riddler 0 #101 July 21, 2009 Quote How much are people taxed in those countries? How much are we taxed to get police and fire protection? Health care is not an optional experience, any more than personal protection. Socializing basic human needs doesn't make us communists Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #102 July 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs the proposal to fund this new healthcare plan out of something other than federal income tax revenues? Currently, government supplied healthcare, such as Medicaid, is funded partially by the states. Your federal income tax argument is intellectually dishonest. We're talking about a Federal program here. What's dishonest is that the federal government wants to make the states pay for it. Do you have figures on State income tax payment rates? How many people who are not paying Federal Income Tax are making substantial payments to the states? What percentage of total income tax revenue is collected by the states, as opposed to the federal government?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #103 July 21, 2009 QuoteHey Neal, considering my health insurance would NOT cover a colon cancer SCREENING for me on my 50th birthday, I still have to say the Canadian system is better. Get other insurance. Any plan worth the paper it's printed on should provide generously for preventive care, routine screenings, vaccinations, etc. It is very firmly established as the best medicine for keeping future costs down. As additional incentive, many plans with deductibles now even waive the deductible for preventive care to motivate people to use those benefits. Is it an employer sponsored plan and the employer thinks they are saving money by not covering preventive? Is it a plan of last resort issued under the auspices of some state or county agency? Or did you buy the plan on your own and just decide not to get coverage for that? Whatever the answer, why did your employer or the government furnish or purchase coverage without basic preventive care as part of the package?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #104 July 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteLots of people aren't paying these taxes--they're making no contribution to the funding of this (or most other federal) program. Bullshit. Most of such programs are state funded in part or in full. If people are paying sales taxes, they're contributing. And do you know the average percentage of people who do not pay these kinds of taxes? I bet you do but chose to ignore it because of your agrenda"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #105 July 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe only answer I can think of is that Americans are afraid of the word "socialist". Absolutely! To many Americans, "socialism!!" is synonymous with "blasphemy!!". All emotion and dogma; precious little independent reasoning. Invoke the word, and further discussion is foreclosed. If the Foo shits..........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #106 July 21, 2009 QuoteAt least in Canada, they are delivering HEALTHCARE - they are not debating INSURANCE. In the USA we are debating how to get everyone INSURED, not how to deliver HEALTHCARE..... I see a significant difference. I am all for INSURANCE, if the insurance companies actually cared about delivering health care, but they do not - they only care about making money - by delivering as little health care as they can. How to deliver healthcare so that the costs not only stop rising, but actually are reduced, is the issue. Get rid of insurance as we know it, find someone to do all the administrative work for free, and you knock a whopping 10% off the top. Big deal! Care would still be unaffordable for most of the people for whom it is already unaffordable. Cost of care IS the issue. But the politicians are pussyfooting around the issue and instead of trying to figure out how to drive the cost of care down, they are going to provide everybody the standard brand of outrageously expensive care and charge it against a small enough minority of taxpayers that as a voting block will be insignificant. Your understanding of the roles is twisted. Insurance companies are in the health care financing business. They do not deliver care. They are a pass-thru of whatever the providers charge, minus the discounts they negotiate, minus on average 10% in admin costs. Without the negotiated rates, the average bill from a provider would be about 30 to 40% more; which would be out of the patients pocket if they are not insured." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #107 July 21, 2009 not sure where you got your numbers from, but the standard I read is 40-45% overhead that the insurance companies add to the bill, not 10% The cost of healthcare will NOT go down, unless doctors work for less. Doctors will not work for less because they get better at what they do, new procedures are developed as well as drugs, and they spend a lot of their overhead fighting with the insurance companies. The insurance companies will not stop fighting with doctors and patients because that is how they make profit. And the cycle goes on and on. I believe that if EVERYONE had 'insurance' the cost of the 'insurance' would be less per person than it is today. Now does the government provide the 'insurance' through taxes? OR do we trust the insurance companies to reduce their rates if everyone was required to suddenly get health insurance by whatever means, privately or through work, whatever. I do not trust the insurance companies. Many do not trust the government. But the geoverment 'overhead' model is far better and cheaper than the insruance company possibilities. We already have the system in place, it is called Medicare. Remove the age for Medicare, and adjust the tax base to pay for it, problem solved. Some things will still not be covered, just like in Canada and here in the USA, people can buy (and probably afford) supplemental insurance. Leave private doctors to work privately if they want. There will be plenty of doctors and hospitals that are willing to take patients on the 'medicare' plan and the rates that the government has negotiated with them. Everyone gets some health care NO ONE has to be left out by not having 'insurance' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #108 July 21, 2009 Quote Health care is not an optional experience, any more than personal protection. Socializing basic human needs doesn't make us communists Why is healthcare any less optional than good legal advice, or good tax services? We all have to navigate the legal system, and doing so poorly can do all kinds of bad things to us. We all have to pay taxes, and again, there is a huge downside to doing it poorly. Why don't we have a government run, socialized legal or accounting service?