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.
Tell that to the people in countries like Norway or Sweden...oh that's right...they have free health care because they actually care about people in those countries.
Both countries would fit inside of Texas with room to rattle around. If we were talking about a single state enacting a system such as Norway or Sweden you might have an argument. Even at that, when you look at taxation in those countries you quickly realize that free isn't free.
Norway's tax burden is 45% of their GDP in order to cover the cost of "free" healthcare. Their top tax rate is 38%. Sweden has a similarly high tax vs. GDP ratio with a top tax rate of 57%. In comparison the US has a tax to gdp ratio of ~28% and a top nominal tax rate of 37%. Let me know if I have to explain why that "nominal" is important (hint: very few actually pay the top tax rate in our country).
My ancestors are from Norway. Why would I want to change the greatest nation on earth to more closely resemble a place my ancestors didn't even want to live?
There are going to be positives and negatives to any health insurance plan, whether private or the ACA.
I think that the pluses fare outweigh the negatives. There are severe consequences for millions of Americans if the ACA is repealed without being replaced by something better, and the GOP has had several years to come up with a better plan, Trump's plan is always ready in "about two weeks" in the future, so there has never been an adequate GOP replacement plan.
If the ACA is repealed, for example, millions of people will lose their only healthcare insurance, there will be nothing to stop for-profit companies from denying insurance for pre-existing conditions, including simply being a woman. Lifetime insurance caps can be reinstalled All of these things could happen almost immediately if the ACA is truly wiped out.
Higher premiums are a necessary but negative consequnce of the ACA. But to me the positives far outweigh the negatives.
I think the real reason the GOP wants to get rid of ACA is because Obama's administration created it. A great example of this. One poll showed that Kentuckians raved about their KentuckyCare government healthcare plan, and rated it as a positive chage, but said they absolutely "hated" Obamacare. KentuckyCare IS Obama care. Trump especially has devoted his presidency to trying to wipe out anything created by the Obama administration; he is motivated by jealousy of Obama, because Obama is everything Trump is not, a truly honorable decent competent and great leader. The poor red states have especially benefited from the ACA; if Trump wins and his latest Supreme Court plant votes as her writings suggest she will, a Trump administration will succeed in getting rid of the ACA, and those Trump voters in fly-over country will suffer immensely.
Another reason the GOP wants to get rid of the ACA: cruelty. So many GOP policies are out and out cruel, on purpose. I don't know where this cruelty stems from but the GOP has become the party of hate and hateful policies, like the 500 young immigrant children who were kidnapped by the U.S. government, and whose departed parents cannot now be located., Trump is a mere symptom, Mitch McTurtle is the GOP's real evil lord.
It's a shame that this is not understood by Trump supporters. Well said.
Why? Are you that ignorant of how the government has been screwing up the healthcare system for the last 100 years? You do realize, do you not, that the entire system of insurance as compensation for employees is a direct result of government interference? And that said system had a lot to do with the increase in medical costs? Open a history book, you can find all sorts of interesting information.
You still didn't answer the question. What is a fair price for healthcare ? Free would be awesome, but nothing is free.
I think the focus should be more on the industry itself. Why the hidden pricing ? Why is out of pocket pricing sometimes less, sometimes more than what the insurance pays ? Why can the hospital and the insurance company negotiate prices, while we can't ?
In any Industrialized county other than here, you wouldn't have had to spend 3 years paying off that bill.
Both countries would fit inside of Texas with room to rattle around. If we were talking about a single state enacting a system such as Norway or Sweden you might have an argument. Even at that, when you look at taxation in those countries you quickly realize that free isn't free.
Norway's tax burden is 45% of their GDP in order to cover the cost of "free" healthcare. Their top tax rate is 38%. Sweden has a similarly high tax vs. GDP ratio with a top tax rate of 57%. In comparison the US has a tax to gdp ratio of ~28% and a top nominal tax rate of 37%. Let me know if I have to explain why that "nominal" is important (hint: very few actually pay the top tax rate in our country).
My ancestors are from Norway. Why would I want to change the greatest nation on earth to more closely resemble a place my ancestors didn't even want to live?
Norway is universally considered one of the happiest places to live is why I pointed them out...Norwegians pay high taxes but they don't complain about it...they have clean cities, clean environment (even w/ the North Sea Oil), and a very strong social safety net...yet they still have a very strong economy w/ many great companies.
Why? Are you that ignorant of how the government has been screwing up the healthcare system for the last 100 years? You do realize, do you not, that the entire system of insurance as compensation for employees is a direct result of government interference? And that said system had a lot to do with the increase in medical costs? Open a history book, you can find all sorts of interesting information.
I've forgotten more about history than you'll ever understand. You do know that the "free market" is precisely what we have now, right? Can you name another Western democracy that would trade their healthcare system for ours?
Don't tell me about all of our latest whiz bang technology, cause if it is unaffordable, then it is worthless, because you can't use it. However, if there is an affordable alternative that works as well, I'm pretty sure most people will choose that.
Name one Western democracy that would trade their healthcare system for ours.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,680,307 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
"40% don't have $400" is what all the articles wailed about. why are facts so hard for you?
Why do you have to be such a pedant?
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.
