Those estimates, reported in the latest Financial Report of the U.S. Government, assume that Medicare payments to doctors will be slashed drastically, by some 41% over the next nine years, as required by current law. It won't happen. Every year for the past five years, Congress has overridden the mandatory cuts. As for future cuts, the Financial Report says drily, "Reductions of this magnitude are not feasible and are very unlikely to occur fully in practice." So in reality, Medicare will go into the hole even faster than official projections reflect. And they show that if Medicare had to be accounted for like a company pension fund, it would be underfunded by $34 trillion.
That makes more sense, but also kinda makes it inapplicable to this debate. Medicare is not currently $30 trillion underfunded in the sense that UHC would cost at least $30 trillion in our annual budget. But this IS a reason why I'm not keen on these piecemeal fixes being discussed now by Obama, and which you're arguing for as well. They're astronomically expensive and do nothing about the real problem. For the fringe beenfits we'll get, it's not worth the cost. I think we can do health care if we commit to doing it comprehensively. But any mini tinkering bill that offers a few perks to kids, a few to old people, a few forms to get it if you're uninsured or underinsured... you're going to have a cripplingly expensive system that is going to leave us with the same cost problems we have now, both for private citizens and our budget.
if earn that same $50k .. which is £30k in the Uk... my tax is 22%
point out to me where i would pay higher taxes? i save 3%...
no arguement here in regards to UHC...but i am curious about your tax comparisons. when you say you pay 22% is that it, period....you pay a flat tax on your income, no deductions? if you earn 50k here.....and if you get taxed at 25%, more than likely, your full 50k is NOT taxed. you get to deduct social security payments, healthcare premiums (and healthcare costs if they are = to or more than 7.5% of your gross income), retirement savings, mortgage interestand property taxes, if you have em, etc. so more than likely, the person earning 50k may only be getting taxed on say35k.
irrelevant to the UHC discussion.....but just sayin' and sure curious...
however, FULLY agree....UHC is a far better system for healthcare.
No. How can you not understand that Dunk understands the indirect costs? And how can you not understand the use of the word free to mean that you don't have to pay for each use of a service, especially since we use it that way for most everything else paid for by our taxes? You're just being argumentative. Actually, come to think of it, you are kind of being an asshole.
heres a solution. stop calling it free. you know why? because its not.
you're just nitpicking on a cultural idiom.
just as education, libraries, parks, cycleways, etc are 'free' then.. please note correct use of then... then our NHS helathcare for UK citizens is also 'free'
no amount of $$$$trillions will bring that dead horse you keep flogging back to life.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Those estimates, reported in the latest Financial Report of the U.S. Government, assume that Medicare payments to doctors will be slashed drastically, by some 41% over the next nine years, as required by current law. It won't happen. Every year for the past five years, Congress has overridden the mandatory cuts. As for future cuts, the Financial Report says drily, "Reductions of this magnitude are not feasible and are very unlikely to occur fully in practice." So in reality, Medicare will go into the hole even faster than official projections reflect. And they show that if Medicare had to be accounted for like a company pension fund, it would be underfunded by $34 trillion.
That makes more sense, but also kinda makes it inapplicable to this debate. Medicare is not currently $30 trillion underfunded in the sense that UHC would cost at least $30 trillion in our annual budget. But this IS a reason why I'm not keen on these piecemeal fixes being discussed now by Obama, and which you're arguing for as well. They're astronomically expensive and do nothing about the real problem. For the fringe beenfits we'll get, it's not worth the cost. I think we can do health care if we commit to doing it comprehensively. But any mini tinkering bill that offers a few perks to kids, a few to old people, a few forms to get it if you're uninsured or underinsured... you're going to have a cripplingly expensive system that is going to leave us with the same cost problems we have now, both for private citizens and our budget.
exactly.
that is the issue.
but i think the reason for it, rightly or wrongly, is to ease into it....most especially for those americans who think like jlew. problem is, these half-assed measures may not work well, probably won;t work nearly as well as if we embraced a whole new system...and then it will simply add more fuel to the arguements of those who believe UHC can 'never work' for us....b/c they'll say look at the BS already tried...it doesn't work! THAT is my greatest fear in these steps, but i also don't see how realisitically, obama - or anyone - could dive directly into UHC.
no arguement here in regards to UHC...but i am curious about your tax comparisons. when you say you pay 22% is that it, period....you pay a flat tax on your income, no deductions? if you earn 50k here.....and if you get taxed at 25%, more than likely, your full 50k is NOT taxed. you get to deduct social security payments, healthcare premiums (and healthcare costs if they are = to or more than 7.5% of your gross income), retirement savings, mortgage interestand property taxes, if you have em, etc. so more than likely, the person earning 50k may only be getting taxed on say35k.
