Universal health insurance

[BamaRider]

First I said, speaking of the tax burden of 45% of the average Canadian making 63k a year.

Originally Posted by BamaRider
That is staggering. My tax bill in Alabama is 17% of my income, and my family income is more than 63k. So yeah I paid about 20k less in taxes on more money. And that is why I have more toys, do things, go places, and do more then a Canadian with the same income. Simply a case of numbers.

So Ephel came back with this-

This is misleading. Canadian taxes are higher, but they spend less on medicine than the U.S. does.

What is misleading about it? I gotta post my W2? LOL. It’s a fact. I can assure ya no guy in Alabama that netted 63k income paid anything close to 29k in in taxes.

My BCBS, part of my retirement package costs me about 600 dollars last year. That grants me full access to the system, and gives me the healthcare perks a billionare in Canada can’t get it. Like WI FI and bath in my private hospital room, with no lines or waiting for the most common of operations. And you wonder why so many in the USA are so vehemently oppposed to UHC?

That is a crippling tax burden, one that will not allow most middle class Canadians to ever break into the upper middle class. The govt is outta control up there, people are taxed in every direction they face.

My guess the CDN making 100k a year gets fleeced for over 50%.

Where does all this money go? Certainly not the military, they have been stripped and mostly neglected to the point the country can not defend itself against anyone with formidable means.

I don’t know the numbers, but y’all are paying for health care in ways you don’t even realize.

How about this-

The Harmonized Sales Tax is a combination of goods and services tax and the provincial sales tax. The rate of the goods and services tax is 5% and the provincial sales tax rate is 8%. This means that the total harmonized sales tax collected in the three above mentioned provinces is 13%.

Linky here to the above article

economywatch.com/business-and-
economy/canada.html

A 13% sales tax on almost every single thing you buy in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and New Foundland. Amazing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My guess the CDN making 100k a year gets fleeced for over 50%.

Where does all this money go? Certainly not the military, they have been stripped and mostly neglected to the point the country can not defend itself against anyone with formidable means.

I don’t know the numbers, but y’all are paying for health care in ways you don’t even realize.

Canadians rely on the United States for military protection. Just as they rely on the United States to do all the drug Research and Development.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Canadians rely on the United States for military protection. Just as they rely on the United States to do all the drug Research and Development.

You want/feel compelled to protect the world from itself anyway though, right?

 

[Oscarthecat]

“Many”

Why did you put “many” in quotes?

not sure the point you’re trying to make here, but many was the correct word to explain my point. “Many” communities means that some communities do, and some communities don’t. If the government created a universal fire protection program, “ALL” communities would have to participate.

Who says UHC has to be managed at a federal level? The federal government mandates that insurance must be provided for all people – but the details can be left up to the states, or even the cities.

Oh, so instead of having ONE governmental body in control of my health, you propose that THREE governmental bodies will have control over my health. So I get to deal with three bureaucracies that are duking it out over turf wars and funding, and get to hear my state and local politicians blather on about how other states are competing for federal dollars, or other cities are taking away our state dollars.

Thank you for providing another excellent reason to oppose Universal Health Care.

That’s exactly what the said about the "no child left behind"act-certain details would be left up to the states, or even the cities. But the federal government gets to decide which details are delegated, to whom, and what the possible choices are in making that decision.

Does this imply that the poor don’t get water unless some charitable organization is nice to them?

What are you talking about. What I was implying is that there are people in this country who do not get their water from the government.

How did you translate that into me saying that poor people can’t have water?

Wow.

Failing education is unique to the U.S. Public education works excellently in many European countries.

Well, if it socialized education doesn’t work for us, then why would socialized medicine.
We are not europeans- what works for them, might not work for us. What works for us might not work for them.

Who says that my health care must be forced upon you? If you want free health care, fine; if you want private health care, fine.

Wow, what a relief. I thought you were going to force me to pay for the Universal Health Care Program through taxation.

But you still have to pay for the health care of other peoples.

Hey!!! What???!!?!
You JUST SAID you weren’t going to force universal healthcare on me!!!
How can you completely reverse your position on something in mid paragraph???

