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.
In a universal system you have to have similar costs for all ages...or various other ways of working that out. It is somewhat like car insurance. Years ago we paid vastly more than we are paying now. But since we moved to MA, the rates are 1/2 or less....for numerous reasons. Mostly because the state heavily audits insurance companies so they can't rip off people too badly..and the risk is spread. We've had 3 cars totaled (two by the kids, one not our fault) and our rates haven't gone up a penny.
Obviously there are various ways you can "reward" healthy medical "consumers" as well as doctors...this is already being done here (we have universal health care)...and that is one way to even out the age and health difference. But the DNA lottery still means some people are going to cost millions...and some almost nothing. Those are the breaks. The answers are fairly easy....
1. No 800 million golden parachutes, bonuses for sell more expensive drugs, etc. - profits can be made, but for work....not for predatory behavior.
2. Supplementals for those with money who want to guarantee certain comforts. For example, insurance could be offered to guarantee you a single room (many hospitals work this way now anyway)...
There isn't much benefit to "parellel" paid-for systems (private "high-end" hospitals, etc.) but if fools want to be parted with their money, these could exist and help subsidize the regular system. I just read a book by a NHS brain surgeon and he would see the horrible results of patients who went to "private" hospitals....because they, naturally, would have procedures done when a public health service would say "no, there will be no qualify of life if you do that"....but money talks.
Universal health care is possible and could be done here. But it won't be because we pray at the altar of the almighty buck. It's a strange society. We are OK with cutting out the distributor and big profits in everything we buy and every service we use, but for some reason we are OK with paying double for health care. That has to change which means a lot of people are going to take a hurting.
Pretty simple - if we spend 2.2 or 2.5 Trillion instead of 3.5, lots of people (mostly useless people) will be out of their jobs.
No, universal health care will never happen here because not all contribute. There are a significant percentage of Americans who freeload and want others to pay their bills. Until/unless that changes, and everyone is required to contribute equally, we'll never have universal health care.
Hell, even lefty millennials wouldn't buy into Obamacare because they refused to pay extra to pay for others. If even they don't want to pay extra, what makes you think anyone else wants to?
No, universal health care will never happen here because not all contribute. There are a significant percentage of Americans who freeload and want others to pay their bills. Until/unless that changes, and everyone is required to contribute equally, we'll never have universal health care.
Hell, even lefty millennials wouldn't buy into Obamacare because they refused to pay extra to pay for others. If even they don't want to pay extra, what makes you think anyone else wants to?
Not everyone contributes equally to Medicare so you're just rambling. Some pay far more into the system than others. Tax funded programs by definition mean that people contribute according to ability to pay. Private insurance programs dont take into consideration ability to pay. That $300 000 cancer treatment is the same price for Joe Schmoe as it is for a CEO of a large multinational corporation. The CEO lives, Joe Schmoe dies. Thats the burden the poor is facing in a for-profit private user fee health care system. And of course a national health care system shouldnt be voluntary so "personal responsibility" guys can opt out and overestimate their strength and wealth and come begging when the **** hits the fan for them.
Medicare recipients pay for various numbers of years - a tiny minority of them for 40.
Saying it as fact...over and over...does not change the fact that it is simply untrue...
If you are talking about national policies you should use averages and/means.......
"one-earner couples in which the earner turned 65 in 2000 and was paid the average wage. Such a couple would have paid $39,000 in Medicare taxes but can expect to benefit from $306,000 -- a ratio of $7.80 in Medicare spending for every dollar the couple paid in taxes."
The very best - highest income - payers into Medicare "only" get back $2.50 for each dollar paid in.....
Totally false. There is no cap on the Medicare tax.
Politifact, citing the Urban Institute as the data source
"A two-earner couple, with one high earner and one average earner, who both turned 65 in 2010 would have paid $158,000 in Medicare taxes over their lifetimes, but can be expected to be the recipient of $385,000 in Medicare spending. That’s a ratio of $2.40 in benefits for every dollar paid in taxes"
Not only does that not analyze benefits/taxes paid per Medicare taxpayer, but in the example cited they're not both high earners, so that isn't a valid analysis of high earners' benefits/taxes paid outcome.
Quote:
This isn't nitpicking. When you start out with a "conclusion" that is off by 100's of % you can't possibly end up with a proper outlook on the situation.
Medicaid is a different story. We can discuss the details of that one....definitely is far in the red just like your and my Medicare (I'm probably only getting back $3 for each $1).....
We could do away with all Medicaid and you'd still have that small item of giving a lower or mid-wage earner back 5 to 8X what they paid in.
Understand?
There is no such thing as Medicaid being "in the red." It's just a federal expense that is a 100% net drain. Medicaid enrollees pay no Medicaid tax as a requirement to be eligible for benefits, nor do they pay any premiums, deductibles, or copays as do Medicare recipients. Medicaid recipients never even have to pay one thin dime, so how can Medicaid possibly be considered to be "in the red?"
Not everyone contributes equally to Medicare so you're just rambling.
Medicare is a boon for some, and a rip-off for others. I never said that was OK. I will highly likely lose money on Medicare. I will absolutely lose a lot of money on SS. There should be a choice to opt out, just like millennials didn't have to buy into Obamacare.