Thanks for reminding me that it's going to blow doing my taxes next year when I actually have all kinds of deductions to consider :(
No. How can you not understand that Dunk understands the indirect costs? And how can you not understand the use of the word free to mean that you don't have to pay for each use of a service, especially since we use it that way for most everything else paid for by our taxes? You're just being argumentative. Actually, come to think of it, you are kind of being an asshole.
heres a solution. stop calling it free. you know why? because its not.
Okay, then stop calling the library free. (Seriously... that would be un-American.) Stop calling the non-toll roads free. Stop calling the public schools free. Stop calling the public parks and trails which don't charge admission free. Stop calling the police and fire department free. Stop calling the free clinics free. Stop calling the public fireworks shows on 4th of July free. Stop calling pell grants free. It's got to be all or nothing or else you're just picking on healthcare.
exactly.
that is the issue.
but i think the reason for it, rightly or wrongly, is to ease into it....most especially for those americans who think like jlew. problem is, these half-assed measures may not work well, probably won;t work nearly as well as if we embraced a whole new system...and then it will simply add more fuel to the arguements of those who believe UHC can 'never work' for us....b/c they'll say look at the BS already tried...it doesn't work! THAT is my greatest fear in these steps, but i also don't see how realisitically, obama - or anyone - could dive directly into UHC.
That's my biggest fear too. Glad I'm not the only one.
if earn that same $50k .. which is £30k in the Uk... my tax is 22%
point out to me where i would pay higher taxes? i save 3%...
no arguement here in regards to UHC...but i am curious about your tax comparisons. when you say you pay 22% is that it, period....you pay a flat tax on your income, no deductions? if you earn 50k here.....and if you get taxed at 25%, more than likely, your full 50k is NOT taxed. you get to deduct social security payments, healthcare premiums (and healthcare costs if they are = to or more than 7.5% of your gross income), retirement savings, mortgage interestand property taxes, if you have em, etc. so more than likely, the person earning 50k may only be getting taxed on say35k.
irrelevant to the UHC discussion.....but just sayin' and sure curious...
however, FULLY agree....UHC is a far better system for healthcare.
the info is in the 2 links i provided.
all i know is, that after various email discussions with a member of my family who lives and works in the US, her level of taxation is within the same percentage as what i currently pay... i'm talking all tax.. what she has in her hand at the end of a month and what i have is almost identical... and we earn the same money.. well not exactly the same, but almost... and yet she will have to find extra $$$ for a good medical cover...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Okay, then stop calling the library free. (Seriously... that would be un-American.) Stop calling the non-toll roads free. Stop calling the public schools free. Stop calling the public parks and trails which don't charge admission free. Stop calling the police and fire department free. Stop calling the free clinics free. Stop calling the public fireworks shows on 4th of July free. Stop calling pell grants free. It's got to be all or nothing or else you're just picking on healthcare.
I dont call those things free. you know why? they aren't.
Okay, then stop calling the library free. (Seriously... that would be un-American.) Stop calling the non-toll roads free. Stop calling the public schools free. Stop calling the public parks and trails which don't charge admission free. Stop calling the police and fire department free. Stop calling the free clinics free. Stop calling the public fireworks shows on 4th of July free. Stop calling pell grants free. It's got to be all or nothing or else you're just picking on healthcare.
I dont call those things free. you know why? they aren't.
Well now you're just full of it. You don't ever refer to a library as a place where you can check out a book for free? You don't ever say, "Hey, let's go check out the free fireworks show for 4th of July"? You don't ever think of a pell grant as having received free money? You don't ever say, "The fire department is now charging $50 every time they have to come out for a false alarm, but it used to be free"?
