RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,968
|
Taxes
May 12, 2008 17:13:05 GMT -5
Post by RedRock on May 12, 2008 17:13:05 GMT -5
In the USA, no one has a Constitutional "right" to free health care, but unfortunately, many feel they are somehow entitled to it and that someone else "who makes more money" should pay for their free stuff. We have a large number of people here, in fact, who believe that they are entitled, just because they exist and regardless of whether they contribute, to free everything "from the womb to the tomb."
|
|
|
Taxes
May 12, 2008 17:40:28 GMT -5
Post by Urumii-Previously ThePresident on May 12, 2008 17:40:28 GMT -5
I believe any hard working LEGAL american should be entitled to be healthy. If you are a crackhead, but have a job, then you should be able to have health care. People do have the right to live, I don't see why we should have the right to tell them they can't live healthy. I am not saying we should adopt another countries health care, I am saying it should be affordable to everyone who has a job. A flat rate for everyone regardless of income. Or at least have the companies battle for the lowest price. But somehow they just keep going up and up and up...
I may not have the right to free or cheap health insurance... but I damn well should. I don't see a reason why I should be shunned away if I need antibiotics, or stitches, or surgery because my health care costs too much. Or if I chose to pay for them myself, be in debt for the rest of my life because they cost so much. Our system is screwed up...
|
|
Woody
New Member
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Posts: 488
|
Taxes
May 12, 2008 22:43:07 GMT -5
Post by Woody on May 12, 2008 22:43:07 GMT -5
Well, I cannot offer too much of an opinion on the U.S Health system because I am not naive enough to believe everything that the media tells me. They all have an agenda. I don't live in the States and have not experienced it first hand. What I will say is this. Whether there is a "constitutional right" to health care shouldn't come into the equation. It is basic human kindness. If someone is sick and needs assistance to get well, then they shouldn't have to jump through financial or political hoops to get it. If a hospital/general practitioner doctor is in the business to make money then in my opinion they are in it for the wrong reasons. Should they be paid and paid well? Absolutely! Gouge the hell out of those that need cosmetic surgeries, but don't gouge the regular Joe that needs real help. I wasn't aware that in the U.S. that you are not allowed to shop around for a health care provider. That seems very odd to me. I would have expected a regular Joe could shop around for the best deal as is the case for car insurance. My brother was diagnosed with a form of Leukemia called Multiple Myeloma last year. He was able to receive treatment immediately and it was all covered by the provincial health care program, including experimental drugs. He walks with a cane now and is unable to work but receives a disability pension almost equal to what he was making when fully healthy. This pension comes out of his employment insurance and the public coffers. I have absolutely no problem contributing as a taxpayer to those that need to take advantage due to life changing illness. I am proud of my country for taking care of those less fortunate. Having said that, we do not have the illegal alien problem that the U.S. has. I would not be thrilled with paying for that many leaches. I have a problem when my government spends hundreds of millions on crap such as saving the 3 peckered toad's of Baffin island yearly hop across the frozen tundra to Nome Alaska to impregnate good looking Alaskan toads. If we are going to spend that money, well then lets spend it on something good.
|
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,968
|
Taxes
May 12, 2008 23:36:39 GMT -5
Post by RedRock on May 12, 2008 23:36:39 GMT -5
So sorry, but Americans are NOT entitled to anything BUT "Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness."
But let's say that somehow a law is passed forcing taxpayers to fork over even more money to support a program of totally free health care, just because some want it. Despite the disastrous effect it would have on the economy, not to mention the decreased quality of the care in just one generation, what would be next with this line of gimme-I-want-and-others-should-pay reasoning?
Make everything "affordable"? That is, make other things free or cheap by having taxes, money taken forcibly from others, used to pay what the wanters can't or won't pay?
People SHOULD be entitled to a "living" income of some pre-ordained level, say $15 an hour, or $ 31,200 a year? Well, then why not $40,000. Why not $50,000. Why not $150,000 a year?
