Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Democrats eye universal health-care


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Democrats eye universal health-care Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 8:58:57 AM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline
read this miamiherald
COMMENTARY
Why the Danes are so happy, even when they're sick

http://www.miamiherald.com/299/story/150380.html

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 9:23:13 AM   
MistressDaisy73


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/2/2007
Status: offline
Okey dokey.... here we go...
2 basic things... Why do we HAVE to have health insurance, and why does it all cost so much?

We (the US), as a country, ended up having to have insurance because in the 1960s  the govt mandated that employers offer it, period. The need for insurance is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Forty years ago, most people could pay for most non-catastrophic health care out of pocket. But the government kept expanding the definition of "insurance" to cover more and more common ailments, driving the prices of those up during the sixties and seventies. They mandate it using "tax incentives"...the employer is given a tax break if he offers health insurance to his employees. Which means he is threatened with a tax penalty if he does not offer it. If the government says to me "you will only be taxed if you grow a garden in your front yard", it's described as an incentive, but it's actually a penalty in the opposite direction. The supply/demand curve of the marketplace includes the supply of money for a given service. If the "supply" increases, like by mandating insurance, then the price will naturally increase as well. Right now, we have just reached a pinnacle... kinda like the $3/gal of gas that folks are just not willing to pay, that make people wake up a little. And keep in mind, if employers did not have to keep offering more and more, at higher rates, more companies would still be thriving, and the insurnce costs would not be artificially inflated. (Kinda like the Federal Reserve deciding an economy is TOO healthy and diddling with the $, but that is another debate.)

Now another part of why it costs so much.... here ya go.. more govt involvement. (Who says we dont have Nationalized healthcare already?) The money the insurance companies pay would not come from "nowhere". If we forced them to pay three trillion dollars faster, they'd pass on that cost to the insured, in higher premiums. One of the main reasons health care costs are so high is that the customers aren't the ones paying. Insurance and government pay 95% of all health care bills, the actual customers paying 5%. This strips away the natural price regulation of the consumer, so that prices can literally be twenty times higher than they need to be. This is why a hospital might charge $10 for a single dose of tylenol, for example, that cost the hospital less than one penny. If we only paid five percent of our food bills, the twenty times greater supply of money would result in apples costing tens of dollars per pound, too. For those that pay at least part of their insurance premium, the premium is kinda like a savings account for the insurance company. When you actually are ill or injured, the money you pay each month, now goes toward the bills. But, what about those folks who arent ill or injured much, well their money pays for the ones who are catastrophically ill too. The same as your taxes pay for Medicare.

Imagine if the doctor wants to perform some test, which is pretty optional. Let's say you're willing to pay twenty bucks for the test, any more and it doesn't seem worthwhile. Because of insurance, this means the doctor may be able to charge $400 and still get you to accept the test, because your copay is $20. But when you are forced to pay your insurance, it's separated from the actual decisions around consuming health care. While you're deciding whether to get the $400 needless test, your insurance bill isn't  factor in the decision, only the $20 copay. In fact, you're likely, as joe average, to say "hell, the insurance will cover it...I pay those bastards enough, I should get my money's worth". Ironically, the procedure may cost the doctor only ten bucks, but he's raised the price to meet the higher supply of money. This almost sounds like an arguement FOR Nationalized health care. But look at what happens. You will have even less attachment to the bill if the government takes it over. Like they do in Canada, you will simply walk in and accept any procedure the doctor suggests, or you can talk him into, without even a copay or thought of your insurance bill. The procedure will still cost money, the doctor will simply charge the government's single pay system and the amount he justifies charging it will go up and up there won't even be a five percent cap because of copays. And then the government will hit a point where it's unable to pay more...but it can't regulate the value of the procedures rationally, so it will simply ration them. In Canada, people literally die waiting for simple tests. This is not to say it always fails, obviously. But you have to think about the fact that some doctors will up prices, in their own interest, and some will not, having a conscience.

You go to a resturant and assume it is clean because of regulations. They often are not. You go to a resturant because of several recommendations that the place is clean and has good food, from friends, and you are much more likely to have a good experience. Use your own minds people. Use your eyes and ears. If, after you examine the things that matter to you, you still have opinions that differ, that is GREAT! Just make sure you are informed. Obviously not one person will have the complete picture and our natural tastes and feelings will make us see things differently, and I am ok with that. :)

M. Daisy


< Message edited by MistressDaisy73 -- 7/10/2007 9:27:58 AM >

(in reply to MistressNoName)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 10:12:27 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressNoName

Well, though it may take 18 pages I believe there is someone out there with a rational, reasonable and well-supported opinion of why socialized medicine would not work in this country...I haven't seen it yet, but I can wait for it.

Carry on.

MNN




yes and it will most likely take 200 pages to come up with a system that does not give the government "ANOTHER" blank check as did the 16th amendments.

Anything can be MADE to work, but at what cost?  Notice the deficit lately?

That and I would like to know how you feel that socialism fits into a government that calls themselves a republic or are we getting a little german?

