What Medical Care Has Come To

[Nifty29]

Well Guys and Gals----I didn't mean to start WWIII !

All I wanted was your prayers for my young family member and her small children, who happen to have fallen victim to this new obsession started by the latest occupier of the White House and his fellow manipulators.

This lady is not the first and only victim of this new legislation. There have been several families making it known that their previously 'liked' and efficient health care was working for them! People who had been being treated for cancer etc. and now FORCED out of their original policy and into Obamacare--have lost their doctors because the doctor refuses to serve under Obomacare or has not been 'approved' by the government---and their medication (chemo etc) is being refused them, when it was working!

Are all of the horror stories exactly true or are some embellished? I can't answer that, but when I know from my own experience that this lady--when time is of essence--is refused treatment because she has just had surgery that didn't cure the cancer in the first place, simply because it hasn't been 30 days since they did it, and this delay may very well allow the cancer to spread to her brain-----this I know to be a TRUE horror story. A story of the total lack of humanitarionism in legislated medical laws.

There is no bureaucrat that knows a patient like his own doctor.

You can say all you want about those "evil" insurance companies, but there you could buy the kind of policy that you felt was needed for your family----it was your choice---here we are being TOLD what we have to have, and it is obviously inadequate for what we need.

The country was sold a bill of goods---quack medicine if you will--- and as Nancy Pelosi so famously said----"we have to pass it to know what is in it!"

Well now we know---

Again, I am sorry for starting World War III here at CM----I was only asking for your prayers for a very nice young family in trouble.

And I might add---for a world in trouble.

MaryJean

Here is an example of what I meant about political polarization that clouds what could be a reasonable argument.

What I mean is.....whilst the rest of the post might be accurate and/or reasonable (I don't know now for the reason I'm about to explain), the first few sentences contain a strong subjective opinion:

"This new obsession started by the latest occupier of the White House and his fellow manipulators"

The minute I read a statement like that....and such statements are common when US citizens talk about these kinds of topics on the net....I immediately begin viewing the rest of the information or "facts" as suspicious and most probably contorted somehow, or totally one-eyed. As a non-US person interested in US stuff, it's very frustrating as it seems everyone has either a democratic or republican agenda to push.

Bigjohn's post is actually an exception to that. Well done.

So, from reading your posts maryjean.....

1. Is Obama called each time a medical decision has to be made? Or one of his staffers?

2. Was the Obamacare legislation passed in it's original form? If not, what changes were made by the opposition?

3. Assuming that the answer to 1. is no, who IS making these decisions? Surely it's they who should be copping the flak?


4. Are more people covered for healthcare than pre-Obamacare?

5. What is the reason for the 30 day rule? Surely there is a medical reason?

I agree with skiny. Less than 100% healthcare for 100% of citizens is barbaric. IMO, the biggest problem in the US healthcare system is the HMOs...they have become way too powerful and profitable, and continually put money ahead of people to line the pockets of their investors. Perhaps when US citizens stop playing the political card, and start demanding action be taken against the REAL culprits, the system might actually become about people BEFORE profit.

The NHS IN the UK and Medicare over here might have their flaws, but I'm proud to say that I can get FREE medical treatment, including surgery and allied health and drugs, whenever I need it. I can visit a doctor or specialist whenever I need to, and go to an ER and/or call an ambulance anytime without cost. We can purchase private health insurance if we like, and get choice of hospital and doctor and quicker treatment for elective and non urgent procedures, but if we don't, we are still covered. I'll take that over any US system any day...and it's supported by all sides of politics, so it ain't going to change.

 

[skiny]

The system is obviously not perfect but it's a start. I'm sure there will be many changes made to it over the decades to come.

I'm not sure how people are saying it's any worse though. If you've had private health care in the past aren't you still able to buy your own insurance if you're not happy with it?

 

[Balthazar]

If you've had private health care in the past aren't you still able to buy your own insurance if you're not happy with it?

They can't keep what they had before.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I could put hundreds of links but you get the point.

That thing is a HUGE disaster. If everyone is covered including those who can't afford it and those with pre-existing medical conditions, and no one is taking a pay cut then WHO'S GOING TO PAY?

If you force insurance companies to insure people that aren't insurable, either these companies will go bankrupt or they'll find the money elsewhere. This system cannot work as long as insurance companies are involved. Healthcare is either for-profit or it's not, it cannot be in-between.

