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.
Those are good policies but they won't solve the HC problem in this country.
Is is so easy for a person with no chronic or HC critical issues to sit in their chair and pontificate about how the poor (i.e lazy) are looking for a handout until they themselves get to be on Medicare (aka Govt health insurance) and then complain about cutbacks or lack of coverage. This is a problem for EVERYONE.
Face it - every major developed (1st World) nation has solved this problem for the most part. The healthy pay for the sick, the working pay (partially) for the unemployed and everyone has SOME coverage. Why no one complains about mandatory Auto Insurance - which covers the same thing -but then say we don't need wholesale changes to US HC seems to be mostly related to what side of the political spectrum they identify with.
It is morally wrong to force people at gunpoint to pay for your needs. Just because someone else did it, it doesn't make it right in anyway. It's still a vile option.
Nobody complains about auto insurance because it works as insurance. I personally have no issue if we pass a mandate that everybody must buy health insurance otherwise they are subject to prison time, and the insurance companies are free to jack up prices for anybody who isn't healthy just like how auto insurance works.
Those are good policies but they won't solve the HC problem in this country.
Is is so easy for a person with no chronic or HC critical issues to sit in their chair and pontificate about how the poor (i.e lazy) are looking for a handout until they themselves get to be on Medicare (aka Govt health insurance) and then complain about cutbacks or lack of coverage. This is a problem for EVERYONE.
Face it - every major developed (1st World) nation has solved this problem for the most part. The healthy pay for the sick, the working pay (partially) for the unemployed and everyone has SOME coverage. Why no one complains about mandatory Auto Insurance - which covers the same thing -but then say we don't need wholesale changes to US HC seems to be mostly related to what side of the political spectrum they identify with.
If people are critically ill and unable to afford care, we have a program called Medicaid, which they can go on and get their bills paid. Otherwise, people should be paying for their own healthcare. Many people who are ill, and poor for that matter are so because of their own bad habits or because of institutional, structural issues in certain areas, brought about by the Democrat party.
It isn't my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Most people don't?
They should and must. They would be completely irresponsible as individuals and parents - borderline children endangerment.
Please note I said per person. It means if it's a family of four, they should have $20,000 set a side for this.
On the other hand, not everybody gets sick all the time. Again, insurance is for the unexpected, not for routine cares or minor scratches.
Realistically, without copay and deductible, the doctors and hospitals would be completely overwhelmed.
It would take the average earner years just to set aside $10k, that would be 33% of the gross pay of the average individual, or close to 45% take home. That would mean the average person would have to live on only half their take home pay to save that much in one year, or 75% of their take home to save it in two years; or to save $20k like you say, would take two years saving half your take home, or four years saving one quarter of their take home pay. Not realistic. Most people don't earn $75-$100k/year.
Myself, I take home about $780/week after taxes, that would mean saving four months take home pay to get to $10k. Not realistic
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
If people are critically ill and unable to afford care, we have a program called Medicaid, which they can go on and get their bills paid. Otherwise, people should be paying for their own healthcare. Many people who are ill, and poor for that matter are so because of their own bad habits or because of institutional, structural issues in certain areas, brought about by the Democrat party.
It isn't my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
You have to literally be poor and/or have kids to qualify for Medicaid. Someone who makes $52k/year, like myself, but gets presented with say a $50k medical bill (which would be more than a years take home pay) would not be able to get Medicaid. I would have to try to file for bankruptcy
It would take the average earner years just to set aside $10k, that would be 33% of the gross pay of the average individual, or close to 45% take home. That would mean the average person would have to live on only half their take home pay to save that much in one year, or 75% of their take home to save it in two years; or to save $20k like you say, would take two years saving half your take home, or four years saving one quarter of their take home pay. Not realistic. Most people don't earn $75-$100k/year.
Myself, I take home about $780/week after taxes, that would mean saving four months take home pay to get to $10k. Not realistic
We have very good insurance through my spouses employer - of course, my spouse worked his way through college and is a CPA.