Okay, then stop calling the library free. (Seriously... that would be un-American.) Stop calling the non-toll roads free. Stop calling the public schools free. Stop calling the public parks and trails which don't charge admission free. Stop calling the police and fire department free. Stop calling the free clinics free. Stop calling the public fireworks shows on 4th of July free. Stop calling pell grants free. It's got to be all or nothing or else you're just picking on healthcare.
I dont call those things free. you know why? they aren't.
but i recall you on another thread saying Youtube was free to use... its not.. you've paid for your broadband.. youtube make their money back on sponsorship, etc...
i am 100% sure that you've called one of the above items on SCB's list free before... 100% sure.. you'd be lying to suggest otherwise..
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
if earn that same $50k .. which is £30k in the Uk... my tax is 22%
point out to me where i would pay higher taxes? i save 3%...
no arguement here in regards to UHC...but i am curious about your tax comparisons. when you say you pay 22% is that it, period....you pay a flat tax on your income, no deductions? if you earn 50k here.....and if you get taxed at 25%, more than likely, your full 50k is NOT taxed. you get to deduct social security payments, healthcare premiums (and healthcare costs if they are = to or more than 7.5% of your gross income), retirement savings, mortgage interestand property taxes, if you have em, etc. so more than likely, the person earning 50k may only be getting taxed on say35k.
irrelevant to the UHC discussion.....but just sayin' and sure curious...
however, FULLY agree....UHC is a far better system for healthcare.
the info is in the 2 links i provided.
all i know is, that after various email discussions with a member of my family who lives and works in the US, her level of taxation is within the same percentage as what i currently pay... i'm talking all tax.. what she has in her hand at the end of a month and what i have is almost identical... and we earn the same money.. well not exactly the same, but almost... and yet she will have to find extra $$$ for a good medical cover...
sorry, i didn't see the links in your post? or was it earlier...? i didn't actully read to catch up with all here, only caught your post that i quoted. and yes, i rarely open links here, tho i will be sure to check it out later. that said, i wasn't even trying to deny your claims...i was merely curious about the tax systems and how your tax works in comparison to ours, didn't realize you already gave those kind of breakdowns or knew how ours worked.
and YES, sadly......our healthcare is so entirely dependent on WHO you work for and what KIND of health coverage THEY offer.....and then you've got to take it from there. beyond that, it is becoming more and more common for employers to cut back their coverage, or their payments, or even offering insurance to all employees.....it gets more and more difficult to do. healthcare is a basic necessity to living, to being a productive member of society, etc....it only makes sense to do everything we can to make sure ALL citizens have access to care, at all points in their lives and i personally do not see how that can be done privately, thus why i am in favor of UHC.
no arguement here in regards to UHC...but i am curious about your tax comparisons. when you say you pay 22% is that it, period....you pay a flat tax on your income, no deductions? if you earn 50k here.....and if you get taxed at 25%, more than likely, your full 50k is NOT taxed. you get to deduct social security payments, healthcare premiums (and healthcare costs if they are = to or more than 7.5% of your gross income), retirement savings, mortgage interestand property taxes, if you have em, etc. so more than likely, the person earning 50k may only be getting taxed on say35k.
Thanks for reminding me that it's going to blow doing my taxes next year when I actually have all kinds of deductions to consider :(
actually, most of them you don't have to even give a thought...unless you own property, etc......most regarding healthcare, retirement, etc....directly taken care of in your paycheck. only outstanding medical costs above premiums, tax-deductible loans, charitable contributions, etc....need to be figured after the fact. and hey, just like there is a need for lawyers...there is a need for accountants. :P you really see the bright side of things always there, eh?
and sadly, in our current healthcare system....a need for huge profits for stockholders.
it only makes sense to do everything we can to make sure ALL citizens have access to care, at all points in their lives and i personally do not see how that can be done privately, thus why i am in favor of UHC.
i totally agree Dream... and i'm not a bleeding heart liberal... far from it... but having grown up in a country that offers the above care for all its citizens... i truly cannot comprehend why the citizens of the US, the worlds richest country, would even consider going against it...
if people want insurance and people want to pay for private care then can still do so...
thats how it works here as well... rich people can still choose to go private...
why wouldnt that be an option in the US...then Jlew can still pay his $$$ for his insurance and others could use the FREE option
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i totally agree Dream... and i'm not a bleeding heart liberal... far from it... but having grown up in a country that offers the above care for all its citizens... i truly cannot comprehend why the citizens of the US, the worlds richest country, would even consider going against it...