Obamacare is a big step back, if anything. Ultimately it will be used as an example to fuel people who believe that when the government gets involved things are getting worse.

 

[MaryJean]

Thank you Balthazar!

I can see that you have a clearer vision than many people, even here in the States, but as that video shows, many of those people are receiving a huge shock when they finally see what the Obamacare rules and regulations have in store for them personally.

My late husband and I were covered under a group insurance from our employer---a very large insurance company by the way. A couple of years ago, that insurance company realized that the atmosphere under government regulations was going to make it entirely too expensive for them to continue with the coverages that they were giving us. (We did pay a portion)--They started then to make arrangements for us to get other coverage. Many glitches had to be managed even at that time so the cutoff date for our personal care was delayed and delayed. This was to our advantage because my husband was very ill and needed a great deal of hospital care. I would see statements of Tens of Thousands of dollars come to our house that were mostly paid for by this insurance. We only had to pay for the portion of our deductible and co-pay. We could not have possibly afforded that care otherwise. And NEVER was he turned down for anything--even the most expense ICU.

This coverage was continued until 6 months after he died.-----That was that big terrible bug-a-boo of a private insurance company at work!

But they saw the writing on the wall and they got out of the health care business. They now, for their retirees allow us a certain amount each year as a "Spending Account". We can apply it to a medical policy premium or spend it on medical care as we see fit. I personally use it to pay for a medical policy, that combined with Medicare and now Part D for Perscription coverage (by the way my perscriptions cost a whole lot more under Part D(government) than they did under the orginal policy), provides me with a new set of coverages. Since I am a healthy person, even at my age, I have not had to test this new plan in the light of Obamacare.

Nifty, I wonder why as someone who doesn't live in the USA, you are so interested in what takes place in our society here.

I see you complaining about the "far right propaganda"----I complain about the "far left" obsession with a 'Nanny State'.

Free enterprise of 'even the insurance companies' is by far the superior way of life.

And yes---we do have free care by the hospitals for anyone who cannot afford to pay.
Even the mothers who come over the border without a Visa get their babies birthed for free!
And they do it alot!

So Nifty----walk in our shoes before criticizing please.

Cordially,
MaryJean

 

[skiny]

I'm far from an expert on Obamacare. I quit paying attention to it quite some time ago.

It's a system that makes no sense to me. Why would anyone be telling you what doctor you can visit and why would any doctor be turning away patients?

What's the point in having public health insurance if it's run though private insurance companies?

And if before this system came along, everyone had access to health care, were all the stories about people not receiving it because they didn't have insurance untrue?

I remember reading a while back that before Obamacare something like 40 million Americans didn't have health insurance. Did all of these people have access to healthcare?

 

[Nifty29]

Thank you Balthazar!

I can see that you have a clearer vision than many people, even here in the States, but as that video shows, many of those people are receiving a huge shock when they finally see what the Obamacare rules and regulations have in store for them personally.

My late husband and I were covered under a group insurance from our employer---a very large insurance company by the way. A couple of years ago, that insurance company realized that the atmosphere under government regulations was going to make it entirely too expensive for them to continue with the coverages that they were giving us. (We did pay a portion)--They started then to make arrangements for us to get other coverage. Many glitches had to be managed even at that time so the cutoff date for our personal care was delayed and delayed. This was to our advantage because my husband was very ill and needed a great deal of hospital care. I would see statements of Tens of Thousands of dollars come to our house that were mostly paid for by this insurance. We only had to pay for the portion of our deductible and co-pay. We could not have possibly afforded that care otherwise. And NEVER was he turned down for anything--even the most expense ICU.

This coverage was continued until 6 months after he died.-----That was that big terrible bug-a-boo of a private insurance company at work!

But they saw the writing on the wall and they got out of the health care business. They now, for their retirees allow us a certain amount each year as a "Spending Account". We can apply it to a medical policy premium or spend it on medical care as we see fit. I personally use it to pay for a medical policy, that combined with Medicare and now Part D for Perscription coverage (by the way my perscriptions cost a whole lot more under Part D(government) than they did under the orginal policy), provides me with a new set of coverages. Since I am a healthy person, even at my age, I have not had to test this new plan in the light of Obamacare.