People SHOULD be entitled to "decent housing"? Well, why not a 5 bedroom, 4 bath, new pool home with 3 car attached garage? What about a beach home in Florida AND a ski home in the Rockies?
And so on--Why not 16 weeks of paid vacation a year? Why not a Mercedes sports coupe AND an SUV with unlimited gasoline supplies? What about car insurance, or homeowner's insurance? Why stop with health insurance?
And so forth. The sky is the limit on "SHOULD BE."
No, just because something is available and desirable does NOT given anyone the right to demand it be given to them.
In the USA, we do all have the same opportunity to try to better ourselves, to get an education, to work, and to acquire wealth to spend as we see fit, including for better lifestyles and for better health care. But alas, this is being whittled away more and more each year, and success is punished by taking more and more from the successful to give to the unsuccessful and non-trying.
It used to be that people accepted or admitted that they couldn't have everything, especially if they weren't willing or good enough to earn it, instead of demanding yet another entitlement.
Can't afford a mercedes? Get a VW. Can't afford a VW? Ride the bus, or walk, or ride a bike. Can't afford a big house? Buy a smaller house. Rent instead. Rent an apartment instead. Get a roommate. Move to a cheaper neighborhood. Move to a cheaper state. Can't afford the electric bill? Turn off the A/C. Can't afford health insurance? Ditch the cigarettes, ditch the booze, drop the cable tv, drop the cell phone, sell the second car, forget the hockey tickets, etc.
Or get more education, or work a second job, or do without. But don't go trying to create bigger and better entitlements. That will just hasten the downward spiral this country is already in. We simply cannot afford to be all things to all people. The milk of human kindness has limits. It's time we realized that.
|
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,968
|
Taxes
May 12, 2008 23:49:10 GMT -5
Post by RedRock on May 12, 2008 23:49:10 GMT -5
In the US, you are most certainly able to shop around for a health care provider, or for different health care insurance, but if you don't go with the provider already associated with your insurance plan, or if you don't take the plan or options offered as a benefit of employment, then you will have to pay the difference yourself, and without the plan or the employer paying that huge portion for you, it can be very expensive.
This is another area where people have become very confused about how life works. When you take a job, there is pay associated with it, and the better jobs that need better employees pay more than just a wage, they also pay health insurance, life insurance, vacation, etc. But those really are part of your pay, not extras--if you got the money for them instead, your pay would be much much higher, and you could pay for those things instead as you see fit from that higher wage. Because employers have many employees, they can often negotiate for package deals with insurers to provide a bigger bang for the buck, and thus employees can get better insurance/coverage than if they bought it on their own. But the provision of insurance, etc., is a cost to the employer, and sometimes, often, actually, to keep a business going and make a profit, even to keep employees on the payroll doing the work, it is necessary to adjust the benefits and even to pass more of the expenses to the employees. Thus, we find, as health care costs go up, that insurance costs go up and our benefits go down and we have to pay more, but then so is the employer. People forget all this and just assume that free or cheap health care insurance is another "right" of life from simply working. But reality says something different altogether.
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Taxes
May 13, 2008 1:09:09 GMT -5
Post by Death's Shadow on May 13, 2008 1:09:09 GMT -5
Health care is the responsibility of each province, not the federal gov't. As of Jan 2009 my family's health care will be covered and I don't have to pay out of pocket. ok so how much tax do you pay to the province? The money has to come from somewhere to pay for the health care. It seems free to you at the time because you do not receive a bill in the mail or a write a check at the counter on your way out. However you are prepaying just the same from your paycheck. Do those that do not, or refuse to work receive free health care that you are paying for? Where is the incentive for health care workers to keep providing care to everyone? Just because they should do it out of the kindness of their hearts? That will not work. I can tell you as a health care provider myself that I do care about each and every person I take care of, however I have a home and bills just like everyone else. I forked out over 20K and 4 years of my life for my education to earn a living and help people as much as I can. However if some of the plans floating around for govt health care are put into law I will not be doing this any longer. I refuse to work a high stress job were peoples lives are in my very hands for a reduced wage. I think many others in my profession will follow suite. Then all those people wanting high quality free health care will have a very over burdened, substandard low quality of care, very understaffed system were you may just have to wait in line to get the care you need that will just maybe be the difference between you living or not. The health care system would crash almost over night. Doctors and nurses would walk by the droves. Privately funded health research would screech to a halt. The medications that may keep you alive may not get discovered. The companies that produce the medications would slam their doors shut and move to another country were they were allowed to make a profit still. Thus either driving your med costs skyward, or just plain old making them unavailable at all. That means more lost jobs, lower GDP, stock market crashes. All because people think they are owed everything in life. How long before you think the gas in your car or the electricity in your homes should be free also. For everything you think you should be entitled to that is lost jobs of people that drive our economy.
