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.
Of course, higher paid Germans opt OUT of the single payer system--it IS private---because Germany charges a premium based on income levels:...
Not quite. - Many opt out, but not simply because the premium varies with salary.
The monthly premium is a percentage of gross salary, but the rate is fixed and the premiums are capped. AFAIK (and it's gone up recently) Germans who obtain insurance through die Kasse pay 15.5% of their gross salary in monthly premiums up to a maximum monthly salary amount of €3825 (so the maximum monthly premium is about €593.) (About $770)
They pay an additional Nursing care insurance (to cover care in old age) at a premium of up to about €85 a month.
It is possible to 'opt out' of the state scheme, but it's a good idea to 'do the sums' carefully.
If you are young, single, have no dependents, are in good health, travel around a lot (outside the area of coverage of the German scheme) and can negotiate a good rate, then you may well elect to provide your own insurance. - And you may well be able to obtain cover for less than €593 a month. The policy will cover you and you alone. (You'll need a separate policy for a spouse and each child.) It's up to you to pay the premiums, however and it would be a good idea to make sure you can do so.
People don't opt for private insurance solely because of the premium charged in the state scheme; there are a number of other factors which influence the decision.
If you are married with 3 children, earning a reasonable amount the state scheme may suit you better. - If, for some reason. you should find yourself out of work, then because your monthly premium is linked to your monthly income, paying it won't be a problem.
Here comes the liberal tag team tactics - Trite and unfounded, at best. The personal attacks are the
last resort . Anyone who disagrees is a bad person, right ?
Here's some real compassion, when this abomination fails, and it will, every American will suffer dire consequences. I have compassion for my fellow countrymen, even those opposed to my beliefs, because this is my country and you are all my neighbors. What you don't get is I can love you but it doesn't mean I like your beliefs nor does it mean you are calloused or bad people.
The best part of this country is that people can disagree and if they have any real character they don't find it necessary to attack or smear those of a different opinion. I want to see all my countrymen have affordable health care but I believe there is a better way and we never got there because this law was rushed & jammed down our throats and passed behind closed doors in the dark of night via political manuvering and arm twisting of gargantuan proportion.
The burden should be shared by everyone at all income levels. IF you are so caring and have enough money to spare show your compassion and write a check to the treasury every year. Or better yet,take care of your own health by practicing a moderate diet, not smoking and not abusing alcohol and drugs so you won't have to use the system and it will be more available to those who really need it. Time to start walking like you talk, folks.
The bolded part - if you really mean it, what's the harm in looking at how other countries achieve that goal? But the statement was followed by a "but", kind of like the people who say "I'm not racist.... but".
Practicing a moderate diet sounds great in principle, only we live in a country where bad foods = cheap, good foods = expensive and where entire cities have basically been designed around the car.
A major aspect of living in a developed country is that you do all you can to ensure that those who need help actually get help. Private charity isn't the answer, hence the fact that western democracies brought about welfare states and we are all better off for that, believe it or not.
Here comes the liberal tag team tactics - Trite and unfounded, at best. The personal attacks are the
last resort . Anyone who disagrees is a bad person, right ?
Here's some real compassion, when this abomination fails, and it will, every American will suffer dire consequences. I have compassion for my fellow countrymen, even those opposed to my beliefs, because this is my country and you are all my neighbors. What you don't get is I can love you but it doesn't mean I like your beliefs nor does it mean you are calloused or bad people.
The best part of this country is that people can disagree and if they have any real character they don't find it necessary to attack or smear those of a different opinion.
I want to see all my countrymen have affordable health care but I believe there is a better way and we never got there because this law was rushed & jammed down our throats and passed behind closed doors in the dark of night via political manuvering and arm twisting of gargantuan proportion. The burden should be shared by everyone at all income levels. IF you are so caring and have enough money to spare show your compassion and write a check to the treasury every year. Or better yet,take care of your own health by practicing a moderate diet, not smoking and not abusing alcohol and drugs so you won't have to use the system and it will be more available to those who really need it. Time to start walking like you talk, folks.