Nifty, I wonder why as someone who doesn't live in the USA, you are so interested in what takes place in our society here.

I see you complaining about the "far right propaganda"----I complain about the "far left" obsession with a 'Nanny State'.

Free enterprise of 'even the insurance companies' is by far the superior way of life.

And yes---we do have free care by the hospitals for anyone who cannot afford to pay.
Even the mothers who come over the border without a Visa get their babies birthed for free!
And they do it alot!

So Nifty----walk in our shoes before criticizing please.

Cordially,
MaryJean

IIRC, this forum allows for people of any country to comment about anything, provided it doesn't breach the forum rules. I'm interested in world affairs in general, not just the USA.

I do suggest you re-read my comments again, as I stated clearly that it was political polarization i.e. views of BOTH parties and their extremes, that I see as a hurdle to the USA moving forward. I only used your example because it was just that...an example. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed. I said that ANY political agenda gets in the way of an honest, meaningful debate.

IMO, a nation is judged by how it looks after it's citizens. As soon as looking after citizens becomes a profit/loss issue, then it begins to degrade and those less fortunate are left out in the cold. Just because one has a lower level of education, or is born with medical issues, or is just plain unlucky, does not, in my opinion, deserve to be treated like a second class citizen. If people with more money than they'll ever need or spend have to put in an little extra (which is a comparative pittance) to make sure the less fortunate/wealthy/healthy are looked after, then so be it. There's a big different between a "nanny" state and a humanitarian one. Some of the problem stems from what is essentially a capitalist view that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mostly mine" etc. It really is "survival of the fittest" in the truest sense of the word. I'm not saying communism is better...not at all...just that capitalism is a very self-centred ideal that has created a lot of the attitudes like "If you aren't wealthy like me, then tough bikkies. Be sick, die, whatever...I don't care" which seems more common these days than ever.

One does not have to be a US citizen to be interested nor have some understanding of the issues within the USA. To say otherwise is ridiculous IMO, and is just a way to deflect criticism or comment, rather than responding with facts and objective views.

I most certainly do not mean to offend you at all maryjean. I'm just so sick of hearing so many US people take a staunch republican OR staunch democratic POV, as fed by the the parties via their media control and ownership. The truth is actually somewhere in the middle, but until the majority of Americans realise that and stop believing every snippet of crud that the party machine drops in their lap, I just cannot see the USA rising back up to the universally properous and, to a point, highly moral level at which it once stood in the world.

BTW, are you able to answer those questions please?

 

[Balthazar]

What's the point in having public health insurance if it's run though private insurance companies?

It's not public health insurance. It's private health insurance with heavy regulations. Like I said earlier in the thread, its the worst of both worlds.

 

[Balthazar]

If people with more money than they'll ever need or spend have to put in an little extra (which is a comparative pittance) to make sure the less fortunate/wealthy/healthy are looked after, then so be it. There's a big different between a "nanny" state and a humanitarian one. Some of the problem stems from what is essentially a capitalist view that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mostly mine" etc. It really is "survival of the fittest" in the truest sense of the word. I'm not saying communism is better...not at all...just that capitalism is a very self-centred ideal that has created a lot of the attitudes like "If you aren't wealthy like me, then tough bikkies. Be sick, die, whatever...I don't care" which seems more common these days than ever.

It may sounds weird to you, but some people believe that no one is entitled to other people's money. Saying that some need it more is irrelevant and it has nothing to do with being "self-centered". Not wanting to pay for others through taxes doesn't mean that you don't want to help others, it means that it should be done on a voluntary basis.

I live in the most heavily taxed province of Canada, and we are the less generous people when it comes to donate to various charities. That's no coincidence. I pay for my neighbors' welfare, but I don't even know his name. We have lost all sense of community because the government is taking care of it. That's what social-democracy do: desensitize people and make them losing sense of responsibilization. Back in my grandparents' days, there were almost no tax and people were taking care of each other a LOT more than what they do today. Directly helping someone in needs is what I'd call humanitarian, being forced to pay without even knowing who or why, not so much.

Today's society is more self-centered and selfish than ever and it's certainly NOT because there are not enough social programs or interventionism. I will not let someone die of hunger if I can do anything and the vast majority of people won't either. Government don't need to force us.

Also, FTR, uninsured people weren't dying on the streets in the US. By law, hospitals had to take care of them first and ask for insurances later. If they couldn't pay, hospitals were taking the loss.

