Health Care Non-American Style

Employers have no connection with health care. That's the full cost for the highest level of cover, after the tax rebate is taken into account. There are lower levels of cover available, which are typically aimed at younger people. Having reached my early forties, about 10 months ago I increased the level of cover I have, from one of those for younger people (that age crept up soooo quietly).

0 Replies

OK, thanks! I'd prefer to get employer-base insurance out of the picture entirely. The MA plan doesn't do that and many of the Universial Care advocates here (in the U.S.) seem to think that the burden should be on employers as well.

I much prefer the Aussie concept.

0 Replies

I'll try not to take it personally Wilso Wink

(couple pages back....)

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

OK, thanks! I'd prefer to get employer-base insurance out of the picture entirely. The MA plan doesn't do that and many of the Universial Care advocates here (in the U.S.) seem to think that the burden should be on employers as well.

I much prefer the Aussie concept.

Not to put you on the spot, fishin', but could you explain why?

0 Replies

Swimpy wrote:

fishin wrote:
OK, thanks! I'd prefer to get employer-base insurance out of the picture entirely. The MA plan doesn't do that and many of the Universial Care advocates here (in the U.S.) seem to think that the burden should be on employers as well.

I much prefer the Aussie concept.

Not to put you on the spot, fishin', but could you explain why?

I understand I'm not fishin, but I'm in favor for getting our employers out of our healthcare system because it puts America at a disadvantage in the world market. If our employers didn't have to incur the extremly high cost of providing medical insurance we'd be able to compete better in the world market.

And selfishly, it would be nice to not have to worry about your family's heath insurance when moving to another job.

0 Replies

Swimpy wrote:

fishin wrote:
OK, thanks! I'd prefer to get employer-base insurance out of the picture entirely. The MA plan doesn't do that and many of the Universial Care advocates here (in the U.S.) seem to think that the burden should be on employers as well.

I much prefer the Aussie concept.

Not to put you on the spot, fishin', but could you explain why?

I guess the easy response is "Why Not?"

Employers offered insurance for two main reaosns - either labor unions negotiated it as a benefit or the employer offered it as a way to attract/retain employees. Either way - it was is a benefit.

Over the years people have come to the conclusion that it it now somehow the employer's responsibility to provide insurance which defies the concept of benefit (even though everyone still refers to it as a benefit).

The whole argument for universal healthcare is that health care is a social responsibility - i.e. an issue for government.

If the government is responsible than the employer can't be responsible as well - At least not effectively. IMO, there can only be one point of responsibility and once that role is assigned to the government, what happens between me and the government isn't any of my employer's business.

0 Replies

Though it has been noted already before: in the German system amployers pay one half, all and any employers.
And the family is included (as long as they don't earn own money).

Always. But you have to pay for it with (our) private health insurances.

0 Replies

fishin wrote :

Quote:

If the government is responsible than the employer can't be responsible as well - At least not effectively. IMO, there can only be one point of responsibility and once that role is assigned to the government, what happens between me and the government isn't any of my employer's business.

the question , of course , is : who is the government ?
in the end the government is "all of us " - as individuals and businesses .
under the canadian/ontario system , the health system is supported by a variety of taxes paid by individuals and businesses .
the federal government "transfers" (tax)money to the provinces to underwrite specific programs and also for general expenditures . the province of ontario uses parts of the sales taxes , general taxes collected and "premiums" levied on individuals taxpayers to fund the health-care system .
i guess , in the end it's the taxpayer who pays for it in one way or another - unfortunately no "rich uncle" to take care of it Crying or Very sad

.
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

fishin wrote :

Quote:
If the government is responsible than the employer can't be responsible as well - At least not effectively. IMO, there can only be one point of responsibility and once that role is assigned to the government, what happens between me and the government isn't any of my employer's business.

the question , of course , is : who is the government ?
in the end the government is "all of us " - as individuals and businesses .
under the canadian/ontario system , the health system is supported by a variety of taxes paid by individuals and businesses .
the federal government "transfers" (tax)money to the provinces to underwrite specific programs and also for general expenditures . the province of ontario uses parts of the sales taxes , general taxes collected and "premiums" levied on individuals taxpayers to fund the health-care system .
i guess , in the end it's the taxpayer who pays for it in one way or another - unfortunately no "rich uncle" to take care of it .
hbg

Right. My concern is that, at least here in the U.S., some of the Universal Healthcare advocates have been suggesting that the government should take on the central administrative role and the program should be paid for by a tax on employers (business).

IMO, if the government is going to take on the central role that's fine but it should be paid for by an allocation of funds from general tax revenues. If it means increasing the income tax rate by 2% so be it. But it should be an increase on everyone - individual and businesses (as opposed to a unique tax on employers).

0 Replies

Thanks for answering, fishin'. This is the reason I started this thread in the first place. I really have no agenda. Personally, I just want to get people covered. I wanted to have a discussion of the universal health care plans that have been in place for many years. I've learned a lot from all of you that have posted here.

I wanted to see how they work and try to figure out how those plans might be adapted here in a way that would be palatable enough to actually get off the ground.

It just seems to me that people will accept a plan that causes minimal disruption to their existing plan. Remember that the vast majority of Americans already have health care coverage that they are pretty happy with. I think we heard that from some posters. In that respect the German plan seems like it would keep most people's heath care situation pretty much at the status quo. How it's paid for might change, but they would likely stick with the same plans.

If we want employers out of the game altogether, the Aussie plan looks like the next best bet for acceptance here. Still using private insurance plans that people chose themselves (at least that's the gist I get, correct me if I'm wrong, Wilso and Eorl.)

Each of these plans provides coverage to the uninsured by a Medicare- type plan.

The Canadian plan covers everybody with the same Medicare-type plan, with the ability for purchasing higher coverage from private insurers (Did I get that right?) I just wonder if that wouldn't be a hard sell in this country, given that we've been so reluctant to do anything for so long.

0 Replies

I don't think that government and employer plans can co-exist for very long. Employers will soon get the message that they can get out of the health coverage thing because the government will pick up their employees.

In Canada, may people who, say, are in a rush, go to a private physician? In other words, may physicians work outside the government plan? The inference is that the answer is no, because Canadians are coming to the USA for operations, etc.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I don't think that government and employer plans can co-exist for very long. Employers will soon get the message that they can get out of the health coverage thing because the government will pick up their employees.

You're right about that. My tax dollars have been financing Walmart employees healthcare for decades.

0 Replies

swimpy wrote :

Quote:

The Canadian plan covers everybody with the same Medicare-type plan, with the ability for purchasing higher coverage from private insurers (Did I get that right?) I just wonder if that wouldn't be a hard sell in this country, given that we've been so reluctant to do anything for so long.

the only "higher coverage" you can buy in canada is for a private-room rather than the standard "semi-private" and private "home nursing care" .
you can't buy yourself to the "front of the line" for an operation , as an example .

to give an example : my wife needed a cataract operation . in september she had an appointmant with the chief eye-surgeon who suggested that she have the operation performed by one of the clinic surgeons - wait-time might have been one to two months .
since the chief eye-surgeon had performed an operation on her two years ago , she asked him to do it . since he operates two mornings a week at most - teaching in kingston and toronto the other time - , he told her that she might have to wait as much as 8 to 12 months .
her first eye was done in march - after 6 months - and the other eye will be done before the end of april .
while it was a long wait , she felt that she had made the right decision .
hbg

0 Replies

Thanks for the clarification, hamburger.

0 Replies

Health Care Non-American Style

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know