Obama offers universal health care plan

[mykidslovedogs]

Theres plenty of hard data on it. In fact I posted a whole shebang of it a year or two ago with a whole ton of specific references in response to some folks who believed that illegal immigrants were a major health care problem.

Turned out the insurance companies spend more money on paper than on paying for illegal immigrant health care.

Please send it my way if you still have it. Guess I'm not looking in the right places. I'll give you my email address if you PM me. The fact that insurance companies may spend more on admin than what is spent on illegal immigrants doesn't surprise me. IMO, cost-shifting due to low medicaid and medicare reimbursement is at the heart of our problem....that, and adverse selection issues.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Why?

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Why?

I like to collect info. on that kind of thing. I have a huge file full of stuff on healthcare costs. DH and I are heavily involved with organizations that work on healthcare legislation, and I like to know my facts...it helps me make better decisions.

 

[lets-retire]

FWIW--In another post a person linked a survey that also listed infant mortality and life expectancy. I do not agree with some of the findings of the survey, simply because I think they consider factors irrelevant to it's purpose, but I cannot argue against some of their figures.

It seems that the much better life expectancy and infant mortality levels referred to in other countries with socialized health care are not all that much better then we have been led to believe.

Global Peace Index Rankings

 

[Meadbh]

How can you say that? Someone will have to foot the bill. It will be upper middle class and wealthiest Americans.

God forbid that upper middle class and wealthiest Americans should have to be inconvenienced.......

 

[mykidslovedogs]

God forbid that upper middle class and wealthiest Americans should have to be inconvenienced.......

I don't mind doing my part, but what a lot of people forget, is that when someone is forced to pay 30 or 40 or even 50% of their income in taxes over the longrun, they might have to change the way they do business, fire employees, or even close shop. As a business owner, I know that if I had to pay an additional 10 or 20 grand in taxes, I would have to fire one or two employees.

It's a wonderful ideal to take care of everyone by spending other people's money, but if you take enough of other people's money, pretty soon, they might not be motivated to work so hard anymore, and then that source of money goes away.

It always amazes me that people are so willing to vote to raise taxes to the wealthier Americans with little or no forethought as to what kind of LONGTERM impact that will have on the economy.

Which is better....having a bunch of unemployed people with free health insurance, or having a bunch of employed people who have to pay for a little bit of their own healthcare?

 

[Trek]

Which is better....having a bunch of unemployed people with free health insurance, or having a bunch of employed people who have to pay for a little bit of their own healthcare?

Ok, so now you're trying to argue that universal healthcare will cause the unemployment rate to go up? If you were to actually have to let someone go, they wouldn't go find another job? Just lay around happy they had free healthcare and not do anything with their lives. If they can't work for you they might as well just lay outside a hospital and get drunk.

We have national healthcare here in Estonia and Estonia has a lower unemployment rate than the US. So do places like UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, etc. And I doubt those with slightly higher unemployment rates are so because of their universal healthcare benefits.

Unemployment rate - Country Comparison


And if you're worried about going broke, Europe has almost as many millionaires as the U.S. (2.8 vs 2.9 million). So you can still be rich and do the right thing by your fellow man. Maybe they made up for paying higher taxes by not having to shop around looking for a cheap place to get their broken legs fixed. Time is money.

World now has 8.7 million millionaires - International Business - MSNBC.com

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I'm not saying it's a given, I just think it's very important to take the possibility into consideration...that offering an unlimited "Medicare for All" type system, similar to Canada, could have an impact on the unemployment rates as taxes become a financial burden on big employers.
This is why I would be much more likely to support a national plan that requires at least SOME out of pocket responsibility rather than one that has little or no out of pocket responsibility....because when virtually no limits are placed on recipients of services, then there are virtually no limits on how much taxes may need to be collected down the line to pay for the unlimited demand.

The USA has a very different culture than many other countries. If taxes get to a point that large corporations have to cut back, there may not be other places for people to go for employment...jobs could become scarce. I think a lot of people fail to think about consequences like that.