 

[skiny]

It may sounds weird to you, but some people believe that no one is entitled to other people's money. Saying that some need it more is irrelevant and it has nothing to do with being "self-centered". Not wanting to pay for others through taxes doesn't mean that you don't want to help others, it means that it should be done on a voluntary basis.

I live in the most heavily taxed province of Canada, and we are the less generous people when it comes to donate to various charities. That's no coincidence. I pay for my neighbors' welfare, but I don't even know his name. We have lost all sense of community because the government is taking care of it. That's what social-democracy do: desensitize people and make them losing sense of responsibilization. Back in my grandparents' days, there were almost no tax and people were taking care of each other a LOT more than what they do today. Directly helping someone in needs is what I'd call humanitarian, being forced to pay without even knowing who or why, not so much.

Today's society is more self-centered and selfish than ever and it's certainly NOT because there are not enough social programs or interventionism. I will not let someone die of hunger if I can do anything and the vast majority of people won't either. Government don't need to force us.

Also, FTR, uninsured people weren't dying on the streets in the US. By law, hospitals had to take care of them first and ask for insurances later. If they couldn't pay, hospitals were taking the loss.

It's not a matter of being entitled to other people's money. It's a matter of the government working for the people and requiring money to do it. Paying more in taxes if you make more money isn't a new concept. It's a fair necessity. If everyone paid a flat rate income tax people who earn more money would be getting a bargain on the services the taxes provide and the lower income earners would starve. You can't build a civilization with doctors and lawyers. The jobs being performed by the middle and lower income workers are an indispensable part of a functioning society but the people performing these jobs simply cannot pay an equal share of the government's income and obviously their employers can't pay them a doctor's salary. The only viable solution is for people to be taxed on what they earn and what they spend.

Then the question becomes where should the money collected be spent? Should it be spent on roads if even though not every tax payer drives? Should it be spent on schools even though not every tax payer has children? Should it be spent on healthcare even though not every tax payer requires regular medical attention? I've never called the fire department in my life but the tax I pay still pays for them. I don't visit any of the local parks and if you ever see me walking on the beach you should probably assume I'm lost but I still pay for those. The city I live in has spent a fortune over the last few years putting lanes for bicycles on the streets but until someone figures out how I can drink coffee and smoke cigarettes at the same time, I'm not riding one.

Realistically tax money should be spent first on essential services. It's a matter of opinion what constitutes an essential service. Some people believe there is nothing more essential than healthcare. What kind of society would we be building if a homeless man can call the fire department if what ever the hell is in that shopping cart ignites but a struggling waitress has to pay for her own insurance to take her child to the doctor?

I'm not going to bother going back to find all the old stories about people in the US with non life threatening injuries or illnesses have been turned away from hospitals because they didn't have insurance or private insurance companies refusing to pay for essential treatments. I've read them and I'm sure anyone who wants to find them can do so just as easily.

I am just of the opinion that everyone should have to pay their share which may not be an equal share and that healthcare is an essential service that should never be refused to anyone by anyone. I pay a fairly nice chunk of taxes myself but I'm happier having it pay for someone else's chemotherapy than I am having it putting in bike lanes or covering the cost of maintaining parks and beaches.

 

[Nifty29]

It's not a matter of being entitled to other people's money. It's a matter of the government working for the people and requiring money to do it. Paying more in taxes if you make more money isn't a new concept. It's a fair necessity. If everyone paid a flat rate income tax people who earn more money would be getting a bargain on the services the taxes provide and the lower income earners would starve. You can't build a civilization with doctors and lawyers. The jobs being performed by the middle and lower income workers are an indispensable part of a functioning society but the people performing these jobs simply cannot pay an equal share of the government's income and obviously their employers can't pay them a doctor's salary. The only viable solution is for people to be taxed on what they earn and what they spend.

Then the question becomes where should the money collected be spent? Should it be spent on roads if even though not every tax payer drives? Should it be spent on schools even though not every tax payer has children? Should it be spent on healthcare even though not every tax payer requires regular medical attention? I've never called the fire department in my life but the tax I pay still pays for them. I don't visit any of the local parks and if you ever see me walking on the beach you should probably assume I'm lost but I still pay for those. The city I live in has spent a fortune over the last few years putting lanes for bicycles on the streets but until someone figures out how I can drink coffee and smoke cigarettes at the same time, I'm not riding one.

