The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

McGentrix wrote:

Will people HAVE to sign up for health insurance whether they want it or not? Will rich people be stuck paying more taxes to make up for the poor who can not afford to be taxed to pay for nationalized health insurance?

In Massachusetts, Universal Health Insurance is now the law, whether a person wants it or not, they have to buy it. It's also the law in the Commonwealth, that all full time college students be covered by health insurance.

Yes, taxes will increase, so that those with money will be paying the way for those without money. The welfare state is marching on and on and on...............

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

okie wrote:
First of all, employers should not pay for insurance or health care. There is no reason to make this a responsibility of employers. By doing this, employers become more competitive with foreign manufacturers and other good things happen.

How do you explain large manufacturers moving from the U.S. to Canada over the years? GM etc.

I think my quote explains that, although I may not have worded it clearly. Because providing insurance is part of doing business in the U.S., and the bill is paid through government in Canada, perhaps it is one factor that creates an uneven playing field for business, which was my point. In other words, if employers are expected to pay health insurance in the U. S. as a perk, why not auto insurance, why not homeowners insurance, why not your grocery bill? It doesn't make sense to transfer a personal responsibility to an employer. In other words, return the responsibility to the rightful owner of the responsibility.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Because providing insurance is part of doing business in the U.S., and the bill is paid through government in Canada, perhaps it is one factor that creates an uneven playing field for business, which was my point. In other words, if employers are expected to pay health insurance in the U. S. as a perk, why not auto insurance, why not homeowners insurance, why not your grocery bill? It doesn't make sense to transfer a personal responsibility to an employer. In other words, return the responsibility to the rightful owner of the responsibility.

Actually - and I really don't like to say it again, but since you can't remember that ... - this is the idea behind the German systemfrom the 1880's: being jobless, getting a pension, becoming ill .... is not only a personal thing but one of soiety.
And since employers were 'owners' of their employees/workers in those days, and since it was done by the conservatives who wanted to prove how nice they were .... we got it.
(Parallel to that, the Social-Democrats [and Communists] were forbidden by law, but that's unother topic.)

So, nearly everyone getting a similar universal heath system afterwards arranged his laws along the idea of the original - since that worked pretty well.

0 Replies

From what I understand, for those who DO get medical benefits through work, it's a taxable benefit, so they're paying something for it anyway.

0 Replies

Just to expand Mame's post: The government medical insurance pays for basics, but not everything. For example, it will cover the costs of a hospital ward room (more than one bed) but not a private room. Another example would be mole removal -- if the mole is determined to be cancerous, or potentially cancerous, the cost of removal is covered by gov't insurance, but if you want it removed for cosmetic reasons, the cost is not covered. Many Canadians also have private medical insurance to cover those extra items.

(OTOH, if the hospital deems your case severe enough, or contagious, you will be put in a private room at no additional cost.)

Many companies offer private health insurance as part of their benefits package, often bundled together with dental and life insurance. Although the company may pay for all or part of that additional insurance, it is a taxable benefit on our income tax. IOW the value of the private insurance plan is considered earned income.

0 Replies

Well, of course - and as mentioned ealier by oe and me already - we have private (and additional private) insurances here as well.

Both, the "compulsory health insurance" and the "private" are part of the universal health insurance system = you must have one of those.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Actually - and I really don't like to say it again, but since you can't remember that ... - this is the idea behind the German systemfrom the 1880's: being jobless, getting a pension, becoming ill .... is not only a personal thing but one of soiety.

Walter, what about housing and food, are those also societal things? I guess what I am grappling with is why should health care be any different than other necessities. After all, in this country, we do have homeless shelters as a last resort to provide shelter and food, and those people that don't afford their own insurance and medical care, we already have safety nets as well, such as Medicaid, and anyone can walk into a hospital emergency room and receive medical care, as I understand that is the law. I am not yet willing to accept the mindset that medical care has to be provided by government, any more than other life sustaining necessities.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Actually - and I really don't like to say it again, but since you can't remember that ... - this is the idea behind the German systemfrom the 1880's: being jobless, getting a pension, becoming ill .... is not only a personal thing but one of soiety.

Walter, what about housing and food, are those also societal things? I guess what I am grappling with is why should health care be any different than other necessities. After all, in this country, we do have homeless shelters as a last resort to provide shelter and food, and those people that don't afford their own insurance and medical care, we already have safety nets as well, such as Medicaid, and anyone can walk into a hospital emergency room and receive medical care, as I understand that is the law. I am not yet willing to accept the mindset that medical care has to be provided by government, any more than other life sustaining necessities.

Why do you think it would be a bad thing?

It doesn't have to be great health care; just the basics of preventative medicine would save billions of dollars and thousands of lives annually.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I am not yet willing to accept the mindset that medical care has to be provided by government, any more than other life sustaining necessities.

You've probably not been following the discussion, but there are quite a few countries with universal health care where health care is not provided by the government.

The issue is not: do you want to have a state run system or a private system. The question is: are you in favour of universal health care or not.

0 Replies

Cyclops, the answer to your question is important. The greatness of this country is based on a few basic principles. One of the most important is that the freedom we enjoy is based on individual freedom, which brings with it, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

There are many problems that have apparently practical solutions that have both short term and long term consequences. If someone comes to you for a handout, the short term solution is to give him some money. He goes away and you feel good about "helping" him or her. What may be lost and forgotten is the longer term consequences. That person may decide from what you did that it is easier to do the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and others do the same. What you end up with is a very dependant group of people unable to make responsible decisions for themselves.

We have the same situation with health care. Many people look at the problem of uninsured, and figure ok, we do this, we pay for that, and the tax required to support it is thus and so. What they are failing to give as much importance is whether such policies are contrary to foundational beliefs and principles that really work better in the long run. Are we sacrificing long term well being and prosperity for short term fixes.

