90% of Americans have health insurance....

Gern Blansten

lukin2006 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Single payer doesn't mean you won't have choices...it means there aren't multiple insurance agencies to deal with....just one

I'll have to disagree here. The only way you can have single payer or as I prefer to call it universal health care is likely through the government ... If you for 1 minute think health care in Canada is better, im telling it's not...and these choices are limited, very limited ...

Saying that I'll take my chances with my universal health care ... But I know just across the river in Detroit they get much better health care if you can afford.

Now maybe countries in Europe are doing better than Canada ... But when the government is control you pretty much except the service their willing to provide..

And everyone should have universal health care and should be the most expensive budgetary item for the government ... Top priority.

Universal care is likely no payer....like the VA, all government employed health care

Single payer would be Medicare for all. You pick your doctor and medicare reimburses them.

Gern Blansten

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Single payer doesn't mean you won't have choices...it means there aren't multiple insurance agencies to deal with....just one

I'll have to disagree here. The only way you can have single payer or as I prefer to call it universal health care is likely through the government ... If you for 1 minute think health care in Canada is better, im telling it's not...and these choices are limited, very limited ...

Saying that I'll take my chances with my universal health care ... But I know just across the river in Detroit they get much better health care if you can afford.

Now maybe countries in Europe are doing better than Canada ... But when the government is control you pretty much except the service their willing to provide..

And everyone should have universal health care and should be the most expensive budgetary item for the government ... Top priority.

Again, there is private healthcare in Canada, so the choices aren't limited at all .... if you have money.

Which is similar to any country that I know of that has universal care. France also has private providers if you are willing to pay for it.

what dreams

Curious about Canada: what percentage of your income is taxed?

I ask because I hear rumors that Bernie's utopian plan would require a 90% tax rate (not confirmed with my own research, though). If true, that would leave me with exactly $7,700 a year to pay for my housing, food, gas, clothes, Pearl Jam tickets, and whatever else I'd like to enjoy in life.

I listened to Bill Maher and Michael Moore last week talking about how with these gloriously proposed higher taxes, we'd get so much more, and then they named a bunch of crap I don't need: free child care (no children), free college (already degreed), paid leave (already have it), and health care, of course the subject of this thread. I'm sure there is even more that the big government liberal types think I need that I'm not aware of myself.

So I know you apparently get more free stuff in Canada, but at what cost to you personally? And how much does that leave you to enjoy your own pursuits that the govt doesn't prescribe for you?

I have an idea for American left radicals: if you're really jonesing to pay higher taxes, go ahead and volunteer. Nobody is stopping you from giving Uncle Sam more than he's currently asking. Donate all you want to the US Treasury to get that last 10% insured. The govt can publish a registry of the uninsured, and bleeding hearts can sponsor their health plans. We can do commercials like they do with the ASPCA or starving kids. "For just $33 a month, you can insure someone else who can't find $33 a month."

But please stay out of my wallet -- please -- because "I don't need what you have to give."

Gern Blansten

what dreams said:

Curious about Canada: what percentage of your income is taxed?

I ask because I hear rumors that Bernie's utopian plan would require a 90% tax rate (not confirmed with my own research, though). If true, that would leave me with exactly $7,700 a year to pay for my housing, food, gas, clothes, Pearl Jam tickets, and whatever else I'd like to enjoy in life.

I listened to Bill Maher and Michael Moore last week talking about how with these gloriously proposed higher taxes, we'd get so much more, and then they named a bunch of crap I don't need: free child care (no children), free college (already degreed), paid leave (already have it), and health care, of course the subject of this thread. I'm sure there is even more that the big government liberal types think I need that I'm not aware of myself.

So I know you apparently get more free stuff in Canada, but at what cost to you personally? And how much does that leave you to enjoy your own pursuits that the govt doesn't prescribe for you?

I have an idea for American left radicals: if you're really jonesing to pay higher taxes, go ahead and volunteer. Nobody is stopping you from giving Uncle Sam more than he's currently asking. Donate all you want to the US Treasury to get that last 10% insured. The govt can publish a registry of the uninsured, and bleeding hearts can sponsor their health plans. We can do commercials like they do with the ASPCA or starving kids. "For just $33 a month, you can insure someone else who can't find $33 a month."

But please stay out of my wallet -- please -- because "I don't need what you have to give."

rumors? give me a break

I would gladly pay more tax to have my health coverage be universal. Removing the insurance companies would free up millions of dollars.

Go Beavers

what dreams said:

Curious about Canada: what percentage of your income is taxed?

I ask because I hear rumors that Bernie's utopian plan would require a 90% tax rate (not confirmed with my own research, though). If true, that would leave me with exactly $7,700 a year to pay for my housing, food, gas, clothes, Pearl Jam tickets, and whatever else I'd like to enjoy in life.

