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.
You DO realize we're discussing in generalities, no? Even calling a group "the right wing" is talking about them in general. The vices which end up costing a HUGE extra and totally unnecessary amount for health care are all over-represented among the poor. Obesity, smoking, alcohol/drug abuse, diabetes type 2, etc. So, they pay very little to nothing in contribution to society, but end up costing society a lot more.
shrug. I think of a huge difference between Willy Walmart and Carl Couchpotato. Understand I know many. I go to church with them, and in my second job, some are my friends.
Also understand that I tend to differentiate people by nature including the rich. I have zero problem with the venture capitalist rich and huge problems with the rent seeking rich (in their many different forms) Note rich to me starts at 1M income a year and 10M in assets over several years. Too many people fail to understand $500K a year is nice but nearly all in this wealthy class do not have bad affects or buy congress.
I take it you've never heard of Shriners, St. Jude, and the like. They are all completely funded by sponsors and donations, and provide BETTER care than hospitals funded by taxes.
You have zero evidence that disabled children whose parents couldn't afford treatment would simply die. None at all. Feelings don't count as facts.
Those organizations charge the patients' insurance, if they have it. Everything beyond what the insurance pays is free. They're also very specialized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Also why would anyone think that a hospital full of folks during a flu outbreak WOULDN'T be wise to cancel elective surgeries? Oh, wait, I know the answer to this one......there'd be a drop in profits..….a concern in only one country.
Why would there be a drop in profits if the hospital was full of flu patients? They require a lot of care if they're sick enough to go to the hospital. I'm not crazy about the US system, but you are quite mixed up about how it works. The "for profit" part is the financing, that is, insurance. About 40% of hospital patients are on Medicare (tax supported for seniors) and another large group are on Medicaid (tax supported for the poor).
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
I don’t buy into the “ twelve of the 33 countries have Single Payer within this article. When you go under the hood of the 12, one finds it common place for people to increasingly maintain Supplimental Insurance to help pay for that which the Single Payer System does not. In other words, it’s a mixed bag.
On the flip side, Switzerland relies entirely on Private Insurance. The healthy 20 year old pays the same premium as a sickly 80 year old. Insurers are not allowed to discriminate by age or medical condition. They are not permitted to profit off base insurance. Insurers make a profit off Supplimental Plans.
Most hospitals are public. Most healthcare providers are employees of the government.
The population is risk adverse and not as nearly as fat as are 75% of the US population. As such, they are not as vulnerable to Diabetes, Heart Disease, some Cancers and soon as the US population. They take more responsibility for their own health than most in the US do.
What works well in a country of 8 Million, spread over 16,000 sq miles is not going to work in a country with 325 million spread over 3.8 million miles.
Here we go again. Actually, the smoking rates in Switzerland are much higher than in the US (or the UK, which is still higher than the US'). Smoking causes many illnesses, not just lung cancer, e.g. COPD, heart disease, and a long list of other issues. Their drinking rate is also higher than the US' and the UK's is even higher. Drinking as you know causes many health problems, including sudden death due to DUI (though Europeans drive less). https://www.oecd.org/switzerland/Tac...zerland-en.pdf https://lenews.ch/2016/03/22/smoking...united-states/
The obesity rate in the UK is fairly high as well. https://renewbariatrics.com/obesity-rank-by-countries/
Risk averse my derriere!
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
So then, set up a gofundme page and ask for donations. Problem solved.
This is a proposal for "free" healthcare in the U.S. In other countries with "socialized" healthcare, one of the biggest issues and criticism is long wait times and rationing. Some countries create "death panels" to determine who gets what. A fair criticism. But, if the U.S. does create universal healthcare, there would need to be some type of system fair to the taxpayers. To solve the problems of both rationing and taxpayer fairness, the U.S. could create a tier system based on taxes paid. Each year the system issues you an ID card and tier based on the amount of federal income taxes you actually paid the prior year. Let's say there were 5 tiers 1 - 5 with one being the highest/best. If you needed a knee replacement (uncomfortable but not an emergency) and your tax payments put you in the second tier, then you would be put on the list above those in tier 3-5. It would work the same for similar-related ED complaints. Let's say a tier 2 and tier 3 arrive around the same time in the ED both having fallen and hurt their wrist. The tier 2 goes in first. Obviously, a person who is critical would go in ahead of them regardless of the tier. But this makes for a fair, "free" system. Sure, the people who pay no taxes will wait the longest, but they also get the most for nothing. Before you say this this unfairly hurts low income people, note that a rich person who inherited all his money from daddy and pays no income tax himself would be at the same level as a poor person who pays no income tax.