And, I will reiterate...
Even lefty millennials wouldn't buy into Obamacare because they refused to pay extra to pay for others. If even the Dems' voter base doesn't want to pay extra, what makes you think anyone else wants to?
No, universal health care will never happen here because not all contribute. There are a significant percentage of Americans who freeload and want others to pay their bills. Until/unless that changes, and everyone is required to contribute equally, we'll never have universal health care.
Hell, even lefty millennials wouldn't buy into Obamacare because they refused to pay extra to pay for others. If even they don't want to pay extra, what makes you think anyone else wants to?
Again, you have it wrong.....but I'll correct those mistakes at lear....
1. In ALL universal health countries (every civilized country in the world) "not all contribute". In fact, many of them pay people not to contribute - long maternity leaves for both mom and dad, longer vacations, etc.
2. We pay the costs for your imaginary millions anyway, at 2 or 3X the actual cost (repair as opposed to preventative). Next thing you will be debating against oil changes because they are wasting money.
3. You are correct that Americans are some of the most selfish people around.....that is, they love to cheat (heck, look at the trial on now, and the POTUS and all of them)....and not pay their taxes or fees.
Those people aren't "refusing to pay extra for others". Those people are refusing to pay for themselves.....so, you are really referencing the same point....
Putting it in other terms you may understand better, what you are saying is "since so many American commit insurance fraud we should not only keep it legal, but we should change the laws so there is more of it. In the meantime, this fraud costs any and every American who ever earned a dime....and will also cost their children and grandchildren for many generations....
I guess we do agree on something. America is not a nation. It is just a random set of selfish people thrown together all seeing what they can get. The person in momma basement may get health care, but the Manaforts and Trumps get 100's of times as much "welfare" in their shady dealings.
No, I do not. I laid it all out very clearly, citing facts with links to verify.
Quote:
1. In ALL universal health countries (every civilized country in the world) "not all contribute".
BS. Just look at all those European countries that have 20% to 25% national VAT taxes. THAT'S how everyone contributes.
(Snipped a lot of other nonsense. )
Look, when even the Dem voter base (millennials and the Obamacare fiasco) recognizes that having to pay extra to pay for others is a scam so they refuse to do so, what makes you think others don't recognize that, as well?
Medicare is a boon for some, and a rip-off for others. I never said that was OK. I will highly likely lose money on Medicare. I will absolutely lose a lot of money on SS. There should be a choice to opt out, just like millennials didn't have to buy into Obamacare.
And, I will reiterate...
Even lefty millennials wouldn't buy into Obamacare because they refused to pay extra to pay for others. If even the Dems' voter base doesn't want to pay extra, what makes you think anyone else wants to?
Obamacare is not a national health care system with teeth as programs like SS or Medicare are. Its just a government subsidized private insurance system with a little slap on the wrist if you dont sign up. Thats not how a functional national health care system work.
Medicare is a wildly popular program funded by taxes according to ability to pay. You brag you will lose money because you'll live so long, well, then be happy about that, instead of whining and working yourself up into a rage.
Totally false. There is no cap on the Medicare tax.
Not only does that not analyze benefits/taxes paid per Medicare taxpayer, but in the example cited they're not both high earners, so that isn't a valid analysis of high earners' benefits/taxes paid outcome.
There is no such thing as Medicaid being "in the red." It's just a federal expense that is a 100% net drain. Medicaid enrollees pay no Medicaid tax as a requirement to be eligible for benefits, nor do they pay any premiums, deductibles, or copays as do Medicare recipients. Medicaid recipients never even have to pay one thin dime, so how can Medicaid possibly be considered to be "in the red?"
1. Funny stuff. We heard (probably from you) how we can't pay our debt by taxing the very rich since there are so few....now we hear that there are so many of them...and most are high earners on salary, that is collected untold billions at that 2.9% rate!
The truth is that very few Americans have paid in the kind of money they cost- which is why it is clear that the revenues do not match the expenses. You are arguing against plain fact.....
2. If I run a business and it spends $10,000 but takes in no sales, it is in the Red.
Besides, Medicaid can take in money - as you know, it is largely administered by the various states. Also, Medicaid can recoup money through the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program.
So, there is income in Medicaid. But no doubt it needs more and there are efforts underway to provide such....
Your "argument" is the same one I have heard for decades, you know..the one that goes
this many million in the military
this many million in school
this many million raising kids
this many million working at the post office
and so and so....
WHICH LEAVES YOU AND ME AS THE ONLY ONES WORKING FOR ACTUAL INCOME.
But, for some reason, we still generate many trillions per year. Amazing.
Obamacare is not a national health care system with teeth as programs like SS or Medicare are.
It was mandated, with a penalty for non-participation.
Again... When even the Dem voter base (millennials and the Obamacare fiasco) recognizes that having to pay extra to pay for others is a scam so they refuse to do so, what makes you think others don't recognize that, as well?
1. Funny stuff. We heard (probably from you) how we can't pay our debt by taxing the very rich since there are so few....now we hear that there are so many of them
No one ever said that.
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.
)