I listened to Bill Maher and Michael Moore last week talking about how with these gloriously proposed higher taxes, we'd get so much more, and then they named a bunch of crap I don't need: free child care (no children), free college (already degreed), paid leave (already have it), and health care, of course the subject of this thread. I'm sure there is even more that the big government liberal types think I need that I'm not aware of myself.

So I know you apparently get more free stuff in Canada, but at what cost to you personally? And how much does that leave you to enjoy your own pursuits that the govt doesn't prescribe for you?

I have an idea for American left radicals: if you're really jonesing to pay higher taxes, go ahead and volunteer. Nobody is stopping you from giving Uncle Sam more than he's currently asking. Donate all you want to the US Treasury to get that last 10% insured. The govt can publish a registry of the uninsured, and bleeding hearts can sponsor their health plans. We can do commercials like they do with the ASPCA or starving kids. "For just $33 a month, you can insure someone else who can't find $33 a month."

But please stay out of my wallet -- please -- because "I don't need what you have to give."

Decent questions, but your post also reflects the downside of American individualism and how people don't see our interconnectedness as well as how we all benefit when people have good health insurance and more education. Having those things frees us up for individual pursuits and certainly we'll benefit from a better educated and healthier work force. As Americans, our individual tax burden is low when compared to other countries, and corporate taxes is probably the lowest. If you're wondering about Sanders's tax plan, his proposal is on his page:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

PJ_Soul

what dreams said:

Curious about Canada: what percentage of your income is taxed?

I ask because I hear rumors that Bernie's utopian plan would require a 90% tax rate (not confirmed with my own research, though). If true, that would leave me with exactly $7,700 a year to pay for my housing, food, gas, clothes, Pearl Jam tickets, and whatever else I'd like to enjoy in life.

I listened to Bill Maher and Michael Moore last week talking about how with these gloriously proposed higher taxes, we'd get so much more, and then they named a bunch of crap I don't need: free child care (no children), free college (already degreed), paid leave (already have it), and health care, of course the subject of this thread. I'm sure there is even more that the big government liberal types think I need that I'm not aware of myself.

So I know you apparently get more free stuff in Canada, but at what cost to you personally? And how much does that leave you to enjoy your own pursuits that the govt doesn't prescribe for you?

I have an idea for American left radicals: if you're really jonesing to pay higher taxes, go ahead and volunteer. Nobody is stopping you from giving Uncle Sam more than he's currently asking. Donate all you want to the US Treasury to get that last 10% insured. The govt can publish a registry of the uninsured, and bleeding hearts can sponsor their health plans. We can do commercials like they do with the ASPCA or starving kids. "For just $33 a month, you can insure someone else who can't find $33 a month."

But please stay out of my wallet -- please -- because "I don't need what you have to give."

Thur rumours you heard were wrong. Bernie's proposals would put the US at the about the same level as Canada, where the average amount paid to taxes is about 38%.

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

what dreams said:

Curious about Canada: what percentage of your income is taxed?

I ask because I hear rumors that Bernie's utopian plan would require a 90% tax rate (not confirmed with my own research, though). If true, that would leave me with exactly $7,700 a year to pay for my housing, food, gas, clothes, Pearl Jam tickets, and whatever else I'd like to enjoy in life.

I listened to Bill Maher and Michael Moore last week talking about how with these gloriously proposed higher taxes, we'd get so much more, and then they named a bunch of crap I don't need: free child care (no children), free college (already degreed), paid leave (already have it), and health care, of course the subject of this thread. I'm sure there is even more that the big government liberal types think I need that I'm not aware of myself.

So I know you apparently get more free stuff in Canada, but at what cost to you personally? And how much does that leave you to enjoy your own pursuits that the govt doesn't prescribe for you?

I have an idea for American left radicals: if you're really jonesing to pay higher taxes, go ahead and volunteer. Nobody is stopping you from giving Uncle Sam more than he's currently asking. Donate all you want to the US Treasury to get that last 10% insured. The govt can publish a registry of the uninsured, and bleeding hearts can sponsor their health plans. We can do commercials like they do with the ASPCA or starving kids. "For just $33 a month, you can insure someone else who can't find $33 a month."

But please stay out of my wallet -- please -- because "I don't need what you have to give."

Decent questions, but your post also reflects the downside of American individualism and how people don't see our interconnectedness as well as how we all benefit when people have good health insurance and more education. Having those things frees us up for individual pursuits and certainly we'll benefit from a better educated and healthier work force. As Americans, our individual tax burden is low when compared to other countries, and corporate taxes is probably the lowest. If you're wondering about Sanders's tax plan, his proposal is on his page:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

this. I can't stand the constant "please stay out of my wallet". I hear it from conservatives here too. Because they were born with a fucking silver or even a bronze spoon, they think that means they shouldn't have to fucking contribute to society.

you want what you want but not what others want or need. it's so selfish.

a guy I work with actually fucking said to me "there's a native guy on my hockey team....he came from the inner city....he got out of it....got an education....and now he does really well.....you can't tell me any one of them can't do it without my tax dollars". yeah, because your ONE native friend is the fucking watermark to how society works.

he also hates rapid transit because he firmly believes that he has a car so why the fuck should he pay for it. he claims this city doesn't need it. tell that to the poor sap who takes the bus two hours to work. seriously. our transit system sucks. the middle class don't all live closer to downtown. there are lower to middle class neighbourhoods on the outskirts of the city as well.

