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.
Not possible. Those who are age 65+ are only 13% of the population, and not all of them have to file a tax return. Remember, the statistics shown were for income tax filers. Seniors who earn nothing or little outside of their SS don't have to file an income tax return.
Many people retire before age 65. Social Security can start at age 62 but people also retire before age 62 before they are eligible for Social Security retirement. Some have a pension that starts earlier and/or they have investment income.
You haven't been poor in America because you weren't born into poverty. You don't seem to understand that.
Why bear children into poverty? That's a CHOICE that should not be made.
Having possibly procreative sex isn't mandatory. Just don't do it. Poor women are already on Medicaid and have access to free contraceptives. Why aren't they using them?
I'm going to do what a lot of other Trumpkins are going to do when they realize they've been played: switch from Obamacare to the Affordable Care Act, which I hear is excellent. And since I'm a conservative family values Christian, I really don't care what happens to the poor who can't pay for it. As a compassionate Christian, a follower of the Golden Rule and my brother's keeper, it's not my problem.
Can't tell if you are serious. Obamacare is the ACA.
I agree with you as well, Hoonose! Doctors should get paid well no argument there! However, our government needs to do something where everyone is insured and can actually afford it!
I'm sorry about your wife and I pray for a quick recovery! My husband fell asleep at the wheel due to work exhaustion. Long story short he has had 4 facial reconstructive surgeries. He is still having treatment for his eyesight in his left eye and other issues as a result. Had we not had insurance we would be bankrupt as his care has topped over a million and is ongoing. We actually have very good insurance that is employer paid so we are very fortunate. Even with that though we have paid thousands of dollars to the point that we are hurting financially. I was a stay at home mom of 2 young girls and now I'm working. I have no problem with that!! What I have a problem with is my 63 year old mother can't retire because she can't afford healthcare till 65. Not only that she is currently on ACA because her employer does not offer healthcare insurance. Her premiums with a high deductible are over $800 a month! For 1 person! It's insane! She has thought about going without. This is what this country has become and it's very said. Very sad that other countries give their citizens free healthcare and free college tuition. The U.S. is doing something wrong!!
Yes, the US is taxing citizens incorrectly. As already explained:
Pay close attention to what that scatter plot chart tells us... Note that the highest levels of government benefits and services are provided by countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) or regressive (shown as the negative values, meaning a greater tax burden is placed on those with lower incomes). And note where the USA falls on the graph. The USA has the most progressive tax system and therefore is least able to fund progressives' societal goals because the tax base is too narrow, and therefore generates insufficient tax revenue.
(Scatter Plot info, for those who need more explanation of what Scatter Plots tell us: Scatter Plots - Math is Fun)
Looks like Europe and Scandinavia have it right... Those who use the most in government services and benefits (low and middle income) also bear the greatest tax burden. And none of them whine and complain about it, or insist that someone else pay their way.
Technology substitution/ industrial robotics began to explode in the 70's.
My first adult job, back office in financial services, was with a company with 1000 employees in the 70's. Within 10 years nearly every job function had been replaced with technology and the business was more productive than at any point in history.
Also, the costs of care go up and that's passed along to the people who DO pay their bills.
So, yeah... this affects us all whether we want it to or not.
Might as well have a system that covers everyone. A basic system. If people want access to higher-tier services that are not on the basic plan, they can always buy supplemental health insurance.
Which is what happens in some countries. I think Australia has a setup like that and there are some countries in the EU that do as well.
Makes sense to me. Provide a general standard of care to EVERYONE. If you want to buy extra and have the money, go for it.
On face value this sounds right. However in practice it is not such a money saver. Medical standards of care need to be met. And in most medical encounters, especially the severe and expensive ones, there are not many variables where one can save anything significant. Optional stuff like cosmetic isn't covered anyway. Private rooms are no big expense over 2 to a room. Few use brand name meds, and there will be times when only brand is available. Sure there are always cheaper chemotherapy options available, but the choice is dependent on the oncologist and standards of care.
I think that the system needs to ensure that doctors are adequately reimbursed.
I also think that allowing people to buy private insurance to supplement their basic insurance could be a boon for docs because those patients would be outside the doctor's obligation to see X number of patients on the universal plan (think of that plan like Medicaid is right now).
So, basically, it's a plus overall. And, hospitals would see everyone, either way.
Ex. A friend of mine was getting IVF in Australia about 7-8 years ago. She got X number of shots at IVF through the single payer plan. After that, she had to use her private insurance for additional tries, because the single payer had coverage limits for stuff like IVF.
She used the private insurance and that opened up more types of procedures that she could consider and that would be covered after she met her deductible and so forth.
I do not see this being bad for doctors, not once fully implemented.
Some good points. But I don't know any docs that have any specific obligation to see any specific patient or plan unless per employment contract. Docs won't ever agree to be solely beholden to any completely universal HC scheme. Or I should say that they will fight it all they way, unless satisfied with income and work load.
IVF may be one thing that might not be covered by a basic plan. But IVF is but a very small part of overall HC costs.
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.
