That article mostly just talks about a poll that found people were unhappy at how much tax they were paying. Shocking results for a poll, I must say. Shocking. I note that they don’t cite their sources for any of the figures they give. And their numbers look out of whack to me.
Looking at my tax forms, I can only get to a top marginal income tax rate of 44% at $113,804 (how the hell did the feds come up with that number??), and I was under the impression that Saskatchewan had highish income tax rates. I would take that article with a large grain of salt, because it looks like it’s bullshit.
First - many trial lawyers are bottom feeding scum-suckers (John Edwards comes easily to mind).
Second - You clearly know very little about how politics work in DC. Reforming any entitlement is a nightmare. SS is an easier place to start given the original agenda for the program: a safety net for the truly needy. Three things could close the gap rather easily:
Change the annual increases so that they are based upon the increase in the consumer price index instead of wage growth.
Increase the taxable base to $100K, then increase for inflation.
Means test. Protect the benefits for the truly needy while slowly reducing those for people who really do not need the money.
I happen to believe that this would be easier to accomplish than Medicare reform - if you disagree, how about presenting a case for your baby?
I doubt, however, that it will be clear, concise and not include heavy government regulations and price controls.
No, it shouldn’t be. But the more tech a hospital has, the greater the overhead and the allocations to all services.
We also have the little problem of ratio of government provided health care to private. That ratio has more than doubled since the 60s. Government funded patients are often handled at a loss - that loss is passed along to privately funded patients.
So what happens when we are all covered by government provided health care? There are no private sector pigeons to aborb the losses. We are then face with two scenarios: compulsory service for medical personnel at government controlled wages and severe regulation of pharmaceuticals and health tech (just watch the innovation disappear after that) - of decreasing supply as individuals seek more lucrative occupations and capital seeks industries with better returns.
Well, sure, but Americans pay property and sales taxes too. As shown, their overall tax burden is comparable to ours. Now, our system may skew towards personal taxes and away from corporate taxes relative to the US, I don’t know, and I’ve done enough dredging for statistics for one night. But the idea that we pay way more taxes than Americans is just wrong according to the data.
[quote=Wonderwensch]
No, it shouldn’t be. But the more tech a hospital has, the greater the overhead and the allocations to all services.
[QUOTE]
Shouldn’t the people who actually use the tech pay for it? Why must poor Eva kick in for the equipment that only people on fat insurance programs can afford, and while we’re at it why must she kick in for the massive paperwork and staffing requirements brought on by the insurance system? She’d get a better deal if we just outlawed health insurance and let everyone pay for the care they want out of their own pocket.
One factor may be related to the level of sales tax. For example, I pay 15% sales tax on darn near everything excluding basic groceries and prescription drugs; the highest figure I could find for state sales tax was 7.25%. Just a thought.
TN’s sales tax is the highest in the US at 8.25% (some cities also charge a sales tax, so some residents pay 8.5%), and it’s on everything but some services in this state (i.e. you hire a consultant and he doesn’t have to charge you sales tax).
We charge sales tax here at the state, county, and city level, so state sales tax doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, the state sales tax in Louisiana is only 4%, but if you live in Beauregard Parrish (county), your county sales tax is 4.5%. Within Beauregard lies the city of Merryville, which has a sales tax rate of 3%. Yes, residents of Merryville have a sales tax burden of 11.5%. Also, while there are a few states which don’t, most areas also charge sales tax on groceries here, which would make up quite a few percentage points on the 15% that you all pay as a VAT, at least for a typical family.
On the contrary, sir. As I said, I’m in excellent health. The only things I’ve used health insurance for during the past few years are birth control and one doctor’s visit which resulted in 4 prescriptions for a particularly nasty case of flu earlier this year. For that, I pay a couple of hundred dollars a month in addition to what my employer pays. About a decade ago (the most recent data I have), I didn’t have insurance provided through my employer and was looking into how much it would cost for me to pay for it myself. The cheapest plan I could find would have me paying about $1,000 in premiums and had a $1,000 deductible. In short, I would have been out $2,000 before deriving benefit. At the time, I wasn’t even using birth control, so I did without. In short, I’m subsidizing someone else! Since the company which tried to raise my insurance rate by $100 per month tripled its profits last year, that “someone else” appears to be health insurance company executives. (Yes, I realize it’s not that simple.)
Oh, Wierddave, for the record, it’s HIPAA, not HIPPA.
I don’t know what insurance you have, but if the company has a blue logo, our esteemed governor expects them to put those profits back into adult basic health coverage and CHIP. Let 'em make their profits if it means some kid in inner-city Pittsburgh or Philly can get their shots.
Look, I realize this is a waste of time and effort on my part, but I wasn’t saying that social security isn’t easier. Let me correct my double negative: social security IS probably easier. I wasn’t saying it isn’t. What I’m saying is that I would rather Bush keep his greasy little fingers out of that program and let wiser people handle it. I think his current plan is, if not an actual atrocity, at least wrongheaded and clearly influenced by his ties to Big Business.
