News The US has the best health care in the world?

[TheStatutoryApe]

The real question isn't whether you are willing to sign the dotted line, but whether you are in favor of using force against those that choose not to sign it to force them to serve others against their will.

I really have no idea why anyone would desire to live in a community and receive the benefits of that community but not be willing to help out those people who make up that community.

 

[Evo]

To answer you an Evo's questions; I've never worked a full tax year but I have certainly made enough (through coop in CS or medical physics jobs) to be taxed in a given year and yes I was living off that money and also my dad makes around 7 figures so I'm well aware how much money goes out the window (he probably pays $400,000 a year in taxes),.

There are tax caps, the amount you pay in social security, for example, is capped on income over $106,800 for 2009. Any income earned over that amount is tax free. Actually, I was thinking of my total of social security and medicare tax.

If you make 10 billion dollars a year, the most tax that can be withheld for social security is $6,621.60 a year. Medicare is 1.45% of wages. If your dad makes a 7 digit income and doesn't itemize to get rid of most of the tax, I don't know what to say. But very little of it goes to health and welfare. He basically pays no more than someone making $100,000 a year. Someone that makes 1 million dollars a year only pays $14,500 towards medicare, and is way better off than the average American in being able to afford it. It's the American making less that $100,000 a year that is bearing the brunt.

I would like the rich to have an equal share of the burden.

 

[Al68]

I really have no idea why anyone would desire to live in a community and receive the benefits of that community but not be willing to help out those people who make up that community.

Me either. But I don't see how that's relevant to the post you quoted.

Being willing to help others isn't the same issue as being willing to force someone else to help others against their will.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

There are tax caps, the amount you pay in social security, for example, is capped on income over $106,800 for 2009. Any income earned over that amount is tax free. Actually, I was thinking of my total of social security and medicare tax.

If you make 10 billion dollars a year, the most tax that can be withheld for social security is $6,621.60 a year. Medicare is 1.45% of wages. If your dad makes a 7 digit income and doesn't itemize to get rid of most of the tax, I don't know what to say. But very little of it goes to health and welfare. He basically pays no more than someone making $100,000 a year. Someone that makes 1 million dollars a year only pays $14,500 towards medicare, and is way better off than the average American in being able to afford it. It's the American making less that $100,000 a year that is bearing the brunt.

I would like the rich to have an equal share of the burden.

<---- Canadian

Top tax bracket here is like 44% or some such.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529410,00.html"is the actual claim made Sunday by Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, echoed by many others:

MCCONNELL: Well, listening to them, you wouldn't recognize that America has the finest health care system in the world. We have some problems with access and with cost, which can -- addressed without wrecking the best health care system in the world.

He's right. He's right in the first instance as to the quality of medicine, i.e, medical results and there is plenty of evidence to back him up. He's right about the cost and access problems. He does not say that US health care "cannot be significantly [dramatically] improved", but then nobody does.

This so called reform process is off the rails. It seems to me that having our health care tied to our job in the 21st century is just crazy. My health care should be tied to me, not my job. As an employer I should no more be providing health services than food or housing or sexual services. Getting rid of that system appears to be widely acknowledged by all of the health system experts on both sides, as clear a way to improve the cost and access problems. Senator Max Baucus (D) chairman of finance committee championed it for awhile. McCain ran on it. But Obama and http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=afAVl0OAFJAI" :

...The newly added language in the Thursday morning version of the health bill (for those following along, it’s Section 1620 on pp. 713-721) would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new: allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government — without asking permission — and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants...

 

[Al68]

Well to toss americanism back at (I assume) an american "There are only two certainties in life; death and taxes". This isn't like the drug debate that I think we were on the same side of. You pay the taxes, you protest the taxes, or you leave the country. Option 2 doesn't seem to be a problem in Canada and option 3 is not related to this issues.

The two options I was referring to were whether or not to force others to serve their neighbors, not whether or not we should do it ourselves. But I think you knew that.

 

[mheslep]

I do support the idea of national health care though. Healthcare is a necessity more basic than education. I remember being a kid and deciding not to tell my mother anymore if I thought I might need to go to the hospital because I was afraid we couldn't afford it.

But we know how to do that for the unfortunate: give them money! Not: have the government run the health system (or the auto industry, or the banking industry ...)

