...and that has absolutely nothing to do with Europeans typically having a much better diet than Americans does it?
Well our mildly better diet helps up the life expectancy, but as I said, drinking and smoking are way higher here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoplectic1
Unfortunately increasing taxes can have an inverse relationship with productivity. Raise taxes too much, productivity goes way down. Ever hear of the Laffer Curve?
Productivity down = inefficiency.
I have heard of it, but thats not really relevant. You could provide healthcare for all without increasing the deficit (although less spending would result in less tax revenues and thus a higher deficit, and 6-8 of the US economy would disappear)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoplectic1
That's just it, does the government have the right to force people to buy anything? Am I the only person who that seems completely oppressive to?
Well its healthcare.. health is a right. Its not my fault I am predisposed to cancer or Alzheimers or high cholesterol, or that kids are born with illnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoplectic1
Whether or not people are healthy (whether or not their state of unhealth is self imposed or not) should not be the governments concern.
Why should it not? The government is there for the betterment and protection of the people. If this was not the case we would all be impoverished and likely dead.
Anywaaaaay, heres an interesting article with some fun facts and figures. Interesting to see some of the problems European countries have (Although they obviously pale in comparison when compared to the US):
It's a different mindset than say Cuba, where health care is a right, a national imperative and something that every Cuban naturally expects. Here in the U.S., health care is a privilege based on what type of money you have.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
It's not a privilige any more than owning a car is a privelige. Someone has to pay for it. Asking those who benefit the least to bear the burden and those who benefit the most pay nothing is crap. If the feds want to implement their own insurance program and they can operate it to either break even or make money, then I have no objection to it. Let people choose between that plan and the other plans that are out there.
Requiring that everyone purchase health insurance is crap. Requiring that employers bear the burden is crap as well.
For the last time we have a perfect example of a fully funded, fully run by the US government health system. It's the VA system. Someone please make the case for me that the VA health system is great and wonderful. I'm listening. The fact that every vet I know would rather pay money for insurance out of their own pocket so they can go elsewhere tells you a lot. They are entitled to free health insurance for life but would rather pay for something in the private sector. What does that say about the efficiency and effectiveness of a fully government run system in the US? But if someone thinks the VA system is better than any private system out there, I'm listening. I think it's a shame we treat our veterans this way.
In any case, why not address the problem of why healthcare is so damn expensive? Instead of forcing everyone to buy a product that everyone seems to agree is overpriced, why not focus on bringing the price down. You bring the price down to something that is reasonable and then you let people decide if they want to buy it or not. If they don't want to buy a reasonably priced product, it's on them.
You a terribly misinformed. Vets only get VA health care on a sliding scale, I think you have to have a household income of less than $15k to get free health care. Around $20k you have a prescription co-pay.
Most Vets buy health insurance based on never checking the VA and having too high an income anyway.
It's not a privilige any more than owning a car is a privelige. Someone has to pay for it. Asking those who benefit the least to bear the burden and those who benefit the most pay nothing is crap. If the feds want to implement their own insurance program and they can operate it to either break even or make money, then I have no objection to it. Let people choose between that plan and the other plans that are out there.
Requiring that everyone purchase health insurance is crap. Requiring that employers bear the burden is crap as well.
I generally agree, I am against most forms of socialism. I think we need flat tax brackets with VERY minimal deductions.
Forcing everyone into programs only raises inflation and/or will end up hurting the common workers. The guys at the top won't give back money, but they will force lower employees into cuts.
It's not a privilige any more than owning a car is a privelige. Someone has to pay for it. Asking those who benefit the least to bear the burden and those who benefit the most pay nothing is crap. If the feds want to implement their own insurance program and they can operate it to either break even or make money, then I have no objection to it. Let people choose between that plan and the other plans that are out there.
Requiring that everyone purchase health insurance is crap. Requiring that employers bear the burden is crap as well.
In a way you're right. This is similar to our public school system. It is a complete disaster now days, anyway. Alot of the kids coming from elementry schools can barely read/write. I think the USA is way below other western nations school kids level.
I know alot of single and couples without kids do not like paying taxes to their local school taxing district. Why should they have to pay if they don't have kids going to them? Why should tax payers who are against foreign wars have to have their tax money used for that purpose? The list can go even further.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevincott
You a terribly misinformed. Vets only get VA health care on a sliding scale, I think you have to have a household income of less than $15k to get free health care. Around $20k you have a prescription co-pay.
Most Vets buy health insurance based on never checking the VA and having too high an income anyway.
My understanding was that any vet could go to a VA hospital and be treated free of charge. Is that statement incorrect?
It's a different mindset than say Cuba, where health care is a right, a national imperative and something that every Cuban naturally expects. Here in the U.S., health care is a privilege based on what type of money you have.
