Found this today which is highly relevant to this thread: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/sev...t-health-care/

Thank you for posting the link Jeremy, the other day you were talking to Outlaw and mentioned fastcheck.org, so I went over to their site and seen that also, I bookmarked it, and have read the information over a few times. Also would like to add here, Outlaw mentioned to me about Massachusetts having their own Health Care Reform, which is what prompted me to see what they were offering to their citizens.

We have heard about the co-ops and the latest was Vermont regulating the insurance companies. So I am going to take a look at that one.

As for my husband and I we will be all right, we still feel there needs to be some kind of Health Care Reform. Perhaps we are ahead of the game, we would like to see figures on what it's going to cost for the individual and an estimate of future costs beforehand.

I am going to supply two more links, one is on Vermont and they really do control the health care insurance companies, such as regulations. The only loophole here is still some of their citizens can't afford health insurance. The second link is pretty informative as to why we need health care reform. There is a part in there about the Fundamental Right and I felt that was pretty well explained.

http://hcr.vermont.gov/legislation

http://wakemedvoices.org/

I'm against national health care. I believe it could be a very, very good system. But I have little to no faith in our government. Why? They have proven to be less efficient than independent corporations and have disappointed too many times.

Anyways, I believe this is a pretty fair link. It argues my concerns.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univ...ealth_care.htm

NewBreed - do you not have faith in your fire department? your police department? your armed forces?

Originally Posted by edgray

NewBreed - do you not have faith in your fire department? your police department? your armed forces?

I would like to step in on this one...

The fire department and the police depart are both local when it comes to the United States. They are at the city level. Things that happen at the city level in our country have a tendency to work more smoothly and get more bogged down as you get larger and larger towards the Federal level, because people in the area are the ones making the changes and running the show. When someone 3000 miles away tries to tell someone what is best for their local, that is when you start running into problems.

As for the military...Please do not construe this as want to privatize our military, as that would be a grave mistake, but almost any corporation could run a war better. (...not that they don't already, it would just get rid of some of the middle men)
But further to the point, our active military is intended for overseas engagements. Each state has a "National Guard" which they are in charge of. (thats an over simplification of the Guard, but for this discussion that is what is relevant)

Johnny I read over some of the link you supplied, bookmarked the link and will read some more later on, thank you for sharing and I can well understand your feelings.

Outlaw my husband wanted me to tell you an excellent reply, seeing as he has served in both law enforcement and military. With law enforcement he served in two different states, the two states were different as night and day in law enforcement.

Right now I am stewing (thinking) on this comment, our son mentioned that AARP is against the Health Care Reform, I couldn't say because we don't belong to the organization. From what I read they are for Health Care Reform, down below was a place to add comments, most of the comments were negative, one comment really struck out at me, mind you I am quoting what the person wrote, "Do we really want the Federal Government controlling health care, when Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Postal are bankrupt?" It seems to me there is a lot of truth in this comment!

We both feel something needs to be done with Health Care, the question here is do we go state or federal?

Originally Posted by Outlaws

The fire department and the police depart are both local when it comes to the United States. They are at the city level. Things that happen at the city level in our country have a tendency to work more smoothly and get more bogged down as you get larger and larger...

Actually this is not quite true. We have both national police and national firefighters. Our national firefighters are members of the US Forest Service, with Smoke-jumpers and Hotshots being the "special forces" within the Service. These elite crews are arguably the most elite firefighters in the nation.

Our US Marshalls, FBI, Secret Service, Bureau of Firearms and Tobacco, and other federal police are also highly trained and elite forces.

Most police and firefighters are locally controlled because they address local problems. When a problem is not local, but spread across the nation, we create national agencies that are highly effective at tackling them.

If other developed nations can create a working health care system, so can we.

Originally Posted by wayfarer07

Actually this is not quite true. We have both national police and national firefighters. Our national firefighters are members of the US Forest Service, with Smoke-jumpers and Hotshots being the "special forces" within the Service. These elite crews are arguably the most elite firefighters in the nation.

Our US Marshalls, FBI, Secret Service, Bureau of Firearms and Tobacco, and other federal police are also highly trained and elite forces.