I would agree that the AHCA is NOT the solution. A more radical one is needed. But then you must agree per the highlighted in your statement, that at least AHC act at least REQUIRES people to buy coverage. That is a start. No one should be exempt from paying for coverage (and I have previously posted arguments from experts concerning the morality of this). No one argues about the lack of freedom they suffer because every state in the Union requires auto insurance.
But the inefficiency in OUR healthcare system is pretty clear. Otherwise why are we paying almost 18% of GDP on healthcare with worse results than all these countries who do it differently. Why do the people covered by their health system in Canada prefer it to ours? Even with all its problems? Why do the subjects in Great Britain prefer their system to ours? Even with all its problems. Name country after country--they prefer their system to ours, because: (1) it works better, and (2) it costs less, and (3) they cover everyone or nearly everyone which is a moral imperative for those people.
We apparently have no moral imperative and don't care if the results are better elsewhere or if it costs less.
If you have character show it by offering something that will work. I always heard that you find a successful program or person and you copy what they do, lending your own innovations to it. The U.S. is so in love with it's "freedom" and "profit" that it prefers seeing people dying while saying, "Geez, I feel bad for you."
Unfortunately, I dont have enough money to pay to give healthcare to the poor. But I have enough that I've gone out and purchased eye exams and glasses for refugee children from Myanmar, refugees from the civil war over there. They barely speak English. I do volunteer work with an after school program for these children. I've seen them with all sorts of illness and eye infections and their parents with no money to see a doctor (and yes they DO work), or to get them glasses to see the blackboard at school.
So healthcare for everyone is ALL about character.
Not quite. - Many opt out, but not simply because the premium varies with salary.
The monthly premium is a percentage of gross salary, but the rate is fixed and the premiums are capped. AFAIK (and it's gone up recently) Germans who obtain insurance through die Kasse pay 15.5% of their gross salary in monthly premiums up to a maximum monthly salary amount of €3825 (so the maximum monthly premium is about €593.) (About $770)
They pay an additional Nursing care insurance (to cover care in old age) at a premium of up to about €85 a month.
It is possible to 'opt out' of the state scheme, but it's a good idea to 'do the sums' carefully.
If you are young, single, have no dependents, are in good health, travel around a lot (outside the area of coverage of the German scheme) and can negotiate a good rate, then you may well elect to provide your own insurance. - And you may well be able to obtain cover for less than €593 a month. The policy will cover you and you alone. (You'll need a separate policy for a spouse and each child.) It's up to you to pay the premiums, however and it would be a good idea to make sure you can do so.
People don't opt for private insurance solely because of the premium charged in the state scheme; there are a number of other factors which influence the decision.
If you are married with 3 children, earning a reasonable amount the state scheme may suit you better. - If, for some reason. you should find yourself out of work, then because your monthly premium is linked to your monthly income, paying it won't be a problem.
The last information I had regarding Germany's requirement that all pay into the healthcare system was that you could NOT opt out if your salary was less than a certain amount.
With the exception of about 2 million permanent civil servants, and the self-employed, Germans who earn below Euro 3,862 gross salary per month in 2004 must join one of the 300 statutory sickness funds. Those above the mandatory insurance threshold may opt out of the state system and buy private insurance instead but many opt to remain in the state system - 10 per cent of the population are voluntarily insured.
...Practicing a moderate diet sounds great in principle, only we live in a country where bad foods = cheap, good foods = expensive...
I disagree . There are cultural and habitual influences as well.
"The average American's steak is the average Italian family's Sunday roast."
I once attended a lecture on 'healthy eating' given by a dietitian employed by the US government. She told me inter alia that for a healthy young male the daily intake of meat (as in steak) should not exceed 5 Oz (and she suggested that said individual didn't need to eat 5 Oz of steak every day, either. .)
An hour later, I was in a store operated by the US Government. I saw 'single-serving' packs of rib-eye beef. Each was about 15 Oz. I asked the dietitian (the next time I saw her) why she was telling people to eat no more than 5 Oz of steak at a sitting and another government department was trying to persuade those same people to eat 3 times as much. She didn't have an answer.
