A health care question...

Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Pekka wrote: Just out of curiosity, in the US approximately how big a percent of let's say a 2000 dollar monthly paycheck is taken away by the gunmen? It's tough to answer because there's taxes at the federal, state, and local level.  A $24000/year salary puts you in the 15% federal income bracket. And then you've got about twelve dozen hundred other variables.

Could easily send me off on a different rant....another topic for another time and place

The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.

thellama73 wrote: Negoba wrote: thellama73 wrote: Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)   I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being. I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.

Negoba wrote: The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.   Insurance is not a viable model for paying for modern health care. Period. An insurance model assumes that most people don't need care except in emergencies (like Rob said, catastrophic). In fact, everyone needs some regular medical care. And the ones who need the most aren't the ones who work (elderly, children, the sick). So we HAVE to take money from those who work and use it to provide health care to those who don't work. It's just what institution does the distributing of the money.   Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.   We already have public systems in place for the elderly and (and many children and mothers). Sick adults, whether they have chronic illness or even a temporary injury, are the ones in limbo. Right now, there are ALOT of able-bodied Americans out of work and without insurance. They would pick up a job if there was one, but there isn't. There have been massive layoffs over the last 18 months. Everyone is looking.

thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: Negoba wrote: thellama73 wrote: Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)   I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being. I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil. Man, it's because, outside of a Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh opiate dream, I don't know where you could have read that men with guns force money off people who have earned it.... Please READ about other places. The world is much bigger than just this country and one tv channel!  Because that's what taxes are! I don't know how anyone can not understand that. One more time: income tax is money collected by force (if necessary) from citizens based on how much they earn.

Edited by The T - March 19 2010 at 13:20

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Negoba wrote: The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.   Insurance is not a viable model for paying for modern health care. Period. An insurance model assumes that most people don't need care except in emergencies (like Rob said, catastrophic). In fact, everyone needs some regular medical care. And the ones who need the most aren't the ones who work (elderly, children, the sick). So we HAVE to take money from those who work and use it to provide health care to those who don't work. It's just what institution does the distributing of the money.   Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.   We already have public systems in place for the elderly and (and many children and mothers). Sick adults, whether they have chronic illness or even a temporary injury, are the ones in limbo. Right now, there are ALOT of able-bodied Americans out of work and without insurance. They would pick up a job if there was one, but there isn't. There have been massive layoffs over the last 18 months. Everyone is looking.   That reminds me of a joke.   Three transplant specialists from three countries (France, England and the U.S.) are discussing the success of recent transplants in their respective countries.  The doctor from England says "In my country, we took the heart from one man, put it in another man, and the next day the transplantee was out looking for work."  The doctor from France says "That's nothing, in my country we took a lung from one man, put it in another man, and the next day they were both out looking for work."  The doctor from the US says "That's nothing.  In my country we took an a**hole out of Texas put him in Washington, and the next day everybody was out looking for work."   Sorry for the hijack.  Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.  That's a good joke, but why'd you change it from New York to Texas?  Who was it originally created for?

I have no idea.  Damn funny either way though. 

Negoba wrote: The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.

This is what I've been thinking about lately.  It's one thing to claim we should go single-payer, but our country has been operating in the insurance paradigm for so long that it's a highly non-trivial task to re-make the entire method by which health care is delivered.  I'm not using this to argue against going that route, merely that single-payer national health systems in Europe and elsewhere were set up long ago when there wasn't a competing massive infrastructure to tear down and remake.

Perhaps that's why we have the current reform bill that is hated by the far left and far right alike (for different reasons, of course).

Negoba wrote:   What you said is actually quite evil. It's beyond uncivil. It is truly evil.

And then there's civilized evil:

It's uncanny how the fiscal cost of health care in the US invariably results in a thread where many of the posters strike we outsiders as resembling the troubled offspring of King Canute and Ayn Rand.

I do admit that I have very little knowledge of how the american system functions but in Australia BOTH the public AND private health systems are government owned. The public version ensures free access to hospital treatment and subsidised access to visits to your Doctor. This is paid for by a 1.5 tax levy on all taxpayers plus an extra 1% on top for high income earners.(>AU$70k per annum)

The private system might be similar to the US as it is funded by private health insurance organisations (the largest of which is government owned) but by way of contrast, these operate under the regulations applicable to registered private health funds e.g. private medical insurance premiums attract a government rebate of circa 35% (dependant on age)

Although it's certainly far from perfect, the private and public sectors appear to work quite well together and like the UK, the former relieves much of the strain on resources from the latter. Australia is of course not immune to the tides of change (like Canute) and there is an ongoing and systematic pressure being applied to its citizens to encourage same to take out private health and employment insurance (by way of fiscal incentives e.g. tax sweeteners)

Let's face it, the State is steadily shrinking and will ultimately disappear in the west, leaving us with the prospect of having to privately fund our employment insurance and subsequent future dotage. For the sake of clarity, I am not an advocate of free handouts, but having paid income tax all my working life, there are many of us who feel with some justification that we are entitled to unemployment benefits and a state pension. (but then I might be either old fashioned or just a King Canute wannabe ?)

So to sum up, the sorry state of affairs you currently have in the US is simply where the rest of us are heading in the years to come. (if our political leaders continue to be in thrall of the sovereignty of 'market forces')
Forgive the 'sick' humour, but can't the rest of the 1st world learn from your mistakes and put into practice 'prevention is better than cure' ?


Edited by ExittheLemming - March 19 2010 at 17:35

The T wrote:   ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?  Obviously the discussion is useless. Go save more money under your mattress man. Hope it serves you well one day where you're damned sick and nobody lifts a finger to even help you count your goddamn hard-earned money that you so heroically managed to keep off the government's hands....

I think it's interesting that you think me selfish, when I'm not the one who wants to confiscate other people's property and distribute it as I see fit.

It is a very easy thing to be generous with other people's money. I want people to be generous with their own money.