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/10/2007 10:23:46 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to MistressNoName)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 10:24:26 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressDaisy73
Because of insurance, this means the doctor may be able to charge $400 and still get you to accept the test, because your copay is $20. But when you are forced to pay your insurance, it's separated from the actual decisions around consuming health care.

One of the main reasons health care costs are so high is that the customers aren't the ones paying. Insurance and government pay 95% of all health care bills, the actual customers paying 5%. This strips away the natural price regulation of the consumer

The supply/demand curve of the marketplace includes the supply of money for a given service. If the "supply" increases, like by mandating insurance, then the price will naturally increase as well.

M. Daisy



BRAVO!!!

SUPERB and 500% dead on elaboration on the dynamics of the situation M Daisy!


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to MistressDaisy73)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 10:28:11 AM   
MistressDaisy73


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/2/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


BRAVO!!!

SUPERB and 500% dead on elaboration on the dynamics of the situation M Daisy!



*Blush* Thanks. :)

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 11:28:39 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
What does the phrase "Promote the general welfare" mean to you?

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to MistressDaisy73)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 11:36:14 AM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

What does the phrase "Promote the general welfare" mean to you?


Well I am sure to The Founding Fathers it didn't mean government run universal health care. Kind of clashes with their views on limited government don't you think?

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 11:55:41 AM   
MistressDaisy73


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/2/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

What does the phrase "Promote the general welfare" mean to you?


I suppose my answer is really in regards to this particular topic, not a general sense of the words themselves...

It is such a nice thought and dream. And, if everyone were equally good hearted, it might be possible. But, it isnt, imo, at least not yet. And you having to ask the question itself, illustrates how diverse people think of the answer.
Peace.

M. Daisy

< Message edited by MistressDaisy73 -- 7/10/2007 11:57:52 AM >

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 11:55:49 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
Mistress No Name,  I have a philosphical argument against socialised medicine, which to be honest I no longer support.  Basically once your health becomes the governments responsibility, and all taxpayers are financially required to support your health, they get an intrest in your life.  Can you think of a single action or thought you can take that does not affect your health.

Sure lots of you will cheer when they decide that allowing guns causes too many helath costs, and guns are banned....   But what about if they do that to homosexuality or sodomy, "why should I have to pay for his aids?".  Why should I be taxed to pay for some mountian climber who fell, lets ban mountain climbing.   Mandatory National Drug testing  anyone?  It really opens a huge can of worms, and gives the gov a huge amount of power it does not have now.

As well it would give the gov huge powers over us.  I find it funny that so many of you who hate the "real ID" type proposals wanted to make it the law that everyone had to carry a national (health) id card under the Hillary proposals back in the 90s. 

To be honest one of the reasons I want national health care is so we can use it to identify and catch illegal immigrants and radicals

Quite simply there is no thought or action you could have or take that does not directly affect your health, which affects others, which means all thoughts and actions are subject to regulation.  Yes I am going a bit down the Slippery slope  here, but philosophically there it is.

That being said universal health care does not automatically equate to socialised health care.  Imagine a system where you got 103% of all your medical costs back in taxes, even if you paid for someone else.  You could make a small but reliable income out of providing insurance to others.  Granted we would need a lot more doctors


< Message edited by luckydog1 -- 7/10/2007 12:01:08 PM >

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 12:01:58 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
Well Farg it certainly does not mean "indivdual welfare" does it?

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 12:04:51 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
Oh yeah and what if they require all medical staff to report to the police any injuries that could be abuse related, in order to stop domestic and child abuse.  Then imagine your sub breaks her arm or her appendix goes bad the day after a session.....

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 12:39:35 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
I've given the best solution I can think of to drive the costs of insurance down and it is a very simple soultion requiring nothing more than a simple change in the tax laws.

Make all Health Insurance premiums, not just those partially paid for by employers, tax deductable.
That removes several levels of seperation between the insured and the provider.
It makes the Insurance company answerable to the individual insured. If you don't like the service change companies any time you want. They will certainly be more responsive when they have to compete for individual policies and they know they have to satisfy more than just the HR manager and CEO by keeping the costs down.

Added benifit is that with the lowered cost the number of folks who cannot afford insurance will drop.

This leaves us with those who really can't make ends meet. for them we can expand medicare, which would lose some customers because they (a certain number) would likely rather deal with a private insurance company that is responsive than a government system.

The other thing is we need to make a cultural change that says we don't expect to get a Rolls Royce level of medical care paying a Geo Metro cost. Food is a nessecity as well ansd we don't expect to get Alaskan Crab for 99 cents a pound just because food is nessisary. We expect that we will get reasonable healthy food, but not luxury.
The medical profession is going to have to come up with a realistic expectation of what is reasonable healthcare and what is luxury.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 12:57:18 PM   
MistressDaisy73


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/2/2007
Status: offline
Technically, your premiums are already deductable. If you choose to do so, you can file your taxes with itemized deductions, rather than the standard ones. I have done so during one year where my health care costs exceeded my standard deduction. Now, if you mean, in ADDITION to the standard tax deduction, well it is an idea. I am not sure it would be as simple as you lay out, however. You will still have the difference in healthcare (supposedly) between the "haves" and "have nots". And it is an arguement out there that everyone should be "entitled" to the same level of health care service. (Apparently this is a right I missed somewhere. Along with the medical schools that are all equal, and the Doctors who are all equal.... but I digress. )

One problem with tax "credit" for healthcare expenses, is that it is another way for some folks to commit tax fraud, and I honestly think that would become rampant, which would force more legislation into place....