That is a short answer to your question. I base my decisions more on foundational principles and believe adherence to those will in the long run bring better results. I think this country's track record proves that. You need only look south to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, who believes the government should run everything and take care of everybody, and you only need to watch and I guarantee you he will run his country into the ground, just as Fidel Castro did his.

0 Replies

Do you believe that people in our Government should take Individual responsibility for their actions, Okie? Or just us regular citizens?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I am not yet willing to accept the mindset that medical care has to be provided by government, any more than other life sustaining necessities.

You've probably not been following the discussion, but there are quite a few countries with universal health care where health care is not provided by the government.

The issue is not: do you want to have a state run system or a private system. The question is: are you in favour of universal health care or not.

I will confess I need to go back and read everything again. My apologies because I started the first page and jumped onto the comment about doctors and insurance companies being driven by "greed," which irritates me highly to read such garbage, so I started with that and here I am.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you believe that people in our Government should take Individual responsibility for their actions, Okie? Or just us regular citizens?

Cycloptichorn

I don't know if it is useful to go off onto your tangent, cyclops, but first of all it depends upon whether their actions are done in regard to their official duties or not. Is this another opportunity for you to bash Bush and Cheney? Why don't you bash Joseph Wilson instead?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I will confess I need to go back and read everything again. My apologies because I started the first page and jumped onto the comment about doctors and insurance companies being driven by "greed," which irritates me highly to read such garbage, so I started with that and here I am.

Hm, I wouldn't say they are driven by greed. Insurance companies have to report profits, for sure. I kinda liked ebrown's term "greed based system", but will probably not use it. Doesn't really contribute to the discussion.

And that's not really what this discussion is about, anyways.

See, several countries have successfully implemented universal health care systems without doing away with insurance companies or anything. You're not paying higher taxes, you're paying your premiums to the insurance company you pick.

Now, who exactly ends up paying the premiums (employer? employee? shared responsibility?) or how such a system can successfully operate while health care to everyone needs to be looked at.

At any rate, citizens of countries that do have that kind of system in place end up paying about half of what Americans are paying for their health care. And all the important numbers (infant mortality? cancer survival rate? life expectancy? etc. etc.) seem to show that those countries are not only doing as well as the US, but often enough even better.

(Oh, and I wouldn't recommend looking only at Venezuela or Cuba if you want to study universal health care systems...)

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Why don't you bash Joseph Wilson instead?

And can we stay on topic, please.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Why don't you bash Joseph Wilson instead?

And can we stay on topic, please.

Sorry, but I know cyclops well enough, as we have debated extensively, I suspicioned where he might want to go with his comments about individual responsibility. My apologies.

I am taking a timeout until I read this whole thing again.

0 Replies

I'm not sure what the difference is when one takes an action as a part of their official duties, and when one does it personally. But I'll start a new thread rather then derail this one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
okie wrote:
First of all, employers should not pay for insurance or health care. There is no reason to make this a responsibility of employers. By doing this, employers become more competitive with foreign manufacturers and other good things happen.

How do you explain large manufacturers moving from the U.S. to Canada over the years? GM etc.

I think my quote explains that, although I may not have worded it clearly. Because providing insurance is part of doing business in the U.S., and the bill is paid through government in Canada, perhaps it is one factor that creates an uneven playing field for business, which was my point.

I don't think you understand this. Employers' tax costs are higher in Canada - GM and similar companies are paying government health care premiums as part of their cost of doing business here. So, even though they're paying more in government taxes, they're still coming over. (I keep expecting them to stop, but they haven't yet.)

Where there is a difference is in the actual billed cost of treatment. It is lower here - whether it is government or private insurance paying.

You've seen the charts provided by oldeurope. Americans pay more for health care - on a per person basis as well as a function of GNP.

Taxes are higher here, but the health care costs are lower.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I base my decisions more on foundational principles and believe adherence to those will in the long run bring better results. I think this country's track record proves that. You need only look south to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela

try looking north or west or east instead

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I will confess I need to go back and read everything again. My apologies because I started the first page and jumped onto the comment about doctors and insurance companies being driven by "greed," which irritates me highly to read such garbage, so I started with that and here I am.

Hm, I wouldn't say they are driven by greed. Insurance companies have to report profits, for sure. I kinda liked ebrown's term "greed based system", but will probably not use it. Doesn't really contribute to the discussion.

And that's not really what this discussion is about, anyways.

See, several countries have successfully implemented universal health care systems without doing away with insurance companies or anything. You're not paying higher taxes, you're paying your premiums to the insurance company you pick.

Now, who exactly ends up paying the premiums (employer? employee? shared responsibility?) or how such a system can successfully operate while health care to everyone needs to be looked at.

At any rate, citizens of countries that do have that kind of system in place end up paying about half of what Americans are paying for their health care. And all the important numbers (infant mortality? cancer survival rate? life expectancy? etc. etc.) seem to show that those countries are not only doing as well as the US, but often enough even better.

(Oh, and I wouldn't recommend looking only at Venezuela or Cuba if you want to study universal health care systems...)

oe, I went back and read this entire thread. I guess the statistics you offered are basically summarized by the following from your post on Page 5?

One question I would have in regard to these statistics, is how much money was spent here by people from other countries, and how much money do Americans spend on people here from other countries, both legal visitors and illegal immigrants? I think we need that information before we can draw any conclusions from the graph. I am looking for the info., but if anyone else comes up with it, thanks.

For example, how many billionaires from other countries come here for health care and spend lots of money? I have also heard astronomical amounts of money spent on illegals in just single counties near our southern border. Has all of this been tallied?

0 Replies

The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know