Most police and firefighters are locally controlled because they address local problems. When a problem is not local, but spread across the nation, we create national agencies that are highly effective at tackling them.

If other developed nations can create a working health care system, so can we.

Not entirely true?. You and I both know the question was referring to what most people consider "police" and "firefighters", and what most people consider our Armed Forces.

In many cases, I would consider the use of the term you used, "highly effective," to be correct, assuming that is denotes some of the gross violations of our Constitution many of those agencies are permitted.

Abel, my husband said you made an excellent point as well, he forgot about our policing and firefighting on a Federal level, as he has worked hand in hand in one state with the FBI, along with the other branches of Federal agencies you have mentioned.

Originally Posted by Outlaws

You and I both know the question was referring to what most people consider "police" and "firefighters", and what most people consider our Armed Forces.

I've fought wildfires personally alongside US Forest Service Hotshots and other US government firefighters, for three seasons before I started my own business, then became a web developer. They are definitely not military units. They wear dreadlocks.

Even local police and firefighters are not considered to be civilians, however.

Originally Posted by wayfarer07

If other developed nations can create a working health care system, so can we.

Canada has a working health care...
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/ca...320/story.html
I personally don't want to be any part of it as they are experiencing of my fears.

@Edgray

Cops and Firemen both show up after the case of emergency more often of then not. They aren't psychic and can't magically appear at your door step. So having faith in them to save my life is one that I prefer not to rely on. I do have great respect for the people that are cops and firemen as they do a lot of good. Anyways, I would never consider getting rid of cops or firemen as they are the piece of government that are doing the 2 things that I expect them to do and only do. Protect American citizens and protect our rights.
But...

No one can do a better job taking care of me than myself. Which is a huge reason why I believe in the right to bear arms and believe that health care should be left to oneself. Why do people want to be taken care of when they can do a much better job themselves? I don't get how everyone thinks it's their right to have free health care, free house, free car, free free free... I don't want the government to supply me any of this. I can have [a better] health care, house, car if I want to work for it. How is that not fair?

Originally Posted by wayfarer07

If other developed nations can create a working health care system, so can we.

I completely agree with that comment Abel, however we need to look at nations the size of us or close to us. UK seems to be working with their health care system, the only thing is, UK is slightly smaller then the state of Oregon and there is 52 states here, with each one having their own environment and problems.

Canada is bigger then the US, I was curious about how health care was handled, I knew already health care was handled through the government, what I didn't know was each Providence handles their own and then answers to the government. Seeing as Johnny supplied a current informational link on Canada's problems with their health care, the question here is, could would do better?

We're broke, in debt... where is the money going to come from? TAX MORE! So is it really free? That's a big negative. You will be paying for yourself and millions of people that don't work and aren't even legal citizens! Dumping your money in a system that doesn't appreciate just doens't make sense.

You are right Johnny, we are broke and in debt. As far as the taxes going up, President Obama said no except the people in the higher tax bracket, although looking at this objectively I would say the taxes will go up down the road, in the future. This is not a free lunch, everyone across the board will pay and their will be penalties, if you could look at the links I supplied awhile back in this thread on Massachusetts and the penalties. My understanding from what I have read, President Obama's Health Care Reform is similar to Massachusetts plan.

There is two big issues going on here, one is 50 million people without health care and the other big issue is people that are paying on a health care premium, illness strikes and now the insurance drops them, for me that's just downright criminal. Now the state of Vermont has taken care of that by implementing legislation on controlling health care insurance companies in 2006, and they have amended it every year since. I supplied that link also. I feel that was a great start!

Illness is fickle, it can strike at any age group and any income bracket. Now I happened to be one of the millions of people without health care insurance for a good many years, I was able to pay the bills in Medical and Dental, sometimes the bill wasn't what I was expecting so the payment plan worked. However, here's where we were most fortunate, nobody needed surgeries. If this happened, we could have been looking at $25,000 - $200,000, maybe more, how was this to be paid for? As a property owner, the place would have to be sold, so now what, we are homeless, living under a bridge? And this could happen to you Johnny, perhaps you lose your job or an illness strikes you and your health care insurance company drops you, now what? One can't say we can take of ourselves, most of us, yes, are independent and try to take care of ourselves, but things happen in life beyond our capabilities.

