Originally Posted By DAR The bottom line is this. The current system as it stands needs to be fixed. Now I'm not suggesting that the government can't do it. But their past history doesn't give me a lot of confidence. But I think it very dishonest of many of you to suggest that these problems will suddenly disappear if they take over.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Now I'm not suggesting that the government can't do it." You're right. You haven't been suggesting it, you've been stating it rather emphatically. "But their past history doesn't give me a lot of confidence. But I think it very dishonest of many of you to suggest that these problems will suddenly disappear if they take over." No one has. You seem to be reading into things whatever you fancy. That's what's dishonest.
Originally Posted By DAR Forget I'm through arguing about this. I try to raise some valid points and once again many of you just shoot them down.
Originally Posted By DAR By the way SPP you really aren't doing much to dispel the myth that lawyers are nothing but a bunch of pompus know it alls.
Originally Posted By ecdc How ironic. DAR accuses people of mocking him for having the nerve to disagree with him and ask for even a single shred of evidence to back up his claims, and yet he's the only one making personal attacks. SPP is right, DAR. You're reading whatever you want into this and other threads. No one said all the problems would go away, just as no one ever mocked you, just as no one ever said all Democrats are good and had all the answers, just as no one ever said dissent isn't welcome. You just invent what people say then act all outraged and put out that you'd be picked on. Try reading what people say and actually responding to it instead of the boogeyman you've made up. You might be able to have a conversation instead of just throwing a temper tantrum and picking up your ball and going home since you think everyone is being mean to you.
Originally Posted By DAR You're right. I apologize I've been acting like a jerk. Maybe it'll work but maybe it won't and that's the point I'm trying to express. Just because it works in Canada and other countries doesn't guarantee it will work here. Although we should never ever emulate Cuba for anything these days.
Originally Posted By DAR Here's why I have a right to complain about the costs going up in regard to our tax burden here in Wisconsin: <<Wisconsin's Tax Burden if $15.2 Billion Tax Increase Passes by Curtis S. Dubay Earlier this week the Wisconsin Senate passed a $15.2 billion tax increase- which if enacted would be by far the largest tax increase ever enacted by any state. See our blog post about it here. When states propose tax increases, we are often asked to calculate what their new tax burden would be after the tax hike. We usually resist these requests because it is almost impossible to predict how the state's tax burden ranking will change because other states are making changes at the same time. In Wisconsin's case, however, there was no doubt about how its tax burden would change compared to the rest of the nation. Wisconsin's tax burden is 12.3 percent of state income in 2007-- ranking it 7th highest in the nation. Wisconsin has ranked in the top ten of our tax burden study every year for the 37 years we have calculated them-from 1970 to 2007. 7th is the lowest rank for Wisconsin since 1980. However, if the $15.2 billion tax increase were in effect for 2007, Wisconsin's tax burden would increase to 19.3 percent and rank 1st- 5.2 percentage points higher than Vermont's 14.1 percent tax burden that currently ranks highest nationally. If we count the other tax increases passed by the Senate (approximately $1.6 billion more) Wisconsin's tax burden will be 20.1 percent. To give you an idea of how big that is, the federal government will take 21.7 percent of the nation's income in taxes in 2007. If the Wisconsin Senate's plan becomes law, Wisconsin taxpayers will face the highest state and local tax burden ever, and their tax burden-federal, state and local-- will exceed 40 percent of their income. >> Now if add socialized health care to that, it's going to go up even more.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<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>> It could be considerably more than that. The University charges departments 32.7% of salary for fringe benefits. That includes life insurance, health insurance, vacation, worker's comp, social security and retirement. It does NOT include any of the other items you mentioned.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 There's no question that taxes would go up if we got Universal Health Care. So the relevant question is: would what we got for what we paid be better than what we get for what we pay now? I think it would be, if only because of the huge efficiency involved in a single-payer system, plus the spreading of the risk to the largest possible pool. As someone else pointed out, we already all pay, through taxes, for the two most expensive groups of people to insure: the elderly and the poor. We'd be expanding the pool to include more younger, healthier people. And make no mistake, you pay for insurance now, one way or the other. Even if your company pays for it completely (which is getting increasingly rare), that's still money they can't pay you in salary (whether they WOULD or not is a separate question, but certainly it's money they're paying out, reducing the bottom line of various American companies, which is a drag on the economy in general). If you're paying for insurance partially or completely yourself, you know how fast that is rising. And if you're one of the roughly 1 in 6 uninsured, you're probably waiting till you're very sick to get help, which ends up raising the costs we all pay. And as Sicko points out, millions of people who think they're well covered, and are paying big bucks for that coverage, find out when they need it that they're NOT well covered after all. If I could pay in increased taxes the equivalent to what I pay now, I'd rather pay it to a government system with no profit motive, frankly, than to an insurance company whose function is to turn a profit. It has been shown that all too often, somebody in a cubicle overrules a doctor in order to bring greater profit to the company. That's bad medicine. When Disney was under pressure to show 20% growth every year to satisfy Wall Street, we all know some of the questionable decisions that led to. Well, insurance companies are under the same pressure to maximize profits, and that pressure is higher than it has been historically. It's one thing to subject an entertainment company to that kind of pressure; I don't think the health of the nation SHOULD be subject to that kind of pressure, frankly. So - the big question: WOULD the average person pay in increased taxes only what they pay now (or less)? That's impossible to say, but the experience of other countries would lead us to say that the answer is probably yes.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "By the way SPP you really aren't doing much to dispel the myth that lawyers are nothing but a bunch of pompus know it alls." You're not doing much for yourself around here with stuff like this. All me or anyone else has done is ask you to back up your assertions. That's it. How is that being "pompous"? We lawyers are required to back up anything we say in court with sonme proof or authority or it doesn't get considered. I worked for over 22 years in a field that would put forth propaganda piece after propaganda piece about issues that affected the companies I worked for, all of it slanted to fit their agendas. I get the feeling you've been exposed to similar tactics.
