Can America Afford Government Healthcare?

cutie76 · #1 20th November 2009, 11:16 PM

Right or wrong - can America afford Government Healthcare?

Tomorrow, the healthcare bill appears before the Senate to determine whether they will debate it or not.

I'm concerned because our government has not been able to effectively run Medicare, and that's much smaller than insuring all Americans.

The bigger our government gets, the less effective it seems to be to run the country. I do not want America to become even more of a welfare state.

nvxplorer · #2 20th November 2009, 11:25 PM

Can America afford the status-quo?

How is government not effectively running Medicare? Last I checked, Medicare has 3% administration costs, compared to 30% for insurance companies, not to mention the profit margin.

It's not welfare if you're paying for it. Do you consider the FBI to be a welfare program?

CollinQuinn · #3 20th November 2009, 11:28 PM

Put it this way, a 2 billion dollar cash for clunkers program that was supposed to last several months ended up lasting a week, and then needed to be refunded with enough money to last it another 10 days.

But sure, we can trust them to handle a trillion dollar program with all sorts of new taxes on the middle class, lower class, and upper class, even though Obama, by signing this bill, if he does, will have broken his promise on no new taxes for anyone under 250k a year in earnings, even though he's already broken that promise by signing legislation increasing cig taxes.

But for some reason, the left doesn't consider those "real" taxes, paid by "real" people earning under 250k a year.

And this is just their first year of complete control by the dems. Just give them another three and the laundry list of lies, corruption, and screw-ups will be longer than a bloodhound's tongue, which would please the ladies to know, is pretty dang long.

CollinQuinn · #4 20th November 2009, 11:30 PM

How is government not effectively running Medicare? Last I checked, Medicare has 3% administration costs, compared to 30% for insurance companies, not to mention the profit margin.

Except the government proposal does nothing to lower insurance costs or stimulate real competition.

nvxplorer · #5 20th November 2009, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by CollinQuinn

Put it this way, a 2 billion dollar cash for clunkers program that was supposed to last several months ended up lasting a week, and then needed to be refunded with enough money to last it another 10 days.

And your point is?

But sure, we can trust them to handle a trillion dollar program with all sorts of new taxes on the middle class, lower class, and upper class, even though Obama, by signing this bill, if he does, will have broken his promise on no new taxes for anyone under 250k a year in earnings, even though he's already broken that promise by signing legislation increasing cig taxes.

But for some reason, the left doesn't consider those "real" taxes, paid by "real" people earning under 250k a year.

And this is just their first year of complete control by the dems. Just give them another three and the laundry list of lies, corruption, and screw-ups will be longer than a bloodhound's tongue, which would please the ladies to know, is pretty dang long.

The only tax that will be levied on someone making under $250,000 will be if someone chooses not to purchase healthcare.

Which would please the ladies to know?

citizenthom · #6 20th November 2009, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

How is government not effectively running Medicare? Last I checked, Medicare has 3% administration costs, compared to 30% for insurance companies, not to mention the profit margin.

A.) 3% administrative costs at what level? Medicare's administration costs fall on the states, so the federal costs mean nothing. And the administrative costs for the providers who have to bargain with Medicare don't show up on the budget.

B.) Insurance companies' administrative costs include their investment arms, which take people's premiums and generate income. Administrative costs by health care providers may give you an argument, but insurance companies have legitimate reasons for those costs.

CollinQuinn · #7 20th November 2009, 11:43 PM

And your point is?

My point is fairly obvious with the brains to see it. If they can't handle a 2 billion dollar program, how can they be expected to run a programs in the trillions.

The only tax that will be levied on someone making under $250,000 will be if someone chooses not to purchase healthcare.

Which is still a tax, correct? In fact, a tax on those least able to afford it. Also, you forget about the proposed tax on "cadillac plan" offered by companies that the unions have fought long and hard to achieve which would be largely taxes on the middleclass.

nvxplorer · #8 20th November 2009, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by CollinQuinn

My point is fairly obvious with the brains to see it. If they can't handle a 2 billion dollar program, how can they be expected to run a programs in the trillions.

Non-sequitur. How a program operates is not determined by its cost.

The military budget is ten times that of the healthcare proposal. Using your "logic," we can't expect government to run the military. Why do you hate the troops?

Which is still a tax, correct? In fact, a tax on those least able to afford it. Also, you forget about the proposed tax on "cadillac plan" offered by companies that the unions have fought long and hard to achieve which would be largely taxes on the middleclass.

These don't add up to "all sorts," but you having the brains to see, already know that, eh?

nvxplorer · #9 20th November 2009, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by CollinQuinn

Except the government proposal does nothing to lower insurance costs or stimulate real competition.

This may be true (the CBO disagrees), but irrelevant to the OP's main question.

citizenthom · #10 21st November 2009, 12:00 AM

You're right. The government would run health care exactly like it runs the military. As in, massive political donations would determine who gets the contracts for all the supplies, the leaders would look to expand and abuse it every time they could and hide behind their "support" for it come election time, and the workers would get gypped at every turn. Thanks for making our point.