Realistically tax money should be spent first on essential services. It's a matter of opinion what constitutes an essential service. Some people believe there is nothing more essential than healthcare. What kind of society would we be building if a homeless man can call the fire department if what ever the hell is in that shopping cart ignites but a struggling waitress has to pay for her own insurance to take her child to the doctor?

I'm not going to bother going back to find all the old stories about people in the US with non life threatening injuries or illnesses have been turned away from hospitals because they didn't have insurance or private insurance companies refusing to pay for essential treatments. I've read them and I'm sure anyone who wants to find them can do so just as easily.

I am just of the opinion that everyone should have to pay their share which may not be an equal share and that healthcare is an essential service that should never be refused to anyone by anyone. I pay a fairly nice chunk of taxes myself but I'm happier having it pay for someone else's chemotherapy than I am having it putting in bike lanes or covering the cost of maintaining parks and beaches.

I really can't add anything else to that skiny.

A very well thought out and reasonable reply.

I will say one thing.....if the US did what Balt suggested was done "in the old days" (when, incidentally, there was a smaller population and far less fast food and drugs and no nuclear weapons etc which is why the taxes were lower) in the present day, I could safely predict that a large number of people WOULD die/starve/live in misery, because the idea of "me first" has become almost endemic among the first world countries. It would also be interesting to note how many of the wealthy individuals and companies would actually give to charities if the donations were not tax-deductible......

 

[Balthazar]

I am just of the opinion that everyone should have to pay their share which may not be an equal share and that healthcare is an essential service that should never be refused to anyone by anyone.

The problem is entitlement. The neighbor doesn't and shouldn't have the right to have me go to work every day to pay for his food, shelter, healthcare and other necessities. I should be free to help him or not. I'm a good person (as you are), we won't let him die I promise. All we need is getting back that lost sense of community and caring for each other.

Let me rant a little further here to explain my position...

I'm sick of social engineering. I don't think that's what we should do as a human society. We live only once, for a very short time and we should be as free as possible during that time. Life isn't fair, it never was and never will be.

If Mother Nature doesn't manage to kill the poor and the sick like she always did, she'll get us in the corner with overpopulation and various diseases. In the end, she'll win so we should stop thinking that we are better and smarter than her because she's the reason why we're here in the first place. We are primates, not ants, and we aren't the be all end all of Life on this planet!

 

[jetset]

Leaving to one side for the moment the opposing views on socialism vs. capitalism, surely if a flat rate of tax was applied across those liable for income taxation, the more successful/wealthy tax payers would in any case be paying more into the state coffers - perhaps far more than the cost of the government services they receive?

 

[Balthazar]

if the US did what Balt suggested was done "in the old days" (when, incidentally, there was a smaller population and far less fast food and drugs and no nuclear weapons etc which is why the taxes were lower) in the present day, I could safely predict that a large number of people WOULD die/starve/live in misery

You mean like it did for the past 250,000 years? Why do you think that we have to change that? Because you don't agree with how nature works?

Reminds me of the global warming alarmists. Oh no, the climate isn't stable! Well, it never was! Our data is less than 100 years old, no one should think that the climate will forever stay the same as it was in 1970! 10,000 years ago the whole thing was covered in ice and before that Alaska was under tropical heat. Climate isn't stable, it has changed and will change again regardless of human activities!

We think we are so important and always forget to look at the big picture, this is disconcerting.

 

[bigjohn]

You mean like it did for the past 250,000 years? Why do you think that we have to change that? Because you don't agree with how nature works?

Reminds me of the global warming alarmists. Oh no, the climate isn't stable! Well, it never was! Our data is less than 100 years old, no one should think that the climate will forever stay the same as it was in 1970! 10,000 years ago the whole thing was covered in ice and before that Alaska was under tropical heat. Climate isn't stable, it has changed and will change again regardless of human activities!

We think we are so important and always forget to look at the big picture, this is disconcerting.

By that logic, if we are at a restaurant and you get a bigger steak than I do I should be able to club you over the head and take yours and no police should intervene....that's how nature works.

We should try to change the things that we are able to change if it furthers the human endeavor. Isn't that the basis of society and civilization?