Ah go away with your Cuba. Health is a right in pretty much every developed country. Its part of UN agreements etc (which the US opted out of). Health being a right is why we ban carcinogenics and provide healthcare. Sure people are free to make themselves unhealthy, but they are likewise free to make themselves unfree or make themselves uneducated if they are so strongly inclined. Does not stop education or freedom being essential rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech
In a way you're right. This is similar to our public school system. It is a complete disaster now days, anyway. Alot of the kids coming from elementry schools can barely read/write. I think the USA is way below other western nations school kids level.
I know alot of single and couples without kids do not like paying taxes to their local school taxing district. Why should they have to pay if they don't have kids going to them? Why should tax payers who are against foreign wars have to have their tax money used for that purpose? The list can go even further.
Just some thoughts!
I think the US educational system is very unequal. Realistically education should be funded by state taxation, local government should have nothing to do with education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoplectic1
This. Health is a personal responsibility, not a right.
The whole point of government is to govern, nothing more or less. The betterment of the people is up to the people themselves.
a) Health is a right in most places. Obviously rights depend on laws etc. Anyway Catholic and Protestant churches and all sorts of organisations are with me on that front.
b) The betterment of the people is an essential part of governance. To achieve progress. To increase economic output. To increase scientific and research advancements. If betterment of the people was not a part of governing we would still be in the 1800s.
Last edited by BabyBlues; November 20th, 2012 at 03:01 PM.
A) big difference between a private organization providing healthcare and the government providing it.
Not really. Again, in Bavaria or Switzerland it will be private hospitals providing
your healthcare, in England & Wales public hospitals, but the difference is far from big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
B) as previously stated, it's up to you to better yourself. Not the government's job.
I was more on about the betterment of society. For example, a space program, medical research, healthcare and education, environmental research and legislation, etc. The government does not necessarily have to provide or do these things directly, but it certainly has to push them and ensure them.
The government does not necessarily have to provide or do these things directly, but it certainly has to push them and ensure them.
Promote them sure, but provide them? That's where the federal government would be overstepping their bounds.
If the states wanted to do it (like Tenessee and Massachusettss do already) they can do so by the right given to them in the tenth amendment of the US Constitution. The federal government has no such rights.
Promote them sure, but provide them? That's where the federal government would be overstepping their bounds.
If the states wanted to do it (like Tenessee and Massachusettss do already) they can do so by the right given to them in the tenth amendment of the US Constitution. The federal government has no such rights.
Well in my opinion, the federal government should not be involved with healthcare. Its actually an unusual situation, especially when one considers the sovereignty the states of the US have when compared to other federations.
However, states have by and large failed to ensure adequate healthcare for their citizens. Given that Obamacare is a very loose system, states can still implement their own systems. Really should be a way for them to opt out of medicaid and med***** if they do so however.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja
Not really. Again, in Bavaria or Switzerland it will be private hospitals providing
your healthcare, in England & Wales public hospitals, but the difference is far from big.
Still a huge difference. A private healthcare system can't force me to give money to it. That is where the difference is. It relies purely on the donations of like minded individuals. If you believe that healthcare for those who either cannot or do not purchase insurance is extremely important and you are willing to donate your money/time to that cause I have no problems with that at all. If you want to give everything you earn to that cause, knock yourself out. It's your money and no one's coercing you to give it. That is where the difference is. Also, you have the choice to support just the organizations who provide the care the way you think it should be provided according to the criteria you like. Huge difference.
Quote:
I was more on about the betterment of society. For example, a space program, medical research, healthcare and education, environmental research and legislation, etc. The government does not necessarily have to provide or do these things directly, but it certainly has to push them and ensure them.
Well, our government disagrees with you on the space program as they have severely cut NASA's funding (and some of it NASA brought on itself due to it's own incompetence and lack of foresight) and shifted a lot of the research on space into the responsibility of the private sector. Medical research is funded by drug companies looking to make a buck. Our public education system is even more of a joke than our healthcare system. So much for the feds running that. And, as stated before, there is a difference between promoting something and taking steps to make sure it happens. That is where the government oversteps its bounds.
Still a huge difference. A private healthcare system can't force me to give money to it.
Well... the government can mandate this, as happens in the examples I gave.
You cant fund healthcare on charity. That would require something like 20% of GDP going to charity. Which is madness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
Well, our government disagrees with you on the space program as they have severely cut NASA's funding (and some of it NASA brought on itself due to it's own incompetence and lack of foresight) and shifted a lot of the research on space into the responsibility of the private sector. Medical research is funded by drug companies looking to make a buck. Our public education system is even more of a joke than our healthcare system. So much for the feds running that. And, as stated before, there is a difference between promoting something and taking steps to make sure it happens. That is where the government oversteps its bounds.
