Answer to your questions.
1.) American taxpayers (AT) subsidize lots of programs and different groups etc ... lets stop ALL subsidies, starting with farm subsidies. This question is typical of an anti-union conservative. What about business subsidies, SBA loans for example? Lets stop those too.
2.)I don't know any people like this, never in my life have I met a person who has health insurance from their job who doesn't utilize that option, unless of course they have health insurance from some other source, like their spouses job. Percentage of americans who do this please? Back your questions up with some statistics please.
3.)Well the illegal immigrant issue is a different issue altogether, but taking your question at face value, you are gonna pay for their health care one way or another, if they have no healthcare they will simply go to emergency rooms and get free service that we are pay eventually anyway. Paying for preventative care is cheaper than expensive emergency room visits.
4.) Good question. Should have means testing for social security AND medicare. I have wealthy retirees in my family and their answer is, "I paid for it, so I should get to use it" and I respond to them, "well but we cannot afford it, IF we need to cut the budget well then ...... " and then they get pissed as can be at the notion.
5.)Good question, isn't that exactly what he is doing? People who do not need the gov't option can keep the insurance they have, but for those who need it the least expensive way to offer it to them would be to cut out the middle man, i.e. health insurance companies which are just leaches on the sytem to begin with.
I see the math formula this way, 1 (sick person) + 1(doctor) +1(gov't paying the bill) = 3 (health coverage) VERSES 1 (sick person) + 1(doctor) +1 (health insurers premiums) +1(gov't paying the bill) = 4(health coverage). One equation equals 3 and one equals 4. Three sounds cheaper to me than four. Why do republicans argue for the more expensive option??
6.) The panel will set the standard from the begining. They won't look at each case, on a case by case basis. But they will set the standard, say for expample, from the beginning that 5 x-rays for some hypochondriac who has has a mystery pain isn't gonna get the 5 x-rays. Or that the best way to spend money is to spend it on the young not hip replacement surgery for a 90 yr old who never walks anyway. Besides that it took my husbands health insurer 4 months to approve an MRI and his Dr immediately recommended back surgery cause he had a ruptured disc, BUT the health insurance company (CIGNA) took 8 mos from that before they approved his surgery, they insisted he get cortizone shots for 3 consecutive months, and then they insisted he go to a chiropractor and also take hydro-therapy and then after all that, they approved his surgery. Going to the chiropractor was horrible and made his back worse, just and fyi, but CIGNA insisted. So if that panel does better than that, more power to them, the panel certainly couldn't do any worse.
7.) Think I already answered this, the panel sets the guidelines and the Dr simply goes by them, and going by everything I have read about Canadian, UK and Australian universal healthcare sytems, these panels are far more liberal about care than any health insurers in america are. They put high emphasis on preventative medicine.
8.)Ummmm .... as too red and blue pills. Canadians approve of their health care by a 91 pct margin. That is a poll taken on July 3rd of this year, you can google it and read that for yourself. With a stat like that I will take my chances with that stat. Another issue, in Australia, Great Brittain and Canada it is never part of the running platform of the major parties to get rid of universal healthcare, it is a given the citizenry love it and want to keep it, they may want changes and improvement but nobody runs on a platform of getting rid of it. It stand to reason that if universal healthcare sucked it would be a big issue in their political campaigns and it isn't. Just follow their elections and see.
9.) Actually what the suggestion is is that in cases of ANYONE young or old where the prognosis doesn't reach a certain standard that care goes from emphasis on cure to emphasis on pain and comfort management. Health insurunce comapnies do the same thing, currently medicare goes way beyond what private health insureres do. This is a hard nasty question but our first health care dollars need to be spent on the living instead of the dead. Sounds harsh countries with universal healthcare that use such policies have much higher mortality rates than we do, SO not sure what good our current policy does for keeping cancer patients alive longer anyway. And the Ted Kennedy's of the world, i.e. the super rich, even in countries with universal healthcare OR OUR country can buy their way to the top, the Bill Gates, Warren Buffet's, Rush Limbaugh's, Ted Kennedy's can always in any country buy their way to the top to get the best Dr's and best care, no plan in any country has eliminated that.
10.) American do not live longer than people in other westernized nations, we live longer than people in third world countries but that's not saying much. Our infant mortality rate compared to westernized countries is way, way, way off.
11.)My understanding that there is no finality in any plan in congress or the senate, these details have not even begun to be ironed out yet. Perhaps what you are mentioning has been kicked around by someone, somewhere but I read the news everyday and that is the first I have heard of such a notion. Probably some republican said that to scare people. Both parties always try to scare people when either side proposes any ideal. Fearmongering is the only things republican and democrats agree on, control us by scaring the shit out of us constantly.
12.)The president has not put his support behind any bill in final form yet, I believe he does support in continuing ironing it out and tweaking it and working on it. Also, I believe the so called "blue dog, rural democrats" are working on this issue, making sure their districts are not short changed by the bigger cities. I live in a rural area and I am white and trust me, if I thought I was getting short changed I would not be for this legislation.
13.) This is about the Ford thing. Another way of looking at this would be that if we had universal health care to begin with, we would not need to relieve Detroit auto makers of this burden to begin with. Also I don't think auto workers think of themselves as rich people, lol, and second aren't a lot of minorities UAW members? This legislation's only purpose to alleve the auto makers of financial burderns so that they can be competitive with asian and european auto makers whose countries offer universal healtcare.
14.) The CBO made a study based on an imcomplete bill and left out a lot of things, their most recent study should never have been made.
15.) Technically doesn't the president have government health insurance? Yes, he does. Hasn't he said constantly that he wants the american public to have access to the health care that he has as a govenrment employee and that the house of congress enjoys? Yes, he has. A public option is the only way to add competion to universal healthcare.
I mean after all we have the US Postal service and we have Fed Ex and UPS. One is run by the government and two are run by private business. One delivers a piece of mail for .44 cents and two do not. One is in every town in america, big and small towns alike and and and offers the same services for the same price to everyone, two do not.
From everything I have learned about the Canadian style/public option healthcare and how that 91 pct of Canadians are happy with it, (I will without hesitation call it a chance) and I will take my chances with a public option. Bring it on, it cannot be any worse than CIGNA.