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #109 July 21, 2009 Quote Quote How much are people taxed in those countries? How much are we taxed to get police and fire protection? Health care is not an optional experience, any more than personal protection. Socializing basic human needs doesn't make us communists I figured you would completely avoid answering the question. "We" are not taxed to provide police and fire. The top earners in the country are taxed to provide for the rest of the population. How much do you intend to tax them to provide for health care? How much do countries with universal health care tax the population and is the burden only on top earners? Do you have any citations that wait time would decrease as you previsously claimed? Again, arguments like "there was a war" and "there are police" do nothing to promote a reasonable solution. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #110 July 21, 2009 Quote Some things will still not be covered, just like in Canada and here in the USA, people can buy (and probably afford) supplemental insurance. Leave private doctors to work privately if they want. There will be plenty of doctors and hospitals that are willing to take patients on the 'medicare' plan and the rates that the government has negotiated with them. It's nice in theory but history has shown it doesn't work that way. Someone who is making enough money to afford supplemental insurance is already paying out the ass in taxes to provide the universal healthcare. Why should they have to pay twice? The answer is they won't. It's exactly what happened in Hawaii. People who had insurance dropped it in order to take advantage of the free, "government provided" child care. The program went tits up in 7 months. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #111 July 21, 2009 You *obviously* don't know what you're talking about - tk says the Canadian system is exactly what the USA needs!!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #112 July 21, 2009 QuoteThe cost of healthcare will NOT go down, unless doctors work for less. Doctors will not work for less because they get better at what they do, new procedures are developed as well as drugs, and they spend a lot of their overhead fighting with the insurance companies. And Obama's plan will be paying the same or less than Medicare...you know, the GOVERNMENT health program that more and more doctors WONT take because it doesn't even come close to paying for anything? QuoteBut the geoverment 'overhead' model is far better and cheaper than the insruance company possibilities. We already have the system in place, it is called Medicare. That is even MORE broken than the private insurance model...and you want fed.gov to run even MORE insurance? Fuck that...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #113 July 21, 2009 QuoteQuote Some things will still not be covered, just like in Canada and here in the USA, people can buy (and probably afford) supplemental insurance. Leave private doctors to work privately if they want. There will be plenty of doctors and hospitals that are willing to take patients on the 'medicare' plan and the rates that the government has negotiated with them. It's nice in theory but history has shown it doesn't work that way. Someone who is making enough money to afford supplemental insurance is already paying out the ass in taxes to provide the universal healthcare. Why should they have to pay twice? The answer is they won't. It's exactly what happened in Hawaii. People who had insurance dropped it in order to take advantage of the free, "government provided" child care. The program went tits up in 7 months. The mandatory, gov't-provided insurance in Mass has resulted in a DOUBLING of insurance costs...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #114 July 21, 2009 it's working in Finland - private and government run healthcare side by side. "those who say it cannot be done are getting in the way of those that are already doing it" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #115 July 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe only answer I can think of is that Americans are afraid of the word "socialist". Absolutely! To many Americans, "socialism!!" is synonymous with "blasphemy!!". All emotion and dogma; precious little independent reasoning. Invoke the word, and further discussion is foreclosed. Sometimes it seems to me that folks call “socialism” things they don’t like. AFAIK, everyone who's reading this, even the non-Americans, are benefiting – right now – from the product of an American “socialist” program (i.e., something funded via redistribution of money collected through taxes): the internet. I like this one. Most folks around here seem to like this one as demonstrated by free choice usage. /Marg ... btw: it's also a good example of the benefits of defense research for those who don't like investing in anything related to the military (altho' the Intergalactic Computer Network was initiated under a Democrat, Pres Kennedy) and basic research for those who don't like investing in things that don't have immediate commercial or tangible value Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #116 July 21, 2009 Quoteit's working in Finland - private and government run healthcare side by side. Good for them - this is supposed to prove something in regards to the US, I take it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #117 July 21, 2009 Medicare is more broken how? Ask anyone over 65 if they think the Medicare system is working perfectly. 100% will say no. Ask them if they are willing to give it all up and go private. I bet they are all more than willing to keep it rather than try and fund it themselves privately. Much like Canada, "horror stories, everyone complains, people dying in the streets" - but few, if any in Canada would want to give it up - it is a part of society and integral part of being Canadian, a part of every right of every Canadian, like education, ....breathing. everyone complains about everything - does not mean they are willing to scrap it. More and more people are complaining about the US system. The difference is that we ARE actually willing to scrap it. stand aside..