universal healthcare

[Snorri1234]

I see, so according your figures, in Sweden your tax burden would be roughly $4000 more ... yet, you NOW pay $4200 .. and consider that a good deal?

My tax burden in Sweden could be quite a bit more than $4K . .

But your earnings would also be quite a bit more. =)

[CoffeeCream]

My tax burden in Sweden could be quite a bit more than $4K . . . and you completely ignored the point that of the $4K i spend on healthcare now, $3K of it goes into a retirement/health care slush account that is tax deferred unil 28 years from now when I retire.

I'm confused and I'm sorry I don't understand all of what you're saying. Do you have your own private Health Savings Plan which is like a hybrid? By hybrid I mean it is also invested in stocks/bonds for your retirement. That is an interesting option that I've not heard much about. Could you explain further?

[PLAYER57832]

HSAs are available to almost every person in America. Contact your local private insurance salesman. My wife's was bought privately through an agent for Golden Rule. After a job transition, when I had classic health insurance for 3 years and never used it once, I signed up for a HSA through my employer, but I could have just as easily bought a policy for the same price through a private insurance carrier. You get an insurance policy and a bank account with tax-deferred savings.

HSAs are not for people at the top; they are available to everyone. Your choice to be uninformed=your consequences relying upon the classic health insurance paradigm that is outdated as employers will not pay for health insurance what they did for the generation prior to ours.

A liberal pollyanna wrote:

And if you even begin to imagine that the vast majority have anything close , you are DREAMING!!!!!

Before you make statements about how the current system is working just fine ... I suggest you really LOOK AT how it actually works for more than just the lucky folks' at the top.

My insurance is nothing special, and my income, while presently good for my geographic area, is nothing special. My present circumstances are based upon significant decisions in my past which resulted in positive circumstances. At the same time, I could work at a fast food restaurant (again), and have similar results, albeit over a longer time.

You are wrong on several fronts.

First, Health savings accounts are NOT available everywhere, in every state or area. The ones available here most definitely do NOT allow you to move the funds over to a retirement account. Nor is it truly insurance. It is a savings plan that allows you to save for medical expenses without first paying taxes on that money. Whatever you don't spend, you lose. You still have to pay, in full for each and every doctor and hospital visit. Where, you will have to pay the "regular" rate, as opposed to the MUCH lower negotiated rate insurance companies pay. It is an okay way to save for regular, expected expenses, but it gives you zilche in emergencies. Plus, $4200 will barely cover one hospital stay for just 2-3 days.

Maybe your plan is significantly different, but if that is all you have, then you are most definitely NOT getting a real deal. It only seems so because so far, you have not gotten truly sick.

As I said before, check out your information before you insist that "everyone" has the same options you have in your area.

[Napoleon Ier]

I see, so according your figures, in Sweden your tax burden would be roughly $4000 more ... yet, you NOW pay $4200 .. and consider that a good deal?

My tax burden in Sweden could be quite a bit more than $4K . .

But your earnings would also be quite a bit more. =)

Yes....the average American would have a nominal GDP a whole 3k USD higher.

But as I've mentioned; snorri dear, Sweden doesn't work as a comparison to America, because the EEC is a very complex and subtle balance of government and private, and countries like Sweden happened to get the good deals out of the EEC. Sweden is a California of Europe, because European corporations based all their service industries there.

Far more interesting to me though, is that before the 90s, Sweden was a reasonably underdeveloped country with a mediocre economy. Their economy isn't exactly booming today, but the reason it's got consistent 3-4% growth is that after a recession in the early 90s, the Swedish government started promoting an anti-inflationnary banking policy, reduced tariffs by joining the EEC, substantially reduced welfare and a transformation of the education system into a service industry (tellingly, it now ranks amongst the top service industries in the world).

I'll agree Sweden has shown you can get some growth out of a reasonably socialized economy, but Swedish welfare is actually extremely tough in the conditions it metes out to recipients.

