Why don't republicans understand Health Care?

United States
January 28, 2010 9:45pm CST
It amazes me that a party that sides with businesses at every chance, and has no problem taking money from them to fight elections, but also has no problem making them shoulder the burden of providing health care for their employees. In every industrialized country, the country provides health care for their people, allowing their businesses to focus on making money. In the United States we ask want our businesses to no only shoulder this burden, but shut up when the industry increases rates double digits year after year. When you have businesses like GM and GE paying over $1 BILLION a year in health care, how can we expect them to compete with global corporations that don't pay a fraction of that?
4 people like this
12 responses
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
29 Jan 10
Don't ya know it's not in the Constitution? LOL I think the better question is if the Constitution was written today what would be in it since so much has changed in the past 200 plus years.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
29 Jan 10
Nice to see that you feel the constitution is something to "LOL" at.
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
29 Jan 10
Why shouldn't it be taskr? Over the past 10 years we've seen it been made a complete mockery or need I remind you of the Patriot Act?
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
29 Jan 10
Can you ever think of anything besides "Bush did it too?" Is he your role model? Clearly he is Obama's as evidenced by the way Obama is embracing his policies including the Patriot Act.
@tdemex (3540)
• United States
29 Jan 10
They have no compassion for the poor people! Simple!tdemex
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
30 Jan 10
Simple but true for many Republicans! Annie
1 person likes this
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
29 Jan 10
Your point is not valid. If corporations paying for health care weakens business than why is the US the lone super power in the world? Why do we have the most advanced industry sector? And why do we have the most advanced health care and the highest rate of access to advanced health care?
• United States
29 Jan 10
My point is valid, you just don't understand my point. The US is the lone super power because we know how to deal with adversity. You see US corporations losing market share to foreign corporation in sectors that we once dominated. We may be the lone super power today, but what about tomorrow? We may have the most advanced industry sector, but we don't manufacture anything here anymore, so what does that say? We may have the most advanced health care system, but we rank lower than countries that spend a quarter of what we do in many health care areas. You still have yet to answer my question of why should US corporations shoulder the burden of the most expensive health care system in the world?
• United States
30 Jan 10
Healthcare is not a right, when some people are getting it for nothing at the expense of other people who work hard. I don't want even more taxes being taken out to provide more stuff for people who are lazy and sit on their duffs all day while I work hard paying for it. and it is not a right, but an obligation, when you are forced to get it even when you don't want it or can't afford it, with jail and fines being the penalty.
@miravu (100)
• United States
30 Jan 10
We aren't the lone superpower. Among superpowers, the strongest currencies are in the European Union. If we had the strongest industry sector, a Belgian company wouldn't have bought Budweiser last year and the Chinese wouldn't have the fastest growing economy in the world. I lived in Belgium last year. People in Europe couldn't imagine not having the right to healthcare. They pay higher taxes and higher social security contributions, but they have universal healthcare, stronger worker protection, a social safety net if they were to be out of work and free higher education. And this is a country the size of a small US State with less industry, less resources, and a less reliable government structure. US corporations are moving more and more to self-paying models, meaning that they ARE bearing the cost of the healthcare costs directly. This means that sick employees and old employees make expensive employees. So, what happens to them? Oftentimes, they get laid off and lose their healthcare, spend a year applying for SSI Disability, another 2 years waiting on Medicare, and all the while weighing into the costs of healthcare in this country because they can't afford to pay for their bills. Let's not forget the millions of Americans who just cannot afford health insurance or who are not employed. How can we call ourselves the greatest country in the world when we're so calous that we're content to let millions go without adequate healthcare. On what planet does it make sense to only provide affordable health insurance through an employer?