because we can't afford it, especially now, and UHC also runs the risk of bringing down the high quality of care we demand.
if people want insurance and people want to pay for private care then can still do so...
thats how it works here as well... rich people can still choose to go private...
why wouldnt that be an option in the US...then Jlew can still pay his $$$ for his insurance and others could use the FREE option
what you are describing is not UHC. I will admit that I don't know the ins and outs of your system. anywho, I'm not against reform or helping those who need care. I'm against a single payer system and having the government with 100% control of the system. you probably didn't watch, but Obama made some very good points last night in his reform bill. much of which I support.
i totally agree Dream... and i'm not a bleeding heart liberal... far from it... but having grown up in a country that offers the above care for all its citizens... i truly cannot comprehend why the citizens of the US, the worlds richest country, would even consider going against it...
because we can't afford it, especially now, and UHC also runs the risk of bringing down the high quality of care we demand.
if people want insurance and people want to pay for private care then can still do so...
thats how it works here as well... rich people can still choose to go private...
why wouldnt that be an option in the US...then Jlew can still pay his $$$ for his insurance and others could use the FREE option
what you are describing is not UHC. I will admit that I don't know the ins and outs of your system. anywho, I'm not against reform or helping those who need care. I'm against a single payer system and having the government with 100% control of the system. you probably didn't watch, but Obama made some very good points last night in his reform bill. much of which I support.
It sounds to me, Jlew, like perhaps you're not actually against UHC - which just means healthcare coverage for everyone - but just against the single-payer version of it.
it only makes sense to do everything we can to make sure ALL citizens have access to care, at all points in their lives and i personally do not see how that can be done privately, thus why i am in favor of UHC.
i totally agree Dream... and i'm not a bleeding heart liberal... far from it... but having grown up in a country that offers the above care for all its citizens... i truly cannot comprehend why the citizens of the US, the worlds richest country, would even consider going against it...
if people want insurance and people want to pay for private care then can still do so...
thats how it works here as well... rich people can still choose to go private...
why wouldnt that be an option in the US...then Jlew can still pay his $$$ for his insurance and others could use the FREE option
agreed.
i honestly could not fathom why either.....but if nothing eles, while i still cannot understand the mentality of it, jlew and others here have shown me a lot of their reasons. evidently some simply do not want to be FORCED to pay for healthcare if they don't want to, don't want to pay higher taxes to cover it (even if their out-of-pocket costs may remain unchanged) many think quality of care will diminish (while obviously there are many models to show otherwise) and some simply think the government can't do it properly (possible...but it can't be worse than wht we got going on now).....it seems many think UHC totally tkes away their freedom of 'choice'....and no matter how much you try and illustrate there really is lacking choice right NOW, it just doesn't get thru. this whole provide for yourself, be independent, etc....is so ingrained in american mentality...that i think there are some (tho i am hoping not the majority) who believe any infringement on that, or expectation to provide for the greater good of the community....is wrong......and also part of how they see us being 'better'.......it's very skewed logic for me, but at least gives some 'explanation' to the whys of it. i still so disagree with it....but at least i have some idea wtf they are thinking........
and yea, i still love living where i do....can't imagine wanting to live anywhere else - long term anyway - but you BET......doesn't mean i don't think we could do a whole lot BETTER, most especially for healthcare.
and i am sooooo tired of hearing/reading 'we can't afford it'.....b/c it's been discussed so many times, it could be done...but again, everyone has different sources and biases, so it always comes down to that impasse......
what you are describing is not UHC. I will admit that I don't know the ins and outs of your system. anywho, I'm not against reform or helping those who need care. I'm against a single payer system and having the government with 100% control of the system. you probably didn't watch, but Obama made some very good points last night in his reform bill. much of which I support.
It sounds to me, Jlew, like perhaps you're not actually against UHC - which just means healthcare coverage for everyone - but just against the single-payer version of it.
exactly.
that is ALL it means....universal healthcare coverage.
and within that system of universal coverage, a private system can still exist within it, as an option if one so desires. still pay towards UHC...but choose to utlize private doctors/insurance.
again, it is very much like public education. we ALL support/pay for it through our proerty taxes, and yet, private schools still exist, and if you want to send your kids to private school, you spend the extra $$$ to do so, outside of the taxbase.
private options absolutely can and do exist within UHC.