[Curmudgeonx]

My tax burden in Sweden could be quite a bit more than $4K . . . and you completely ignored the point that of the $4K i spend on healthcare now, $3K of it goes into a retirement/health care slush account that is tax deferred unil 28 years from now when I retire.

I'm confused and I'm sorry I don't understand all of what you're saying. Do you have your own private Health Savings Plan which is like a hybrid? By hybrid I mean it is also invested in stocks/bonds for your retirement. That is an interesting option that I've not heard much about. Could you explain further?

I thought I was being clear, but Player seems to misunderstand.

There are two components to a Health Savings Account. Firstly, I purchased through an insurance company (in my case Anthem, in my wife's case Golden Rule) a high deductible policy. It can be either a $2500 or $5000 annual deductible. After that initial deductible/out of pocket is reached, there is 100% coverage thereafter. The premium for this policy is around $80 per month.

So far so good?

An additional component of the HSA plan is that I pay an extra amount per month. There is a maximum amount that I can get tax deferred (around 2800 per year), but I could pay more. This extra amount goes into a Health Savings Account. I can do two things with this money: 1) spend it on any medical need (doctors/co-pays/prescriptions/band-aids from Wal-mart) and/or 2) let it ride. Two things occur: I am using pre-tax money to spend on medical costs, and whatever I don't spend each year DOES NOT GO TO WASTE, but sits in a tax-deferred account which pays 3%-4% annually until I retire, spend it on medical bills (some years I might need the full $5000 deductible paid out of it, other years I don't touch a penny).

BUT HERE IS A UNEXPECTED BENEFIT: My doctors can only charge what they charge the insurance company! When you go to the doctor, there are two prices: the self-pay price and the negotiated insurance price. Go to a chiropractor: $75 for an adjustment for self pay; but to participate in insurance plan acceptances, doctors/hospitals give insurance companies preferential pricing, so that $75 back-cracking is actually only reimbursed by the insurance companies at the rate of $35, and anyone with that insurance carrier gets that price. Therefore, because of my HSA + plan of insurance, I pay insurance company rates for my medical care which is usually a 20-50% discount over what some slob walking in off the street without insurance pays.

This is a plan which covers regular medical needs and has a catastrophic component involved (anything over 2.5K/5K) is covered 100%. You just have to put up the deductible, which you can make payments towards tax-deferred over as long as you want, and you get preferential pricing as the doctor/hospital services get submitted to insurance first (to see if you deductible has been met) then billed to you at the insurance rate. Unused savings grow until used or retirement, and then Medicare kicks in.

[tzor]

"Well managed" governmental bureaucracy = oxymoron

"Well managed" corporate bureaucracy = oxymoron as well

[Snorri1234]

I see, so according your figures, in Sweden your tax burden would be roughly $4000 more ... yet, you NOW pay $4200 .. and consider that a good deal?

My tax burden in Sweden could be quite a bit more than $4K . .

But your earnings would also be quite a bit more. =)

Yes....the average American would have a nominal GDP a whole 3k USD higher.

Well I don't know much about the tax-system in Sweden, but for most people I'd say they'd be better off. Don't forget Sweden has much less very rich people.

But as I've mentioned; snorri dear, Sweden doesn't work as a comparison to America, because the EEC is a very complex and subtle balance of government and private, and countries like Sweden happened to get the good deals out of the EEC. Sweden is a California of Europe, because European corporations based all their service industries there.

True, ofcourse Sweden doesn't compare very good. Just as Switzerland doesn't in regards to the gun-issue.

But it does show that such systems are not inherently bad. There needs to be a balance. It's not "Private Insurance is the bestest ever!" vs "Universal Government Healthcare ftw!".

I'll agree Sweden has shown you can get some growth out of a reasonably socialized economy, but Swedish welfare is actually extremely tough in the conditions it metes out to recipients.

Well tough is not bad. It needs to be reasonable, not nice. So plans to encourage unemployed people to work and provide oppurtunities to do something are good.