I lived in Mississippi for a while. MS is (I understand) the fattest state in the US. I've been told "That's because so many people eat macaroni cheese." If you eat 3 or more boxes at a sitting, macaroni cheese will make you fat. If you eat a rather more modest portion (and vary your diet a bit, including steamed vegetables) it shouldn't be a problem.
I'm not aware that steamed Okra (to which I am rather partial) is significantly more expensive than fried Okra.
Nor am I aware that steamed catfish (I like that too) is more expensive than fried catfish.
I'm not partial to iced tea, but I'm sure it is possible to drink it without a pound of sugar in every glass.
Fresh vegetables are available in MS - and they're not particularly expensive - but people seem to prefer fried.
I suggest that a large part of the reason for the high levels of obesity is poor diet. That poor diet is not mandated by the high price of food, but rather by a culture in which fried and highly-sweetened foods are habitually chosen before readily-available alternatives
The facts were presented and you lost due to your emotional personal attacks on the messenger because you failed to win the argument. All the above was rebutted but you keep talking over everyne in your desperate attempts to drown out logic and fact.
I laugh at no one. The American people are going to suffer tremendously due to this abomination called affordable care. No one can afford it. Your character is the one brought into question on this thread as evidenced by behavior towards people who disagree with you.
Your facts are up for debate, not his, because of the dubious sources that you use. And please spare us your phony compassion, its you ego talking and everyone but you sees thru it.
Lost what? There isn't anything presently to lose, IMO.
Exactly what part can we not afford to change? Can we afford lobbyist, campaign funding and 3rd party salesmen right now? If you answer yes, then we can afford to do without them and adopt a non profit healthcare system. If you answer no, then what's there to lose? You just like paying for someones profit other than your own? For something you need, and don't really want?
It seems many are missing the point. We do pay for others care right now, plus extras. We pay for related costs that the insurance companies, medical businesses have because they are for profit. Shares, profit margin all take our money off the top first like cream, it's suppose to be taken from what's left after your care. That's why they are angry, because Obamacare popped them on that one.
I don't see anyone answering this question, as much has been said, none answer why they pay extra and like it. Don't you think a for profit program makes money off of you? It's FOR PROFIT. They lobby, they donate huge sums to campaigns. You like that use of your dollar?
Do you possibly think you don't pay for waste? Do you think you just pay for your care? That's it? Do you think the system is as efficient regarding your finances as it can be? Do you think most of the world is talking about our healthcare because it is a conspiracy?
Why do you think it's even on the table if it's already a great system? Is it you think we just can't afford to have an efficient system because of mile deep corruption and it's no use trying?
I'm trying to understand the argument you've all think you've won. I haven't seen a winner on here yet, IMO of course.
You can't find real stats or numbers for the extra you pay because they aren't available to the public. Give it a try, they pay your money to filter them. I've not seen one person on here that's succeeded.
Find me the numbers for what you actually pay for by your insurance company and the pharma companies, the real numbers and I'll eat my shoes for ya. You can't.
What everyone has copy and pasted isn't accurate. Doesn't matter what source they gleefully post, it's not the real amount or reason. If you could figure it all out on city data, I don't think we'd be debating it at all.
Lot's of factors. Captain Fingers is the closest I've seen on here. Our free for all system costs extra for extra stuff large companies need to pay for that have nothing to do with my health but everything to do with their bottom line.
Some are enjoying the debate which can be entertaining but, nobody can really tell me why we waste so much money on our healthcare when there are other alternatives available that wouldn't waste it. Nobody has told me why it's a good thing to stay for profit. Nobody has told me their personal benefit for paying more for less. That's why we are front page news right now, because nobody knows why we do it. If you do please, share it with us.
Just replying to the title should america GIVE IN to a national healthcare system?
Never give in to anything. doesn't mean you can't change, or adjust. Losers give in.
my opinion on the title and attitude perhaps
I could have probably worded it better, you're right about that one. I didn't mean to imply we are all losers. I don't think that, just to clarify. Thanks for bringing it up.