No, the government still promotes a space program, and ensures it, thats the thing! Thats exactly why I gave that example. Medical research is indeed often do by medical companies, and by universities working with them. The government has a role to play in promoting this, with grants, infrastructure and education. I obviously dont want the federal government owning schools and paying teachers, be serious A.Nonomyous, stop acting like I am some sort of fool, and stop distorting what I say and manipulating it.
My understanding was that any vet could go to a VA hospital and be treated free of charge. Is that statement incorrect?
Any Vet can walk into a VA hospital and get treated but may get a bill down the road; I do not know the specifics.
You have to get pre-approved for ongoing or recurring VA care and it is based on household income; I applied for VA care for a back injury and know for sure about the sliding scale.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevincott
Any Vet can walk into a VA hospital and get treated but may get a bill down the road; I do not know the specifics.
You have to get pre-approved for ongoing or recurring VA care and it is based on household income; I applied for VA care for a back injury and know for sure about the sliding scale.
Fair enough. I stand corrected then. Since my experience with the VA system is 3rd hand and your is 1st hand would you say the VA system is better or worse than what you can get from a public hospital?
Fair enough. I stand corrected then. Since my experience with the VA system is 3rd hand and your is 1st hand would you say the VA system is better or worse than what you can get from a public hospital?
Can't say, the VA thing is recent and I have only had 1 visit.
Before this I haven't seen a doctor in about 20 years, nothing to really compare.
according to the VA guidelines the threshold varies depending on where you live...... but on average to qualify for 100% free care the income threshold is around $40K for a single person up to $70K for a family of 4 ($70K/$100K in a city like St Louis for example)
pretty reasonable thresholds IMO...... anyone making above those levels can surely afford private insurance which is always a better alternative than VA benefits
of course above those thresholds you most likely still qualify for benefits.... you will simply have a co-pay which is comparable to the co-pays of most private insurance policies
However, states have by and large failed to ensure adequate healthcare for their citizens.
Its not their place to ensure it. If they feel the need to, and their citizens agree and pass an amendment ratifying it, then by all means. But if a state doesn't want government healthcare, and it's residents do not either, they shouldn't be forced to have it.
I can give you an answer....... because some whiney liberal made it that way
before everyone was made to pay into school funding only the wealthy could afford education....... if you want to go back to that system then by all means write your congressperson and let them know
Im sure you would have the backing of many
hell Id even throw my support behind you....... mine are the products of private schooling.... I should have to pay for people who are most likely going to end up in prison anyhow to go to school?
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
I've heard it argued before that the everyone benefits economically from a populace with at least a high school education. I'd have to study it out to see if it's really true or not, but the premise makes sense to me.
I've heard it argued before that the everyone benefits economically from a populace with at least a high school education. I'd have to study it out to see if it's really true or not, but the premise makes sense to me.
Universal Healthcare is very economically beneficial too, hence even many neo-liberal economists support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoplectic1
Because you've likely benefited from local schools have you not?
And everyone will likewise benefit from hospitals others have paid for, which is an excellent reason for everyone to have insurance.
And everyone will likewise benefit from hospitals others have paid for, which is an excellent reason for everyone to have insurance.
If only it were that simple. School systems and health insurance are two vastly different beasts. There are nowhere near the costs, nowhere near the amount of liability you need to worry about, really no preexisting conditions to worry about in education.
If only it were that simple. School systems and health insurance are two vastly different beasts. There are nowhere near the costs, nowhere near the amount of liability you need to worry about, really no preexisting conditions to worry about in education.
In education there are a lot of people with special needs, for one thing.
As for your comment on spending, that is not really true. In Ireland, the state spends €8.5 billion on education (I have no idea, but that would probably be about 90% of overall education spend), and €13.5bn on healthcare (about 75% of total spending). Thats a €5bn (or €7ish overall I guess), difference. Its a big difference, but massive? Far from it. So I think comparing education and healthcare is very accurate.
Well, the owners and CEO's will always make sure they get theirs. If operating costs increase, they will make their money and do whatever they need to do to make it. If the minimum wage increases or healthcare cost go up, your boss will decide to either increase fees for their product and/or decrease the number of employees they employ. Most could care less about the people it ultimately affects as long as they get theirs.
Is it due to Obamacare? Each case is different and it could be hard to throw a blanket over it and claim it is indeed from Obamacare. Could it also be a way for conservative business owners to send a message to employees (mainly Liberal employees) that any election CAN have an immediate affect on their life and sort of pay them back for electing Obama?
In education there are a lot of people with special needs, for one thing.