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
29 Jan 10
You really do not understand healthcare. I live in Canada and the government here also has universal healthcare but most big businesses also have plans like Blue Cross where the employer pays part of the health care for its employees and the employers pay their portions. It is no the government will pay for whatever medical procedure you want and you do not need to pay a cent nor does the employer need to pay anything. The government can only pay so much. The rest comes out of your pocket. So what will happen is that the government will not pay all of your healthcost and businesses or yourself will not have to pay anything. Your taxes will go up and the only ones not paying will be the truly poor or the illegals. The reason that health care do not go up in the other countries is because they rationalize health care. Right now in America if you have a rare disease, you can get a critical medical insurance policy or pay through the nose. Once universal healthcare comes in, you will have to have a specialist write to the government for approval, and if the government does not think you will live too long, are not a certain age or for some other reason, or some other reason, you might not get it.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
29 Jan 10
I figure if WE could understand their reasoning on anything we'd be doing great! I think what they DO understand is of the business they side with the insurance industry is one of the biggest so they don't want to lose the big bucks they get from them. I know I risk sounding like a broken record but I seriously believe a sing-payer system is the only thing that makes sense! IF it's done right it would be a win-win situation for everyone - businesses, consumers, health care professionals, the rich and poor, the old and the young...everyone BUT the health insurers and most of them would be fine anyway since they get to screw the people by insuring other things besides health! Annie
1 person likes this
@barehugs (8973)
• Canada
29 Jan 10
Republicans Have sided with Business. Its Business as usual in Washington. Insurance companies are paying those guys off big time, and they sit there on pockets filled with cash. Nobody cares about health care but the poor who are sick and dieing, and the Insurance Companies who stand to get even richer. In the long haul its the Citizens of United States who are to blame for the pain and suffering of millions of their Fellow Americans. If the People had stood firmly behind President Obama, and supported him all the way, the USA would have a health care plan in effect right now!
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
29 Jan 10
"Insurance companies are paying those guys off big time" Democrats including Obama are the ones being paid off big time. This bill would FORCE people to buy insurance from the insurance companies guaranteeing them billions of dollars in income. "If the People had stood firmly behind President Obama, and supported him all the way, the USA would have a health care plan in effect right now!" You have no idea what you're talking about. This bill would tax you for about 4 years to pay for this plan before it even went into effect. There was NEVER a plan for this plan to be in effect immediately. You'd be waiting FOUR YEARS and you'd watch your taxes skyrocket while waiting.
• United States
29 Jan 10
Our taxes are actually going down. Anyone who's not rich will be able to see it when he fills out his tax return. Republicans have always been on the side of big business and the greedy. These are some of the greediest Scrooges the world has ever seen and President Obama is trying to look out for the small guy. But the far left wing liberals with their need to included abortion and conservatives with their need to pander to the greed of the insurance companies are getting in the way of we the people who need health insurance.
2 people like this
@Koriana (302)
• United States
29 Jan 10
I don't know weather our taxes went down or not, I do know that I will be owing more money this year than I have ever owed before!! ya see, for some of us, that great tax cut obama decided to give us, well, now that it's tax time, he wants it back!!!
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
29 Jan 10
Then what do Democrats not understand about freedom of choice, liberty, not having everything shoved down the peoples throat, allowing people to live their own lives, allowing people to making their own choices, staying out of every one's life, and every one's money? What about that debater, why can you and your fellow lemming just leave everyone alone and just keep your hands to your self!
• United States
29 Jan 10
LMFAO, and republicans are all about freedom of choice, RIGHT? Your party doesn't believe that Americans should have the RIGHT to choose about ABORTION, RIGHT? Supporting a war in Iraq was shoved down my throat, and MY tax dollars were thrown away fighting that war. The reason that people need to have someone watching over them is because they can't be trusted to not destroy the world. Just look at the banking industry that needed Socialism to rescue their industry from complete destruction, and the US economy. Please tell me that you think that the banking industry doesn't need to be regulated. I really want you to tell me you do.
• United States
30 Jan 10
Nobody "needs" Socialism. It would have been better for the government to let the banks and Wall Strret and the auto industry to go bankrupt, so that we could start from scratch and get rid of all the coruption. Sure, there would have been a lot of suffering, but at least we'd still have a free country and when everything came back together, a much stronger one. People need to take some responsibility for themselves, and not look to big government to solve all their problems. Liberty is priceless, and once it's taken away, it is almost impossible to get it back.