 

[maverick_starstrider]

But we know how to do that for the unfortunate: give them money! Not: have the government run the health system (or the auto industry, or the banking industry ...)

Health care is an entirely different bease then your standard, other, private industry. Healthcare has positive externalities.

 

[Evo]

<---- Canadian

Top tax bracket here is like 44% or some such.

But this is about US healthcare and taxes.

Medicare is the most mismanaged and corrupt government agency there is. The amount of bribery, kickbacks and corruption are phenomenal. That anyone would be in favor of this agency taking over national health is insane. If we can't even handle medicare, how the hell are we supposed to take on something on the scope of national universal healthcare? It's frightening beyond belief.

Nice to imagine, not realistic in practise.

I want something there incase I lose my job, but it's not realistic. Better that I save up my money and use the charities and dismissal of debt policies currently in place.

 

[Al68]

If you make 10 billion dollars a year, the most tax that can be withheld for social security is $6,621.60 a year. Medicare is 1.45% of wages. If your dad makes a 7 digit income and doesn't itemize to get rid of most of the tax, I don't know what to say. But very little of it goes to health and welfare. He basically pays no more than someone making $100,000 a year. Someone that makes 1 million dollars a year only pays $14,500 towards medicare, and is way better off than the average American in being able to afford it. It's the American making less that $100,000 a year that is bearing the brunt.

It should be pointed out that benefits paid out are similarly related to past income, and the income made over the cap cannot be claimed at retirement. The rich guy pays out a smaller percentage of his income, and receives a smaller percentage at retirement. This is insurance, after all, not welfare.

The cap is a limit on how much insurance can be "bought". It's also a limit on what is paid out at retirement.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

But this is about US healthcare and taxes.

Yes, and its bestatude (yes I know that's not a word). Which implies comparison's. So I don't see a discussion of, in many ways, a cultural neighbour and their system being off topic.

 

[Al68]

Yes, and its bestatude (yes I know that's not a word).

I think it's spelled bestitude. Or bestness.

 

[mheslep]

Health care is an entirely different bease then your standard, other, private industry. Healthcare has positive externalities.

Yes, so? That only has relevance to the question of mandated health coverage, not by who or how it is run.

 

[Evo]

It should be pointed out that benefits paid out are similarly related to past income, and the income made over the cap cannot be claimed at retirement. The rich guy pays out a smaller percentage of his income, and receives a smaller percentage at retirement. This is insurance, after all, not welfare.

The cap is a limit on how much insurance can be "bought". It's also a limit on what is paid out at retirement.

How dependent on that small stipend is a billionaire?

If I made that much money, I would refuse my social security payment. It would barely pay for a pair of shoes for someone that rich.

People in my tax bracket get killed, someone making twice what I do (like my ex-husband) pay the same as I do, but have twice the income. Who do you think feels it?

I feel I should pay something to help my fellow man, but I also feel that someone that makes twice what I do, with twice the disposable income should pay more, the more they make the less they are going to feel it. It's the only way we can afford a universal health plan. Us little people can NOT foot the bill. The rich get richer...

 

[Al68]

How dependent on that small stipend is a billionaire?

If I made that much money, I would refuse my social security payment. It would barely pay for a pair of shoes for someone that rich.

People in my tax bracket get killed, someone making twice what I do (like my ex-husband) pay the same as I do, but have twice the income. Who do you think feels it?

Many rich people don't bother applying for it. I agree with you there, I wouldn't apply for the benefits either if I were rich. And I think the SS tax burden on working people is preposterous. And forcing people to participate is just reminder of how bad of a deal it is.

I just thought the facts about what the cap is about should be pointed out. It's a limit on how much insurance coverage the rich can buy. The SS system is an insurance program, not a welfare program.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Me either. But I don't see how that's relevant to the post you quoted.

Being willing to help others isn't the same issue as being willing to force someone else to help others against their will.

My comment wonders at the necessity of needing to force people to help others.
Am I willing to force people to help others?
Why should I have to?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

How dependent on that small stipend is a billionaire?

If I made that much money, I would refuse my social security payment. It would barely pay for a pair of shoes for someone that rich.

People in my tax bracket get killed, someone making twice what I do (like my ex-husband) pay the same as I do, but have twice the income. Who do you think feels it?