GRRRRR.......

PJ_Soul

Totally agree. This ME ME ME thing really upsets me too. It is pure selfishness, and incredibly short-sighted and small-minded. And there is almost no sense of community anymore. It's really sad and pathetic.

HughFreakingDillon

and there is no one simple "you pay more in canada, what extra services do you get?'. many of the taxes we pay are at the municipal level or provincial level. child care, for example, is wildly different from one province to another. quebec uses the european model (free), but manitoba is expense. BC is even worse.

paid maternity/paternity leave, I believe, is federal. it's one year paid leave of 56ish percent of your gross pay. some jobs (teachers) get topped up to nearly 100%. most don't. some are pushing for 2 years since child care in most provinces for kids until 2 years old is atrociously expensive.

Steven Harper's plan was to abolish a national child care plan and give everyone $100 per month per kid. It didn't matter if you made $5000 per year or $500,000. everyone got the same. it was as stupid a plan as you can get. people who didn't need that money got it.

PJ_Soul

BC is terrible for child care. It's one of the main reasons I am not having kids. It's costs over $1000 per child per month! And that's if you're lucky enough to even find a legit daycare at all. Some have to resort to using unlicensed places, which aren't even much cheaper usually. Just more dangerous. That is outrageous and completely unmanageable for most families, especially if there is more than one child. Even just after school care is something like $500 a month per child. Wtf??? And Harper thought $100 per child would actually solve the problem, lmao. What a dick.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

BC is terrible for child care. It's one of the main reasons I am not having kids. It's costs over $1000 per child per month! And that's if you're lucky enough to even find a legit daycare at all. Some have to resort to using unlicensed places, which aren't even cheaper usually. Just more dangerous. That is outrageous and completely unmanageable for most families, especially if there is more than one child. Even just after school care is something like $500 a month per child. Wtf??? And Harper thought $100 per child would actually solve the problem, lmao. What a dick.

friends of ours are both lawyers in vancouver. both make a load of money. both kids had to go to unlicensed care becuase they couldn't find anything else. and being unlicensed, unreal expensive.

my wife is in child care, and I have bugged her constantly about moving out west, and she stays firm "I will not work in this industry out there, it's awful".

mace1229

what dreams said:

Curious about Canada: what percentage of your income is taxed?

I ask because I hear rumors that Bernie's utopian plan would require a 90% tax rate (not confirmed with my own research, though). If true, that would leave me with exactly $7,700 a year to pay for my housing, food, gas, clothes, Pearl Jam tickets, and whatever else I'd like to enjoy in life.

I listened to Bill Maher and Michael Moore last week talking about how with these gloriously proposed higher taxes, we'd get so much more, and then they named a bunch of crap I don't need: free child care (no children), free college (already degreed), paid leave (already have it), and health care, of course the subject of this thread. I'm sure there is even more that the big government liberal types think I need that I'm not aware of myself.

So I know you apparently get more free stuff in Canada, but at what cost to you personally? And how much does that leave you to enjoy your own pursuits that the govt doesn't prescribe for you?

I have an idea for American left radicals: if you're really jonesing to pay higher taxes, go ahead and volunteer. Nobody is stopping you from giving Uncle Sam more than he's currently asking. Donate all you want to the US Treasury to get that last 10% insured. The govt can publish a registry of the uninsured, and bleeding hearts can sponsor their health plans. We can do commercials like they do with the ASPCA or starving kids. "For just $33 a month, you can insure someone else who can't find $33 a month."

But please stay out of my wallet -- please -- because "I don't need what you have to give."

Although that 90% figure is far off, I do agree with that last statement. Even more accurate figures of taxes will double what we are paying now, and most of us in the middle can't afford that.

From my personal experience I have only known 2 types of people who benefit from ACA. They are those who are self-employed and are rejected from health care plans for previous conditions. This plan helps them a lot, and rightly so. The other person is the unemployed, who will have the government pay most or all of their health insurance.

I have known several people in both categories. The thing that bothers me the most is a lot of the unemployed who I know have turned down job offers, or even turned down interviews, because the unemployment benefits are good enough-so why work? That leaves me paying for everything. Before you get upset, of course there are qualified people without a job who are honestly looking, and I have known some of those too. But from my personal experience, more of the people who I actually know and are unemployed are choosing to be that way because the system allows them to (sort of how when the minimum wage was raised to $15 in some cities, there was an influx of employees requesting less work so they can remain on government benefits instead of making more money). Maybe I just need better friends, who knows. But this seems like one more benefit to staying home vs getting a job.

mace1229

what dreams said:

Curious about Canada: what percentage of your income is taxed?

