Universal Healthcare

Sam · #71 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 12:41 PM

Is national health insurance “socialized medicine

Won’t this raise my taxes?

Currently, about 64% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 17% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 19% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance – so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Another consideration is that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance that is almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness

This last sentence is key. i would be willing to bet most of you who think you are well covered that in the event of medical crisis will either pay tens of thousands(possibly more) or even have to file bankruptcy.

This would make individuals more RESOPNSIBLE for their healthcare instead oF dragging it down with consumers footing the bill for the uninsured.

Dom1 · #72 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance

I keep seeing statistics that say these are inflated numbers. The CBO (which is non-partisan) says the numbers are inflated. While the 21-31 million is still a lot (although some of them are eligible for medicare and the like), it would be far more persuasive if the numbers cited could be more accurate. When numbers are inflated it tends to call into question everything that is being said. Also, I believe up to nine million illegals are included, and we should not be paying for their health costs anyway.

I have a question for anyone out there. Have you ever heard of a kid not being allowed to participate in sports at school because they did not have any insurance coverage? You would think that with all the uninsured that you would have heard of at least one. You can't play sports in school without insurance, and I believe that is the rule in most states, at least, I have never heard of it being different. Otherwise, the school would be responsible.

Deadshot · #73 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

I never said diet didn't matter. What I said was that I would not be in favor of going after any places that sold food, or anything else, which was deemed bad for us. They are personal choices which those people make. If someone wants to eat four Big Macs per day I say let them go at it. I simply don't care. The only time I would care is when I have to flip the bill for their triple bypass because they didn't take care of themsleves.

Then you and I are on the same page here.

The argument was also made above that our health care providers and facilities are inadequate and that was the reason for the statistics. Which is it? Is it that our doctors and nurses suck or is it that we have people who are uninsured? Is it a combination of the two? Pregnant mothers are not turned away from the hospital, so maybe the stats mean our doctors and nurses suck. Fine, how about higher standards then.

I'd say it was a combination of the two, but more on the patients then the docs. The Pregger who didn't get proper medical attention and continued to smoke and eat Big Macs is at greater risk.

Tell me what those stats mean then Deadshot. Does it mean our doctors suck or that we have people who can't afford to pay for proper medical care for their infants?

Second one.

Who is paying for this universal health care?

Taxes on those citizens of the nation with UH.

Who are the people who are ultimately going to be held responsible for this? I would bet anything the burden will fall on the middle class. By the way, there are statistics out there which say that most of the uninsured (the numbers often cited are over estimated) are actually people who work. I found that even on a Democratic government website. Fact is, a person who is on medicare can have a baby for a lot less than I can and I have health insurance. That is absolutely 100% true.

"100% true" hmmm. This is from a Medicare site "In general, individuals are eligible for Medicare if they (or their spouse) worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and are at least 65 years old and are a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America.

Individuals who are under 65 years old can also be eligible if they are disabled or have end stage renal disease. People under 65 and disabled must be receiving disability benefits from either Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board for at least 24 months before automatic enrollment occurs."

So a disabled person or person with "end stage renal disease" could have a baby cheaper then you could. But I doubt that many would. I'd also like to point out that in 2005 42.5 Americans, or less then 20% of the Population back then, were on Medicare.

Medicare is for OLD PEOPLE, Dom1. It's their safety net. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people on Medicare could not have a baby, ergo your example is not "statistically" viable.

Sam · #74 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

I have a question for anyone out there. Have you ever heard of a kid not being allowed to participate in sports at school because they did not have any insurance coverage? You would think that with all the uninsured that you would have heard of at least one. You can't play sports in school without insurance, and I believe that is the rule in most states, at least, I have never heard of it being different. Otherwise, the school would be responsible.

In Oregon Public Schools you have to have insurance to play sports. You can buy some student insurance if the the family is uninsured. It basically just covers injuries from school related sports so it is not a substitute for health insurance.

Parents will usually buy it but our parent support organiztion is very strong and will pay for any students insurance that meets the qualifications so no one is cut out of sports.

Sam · #75 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:27 PM

I do not think the statisitics are inflated. I work for a regional medical center and over 40% of our patients are uninsured. Our local economy is very good although we do serve patients from all over Northern California and all of Southern Oregon.

Sam · #76 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Yes Deadshot...the uninsured costs healthcare consumers more than if we had mandated insurance with tax incentives and premium relief for those unable to afford healthcare.