I disagree . There are cultural and habitual influences as well.
"The average American's steak is the average Italian family's Sunday roast."
I once attended a lecture on 'healthy eating' given by a dietitian employed by the US government. She told me inter alia that for a healthy young male the daily intake of meat (as in steak) should not exceed 5 Oz (and she suggested that said individual didn't need to eat 5 Oz of steak every day, either. .)
An hour later, I was in a store operated by the US Government. I saw 'single-serving' packs of rib-eye beef. Each was about 15 Oz. I asked the dietitian (the next time I saw her) why she was telling people to eat no more than 5 Oz of steak at a sitting and another government department was trying to persuade those same people to eat 3 times as much. She didn't have an answer.
I lived in Mississippi for a while. MS is (I understand) the fattest state in the US. I've been told "That's because so many people eat macaroni cheese." If you eat 3 or more boxes at a sitting, macaroni cheese will make you fat. If you eat a rather more modest portion (and vary your diet a bit, including steamed vegetables) it shouldn't be a problem.
I'm not aware that steamed Okra (to which I am rather partial) is significantly more expensive than fried Okra.
Nor am I aware that steamed catfish (I like that too) is more expensive than fried catfish.
I'm not partial to iced tea, but I'm sure it is possible to drink it without a pound of sugar in every glass.
Fresh vegetables are available in MS - and they're not particularly expensive - but people seem to prefer fried.
I suggest that a large part of the reason for the high levels of obesity is poor diet. That poor diet is not mandated by the high price of food, but rather by a culture in which fried and highly-sweetened foods are habitually chosen before readily-available alternatives
I think both are true. We could change our habits which would promote lower prices for healthy choices. As I stated before, I think a lot of people are exhausted and hopeless. That doesn't promote change. But, hopefully with an involved country that will change.
The last information I had regarding Germany's requirement that all pay into the healthcare system was that you could NOT opt out if your salary was less than a certain amount.
With the exception of about 2 million permanent civil servants, and the self-employed, Germans who earn below Euro 3,862 gross salary per month in 2004 must join one of the 300 statutory sickness funds. Those above the mandatory insurance threshold may opt out of the state system and buy private insurance instead but many opt to remain in the state system - 10 per cent of the population are voluntarily insured.
It's possible to opt out. - the rules are not 'hard and fast'. (But you may well be required to argue your case.)
I use private healthcare because I spend about half the year outside the area of geographical coverage of the system. I need 'global' health insurance cover and die Kasse does not provide that.
When I was living there year round, my 'primary care provider' was a Bundeswehr Doctor who referred me to specialists 'down-town'. I was treated (effectively) as a German Soldier who had been referred into the State Healthcare system. I was treated exactly as a patient in the State Healthcare system - with the exception that instead of taking the bill to die Kasse, it went to the Bundeswehr.
I've had considerable experience of the German system - along with that of the UK, 3 military healthcare systems, a couple of ERs [when I didn't live in an area and wasn't registered with a local physician] and my insurance in the US.
I've no complaints about the standard of care I've received under any system (though the waiting periods in an ER can last for ages ... you either get better naturally or die of old age waiting.)
Out of all the systems I've encountered, the German system seems (to me) to be the most efficient.
I heard one Brit complaining that he was going to have to wait 3 months for a hip replacement under the German scheme. I suppose that sort of thing does happen. He would've waited for more than a year had he been at home.
The one thing about the German Healthcare system which wouldn't go down very well in the US is the pricing system. Prices for each procedure/item are set by Federal Law. I don't know whether hospitals can hike the prices for privately-insured patients, but they can only charge patients covered by state insurance that which the state says they may charge. There are no $250 Aspirins or $300 safety pins.
If delivery costs go up and the state doesn't increase the allowable charge, then the providers are likely to decline to provide a particular service. It's up to the state to monitor closely the costs of health care provision and to react very promptly. Die Kasse doesn't cover 100% of everything and there are co-pays (in certain circumstances) If - as has happened recently - the funds going into the state insurance pot are less than the demands on that pot, then either the payout will have to be reduced or the monthly premiums will be increased.