I ask because I hear rumors that Bernie's utopian plan would require a 90% tax rate (not confirmed with my own research, though). If true, that would leave me with exactly $7,700 a year to pay for my housing, food, gas, clothes, Pearl Jam tickets, and whatever else I'd like to enjoy in life.

I listened to Bill Maher and Michael Moore last week talking about how with these gloriously proposed higher taxes, we'd get so much more, and then they named a bunch of crap I don't need: free child care (no children), free college (already degreed), paid leave (already have it), and health care, of course the subject of this thread. I'm sure there is even more that the big government liberal types think I need that I'm not aware of myself.

So I know you apparently get more free stuff in Canada, but at what cost to you personally? And how much does that leave you to enjoy your own pursuits that the govt doesn't prescribe for you?

I have an idea for American left radicals: if you're really jonesing to pay higher taxes, go ahead and volunteer. Nobody is stopping you from giving Uncle Sam more than he's currently asking. Donate all you want to the US Treasury to get that last 10% insured. The govt can publish a registry of the uninsured, and bleeding hearts can sponsor their health plans. We can do commercials like they do with the ASPCA or starving kids. "For just $33 a month, you can insure someone else who can't find $33 a month."

But please stay out of my wallet -- please -- because "I don't need what you have to give."

Although that 90% figure is far off, I do agree with that last statement. Even more accurate figures of taxes will double what we are paying now, and most of us in the middle can't afford that.

From my personal experience I have only known 2 types of people who benefit from ACA. They are those who are self-employed and are rejected from health care plans for previous conditions. This plan helps them a lot, and rightly so. The other person is the unemployed, who will have the government pay most or all of their health insurance.

I have known several people in both categories. The thing that bothers me the most is a lot of the unemployed who I know have turned down job offers, or even turned down interviews, because the unemployment benefits are good enough-so why work? That leaves me paying for everything. Before you get upset, of course there are qualified people without a job who are honestly looking, and I have known some of those too. But from my personal experience, more of the people who I actually know and are unemployed are choosing to be that way because the system allows them to (sort of how when the minimum wage was raised to $15 in some cities, there was an influx of employees requesting less work so they can remain on government benefits instead of making more money). Maybe I just need better friends, who knows. But this seems like one more benefit to staying home vs getting a job.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

BC is terrible for child care. It's one of the main reasons I am not having kids. It's costs over $1000 per child per month! And that's if you're lucky enough to even find a legit daycare at all. Some have to resort to using unlicensed places, which aren't even cheaper usually. Just more dangerous. That is outrageous and completely unmanageable for most families, especially if there is more than one child. Even just after school care is something like $500 a month per child. Wtf??? And Harper thought $100 per child would actually solve the problem, lmao. What a dick.

friends of ours are both lawyers in vancouver. both make a load of money. both kids had to go to unlicensed care becuase they couldn't find anything else. and being unlicensed, unreal expensive.

my wife is in child care, and I have bugged her constantly about moving out west, and she stays firm "I will not work in this industry out there, it's awful".

Yup. I have close friends who are a couple and they have 2 kids in daycare. They make a combined income of about $150,000/year, and they are really struggling now that the second kid is in daycare, and they already moved way the fuck out to the outer suburbs. If they want to save anymore they're going to have to retreat out of metro Van altogether (where they were born, grew up, where they work, and where their families are). It's outrageous and completely destroys communities. Wtf is metro Van going to look like in 20 years? Because I don't understand what actually happens to a city when every single person who earns less than $100,000/year can't afford to live and have to leave (and they are. People are leaving in droves, being replaced by the rich). What does a city with only rich people in it look like?? I mean, who in the hell is pouring their coffee, stocking the store shelves, serving the food, teaching the rich children, driving the buses, nursing the patients, and sweeping the sidewalks??

what dreams

First, I want to say thank you to those of you who have wished me well. I appreciate your kindness. I didn't mean to overlook that.

Second, I realize my tone throughout this thread has been rather snarky, and I do apologize for that.

Third, a couple of the last posts assume an awful lot about "people like me" that are far from the truth. I grew up dirt poor in America and have worked for every damn thing I have, which is really not much at all. I scrape by happily in my one bedroom apartment, driving to my job in a Ford, only my third purchased car in 26 years. The last time I bought new clothes was last September, off the clearance rack at a mid tier department store. The only vacations I take are when Pearl Jam tours, and I partially pay for that with money I put aside in a special jar called my Pearl Jam Jar. I go to one or two shows, not five or seven. I'm hardly "me, me, me," as I chose a pretty selfless but stable career in public education, and I spend a lot of what little extra money I have by giving to others. I have voted for Democratic candidates in every single election since 1988. I know that it's more convenient to dismiss my concerns as those of a self-absorbed conservative, but sorry it doesn't work.