You can think what you want about Edwards and other trial lawyers. I don’t give a shit. In fact, I don’t give a shit about anything that happens in your empty little head. All that’s in there is a huge echo of whatever the raving politicos are saying at any given moment. In other words, after this post you are off of my radar. Don’t even bother replying.
This issue has been discussed in unpteenth threads in “Great debates”. I’m just going to mention, once again, that the “waiting list” issue exists only in a small number of countries with a public healthcare system (in particular Canada and the UK). There’s no such waiting lists in France, nor AFAIK in Germany, Italy, etc…
So, no…you don’t wait for 5 months to get your stones taken out.
Over here, people like the system. Actually, any proposal by a politician to suppress the public healthcare system would be a political suicide. Of course, people always complain and state that it should be better, but it’s true for everything.
Most certainly not. The USA example is at the contrary used to show how bad is it when there’s no public halthcare system. Especially since people generally have a caricatural view of it and many believe, for example, that if you can’t pay for your medical care in the USA, you don’t get any.
Yes, I know that. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Sorry for the typo.
That’s the second time you’ve mentioned that. So what? Who cares? Your insurance company is a private, for-profit corporation. They are supposed to make money, just like Exxon-Mobil, GM or IBM. Pointing at their profits and saying “They made money! gasp” is pointless. My response to that is “Good, they were supposed to”, and I don’t think a successful corporation is something that should be condemned, but if you don’t like it, why don’t you take your business to a not-for-profit health insurance company? (Like Carefirst BCBS here in Maryland. Most of their coverages suck, but they’re non-profit. their executives still get big bonuses, but the company doesn’t)
How many cites do you need on the growing obesity problem in America?
Or does your argument have something to do with parents not passing those very same traits to their children? Much like smokers who smoke while pregnant and then wonder why their children are born with Emphysema or something worse, your argument is stagnant.
I wasn’t referring to you or I. It was a general assumption with a whole bunch of data to back up my claim. Is that not how arguments are presented here?
Waiting lists have been an issue in the Netherlands, but they have been dealth with in a combined effort between insurance companies, hospitals and specialists. Sometimes if certain specialised treatments were cheaper and faster dealt with in, say, the South of Spain, then if a patient agreed because he wanted to be treated quicker, an insurance company would arrange for all of that. The same of course, for different hospitals in the Netherlands - if one had a shorter waitinglist, and the patient did not object, he or she would be treated in that hospital rather than in the nearest one around.
I think over here, in the Netherlands, we healthily strive to improve matters, balancing costs and waitinglists, for instance. One part of our health system involves guaranteed low-cost insurance for people earning below a certain threshhold. Above this, people take their private insurance - but either way, everyone is obliged to have an insurance, so there are really hardly any people that do not have one (illegal immigrants are the exception).
Note that no European system is like the other, there are sometimes fundamental differences between neighbouring countries. Belgium, the U.K., the Netherlands, or Germany, each have their own specific differences and problems. The big advantage of that is that we can learn from those differences, if we want to. Germany, for instance, has a very expensive system - probably too expensive for the country to bear now - but the quality and luxury is also extremely high. They get what they pay for.
The dynamic in the Dutch system lies in the way the insurance companies, government, hospitals and pharmaceuticals interact. Until recently, those with an income above a certain threshold had to pay for their own insurance fully, and below that threshold people would receive a state sponsored insurance (if you work, you and your employer each contributed something like 15 euros, and say the first 200 euros you had to pay on your own).
Then however, we privatized that insurance, while maintaining the maximum premiums for people with a yearly income below the threshold (currently something like 34.000 euro a year, if I remember correctly - quite high, I’m just a bit above it myself). Every insurance company is required to offer this package, if it also wants to offer health insurance to those above the threshold. This does mean that those above the threshold will probably end up paying a bit of premium for those below the threshold, but at the same time this partial free-market system stimulates the insurance companies to try to work as efficiently as possible at all levels, as the less money they lose (if any!) on the below-threshold clients, the more money they can make overall, and for instance offer relatively lower premiums to the above-threshold clients. That this works is partially seen in the negotiations they have with pharmaceuticals on med-prices, and the effort they put in to help get their clients the health-care they want as cheaply and quickly as possible. Semi-free market at its best, imho.
Again, I’m not saying that we have it perfected, but it seems very promising.
No matter how great the differences, this does seem to be something most European countries agree on - the U.S. system is not something we either ambition or envy with regards to leaving some out in the cold and returning to a class society where those with money are substantially priviliged over those without, in this regard. At the same time, you see how the Netherlands attempts to find a balance so that the advantages of a free-market system still come into play. As they say, the truth is often somewhere inbetween.