Then roughly every one of the Founding Fathers was a socialist.

What??
I need names, quotes, dates, etc for this otherwise I’ll assume you’re making it up.

National defense is a “socialist” business by your standards.

Yes. I agree with you. Except about the “business” part- it isn’t a business, it is a government program.

Therefore, save for anarcho-capitalists, everybody else is a socialist. Meaning that Rothbardians (or other forms of anarcho-capitalists) are the only people not socialists.

To varying degrees, you are correct.

Can you simply quote the posts in mention? There’s 55 pages in this thread and I don’t have the time to go through them all.

No. I won’t restate all of them again for you to pick apart. I have restated my position repeatedly on this forum because people refuse to go back and read the posts.

The unfair taxation from Britain was so they could fund their empires overseas. Not exactly something the Americans enjoyed.

So, is “enjoyment” your criteria for what makes taxation fair?
If that’s the case, then I don’t enjoy being taxed for socialized medicine.

But if I remember correctly, the unfair taxation was considered unfair because of something to do with lack of representation…

There’s nothing unfair about taxing to provide health care for the needy, just like there’s nothing unfair about taxing to provide national defense.

I guess you’d have to provide a definition of “fair” in order to make sense of this claim.

Your previous definition, that fair=enjoyable, would be sufficient enough to dismiss your point.

Your taxes are paying for public education. I guess you better move to Hong Kong or stop earning money, lest you fund something you find morally objectionable.

What are you saying about Hong Kong? You’ve lost me here.

 

[Oscarthecat]

That’s because they cheat, and throw the whole R&D cost back on the US taxpayer.

But generics cost more in Canada than in the US.

no, no, no, Vern

Don’t you understand?

They get their healthcare for FREE!

There is no cost being pushed on the US, because healthcare is free in Canada.

Just like hugs-

 

[vern_humphrey]

no, no, no, Vern

Don’t you understand?

They get their healthcare for FREE!

There is no cost being pushed on the US, because healthcare is free in Canada.

Just like hugs-

I understand that lunch is free in Canada, too.

 

[rtconstant]

So again it would seem that the primary argument against national healthcare boils down to the belief that the US government could not responsibly provide it. I still can’t figure out why that no one just comes out and says it?

Since most arguments seem to come from the idea that we will end up paying exorbitant amounts of money for this service. Yet most countries pay less than the US per individual. So that is really an argument against our government and not against any particular system.

Also some seem to feel that “something” bad will happen if the government has control of healthcare. Like those with money will actually lose benefits. Yet in most national healthcare countries benefits usually increase or stay the same, and insurance costs go down for those that wish to supplement their coverage with other insurance. So again this would seem to be an argument that the US government specifically will not be able to keep standards up.

I guess what perplexes me is that why don’t those opposed to national healthcare just say so? This might actually be a valid point and might get us further. Instead of arbitrarily arguing against most national and international agencies findings.

So far the only solid thing thing that has been kind of brought up is that our current system produces a lot of research. This is true. We do progress in development at a faster rate than most other countries. Other countries do make significant contributions to research but we do lead in this. So research rates might decline depending on how a national health plan was implemented. Of course with that in mind we would also have to look at the fact that research become universally available faster in other countries. Still it is a valid point to look at.

Finally outside of one particular person here everyone seems to have health coverage. So quit with the “you just want to take my money for yourself” arguments. I have a great job and decent insurance I don’t need “your money”. Yet I still support the idea of national healthcare. I just, don’t mind paying some of my money for those who don’t benefit from the same resources I do. If you don’t concur that’s your business but don’t try to act like its everyone else’s greed.

 

[goofyjim]

Do you think the government doesn’t have stipulations?

If it is going to be true charity it should have no strings attached. Meaning if you offer to pay my psychologist bill I should go to the psychologist of my choice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So again it would seem that the primary argument against national healthcare boils down to the belief that the US government could not responsibly provide it. I still can’t figure out why that no one just comes out and says it?
.

Pay attention. It’s been said over and over.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If it is going to be true charity it should have no strings attached. Meaning if you offer to pay my psychologist bill I should go to the psychologist of my choice.