• United States
30 Jan 10
"Nobody "needs" Socialism. It would have been better for the government to let the banks and Wall Strret and the auto industry to go bankrupt, so that we could start from scratch and get rid of all the coruption." You have no idea what would have happened if we would have done what you THINK was best. If we lived with a capitalist form of government there never would have been the money to bailout both Wall Street and the Auto Industry. Do you realize how many people would have been unemployed? About 21% according the the former administration (You remember your buddy George W. Bush, who TOLD us we NEEDED this bailout). Not to mention the fact that over half of the mortgages in the country would not be valid meaning that they could be called at anytime. Does this sound good to you? If you actually do some research and look up the facts you would be amazed at what you AREN'T told on right wing hate radio. I wonder why they don't tell you all of the facts (if any of them). "Sure, there would have been a lot of suffering, but at least we'd still have a free country and when everything came back together, a much stronger one." How would it be stronger when we would still have corrupt politicians running the country, and we would have a collapsed economic system. You actually think this is a good idea? "People need to take some responsibility for themselves, and not look to big government to solve all their problems. Liberty is priceless, and once it's taken away, it is almost impossible to get it back." I agree that people need to take responsibility for their actions. When you talk about Liberty, I wonder where you were when the PATRIOT ACT was passed? I guess Liberty is only important when a republican isn't is office.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
29 Jan 10
Two points need to be made. The first is Health Insurance was offered as a benefit to employees during President Franklin Roosevelt's administration. It was necessary to do this because FDR put wage controls (of WWII) on business and to keep workers business had to be creative and they started to offer free medical for the employee. The benefit to the employer was this was something that could be offered to employees to give them more disposal income without increasing their wages. The second point is that Europe started offering national health care. They could do this because the US financed the rebuilding of the countries. We provided military protection for them so the did not have the military budgets to worry about. If you look at Europe today Great Britain is the only country that has a large enough military to be a force in the world. When the UN needs a major force it falls to the US and GB to provide the troops. In the first Iraq War many of the countries fighting with the US could supply only a few thousand troops because they had such a small military. When you consider that the US has troops stationed around the world to protect our allies. In may of those countries or areas of the world we have more troops that the country. Many of those countries have come to depend up the US for protection and have not spent money on military and we are providing for their protection.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
29 Jan 10
Well neither side really cares about the people, but I'm sure you already know that. I think some companies want to keep paying for employee's healthcare because it's good for employee retention and, as I'm sure you know, turnover is very expensive. I've had friends who stay at jobs that they utterly despise based solely on the quality of health insurance they get. You do make a good point that health insurance costs businesses a LOT of money. In all fairness though, many of those corporations in other countries are paying all that money in taxes to their respective governments. Otherwise foreign cars would be much less expensive as they'd have a higher profit margin. In countries like China where we get so much of our goods, we can't compete because we have a minimum wage over $7 an hour while their minimum wage is $85 to $128 per MONTH depending on what region you're in.
• United States
29 Jan 10
Taskr, Do you really think that GM and GE WANT to spent over a BILLION dollars a year on health care instead of increasing their profits? I understand you point about people staying for health care, but that is because many companies have HSA's, or I call them Bush babies (for which I am one, and wish Bush would have taken his health care plan in shove it up his a$$). But, wouldn't it be better for everyone else if your health care didn't depend on who your employer is? This way you would have people who work at place that they enjoy, instead of staying their because of health care. You are correct that they pay taxes instead of health care, but find me a foreign corporation that doesn't receive subsidies from their government. Toyota, and Honda receive money every year from the government of Japan just because. You are correct about the difference between Chinese workers, and American workers, but this is why we need mirror trading to either open up markets, or create fair trade practices for EVERYONE, not just the Chinese.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Jan 10
I think it is a difference in how they see the role of government. Democrats see government most of hte time as the answer to things. Bigger government...in charge of more things. While Republicans most of the time believe in a small govrnment that is in charge of less things. That is their main difference on most major issues.....they realize there is a problem but don't feel it is the government's job to take it over or control it. While democrats do feel the government should take it over and control it. it is just the old "Big Government vs Small Government" arguement.
@connierebel (1557)
• United States
30 Jan 10
It is not that Republicans don't understand healthcare, it is because both the Republicans and the Democrats only care about themselves and not about the American people. The Democrats like the kickbacks that they get from the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, while the Democrats like total despotic government control. The American people have been against Obamacare, but Obama doesn't mind shoving his socialism in their face. Neither side cares about the Constitution, although at least the Republicans have a little more respect for the Bill of Rights than the Democrats. (and by the way, the "right" to healthcare is not in the Constitution).