However, I almost never use the insurance because my physician doesn't accept any insurance. Instead, it operates on a membership fee, of $80 a month and they kept only 1/3 of their patients when they switched over. My fee includes as many visits as one wants within the month, each being one hour in length, a yearly physical and any other issues that pop up. They even dispense medications at a lower price than one would pay with insurance at a pharmacy in many cases.
There is no reason most people cannot afford that sort of arrangement and if they can't then they need to cut back on their wasteful spending. Insurance should be cheap and rarely used, mostly for catastrophic issues.
No, I didn't. You lack reading comprehension skills. That's a shame.
Oh really. I'll let you find all of your other posts on your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
We could have national single-payer Medicare for all if we implemented a 25% national Vat tax like many Scandinavian/European countries already have.
A liberal think tank, the Urban Institute, has projected the additional cost to the Fed Gov for national health care for all to be $3.2 trillion per year ($32 trillion for a 10 year period).
The top 10% earn a total of $4.6 trillion per year. You'd have to slap an EXTRA 70% federal income tax on the top 10% (every household with an income of $133,500 and up) to fund national health care. That will never happen.
The most equitable and feasible way to fund national health care for all would be to implement a 25% national VAT tax like many European/Scandinavian countries already have (and that's on top of their much higher and flatter tax rate bracket national income tax systems).
It would take the average earner years just to set aside $10k, that would be 33% of the gross pay of the average individual, or close to 45% take home. That would mean the average person would have to live on only half their take home pay to save that much in one year, or 75% of their take home to save it in two years; or to save $20k like you say, would take two years saving half your take home, or four years saving one quarter of their take home pay. Not realistic. Most people don't earn $75-$100k/year.
Myself, I take home about $780/week after taxes, that would mean saving four months take home pay to get to $10k. Not realistic
Where are your parents? Why didn't they save some money for you? Irresponsible parents?
Those are good policies but they won't solve the HC problem in this country.
Is is so easy for a person with no chronic or HC critical issues to sit in their chair and pontificate about how the poor (i.e lazy) are looking for a handout until they themselves get to be on Medicare (aka Govt health insurance) and then complain about cutbacks or lack of coverage. This is a problem for EVERYONE.
BIG difference: One has to PAY for Medicare, via FICA tax before retirement and via premiums, deductibles, and co-pays from age 65+. Medicaid, however, is completely 100% free for its recipients. No taxes need have ever been paid. And there are no premiums, deductibles, or co-pays.
Quote:
Face it - every major developed (1st World) nation has solved this problem for the most part. The healthy pay for the sick, the working pay (partially) for the unemployed and everyone has SOME coverage. Why no one complains about mandatory Auto Insurance - which covers the same thing -but then say we don't need wholesale changes to US HC seems to be mostly related to what side of the political spectrum they identify with.
Because auto insurance premiums are charged based on one's risk. Make health insurance mandatory, charge premiums based on one's risk, and we could all have health insurance.
It is morally wrong to force people at gunpoint to pay for your needs. Just because someone else did it, it doesn't make it right in anyway. It's still a vile option.
Nobody complains about auto insurance because it works as insurance. I personally have no issue if we pass a mandate that everybody must buy health insurance otherwise they are subject to prison time, and the insurance companies are free to jack up prices for anybody who isn't healthy just like how auto insurance works.
BIG difference: One has to PAY for Medicare, via FICA tax before retirement and via premiums, deductibles, and co-pays from age 65+. Medicaid, however, is completely 100% free for its recipients. No taxes need have ever been paid. And there are no premiums, deductibles, or co-pays.
Because auto insurance premiums are charged based on one's risk. Make health insurance mandatory, charge premiums based on one's risk, and we could all have health insurance.
Actually, if we go that route, it would promote healthy lifestyle and healthy offspring. In the long run, the entire population would become much more healthy.
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.