As for your comment on spending, that is not really true. In Ireland, the state spends €8.5 billion on education (I have no idea, but that would probably be about 90% of overall education spend), and €13.5bn on healthcare (about 75% of total spending). Thats a €5bn (or €7ish overall I guess), difference. Its a big difference, but massive? Far from it. So I think comparing education and healthcare is very accurate.
Not as a percent of GDP. Perhaps thats what I should have put my figures in.
Also Ireland has 4.5 million people, not sure where 6.5 comes from.
Sure, as a percent it would be the same assuming we have more or less the same system, but it would still cost a total of a few trillion for the US to implement. Seeing how we are already several trillion dollars in debt, we cannot afford it.
A country cannnot get by without education, but it can without guaranteed healthcare.
I think the number I got includes citizens living outside of Ireland.
Sure, as a percent it would be the same assuming we have more or less the same system, but it would still cost a total of a few trillion for the US to implement. Seeing how we are already several trillion dollars in debt, we cannot afford it.
Well seeing as how it would save money, you certainly could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoplectic1
A country cannnot get by without education, but it can without guaranteed healthcare.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is nothing more than a tax increase on everyone in America. The Congress has every right (legally) to raise taxes.
Well seeing as how it would save money, you certainly could.
How do we know it will? Have you read the entire 10,000 page healthcare bill?
Supposedly it won't raise taxes at all, that they will cut funding to certain programs to fund healthcare, but short of cutting major programs like Social Security and Food Stamps entirely.
How do we know it will? Have you read the entire 10,000 page healthcare bill?
Supposedly it won't raise taxes at all, that they will cut funding to certain programs to fund healthcare, but short of cutting major programs like Social Security and Food Stamps entirely.
Oh god, I certainly dont think Obamacare will save much money. Likely would lead to increased efficiency, and slow the rate of increase, but it will do little to bring American healthcare costs and results in line with the rest of the Developed World.
Why am I forced to pay into the local school district? I do not have any kids! Can someone give me an answer?
Well, you likely do benefit from the little one's education. We have Androids and iPhones because people were educated and went to school. I do see your point, however. You are trying to say you do not have kids so you should not be forced to pay for the education of other people.
I will suggest that you are not thinking things through.
Like the person that hates paying for our national highway system because he does not drive a car. Forgetting that a piss poor highway system means slower deliveries and higher costs for the tomatoes and coffee filters at your local Wally Mart.
Well, you likely do benefit from the little one's education. We have Androids and iPhones because people were educated and went to school. I do see your point, however. You are trying to say you do not have kids so you should not be forced to pay for the education of other people.
I will suggest that you are not thinking things through.
Like the person that hates paying for our national highway system because he does not drive a car. Forgetting that a piss poor highway system means slower deliveries and higher costs for the tomatoes and coffee filters at your local Wally Mart.
I've thought it through. So wouldn't it apply if everyone have health insurance? A healthy community is good for the whole!
And for those that don't know, I do have kids (grown) and some bad ass grandkids too.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
What are we, as a community, lacking because of our current health insurance set up?
I'll grant you that the healthcare system we have is completely jacked. No arguments there, but if you're going to make the argument that a healthy community is better, you've got to point to the impact we're feeling right now from the current system.
How many times does it have to be said? You are already paying for other peoples health care, when they go to the emergency room and can't pay. Which is the most expensive possible health care available. That is why you will benefit from everyone having insurance. 1.They will be able to go to a doctor for health care, which is much cheaper. 2.The hospitals won't be stuck with the bill for so many deadbeats.
A healthy community is cheaper. Again, you are already paying for them.
Last edited by Gmash; November 28th, 2012 at 01:07 AM.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Every ranking I've looked at has the US at #1 in the world in GDP usually with more than twice the number two (China). The only studies I've seen that rank the US at #2 are ones that lump the entire EU into one category.
As far as life expectancy you are right that the US falls about 4 years behind depending on what numbers you look at. How much of this is lack of healthcare and how much of this is the horrible, horrible diets most of us eat?
The lack of healthcare insurance causes a lack of healthcare insurance? Not sure what the point is.
What is the actual cost of people not having preventative care? What is the impact?
Less worry and stress? I call BS on that. People here are worried and stressed no matter what their healthcare situation is.
Competitiveness in what way? In what areas areas are we not competitive?
Quality of life? The US ranks #4 in the HDI according to the UN in 2011.
Every ranking I've looked at has the US at #1 in the world in GDP usually with more than twice the number two (China). The only studies I've seen that rank the US at #2 are ones that lump the entire EU into one category.
You dont seem to understand GDP per capita. Also, I am referring to wasted productivity, not missing productivity.
8Likes
