Wagoner in Court

[Mr.Krinkle]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article.../607110345/1014

looks like busy few days for RW.

hope nobody wet themselves.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[Ghost Dog]

It's unfortunate that the United States isn't part of the civilized world. Providing it's people with a national healthcare plan is a must.

[Croc]

It's unfortunate that the United  States isn't part of the civilized world. Providing it's people with a national healthcare plan is a must.

165394[/snapback]

As an American, I disagree wholehartedly. I feel a nationalized healthcare system lessens personal responsibility. If you aren't paying your own healthcare, then why take care of yourself if the government will just flip the bill? That's bull$h!. America already has an obesity epidemic, and all the "healthcare costs of being obese" argument is null and void with a national system. Also, a national system would pave the way for taking away personal freedoms...government could leverage the whole "it doesn't want to pay for smokers health issues" so it bans smoking. Right now, you alone are responsible for the choices you make. Yes, accidents happen, but the majority of health problems are preventable. Also, look at Britain. Their national health system is awful. 6-12 months for a mammogram. That's just fantastic...you're dead by the time you get one!

[76ChevyTrucker]

I have to agree with Croc on this one. I like having to pay for my own healthcare because it means I get to choose what plan I want with what benefits. I'm sure that there might be ways to take care of that for a national healthcare system, but think of the complexity you'd be adding.

[Brandon Lutz]

As an American, I disagree wholehartedly.  I feel a nationalized healthcare system lessens personal responsibility.  If you aren't paying your own healthcare, then why take care of yourself if the government will just flip the bill?  That's bull$h!.  America already has an obesity epidemic, and all the "healthcare costs of being obese" argument is null and void with a national system.  Also, a national system would pave the way for taking away personal freedoms...government could leverage the whole "it doesn't want to pay for smokers health issues" so it bans smoking.  Right now, you alone are responsible for the choices you make.  Yes, accidents happen, but the majority of health problems are preventable.  Also, look at Britain.  Their national health system is awful.  6-12 months for a mammogram.  That's just fantastic...you're dead by the time you get one!

165407[/snapback]

I feel the same way. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone elses healthcare? We are already taxed to death, so this would increase the burden on us. Plus I dont want federally funded healthcare. It would go down the crapper in a hurry, as the government would start diverting funds here and there, and the system would ultimately be shortchanged.

Less socialism is what we need in this country. Not more of it, the government already interferes too much in our day to day activities.

[ellives]

As an American, I disagree wholehartedly.  I feel a nationalized healthcare system lessens personal responsibility.  If you aren't paying your own healthcare, then why take care of yourself if the government will just flip the bill?  That's bull$h!.

Your logic here is a bit flawed. While you are correct in saying having a NHC system will lessen responsibility, your connection that people won't care for themselves if the government will pay the cost of healthcare is incorrect. In fact if you're covered under a healthcare plan now, you're already paying for others' bad healthcare habits. The same people are currently out there fat and smoking.

Today we already have somebody else "flipping the bill" which is part of the reason healthcare costs are so out of control. Since we are not individually on the hook for the costs (the insurance companies are currently) we don't challenge any of the costs when we're presented with them. How many times do people ask about the cost of a procedure in their doctor's office to which they're told "insurance will cover it." I get agitated with that response (my doctor's admin staff hate seeing me in the office) and point out to them quite clearly they are incorrect - *I'm* paying for the procedure through my insurance premiums so I expect an answer to the f@#king question.

Oh and god forbid you don't have insurance at all. That's the opporunity to get REALLY screwed because you're paying full price for anything whereas the insurance company will pay a discounted amount. That's the perversity of the current system. (Don't forget to negotiate the cost of procedures if you don't have insurance. All prices are negotiable up front before the procedure is performed. Shop around if you have to.)

While I understand why Ghost Dog made the statement it's just another attempt to push the cost to somebody else. The bigger issue is how to get out from under the pension costs. This is where the big inequity is in the car business. Healthcare is the same for everyone.

America already has an obesity epidemic, and all the "healthcare costs of being obese" argument is null and void with a national system.  Also, a national system would pave the way for taking away personal freedoms...government could leverage the whole "it doesn't want to pay for smokers health issues" so it bans smoking.  Right now, you alone are responsible for the choices you make.  Yes, accidents happen, but the majority of health problems are preventable.  Also, look at Britain.  Their national health system is awful.  6-12 months for a mammogram.  That's just fantastic...you're dead by the time you get one!