I feel I should pay something to help my fellow man, but I also feel that someone that makes twice what I do, with twice the disposable income should pay more, the more they make the less they are going to feel it. It's the only way we can afford a universal health plan. Us little people can NOT foot the bill. The rich get richer...

I see. You think it's silly that you have to pay for the hobo but it's ok for the millionaire to pay for you... After all, they're rich, they can afford it.

 

[cristo]

To claim that this is representative of the US as a whole is ridiculous.

Note that I wasn't really making an argument, I was just presenting that clip since I found it pretty interesting. I'm not claiming that the situation in that clip is representative of the US as a whole, but still, the fact that there exist areas of the US that are in that much poverty is quite a surprise (at least to me).

At least in my opinion, a healthcare system that fails the very poorest of the population is not working, and is certainly not the "best in the world." Of course, as you say, to have a nationalised healthcare system would mean that the more well off people are subsidising even more for the less wealthy people. I think that's the way that healthcare should work, otherwise we get into a more and more elitist society where the rich get richer. However, I fully understand that you (and most other Americans) believe in healthcare, like other things in life, being earned by hard work. After all, this is pretty much the American dream.

 

[Huckleberry]

My comment wonders at the necessity of needing to force people to help others.
Am I willing to force people to help others?
Why should I have to?

When one benefits from their community but doesn't contribute to it fairly then it's just a matter of time before the community comes knocking at the door to collect, unless one controls the community through their basic needs. They aren't a part of the community, but its governors through force or deceit.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Note that I wasn't really making an argument, I was just presenting that clip since I found it pretty interesting. I'm not claiming that the situation in that clip is representative of the US as a whole, but still, the fact that there exist areas of the US that are in that much poverty is quite a surprise (at least to me).

At least in my opinion, a healthcare system that fails the very poorest of the population is not working, and is certainly not the "best in the world." Of course, as you say, to have a nationalised healthcare system would mean that the more well off people are subsidising even more for the less wealthy people. I think that's the way that healthcare should work, otherwise we get into a more and more elitist society where the rich get richer. However, I fully understand that you (and most other Americans) believe in healthcare, like other things in life, being earned by hard work. After all, this is pretty much the American dream.

Really, you (in the collective sense) consider healthcare part of meritocracy? I've always viewed disease as a kind of russian roullette from an economic perspective. Person X catches a cold, person Y doesn't. That's meritous selection (for lack of a better term) in action? I hate freeloading hobos as much as the next callous guy but I don't wish them a slow death from a curable disease. Even if they did bring it upon themselves (like alcoholism).

 

[Al68]

Us little people can NOT foot the bill.

All public bills are footed by us little people one way or another. Either we pay it directly, or pay the cost of inflation. Or pay in the form of reduced economic investment.

Any tax bill paid by the rich comes out of their investment in the economy, not out of their "spending money". So, basically, any and all government spending will always be paid for by us little people one way or another. And I agree it's not fair, and it should be reduced drastically. Like you said, we're getting killed here.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

All public bills are footed by us little people one way or another. Either we pay it directly, or pay the cost of inflation. Or pay in the form of reduced economic investment.

Any tax bill paid by the rich comes out of their investment in the economy, not out of their "spending money". So, basically, any and all government spending will always be paid for by us little people one way or another. And I agree it's not fair, and it should be reduced drastically. Like you said, we're getting killed here.

Yes but economies need rich investors. Economies need underpaying free loaders like I need a third nipple. I've never understood the entitlement that those in low income brackets feel to the money of those in high income brackets. If you think you just "deserve" it more then you are incredibly deluded.

 

[Al68]

My comment wonders at the necessity of needing to force people to help others.
Am I willing to force people to help others?
Why should I have to?

Well, if a person doesn't do so voluntarily, you either will use force against him or not. Those are your choices. Whether he will do so voluntarily without being forced is not your choice or mine. It's his and his alone regardless of what we think.

As far as why should you have to use force, you don't. You could choose not to use force against others despite the fact that they are not serving your cause. Or you can try to force them to serve.

This is a politics forum, and politics isn't about people doing everything you want without the use of force. That's just not the way it works.

If politics was about whether or not helping others is a good thing, 99% of us would be on the same side.