What tax rate sounds good to you? What amount of money do you think would resolve the problems here? Germany takes over 50% of income for individuals without families...should we do the same?...if we do, what kind of impact might that have on the economy?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Rock might fall out of the sky and hit ya in the head too.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Rock might fall out of the sky and hit ya in the head too.

Cute and Fuzzy - you have convinced me...it's not possible, whatsoever, that a poorly planned out universal plan, resulting in a huge, maybe even potentially, 25% take rate hike could result in higher unemployment rates. The odds are just as slim as a rock falling out of the sky and hitting me in the head.

 

[wildcat]

Might force people to save more pre-tax money : )

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

The odds are quite good that you'll never discontinue presuming the worst possible outcome and bandying the negatives that drop from that outcome.

Its also quite possible that a reasonably well planned universal plan will provide good healthcare to everyone at a reasonable cost...and perhaps even at a cost savings after a few years of sharpening up the processes. Increasing employment, productivity and reducing taxes.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

The odds are quite good that you'll never Its also quite possible that a reasonably well planned universal plan will provide good healthcare to everyone at a reasonable cost...and perhaps even at a cost savings after a few years of sharpening up the processes. Increasing employment, productivity and reducing taxes.

Now there's something we agree on (well, not that the odds are good, but that it is possible to do it with good planning)! It's too bad that none of the current delegates out there have anything reasonable in mind (I keep hearing a lot of promises, with very little input on the longterm plans and goals) Most on this board will only support a plan if it has little or no out of pocket responsibility for recipients. I have posted some ideas about how we might be able to make a nationalized catastrophic plan work well, but have received more ciriticism on that than thoughful conversation.

 

[Trek]

Germany takes over 50% of income for individuals without families...should we do the same?...if we do, what kind of impact might that have on the economy?

"Germany's individual tax rates vary with the income, that is the tax rates are progressive as they are in most industrialized countries of the west. On salaries and wages, income taxes are paid as you earn. Income taxes have been reduced recently, and the maximum marginal rate is 42% in 2005."

"Health insurance is 6% - 7% of taxable income (before tax, minus deductions)."

More info on the German tax rates:

Taxation in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mykidslovedogs]

"Germany's individual tax rates vary with the income, that is the tax rates are progressive as they are in most industrialized countries of the west. On salaries and wages, income taxes are paid as you earn. Income taxes have been reduced recently, and the maximum marginal rate is 42% in 2005."

"Health insurance is 6% - 7% of taxable income (before tax, minus deductions)."

More info on the German tax rates:

Taxation in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trek - Forgive me if I am wrong on this, but I beleive that the attached chart shows an apples to apples comparison of average tax rates paid among countries..Germany's tax rate appears to be much, much higher than the USA. Also, Germany seems to have a much higher unemployment rate too. Sounds like in addition to those high taxes, you're still having to pay a good chunk of taxable income towards healthcare costs, too!

Think your taxes are bad? - MSN Money

 

[maddythebeagle]

Most on this board will only support a plan if it has little or no out of pocket responsibility for recipients. I have posted some ideas about how we might be able to make a nationalized catastrophic plan work well, but have received more ciriticism on that than thoughful conversation.

That isnt accurate and besides, I don’t think anyone wants you to be our torch bearer anyway….I did a poll awhile back and most respondents wanted consumer driven health care….

 

[HFWR]

Most on this board will only support a plan if it has little or no out of pocket responsibility for recipients.

I, for one, do not fall into this group...

 

[russingr]

Polled? or guess?

<<Most on this board will only support a plan if it has little or no out of pocket responsibility for recipients. >>

And you know this because you've taken a poll...? Or how?

I know I don't agree.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

That isnt accurate and besides, I don’t think anyone wants you to be our torch bearer anyway….I did a poll awhile back and most respondents wanted consumer driven health care….

Cool! I didn't know that! I guess I should have said, most involved on this thread seem to be opposed to my thoughts about combining a nationalized catastrophic plan with some kind of consumer-driven health account. I'm not trying to be a torch bearer. What's wrong with putting some ideas out there?

I don't know how to do one of those voting thingys on this site. But, I'd love to start one if I could figure out how to do it.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I dont think anyone said anything like that either.