Again, government care has stipulations – as I found out when I tried the VA system – if I want VA treatment, I have to drive a hundred miles to see a doctor. My local doctor doesn’t count.

But most charities either pay bills, or give money. I don’t know of any Catholic charity that requires you to go to a “Christian psychologist” (whatever that is.)

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I apologize for not reading all of the thread. Maybe someone mentioned the points I’m about to bring up.

I worked for a while as a Medicaide (Medi-Cal in California) eligibility worker. My eyes were opened. America presently has a huge tax funded bureacracy working to systematically determine if someone should get government funded health care benefits. Caseloads are heavy and many, many workers are employed doing complicated work in a system that, frankly, is a ridiculous way of going about making sure the poor, elderly, young, and handicaped can pay for medical care. Many poor adults fall through the cracks of the system because they don’t have children. If clients don’t complete forms properly, or if they don’t give proper varification of information, they can be denied after a certain period of time. But then they can reapply. If the client is approved, but failed to appear for a scheduled meeting their benefits can be taken away. But then they can reapply. To me this is just a hugely funded merry-go-round. So - why don’t just do this thing the simple way? I mean there must be something better than this? The only problem is thousands and thousands of eligibility workers would be put out of work.

Another thing the present system of health care for the poor does is put women seeking Medicaide to pay for abortions as top priority. The reason, I was told, is actually to protect the health of mother and baby - if mom wants an abortion she is less likely to get the proper care by putting it off. The irony is, at least in California, the fetus is looked at as a life. A pregnant woman who wants to carry the baby to term is also given top priority. So why are we paying for the fetus, the baby, to be destroyed?

Other people with more pressing health or financial issues should not be put on hold because of abortion. An example of something that happens is an intake worker has a case with an elderly person that she/he is working on that day. Kind of complicated but needs to be taken care of soon. A woman who wants an abortion shows up in the lobby and applies for benefits to be used for an abortion. She is assigned to that worker right away and the worker has to put the case (and 80 others that she is working on) on hold while she works to get the benefits approved to be used for the case of the woman who wants an abortion. I had no idea that went on until I did the work. So I was quite happy when it didn’t work out.

I think our present system is a waste and we need something else.

Part of the reason that this bureaucracy is so big is to comply with regulations written by people with a certain political agenda that intends to prevents people from getting services by making the hurdles so high that they won’t even bother. It’s setting the system up to fail.

Single payer health care won’t have this issue. You go to your doctor, swipe your card, get treatment and the doctor gets paid. Steps two and three may even be interchanged.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Part of the reason that this bureaucracy is so big is to comply with regulations written by people with a certain political agenda that intends to prevents people from getting services by making the hurdles so high that they won’t even bother. It’s setting the system up to fail.

Single payer health care won’t have this issue. You go to your doctor, swipe your card, get treatment and the doctor gets paid. Steps two and three may even be interchanged.

You’re just saying that because you’ve let your mindset be polluted by simplistic, PROTESTANT either/or style thinking.

Your position remineds me of a friend whose daughter’s marriage was virtual hell for the girl. He said he warned her about her finance’s drinking and partying, but she said, “I know that. But that will all change after we’re married.”

“It’ll all change after we’re married to government health care.”

 

[BamaRider]

I guess what perplexes me is that why don’t those opposed to national healthcare just say so? This might actually be a valid point and might get us further. Instead of arbitrarily arguing against most national and international agencies findings.

LOL I dunno how else we can say it!

I’M OPPOSED UHC, I DON’T WANNA LIVE IN A NATION THAT TAXES ME 45% OF MY INCOME. I WANNA KEEP THE MONEY I EARN TO SPEND AS I SEE FIT, IF YOU LEAVE ME ALONE I’LL BUY SOME GOOD INSURANCE THAT WILL GIVE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE WITHOUT ALL THE BAD STUFF.

Folks like me, Vern, Oscarcat don’t have time to be taxed at half our incomes, got stuff to do! LOL

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Let us look at Lasik surgery, and someone with more details came jump in and help. How is it the price of this medical operation is like LCD TVs- steadily declining, when everything else in health care rises? What dynamics are in play, and why can’t it be applied acrosss the system?