|
|
Pvt._Michaels
LPmember
AMERICA......it was nice while it lasted.
Posts: 365
|
Taxes
May 13, 2008 13:06:08 GMT -5
Post by Pvt._Michaels on May 13, 2008 13:06:08 GMT -5
Summed up well Red....! Now, To put it bluntly.....
Rugged individualism is what made the Country great. This means PERSONAL responsibility. I refuse to pay for someone else's health care just because they exist. We are the most generous Nation on earth. All are taken care of now. Enough of the Socialist tendencies!
The word "fairness" gets used a lot by do gooders; but only as it relates to taking from producers of wealth and re-distributing it to those who produce little or nothing. To DoGooders, those that do nothing to contribute are entitled to my money because that situation is somehow "unfair"...? Huh? I am lucky enough to be a healthy 60 year old. My high deductible policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois costs $187 per month..... Not bad & I am happy I have the coverage! Maybe if more slackers joined the pool the actuarial, risk management folks could then LOWER the rates even further. Believe me, if the do-gooders get their way my (our) costs will skyrocket.
Meanwhile, dogooders will likely piss away $187 a month on LaLa Land Lattes & a subscription to the New York Times.........and feel "good about themselves". Do I sound cynical...? you 'betcha.
The Pvt.
|
|
Woody
New Member
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Posts: 488
|
Taxes
May 13, 2008 23:07:39 GMT -5
Post by Woody on May 13, 2008 23:07:39 GMT -5
Fellas, you guys seem to think that I made some kind of personal attack on your health care system. That was not the case at all. It is not a political thing for me. In fact, I am anything but liberal in nature. My opinion is that I prefer health care for everyone equally. It is that simple for me on that topic. I also stated that in the very first paragraph that I don't know enough about your health care system to have a valid opinion on it. I can guarantee that you don't know much about ours as well. Please don't confuse it with any alternative health care programs suggested by people in your country. Also, don't believe stooges like Michael Moore when he says we all love each other up here because that is far from the truth. We have our problems and baby we ain't perfect.
Redrock and Private, I find your opinions valid but it comes across as a very angry one. I may be misinterpreting it, please let me know if I am wrong. I found your posts a good read and agree that I don't want to pay for others cars, houses etc. Who would want to do that? I see it as a bit far fetched though to assert that the sky would come crashing down if a guy needs an operation to save his life and the government pays for it. If being a "do-gooder" means that I give a poop about preserving life, then I am definitely in the right line of work and I take it as a compliment. A point was made earlier in the discussion that lawyers seem to have made health care expensive in the U.S. This is probably very close to the truth if the civil lawyers are anything like ours are here.
