Originally Posted By jonvn "Right screw those people." Frankly, yes. If it means millions of people will get health care coverage and save lives at the expense of having a few thousand having to find new work, then yes. That's what is in the balance, and if it means that people (including those who lose their jobs) are able to get adequate care when they get cancer at the cost of those who simply have to find other work then I'll go for the people getting the proper medical care. That really is a no brainer.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip This is just a wild guess, but does DAR perhaps work in the insurance industry?
Originally Posted By DAR I work in the Life Insurance industry completely different. But you know what a majority of you are married and can afford to pay for others. I as a single person am enduring costs for others including myself. You know what if you guys want to pay more than that's fine because you can afford. Did it ever cross any of your minds that some of us can only pay for ourselves and not others. Get a freaking clue. But if you want higher taxes and premiums go right ahead.
Originally Posted By DAR <<DAR, what's supposed to happen to DlandJB's friend in post 34? >> She should receive the best care possible but why should I pay for it. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but the costs should not come out of my pocket. I feel terrible for her friend. Although I will not pay for someone who was a smoker their whole lives then developed lung cancer. I'll be damned if I'm paying for someone that irresponsible. Again not her friend.
Originally Posted By DAR The basic premise is this I have to look out for myself and take care of myself before I can incur the costs of others.
Originally Posted By DAR Post 79 that's what you pay in Canada. There is no way it's going to be that cheap in the US. All of these Senators and Congress persons will add some sort of pork to these health care bills that we don't need.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<This is an interesting idea. I've often heard from employers that my paycheck is only a small part of what they have to pay to keep me, but I've never seen any actual numbers. How does it work?>> We would get a statement that would includes: Salary paid holidays vacation days company's contribution to social security and Medicare health insurance dental insurance vision care life insurance disability insurance company contributions to 401(k) plan education assistance (if you used it) etc.
Originally Posted By dsnykid DAR: I AM Single... I DO make LESS than YOU, I PAY LESS for health care than the average insured american and I am covered by a universal system. How does it balance out tax wise? Cigarettes here in Alberta are taxed at an insanely high % ($90 a carton, $8 a pack, Liquor is also taxed. Fitness programs, gym memberships, sports fees and the like can be applied as tax credits up to $500. This is done to compensate for the fact that people who abuse their bodies with liquor and nicotine use the health system more. I don't smoke, and rarely drink, so I don't pay those taxes. As for higher premiums, where do you get this information from? Why are you convinced that universal health care is going to cost more than what people are paying now?
Originally Posted By fkurucz <i>I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but the costs should not come out of my pocket. </i> You seem to be very hung up about this, which puzzles me. The whole idea of insurance is to pool risk. We do this with both private and public insurance. The reason our private premiums are so high is because we are paying for someone else's care, just as possibly someday someone else will pay for our care. Anyway, as vb has mentioned, soon only a small elite will have employer provided health insurance. Everyone else will have to buy it on their own, and heaven help you if you do not have perfect health. Anyway, we can proceed business as usual until the current system simply collapses and then apply band aids, or we can come up with a system with lower overhead.
Originally Posted By DAR You know what you guys win. FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. WHO GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THOSE WHO MAY LOSE THEIR JOBS OR CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR OTHERS. I try to ask questions and all you guys do is mock me. But have your way, I could give a Ratatouile's rear end.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Why are you convinced that universal health care is going to cost more than what people are paying now?>> Because. The. Government. Will. Take. Over. And. Find. Ways. To. Raise The. Costs. They. Always. Do.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't see anyone mocking you; just expressing differing opinions. In trying to understand where your opinions come from I must ask; you work in Life Insurance. Does the company you work for also sell Health Insurance? If so, that does not mean your opinion means nothing. It does mean that you may have a vested interest in continuing things as they are.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Because. The. Government. Will. Take. Over. And. Find. Ways. To. Raise The. Costs. They. Always. Do.>> I STRONGLY dispute that. Data shows that the U.S. government provides services at a FAR LOWER cost than the government of any other nation... even accounting for the fact that the U.S. does not provide some services (like Universal Health Care) that other nations do. UPS and Federal Express have shown they can make money in the rapid delivery service. Does that mean anyone could handle all of the other Post Office functions at less cost? I doubt it. If they could, UPS and Fed Ex would start offering those services also. Obviously, they don't. If private industry could manage highways at less cost don't you think toll roads would be far more popular than they are? Once again, government can manage this service at considerably cost than the private sector. Public Universities provide education equal to or better than many Private Universities at a lower cost per student... even accounting for the government subsidy. Anyone who would claim that today's government is grossly inefficient is just plain ignorant of the facts. I would perhaps admit that was the case in the 70's. Bus since that time public institutions have had to learn how to function on considerably less funding in real dollars than they had to in the past. This need has become so extreme since 2000 that I think very few private sector companies could match the efficiency of government.