It sounds to me, Jlew, like perhaps you're not actually against UHC - which just means healthcare coverage for everyone - but just against the single-payer version of it.
thats correct. when people throw out the them UHC, its usually referred to as a single payer system. a system with no insurance industry. a system where the government has all or most of the control. thats what I'm strongly against.
It sounds to me, Jlew, like perhaps you're not actually against UHC - which just means healthcare coverage for everyone - but just against the single-payer version of it.
thats correct. when people throw out the them UHC, its usually referred to as a single payer system. a system with no insurance industry. a system where the government has all or most of the control. thats what I'm strongly against.
Well let's start here with using the correct terms then, shall we?
It sounds to me, Jlew, like perhaps you're not actually against UHC - which just means healthcare coverage for everyone - but just against the single-payer version of it.
a system with no insurance industry. a system where the government has all or most of the control.
These are not the inevitable requirements a single payer system.
It sounds to me, Jlew, like perhaps you're not actually against UHC - which just means healthcare coverage for everyone - but just against the single-payer version of it.
a system with no insurance industry. a system where the government has all or most of the control.
These are not the inevitable requirements a single payer system.
yes it is. single payer goes to a single entity...the government.
a system with no insurance industry. a system where the government has all or most of the control.
These are not the inevitable requirements a single payer system.
yes it is. single payer goes to a single entity...the government.
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
a system with no insurance industry. a system where the government has all or most of the control.
These are not the inevitable requirements a single payer system.
yes it is. single payer goes to a single entity...the government.
private insurance can and does still exist in a single payer system, such as the UHC in the UK, finland, 2 examples.
again, it is the public/private school scenario. just b/c we all pay in to support public schools thru our taxes, private schools still exist and are privately funded. tis the same within single payer UHC. the scenrio dunkman mentioned earlier tht you said is not UHC. it IS. there are no laws prohibiting private insurance in these UHC countries...and private insurance does still exist in all these countries...for those who opt for the choice.
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
it does if you forced me to go to Best buy by closing circuit city.
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
nice analogy!
seriously...so many seem concerned about 'lack of choice'.....with UHC...opens up far more choice, as you don't have anyone dictating what doctor or hospital you can go and see, you make the options for yourself. footing the bill is not entirely control. good point!
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
it does if you forced me to go to Best buy by closing circuit city.
And nothing about single payer necessarily dictates this. You don't tell doctors they can't practice under a single payer system. However, the private insurance approach DOES dictate this.
And nothing about single payer necessarily dictates this. You don't tell doctors they can't practice under a single payer system. However, the private insurance approach DOES dictate this.
it certainly might. the government would be paying the bills. they can dictate whatever they want.
good lord. you have a yesman following practically every one of your posts :roll:
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
it does if you forced me to go to Best buy by closing circuit city.
And nothing about single payer necessarily dictates this. You don't tell doctors they can't practice under a single payer system. However, the private insurance approach DOES dictate this.
exactly.
doctors can get paid by the single payer system....and/or get paid thorugh private funding, whether a private insurance company or simply straight out of pocket. private coverage will always exist, even in a public health scenario.
And nothing about single payer necessarily dictates this. You don't tell doctors they can't practice under a single payer system. However, the private insurance approach DOES dictate this.
it certainly might. the government would be paying the bills. they can dictate whatever they want.
good lord. you have a yesman following practically every one of your posts :roll:
The power of logic and persuasion I note the keyword in your response is MIGHT. Sure it might. Congress might pass a law tomorrow saying airplanes no longer need wings that might cause a lot of crashes. The fact that it might happen is not an argument against the system itself, it's an argument to make sure that the system is aware of and addresses that problem if it decides to adopt this approach.
