Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if there were no tax, that 50% the employer pays would go to the employee instead as higher wages. The alternative to believing this is to believe employers simply eat the cost of having to pay this tax (i.e., accept lower profit), rather than passing the tax on to their employees through lower wages (and maintaining their profit). I don't believe employers are, in general, that generous.
Which has nothing to do with the original discussion of the cost of health insurance coverage in the US vs Germany. Germans and Canadians get a lot more bang for their health care tax buck (both employer and employee) with far less hassle and no one falls through the cracks of the uninsured, unaffordable deductibles, or health care inaccessibility.
Only our Medicare system is comparable. Innumerable posters on CD have stated they anxiously await Medicare eligibility to get out from under their huge health insurance premiums and other costs.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 10-24-2020 at 12:20 PM..
It is essentially adding a Medicaid option for low-income individuals to Obamacare so that the states no longer have to fund Medicaid. It is cheaper to run a Medicaid option than to subsidize a private plan. Private insurance companies are contracted to administer the plan.
Which has nothing to do with the original discussion of the cost of health insurance coverage in the US vs Germany. Germans and Canadians get a lot more bang for their health care tax buck (both employer and employee) with far less hassle and no one falls through the cracks of the uninsured, unaffordable deductibles, or health care inaccessibility.
Only our Medicare system is comparable. Innumerable posters on CD have stated they anxiously await Medicare eligibility to get out from under their huge health insurance premiums and other costs.
I pointed out in Germany they pay a 15% payroll tax for health insurance, you corrected that it's 14.6% split 50/50 between employer and employee, and I pointed out that whether the employer writes the check or the funds are deducted from the employee, the employee is effectively paying the entire 14.6%.
I tried to find data for Germany, but was unable to. I did find some data for Canada, though. The average wait time for hip replacement surgery once a decision is made is 15 weeks in the United States, and 9 months in Canada. These are the types of differences that worry me about moving to a system like Europe and Canada.
All we ever do in America is rack up high health care costs and then fight each other about who pays for it. Nobody is paying attention to the reality that 70% of what ails us is preventable conditions (diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and a good chunk of cancer, and even alzheimer's/dementia are largely preventable.)
If you think that's a right wing position, even Bill Maher, who is pretty far to the left, has been saying this for years:
"All the candidates will talk about their health plans but no one will mention the key factor--the citizens don't lift a finger to help."
"Here it is in a nutshell from the New York Times: 'Poor diet is the leading cause of mortality in the United States'"
"We scream at Congress to find a way to pay for our medical bills, but it wouldn't be nearly the issue it is if people just didn't eat like a**holes"
All we ever do in America is rack up high health care costs and then fight each other about who pays for it. Nobody is paying attention to the reality that 70% of what ails us is preventable conditions (diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and a good chunk of cancer, and even alzheimer's/dementia are largely preventable.)
If you think that's a right wing position, even Bill Maher, who is pretty far to the left, has been saying this for years:
"All the candidates will talk about their health plans but no one will mention the key factor--the citizens don't lift a finger to help."
"Here it is in a nutshell from the New York Times. 'Poor diet is the leading cause of mortality in the United States'"
"We scream at Congress to find a way to pay for our medical bills, but it wouldn't be nearly the issue it is if people just didn't eat like a**holes"
I agree that not enough prevention is done. In the UK they are starting an anti obesity campaign to help people lose weight. Weight is just one of the causes of many health problems. Since they want to keep expenses down, weight loss is important.
Would we need so many knee replacements if people weren't so overweight and putting so much weight onto their knees? Our bones--if we didn't drink so much caffeine probably some of the osteoporosis could be prevented. The junk good--who even knows what's really in it? What diseases could the junk food be causing? If we're going to have affordable health care it makes sense to practice prevention.
All we ever do in America is rack up high health care costs and then fight each other about who pays for it. Nobody is paying attention to the reality that 70% of what ails us is preventable conditions (diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and a good chunk of cancer, and even alzheimer's/dementia are largely preventable.)
I'm with you on this. Proper diet is the foundation of good health. At 78 y/o I am a very low user of health care. In my 30's, I learned the hard way to avoid medication and focus on diet. Been doing that ever since - nothing processed, rarely eat anything white, all food made from fresh fruits/veggies, organic whenever possible, from scratch. Result is in my old age it's borne fruit. No medication, no ailments, no aches or pains. I very, very rarely doctor unless something odd happens, like a broken bone.
So, although I follow health care policy, for the most part I haven't had a dog in that hunt.
All that said, this is a country where a good 45% won't change their lifestyles - especially their eating habits. When my sister worked, her employer penalized her very moderate obesity with higher health insurance premiums. We need a carrot and stick method of some sort. The level of morbid obesity in this country is disgusting, frankly.
