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.
According to Wikipedia (again as you stated, not the best choice for citation) claimed that only 70% of the health costs are paid by the government, and supplemental insurance is sold, so I guess its not a single payer system. I couldn't find out if its only funded by income tax or via additional taxes added to gasoline, and other Value added taxes. Perhaps some Canadiens in the forum could clarify it for us.
The sad part of this whole thing is that we are looking at completely changing our entire healthcare system and all of its consequences affecting employment and other social "contracts" yet the CD forum is showing more knowledgable debate over it then our government. Where are the figures for tax increases and premium changes? Where is the CBO in this discussion? Show the American people WHY it is a better choice. EXPLAIN it. Don't just sell some more hope and change jive on us. Convince us of the overall benefit the program by using facts and figures,and delineating the pros and cons of the program.
Stop treating us like morons.
Okay, I'll get off my soap box now
Well I agree that there is not much of an intelligent debate going on in congress. If there is the media does not cover it, but the media only covers sound bites. Health care would cover more than thirty second sound bite. They do treat us like morons, but we keep voting these people in to office.
I looked it up. 40% are not paying any federal income tax. More than likely we already paying for 27% of the 40% healthcare through medicare or medicaid. The reality is that all but the lower 27% will have an increase in taxes, but this should be more than off set by no insurance premiums or out of pocket costs.
There are many different types of Universal or National Coverage. The big difference, as I understand it, is National Health Care - fully socialized - everything falls underneath the state...doctors, hospitals etc. This is what they have in the UK. There is also the Single payer system, which functions just like medicare. THen there is system like Canada has which is kind of a hybrid system using multiple payers.
I looked it up. 40% are not paying any federal income tax. More than likely we already paying for 27% of the 40% healthcare through medicare or medicaid. The reality is that all but the lower 27% will have an increase in taxes, but this should be more than off set by no insurance premiums or out of pocket costs.
There are many different types of Universal or National Coverage. The big difference, as I understand it, is National Health Care - fully socialized - everything falls underneath the state...doctors, hospitals etc. This is what they have in the UK. There is also the Single payer system, which functions just like medicare. THen there is system like Canada has which is kind of a hybrid system using multiple payers.
Second question: Right now there is a clear demarcation over what insurance covers versus what medicaid will cover. For example nursing homes. Medicaid covers, no one else does. Will UHC cover nursing homes? If so, expect billions of dollars in more expense as baby boomers age. Add in all the care for developmentally delayed children, autism, etc and I feel even with the quoted huge price tag, we are still woefully underestimating the cost. Or will the govt ration care? How can you add 48 million people to the system while trying to reduce the health budget?
Lots of questions; lots of concerns and an empty silence from our government.
Keep in mind medicaid and medicare are very different. To put it simply medicaid is welfare and medicare is paid for by those who pay FICA taxes. You must qualify for medicare according to the taxpayer, spouse and or guardian's contributions, if I'm not mistaking.
Second question: Right now there is a clear demarcation over what insurance covers versus what medicaid will cover. For example nursing homes. Medicaid covers, no one else does. Will UHC cover nursing homes? If so, expect billions of dollars in more expense as baby boomers age. Add in all the care for developmentally delayed children, autism, etc and I feel even with the quoted huge price tag, we are still woefully underestimating the cost. Or will the govt ration care? How can you add 48 million people to the system while trying to reduce the health budget?
Lots of questions; lots of concerns and an empty silence from our government.
Good questions. I believe you are talking about Medicare though. Medicare is for people over 65. Medicaid subsidizes assistance for low income. You are right about the problem there is going to be a whole lot of people on medicare pretty soon. We better get a handle on it now. No one is addressing it. It is just like the recession...no one will admit it was going to happen until it finally happened.
Keep in mind medicaid and medicare are very different. To put it simply medicaid is welfare and medicare is paid for by those who pay FICA taxes. You must qualify for medicare according to the taxpayer, spouse and or guardian's contributions, if I'm not mistaking.
Medicaid is not just welfare. There are medicaid waiver programs for those who are middle class who have severely handicapped children.
Medicare is also used by non senior adults who are disabled.
Immigrants who never paid into medicare can also get it. NYC has a large population of elderly Russians (among other nationalities not picking on them specifically) in Brooklyn getting hip replacements, home care and other treatments for free. They never paid a dime into it.
The FICA taxes the current elderly paid into the system since 1965 doesn't come close to "paying their bill". The current workers are paying a much higher percentage of their income into FICA than other generations.
Good questions. I believe you are talking about Medicare though. Medicare is for people over 65. Medicaid subsidizes assistance for low income. You are right about the problem there is going to be a whole lot of people on medicare pretty soon. We better get a handle on it now. No one is addressing it. It is just like the recession...no one will admit it was going to happen until it finally happened.
Medicare only pays for the first 100 days in a medically necessary rehabilitation setting. It does NOT pay for nursing home placement. Only medicaid does. So, if we go toa "Medicare" type system, what do we do with all the seniors? Can we afford to place a large percentage of them in nursing homes?
Medicaid is not just welfare. There are medicaid waiver programs for those who are middle class who have severely handicapped children.
Medicare is also used by non senior adults who are disabled.
Immigrants who never paid into medicare can also get it. NYC has a large population of elderly Russians (among other nationalities not picking on them specifically) in Brooklyn getting hip replacements, home care and other treatments for free. They never paid a dime into it.
The FICA taxes the current elderly paid into the system since 1965 doesn't come close to "paying their bill". The current workers are paying a much higher percentage of their income into FICA than other generations.
Medicaid is welfare non the less because it comes from general funds not earned credit through SS. Those who are disabled, under retirement age and use medicare also have had to have paid into SS or have had a spouse or guardian who has. I know because my wife is totally disabled, paid into the system and is in line to receive it. If she didn't she would receive medicaid and SSI. But sinse I'm in the picture she does not qualify for medicaid or SSI, only medicare and SSDI in which she is entitled.
Single Payer is the way to go... Though I read earlier this morning whereas Sen. Kennedy has a draft that he has in circulation where the employer will be forced to provide coverage if not will be fined/penalized. For the poor, health care will be funded/provided with the use of subsidies if I read that article right?
It is already law that an employer with 50 employees or more must provide health insurance choices.
Casper
Do you have any idea as to what COBRA is or what it covers. I left my old job and if I wanted COBRA it would have cost me $800 a month. That is not a viable option.
For my daughter, single, age 25, it would have cost $500/month for COBRA. She found a cheper plan through our financial advisor, but I doubt it covers everything the PPO we have does.
I looked it up. 40% are not paying any federal income tax. More than likely we already paying for 27% of the 40% healthcare through medicare or medicaid. The reality is that all but the lower 27% will have an increase in taxes, but this should be more than off set by no insurance premiums or out of pocket costs.
There are many different types of Universal or National Coverage. The big difference, as I understand it, is National Health Care - fully socialized - everything falls underneath the state...doctors, hospitals etc. This is what they have in the UK. There is also the Single payer system, which functions just like medicare. THen there is system like Canada has which is kind of a hybrid system using multiple payers.
Does this 40% include minor children, or what? I, too, find this hard to believe. I will read the links at some point in time.
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.