Growing up in poverty, I hardly ever felt security. I didn't see a dentist until I was 19 years old when my mom finally rose above her minimum wage retail job and got one with insurance. My parents never once, in all the years that we had nothing, accepted government assistance. My father was too proud to accept handouts, and his major regular speech at the dinner table was that we all have to accept responsibility for our actions. "Work hard, stay in school, do better than I did, and when you get a job, make sure you get one with insurance." As a young kid, I understood the work hard and the school part, but I always thought that insurance bit was weird. Okay, dad (eye roll). But damn if I didn't get a job with insurance because that's what I was taught to do. Wasn't all that hard, either. America truly is a land of opportunity for people who follow the rules. People don't want to follow the rules? Well, that's a choice. But nobody can claim ignorance of the options.

Not all my siblings followed the rules. One out of 3 of my brothers is a member of the uninsured 10%, and so are 3 of my 5 nieces and nephews (a second brother is a regular rags to riches story, and the third is on an ACA plan). My derelict brother likes to say he can't afford insurance. If you want to find this brother on a Friday night, however, you will find him in a bar, gambling away part of his income, drinking away another part of his income, and spending the rest of his income on a string of women, a couple of whom are in and out of jail for various felonies. He's had two heart attacks, COPD, and diabetes, but smokes like a chimney and is at least 75 pounds overweight. Brother or not, I have zero sympathy for his uninsured situation. He knows better, and I know he knows better because were raised in the same household. He chooses to make the fucked up decisions he makes, and as far as I'm concerned, he deserves no help. Breaks my mother's heart.

His uninsured daughter dropped out of high school at 16, had three kids out of wedlock before she was 25, and jumps from job to job at various petty whims. Her children receive health care from the state, as well as food stamps, etc. One of them is autistic so she receives an additional govt. check for him. Her 32 year old brother has never held a job a day in his life. Never made it past 8th grade. He, too, is riddled with health problems and is morbidly obese but does nothing to change his situation or take care of himself. His only income is disability.

The other uninsured nephew is the son of a heroin addict mother who is also on "disability" (I guess heroin addiction is a disability). Another high school drop out, he also has an out of wedlock child for whom he receives public assistance. He does work hard when he can find whatever low skilled job he can find, I will give him credit for that.

So, I say all this to assure you that I certainly understand what at least part of this 10% looks like. It's my family. I do not need to be lectured about how I just don't understand what it's like to be poor, or how we're all better off if we give people handouts. I watch family members piss away handouts on a regular basis, and American society is none the better for it. They contribute nothing, and then to top it off, they all turn around and vote for Trump! That's the most mind-boggling part. You all think I'm the problem? Let me invite you to family dinner.

Go Beavers

what dreams said:

First, I want to say thank you to those of you who have wished me well. I appreciate your kindness. I didn't mean to overlook that.

Second, I realize my tone throughout this thread has been rather snarky, and I do apologize for that.

Third, a couple of the last posts assume an awful lot about "people like me" that are far from the truth. I grew up dirt poor in America and have worked for every damn thing I have, which is really not much at all. I scrape by happily in my one bedroom apartment, driving to my job in a Ford, only my third purchased car in 26 years. The last time I bought new clothes was last September, off the clearance rack at a mid tier department store. The only vacations I take are when Pearl Jam tours, and I partially pay for that with money I put aside in a special jar called my Pearl Jam Jar. I go to one or two shows, not five or seven. I'm hardly "me, me, me," as I chose a pretty selfless but stable career in public education, and I spend a lot of what little extra money I have by giving to others. I have voted for Democratic candidates in every single election since 1988. I know that it's more convenient to dismiss my concerns as those of a self-absorbed conservative, but sorry it doesn't work.

Growing up in poverty, I hardly ever felt security. I didn't see a dentist until I was 19 years old when my mom finally rose above her minimum wage retail job and got one with insurance. My parents never once, in all the years that we had nothing, accepted government assistance. My father was too proud to accept handouts, and his major regular speech at the dinner table was that we all have to accept responsibility for our actions. "Work hard, stay in school, do better than I did, and when you get a job, make sure you get one with insurance." As a young kid, I understood the work hard and the school part, but I always thought that insurance bit was weird. Okay, dad (eye roll). But damn if I didn't get a job with insurance because that's what I was taught to do. Wasn't all that hard, either. America truly is a land of opportunity for people who follow the rules. People don't want to follow the rules? Well, that's a choice. But nobody can claim ignorance of the options.

Not all my siblings followed the rules. One out of 3 of my brothers is a member of the uninsured 10%, and so are 3 of my 5 nieces and nephews (a second brother is a regular rags to riches story, and the third is on an ACA plan). My derelict brother likes to say he can't afford insurance. If you want to find this brother on a Friday night, however, you will find him in a bar, gambling away part of his income, drinking away another part of his income, and spending the rest of his income on a string of women, a couple of whom are in and out of jail for various felonies. He's had two heart attacks, COPD, and diabetes, but smokes like a chimney and is at least 75 pounds overweight. Brother or not, I have zero sympathy for his uninsured situation. He knows better, and I know he knows better because were raised in the same household. He chooses to make the fucked up decisions he makes, and as far as I'm concerned, he deserves no help. Breaks my mother's heart.