Comments
That makes more sense, but also kinda makes it inapplicable to this debate. Medicare is not currently $30 trillion underfunded in the sense that UHC would cost at least $30 trillion in our annual budget. But this IS a reason why I'm not keen on these piecemeal fixes being discussed now by Obama, and which you're arguing for as well. They're astronomically expensive and do nothing about the real problem. For the fringe beenfits we'll get, it's not worth the cost. I think we can do health care if we commit to doing it comprehensively. But any mini tinkering bill that offers a few perks to kids, a few to old people, a few forms to get it if you're uninsured or underinsured... you're going to have a cripplingly expensive system that is going to leave us with the same cost problems we have now, both for private citizens and our budget.
no arguement here in regards to UHC...but i am curious about your tax comparisons. when you say you pay 22% is that it, period....you pay a flat tax on your income, no deductions? if you earn 50k here.....and if you get taxed at 25%, more than likely, your full 50k is NOT taxed. you get to deduct social security payments, healthcare premiums (and healthcare costs if they are = to or more than 7.5% of your gross income), retirement savings, mortgage interestand property taxes, if you have em, etc. so more than likely, the person earning 50k may only be getting taxed on say35k.
irrelevant to the UHC discussion.....but just sayin' and sure curious...
however, FULLY agree....UHC is a far better system for healthcare.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
you're just nitpicking on a cultural idiom.
just as education, libraries, parks, cycleways, etc are 'free' then.. please note correct use of then... then our NHS helathcare for UK citizens is also 'free'
no amount of $$$$trillions will bring that dead horse you keep flogging back to life.
exactly.
that is the issue.
but i think the reason for it, rightly or wrongly, is to ease into it....most especially for those americans who think like jlew. problem is, these half-assed measures may not work well, probably won;t work nearly as well as if we embraced a whole new system...and then it will simply add more fuel to the arguements of those who believe UHC can 'never work' for us....b/c they'll say look at the BS already tried...it doesn't work! THAT is my greatest fear in these steps, but i also don't see how realisitically, obama - or anyone - could dive directly into UHC.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Thanks for reminding me that it's going to blow doing my taxes next year when I actually have all kinds of deductions to consider :(
Okay, then stop calling the library free. (Seriously... that would be un-American.) Stop calling the non-toll roads free. Stop calling the public schools free. Stop calling the public parks and trails which don't charge admission free. Stop calling the police and fire department free. Stop calling the free clinics free. Stop calling the public fireworks shows on 4th of July free. Stop calling pell grants free. It's got to be all or nothing or else you're just picking on healthcare.
That's my biggest fear too. Glad I'm not the only one.
the info is in the 2 links i provided.
all i know is, that after various email discussions with a member of my family who lives and works in the US, her level of taxation is within the same percentage as what i currently pay... i'm talking all tax.. what she has in her hand at the end of a month and what i have is almost identical... and we earn the same money.. well not exactly the same, but almost... and yet she will have to find extra $$$ for a good medical cover...
I dont call those things free. you know why? they aren't.
Well now you're just full of it. You don't ever refer to a library as a place where you can check out a book for free? You don't ever say, "Hey, let's go check out the free fireworks show for 4th of July"? You don't ever think of a pell grant as having received free money? You don't ever say, "The fire department is now charging $50 every time they have to come out for a false alarm, but it used to be free"?
but i recall you on another thread saying Youtube was free to use... its not.. you've paid for your broadband.. youtube make their money back on sponsorship, etc...
i am 100% sure that you've called one of the above items on SCB's list free before... 100% sure.. you'd be lying to suggest otherwise..
sorry, i didn't see the links in your post? or was it earlier...? i didn't actully read to catch up with all here, only caught your post that i quoted. and yes, i rarely open links here, tho i will be sure to check it out later. that said, i wasn't even trying to deny your claims...i was merely curious about the tax systems and how your tax works in comparison to ours, didn't realize you already gave those kind of breakdowns or knew how ours worked.
and YES, sadly......our healthcare is so entirely dependent on WHO you work for and what KIND of health coverage THEY offer.....and then you've got to take it from there. beyond that, it is becoming more and more common for employers to cut back their coverage, or their payments, or even offering insurance to all employees.....it gets more and more difficult to do. healthcare is a basic necessity to living, to being a productive member of society, etc....it only makes sense to do everything we can to make sure ALL citizens have access to care, at all points in their lives and i personally do not see how that can be done privately, thus why i am in favor of UHC.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
actually, most of them you don't have to even give a thought...unless you own property, etc......most regarding healthcare, retirement, etc....directly taken care of in your paycheck. only outstanding medical costs above premiums, tax-deductible loans, charitable contributions, etc....need to be figured after the fact. and hey, just like there is a need for lawyers...there is a need for accountants. :P you really see the bright side of things always there, eh?