• United States
30 Jan 10
I think that both party is more worried about their jobs than the reason we put them there. I don't think one person votes for a candidate because we want them to have A job, we want them to vote in our best interest. The problem is that they only vote in THEIR best interest. When it comes to health care, Obama ran on single payer health care, if you are shocked that he wants to do it, then you didn't pay attention. Obama won the election by a wide margin, even more than Bush in 2004 when he claimed the American people gave him a "mandate". We need health care reform before you have to take out a mortgage (good luck getting one today) to pay for a broken bone. Please show me where it says in the constitution that I have the RIGHT to guy an elected official? Yet, we all know that it happens everyday, and I have proof to it happening and no one doing a thing about it. Just because something is, or isn't in the constitution doesn't make it right or justified. By the way, it was a REPUBLICAN that created the PATRIOT ACT, which violated many sections of the constitution, and I never heard ONE Republican complain about that when Bush pushed it through congress.
• United States
29 Jan 10
Perhaps, the first question should be why in God's name is the cost increasing so dramatically. No one is even bothering IF WE SHOULD BE PAYING THAT MUCH! Not to mention we just upped the debt ceiling to more than a trillion dollars a year. How much more of YOUR hard earned dollars does the government have to take away from you before you believe it is enough?
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
30 Jan 10
One of the reasons for the cost increase is not dealt with in the Administrations plan. Tort Reform. One example was given in Texas befroe trot reform, the Dr. Bill for delivering a baby was $3,000, with $2,000 going to pay for MalPractice insurance. Now with tort reform in TX more Dr are moving in and establishing a practice. More Dr means lower costs. Reduced Malpractice Insurance means lower costs. I have found many Drs who offer deep discounts for pre payment of services. By expanding Medical Savings account people would be able to pre pay for most services. A friend of mine has a small business and can have Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) for his employees. He offeres a medical insurance with a $3,000 deductable and 100% copayment after the deductable is met. He then puts money (not the full $3,000) into each employees MSA each year. His employees have more control over their medical decisions and better coverage. Employees as have the ablity to contribute to a flex benefits plan and left over money can be placed itno the MSA, with limits. The employer has lower cost for Health Insurance.
• United States
30 Jan 10
"One of the reasons for the cost increase is not dealt with in the Administrations plan. Tort Reform." Malpractice insurance is a huge problem, but no one wants to fix it. Doctors complain about it, but they realize that there are bad doctors, and they don't want more regulations limiting their actions after an accident. When these accidents happen we need to punish those that commit these acts, although I agree that some of these lawsuits are excessive. If the AMA would just handle this themselves this wouldn't be such a big problem, but they WON'T. Then you have the major cause of excessive malpractice rates: The insurance companies!! Malpractice insurance started to sky rocket right around 2001, see the insurance companies lost billions in the stock market right after 9/11, but they didn't want the public to know about it. So they just raised rates to make up for their lack of governance when it came to handling other peoples money. The other problem is our political system that is driven by money instead of where someone stands, and lawyers, and insurance companies are HUGE contributors to BOTH parties. "One example was given in Texas befroe trot reform, the Dr. Bill for delivering a baby was $3,000, with $2,000 going to pay for MalPractice insurance. Now with tort reform in TX more Dr are moving in and establishing a practice. More Dr means lower costs. Reduced Malpractice Insurance means lower costs." Texas is horrible example of health insurance reform, they have the lowest regulation, and the highest percentage of people with NO insurance. I think it would be funny to see how many of those doctors that are moving there have had "accidents" in the last 10 years, and are just going there because they can't practice anywhere else. "I have found many Drs who offer deep discounts for pre payment of services. By expanding Medical Savings account people would be able to pre pay for most services. A friend of mine has a small business and can have Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) for his employees. He offeres a medical insurance with a $3,000 deductable and 100% copayment after the deductable is met. He then puts money (not the full $3,000) into each employees MSA each year. His employees have more control over their medical decisions and better coverage. Employees as have the ablity to contribute to a flex benefits plan and left over money can be placed itno the MSA, with limits. The employer has lower cost for Health Insurance." I have an HSA (health savings account), and it is horrible. It isn't health insurance it is a discount on health care, a very very small discount at that. This was a horrible idea that Bush had to take the burden of health care and pass it on to the employee instead of the employer. The problem is that the insurance part of this is a only for major procedures, and anything else is just a minor discount. Your friend likes because he doesn't have to care for his employees, and watch your friends employee turn over rates in the next few years. My company has seen a huge increase and over 60% of our employees said they would leave because their health care is to high. People don't make better decision with a plan like this, they just don't go to the doctor because it is to expensive. Does your friend use this plan to? Many companies that offer these plans, have a second plan for management because they are so bad. Do you have one of these plans? If this is such a great plan, then why don't you get one. You can see how much they SUCK.