Great idea, great system.
Why not have tiers for public education? The more taxes you pay, the better schools your kids get to go to.
I think a lot of middle class people on this thread severely overstate how much they pay. To be blunt, you're not paying a lot in taxes. Take a family who pays 60,000USD a year in federal taxes - probably more than just about anyone reading this thread. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to how much billionaires and mega-millionaires paid. Under that tier system, that family could essentially be put in the same tier as a family paying $10,000 a year in federal taxes as far as a billionaire is concerned.
So no. Let's not tier people for healthcare. Everyone gets access to the same public hospitals no matter what they pay. For the very rich, they will buy private insurance anyway.
The basic? Very little and I pay nothing. Most get supplemental insurance but I don’t. Cheaper to pay out of pocket for my annual exam or Class II medical certificate to fly my plane.
Kinda strange. I glanced thru some summaries of railroad health insurance for those working for the railroads. From those, the statement was its the best health insurance offered to employees by employers anywhere in the US. Even better than what fed employees get.
One would think that a train engineer would have this best railroad health insurance.
If you ask the Cons here, what two options they want, they will always chose #1, because they don´t like their fellow Americans.
And can´t do maths either it seems.
1. You can pay 20% of you income in insurance, and have a roulette wheel at the Hospital to what treatments are covered this year. And medical bankruptcy is an real thing.
2. You can pay 10% of you income into a "National Insurance Plan", and be covered by any eventuality, wherever and whenever. But you and all others are also paying for other peoples healthcare.
I wonder if its the "forced" helping of others that they are so against... People they secretly don´t like.
Because, mathematically and statistically its a much better system.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Here we go again. Actually, the smoking rates in Switzerland are much higher than in the US (or the UK, which is still higher than the US'). Smoking causes many illnesses, not just lung cancer, e.g. COPD, heart disease, and a long list of other issues. Their drinking rate is also higher than the US' and the UK's is even higher. Drinking as you know causes many health problems, including sudden death due to DUI (though Europeans drive less). https://www.oecd.org/switzerland/Tac...zerland-en.pdf https://lenews.ch/2016/03/22/smoking...united-states/
The obesity rate in the UK is fairly high as well. https://renewbariatrics.com/obesity-rank-by-countries/
Risk averse my derriere!
Smoking rates aren fairly low in the UK, indeed the average price of a packet of tenty cigarettes is around £10.40 ($13.30).
As for obesity, the UK has put a tax on sugary drinks, there is also a ban on junk food ads and harmful cut-price fast food deals and two for one offers coming in to force. The UK and Europe already don't have free refills or American style portions, however they are already looking to cut down on their current portions.
The portion sizes of some of Britain's most popular foods are to be cut, with health officials telling the public it is time "to get on a diet".
Public Health England is targeting pizzas, ready meals, processed meat and takeaways, in a new obesity drive.
The government agency has also urged the food industry to start using healthier ingredients and encourage the public to opt for lower calorie foods.
It is all part of a drive to cut calorie consumption by 20% by 2024.
The target will apply to 13 different food groups, responsible for a fifth of the calorie intake of children.
If you ask the Cons here, what two options they want, they will always chose #1, because they don´t like their fellow Americans.
And can´t do maths either it seems.
1. You can pay 20% of you income in insurance, and have a roulette wheel at the Hospital to what treatments are covered this year. And medical bankruptcy is an real thing.
2. You can pay 10% of you income into a "National Insurance Plan", and be covered by any eventuality, wherever and whenever. But you and all others are also paying for other peoples healthcare.
That's a 50% reduction in how much is being paid. No one has suggested that national health care would reduce health care costs by 50%.
Quote:
I wonder if its the "forced" helping of others that they are so against...
I would say so. That's exactly why millennials rejected Obamacare, and didn't sign up for it in the numbers projected. They correctly deduced that they would be forced to pay extra to cover the cost of others, and a big huge "No!" was their response.
BTW, millennials identify as Democrats by a rate of 2 to 1, the highest ratio of any age group.
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.