and sadly, in our current healthcare system....a need for huge profits for stockholders.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i totally agree Dream... and i'm not a bleeding heart liberal... far from it... but having grown up in a country that offers the above care for all its citizens... i truly cannot comprehend why the citizens of the US, the worlds richest country, would even consider going against it...
if people want insurance and people want to pay for private care then can still do so...
thats how it works here as well... rich people can still choose to go private...
why wouldnt that be an option in the US...then Jlew can still pay his $$$ for his insurance and others could use the FREE option
because we can't afford it, especially now, and UHC also runs the risk of bringing down the high quality of care we demand.
what you are describing is not UHC. I will admit that I don't know the ins and outs of your system. anywho, I'm not against reform or helping those who need care. I'm against a single payer system and having the government with 100% control of the system. you probably didn't watch, but Obama made some very good points last night in his reform bill. much of which I support.
It sounds to me, Jlew, like perhaps you're not actually against UHC - which just means healthcare coverage for everyone - but just against the single-payer version of it.
agreed.
i honestly could not fathom why either.....but if nothing eles, while i still cannot understand the mentality of it, jlew and others here have shown me a lot of their reasons. evidently some simply do not want to be FORCED to pay for healthcare if they don't want to, don't want to pay higher taxes to cover it (even if their out-of-pocket costs may remain unchanged) many think quality of care will diminish (while obviously there are many models to show otherwise) and some simply think the government can't do it properly (possible...but it can't be worse than wht we got going on now).....it seems many think UHC totally tkes away their freedom of 'choice'....and no matter how much you try and illustrate there really is lacking choice right NOW, it just doesn't get thru. this whole provide for yourself, be independent, etc....is so ingrained in american mentality...that i think there are some (tho i am hoping not the majority) who believe any infringement on that, or expectation to provide for the greater good of the community....is wrong......and also part of how they see us being 'better'.......it's very skewed logic for me, but at least gives some 'explanation' to the whys of it. i still so disagree with it....but at least i have some idea wtf they are thinking........
and yea, i still love living where i do....can't imagine wanting to live anywhere else - long term anyway - but you BET......doesn't mean i don't think we could do a whole lot BETTER, most especially for healthcare.
and i am sooooo tired of hearing/reading 'we can't afford it'.....b/c it's been discussed so many times, it could be done...but again, everyone has different sources and biases, so it always comes down to that impasse......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
exactly.
that is ALL it means....universal healthcare coverage.
and within that system of universal coverage, a private system can still exist within it, as an option if one so desires. still pay towards UHC...but choose to utlize private doctors/insurance.
again, it is very much like public education. we ALL support/pay for it through our proerty taxes, and yet, private schools still exist, and if you want to send your kids to private school, you spend the extra $$$ to do so, outside of the taxbase.
private options absolutely can and do exist within UHC.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
thats correct. when people throw out the them UHC, its usually referred to as a single payer system. a system with no insurance industry. a system where the government has all or most of the control. thats what I'm strongly against.
Well let's start here with using the correct terms then, shall we?
These are not the inevitable requirements a single payer system.
yes it is. single payer goes to a single entity...the government.
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
private insurance can and does still exist in a single payer system, such as the UHC in the UK, finland, 2 examples.
again, it is the public/private school scenario. just b/c we all pay in to support public schools thru our taxes, private schools still exist and are privately funded. tis the same within single payer UHC. the scenrio dunkman mentioned earlier tht you said is not UHC. it IS. there are no laws prohibiting private insurance in these UHC countries...and private insurance does still exist in all these countries...for those who opt for the choice.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
it does if you forced me to go to Best buy by closing circuit city.
nice analogy!
seriously...so many seem concerned about 'lack of choice'.....with UHC...opens up far more choice, as you don't have anyone dictating what doctor or hospital you can go and see, you make the options for yourself. footing the bill is not entirely control. good point!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
And nothing about single payer necessarily dictates this. You don't tell doctors they can't practice under a single payer system. However, the private insurance approach DOES dictate this.
it certainly might. the government would be paying the bills. they can dictate whatever they want.
good lord. you have a yesman following practically every one of your posts :roll:
exactly.
doctors can get paid by the single payer system....and/or get paid thorugh private funding, whether a private insurance company or simply straight out of pocket. private coverage will always exist, even in a public health scenario.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The power of logic and persuasion