 

[Evo]

Yes but economies need rich investors. Economies need underpaying free loaders like I need a third nipple. I've never understood the entitlement that those in low income brackets feel to the money of those in high income brackets. If you think you just "deserve" it more then you are incredibly deluded.

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income. They're not hurting like I am, so instead of excusing them from paying taxes, they should continue paying, and perhaps even pay more.

If someone making $40,000 annually pays a 6.2% social security tax, shouldn't someone making $250,000 a year pay the same 6.2%? Yes, they should, but they pay NOTHING!

So, the people that make the least are paying all of the taxes, and the rich pay none.

 

[mheslep]

...Altogether, I had to live with the hernia for about a month from the time I realized what it was to when I got the surgery. I shudder to think about how long I would have had to wait if I was Canadian...

http://www.takebackmedicine.com/storage/factsheets/ukandcanada.pdf"

Your understanding of our system is severely misguided.
...

Is it? Wait lists for particular operations can drop in government run systems if and when the government decides to pour funding into some area or another for whatever reason. But they can not do that across the board. Do you challenge these wait list http://www.takebackmedicine.com/storage/factsheets/ukandcanada.pdf" .

 

[Al68]

Yes but economies need rich investors. Economies need underpaying free loaders like I need a third nipple. I've never understood the entitlement that those in low income brackets feel to the money of those in high income brackets. If you think you just "deserve" it more then you are incredibly deluded.

Did you accidentally respond to the wrong post here? Or did you misread my post?

Did I accidentally make a typo and say the opposite of what I intended? I don't know what to make of this response.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income. They're not hurting like I am, so instead of excusing them from paying taxes, they should continue paying, and perhaps even pay more.

If someone making $40,000 annually pays a 6.2% social security tax, shouldn't someone making $250,000 a year pay the same 6.2%? Yes, they should, but they pay NOTHING!

So, the people that make the least are paying all of the taxes, and the rich pay none.

Well I don't know about the states but someone here in Canada that makes over $100,000 pays about 30% tax federally and like 10% tax provincially. A person how makes $40,00 pays maybe 20% total. That's twice as much tax for twice as much income. Then any money they make past that $100,000 practically goes half to the gov't half to me, half to the gov't half to me...

 

[Al68]

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income. They're not hurting like I am, so instead of excusing them from paying taxes, they should continue paying, and perhaps even pay more.

If someone making $40,000 annually pays a 6.2% social security tax, shouldn't someone making $250,000 a year pay the same 6.2%? Yes, they should, but they pay NOTHING!

So based on that logic, if the person making $40K pays $4 for a happy meal, then someone making $250K should pay $25 for a happy meal. And my son should charge him $75 for a pizza instead of $12. etc, etc.

The actual cost to government of providing retirement insurance to someone isn't proportional to income, so why should the price be?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Meritocracy, more like mediocrity. You do too well and the state claims almost an even cut on your prosperity. If you don't, well.. that's ok, we'll prop you up.

 

[Al68]

Well I don't know about the states but someone here in Canada that makes over $100,000 pays about 30% tax federally and like 10% tax provincially. A person how makes $40,00 pays maybe 20% total. That's twice as much tax for twice as much income. Then any money they make past that $100,000 practically goes half to the gov't half to me, half to the gov't half to me...

It's similar in the U.S., politicians are just more successful at lying and misleading people about it here.

 

[mheslep]

...Here is one study that ranks the US as 37th in the world, in health care.http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf ..

... I also cited the WHO study that ranks the US as 37th in the world.

The WHO study has been discussed several times in other threads. Its rankings include weighted metrics for things like health spending, and measures of 'fairness' (as the authors choose to measure it). It also uses life expectancy and infant mortality which are related to many things having nothing to do with medical practice (e.g. homicides). That's fine for whatever purpose they may have had in mind, but it is highly misleading if one is looking for the best possible outcomes in the case you actually get hurt/sick. If one corrects for these irrelevant factors, for instance in the case of life expectancy, it has been http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf" (table 1-5) that the US has the highest life expectancy in the world by a slight margin, whereas the raw WHO figures have the US 24th in life expectancy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, if a person doesn't do so voluntarily, you either will use force against him or not. Those are your choices. Whether he will do so voluntarily without being forced is not your choice or mine. It's his and his alone regardless of what we think.