However I think most would agree that the definition of "catastrophic" would have to include preventative care, reasonable drug coverage, and nobody should have to decide whether to eat or take their kid to the pediatrician.


The objections, as far as I can tell, center around your gloom and doom FUD predictions for nationalized health care. I dont think they're realistic, based on any solid data, or in tune with what 98.7% of the rest of the population feels.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I totally agree that preventive care should be included as all of my suggestions have indicated.

How much out of pocket do you think would be "fair" for a person to have to pay (taxes, premiums and deductibles combined)? Prescription drug coverage accounts for large portion of healthcare costs. A plan is not "catastrophic" if it includes first dollar coverage for prescriptions.

Sorry about my gloom and doom predictions, but I really don't trust the government to be thoughtful about the usage of tax dollars. I think it would be more likely that they would be wasteful with the money.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

And I dont trust the existing system to provide cost effective coverage for all americans. Its currently covering all americans, just doing so in an incredibly cost ineffective manner with no preventative care for about 25% of them.

I dont trust the government to fix bureaucracy problems and cost problems either.

But like I've said...we've seen the starting quarterback and he sucks. Lets try the other guy and see how that goes. He might be Tom Brady. Or he might be Cleo Lemon.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

And I dont trust the existing system to provide cost effective coverage for all americans. Its currently covering all americans, just doing so in an incredibly cost ineffective manner with no preventative care for about 25% of them.

I dont trust the government to fix bureaucracy problems and cost problems either.

But like I've said...we've seen the starting quarterback and he sucks. Lets try the other guy and see how that goes. He might be Tom Brady. Or he might be Cleo Lemon.

See, I disagree with your opinions on the the starting quarterback - He implemented HSAs, and I think that's a great start! Granted, there's a lot more to be done, but the concept of consumer-driven care is now starting to have a positive impact on inflation. It just takes TIME.
The next guy (Hillary Clinton or Obama) IMO, is more likey to wipe out all of Bush's progress with HSAs and implement a Canadian-Style system instead.

I think many people have not been willing to give the concept of consumer-driven care a try. I think HSAs have done a tremendous job of helping to flatten renewal inflation rates, particularly in the group realm. In Colorado, we've seen renewals flatten over the past two years, and have been able to help most of our group clients renew at rates not much higher than last year's. Additionally, all of the HSA plans we have sold have INCLUDED preventive care not subject to the deductible.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

47 million americans without insurance disagree.

The doctors for the 200M that are overweight and have a bunch of other health problems from the lack of effective preventative care do too.

This system sucks. Sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks. And it wastes a trillion dollars while sucking.

I'm not the least bit interested in what which candidate says right now. Any of that is designed to get them elected and bears no resemblance to what they might actually do, if anything.

 

[Free_at_49]

oops

I'm not saying it's a given, I just think it's very important to take the possibility into consideration...that offering an unlimited "Medicare for All" type system, similar to Canada, could have an impact on the unemployment rates as taxes become a financial burden on big employers.
This is why I would be much more likely to support a national plan that requires at least SOME out of pocket responsibility rather than one that has little or no out of pocket responsibility....because when virtually no limits are placed on recipients of services, then there are virtually no limits on how much taxes may need to be collected down the line to pay for the unlimited demand.

The USA has a very different culture than many other countries. If taxes get to a point that large corporations have to cut back, there may not be other places for people to go for employment...jobs could become scarce. I think a lot of people fail to think about consequences like that.

What tax rate sounds good to you? What amount of money do you think would resolve the problems here? Germany takes over 50% of income for individuals without families...should we do the same?...if we do, what kind of impact might that have on the economy?

You're missing a very important fact, perhaps you didn't know this:

Under universal healthcare systems like in Canada & Europe, healthcare coverage and employment status are unrelated, as they should be. Employers are not responsible for providing health coverage for their employees. Why should they? You're covered for life regardless of your employment status.

In the US, healthcare is used as a way to discipline the work force and keep them working, because they're told that without health insurance their home and life's savings are at risk if they get sick. It is the ultimate blackmail perpetrated on a nation.



...