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.
Actually no. The system in those countries works because people who are low level users of health care effectively subsidize those who are high users.
Right now, in the USA, taxpayers (47% do not pay federal income tax) and those with insurance subsidize health care for everyone else.
Invariably we all become high users of health care simply because we all age, and take it from me, after the age of 70 the body starts to self destruct.
Imagine if you only had to pay 1% of your salary to have UHC.
A person like Bill Gates or Oprah would pay millions per year. Thats why the system works in other developed nations, the ultra mega rich help "rest of the mortals".
1% of your salary is nothing. Thats what europeans invest in healthcare (1% of their salaries +or-) and everyone is covered.
I read one time that the Nokia owner (scandinavian) got a speeding ticket and he had to pay a percent of his annual salary, and it was millions. It was nothing for him but it was a lot of money that the city gained) that money was probably used to improve roads etc.
Europeans, australians, and canadians protect their own people. The ultra rich gladly help their compatriots.
You can imagine all you want, the reality again is not there. You could take 100% of every dollar earned by everyone making over $1,000,000 (all 300,000 of them) and you would be able to fund the government for only 3 months. The states would lose billions, everyone who relies on their spending would lose, there is just not enough money.
I know it feels good to say these things but you really need to learn the big picture, we are sinking fast and patches won’t work.
People do not realize how flarked up the US system is. Look at how Sanrene presents systems that cost half what the US system does as expensive. Europeans think them expensive, and American policymakers would cut off their right arms to achive results like that.
Results that are considered abject failiures in Europe would be successes beyong belief in the US.
That is how far behind the US system is at the moment. The problem is, few people realize this. It is basically "America uber alles" and any call for improvement is considered goes contrary to the 50s view of America that so many people hold.
Results that are considered abject failiures in Europe would be successes beyong belief in the US.
For a while, just as the UK and Canadian HC systems were lauded for a while as great successes. And then the costs start added up and then the implosion starts.
“The United States will eventually fly the Communist red flag…The American people will hoist it themselves. We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” -Nikita Khrushchev, July 19, 1962.
False premise as MA has "Romneycare" and yes, it is a failure.
Socialism is not compatable with the US Constitution. Nationalized health care is the largest form of socialism/social enginnering and control there is. Why does anyone want to give the government the power of life and death over them, for a little security? Is that all your liberty is worth to you? Really? I suggest moving to one of the contries that offers you security in exchange for your freedom if you value your freedom so little.
So firefighters, police, postal service, public education, rail, roads, pipes, military, unemployment benefits, NIH, FDA, and really any and all other government institution is in compatible with US constitution?
First off, the whole notion of health insurance was not even invented during the original founding of the constitution. There really was not an understanding of health WAY after the constitution.
Much of the problems we face did not exist back then...so how can something that did not exist be incompatible?
How is universal health care even social engineering?
It's sickening to me how people frame these life and death debates in abstracts. These are people lives at risk.
I've denied coverage to people in the past. In fact, I denied this lady because of her pre-existing condition of cancer...her husband lost his job because of the recession. She probably is now dead.
This goes beyond rhetoric and into the actual lives of people. If they don't die, they can become bankrupt.
In Korea, the gov't pays about 55% of the cost. So it's not too bad. It's great not having a deductible and something like $25-40 deducted from your pay for full dental and health coverage.
I don't see the contradiction of receiving services and adhering to the US constitution...
For a while, just as the UK and Canadian HC systems were lauded for a while as great successes. And then the costs start added up and then the implosion starts.
No, they really aren't failures...We actually pay more of a percentage of GDP and receive less. Technically speaking our system is more costly and less effective.
I don't see the contradiction of receiving services and adhering to the US constitution...
I think the argument with that, is people don't want to be "forced" into having gov't health insurance. OR making it a law to NOT have any type of health insurance. It's something like that.
I'm sure in other states this is true, but here in NJ it's illegal to drive w/o car insurance.
I don't see how this is wrong, lol
Even on the lease to the apartment I live in.. it said I need to get renters insurance within 10 days of the beginning of my lease. It didn't say what kind, how much coverage.. even what company. Just told me to just "have it". Again, I don't see a problem with this. I would have ANYway.
One of the main concerns with UHC is that people will lack choices. Right now we have so many HC options -- or -- no option at all. That's what people want; choices. I'm not sure how I feel about the "illegal to not have HC", but in my 2 examples I'm kinda being forced into having 2 insurances, but it's needed.
They just need to make healthcare much more consumer friendly. I understand the concept of how they make profit "You pay $X.00 a month, and the less you use your insurance, the more money we make". I am sure they can still make GOOD profit, and not rape the consumers at the same time.
Actually no. The system in those countries works because people who are low level users of health care effectively subsidize those who are high users.
Right now, in the USA, taxpayers (47% do not pay federal income tax) and those with insurance subsidize health care for everyone else.
Only about roughly 10% pay no federal taxes overall (payroll taxes). Also the 47% includes short term stimulus during the recession.
So the question that arises is whether subsidizing healthcare would be beneficial to middle class Americans, the majority of whom pay some sort of federal tax.
These families also pay state and local taxes as well. On top of that they then pay inflated insurance prices.
If we pay more as a percentage of GDP than systems with universal health, clearly we it's not the most efficient system and the average family is left in more debt and our system even more saddled with waste.
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.