As far as why should you have to use force, you don't. You could choose not to use force against others despite the fact that they are not serving your cause. Or you can try to force them to serve.

This is a politics forum, and politics isn't about people doing everything you want without the use of force. That's just not the way it works.

If politics was about whether or not helping others is a good thing, 99% of us would be on the same side.

I'll make sure to keep this all in mind while I decide whether or not to force people to not steal, force people to not do violence upon one another, ect.
Obviously laws, taxes, government, and such have nothing to do with helping anyone.

 

[Danger]

How bad was the hernia? It is my understanding that the severity of the problem has a big impact on the wait time for care. My doctor told me I didn't even need the surgery if I didn't want it.

Neither was serious. They restricted my lifting capacity to a fair extent (I could carry only 1 24-pack of beer bottles rather than the 3 that I usually did; I was bartending at the time), I avoided gassy food, and they made sex a bit painful. I could easily have gone a year untreated.

 

[Danger]

Do you challenge these wait list http://www.takebackmedicine.com/storage/factsheets/ukandcanada.pdf" .

All I can say is that I've never known those stats to apply to anyone that I know. ER wait times can be pretty lengthy at some hospitals due to staff or space shortages, but it's done on a worst-served-first basis.
By the bye, each province has its own system. I'm in Alberta, where they just eliminated the $130/3-months health care insurance premiums that we used to have to pay.

 

[Al68]

I'll make sure to keep this all in mind while I decide whether or not to force people to not steal, force people to not do violence upon one another, ect.
Obviously laws, taxes, government, and such have nothing to do with helping anyone.

Huh? Of course they do. Or at least they can.

My point was that the fact that we may disagree about whether or not to use force against someone doesn't mean we disagree about what we think they should do.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Huh? Of course they do. Or at least they can.

My point was that the fact that we may disagree about whether or not to use force against someone doesn't mean we disagree about what we think they should do.

Are you against taxes?

 

[Al68]

Are you against taxes?

Not in general. I'm not opposed to all uses of force. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not in general. I'm not opposed to all uses of force. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.

Well... People decided, or at least were convinced, that taxes needed to be paid and that force ought to be used to make sure they were paid if necessary. The force being used isn't about any single avenue of spending, its just about tax collection in general. So the force that would be wielded to make sure that the money is collected that would go to national health care is also the force that would be wielded to make sure that the money is collected that goes to make sure the white house lawn gets mowed, American flags for capital buildings are bought and properly cared for, the president gets his lunch, ect.

Do you agree with force being used against people to make sure that the white house lawn gets mowed?

 

[mheslep]

Universal Car Care:

 

[Al68]

Well... People decided, or at least were convinced, that taxes needed to be paid and that force ought to be used to make sure they were paid if necessary. The force being used isn't about any single avenue of spending, its just about tax collection in general. So the force that would be wielded to make sure that the money is collected that would go to national health care is also the force that would be wielded to make sure that the money is collected that goes to make sure the white house lawn gets mowed, American flags for capital buildings are bought and properly cared for, the president gets his lunch, ect.

Do you agree with force being used against people to make sure that the white house lawn gets mowed?

No, actually, but that's because any mowing service around would gladly do it for free, or even pay to do it. That would be a valuable advertisement for them. I'd bet John Deere would cut a big check just for using their mower.

As far as the force being the same, if I use force to collect $100 that someone has that belongs to me, and while I'm at it I collect an extra $200 just because he had it and my neighbor needed it, it's the same force used for both. But using force to collect the $200 because my neighbor needed it was theft, even if it's the same force used to collect a legitimate debt. So part of the "collection" was theft and part of it was not. It's simply untrue to say that either it's all theft or none of it is.

Would you say that it's OK to imprison 10 people if only one of them is a convicted criminal because the force used to imprison the innocent is the same force used to imprison the guilty? After all, the force used isn't just to imprison the innocent, it's for imprisonment in general.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, actually, but that's because any mowing service around would gladly do it for free, or even pay to do it. That would be a valuable advertisement for them. I'd bet John Deere would cut a big check just for using their mower.