His uninsured daughter dropped out of high school at 16, had three kids out of wedlock before she was 25, and jumps from job to job at various petty whims. Her children receive health care from the state, as well as food stamps, etc. One of them is autistic so she receives an additional govt. check for him. Her 32 year old brother has never held a job a day in his life. Never made it past 8th grade. He, too, is riddled with health problems and is morbidly obese but does nothing to change his situation or take care of himself. His only income is disability.

The other uninsured nephew is the son of a heroin addict mother who is also on "disability" (I guess heroin addiction is a disability). Another high school drop out, he also has an out of wedlock child for whom he receives public assistance. He does work hard when he can find whatever low skilled job he can find, I will give him credit for that.

So, I say all this to assure you that I certainly understand what at least part of this 10% looks like. It's my family. I do not need to be lectured about how I just don't understand what it's like to be poor, or how we're all better off if we give people handouts. I watch family members piss away handouts on a regular basis, and American society is none the better for it. They contribute nothing, and then to top it off, they all turn around and vote for Trump! That's the most mind-boggling part. You all think I'm the problem? Let me invite you to family dinner.

The discussion is about universal healthcare though, and you seem to be letting your own personal experience cloud the discussion. Probably most everyone in your family is on Medicaid, so if there was universal health care, their situation wouldn't really change. How do you think it would be if they were pulled off public insurance? You are also mixing in disability and food stamps. The facts on food stamps is that most are on it for the short term, and a large percentage of people getting it are also working. Maybe you're drawing some false conclusion based on your personal experience alone?

what dreams

The discussion topic, actually, started with the statement that 90% of Americans are now insured. In my world, 90% is an A. Excellent, or at least very good. In whose world is 90% a failed system?

The discussion turned to universal health care and single payer, and my personal experience does tell me that in no way am I interested as a taxpayer in supporting any more deadbeats. We already support enough deadbeats in the variety of ways I illustrated, and no, nothing about that makes us better as a society.

And trust me, if any of my aforementioned family were pulled off public health care, there would be no change in their actual health. They would still smoke and drink excessively, eat crap, not exercise, and otherwise poison their bodies. Being on public health care does not guarantee health.

Go Beavers

I didn't say it guaranteed health, but it does result in better overall health of the country. All you have to do is look at how the U.S. compares to other nations in different health related statistics.

rgambs

what dreams said:

Curious about Canada: what percentage of your income is taxed?

I ask because I hear rumors that Bernie's utopian plan would require a 90% tax rate (not confirmed with my own research, though). If true, that would leave me with exactly $7,700 a year to pay for my housing, food, gas, clothes, Pearl Jam tickets, and whatever else I'd like to enjoy in life.

I listened to Bill Maher and Michael Moore last week talking about how with these gloriously proposed higher taxes, we'd get so much more, and then they named a bunch of crap I don't need: free child care (no children), free college (already degreed), paid leave (already have it), and health care, of course the subject of this thread. I'm sure there is even more that the big government liberal types think I need that I'm not aware of myself.

So I know you apparently get more free stuff in Canada, but at what cost to you personally? And how much does that leave you to enjoy your own pursuits that the govt doesn't prescribe for you?

I have an idea for American left radicals: if you're really jonesing to pay higher taxes, go ahead and volunteer. Nobody is stopping you from giving Uncle Sam more than he's currently asking. Donate all you want to the US Treasury to get that last 10% insured. The govt can publish a registry of the uninsured, and bleeding hearts can sponsor their health plans. We can do commercials like they do with the ASPCA or starving kids. "For just $33 a month, you can insure someone else who can't find $33 a month."

But please stay out of my wallet -- please -- because "I don't need what you have to give."

Totally baloney disinformation.
Even if the top marginal tax rate was (it won't be) 90%, that would only be 90% of income over several hundred thousand dollars, not 90% of all income.

rgambs

It's one of the least understood things that people in America think they understand lol

what dreams

Good morning. I'm backing out of the discussion. We've all got our heels dug in, and I can pretty much predict everyone's responses by now (my own included).

I'll just remain thankful that we will not see single payer in my lifetime in this country and thankful for the few provisions in ACA that curb insurance company abuse. I can't be upset with reality on this one. It's on my side.

mace1229

what dreams said:

The discussion topic, actually, started with the statement that 90% of Americans are now insured. In my world, 90% is an A. Excellent, or at least very good. In whose world is 90% a failed system?

The discussion turned to universal health care and single payer, and my personal experience does tell me that in no way am I interested as a taxpayer in supporting any more deadbeats. We already support enough deadbeats in the variety of ways I illustrated, and no, nothing about that makes us better as a society.