LASIK, like LCD TV’s, are elective procedures. One’s life doesn’t hang in the balance whether or not they have LASIK or and LCD TV.

On the other hand, if you’re in a car accident or having a heart attack, you don’t have the luxury of shopping around for the best price. You’re taken to the nearest emergency room/trauma center for immediate treatment.

 

[vern_humphrey]

LASIK, like LCD TV’s, are elective procedures. One’s life doesn’t hang in the balance whether or not they have LASIK or and LCD TV.

On the other hand, if you’re in a car accident or having a heart attack, you don’t have the luxury of shopping around for the best price. You’re taken to the nearest emergency room/trauma center for immediate treatment.

You’re just saying that because you’ve let your thinking be polluted by PROTESTANT either/or thinking.

The vast majority of medical procedures are not emergencies requiring immediate treatment. For example, when my wife had a knee replacement, it was six months from diagnosis to actual surgery. That time was used in consultations and exercises designed to strengthen the muscles prior to surgery. We had plenty of time to shop around for a surgeon.

 

[BamaRider]

On the other hand, if you’re in a car accident or having a heart attack, you don’t have the luxury of shopping around for the best price. You’re taken to the nearest emergency room/trauma center for immediate treatment.

Very true. In that case you gotta have insurance. But the numbers of true emergencies coming through the system is comparatively small.

I have a friend in Nashville, Tennessee. He rode agreesively and had a accident with his wife on the back of his motorcycle in North Tennessee.

Serious injuries, but not life threatening. They were air lifted to Vanderbilt Medical Center, where they were given first class treatment, in the most advanced of trauma centers. Not one dime of insurance. Their injuries included collasped lungs, broken legs and arms, and other internal injuries. Between the 2 of them they were operated on 3 times. Final bill for both was over 100k. Negotiated down to 75k.

Now they are campaigning for UHC. But I know these people personally. They live on 7 acre farm near the Natchez Trace, drive 2 vehichles, and travelled around the country on his motorycle, including Mexico, now before I do all that I’d have me some health insurance. And this is not a isolated case.

There are some Americans who have fallen through cracks, their problems need to be addressed, but the rest just have their pirorities messed up. “But Guy, its not right he has to get rid of his 150 dollar month cell phone, or his 150 dollar a month digital cable just so he can have health insurance.” I said awhile back, clean these people out, and MAKE them make a hard choice like the rest of us.

You know I could dump my BCBS and shift money for fun stuff, but c’mon.

 

[sodak]

So again it would seem that the primary argument against national healthcare boils down to the belief that the US government could not responsibly provide it. I still can’t figure out why that no one just comes out and says it?

That’s not my argument! Where in the Constitution does the Govt. get the right to force it upon me? That’s my primary objection.

If I have a problem with a company, I can change or take them to court, refuse to pay, or whatever. If I have a problem with the govt.(and refuse to pay), I go to jail. That’s called coersion.

Exactly where does the govt. have the right to do this? NOWHERE! Stay out of my healthcare business!!! I’ll eat all the Big Macs that I want to, by the way!!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s not my argument! Where in the Constitution does the Govt. get the right to force it upon me? That’s my primary objection.

If I have a problem with a company, I can change or take them to court, refuse to pay, or whatever. If I have a problem with the govt.(and refuse to pay), I go to jail. That’s called coersion.

Exactly where does the govt. have the right to do this? NOWHERE! Stay out of my healthcare business!!! I’ll eat all the Big Macs that I want to, by the way!!!

The two great problems of liberalism are, first of all, the demand for orthodoxy. It isn’t enough to have the same goals, you must believe there is only one way to achieve them, or be branded a heretic.

The second is the willingness to use government power to force you to go their way, whether you agree or not.

 

[sodak]

Indeed. And this from the “tolerant” ones…

 

[pathia]

Just wanted to let folks know on this thread that I am out of the hospital as of today. I’m pretty roughed up, I don’t know if I’ll be able to work again, but my brain is okay (or as okay as it ever was ) and that’s what counts as far as I’m concerned