R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
What about those who cannot afford their own care?
- Status
P
Peeps
Guest
Of course there is no profit motive–because there is no need for financial accountability! If more money is needed, the government simply raises taxes! Voila-financial shortfall fixed!
And even though “the wealthy” end up with a higher tax (except for the fabulously wealthy multimillionaires because they are able to “shelter” their monies in overseas accounts, while the people making $150,000-200,000 don’t have the money to do this and end up paying through the nose), it’s the rest of us with the five-figure incomes (99,000 or under) who end up hurt in our daily lives by the increased tax burden. Even an extra thousand dollars of taxes means that my husband and I have to make some kind of “cut” in our budget, and it probably will be something that makes our lives more enjoyable and less of a drudgery. We’ve already cut daily expenses to the point where people say that we are living “modest” lives.
Some people think, “Oh, who cares that people with big incomes have to cut their budgets–they can just take one less trip to Monaco.” Well, that may be what gets cut, but in all likelihood, it will be the charitable giving that will get “cut.” In our city, many of the beautiful parks, museums, schools, and of course, the charities like children’s clubs, domestic violence shelters, the Rescue Mission, etc. are supported in large part by those people with six-figure incomes, who enjoy using their financial blessings to help their community. But when taxes eat into these incomes, these people, who really aren’t all that wealthy, end up cutting expenses, and to a local charity, when a five-thousand dollar donation becomes a four-thousand dollar donation, then the CHARITY has to cut its budget.
So please no more government programs! All levels of government in the U.S. need to go on a cash diet now!
Please keep in mind that I live in Illinois, a state that is on the brink of bankruptcy in spite of some of the highest taxes in the nation. The latest prediction for total state bankruptcy is 2028. Sigh.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I don’t think you get it. Let’s look at some numbers: The AVERAGE employee in the US costs his employer $17,000+ a year in health care costs. The AVERAGE employee also pays $5,000+ of his/her own money. So that’s over $22,000 a year for health care. Let’s take a look at per capita spending on healthcare (2017): the US–$10,224. The next highest is expensive Switzerland at $8,009, then Germany at $5,728–a bit more than HALF of what the US spends. Canada? $4,826 with their single-payer system.
So the money is being spent. And what are you getting for this? Better outcomes? Higher life expectancy? No. The opposite. The US has one of the lowest life expectancies in the developed world ( How does U.S. life expectancy compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker) and the gap between the US and the rest of the developed world is getting wider, not narrower. In other words, the other countries (all with single payer systems…) are not only doing better than the US, they are improving FASTER than the US. Is the gap insignificant? The US life expectancy is 78.6; Japan is 84.1–5 1/2 years more.
And if you want to break it down and take a look at the mortality rates from specific diseases and accidents, go to http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CPOP/DBASSE_080393#deaths-from-all-causes and see where the US ranks compared to 16 other developed countries. It’s near or at the bottom in virtually every category and disease.
So. The US is spending more than twice as much per capita and getting MUCH worse outcomes for the money. All the other countries have single-payer systems. Sound like a good deal to you? If so, keep the present system. If your neighbor bought a new BMW for $20,000, would you be happy to buy a used Chevy for $40,000? You must be, because that’s what’s happening with health care in the US.
B
buffalo
Guest
According to our founding government has no business what-so-ever in our healthcare. Subsidiarity works best for a republic.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I’m an elementary school physical education teacher. My answer is easy . . . more physical activity and quality physical education in schools.
ZP
ZP
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
What about the problem with localism leaving behind poor communities and those living in them?
B
buffalo
Guest
The local community provides as it is able. That is the point.
Poor does not mean bad by the way. There are many people we would consider poor to have quite a joyful way of living. It is also relative. Compare our “poor” to the rest of the world.
Government promotes dependency and expectations. charity begets gratitude.
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
That’s why point, what if the community has a poor tax base and disproportionate issues like poverty and crime which makes it all the more challenging to address and tackle their own issues? Wouldn’t that warrant higher-level intervention and support?
B
buffalo
Guest
Subsidiarity should be exhausted before going any higher.
Remember, the federal government has very specific enumerated powers. We have grown a monster.
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
but what about people living in communities that lack capacity to address their issues?
N
niceatheist
Guest
Um, my ex-wife’s life was saved by this government run healthcare you speak of. Diagnosed with thyroid cancer in April, surgery by July (after an exploratory surery around the beginning of June).Erikaspirit16:
proving my point again that Govt Run healthcare can’t work. The patient is an afterthought. The Govt will take action…against itself and if it feels like it. We already have VA to know how that worked. Would be akin to relying on a private medical practice today taking action against one of its doctors.
Are you aware that overall public systems in the developed world have better outcomes than the US system? For the rich, the US system is great. For everyone else, it tends below public systems.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
There are a lot of people in the world who would be surprised to find that it “doesn’t work” that they get health care in the circumstances in which they live in their home country, but would not get it if they lived in the United States.
Our current President made the campaign promise that “We’re going to have insurance for everybody" . Instead, there are 7 million fewer Americans with coverage than when he was elected.
P
PetraG
Guest
OK. So you’re saying that if, say, a military contractor does 100% of its business with the US government, that makes the contractor a government employee and the company a government-owned concern?
That’s a surprise!
By the way, it is highly unlikely that the government will forbid medical providers from providing health care not covered by the government on a private basis, just as it is now possible to get health care that is not paid for by any private insurance providers. I’d like to see evidence that it is otherwise.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Never mentioned military contractors
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Again all false
All those stats are PRIVATE SPENDING. Of course US has more PRIVATE spending since many of countries don’t offer PRIVATE insurance.
Your link says PUBLIC spending in US is about same as other countries
And quality healthcare is falsely linked to life expectancy when countless others non-healthcare factors affect life expectancy (genetics of population, lifestyle of population, etc)
All those stats are PRIVATE SPENDING. Of course US has more PRIVATE spending since many of countries don’t offer PRIVATE insurance.
Your link says PUBLIC spending in US is about same as other countries
And quality healthcare is falsely linked to life expectancy when countless others non-healthcare factors affect life expectancy (genetics of population, lifestyle of population, etc)
P
PetraG
Guest
You said “If doctors and hospitals are only paid by govt $$, they’re effectively govt employees and govt owned.”
That logic implies that military contractors (as an example) who are only paid by government dollars are already effectively government employees and government owned.
Where is the difference? Hospitals will still be billing non-citizen patients, after all. If not all private enterprises who have the government as their major or only client aren’t government-owned, why would hospitals or doctors and their employees be government-owned?
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Let’s try stay on topic
P
PetraG
Guest
The topic is your premise. There is no reason it ought to be accepted without examination.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Topic is in first post. You can scroll up to see. Are you new to CAF? Sorry not sur
Ok I see you want to derail the thread and violate forum rules. No thx
Ok I see you want to derail the thread and violate forum rules. No thx
Lots of ways to examine it without derailing thread (if you can)
I expect readers to question it within the topic. Don’t expect readers to question it in violation of forum rules, as that’s a low hanging fruitPetraG said:
Last edited:
- Status