Most people would agree. But nobody presses politicians on it. We should be pressing for food stamps that don't allow people to buy junk food and soda, and school lunch programs that only serve truly healthy foods. That would be a start. We should also be looking at agricultural policies that subsidize corn and, by extension, high fructose corn syrup. But the media never does that. Probably because they get 30% of their revenue from pharmaceutical companies. They're not interested in pushing prevention. And the citizens all agree in theory, but do not change lifestyle habits. And they continue to fight about who pays the bill and how much it is, instead of pushing for policies that prevent the bill from ever happening in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
In the UK they are starting an anti obesity campaign to help people lose weight. Weight is just one of the causes of many health problems. Since they want to keep expenses down, weight loss is important.
Would we need so many knee replacements if people weren't so overweight and putting so much weight onto their knees? Our bones--if we didn't drink so much caffeine probably some of the osteoporosis could be prevented. The junk good--who even knows what's really in it? What diseases could the junk food be causing? If we're going to have affordable health care it makes sense to practice prevention.
I agree with everything you're saying. And so would most people. But like I said, we all agree on this and then we go right back to the same lifestyle habits and then fighting each other about the bill.
I really think people like Dan Buettner (who write the "Blue Zones" books) has a lot of practical solutions to nudge people into the right behaviors without being draconian about it. Some of it goes back to old fashioned rules that they used to have (no food food or drink in public buildings or stores for starters). But unfortunately, he doesn't get much traction. This, despite the fact that he has basically decoded the lifestyle of the world's healthiest populations. None of them use a lot of medical care.
The only presidential candidate who mentioned any of this was Marianne Williamson and she was never a serious contender. She said we have a "sick care" system and she was 100% right about that.
All that said, this is a country where a good 45% won't change their lifestyles - especially their eating habits. When my sister worked, her employer penalized her very moderate obesity with higher health insurance premiums. We need a carrot and stick method of some sort. The level of morbid obesity in this country is disgusting, frankly.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you.
Personally, in my ideal world we would get rid of insurance altogether except in cases of major illness. When people have to pay 100% of most of their bills on their own, a good chunk of them will change their behavior. Not to mention health care costs would drop by 1/3 by just getting rid of the insurance middlemen.
Ok, back to reality. Since the above won't happen unless there's a complete economic catastrophe/collapse, the next best thing is to take people like Dan Buettner and clone him. He actually has a plan to 'blue zone' America's cities and towns and it does work, as evidenced by a county in Minnesota that tried it:
All we ever do in America is rack up high health care costs and then fight each other about who pays for it. Nobody is paying attention to the reality that 70% of what ails us is preventable conditions (diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and a good chunk of cancer, and even alzheimer's/dementia are largely preventable.)
If you think that's a right wing position, even Bill Maher, who is pretty far to the left, has been saying this for years:
"All the candidates will talk about their health plans but no one will mention the key factor--the citizens don't lift a finger to help."
"Here it is in a nutshell from the New York Times: 'Poor diet is the leading cause of mortality in the United States'"
"We scream at Congress to find a way to pay for our medical bills, but it wouldn't be nearly the issue it is if people just didn't eat like a**holes"
Let's all gang together and blame the US citizens and their poor eating habits for the cost of healthcare here! Why can't anyone point the finger where the REAL problem is, the corrupt US Congress! They encourage gross sums of money from the AMA, hospital conglomerates, the insurance companies, and BIG Pharma to maintain the status quo.
I guess maybe if my wife lost two points on her 25.4 BMI the hospital would not have billed her $157,800.00 for her recent 4 night stay that Medicare paid $1,440.00. Guess because we are all so fat we have by far the highest drug prices in the world! The simplest thing like quoting the price of a drug on a TV commercial is batted down because "It might be confusing".
Our high medical and drug prices are certainly our fault, not because we are fat but because we allow these corrupt institutions dictate our policies!
If the government insurance plan is cheaper with better coverage and smaller deductibles, then I want the freedom to pick that one.
And since the Public Option would increase competition in the marketplace, insurance companies would have to tighten their belts and drop prices in order to compete. Again, a win-win for the consumer all the way around.
"If" is not "when." Obamacare proved to be more expensive with higher deductibles for a reason. There was no way they could do it otherwise unless they were to severely curtail allowed services and price fix....Price fixing merely ensures that fewer providers will go into or remain in the field.
Obamacare forced less competition on us. It was a planned Crony Capitalism System that forced small providers of equipment & services out of the business. Small group medical practices could not survive du to excessive administrative burdens. Only the large groups were able to dilute those costs, so now everyone has to deal with fewer, but larger medical groups.
Ignored in the arguments in favor of Obamacare is that previously in the private insurance market, the premiums paid to the insurance companies only covered 97% of the costs of doing business, including payments to providers and administrative costs.
The companies were able to make a profit because, with such a high cash flow (look how many people did have insurance) they were able to invest that money and earn interest while delaying payments....An over looked undesirable consequence of putting private insurance out of business is that there will be less money available for loans for your car, mortgage, etc etc.
Such govt plans prey on the gullibility of the naive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