As far as the force being the same, if I use force to collect $100 that someone has that belongs to me, and while I'm at it I collect an extra $200 just because he had it and my neighbor needed it, it's the same force used for both. But using force to collect the $200 because my neighbor needed it was theft, even if it's the same force used to collect a legitimate debt. So part of the "collection" was theft and part of it was not. It's simply untrue to say that either it's all theft or none of it is.

Would you say that it's OK to imprison 10 people if only one of them is a convicted criminal because the force used to imprison the innocent is the same force used to imprison the guilty? After all, the force used isn't just to imprison the innocent, it's for imprisonment in general.

What? Are you saying now that if taxes were introduced to pay for national health care it would be illegal? Akin to the IRS just deciding one day that they were going to make you cough up some extra cash? or just throw someone in prison even though they paid their taxes?

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

So far this is the impression that I am getting...



IRS: Excuse me. We're here to collect the taxes you owe. I am very sorry about this but if you refuse we will have to take it from you by force.

Al68: Oh, well I completely respect that. Here let me write you a check, and as well you should throw me in jail if I refuse to pay you.

IRS: Good good. You see we really need the money to pay for this new National Health Care deal.

Al68: Uh oh, sorry fellas but I don't agree with my money being spent on National Health Care. I'm just going to have to tear up this check here and since I don't agree with the way you want to spend my money, well, I don't think I can allow you to take me to jail.

IRS: Oh no, well dash. It's too bad you don't agree with the way we want to spend your money since we'd really like to arrest you for not paying your taxes but if that's the way it is then I guess we'll just have to leave you alone. Carry on then.

Al68: Thanks for understanding guys. Maybe we'll have this sorted out by next year. See you then!



Is that about right?

 

[D H]

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

Really. You are the one who introduced the wonky lawn mowing metaphor. Al68's answer was spot in the sense of "ask a stupid question, get a smartass answer".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Really. You are the one who introduced the wonky lawn mowing metaphor.

That's not a metaphor. It is, in fact, one of the many rather small things our tax dollars go to pay for. So saying that you are being made to pay for health care by threat of force is the same as saying you are being made to pay for the President's lawn care (or any number of other inane little things) by threat of force.
"if ... then ..." not "... is like ..."

 

[D H]

That's not a metaphor. It is, in fact, one of the many rather small things our tax dollars go to pay for.

It is 5:00 AM, for crying out loud. Give me a break. What you presented is, to be 5:00 AM blunt, a stupid argument. You are missing Al68's point, which is that all taxation is legalized theft. That is a fairly common viewpoint amongst libertarians. The taxes might well be necessary and constitutional used to fund necessary and constitutional projects, but they remain nonetheless legalized theft. When that legalized theft is used to fund something viewed to be unconstitutional it grates just a bit. Many libertarians and conservatives view nationalized health care as unconstitutional.Now back to less silly arguments:

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income.

This exemplifies why I think the legalized theft, aka taxation, must be progressive to some extent. IMHO, discussions about fairness in taxation schemes are misguided. There can be no such thing as a fair tax for the simple reason that taxation is inherently unfair. However, some level of taxation is also very necessary. The best we can do is to spread the pain around evenly. A flat tax does not come close to achieving that end. It would induce incredible misery upon everyone but the very rich, and would make the very rich extremely happy. Even a proportional tax fails this "spread the pain" test. Take 25% of a poor person's income and that poor person will have to forego eating for several days a month. Take 25% of a rich person's income and they might forego a nibble of caviar.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is 5:00 AM, for crying out loud. Give me a break. What you presented is, to be 5:00 AM blunt, a stupid argument. You are missing Al68's point, which is that all taxation is legalized theft. That is a fairly common viewpoint amongst libertarians. The taxes might well be necessary and constitutional used to fund necessary and constitutional projects, but they remain nonetheless legalized theft. When that legalized theft is used to fund something viewed to be unconstitutional it grates just a bit. Many libertarians and conservatives view nationalized health care as unconstitutional.

Stupid? He has taken an idea and made the rhetorical implication that it is somehow distasteful or even unethical. I'm pointing out the rediculousness in his implication by extending it to encompass all things paid for by taxes and not just those which he is currently arguing against. That is I would find it much less distasteful if money taken from me by force (or legalized theft) were spent on something as important as health care than to be made, by threat of force, to pay for someone's lawn care. Tell me, which application of the threat of force do you find the most distasteful?