 

[Nifty29]

You mean like it did for the past 250,000 years? Why do you think that we have to change that? Because you don't agree with how nature works?

Reminds me of the global warming alarmists. Oh no, the climate isn't stable! Well, it never was! Our data is less than 100 years old, no one should think that the climate will forever stay the same as it was in 1970! 10,000 years ago the whole thing was covered in ice and before that Alaska was under tropical heat. Climate isn't stable, it has changed and will change again regardless of human activities!

We think we are so important and always forget to look at the big picture, this is disconcerting.

I wonder if you would see things the same way if it was YOU who was ill, disabled or some other category in which you place those whom "mother nature should take it's course with and let die/starve/etc". It's easy to be blaze' and say "yeah well I'm not paying for my neighbour's medical treatment/food/etc" when it's not YOU at the bottom of the food chain.

I like to think we are somewhat more civilized than when we were living in caves or mudhuts.

Bigjohn...well said again.

 

[rena35]

Thank you bot Nifty and BigJohn. Well put

 

[skiny]

The problem is entitlement. The neighbor doesn't and shouldn't have the right to have me go to work every day to pay for his food, shelter, healthcare and other necessities. I should be free to help him or not. I'm a good person (as you are), we won't let him die I promise. All we need is getting back that lost sense of community and caring for each other.

You use the word "entitlement" a lot. You use it like it's a bad thing. People should feel entitled to have a say in where their tax money goes. You just don't agree with them but that doesn't make you any less entitled. Do you agree that children should be entitled to public education? We would save a lot of money if people had to pay the schools directly for their children's education and if they can't afford it they could be home schooled. You do understand that we're not entitled to a portion of our pay cheques? The government takes that and uses to pay for things that benefit society as a whole. Not everyone uses every service and we don't get to pick and choose which services our portion gets spent on.

Let me rant a little further here to explain my position...

I'm sick of social engineering. I don't think that's what we should do as a human society. We live only once, for a very short time and we should be as free as possible during that time. Life isn't fair, it never was and never will be.

If Mother Nature doesn't manage to kill the poor and the sick like she always did, she'll get us in the corner with overpopulation and various diseases. In the end, she'll win so we should stop thinking that we are better and smarter than her because she's the reason why we're here in the first place. We are primates, not ants, and we aren't the be all end all of Life on this planet!

I really don't think anyone believes that a public healthcare system is going to allow them to live forever. Not counting Elvis, everything that lives dies. The difference between us and every other species on the planet is that we constantly question our quality of life. That is why we moved out of caves and into houses. It's why we stopped picking berries and started planting crops. It's why we learned to ride and then drive and then fly instead of walk. We've learned some of the reasons that we get sick and we've learned ways to combat and cure much of it. Nobody including you would prefer to still be wandering around the jungle hoping you aren't stricken by some unknown disease before you're able to kill your next meal. You enjoy a quality of life that all the people before us worked to build and yet you condemn those who continue the tradition of improving the human condition. The reality is, if humans decided that fending for themselves was more beneficial you wouldn't be having this debate because you would be still be living in a grass hut guarding your meager possessions from your neighbours.

Leaving to one side for the moment the opposing views on socialism vs. capitalism, surely if a flat rate of tax was applied across those liable for income taxation, the more successful/wealthy tax payers would in any case be paying more into the state coffers - perhaps far more than the cost of the government services they receive?

That depends what the flat rate would be. Would it be based on a 28k income which would bankrupt the country or a 100k income which would put the lower income earners starving out on the street?

You mean like it did for the past 250,000 years? Why do you think that we have to change that? Because you don't agree with how nature works?

Reminds me of the global warming alarmists. Oh no, the climate isn't stable! Well, it never was! Our data is less than 100 years old, no one should think that the climate will forever stay the same as it was in 1970! 10,000 years ago the whole thing was covered in ice and before that Alaska was under tropical heat. Climate isn't stable, it has changed and will change again regardless of human activities!

We think we are so important and always forget to look at the big picture, this is disconcerting.

I agree, you do have to see the big picture but if that's all you look at you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Googobucs]

I believe that the basic principle of the AHA; that everyone that can afford to contribute to the system should do so, is a good plan and foundation to build on. Is the current plan perfect? No , it needs work but we have to start some where. It wont be easy, but it can be done.

A wise man once said:
We choose to do these things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.