Why shouldn't Universal Health Coverage be as simple as checking a box on your income tax return?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. Yes I opt into government guaranteed health coverage for
me____ My spouse ____ dependents ______ # of dependents _______

None of the above _______ for the tax year 2007-8. Coverage ends April 15th 2008 unless extended.


This allows you to buy into Medicare or some other new government underwritten policy for the currently un-insured for (pick a number) 10% additional in federal taxes. If you are poor and you don't owe taxes 10% of nothing is nothing.

This takes care of the self-employed, the under-employed, the unemployed, independent contractors, etc.

If a company wants to offer private coverage as perk fine. If not - at least their employees have some kind of protection.

Why wouldn't this work?

[PDJane]

1. Contrary to popular opinion,

It would work. Right now, the US spends 2.9 Trillion dollars per year, about 1/3 of that sum to get someone else to pay for it......paper pushing.

Hire the paper pushers, take the profit motive out, and care would actually get better.

[whistle]

6. Not to mention that $2.9 trillion is 21% of GNP which is absolutely mind boggling

...that has to be the most wasteful use of health care dollars imaginable. In fact I'll bet over forty to sixty percent of that has absolutely nothing to do with health care at all and is wasted. Why do Americans put up with this?

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Have you read Kucinich's Medicare For All bill? It's even easier than checking

off a tax return.

One single payer fee for service system for everyone is the most cost efficient way to pay for healthcare.

Trying to keep multiple systems simultaniously is what we are doing now and it doesn't work so hot.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. I really am for single payer universal for all - but my plan offers a choice

And it would mean that private health insurance would have to be affordable and accountable or everyone would opt for the government program. Doesn't everyone scream for both choice AND accountability?

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Choice of doctors/care providers, yes of course. But the whole cost savings and

affordability aspects of single payer can only be realized by having a single payer system.

When you try to mix them it won't do much at all for cost savings and it will just create a two tiered system, one for the rich and one for the poor.

That will eventually result in cut backs for the poor.

[papau]

4. I agree - it is too simple and it works - more fun to screw folks by denying claim and

getting tax payers to foot bill via subsidy for Hospital ER loses due to uninsured.

Current 45% of US health care costs are already paid for by your Tax dollars via the government.

It is too reasonable to make it 98% (2% would still be insurance companies health policies paying for whatever the gov program did not cover plus rich paying directly) payable by gov - and save the total health cost bill to the nation about 15% (perhaps 20%) off the top.

[Warpy]

5. If you let the well to do opt out

you can bet your ass the rich would make damned sure the plan for the rest of us would make Building 18 look state of the art. That's the problem with the UK National Health. The wealthy get good care. The working folks get pretty bare, basic care.

Universal single payer NOW. Nothing else is acceptable.

If the rich want to avoid the rest of us while people kiss their butts, they can pay their own way to Thailand and India.

[Lint Head]

7. A Simple Test

Several years ago a local radio talk show host did an excellent 'off the cuff' poll.
For his entire 3 hour show he randomly called people across Canada, from several phone books he had obtained, and asked what they thought of their socialized medicine. Everyone he called said it was very efficient and excellent. Most said that they had never heard of anyone dying because they did not get health care. (This just happened to a young child in this country that did not get dental care and it went to his brain.) They said that the lines are no longer there than in the US for people waiting for transplants or heart surgery.

There may be some Canadians out there that want to weigh in on this. (Or some freeper / repugs that want to react.)

People that are hopelessly dying of cancer in this country go to Mexico. Coretta Scott King did this as did someone I know personally. Doesn't say much for folks that even have medical coverage, that most cannot even die using the drug they need to lessen the pain.:dem: