The US has the best health care in the world?

[Al68]

Us little people can NOT foot the bill.

All public bills are footed by us little people one way or another. Either we pay it directly, or pay the cost of inflation. Or pay in the form of reduced economic investment.

Any tax bill paid by the rich comes out of their investment in the economy, not out of their "spending money". So, basically, any and all government spending will always be paid for by us little people one way or another. And I agree it's not fair, and it should be reduced drastically. Like you said, we're getting killed here.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

All public bills are footed by us little people one way or another. Either we pay it directly, or pay the cost of inflation. Or pay in the form of reduced economic investment.

Any tax bill paid by the rich comes out of their investment in the economy, not out of their "spending money". So, basically, any and all government spending will always be paid for by us little people one way or another. And I agree it's not fair, and it should be reduced drastically. Like you said, we're getting killed here.

Yes but economies need rich investors. Economies need underpaying free loaders like I need a third nipple. I've never understood the entitlement that those in low income brackets feel to the money of those in high income brackets. If you think you just "deserve" it more then you are incredibly deluded.

 

[Al68]

My comment wonders at the necessity of needing to force people to help others.
Am I willing to force people to help others?
Why should I have to?

Well, if a person doesn't do so voluntarily, you either will use force against him or not. Those are your choices. Whether he will do so voluntarily without being forced is not your choice or mine. It's his and his alone regardless of what we think.

As far as why should you have to use force, you don't. You could choose not to use force against others despite the fact that they are not serving your cause. Or you can try to force them to serve.

This is a politics forum, and politics isn't about people doing everything you want without the use of force. That's just not the way it works.

If politics was about whether or not helping others is a good thing, 99% of us would be on the same side.

 

[Evo]

Yes but economies need rich investors. Economies need underpaying free loaders like I need a third nipple. I've never understood the entitlement that those in low income brackets feel to the money of those in high income brackets. If you think you just "deserve" it more then you are incredibly deluded.

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income. They're not hurting like I am, so instead of excusing them from paying taxes, they should continue paying, and perhaps even pay more.

If someone making $40,000 annually pays a 6.2% social security tax, shouldn't someone making $250,000 a year pay the same 6.2%? Yes, they should, but they pay NOTHING!

So, the people that make the least are paying all of the taxes, and the rich pay none.

 

[mheslep]

...Altogether, I had to live with the hernia for about a month from the time I realized what it was to when I got the surgery. I shudder to think about how long I would have had to wait if I was Canadian...

http://www.takebackmedicine.com/storage/factsheets/ukandcanada.pdf"

Your understanding of our system is severely misguided.
...

Is it? Wait lists for particular operations can drop in government run systems if and when the government decides to pour funding into some area or another for whatever reason. But they can not do that across the board. Do you challenge these wait list http://www.takebackmedicine.com/storage/factsheets/ukandcanada.pdf" .

 

[Al68]

Yes but economies need rich investors. Economies need underpaying free loaders like I need a third nipple. I've never understood the entitlement that those in low income brackets feel to the money of those in high income brackets. If you think you just "deserve" it more then you are incredibly deluded.

Did you accidentally respond to the wrong post here? Or did you misread my post?

Did I accidentally make a typo and say the opposite of what I intended? I don't know what to make of this response.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income. They're not hurting like I am, so instead of excusing them from paying taxes, they should continue paying, and perhaps even pay more.

If someone making $40,000 annually pays a 6.2% social security tax, shouldn't someone making $250,000 a year pay the same 6.2%? Yes, they should, but they pay NOTHING!

So, the people that make the least are paying all of the taxes, and the rich pay none.

Well I don't know about the states but someone here in Canada that makes over $100,000 pays about 30% tax federally and like 10% tax provincially. A person how makes $40,00 pays maybe 20% total. That's twice as much tax for twice as much income. Then any money they make past that $100,000 practically goes half to the gov't half to me, half to the gov't half to me...

 

[Al68]

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income. They're not hurting like I am, so instead of excusing them from paying taxes, they should continue paying, and perhaps even pay more.

If someone making $40,000 annually pays a 6.2% social security tax, shouldn't someone making $250,000 a year pay the same 6.2%? Yes, they should, but they pay NOTHING!

So based on that logic, if the person making $40K pays $4 for a happy meal, then someone making $250K should pay $25 for a happy meal. And my son should charge him $75 for a pizza instead of $12. etc, etc.

The actual cost to government of providing retirement insurance to someone isn't proportional to income, so why should the price be?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Meritocracy, more like mediocrity. You do too well and the state claims almost an even cut on your prosperity. If you don't, well.. that's ok, we'll prop you up.

 

[Al68]

Well I don't know about the states but someone here in Canada that makes over $100,000 pays about 30% tax federally and like 10% tax provincially. A person how makes $40,00 pays maybe 20% total. That's twice as much tax for twice as much income. Then any money they make past that $100,000 practically goes half to the gov't half to me, half to the gov't half to me...

It's similar in the U.S., politicians are just more successful at lying and misleading people about it here.

 

[mheslep]

...Here is one study that ranks the US as 37th in the world, in health care.http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf ..

... I also cited the WHO study that ranks the US as 37th in the world.

The WHO study has been discussed several times in other threads. Its rankings include weighted metrics for things like health spending, and measures of 'fairness' (as the authors choose to measure it). It also uses life expectancy and infant mortality which are related to many things having nothing to do with medical practice (e.g. homicides). That's fine for whatever purpose they may have had in mind, but it is highly misleading if one is looking for the best possible outcomes in the case you actually get hurt/sick. If one corrects for these irrelevant factors, for instance in the case of life expectancy, it has been http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf" (table 1-5) that the US has the highest life expectancy in the world by a slight margin, whereas the raw WHO figures have the US 24th in life expectancy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, if a person doesn't do so voluntarily, you either will use force against him or not. Those are your choices. Whether he will do so voluntarily without being forced is not your choice or mine. It's his and his alone regardless of what we think.

As far as why should you have to use force, you don't. You could choose not to use force against others despite the fact that they are not serving your cause. Or you can try to force them to serve.

This is a politics forum, and politics isn't about people doing everything you want without the use of force. That's just not the way it works.

If politics was about whether or not helping others is a good thing, 99% of us would be on the same side.

I'll make sure to keep this all in mind while I decide whether or not to force people to not steal, force people to not do violence upon one another, ect.
Obviously laws, taxes, government, and such have nothing to do with helping anyone.

 

[Danger]

How bad was the hernia? It is my understanding that the severity of the problem has a big impact on the wait time for care. My doctor told me I didn't even need the surgery if I didn't want it.

Neither was serious. They restricted my lifting capacity to a fair extent (I could carry only 1 24-pack of beer bottles rather than the 3 that I usually did; I was bartending at the time), I avoided gassy food, and they made sex a bit painful. I could easily have gone a year untreated.

 

[Danger]

Do you challenge these wait list http://www.takebackmedicine.com/storage/factsheets/ukandcanada.pdf" .

All I can say is that I've never known those stats to apply to anyone that I know. ER wait times can be pretty lengthy at some hospitals due to staff or space shortages, but it's done on a worst-served-first basis.
By the bye, each province has its own system. I'm in Alberta, where they just eliminated the $130/3-months health care insurance premiums that we used to have to pay.

 

[Al68]

I'll make sure to keep this all in mind while I decide whether or not to force people to not steal, force people to not do violence upon one another, ect.
Obviously laws, taxes, government, and such have nothing to do with helping anyone.

Huh? Of course they do. Or at least they can.

My point was that the fact that we may disagree about whether or not to use force against someone doesn't mean we disagree about what we think they should do.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Huh? Of course they do. Or at least they can.

My point was that the fact that we may disagree about whether or not to use force against someone doesn't mean we disagree about what we think they should do.

Are you against taxes?

 

[Al68]

Are you against taxes?

Not in general. I'm not opposed to all uses of force. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not in general. I'm not opposed to all uses of force. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.

Well... People decided, or at least were convinced, that taxes needed to be paid and that force ought to be used to make sure they were paid if necessary. The force being used isn't about any single avenue of spending, its just about tax collection in general. So the force that would be wielded to make sure that the money is collected that would go to national health care is also the force that would be wielded to make sure that the money is collected that goes to make sure the white house lawn gets mowed, American flags for capital buildings are bought and properly cared for, the president gets his lunch, ect.

Do you agree with force being used against people to make sure that the white house lawn gets mowed?

 

[mheslep]

Universal Car Care:

 

[Al68]

Well... People decided, or at least were convinced, that taxes needed to be paid and that force ought to be used to make sure they were paid if necessary. The force being used isn't about any single avenue of spending, its just about tax collection in general. So the force that would be wielded to make sure that the money is collected that would go to national health care is also the force that would be wielded to make sure that the money is collected that goes to make sure the white house lawn gets mowed, American flags for capital buildings are bought and properly cared for, the president gets his lunch, ect.

Do you agree with force being used against people to make sure that the white house lawn gets mowed?

No, actually, but that's because any mowing service around would gladly do it for free, or even pay to do it. That would be a valuable advertisement for them. I'd bet John Deere would cut a big check just for using their mower.

As far as the force being the same, if I use force to collect $100 that someone has that belongs to me, and while I'm at it I collect an extra $200 just because he had it and my neighbor needed it, it's the same force used for both. But using force to collect the $200 because my neighbor needed it was theft, even if it's the same force used to collect a legitimate debt. So part of the "collection" was theft and part of it was not. It's simply untrue to say that either it's all theft or none of it is.

Would you say that it's OK to imprison 10 people if only one of them is a convicted criminal because the force used to imprison the innocent is the same force used to imprison the guilty? After all, the force used isn't just to imprison the innocent, it's for imprisonment in general.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, actually, but that's because any mowing service around would gladly do it for free, or even pay to do it. That would be a valuable advertisement for them. I'd bet John Deere would cut a big check just for using their mower.

As far as the force being the same, if I use force to collect $100 that someone has that belongs to me, and while I'm at it I collect an extra $200 just because he had it and my neighbor needed it, it's the same force used for both. But using force to collect the $200 because my neighbor needed it was theft, even if it's the same force used to collect a legitimate debt. So part of the "collection" was theft and part of it was not. It's simply untrue to say that either it's all theft or none of it is.

Would you say that it's OK to imprison 10 people if only one of them is a convicted criminal because the force used to imprison the innocent is the same force used to imprison the guilty? After all, the force used isn't just to imprison the innocent, it's for imprisonment in general.

What? Are you saying now that if taxes were introduced to pay for national health care it would be illegal? Akin to the IRS just deciding one day that they were going to make you cough up some extra cash? or just throw someone in prison even though they paid their taxes?

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

So far this is the impression that I am getting...



IRS: Excuse me. We're here to collect the taxes you owe. I am very sorry about this but if you refuse we will have to take it from you by force.

Al68: Oh, well I completely respect that. Here let me write you a check, and as well you should throw me in jail if I refuse to pay you.

IRS: Good good. You see we really need the money to pay for this new National Health Care deal.

Al68: Uh oh, sorry fellas but I don't agree with my money being spent on National Health Care. I'm just going to have to tear up this check here and since I don't agree with the way you want to spend my money, well, I don't think I can allow you to take me to jail.

IRS: Oh no, well dash. It's too bad you don't agree with the way we want to spend your money since we'd really like to arrest you for not paying your taxes but if that's the way it is then I guess we'll just have to leave you alone. Carry on then.

Al68: Thanks for understanding guys. Maybe we'll have this sorted out by next year. See you then!



Is that about right?

 

[D H]

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

Really. You are the one who introduced the wonky lawn mowing metaphor. Al68's answer was spot in the sense of "ask a stupid question, get a smartass answer".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Really. You are the one who introduced the wonky lawn mowing metaphor.

That's not a metaphor. It is, in fact, one of the many rather small things our tax dollars go to pay for. So saying that you are being made to pay for health care by threat of force is the same as saying you are being made to pay for the President's lawn care (or any number of other inane little things) by threat of force.
"if ... then ..." not "... is like ..."

 

[D H]

That's not a metaphor. It is, in fact, one of the many rather small things our tax dollars go to pay for.

It is 5:00 AM, for crying out loud. Give me a break. What you presented is, to be 5:00 AM blunt, a stupid argument. You are missing Al68's point, which is that all taxation is legalized theft. That is a fairly common viewpoint amongst libertarians. The taxes might well be necessary and constitutional used to fund necessary and constitutional projects, but they remain nonetheless legalized theft. When that legalized theft is used to fund something viewed to be unconstitutional it grates just a bit. Many libertarians and conservatives view nationalized health care as unconstitutional.Now back to less silly arguments:

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income.

This exemplifies why I think the legalized theft, aka taxation, must be progressive to some extent. IMHO, discussions about fairness in taxation schemes are misguided. There can be no such thing as a fair tax for the simple reason that taxation is inherently unfair. However, some level of taxation is also very necessary. The best we can do is to spread the pain around evenly. A flat tax does not come close to achieving that end. It would induce incredible misery upon everyone but the very rich, and would make the very rich extremely happy. Even a proportional tax fails this "spread the pain" test. Take 25% of a poor person's income and that poor person will have to forego eating for several days a month. Take 25% of a rich person's income and they might forego a nibble of caviar.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is 5:00 AM, for crying out loud. Give me a break. What you presented is, to be 5:00 AM blunt, a stupid argument. You are missing Al68's point, which is that all taxation is legalized theft. That is a fairly common viewpoint amongst libertarians. The taxes might well be necessary and constitutional used to fund necessary and constitutional projects, but they remain nonetheless legalized theft. When that legalized theft is used to fund something viewed to be unconstitutional it grates just a bit. Many libertarians and conservatives view nationalized health care as unconstitutional.

Stupid? He has taken an idea and made the rhetorical implication that it is somehow distasteful or even unethical. I'm pointing out the rediculousness in his implication by extending it to encompass all things paid for by taxes and not just those which he is currently arguing against. That is I would find it much less distasteful if money taken from me by force (or legalized theft) were spent on something as important as health care than to be made, by threat of force, to pay for someone's lawn care. Tell me, which application of the threat of force do you find the most distasteful?

 

[seycyrus]

The insurance companies do not engage in "mistakes and abuses". They intentionally deny and delay payment as long as possible to make money off the interest on their holdings, and the magnitude of the fraud is incredible.

Uhm, that IS an abuse. Why would you claim that it is not? Perhaps your eagerness to attack anyone who raises the merest suggestion of questioning an Obama policy caused momentary dyslexia?

If you think that a government-based program will perpetuate this kind of crap, please link to some legitimate sources to support your claim.

Oh, I see. this thread can be originated by anecdotal stories, but when I mention my real life experiences, *I* get called on it.

Same old hypocrisy.

Keep up the cheerleading!

 

[turbo]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

The insurance companies and their shills in Congress loudly proclaim that having public health insurance would be too expensive. The truth is that the stranglehold that the private insurers have would be broken. I have worked in the medical field as a network administrator, and I have written programs to help financial administrators keep track of the aging of their receivables, and prompt the coding specialists to review, recode, and re-file claims so that (hopefully) the insurance companies will pay.

One truly pathetic "feature" of our current system is that the insurance companies cherry-pick who they will or will not cover, and if you come down with a serious illness, they will drop your coverage rather than pay for your treatment. As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, and a very large portion of his patients are Medicaid recipients (low-income). Despite Medicaid's caps on reimbursements, his practice is doing well because Medicaid's coding requirements are clear and they pay promptly, so he doesn't need to pay coding and billing specialists to re-submit claims again and again.

 

[seycyrus]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead ...

Such flagrant abuse of selective response should be a violation of PF rules. I specifically stated that this thread had its origin in the form of anecdotes.

... As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, ...

Oh, another anecdote!

Guess what? I work in the govt. system *now*. the more govt. gets its hands in something, the more it screws you up.

Keep on keeping on with the anecdotes. I'll match you two for one on how the govt. can screw up something simple and make it far far worse. I can come up with a new story on a daily basis!

 

[mheslep]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

The insurance companies and their shills in Congress loudly proclaim that having public health insurance would be too expensive.

I don't know about the shills, but the http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=324" says so

According to that assessment, enacting those provisions by themselves would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of $1,042 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

The truth is that the stranglehold that the private insurers have would be broken.

There are several other alternatives to breaking up the insurance monopolies including allowing competition between states, breaking the employer-health care coupling (both were McCain proposals) - all of which by the way was set up that way in the first place by government laws and tax code.

 

[mheslep]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

There's good evidence to the contrary, that Medicare in reality does not have lower administrative costs, but let us assume for the moment that is true.

... As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, and a very large portion of his patients are Medicaid recipients (low-income). Despite Medicaid's caps on reimbursements, his practice is doing well because Medicaid's coding requirements are clear and they pay promptly, so he doesn't need to pay coding and billing specialists to re-submit claims again and again.

Bingo. Yes I am sure they pay. They pay for any invoice on anything. That's why these programs incur such massive fraud. Just send them an invoice and it is paid, no questions asked. This also goes to why Medicare/Medicaid appear to have lower administrative costs: they don't employ anywhere near the staff required to properly vet claims, by a factor of twenty I've read. One is playing with fire in attempting to defraud a private insurance company. But with Medicare/Medicaid, its 'what took you so long to join the rip-off party?'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649425934283347.html"

The White House made a big show last week about "turning the heat up" on Medicare fraud, as Jane Friday -- er, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius put it. The dragnet resulted in 53 indictments in Detroit for a $50 million scheme to submit bills for HIV drugs and physical therapy that were never provided, as well as busting up a Miami ring that used fake storefronts to steal some $100 million...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586523348648621.html"

The federal government announced indictments of 53 people allegedly involved in a Medicare-fraud scheme in Detroit, a day after charging eight others in Miami suspected of running a similar fraud.
...
In the Detroit case, the alleged fraud was estimated at $50 million. Those charged included doctors, health-care executives and beneficiaries. The scheme in Miami allegedly used fake store fronts in an attempt to cheat Medicare out of $100 million.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-ag-491.html

"Every year we lose tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds to fraud.

That is six tens of billions every year per the WSJ.

 

[Al68]

What? Are you saying now that if taxes were introduced to pay for national health care it would be illegal? Akin to the IRS just deciding one day that they were going to make you cough up some extra cash? or just throw someone in prison even though they paid their taxes?

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

So far this is the impression that I am getting...



IRS: Excuse me. We're here to collect the taxes you owe. I am very sorry about this but if you refuse we will have to take it from you by force.

Al68: Oh, well I completely respect that. Here let me write you a check, and as well you should throw me in jail if I refuse to pay you.

IRS: Good good. You see we really need the money to pay for this new National Health Care deal.

Al68: Uh oh, sorry fellas but I don't agree with my money being spent on National Health Care. I'm just going to have to tear up this check here and since I don't agree with the way you want to spend my money, well, I don't think I can allow you to take me to jail.

IRS: Oh no, well dash. It's too bad you don't agree with the way we want to spend your money since we'd really like to arrest you for not paying your taxes but if that's the way it is then I guess we'll just have to leave you alone. Carry on then.

Al68: Thanks for understanding guys. Maybe we'll have this sorted out by next year. See you then!



Is that about right?

My analogy was intended to show that using the "same" force for two purposes doesn't make the purposes equal.

The conversation above seems backwards.

We were discussing whether or not to collect the money by force, not whether or not to be collected from. That being said, the above "conversation" sure sounds silly if you operate under the assumption that people's earnings don't rightfully belong to them.

 

[turbo]

Michele Bachmann and John Kline (both GOP, BTW) say that public health insurance would be 30-40% cheaper than private health insurance, and are using that as an argument AGAINST it. Small businesses are the real "job-engines" in our economy, and it is hardly good conservative practice to work against a program that can greatly reduce the expenses of these businesses who want to offer health insurance coverage to their employees.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bachmann-kline-oppose-public-option-because-its-cheaper

Now, for those who rail that government can't do anything right, please look here: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3272

Most retirees pay just $96.40/month for Medicare Part B (doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc) and a married couple would have to be making almost $1/2M per year to pay the maximum premium of $308.30/month. Please bear in mind that the people being served by this program are primarily elderly retirees, with people on Social Security Disability thrown in. Those are demographics with more health problems than average and the cost of their health care should be higher than average. If the government can put together a similar public program WITH the addition of people from healthier demographic groups, costs and premiums should go down significantly.

The GOP is playing the politics of fear and uncertainty to try to derail universal health-care coverage.

 

[Al68]

Most retirees pay just $96.40/month for Medicare Part B (doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc) and a married couple would have to be making almost $1/2M per year to pay the maximum premium of $308.30/month. Please bear in mind that the people being served by this program are primarily elderly retirees, with people on Social Security Disability thrown in. Those are demographics with more health problems than average and the cost of their health care should be higher than average.

And is. Surely you're not suggesting that the above premiums represent the total cost of the coverage.

The GOP is playing the politics of fear and uncertainty to try to derail universal health-care coverage.

That's better than being the ones advocating such a thing to be feared.

 

[Al68]

Stupid? He has taken an idea and made the rhetorical implication that it is somehow distasteful or even unethical. I'm pointing out the rediculousness in his implication by extending it to encompass all things paid for by taxes and not just those which he is currently arguing against. That is I would find it much less distasteful if money taken from me by force (or legalized theft) were spent on something as important as health care than to be made, by threat of force, to pay for someone's lawn care. Tell me, which application of the threat of force do you find the most distasteful?

Distasteful? You can't seriously think that's what this is about. Why would it be a valid point to extend an objection to theft to encompass things that are not theft?

And not all taxes are legalized theft. I use the word theft only to refer to the portion that's use is not related to services provided to the person paying the tax. The road (fuel) tax is an obvious example of a tax that is not theft.

Income taxes are doubly problematic. Not only are the taxes collected from a person by force unrelated to services provided to that person (theft), the right to privacy is violated by the governments demand to know someone's personal income.

Can you explain how an individual's personal income is even government's business?

 

[mheslep]

Its over, at least for this Summer.
http://twitter.com/GStephanopoulos
"Top Senate aides confirm Obama's August deadline for healthcare won't be met. Durbin tells "The Hill" not "possible" Takes bullet for POTUS"

Maybe when they come back in the Fall they'll work some plans that make sense.