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #118 July 21, 2009 QuoteAsk them if they are willing to give it all up and go private. I bet they are all more than willing to keep it rather than try and fund it themselves privately. Wait, you mean the people benefiting from a government hand out wouldn't want to end it? I'm shocked...-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #119 July 21, 2009 well let me see - we find a perfectly working system of justice, system of military, system of education or whatever in some other part of the world - does it really make sense NOT to learn from those models and find the things that work? Oh yes, how silly of me - we would of course have to redo it the proper 'American way' how friggin' arrogant......(and you wonder why we spend so much money in government - redesigning things that have already been invented) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #120 July 21, 2009 Quotewell let me see - we find a perfectly working system... (emphasis mine) Where, exactly, did you find such a thing? Also, I'm curious if you read CanuckinUSA's post, and if you have a response to it?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #121 July 21, 2009 Quote How much are people taxed in those countries? Does everyone in the population pay taxes or are 40% exempt? Does a small percentage pay for it while everyone reaps the benefits? America has the most or second most progressive income tax out of the entire OECD. Looking at the ratio of tax percentage to income percentage in the top decile we're ahead of Ireland, Italy, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, the Slovak Republic, Luxembouorg, Belgium, Austria, Jorean, Poland, Japan, Norway, France, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and Switzerland. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #122 July 21, 2009 QuoteAnd Americans cannot afford INSURANCE anymore, which is why the architects of the systems are pushing for universal healthcare...... Insurance is fast becoming unaffordable only because cost of care is becoming unaffordable and employers are laying more and more of the cost on employees. As goes cost of care, so goes cost of insurance." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #123 July 21, 2009 Quotebetter idea, let's have every man for himself, bankruptcies, our health in the hands of NYSE investors, and a 3rd world system where only the rich can afford health care - even better idea..... Not-for-profits, (and nonprofits) do not issue stock. A good reason for it to be a requirement (as is the case in MN)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jloirsdaan 0 #124 July 21, 2009 Quote Why is healthcare any less optional than good legal advice Because no access to sound legal advise, usually, will not result in failing health or death. Jordan Go Fast, Dock Soft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #125 July 21, 2009 Quotenot sure where you got your numbers from, but the standard I read is 40-45% overhead that the insurance companies add to the bill, not 10% The cost of healthcare will NOT go down, unless doctors work for less. Doctors will not work for less because they get better at what they do, new procedures are developed as well as drugs, and they spend a lot of their overhead fighting with the insurance companies. The insurance companies will not stop fighting with doctors and patients because that is how they make profit. And the cycle goes on and on. I believe that if EVERYONE had 'insurance' the cost of the 'insurance' would be less per person than it is today. Now does the government provide the 'insurance' through taxes? OR do we trust the insurance companies to reduce their rates if everyone was required to suddenly get health insurance by whatever means, privately or through work, whatever. I do not trust the insurance companies. Many do not trust the government. But the geoverment 'overhead' model is far better and cheaper than the insruance company possibilities. We already have the system in place, it is called Medicare. Remove the age for Medicare, and adjust the tax base to pay for it, problem solved. Some things will still not be covered, just like in Canada and here in the USA, people can buy (and probably afford) supplemental insurance. Leave private doctors to work privately if they want. There will be plenty of doctors and hospitals that are willing to take patients on the 'medicare' plan and the rates that the government has negotiated with them. Everyone gets some health care NO ONE has to be left out by not having 'insurance' Hogwash. Actual claims payments constitute 90% of premiums taken in. You are getting it from the horses mouth. This is what I do. The numbers you are getting are propoganda, twisted facts at the least, outright lies at worst. Some states have actually passed mandated loss ratios; MN is one of them. The books are open for the regulators and AG's to peruse as they like; and they love to find shit and come down hard. Been that way for at least 15 years. They caught a couple companies and forced board seats to be occupied by appointees of the commissioner's office; and continue with oversight to the extreme. We actually have had a few instances of no increase and slight decrease when cost containment programs have paid off. When costs go down, premiums go down. Unfortunately, health care costs have been going up at 2 to 4 times the rate of inflation for about the last 25 years; and every provider negotiation I have ever been involved in they have asked for double digits. Granted, it is because their costs keep going up - for some of the reasons mentioned here (malpractice, the shitty rate of reimbursement on governement programs, deadbeats that simply do not pay, etc). That is their problem to solve; and their solution is to try to play hardball when negotiating with insurance companies. Where do they think that money comes from? Their solution is to lay it all off on the insurance companies, who in turn have to pass it on or go under. You are correct, we are already spending lots of money; but you are wrong in thinking it is OK to keep spending this amount but just shift the burden. We need to spend less. Everybody does not need a Ferarri; hell, everybody doesn't need a Cadillac. Get everybody a Ford Taurus, subsidize where necessary; and whoever wants can buy their own Cadillac or Ferarri. The insurance companies (at least in some states) have been thru housecleaning with mandated loss ratios, mandated benefit sets, strict reserve requirements, AG's watching like hawks, no stakeholders allowed, etc. Time to subject all insurers AND providers to the same treatment. They can't seem to take care of their costs themselves." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
