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

[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.