Cat I do not know the hospital but in general there is probably a 40% cost inflation to offset for those uninsured.That is why this is o important. which comes first the chicken or the egg? Approximately 38% of Americans with no insurance if prices are not raised hospitals will not stay open. Yet is it fair to those requiring hospitalization to cover this cost? BASIC healthcare one payer insurance must be required for all citizens in addition to transparent costs with frequently reviewed price caps.It all has to go down together.
.

This issue is worth the concern of all Americans. The uninsured create skyrocketing costs, and their lack of effective health coverage directly harms the welfare of other people in society. Their avoidance of health care, especially preventative care, eventually necessitates emergency care which is left to be paid by taxpayers; their poor health assists the spread of disease and illness to others; they divert medical resources from preventative care to the care of preventable illness.Free healthcare would cause over consumerism and create long waits for trivial medical visits yet on the flip side Unattainable cost for healthcare create people waing until an illness may cost us millions for their treatment. Balance here is needed in basic health insurance for all. woth a one payer suystem leaving physicians and hospitals privately owned.

It is for these reasons, not merely warm/fuzzy humanitarianism, that all poor Americans who cannot afford health insurance should have it made available to them by government provision of one payer system. Medicaid putatively serves this purpose, although it has many flaws and is still not effectively covering many who still cannot afford insurance. The ability of households to pay for health insurance should be calculated carefully by economists.

This is not partisan...we are all paying right now astronomical costs and we are all paying for the uninsured and hurting our society. A one payer system itself would reduce costs and medical bills will be significantlt lowered.

Deadshot · #77 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

This is not partisan...we are all paying right now astronomical costs and we are all paying for the uninsured and hurting our society. A one payer system itself would reduce costs and medical bills will be significantlt lowered.

Damn Straight! Right now more then 10% of my GROSS

goes to health care costs. $150 paycheck for Medical, Dental and Vision for a family of four. Cigna goes 80/20 so I put another $1000 a year away in pre-tax dollars to cover the yearly 20% I'll owe.

So for me you could introduce a new tax to cover Universal Health Care today, as long as it was lower then 10% I'd save $$$.

Dom1 · #78 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

"100% true" hmmm. This is from a Medicare site "In general, individuals are eligible for Medicare if they (or their spouse) worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and are at least 65 years old and are a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America.

Individuals who are under 65 years old can also be eligible if they are disabled or have end stage renal disease. People under 65 and disabled must be receiving disability benefits from either Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board for at least 24 months before automatic enrollment occurs."

So a disabled person or person with "end stage renal disease" could have a baby cheaper then you could. But I doubt that many would. I'd also like to point out that in 2005 42.5 Americans, or less then 20% of the Population back then, were on Medicare.

Medicare is for OLD PEOPLE, Dom1. It's their safety net. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people on Medicare could not have a baby, ergo your example is not "statistically" viable.

Medicaid then. I had a former student whose wife was having a child the same time we were having our third. I had to pay, he didn't. Check out how much a person who is on the government roll pays for their child to be born. I am not saying that they should have to pay, but they are getting coverage and a lack of coverage is not the reason for infant mortality rates. It has more to do with the bitch in the room next to us who was on meth.

Dom1 · #79 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

I do not think the statisitics are inflated. I work for a regional medical center and over 40% of our patients are uninsured. Our local economy is very good although we do serve patients from all over Northern California and all of Southern Oregon.

The CBO disagrees, and they are non-partisan. I remember when the argument was first coming up they were actually including people who went from one job to another and had a lapse of a couple of days as only being partially insured. It was a way to jack up numbers and manipulate statistics.

Deadshot · #80 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Medicaid then. I had a former student whose wife was having a child the same time we were having our third. I had to pay, he didn't. Check out how much a person who is on the government roll pays for their child to be born. I am not saying that they should have to pay, but they are getting coverage and a lack of coverage is not the reason for infant mortality rates. It has more to do with the bitch in teh room next to us who was on meth.

Agreed. But if that Bitch was in Germany, where there is universal health care she'd be being seen by a Dr. You know how people are when it comes to free stuff, Dom1. She'd be in there a lot and the Dr. would be trying to offset the Meth effects, or telling the authorities that the Bitch was on meth and she was going to kill the kid.

Over here the bitch shows up on the ER doorstep when she's in labor and the Dr.'s are at a disadvantage with this bitch.

I like saying bitch sometimes - bitch...BITCH... BEEITCH....Bitchity bitch bitch.