I read an article in the paper today about unemployed people over 40 or sit at home moms willing to work but being unable to get any job due to instant dismissal from employers. (Too old or not flexible enough.) They said working at home or setting up a bussiness for themselves was a good alternative, but they couldn't afford to do that. The government didn't have much plans to provide jobs for these people either, so they really had no way out.
Current welfare usually only gives out if people go to job-interviews, while a lot of people could use reeducation or a starterloan much better.


If one is to cut welfare-benefits, there also have to be programs to help people get jobs. Unemployment is not something you can always easily get out of.

[Napoleon Ier]

Alright-let's not get your panties too wet about Sweden's economy, 3% growth is frankly pretty below standard, and 6% unemployment widely believed to be a severe underestimate...we're talking about a welfare state just about plodding along thanks to a brilliant (service) education system, and liberal labor market. You know what could reduce their horrendous unemployment though? Privatizations and reductions in welfare. And sho' 'nuff, that's what the Swedish gov't. are doing.

Frankly, I don't think it's a balance at all. I know the whole "oooh look at meeeee, I'm taking the balanced, moderate both-sides-are-right-in-their-own-way view" looks like it's so tempered and brilliant and Tonky-esque, but sometimes, there is what is right, and what is wrong. To me, the State should provide the necessary pre-conditions for Civilization and has a right to levt tax to do this, but beyond that, it's role is dialectically unjustifiable. I challenge any welfareist to prove me wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

My tax burden in Sweden could be quite a bit more than $4K . . . and you completely ignored the point that of the $4K i spend on healthcare now, $3K of it goes into a retirement/health care slush account that is tax deferred unil 28 years from now when I retire.

I'm confused and I'm sorry I don't understand all of what you're saying. Do you have your own private Health Savings Plan which is like a hybrid? By hybrid I mean it is also invested in stocks/bonds for your retirement. That is an interesting option that I've not heard much about. Could you explain further?

I thought I was being clear, but Player seems to misunderstand.

There are two components to a Health Savings Account. Firstly, I purchased through an insurance company (in my case Anthem, in my wife's case Golden Rule) a high deductible policy. It can be either a $2500 or $5000 annual deductible. After that initial deductible/out of pocket is reached, there is 100% coverage thereafter. The premium for this policy is around $80 per month.

So far so good?

An additional component of the HSA plan is that I pay an extra amount per month. There is a maximum amount that I can get tax deferred (around 2800 per year), but I could pay more. This extra amount goes into a Health Savings Account. I can do two things with this money: 1) spend it on any medical need (doctors/co-pays/prescriptions/band-aids from Wal-mart) and/or 2) let it ride. Two things occur: I am using pre-tax money to spend on medical costs, and whatever I don't spend each year DOES NOT GO TO WASTE, but sits in a tax-deferred account which pays 3%-4% annually until I retire, spend it on medical bills (some years I might need the full $5000 deductible paid out of it, other years I don't touch a penny).

BUT HERE IS A UNEXPECTED BENEFIT: My doctors can only charge what they charge the insurance company! When you go to the doctor, there are two prices: the self-pay price and the negotiated insurance price. Go to a chiropractor: $75 for an adjustment for self pay; but to participate in insurance plan acceptances, doctors/hospitals give insurance companies preferential pricing, so that $75 back-cracking is actually only reimbursed by the insurance companies at the rate of $35, and anyone with that insurance carrier gets that price. Therefore, because of my HSA + plan of insurance, I pay insurance company rates for my medical care which is usually a 20-50% discount over what some slob walking in off the street without insurance pays.

This is a plan which covers regular medical needs and has a catastrophic component involved (anything over 2.5K/5K) is covered 100%. You just have to put up the deductible, which you can make payments towards tax-deferred over as long as you want, and you get preferential pricing as the doctor/hospital services get submitted to insurance first (to see if you deductible has been met) then billed to you at the insurance rate. Unused savings grow until used or retirement, and then Medicare kicks in.