And trust me, if any of my aforementioned family were pulled off public health care, there would be no change in their actual health. They would still smoke and drink excessively, eat crap, not exercise, and otherwise poison their bodies. Being on public health care does not guarantee health.

I agree. I was reluctant to say anything due to the fact it comes across as insensitive, but its true. While there are of course many who need assistance for various reasons who deserve it and don't abuse it, I can't help but feel I witness more people abusing it than not. I fortunately don't have any immediate family members in that situation, but know lots of people from other areas of my life.

I've known people turn down jobs because they'd rather collect financial assistance than earn it. I've known people who had no intentions to finish school because they came from a family that knew how to take handouts and that was what was taught them. I was also in education, in South Central Los Angeles, one of the poorest areas that I have seen with 98% of our students on free lunch. This was an area where drug raids across the street were common, shootings and bomb threats were a regular occurrence in the neighborhood. Students were not allowed to wear jewelry to school because they would get beat up and robbed on the public bus on their way home if they wore any. I even got stopped at a DUI check point on my way to work one day...only to find it wasn't a DUI check , they were searching every car for a missing body. But who had the worse cell phone in the class? I did. I only updated from a flip phone 2 years ago, while my students (on free lunch) were coming in with the newest iphone all the time. I've had parents flat out tell me they don't need their son/daughter to finish school because they can just collect assistance.

ACA seems like an extension of that to me. One more reason to not work and you get free healthcare. But if you do work and can afford it, we'll raise the cost and make you pay for things you don't need to cover everyone else.

Gern Blansten

what dreams said:

The discussion topic, actually, started with the statement that 90% of Americans are now insured. In my world, 90% is an A. Excellent, or at least very good. In whose world is 90% a failed system?

The discussion turned to universal health care and single payer, and my personal experience does tell me that in no way am I interested as a taxpayer in supporting any more deadbeats. We already support enough deadbeats in the variety of ways I illustrated, and no, nothing about that makes us better as a society.

And trust me, if any of my aforementioned family were pulled off public health care, there would be no change in their actual health. They would still smoke and drink excessively, eat crap, not exercise, and otherwise poison their bodies. Being on public health care does not guarantee health.

guess what....you already support the deadbeats. Their cost is built in to what you already pay for health services

Single payer or universal cuts out the millions paid to insurance companies.

I'm always amazed at how conservatives are ok with letting an insurance company dictate their health needs but freak out at the suggestion that the government might get involved. I'll trust a nonprofit over a for profit any day.

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

The discussion topic, actually, started with the statement that 90% of Americans are now insured. In my world, 90% is an A. Excellent, or at least very good. In whose world is 90% a failed system?

The discussion turned to universal health care and single payer, and my personal experience does tell me that in no way am I interested as a taxpayer in supporting any more deadbeats. We already support enough deadbeats in the variety of ways I illustrated, and no, nothing about that makes us better as a society.

And trust me, if any of my aforementioned family were pulled off public health care, there would be no change in their actual health. They would still smoke and drink excessively, eat crap, not exercise, and otherwise poison their bodies. Being on public health care does not guarantee health.

guess what....you already support the deadbeats. Their cost is built in to what you already pay for health services

Single payer or universal cuts out the millions paid to insurance companies.

I'm always amazed at how conservatives are ok with letting an insurance company dictate their health needs but freak out at the suggestion that the government might get involved. I'll trust a nonprofit over a for profit any day.

That's true, but it seems like that cost is even higher now. My rates have certainly risen. And one example as to maybe why is from a friend who works in the ER. He has told me the majority patients who come to his ER don't need emergency treatment. But openly admit since they are on a government paid plan they'd rather go to the ER at some weird hour than make an appointment during the day. And not only is it costing everyone more for these ridiculous ER visits, but the wait at his ER has also significantly increased to several hours due the increase in patients.

And aren't all insurance companies still for profit? That hasn't changed, the only change is the government tells you what you must be covered for even if you don't want it and forks some of the bill now for those "deadbeats". Sign me up for any auto, house, life or health insurance that is run by a nonprofit. I'll even start taking the insurance when the dealer is showing an Ace if its run by a nonprofit.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

The discussion topic, actually, started with the statement that 90% of Americans are now insured. In my world, 90% is an A. Excellent, or at least very good. In whose world is 90% a failed system?

The discussion turned to universal health care and single payer, and my personal experience does tell me that in no way am I interested as a taxpayer in supporting any more deadbeats. We already support enough deadbeats in the variety of ways I illustrated, and no, nothing about that makes us better as a society.

And trust me, if any of my aforementioned family were pulled off public health care, there would be no change in their actual health. They would still smoke and drink excessively, eat crap, not exercise, and otherwise poison their bodies. Being on public health care does not guarantee health.

guess what....you already support the deadbeats. Their cost is built in to what you already pay for health services

Single payer or universal cuts out the millions paid to insurance companies.