165407[/snapback]

[Dsuupr]

The problem, we either pay via taxes or we pay via taxes. Those without health care end up in the emergency room and then we still pay for it, because they end up filing for bk or just not paying. Either way we pay for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one for national health care. I just know that either way those that are responsible pay for those that are not.

[the_yellow_dart]

All you healthcare naysayers - you realize the lack of a national healthcare system is essentially what's sinking GM, right???

I remember hearing that $1500 of the cost of every vehicle goes to just health care. A national system would spread the cost more, and they also tend to be more cost-efficient. So, say a national system would add $500 a vehicle in tax (I think even that's a little high). So GM saves $1000 a vehicle right there.

How can you support a private healthcare system and be a GM fan at the same time?

[the_yellow_dart]

America already has an obesity epidemic, and all the "healthcare costs of being obese" argument is null and void with a national system. 

Also, a national system would pave the way for taking away personal freedoms...government could leverage the whole "it doesn't want to pay for smokers health issues" so it bans smoking.

165407[/snapback]

OK.... quote #1 - See how well paying for the cost of their obesity is working NOW to lessen obesity??? Sure, a few more fat people might use the government system as an excuse not to lose weight. I seriously doubt that number would be significant.

quote #2 - This would be absolute POLITICAL SUICIDE for any party who did it.

"Hey Jimmy, why aren't you voting Republican this time around? I thought they were your party?"

"Those f#%#ers made me quit smoking! I want to hang that m#%@#%f@#$er!!!!"

Can you see any party banning smoking and getting reelected in the next 20 years? Seriously?

[CARBIZ]

Somewhere in the middle, there must be an answer. Getting proper medical attention in the 21st Century has got to be a basic human right. C'mon, we're not cave dwellers! We don't just leave one of our clansmen behind because he broke his leg. I think we're better than that.

But I do have to agree people need to take responsibilty for their own actions. Although no government would dare to outright BAN smoking, by degrees the government will make it unattractive, like they are here in Ontario. (You now cannot smoke within 30 feet of a business, you can't smoke in any public space, in any bar or restaurant.)

Perhaps a hybrid system where clinics have to compete with each other for your business. I see a lot of waste in our current health system. And how many people go to the hospitcal for every sniffle because they aren't paying for it?

Canada's healthcare system has been largely based on an honor system, whereby doctors present their bill to the government and the patient never sees it. I suspect the abuse of this system is spiralling because doctors know they can get away with it.

And the unions. The nurses and technicians spend more time on procedural paperwork and safety analyses than they do attending to patients!

[Mr.Krinkle]

(You now cannot smoke within 30 feet of a business, you can't smoke in any public space, in any bar or restaurant.) 

165683[/snapback]

the humanity! there was news about companies not even employing people if they smoke. and if you did start to work you had to quit. period. no no smoking at work or in your car or huddled under your blankets with the light off. i believe it was a company in minnesota. many people were up in arms abou that saying it would open the door for a lot more infringement and was said to be crossing the unwritten line.

i dont know. you hear horror stories about wait times in the larger countriesd with "free" health care. Sometimes they are proven incorrect but obviously its not going to be perfect if everyone who gets a cough goes to a doctor because its free.

it surprises me no ones been able to find middle ground or at least a mutually beneficial plan. hmo's suck, weve all heard the jokes. if thats the best so far youre probably better on your own.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[network engineer]

All you healthcare naysayers - you realize the lack of a national healthcare system is essentially what's sinking GM, right???

I remember hearing that $1500 of the cost of every vehicle goes to just health care. A national system would spread the cost more, and they also tend to be more cost-efficient. So, say a national system would add $500 a vehicle in tax (I think even that's a little high). So GM saves $1000 a vehicle right there.

How can you support a private healthcare system and be a GM fan at the same time?

165671[/snapback]

GM made the contract they made with the UAW. My tax dollars should not go to help fix their mistakes.

[the_yellow_dart]

GM made the contract they made with the UAW.  My tax dollars should not go to help fix their mistakes.

165751[/snapback]

Fair enough - but would this not label you a non-GM fan?