Originally Posted By DAR A few questions that hopefully can be answered just so I'm clear on this issue: How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care? How will we keep drug prices under control? What will be covered? Isn’t a payroll tax unfair to small businesses? Can a business keep private insurance if they choose? How will we contain costs with the population aging and the advent of expensive technology? Won’t competition be impeded by a universal health care system? What about incremental reform of the health system? Maybe just maybe some of you can persuade me into thinking this will work.
Originally Posted By DAR A few questions that hopefully can be answered just so I'm clear on this issue: How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care? What will be covered? Can a business keep private insurance if they choose? How will we contain costs with the population aging and the advent of expensive technology? Won’t competition be impeded by a universal health care system? What about incremental reform of the health system? Maybe just maybe some of you can persuade me into thinking this will work.
Originally Posted By DAR A few questions that hopefully can be answered just so I'm clear on this issue: How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care? How will we contain costs with the population aging and the advent of expensive technology? Won’t competition be impeded by a universal health care system? What about incremental reform of the health system? Maybe just maybe some of you can persuade me into thinking this will work. (This might be a triple post)
Originally Posted By DAR A few questions that hopefully can be answered just so I'm clear on this issue: How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care? How will we contain costs with the population aging and the advent of expensive technology? Won’t competition be impeded by a universal health care system? What about incremental reform of the health system? Maybe just maybe some of you can persuade me into thinking this will work. (This might be a triple post)
Originally Posted By dsnykid In most universal health care: - Universal health care varies from country to country, and also on costs; In Canada health care includes: hospital visits in an available bed (if you request a fully private room you have to pay something like $25 a night in some hospitals) if you choose to have higher end care, such as a fibreglass cast versus plaster you have to pay a small premium(I paid $10) all physician visits are covered all specialist visits are covered, but their procedures such as in-vitro treatment, physiotherapy, or psychotherapy may not be emergency room treatment is covered, but the ambulance isn't - if you are between the ages of 18 and 64, you are responsible for all optical and dental fees -prescriptions are NOT covered in Canada, yet is consistently cheaper than the U.S (Seniors pay a small fee of $25 per prescription) -many businesses offer secondary insurance which covers dental, optical, prescription,and other incidentals such as ambulances and private hospital rooms -while some people use the system a lot, other people use it little or not at all, same as now. Having access to universal health care does not automatically imply an overuse of the system -most people, god willing, age, and yes the current situation with baby boomers will put pressure on the system, but it will cycle out. As you yourself have mentioned these people are already provided government coverage that comes out of your taxes, so why is this an issue now? -the majority of high end equipment is paid for by research grants, donors, payments from drug companies made to hospitals for participation in trial programs -why would competition be impeded? Doctors still need patients in order to receive their fees; if they do a bad job patients will choose a different doctor. It is nice however, to not have to look at Doctor's on Billboards and commercials. -What are you referring to when you say "Isn’t a payroll tax unfair to small businesses?" My company is not required to pay anything for my health care, they choose to, just as many American companies choose to provide insurance at a lower cost to their employees. -I'm sure an incremental implementation of the system would be useful in a country as populated as the U.S., I don't recall anyone saying otherwise. But the current system is failing and looking at countries who have achieved success with a universal system and realizing that the solution most likely lies there is is an important step that the federal government needs to make. Anything else?
Originally Posted By jonvn Many people in HMOs don't get to pick their own doctor now. Or if they are uninsured, don't have any doctor. How is this not understood?