DS, you inquired as to how our health care will be "free" Jan 1, 2009. Alberta is a very rich (oil and gas) province. In fact it drives our nation's economy. You may be surprised to learn that we supply a significant amount of resources to the U.S, Mexico, and Asia. Due to this, the provincial government has gained billions of dollars in profit. We were asked what they should do with this account that continued to grow by hundreds of millions yearly. It was decided to give us free health care amongst other things. You have to remember that Alberta is way bigger in area than say Texas or California, but we only have about 4 million people at best. Would it work in the U.S? I doubt it because you have something like 300 million people don't you? Our health care workers are paid well and earn every penny. Our problem is that we can't pump out enough of them. Remember, it is not all health care that will be free. Vision, dental, massages, chiropractors and the like still need to be covered by plans such as blue cross. Also, we are lucky enough to not have a big unemployment problem (less than 2%) so that isn't an issue. Now, I am not so naive to believe that if our economy suddenly goes for a dumper things won't change.
Additionally, where I live has the highest number of Americans living outside the U.S. They form a huge segment of our workforce. They were polled recently to see who they would vote for: Obama, Clinton, or McCain. 96% said McCain.
|
|
Lamron
Benevolent Dictator
Posts: 5,214
|
Taxes
May 14, 2008 0:00:42 GMT -5
Post by Lamron on May 14, 2008 0:00:42 GMT -5
Due to this, the provincial government has gained billions of dollars in profit. We were asked what they should do with this account that continued to grow by hundreds of millions yearly. It was decided to give us free health care amongst other things. You have to remember that Alberta is way bigger in area than say Texas or California, but we only have about 4 million people at best. Would it work in the U.S? I doubt it because you have something like 300 million people don't you? That's very interesting, and something I sure didn't know about. But that is NOT socialism. You're talking about a significant source of external income and a relatively small number of people. Choosing to use that money on healthcare for everyone sounds like a pretty good decision for you guys in that situation. When they talk about "universal healthcare" in USA, they mean stealing the money right out of the paychecks of everyone who works and using it to buy votes from worthless slackers. In the US, governments can't own industries. So they produce no profit at all and have no source of income. They have to TAKE money from us to support any random thought that wanders through their head. So the government can't SUPPLY healthcare or anything else to citizens, unlike the situation you described. That's why you got semi-angry responses. You were thinking of the government choosing to use some profits to benefit local citizens, but to us "universal healthcare" means literally HUNDREDS of dollars taken out of our monthly paychecks. I personally know several people who could SIGNIFICANTLY increase their income if they quit their jobs and signed up for welfare and stopped paying for any of their own healthcare. But they don't because they are honest people who feel that would be wrong. If we go total universal healthcare, it will probably push me past that line too. What kind of economy will we have when its not economically feasible to have a job? -Edit for math error!
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Taxes
May 14, 2008 6:42:39 GMT -5
Post by Death's Shadow on May 14, 2008 6:42:39 GMT -5
Woody, I meant no disrespect for you or your comments. I was genuinely curious about the tax structure and health care system were you live. You are right I had no idea about the low population vs. govt owned oil profits. I would ask then, why are your taxes so high if the place you live is so rich? Do all Canadians pay that high of tax, or is it just in your province because you live in a richer one?
Lamron's comments above this one are dead on target. We do not have govt owned business. Should we get govt health care here (shudder) the govt would get a huge chunk of my paycheck, would mandate a pay level for me ( I am a nurse) that would be lower I am sure. They would have to drive the costs down some how to balance the health tax to expense. This would mean also a shortage of medical supplies of all sorts because they would set a price for purchasing all those supplies. The manufactures of those supplies would have to take a huge hit on the profit line to get govt contracts for them. I really do not want the heart lung machine they would use on me in surgery to be produced by the lowest bidder.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
Pvt._Michaels
LPmember
AMERICA......it was nice while it lasted.
