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.
People ask "what's fair" to pay for health care cost.
To someone making 20K, they believe it should be free.
To someone making 50K, they believe it should be free.
To someone making 100K, they believe it should be free.
And that's the issue.
I believe an across the board 10% health tax for anyone making more than 200% of poverty up to a $300K limit like they do in the UK.
Someone only making $30K, will pay $3K.
The liberals always claim, it's not the total taxes paid by the wealthy, it should be by proportion. So 10%. But no. Liberals want it both ways. They will than use the excuse 10% of $30K is too much. It hurts the little guys more than the rich.
So what do liberals want? They say the wealthy should be the same percentage as the poor. But they don't. So what's it going to be? Than they want to remove a cap on the taxes. But at a certain point there has to be a cap for social services.
Asking someone to pay $500K for health services each year just because they make 5 million is unfair to that person; right?
No, What the OP meant is the ACA does almost nothing to curb cost. In fact it just "shifts" costs around.
The main players: Hospitals, Big Pharma, And Insurance will still get their 100% of the pie.
The health providers will end up taking a hit. The semi affluent (What CNN likes to describe as "the HENRYs" High earners not rich yet) end up paying much more. Yet those "poor" people who make 400% of poverty can get subsidized healthcare. But the semi affluent may end up paying probably 15% of their health dollars on care. The young healthy may end up paying 300% more in premiums than they do today. Vermont says in 2014 the young healthy male will end up paying $317 a month in premiums while the 2013 premiums would have been around $100 for the same plan.
Yet, they want the young and healthy to contribute to the insurance pool. There is no way I'm paying $300/ month for insurance. I would rather pay the tax surcharge.
Yet, they want the young and healthy to contribute to the insurance pool. There is no way I'm paying $300/ month for insurance. I would rather pay the tax surcharge.
Look at the rates. These are the "proposed" rates for 2014.
A family of 4 if they make more than 400% of poverty (around $88K-90K) who doesn't have an employer sponsored plan (this means essentially almost small business less than 25 employees).
They will end up paying a whopping 15K-17 a year in premiums PLUS another $6250 deductible. Usually a family of 4 in 2013 can get premiums around $600-700/month (so about $7000-8000) with a $6000 deductible.
Look at the rates. These are the "proposed" rates for 2014.
A family of 4 if they make more than 400% of poverty (around $88K-90K) who doesn't have an employer sponsored plan (this means essentially almost small business less than 25 employees).
They will end up paying a whopping 15K-17 a year in premiums PLUS another $6250 deductible. Usually a family of 4 in 2013 can get premiums around $600-700/month (so about $7000-8000) with a $6000 deductible.
That's insane. Those prices are significantly higher than current private market prices.
I'm saying that healthcare costs something regardless of the way it is administered and that a single payer system won't likely lower costs. The main function of cost is the actual monopolistic healthcare system. The Dr's, hospitals, technology, drugs, etc. A single payer system would not have to compete with anybody to deliver the best service at the lowest cost so it isn't likely to lower end user cost.
With competing insurance companies they have an incentive to lower admin costs, but a single payer system doesn't have that incentive and would probably charge taxpayers the actual cost of healthcare. Normally, insurance companies take premiums, invest those premiums, and pay out claims. The difference between the premiums + investment profits and claims paid out is their profit spread. The profit spread is used to cover claims and admin fees.
Countries with socialized healthcare don't have a monopolistic healthcare system. Their hospitals aren't colluding to fix prices. They are allowed to have specialized clinics. Competition is allowed to occur and the amount that can be spent by taxpayers is capped so those countries can actually afford a single payer system.
Other than Canada, can you name one developed country that only has a socialized health care system?
Can you explain why countries with both single payer and universal health care manage to deliver that care for half what it costs in the USA?
Once again, read the washington post comment below addressing high costs:
1. Other countries disregarding drug patents of US companies
2. Malpractice (potential or real) can force physicians to order unnecessary tests
The US has the highest percentage of lawyers in the world. There is a reason why litigation is high.
Plus the US Constitution protects certain "rights" and "due process" lawyers will always argue. The lawyers argue limiting malpractice claims take away patient's due process claims.
Name me a socialize health system where there is a potential for multi million dollar judgment outside of gross medical negligence.
Even if you win malpractice cases, you still lose. It costs close to 100K to defense a case.
Well instead of this being a bashing back and forth over the Canadian model versus the U.S. system; at least now you folks are having constructive discussions amongst yourselves.
Surely there is a champion amongst your leadership who sees the virtue in pushing a single payer system with a position of government intervention in cost controls from big Pharma on down. Surely?
Can you imagine the possibilities if the whole damn continent (400 million consumers) were to embrace some form of Universal single payer system?
Did I actually see a placard in those pic's invoking God's Blessings on Fox news for keeping the public "infromed" (sic)?
Other than Canada, can you name one developed country that only has a socialized health care system?
Can you explain why countries with both single payer and universal health care manage to deliver that care for half what it costs in the USA?
Canada doesn't have a socialized health care system; it has a single payer system. France's system is far more socialized than Canada's. In Canada your physician determines your treatment plan, orders tests etc., the government has no say in it. If it was a socialized system, the government would outline your treatment; they don't.
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.