Originally Posted by Giselle

the other big issue is people that are paying on a health care premium, illness strikes and now the insurance drops them, for me that's just downright criminal.

I agree with this. However, States should each pass this law as opposed to the fed.

The other great thing about doing things at a state level, or even city level, is that its like a medical experiment...you do not just come up with new drug and go, "okay, lets test it on everyone at the same time."
The smart thing is to make sure it works first. ...and if it does, others will catch on very quickly.

I found this rather funny piece on a section of the Fox News website: http://teamwashington.blogs.foxnews....s-really-want/
Bravo to Fox.

@Outlaw, I felt that was brilliant move in Vermont. As far as I know they are the only state, yes I agree this could be done on a state level. But that's only part of the problem, we still have 50 million people without health care coverage. I know you aren't for the health care reform, but what about these 50 million people without health care, do you have any proposals? Any suggestions?

@Abel, that was just precious, very humorous, thank you for sharing!

Originally Posted by Giselle

@Outlaw, I felt that was brilliant move in Vermont. As far as I know they are the only state, yes I agree this could be done on a state level. But that's only part of the problem, we still have 50 million people without health care coverage. I know you aren't for the health care reform, but what about these 50 million people without health care, do you have any proposals? Any suggestions?

I wouldn't say I am against any reform at all, I am just against the über reform that most reformers are pushing for. As I said, at a state level I see nothing wrong with instituting laws against dropping coverage. people pay for insurance in case they get sick....its a no brainer. No one would agree with selling a lottery ticket and then invalidating it because it matched too many numbers. People do not play every week for years on end because they want to win $100.

I think I read that about 10 million of those included in that 50 million number, have simply declined coverage for whatever personal reasons. Not that 40 million is a good thing, but those who voluntarily declined do not deserve to be included in numbers thrown around by either side for the sake of increasing the impact of the "numbers".

But 40 million is still not good. Any human with feelings would feel for them.

[the following is in reguards to State run/assistance, as opposed to Federal]
I do support unemployment insurance. I see nothing wrong with helping other people who just got dealt a bad hand. I also support unemployemnt insurance running out after a specified time, as I do not support welfare.

So with that said, and without necessarily supporting or opposing any of the suggestions made here....

Anyone without a job for an extended period of time does not deserve tax payer health care IMO. In general, those who are not working are doing so on their own free will. Yes, there are going to be special cases where someone is not able for whatever reason, and that could be dealt with. Those who are able to work and do not should absolutely be disqualified from any tax payer health care.

Now as for the children, that is something that is altogether sad. If a state wants to provide healthcare for children, then that is one of those things where even I, and adamant opponent to taxation, will be willing to consider a proposition that would cover children at the state level. I am not saying I would agree with any means necessary, as there are issue that have to be addressed....one of those issues being how to make sure that the guardians of those children are not just working the system so that someone else with healthcare and children is paying twice and they are not paying at all. Infact, as opposed to government control as I am, I would much rather the state garnish wages of delinquent parents rather than put on a sale tax. The major problem is that few people today live within our means, and under no circumstance should a family receive other peoples money if they are in that group...(which is a major issue across the whole country)...but then you have a whole new can worms, because who decides what that is? Not saying I wouldn't support it, just saying measures could be taken prior to a State run system, and especially a National one.

[again, that was all about State run/assistance]

I left Arizona a while back, but last I looked they had added a $1.80 (i think, it was a very large tax) to a pack of cigarettes last year. If I recall, I *think* it was for something to do with childrens health care. Might want to look into that if you are interested. I was/am against taxing stuff that others deem "wrong" or "unhealthy", but the smokers of AZ didn't turn out to vote it down, so they got what they got.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...first0212.html

There is the tax. Its was $0.80 for the Childrens program, but there there was another $1.00+/- worth of tax added for other programs. I just remember smokes going to about $7 a pack when I was leaving.