the ER to be seen. 

So I did look for a better job with better benefits. I am now working for the city, I make more money and I have health insurance for the whole family.  It's still not cheap but instead of being 75% of my pay to insure my family, its about 20%.  It's not easy but I got a pay raise from my previous job and I figured if they started taking the insurance payment out of my first paycheck I wouldn't miss what I didn't have.  I also have the pride of knowing that I am providing for my family.  I am not relying on government assistance. 

Would you really support federally funded healthcare if it was combined with tax reform? I thought you had more arguments against it than who was paying for it.

Also, as majority owner of your company, aren't you already paying a bundle for healthcare that could be coming directly to you in profits? It may be that you'd earn more if you were paying for healthcare through taxes rather than as a requirement of having employees.

I do have lots of other arguments. Try reading the article. 
 

The government can't run a health care system. Period. It will be a disaster. 

They couldn't even figure out how much money cash for clunkers would take. 

Medicare's broke, Medicaid's broke, the VA's broke - shit, why not quadruple down & bet the whole farm on taking over the rest of healthcare.  Whatta we got to lose.  It's just a country.

his situation does not make his argument less valid cactoblasta.

I am a poor student and I agree with him 100%

Daiwa raises an excellent point... this has been tried SEVERAL TIMES in the state level, the latest being the hawaii children welfcare system... which went bankrupt in 7 months. If it never worked ever in the past, why do you think it will now work when forced on the entire USA?

Socialism.  It has been historically proven to be a failure no matter how you spin it - yet that doesn't keep people from trying it again.

Basically it comes down to selfishness and laziness.  People want everything, but don't want to work for it.  That's why socialism has always been appealing to those in the lower tax brackets.

Just as a side note.  My wife works at an optometrist office.  She and her co-worker did a little research lately to find out what some other places are charging for eye exams.  They were getting numbers between $200 and $400 for un-insured individuals.  She seams to think that some of these places are raising their prices in anticipation of a government pay system.  If this is the case, then so much for the "we will save money" philosophy behind the healthcare reform bill.  By the way, I've been an eye-glass wearer for almost 20 years now, and I can tell you that prices near $400 for an eye exam is a tremendous increase to what it was five years ago.

Right now, I pay "a bundle" for health insurance for people who are actually producing something.  

With Obama's vision, I would pay a bigger "bundle" for them PLUS people who aren't producing something.

Health insurance presently is nominally fair. A person pays for their own.  Obama would switch it so that the top 5% are paying for the bulk of it.  Why stop there? Why not let the government decide what we eat? Where we live?

I don't want the government involved in health care. Health care is not an issue that should be politicized.  

You want to make health care cheaper? Get the government out of it entirely.  Quit forcing insurance carriers to cover things that they don't want to cover (viagra for instance).  

You want reform? Then get tort reform in there so that there isn't such an incentive to sue doctors, drug companies, etc.

the most ominous thing about this is that it puts the Government in charge of big decisions... like which illnesses are worth treating and which aren't, as well as the ages in which such treatments are no longer cost effective. Eventually they will have to lay out this criteria and we dont know what that is as of yet. As it stands right now, Medicaid will save most poor peoples lives no matter what, so even they will be worse off in the end if this passes.

Here's another reason, with a breathtaking irony.

The left's traditional favorite whipping boys of healthcare, the evil drug companies, are now tighter with BO than Brian Williams, ready to spend more to help BO pass his reform bill (apparently no matter what it says or does, since there really isn't one yet) than the McCain/Palin campaign spent on its entire election effort.  This 'no questions asked' support begs a very big question, don't ya think?

Kinda jives with the left's sudden embrace of WalMart, previously 'the worst thing that's ever happened to America' for its anti-union, low-wage and small-business-killer ways, once it endorsed Obama's plan (again, whatever it is).

And people wonder why there are skeptics among us.

Well, they are looking at convincing old people to suicide so they aren't a drain on the system, and don't forget that smokers or alcohol drinkers lose benefits.

The biggest problem with the left is that they really have no idea what this means.  They take the emotional route of saying "everyone must have health care" without looking at what a disaster the government would do to it.

No matter how much I think the US would be better off with public health care (like pretty much every other first-world nation), I think that the government (democrat or republican, it doesn't matter) would make a complete mess of it. Here in Canada, not only do we spend less (directly) on health care per capita, but our government does too (yes, I know where the government's money comes from); this is compared the US. Actually, most countries tend to spend less per capita then the US. So, as I see it, you're spending more than just about anyone to receive health services that are of comparable quality to everyone else.

Seems like a universal health care plan would be just too much to handle. Which is sad, because it seems to work pretty well here. It's not perfect, but then again, it isn't like yours is either.

Not targeting you specifically, Brad, but there is something that everyone should look at to get some of the facts straight, since rumours keep getting spread by both the left and the right, and it doesn't seem to be helping: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

Granted, it is an official government site, but it does seem to clear up a few things.

Yup.  When our politicians screw it up, we can always go to Canada for care.  Or, in my case, Mexico.  So what's the prob, right?

Why on earth would a government force health insurance carriers to cover Viagra?

I'm not passing judgment, but limp-dick voters, maybe?

I guess this is where the argument that such a health care system is for the benefit of those who _need_ health care but cannot afford it breaks down.

I don't think many people really _need_ Viagra to survive.

And if a public system financed Viagra, it would obviously take those funds away from more (or actually) serious matters.

You've hit on one of the sensitive nerves of public financing of healthcare - deciding what's 'serious' becomes a political matter.  Do we suppose that Pfizer, through its agent PhRMA, is ponying up millions of dollars to enable healthcare czars to deny coverage for Viagra?

This has happened previously with Medicare - coverage of drugs for erectile dysfunction and annual (as opposed to biannual) mammograms were both political, not medical, decisions.  Just two examples, there are more.  Once single-payor is in place, we'll end up with the equivalent of 'earmarking' in coverage decisions.

You are kidding right? I looked up a heart bypass surgury in canada (using official canadian government sites for waiting list lookups), it has a 6 to 18 month waiting period. By then you are DEAD. This is why so many canadians come across the border to get treated in the USA, because they can just pay for something and get medical treatment, instead of being killed off by their own government.

All those "first world countries" are going bankrupt with massive national debts, with their so called "free healthcare" being a major source of bankrupcy.

The same system was tried in hawaii and, I think it was massechusets? recently in the USA and it went bankrupt in both places.

and that whitehouse page is total bullshit.

The more you read, the better it gets.

PS. I PERSONALLY KNOW canadians who came across the border to get treatment in america. They are VERY unsatisfied with the prospect of "waiting till you are dead". Or want the healthcare THEY PAY FOR despite choosing to smoke and drink. (rationing from a tax based pool deprioritizes those people, even if they pay a lot to the system from making a lot of money)

 

You are kidding right? I looked up a heart bypass surgury in canada (using official canadian government sites for waiting list lookups), it has a 6 to 18 month waiting period. By then you are DEAD. This is why so many canadians come across the border to get treated in the USA, because they can just pay for something and get medical treatment, instead of being killed off by their own government.

All those "first world countries" are going bankrupt with massive national debts, with their so called "free healthcare" being a major source of bankrupcy.

 

I cannot stress this point enough: your current health care system is inefficient and you spend a disproportionate amount of money on it for what you get. See this graph.

That is what everyone says

Which balooned massively due to our stupid entitlement programs and bailout programs and other such rubbish.

Disproportionate to whom? And how is making it LESS effiicent an improvement?

Does not load... but I am sure http://graphs.gapminder.org/ is the most authoritative of sources if it did load [/sarcasm]