That does clarify, but also changes your arguments somewhat.

To begin, you have to add all your deductibles and so forth and not just your premiums if you are comparing yourself to Sweden (or any other country).

Your insurance alone costs you $960. I, of course, have no idea how much you go to the doctor, but it sounds as though you have never been to the hospital or had anything really serious to date.

BUT, the real issue is not even that. Right now, you are a fairly young, healthy adult with no kids. The first WILL change, the second two might at any time. At that point will you STILL be able to obtain that "nice" insurance?

Also, what if you end up losing your job? Yes, I know you said you "made the right choices", but just suppose... Would you still keep your insurance? Would that $2500 per person/ $5000 family (I gather that's what you meant) still be so affordable? WE had a $1000 per person deductable (was "supposed to be" $500, but ... and that did not include co-payments)

Furthermore, what are the LIFETIME limits on your policy. Even $1,000,000 can seem like a lot ... until you get cancer or some other serious illness.

Finally, I know nothing about your company. Hopefully, it is a good and honest company. BUT, the REAL truth is that until you actually end up using insurance (for big claims), you really don't know how effective it is. Blue Cross "covers" all kinds of things ... on paper. Try to use it, and you get .. delays, denials, etc. etc ... Blue Cross also has a habit of completely and utterly denying coverage to those who use it too much.

AND, here is an earlier point you dismissed. Just what do you think happens to those "rejects" of Blue Cross and other companies? Sometimes, they do just plain do without. BUT, more often than not, they end up going on state plans.

So, the insurance companies cover, quite happily, all the healthy folks like yourself.. and happily take your premiums. BUT, get really, really sick, get old ... and forget it! When your care gets expensive, THEN the taxpayers have to pick up the tab.

THAT is why a universal system is important. AND that is why you should accept some responsibility for the general burden. Because, some day, that burden that is carried might very well be YOU!

[Snorri1234]

Alright-let's not get your panties too wet about Sweden's economy, 3% growth is frankly pretty below standard, and 6% unemployment widely believed to be a severe underestimate...we're talking about a welfare state just about plodding along thanks to a brilliant (service) education system, and liberal labor market. You know what could reduce their horrendous unemployment though? Privatizations and reductions in welfare. And sho' 'nuff, that's what the Swedish gov't. are doing.

Why would their unemployment-figure be underestimated?
And why would privatizations reduce unemployment? (Not that I disagree with them actually, they own quite a lot of industries that could benefit from being privatized.)

I know the whole "oooh look at meeeee, I'm taking the balanced, moderate both-sides-are-right-in-their-own-way view" looks like it's so tempered and brilliant and Tonky-esque, but sometimes, there is what is right, and what is wrong.

You're oversimplifying. Ofcourse there are times there is right and wrong, but not in the grand capitalist vs socialist scheme.
Sure, there are many issues where the solution isn't in the middle and one side is obviously right, but that's exactly what I'm saying.

I think coporate taxes for example are bad for economic growth, so I don't support them. But I also think funding education and healthcare is important, and that those things wouldn't benefit from a free-market system as they're very different from oil-factories or Ikea or something.

Every issue should be looked at seperately, not with the bias of "free market yay!" or "socialism ftw!".

To me, the State should provide the necessary pre-conditions for Civilization and has a right to levt tax to do this, but beyond that, it's role is dialectically unjustifiable. I challenge any welfareist to prove me wrong.

And what are these pre-conditions for civilization?

[heavycola]

Alright-let's not get your panties too wet about Sweden's economy, 3% growth is frankly pretty below standard, and 6% unemployment widely believed to be a severe underestimate...we're talking about a welfare state just about plodding along thanks to a brilliant (service) education system, and liberal labor market. You know what could reduce their horrendous unemployment though? Privatizations and reductions in welfare. And sho' 'nuff, that's what the Swedish gov't. are doing.