Posts: 365
|
Taxes
May 14, 2008 11:55:22 GMT -5
Post by Pvt._Michaels on May 14, 2008 11:55:22 GMT -5
Fellas, you guys seem to think that I made some kind of personal attack on your health care system. That was not the case at all. It is not a political thing for me. In fact, I am anything but liberal in nature. My opinion is that I prefer health care for everyone equally. It is that simple for me on that topic. I also stated that in the very first paragraph that I don't know enough about your health care system to have a valid opinion on it. I can guarantee that you don't know much about ours as well. Please don't confuse it with any alternative health care programs suggested by people in your country. Also, don't believe stooges like Michael Moore when he says we all love each other up here because that is far from the truth. We have our problems and baby we ain't perfect. Redrock and Private, I find your opinions valid but it comes across as a very angry one. I may be misinterpreting it, please let me know if I am wrong. I found your posts a good read and agree that I don't want to pay for others cars, houses etc. Who would want to do that? I see it as a bit far fetched though to assert that the sky would come crashing down if a guy needs an operation to save his life and the government pays for it. If being a "do-gooder" means that I give a poop about preserving life, then I am definitely in the right line of work and I take it as a compliment. A point was made earlier in the discussion that lawyers seem to have made health care expensive in the U.S. This is probably very close to the truth if the civil lawyers are anything like ours are here. DS, you inquired as to how our health care will be "free" Jan 1, 2009. Alberta is a very rich (oil and gas) province. In fact it drives our nation's economy. You may be surprised to learn that we supply a significant amount of resources to the U.S, Mexico, and Asia. Due to this, the provincial government has gained billions of dollars in profit. We were asked what they should do with this account that continued to grow by hundreds of millions yearly. It was decided to give us free health care amongst other things. You have to remember that Alberta is way bigger in area than say Texas or California, but we only have about 4 million people at best. Would it work in the U.S? I doubt it because you have something like 300 million people don't you? Our health care workers are paid well and earn every penny. Our problem is that we can't pump out enough of them. Remember, it is not all health care that will be free. Vision, dental, massages, chiropractors and the like still need to be covered by plans such as blue cross. Also, we are lucky enough to not have a big unemployment problem (less than 2%) so that isn't an issue. Now, I am not so naive to believe that if our economy suddenly goes for a dumper things won't change. Additionally, where I live has the highest number of Americans living outside the U.S. They form a huge segment of our workforce. They were polled recently to see who they would vote for: Obama, Clinton, or McCain. 96% said McCain. Woody, Certainly no anger or disrespect was intended for you, Canada, or anyone else on the thread. However, the issue is highly charged here and frankly not very well thought out by any of it's advocates. It is simple pandering to the growing "entitlement" crowd. They have already gotten their way and we all pay for it as we speak. The Dems want to take it out of the private sector and make it a branch of Government based on the notion that is is somehow a basic "human right". If anyone here detects anger or sarcasm on my posts, it is aimed at those politicians who wish to relieve us of freedoms & and our way of life (capitalism); in the name of "fairness" and "vote-getting". These are the "do-gooders" I refer to...... Being an Election year these contrived "crises" will keep being rolled out & will need to be debunked election after election. The Pvt.
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Taxes
May 15, 2008 12:39:37 GMT -5
Post by Death's Shadow on May 15, 2008 12:39:37 GMT -5
Well said Pvt.