Lost what? There isn't anything presently to lose, IMO.
Exactly what part can we not afford to change? Can we afford lobbyist, campaign funding and 3rd party salesmen right now? If you answer yes, then we can afford to do without them and adopt a non profit healthcare system. If you answer no, then what's there to lose? You just like paying for someones profit other than your own? For something you need, and don't really want?
It seems many are missing the point. We do pay for others care right now, plus extras. We pay for related costs that the insurance companies, medical businesses have because they are for profit. Shares, profit margin all take our money off the top first like cream, it's suppose to be taken from what's left after your care. That's why they are angry, because Obamacare popped them on that one.
I don't see anyone answering this question, as much has been said, none answer why they pay extra and like it. Don't you think a for profit program makes money off of you? It's FOR PROFIT. They lobby, they donate huge sums to campaigns. You like that use of your dollar?
Do you possibly think you don't pay for waste? Do you think you just pay for your care? That's it? Do you think the system is as efficient regarding your finances as it can be? Do you think most of the world is talking about our healthcare because it is a conspiracy?
Why do you think it's even on the table if it's already a great system? Is it you think we just can't afford to have an efficient system because of mile deep corruption and it's no use trying?
I'm trying to understand the argument you've all think you've won. I haven't seen a winner on here yet, IMO of course.
You can't find real stats or numbers for the extra you pay because they aren't available to the public. Give it a try, they pay your money to filter them. I've not seen one person on here that's succeeded.
Find me the numbers for what you actually pay for by your insurance company and the pharma companies, the real numbers and I'll eat my shoes for ya. You can't.
What everyone has copy and pasted isn't accurate. Doesn't matter what source they gleefully post, it's not the real amount or reason. If you could figure it all out on city data, I don't think we'd be debating it at all.
Lot's of factors. Captain Fingers is the closest I've seen on here. Our free for all system costs extra for extra stuff large companies need to pay for that have nothing to do with my health but everything to do with their bottom line.
Some are enjoying the debate which can be entertaining but, nobody can really tell me why we waste so much money on our healthcare when there are other alternatives available that wouldn't waste it. Nobody has told me why it's a good thing to stay for profit. Nobody has told me their personal benefit for paying more for less. That's why we are front page news right now, because nobody knows why we do it. If you do please, share it with us.
I totally respect your post. "Statistics don't lie but most statisticians are liars." What I believe is there is no realistic solution right now to offer on either side and you are right if this debate is to be meaningful it should look at the solution not the problem, so much. WardenDresden does have a point too about offering a solution. If there was one, I believe to be viable, I would. So here is what I think would be worth a try and a better avenue to achieve success. Keep DC out of health care, pass legislation to send the money to each state and let them start some programs. That is 50 test centers, then look at the results in a few years and adopt the ones that work the best. We already do this with other programs and it usually turns out quite well, even though there are some failures the good outweighs the bad, IMO.
Secondly, lets start looking at the food problems, too. Aren't they the real source of most health problems. We are what we eat.
Is corruption and graft in all government. Of course, and this is where DC has to do a lot better job than they have done. But it would be easier to track if they focused on following the money trail to the states rather than creating mountains of red tape trying to create the perfect prophylactic ?
Just because we have welfare and food stamp programs doesn't mean we can't stop trying to help people with a "HAND UP" so we don't have to keep giving handouts. I don't like taking a handout because it affects my self-esteem. There is no job in the world that is not dignified, all work is worthy of dignity. A fair days waork for a fair days pay builds self-respect and contributes to a better society and a better world.
The smoking problem in this country was transformed into a solution, not by government, but by society. WE THE PEOPLE, have the solutions and the power to transform this country - but we must do it together.
You all have surmised that I am not an Obama fan, but he said something in his acceptance speech that I will always remember = Republicans "Love their country just as much as we do (Democrats), they just believe differently in what's best."
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.
Now we can agree
.)
I haven't seen a winner on here yet, IMO of course. 