Why would their unemployment-figure be underestimated?
And why would privatizations reduce unemployment? (Not that I disagree with them actually, they own quite a lot of industries that could benefit from being privatized.)

I know the whole "oooh look at meeeee, I'm taking the balanced, moderate both-sides-are-right-in-their-own-way view" looks like it's so tempered and brilliant and Tonky-esque, but sometimes, there is what is right, and what is wrong.

You're oversimplifying. Ofcourse there are times there is right and wrong, but not in the grand capitalist vs socialist scheme.
Sure, there are many issues where the solution isn't in the middle and one side is obviously right, but that's exactly what I'm saying.

I think coporate taxes for example are bad for economic growth, so I don't support them. But I also think funding education and healthcare is important, and that those things wouldn't benefit from a free-market system as they're very different from oil-factories or Ikea or something.

Every issue should be looked at seperately, not with the bias of "free market yay!" or "socialism ftw!".

To me, the State should provide the necessary pre-conditions for Civilization and has a right to levt tax to do this, but beyond that, it's role is dialectically unjustifiable. I challenge any welfareist to prove me wrong.

And what are these pre-conditions for civilization?

well, i'm pretty sure it involves establishing a legal framework within which every man grabs as much as he can at the expense of everyone else, but in an orderly fashion.

This is the crux here. This argument is not about socialism or 'welfareism', it's about whether you believe that a good, free standard of state-funded healthcare provision is, like decent roads, education and a judiciary, a mark of a civilised and advanced society, or whether you (pretend to?) believe that anyone who can't afford private health insurance deserves what's coming to them.

[Napoleon Ier]

So, is healthcare a human right, heavycola?

[Snorri1234]

So, is healthcare a human right, heavycola?

I think that, if the government's task is to ensure the well-being of it's citizens, it is.

[Napoleon Ier]

So, is healthcare a human right, heavycola?

I think that, if the government's task is to ensure the well-being of it's citizens, it is.

Interesting. Cola?

[Jenos Ridan]

I think we can all guess at his answer, Naps.

[PLAYER57832]

I read an article in the paper today about unemployed people over 40 or sit at home moms willing to work but being unable to get any job due to instant dismissal from employers. (Too old or not flexible enough.) They said working at home or setting up a bussiness for themselves was a good alternative, but they couldn't afford to do that. The government didn't have much plans to provide jobs for these people either, so they really had no way out.
Current welfare usually only gives out if people go to job-interviews, while a lot of people could use reeducation or a starterloan much better.

If one is to cut welfare-benefits, there also have to be programs to help people get jobs. Unemployment is not something you can always easily get out of.

As someone who fits into at least one of the categories, this is me. What frustrates me to NO END is the number of times I was all but told that, if I were not married, I could get assistance for education or childcare. This from an administration that purports to support family values?

So, though my kids no doubt are benefitting some from my being here, the state is losing my tax dollars, my kids actually did qualify for WIC/school lunch assistance up until my husband's last raise ... and I am saving nothing toward social security (not that it will be there later anyway).

But hey! If I were working AND taking care of my family, I'd have no time for CC.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that it is the government's responsability to provided everything that a body needs(utilities, police enforcement, healthcare, education, roads, ect. you get the idea).After that, they should butt-out! But! I also believe it is the citizen's duty to take what they want from the government.

Like I said before, I have been denied treatment. For a broken nose(very badly, it was knocked over onto my cheek).There is nothing funny, or fair about an 8 year old getting kicked out of the emergency room.

[PLAYER57832]

I think that it is the government's responsability to provided everything that a body needs(utilities, police enforcement, healthcare, education, roads, ect. you get the idea).After that, they should butt-out! But! I also believe it is the citizen's duty to take what they want from the government.

Like I said before, I have been denied treatment. For a broken nose(very badly, it was knocked over onto my cheek).There is nothing funny, or fair about an 8 year old getting kicked out of the emergency room.