 

[seycyrus]

The insurance companies do not engage in "mistakes and abuses". They intentionally deny and delay payment as long as possible to make money off the interest on their holdings, and the magnitude of the fraud is incredible.

Uhm, that IS an abuse. Why would you claim that it is not? Perhaps your eagerness to attack anyone who raises the merest suggestion of questioning an Obama policy caused momentary dyslexia?

If you think that a government-based program will perpetuate this kind of crap, please link to some legitimate sources to support your claim.

Oh, I see. this thread can be originated by anecdotal stories, but when I mention my real life experiences, *I* get called on it.

Same old hypocrisy.

Keep up the cheerleading!

 

[turbo]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

The insurance companies and their shills in Congress loudly proclaim that having public health insurance would be too expensive. The truth is that the stranglehold that the private insurers have would be broken. I have worked in the medical field as a network administrator, and I have written programs to help financial administrators keep track of the aging of their receivables, and prompt the coding specialists to review, recode, and re-file claims so that (hopefully) the insurance companies will pay.

One truly pathetic "feature" of our current system is that the insurance companies cherry-pick who they will or will not cover, and if you come down with a serious illness, they will drop your coverage rather than pay for your treatment. As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, and a very large portion of his patients are Medicaid recipients (low-income). Despite Medicaid's caps on reimbursements, his practice is doing well because Medicaid's coding requirements are clear and they pay promptly, so he doesn't need to pay coding and billing specialists to re-submit claims again and again.

 

[seycyrus]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead ...

Such flagrant abuse of selective response should be a violation of PF rules. I specifically stated that this thread had its origin in the form of anecdotes.

... As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, ...

Oh, another anecdote!

Guess what? I work in the govt. system *now*. the more govt. gets its hands in something, the more it screws you up.

Keep on keeping on with the anecdotes. I'll match you two for one on how the govt. can screw up something simple and make it far far worse. I can come up with a new story on a daily basis!

 

[mheslep]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

The insurance companies and their shills in Congress loudly proclaim that having public health insurance would be too expensive.

I don't know about the shills, but the http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=324" says so

According to that assessment, enacting those provisions by themselves would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of $1,042 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

The truth is that the stranglehold that the private insurers have would be broken.

There are several other alternatives to breaking up the insurance monopolies including allowing competition between states, breaking the employer-health care coupling (both were McCain proposals) - all of which by the way was set up that way in the first place by government laws and tax code.

 

[mheslep]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

There's good evidence to the contrary, that Medicare in reality does not have lower administrative costs, but let us assume for the moment that is true.

... As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, and a very large portion of his patients are Medicaid recipients (low-income). Despite Medicaid's caps on reimbursements, his practice is doing well because Medicaid's coding requirements are clear and they pay promptly, so he doesn't need to pay coding and billing specialists to re-submit claims again and again.

Bingo. Yes I am sure they pay. They pay for any invoice on anything. That's why these programs incur such massive fraud. Just send them an invoice and it is paid, no questions asked. This also goes to why Medicare/Medicaid appear to have lower administrative costs: they don't employ anywhere near the staff required to properly vet claims, by a factor of twenty I've read. One is playing with fire in attempting to defraud a private insurance company. But with Medicare/Medicaid, its 'what took you so long to join the rip-off party?'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649425934283347.html"

The White House made a big show last week about "turning the heat up" on Medicare fraud, as Jane Friday -- er, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius put it. The dragnet resulted in 53 indictments in Detroit for a $50 million scheme to submit bills for HIV drugs and physical therapy that were never provided, as well as busting up a Miami ring that used fake storefronts to steal some $100 million...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586523348648621.html"

The federal government announced indictments of 53 people allegedly involved in a Medicare-fraud scheme in Detroit, a day after charging eight others in Miami suspected of running a similar fraud.
...
In the Detroit case, the alleged fraud was estimated at $50 million. Those charged included doctors, health-care executives and beneficiaries. The scheme in Miami allegedly used fake store fronts in an attempt to cheat Medicare out of $100 million.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-ag-491.html

"Every year we lose tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds to fraud.

That is six tens of billions every year per the WSJ.