So, a patient just called me...

1…5681011…13

Comments

  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    edited July 2009
    jlew24asu wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    The way you keep making up numbers like health care would be more expensive than every war the US has ever fought combined? I mean, I know we've got a big population, but we spend more on defense than every other country in the world combined... that's a little histrionic.

    I'm all for a huge cut in military spending. I'd like a 25% cut. healthcare is still more expensive then our military spending.

    Is there any source for that? Because in all the debating about the health care system, both here, on tv, in the newspaper, anywhere I've looked or seen or read anything, you are the ONLY person I've heard make this claim that it would be more expensive than our military spending and all our wars combined. I've heard a lot of inflated talk about astronomical costs, but nobody seems to think it'd be as expensive as you do, including Hannity and Limbaugh.

    *edit* saw the link you posted... I assume you're operating under the assumption that UHC would cost more than social security and medicare combined? Since I've been arguing that you could do away with both programs and combine it all under a health care moniker, I stand partially corrected. It would be more than our military budget, which is a good thing. But I still don't see how it is more expensive than every war we've ever fought combined? I also am curious where the $30 trillion underfunded comes from... as it looks like it gets $600 billion right now... you're talking about it's annual budget being 2% of what we spend on it annually? Our national debt isn't even $30 trillion.
    Post edited by soulsinging on
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    dunkman wrote:

    just as you've been brainwashed to think the US of A is the greatest country in the world. when in fact its not.

    :roll: great comeback. I hope you learned today that your healthcare is far from free.

    i hope you learned that it's impossible for me to learn any more stuff about stuff i already know about. ;)
    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.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    dunkman wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    dunkman wrote:

    no.. its regarded as FREE here.. its not ignorance... its merely a colloquialism.. just like people saying "i can cycle around on these designated cycle paths for free, its great!" - its not actually free as the Local Authority (using our taxes) maintains and keeps those cycle paths available for use... but to the user at the time its free. we get FREE education here in Scotland... its not really free... but its called that... just as we can get free condoms at the Sex Clinics... but someone paid for them.. but to the horny 16 year old not wanting either a disease or a baby... they are free.

    but its not FREE. its misleading and ignorant. doctors, nurses, equipment, hospitals, are get paid. its comes directly out of your pocket.

    it's misleading if you are ignorant... ;)

    we all know its paid for INdirectly from our pockets... not directly.. but the colloquial term of 'free' still stands... just as FREE education until the age of 16 is still a valid statement... its FREE... clearly this must be a cultural thing as all UK'ers and euros will say as such..

    It's not a cultural thing. We in the U.S. all refer to our libraries, school, roads, etc. as free (except for the ones where you have to pay to use them). Excellent comparison, by the way.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    edited July 2009
    soulsinging wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    The way you keep making up numbers like health care would be more expensive than every war the US has ever fought combined? I mean, I know we've got a big population, but we spend more on defense than every other country in the world combined... that's a little histrionic.

    I'm all for a huge cut in military spending. I'd like a 25% cut. healthcare is still more expensive then our military spending.

    Is there any source for that? Because in all the debating about the health care system, both here, on tv, in the newspaper, anywhere I've looked or seen or read anything, you are the ONLY person I've heard make this claim that it would be more expensive than our military spending and all our wars combined. I've heard a lot of inflated talk about astronomical costs, but nobody seems to think it'd be as expensive as you do, including Hannity and Limbaugh.

    *edit* saw the link you posted... I assume you're operating under the assumption that UHC would cost more than social security and medicare combined? Since I've been arguing that you could do away with both programs and combine it all under a health care moniker, I stand partially corrected. It would be more than our military budget, which is a good thing. But I still don't see how it is more expensive than every war we've ever fought combined? I also am curious where the $30 trillion underfunded comes from... as it looks like it gets $600 billion right now... you're talking about it's annual budget being 2% of what we spend on it annually? Our national debt isn't even $30 trillion.

    I don't think looking at the cost of healthcare under the current, flawed system is valid anyway. We spend WAY more per capita than other countries do (without receiving the same benefits), and part of the point is that we don't need to.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    scb wrote:
    It's not a cultural thing. We in the U.S. all refer to our libraries, school, roads, etc. as free (except for the ones where you have to pay to use them). Excellent comparison, by the way.

    i really can't believe someone would argue this ... :?
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    polaris_x wrote:
    scb wrote:
    It's not a cultural thing. We in the U.S. all refer to our libraries, school, roads, etc. as free (except for the ones where you have to pay to use them). Excellent comparison, by the way.

    i really can't believe someone would argue this ... :?

    You don't believe someone would argue against which side of this? :?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    soulsinging wrote:

    Is there any source for that? Because in all the debating about the health care system, both here, on tv, in the newspaper, anywhere I've looked or seen or read anything, you are the ONLY person I've heard make this claim that it would be more expensive than our military spending and all our wars combined. I've heard a lot of inflated talk about astronomical costs, but nobody seems to think it'd be as expensive as you do, including Hannity and Limbaugh.

    you listen to Hannity and Limbaugh? ;)

    my "all wars combined" comment was an exaggeration. WWII cost like a quadrillion dollar didnt it? all I'm saying is UHC would cost more then our military budget and the Iraq/Afgan wars. and of course any source I give you is going to be an estimate because we've never had UHC
    soulsinging wrote:
    *edit* saw the link you posted... I assume you're operating under the assumption that UHC would cost more than social security and medicare combined? Since I've been arguing that you could do away with both programs and combine it all under a health care moniker, I stand partially corrected. It would be more than our military budget, which is a good thing. But I still don't see how it is more expensive than every war we've ever fought combined? I also am curious where the $30 trillion underfunded comes from... as it looks like it gets $600 billion right now... you're talking about it's annual budget being 2% of what we spend on it annually? Our national debt isn't even $30 trillion.

    the $30 trillion is an estimate looking forward.

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/03/news/ec ... /index.htm

    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris_x wrote:
    scb wrote:
    It's not a cultural thing. We in the U.S. all refer to our libraries, school, roads, etc. as free (except for the ones where you have to pay to use them). Excellent comparison, by the way.

    i really can't believe someone would argue this ... :?


    yea, what an asshole I am right? how can I possibly argue against calling something free that in reality, isnt free at all.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    jlew24asu wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    scb wrote:
    It's not a cultural thing. We in the U.S. all refer to our libraries, school, roads, etc. as free (except for the ones where you have to pay to use them). Excellent comparison, by the way.

    i really can't believe someone would argue this ... :?


    yea, what an asshole I am right? how can I possibly argue against calling something free that in reality, isnt free at all.

    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    scb wrote:

    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the $30 trillion is an estimate looking forward.

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/03/news/ec ... /index.htm

    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.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    dunkman wrote:
    eh?

    if i earn $50k in America my tax is 25%

    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.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    scb wrote:

    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.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    soulsinging wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the $30 trillion is an estimate looking forward.

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/03/news/ec ... /index.htm

    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.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    decides2dream wrote:
    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 :(
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    jlew24asu wrote:
    scb wrote:

    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.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    decides2dream wrote:
    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. :)
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    decides2dream wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    eh?

    if i earn $50k in America my tax is 25%

    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    scb wrote:

    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.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    jlew24asu wrote:
    scb wrote:

    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"?

Categories