Absolutely agreed. It is also unfair that someone should have to lose their house or get a divorce to get their child treatment for cancer.

That is why we need mandatory UNIVERSAL health care, with necessary limits on items that are not effective enough yet or treatments not yet "recognized"(these should be handled in a controlled study/trial basis) This does mean that some will pay more now than they might otherwise, BUT, that is true for insurance in general. In effect, you are placing a "bet" where the big payoff is getting very, very ill ... frankly, a "bet" most people would just as soon lose ... even if they might end up paying "more".

If structured properly, the incentives should be to push to keep people healthier. The healthier people are, the less paid out.

[btownmeggy]

My best girlfriend is pretty much the pinnacle of health. She is vegetarian, hardly drinks, infrequently ganges, has run several marathons, goes on a 1,000 mile hike every August, and only eats organic. When she was a teenager, she got migraines... eventually it was determined that dairy was the trigger... so she stopped eating dairy... and stopped getting migraines.

Because she spent a few years on migraine medication she now cannot purchase medical insurance. She's been shopping around for about a year since she ceased being a full-time student, and NO ONE will take her money and insure her, citing this trivial aspect of her medical history as the reason. If she were to get cancer or have a bad accident, this girl all set to live to 130 would be forced by lack of insurance to DIE.

f*ck.

[heavycola]

So, is healthcare a human right, heavycola?

The UN thinks so. Article 25 of the declaration of human rights:

'Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care'

Personally it's a question of priorities. Are decent roads a human right? As Snorri said, the state's job is to look after the welfare of its citizens - how you think it should do that determines whereabouts along the political spectrum you lie. But I can't see how, if it is in the state's capacity to do so, the provision of a free basic level of healthcare can even be argued against.

What is telling is the bitterness obviously felt by many about paying their hard-earned taxes to subsidise other people's healthcare. Words like 'slob' have been used in this thread to describe those who can't afford private insurance. But that is lazy simplification for the benefit of naysayers' consciences. Meggy's friend doesn't sound like a slob, merely someone who has been left behind by the private healthcare industry because she poses a profit risk. That is not right.

Again, does anyone here feel as bitter about subsidising other people's police protection?

[suggs]

In the street where i live, we all got very bitter about paying for the street lights. It was felt by all of us that we weren't really getting rational value for money.
I am out most evenings, and yet I was paying money just so the old lady in No. 14 felt safe when she returned home in the evenings!

So we no longer subsidise each other. Instead, we put money in a little meter just for our street light outside our house, which is much more effective.
OK, so you can no longer safely drive down our streets, but thats a small price to pay!

In other news -the old lady in No. 14 will never be subsidised again - beaten to death by a bunch of muggers last night.
There seems to more around now.
But my electric bill has been halved!

[Juan_Bottom]

In the street where i live, we all got very bitter about paying for the street lights. It was felt by all of us that we weren't really getting rational value for money.
I am out most evenings, and yet I was paying money just so the old lady in No. 14 felt safe when she returned home in the evenings!

So we no longer subsidise each other. Instead, we put money in a little meter just for our street light outside our house, which is much more effective.
OK, so you can no longer safely drive down our streets, but thats a small price to pay!

In other news -the old lady in No. 14 will never be subsidised again - beaten to death by a bunch of muggers last night.
There seems to more around now.
But my electric bill has been halved!

This made me laugh, and I don't even know what it means...

[Curmudgeonx]

Fundamental question: To what extent am I my brother's keeper?

[Napoleon Ier]

So, is healthcare a human right, heavycola?

The UN thinks so.

Well glory alleluia praise the Lord and Hail Mary. The U-diddley-N, in their infinite wisdom, think so. How could I, humble citizen of earth, question such a mighty body of illuminati?

[Juan_Bottom]

Fundamental question: To what extent am I my brother's keeper?

The answer lies only in yourself. I would do all that I can to help my neighbor. And out where I live, we do.

And the world will be a better place.