|
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,968
|
Taxes
May 16, 2008 22:29:41 GMT -5
Post by RedRock on May 16, 2008 22:29:41 GMT -5
Lamron and I were discussing the Alberta "free health care." Lamron overestimated the dollars per family being provided by the oil, and when I re-calculated it, it showed a severe shortfall in what is available! If it is "billions in profit" and growing by "100's of millions per year," then for 4 million people, that billions is what, about $2500 per person to start with, and the "100's of millions" is $25 to $100 per person per year (assuming the "100's" is 100 or 400, for example, because if it were 500 or 600 or more, the estimate would probably be stated as half a billion or more than half a billion or nearly a billion, etc.). It simply is NOT possible to provide health care with $2500 to start and $25 to $100 a year, per person. Oh, if most of the people were very healthy, then pooling the money might be enough to HELP the very sick, but realistically, these amounts ain't squat!!! Think about your own health care--just a checkup, just a couple of medicines, just an x-ray for a possible fracture, etc.--total more than $25 to $100 a year (Canadian or American)--and our own health insurance plans cost more than that currently: Private Michaels said he pays $187/month, and he didn't say whether that is family and HMO vs. PPO, etc. I know I pay close to $500 a month for family health insurance that lets me go to whichever doctor I choose, but if outside the insurance plan network, I have to pay more for copay, out of pocket, etc.. My point is, the "100's of millions" Woody is talking about for money per year to run the "free" healthcare, it just ain't gonna hack it! There will have to be more money!!!! And he says that doesn't include dental, etc. That sounds like hidden taxes about to be necessitated to pay for it all!!! And just wait until the pandering politicians get ahold of it and modify benefits or qualifications for coverage, and liberals start suing to get "consent decrees" which force the government to provide some benefit or level of benefit for a rare but expensive situation despite the cost to the program!!! The program will expand and cost more and more and more. Kiss your profits goodbye! Smoke and mirrors, bait and switch! Here, you want an example from current times? The state of Tennessee has been trying an ambitious free/inexpensive health care program to expand Medicaid coverage to all its poor and children, called TennCare. The result? It has nearly bankrupted the state!!! Population, 2006 estimate: 6,038,803. Here was a 1999 article about it: www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/1999/12/27/editorial1.html?page=2Check out these blogs, with some data and comments from Dec. and Nov. 2004, to see what I'm talking about: www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=556www.medrants.com/index.php/archives/2158And the Tenn. governor talking about it failing in May, 2007: healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/05/23/interview-gov-phil-bredesen-on-failure-of-tenncare-future-of-it/And here is an article from just today!!: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107707.phpTennCare had a 7.4 Billion (BBBBBB billion) annual budget for 2007-2008!!!!! www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=41530With a state budget of 28 Billion, that's 25 % of the state budget!!!! Ludicrous!
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Taxes
May 17, 2008 0:06:06 GMT -5
Post by Death's Shadow on May 17, 2008 0:06:06 GMT -5
Hence the 64% of your pay going to the Govt. Meaning that you work 64% of the year for the govt before you even see a penny of it to be your own.
|
|
|
Taxes
May 19, 2008 10:43:59 GMT -5
Post by I...Died...Again!!! on May 19, 2008 10:43:59 GMT -5
If I under stand correctly currently our doctors have the right to set there prices for care. For example a woman I worked with some time ago was a temp/ part time employee that had no benefit package with our employer. She was a diabetic and saw a doctor every month for regular visits. these visits cost her $60 each visit. When she became full time and had insurance the same doctor charged $160 for the same visit that she now was responsible for her co pay of $20. I am a member of a union and am becoming very involved in the negotiating process for our next CBA. With my current employer the benefits package is around $4.50 per hour worked or $720 per month. This covers $180 in 401k contributions 120 hours of vacation and 64 hours of personal time(annually) which is roughly $290 per month. That leaves the remaining money to pay for 85% of my health care costs. I am responsible for 15% of the premium plus any co pays or deductibles under my plan. Also as a veteran I can use the Veterans Administration (which is a Gov't health care system) for service connected ailments at no further cost than my provider will cover. I could use them as a primary care provider but any Vet here will tell you that they are not very efficient. If the Gov't health plan is anything like the VA then we all should be worried. I don't mean to say that the care is substandard, it is not in most cases but a simple checkup requires a full day off. I am not posting this to brag or boast of how good my job is but to give an understanding of what Red has said of bettering one's self. I think that things need to be better for those that need it however I do not believe in hand outs or want another bureaucratic department of Gov't that will gobble up the funding before it gets to is intended recipients. I will also say that I would rather pay my 15% for health care than receive pay in lue of benefits and not get the Vacation and 401K contributions because oh yea the Gov't does run a retirement plan that I will have to be 72 to even consider retirement but will have to wait to be 75 so that I can collect my private retirement without being penalized for making too much money to collect. By the way the Social Security act of 1965 under LBJ (D) unlocked Social Security. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Expansion_and_evolutionSee the ammendments section. I hope that link works?
|
|