Originally Posted By dsnykid DAR, again, I am asking you to back it up with facts rather than your own feelings... that is where my problem with your argument is. It isn't with you personally, never has been.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In trying to understand where your opinions come from I must ask; you work in Life Insurance. Does the company you work for also sell Health Insurance? If so, that does not mean your opinion means nothing. It does mean that you may have a vested interest in continuing things as they are.>> By the way... I recognize that cuts both ways. I readily acknowledge that I work for a government funded institution and therefore may be biased in favor of government services.
Originally Posted By ecdc Still not a single, solitary fact to back up these phantom claims of the big, bad government out to pillage our paychecks. We hear "It's what they do," delivered with an exasperated tone (as if, duh, we should all know the truth 'bout Uncle Sam). But many of us (with RoadTrip now joining the ranks), have provided specific examples of government offering services for less (and often doing a better job of it - look no further than Iraq outsourcing) but those fall on deaf ears, only to once again hear the mantra that government screws everything up and costs more money. But still, almost 100 posts later, no proof.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I think DAR has a point that most of us are missing. Health care costs are rising at an astronimcal rate. How are any of us ever going to pay for it? Somehow, research is giving us more healthcare than we can afford. My mother is an oncology nurse. She knows what cancer drugs cost, and it's not cheap. 100s and 100s of dollars twice a month for years at a time. Yes, we're curing cancer, or at least prolonging life for many more years before it get you, but the cost is very very high. We have friends in our church congregation who have two boys with hemophelia, they each take 100s of dollars in medication EVERY WEEK, and will for the rest of their forseeable lives. And what does ANYONE do when they get to that point, no, I'm sorry, I just can't afford to keep living? Well, actually some people do, according to the interview I heard with Sherwin Nuland, the author of, _The Way We Die_ the number one reason for requests for assisted suicide is not pain, it's to save family members. However, only the most callous of family members says, I'm sorry, we can't afford to keep Grandma alive (or whoever). They're going to have to die... or suffer with an improperly set leg... or suffer with a cleft palete... or whatever else, cause we just can't afford to fix it. According to <a href="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html" target="_blank">http://www.consumeraffairs.com /news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html</a>, the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country isn't compulsive shopping, it's medical bills. Socialized medicine has done one thing well, brought down the cost of medication. (Hence the desire of some people to buy medication from Canada.) On the other hand, I also know that I have heard at least one story of certain doctors in Canada going on strike--not refusing to save lives, just refusing to do elective surgery, because their costs have been reduced too much (in their opinion). I don't know how common a occurence this is. For all I know it's very very rare, and 99% of doctors in socialized medicine are mostly happy with their rate of pay. The real question behind what we are debating, socialized medicine or privitized medicine, is how are most of us going to get the care we need and still keep a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, food in our tummies, and an occaisional vist to the Disney resort of our choice. Sicko points out that, as it is now, privitized medicine isn't doing the job. We all hope that socialized medicine will, but we don't know. May I point out that NO country in the world that has socialized medicine spends as much of their GDP their military as we do. Britian comes close, but they spend 2/3s as much. (I base this upon the following graph: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.PNG" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I mage:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.PNG</a>) Are these necessarily exclusive, I don't know? I say again, how is anyone ever going to control any of these costs.
Originally Posted By DAR <<We all hope that socialized medicine will, but we don't know. >> Thank you. That's all I'm trying to say. Many of you think that the problems will just disappear once the the government takes over. There's nothing to remotely suggest that will happen. In case you haven't noticed, it's not exactly a well-oiled and sufficent machine these days out there.
Originally Posted By DAR Here try this: They'll probably run health care about as well as they ran the whole Katrina operation.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>>On the other hand, my mega-corp employer loves to gives us "total-compensation statements" that highlight costs such as insurance.<< This is an interesting idea. I've often heard from employers that my paycheck is only a small part of what they have to pay to keep me, but I've never seen any actual numbers. How does it work?< There are two sets of costs for employees ( actually can be more but let's keep it to 2 for the sake of this )- one a compensation cost - your salary the other a 'fully burdened' cost ( term can differ co to co but means the same) compensation + health benefits cost for life insurance match for 401K cost of vacation time cost for sick time cost for IT support cost for equipment cost for phones cost for real estate (per person rate) cost for corp attorneys/ other overhead ( again per person rate) and the list goes on and on.... lets say a person makes $65K per year salary - depending on age / city where they work the fully burdened rate per year for the company may be closer to $100K which is why they move jobs to Brazil and India where people make a fraction of the salary here, limited or no benefits...etc --