I'm always amazed at how conservatives are ok with letting an insurance company dictate their health needs but freak out at the suggestion that the government might get involved. I'll trust a nonprofit over a for profit any day.

That's true, but it seems like that cost is even higher now. My rates have certainly risen. And one example as to maybe why is from a friend who works in the ER. He has told me the majority patients who come to his ER don't need emergency treatment. But openly admit since they are on a government paid plan they'd rather go to the ER at some weird hour than make an appointment during the day. And not only is it costing everyone more for these ridiculous ER visits, but the wait at his ER has also significantly increased to several hours due the increase in patients.

And aren't all insurance companies still for profit? That hasn't changed, the only change is the government tells you what you must be covered for even if you don't want it and forks some of the bill now for those "deadbeats". Sign me up for any auto, house, life or health insurance that is run by a nonprofit. I'll even start taking the insurance when the dealer is showing an Ace if its run by a nonprofit.

The stuff about the ER is just confirmation bias. ER visits have always been overused, and always for the same two reasons.
1. It is easier than scheduling an appointment weeks out during working hours
2. Many/most insurance plans cover ER visits more fully than office visits.

The ACA hasn't changed anything in regards to this issue, so it is a clear case of confirmation bias.
I saw it a ton when I was working in the surgical department of a very large hospital, it was during the earliest debate about Obamacare, before and during its passing. Surgeons were shouting doom and gloom down the halls and claiming that they were going to drop all Medicaid and Medicare patients immediately and other outlandish claims. Years later and it's still business as usual, not much has changed.

mace1229

I've always avoided the ER because in every plan I've ever been on its been outrageously expensive, where a Dr visit was affordable. I'll pay $20 to see a Dr, or several hundred (at best) to use the ER.
We change health coverage about every other year at my employment, but that is one thing every plan has had in common. I don't remember ever seeing cheaper ER visits than Dr appointment visits, even when researching to do out-of-pocket insurance. ERs get overused when someone else is paying for it.

What I will agree on is it has always been an issue. Even without insurance. In low-income areas many were using the ER with no intention of paying the bill knowing they couldn't be turned down. Several local hospitals in my area were shut down, reporting this as the cause. This was several years before ACA, so obviously was not connected. It seems logical this problem would only increase if more people don't have to pay their own bills though.

RoleModelsinBlood31

I haven't had insurance for the last four years, since I left a company that had a good package. I haven't paid a fine yet. I make good money so can't get subsidized rates so I just said fuck em. When I do my taxes it asks why you didn't have insurance and I just check the box that says "couldn't afford it," and all is good!

Of course as I get older I don't have that peace of mind without it, but paying $300 this past year for two visits to the clinic sure beat the shit outta $400+ a month!

Gern Blansten

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

I haven't had insurance for the last four years, since I left a company that had a good package. I haven't paid a fine yet. I make good money so can't get subsidized rates so I just said fuck em. When I do my taxes it asks why you didn't have insurance and I just check the box that says "couldn't afford it," and all is good!

Of course as I get older I don't have that peace of mind without it, but paying $300 this past year for two visits to the clinic sure beat the shit outta $400+ a month!

I'll be interested to see if you get challenged on that. The rates are published so if the published rates are less than 8% of your income you are technically considered to be able to afford it.

That being said....I haven't seen a case yet (I'm a CPA/tax guy) where the IRS has levied the penalty on anyone. I have seen a few cases where they sent out a letter saying "you paid a penalty but it looks like your income was too low" which I thought was interesting.

EdsonNascimento

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/obamacare-worries-largest-texas-insurer-asks-for-60-percent-price-hike/ar-BBtKIHr?li=BBnbfcN

Who is paying for 70% of those rate increases? The small % of people that actually pay Federal Income Taxes.

All he did was a massive expansion of Medicaid. Everyone laughed at the Republicans who said - hidden tax. Well, they were clearly correct.

Expect roll backs in required benefits. We are already in a massive deficit. Where is this money coming from?

inmyNC

EdsonNascimento said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/obamacare-worries-largest-texas-insurer-asks-for-60-percent-price-hike/ar-BBtKIHr?li=BBnbfcN

Who is paying for 70% of those rate increases? The small % of people that actually pay Federal Income Taxes.

All he did was a massive expansion of Medicaid. Everyone laughed at the Republicans who said - hidden tax. Well, they were clearly correct.

Expect roll backs in required benefits. We are already in a massive deficit. Where is this money coming from?

I paid $450per mo for my son and i back in 2009. Then my residential construction business went south as if a light switch had been turned off. I went 3 years with no coverage and paid all health care out of pocket. In 2013 I once again got coverage with at $500per mo. Then the Affordable Care Act came into affect. I was excited to maybe save money on health insurance. I went to healthcare.gov. put in my info and was quoted $500per mo. I was surprised and confused. Not "affordable ", not "caring" and not an. "act" of helping me with the cost of health care insurance. I saw no difference but a slight increase. But I suppose its cause I pay taxes?