But, lets keep that in mind and think it through more... :)

M. Daisy

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 1:09:33 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
My appologies the term I used was inaccurate.
I propose they be made tax exempt (the same way they come out as pre tax dollars if your employer pays part of them) not deductable the way they are now.
[And I'm not sure you are correct for individually purchased plans]
Bush actually proposed something like this June 27th or so but I've been proposing it as a partial solution for better than a year.

< Message edited by Archer -- 7/10/2007 1:18:13 PM >

(in reply to MistressDaisy73)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 1:21:09 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
The fruad is easy to avoid by having the Insurance company report all individually bought programs and their cost. ie providing you with a WI-1 form (made up form stating how much you paid into insurance that year).
The form would be able to be verified same way a W-2 form is. Reported by the company submitted with your return.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/10/2007 2:00:30 PM   
MistressDaisy73


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/2/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

My appologies the term I used was inaccurate.
I propose they be made tax exempt (the same way they come out as pre tax dollars if your employer pays part of them) not deductable the way they are now.
[And I'm not sure you are correct for individually purchased plans]
Bush actually proposed something like this June 27th or so but I've been proposing it as a partial solution for better than a year.


Individually purchased plans, unless the laws have changed in the past couple years about this (which is always possible) are absolutly deductible, if you decide to itemize your deductions. I had one at the time.

Perhaps I am dense here, but I am not sure what you mean about making them tax exempt. You compare it to pre-tax amounts deducted by employers... so lets say your paycheck is 500$, and your insurance amount is 100$, (just being simplistic, not gonna bother other deductions from paycheck) so you are taxed on 400$. What you propose, really, is no different that itemizing them as deductions at the end of the year, except that each paycheck will have a few less dollars subracted as tax, which might be slightly helpful sure. But, depending on your tax bracket, of course, it ends up about the same at the end of the year. Dont get me wrong, I think this idea for a partial solution to some issues is not a bad one.

But wouldnt this still assume the $ are taken out through employers and not the individual? I mean, suppose you work 2 part time jobs and have no "benefits". Suppose you dont get a paycheck and are paid in cash, and file quarterly returns...How would your paycheck take your individual insurance premium into consideration? Not trying to throw a wrench in, honest, but I dont think it is so simple. And if things were put into place so that the individual COULD do such an act, it would mean exactly what I said before... more legislation.

Your point is good about the WI-1 form, vs fraud, though.

Still pondering....
M. Daisy

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/11/2007 12:18:19 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Mistress No Name,  I have a philosphical argument against socialised medicine, which to be honest I no longer support.  Basically once your health becomes the governments responsibility, and all taxpayers are financially required to support your health, they get an intrest in your life.  Can you think of a single action or thought you can take that does not affect your health.


You are lost in an ideological wonderland. One thing I can say for the American establishment, their propaganda has hooked US citizens hook, line and sinker and has them paying double for an often inferior healthcare. Much of American medical intervention isn't necessary and still according to an American report that was once the OP on a thread on CM, the American healthcare system is one of the worst in the western world. If any country in the western world is controled through propaganda and intervention into people's lives, it is the USA!

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/11/2007 12:26:10 AM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Mistress No Name,  I have a philosphical argument against socialised medicine, which to be honest I no longer support.  Basically once your health becomes the governments responsibility, and all taxpayers are financially required to support your health, they get an intrest in your life.  Can you think of a single action or thought you can take that does not affect your health.


You are lost in an ideological wonderland. One thing I can say for the American establishment, their propaganda has hooked US citizens hook, line and sinker and has them paying double for an often inferior healthcare. Much of American medical intervention isn't necessary and still according to an American report that was once the OP on a thread on CM, the American healthcare system is one of the worst in the western world. If any country in the western world is controled through propaganda and intervention into people's lives, it is the USA!


Lol. That is one of the funniest things I've read.  You guys in The Netherlands have taken "The Nanny State" to a whole new level. Of course you wouldn't understand the concept of being responsible for your own welfare.

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/11/2007 12:35:55 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
You know that Norway now has a higher per capita GDP than the United States?  In fact, I think eight out of the top ten in the world are countries you'd call "nanny states."

Just sayin'.

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Democrats eye universal health-care - 7/11/2007 12:37:08 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring


Lol. That is one of the funniest things I've read.  You guys in The Netherlands have taken "The Nanny State" to a whole new level. Of course you wouldn't understand the concept of being responsible for your own welfare.


Er I think you'll find that here in Holland their are less restrictions on itsd citizens  than the US has on its citizens.  My daughter having come back from holiday to the US was pretty pissed off about all the restrictions she faced because she was 16. As for healthcare, we have a pretty fine system, not perfect but over here we believe in value for money, not paying through the nose just to be ideologically correct.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Democrats eye universal health-care Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109