The Wrong Side of History
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: November 18, 2009
Critics storm that health care reform is “a cruel hoax and a delusion.” Ads in 100 newspapers thunder that reform would mean “the beginning of socialized medicine.”
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to “deteriorating service.” Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade “the privacy of the examination room,” that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the “freedom to choose their own doctor.”
All dire — but also wrong. Those forecasts date not from this year, but from the battle over Medicare in the early 1960s. I pulled them from newspaper archives and other accounts.
Yet this year those same accusations are being recycled in an attempt to discredit the health reform proposals now before Congress. The heirs of those who opposed Medicare are conjuring the same bogymen — only this time they claim to be protecting Medicare.
Indeed, these same arguments we hear today against health reform were used even earlier, to attack President Franklin Roosevelt’s call for Social Security. It was denounced as a socialist program that would compete with private insurers and add to Americans’ tax burden so as to kill jobs.
Daniel Reed, a Republican representative from New York, predicted that with Social Security, Americans would come to feel “the lash of the dictator.” Senator Daniel Hastings, a Delaware Republican, declared that Social Security would “end the progress of a great country.”
John Taber, a Republican representative from New York, went further and said of Social Security: “Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers.”
In hindsight, it seems a bit ridiculous, doesn’t it? Social Security passed, and the republic survived.
Similar, ferocious hyperbole was unleashed on the proposal for Medicare. President John Kennedy and later President Lyndon Johnson pushed for a government health program for the elderly, but conservatives bitterly denounced the proposal as socialism, as a plan for bureaucrats to make medical decisions, as a means to ration health care.
The American Medical Association was vehement, with Dr. Donovan Ward, the head of the A.M.A. in 1965, declaring that “a deterioration in the quality of care is inescapable.” The president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons went further and suggested that for doctors to cooperate with Medicare would be “complicity in evil.”
The Wall Street Journal warned darkly in editorials in 1965 that Medicare amounted to “politicking with a nation’s health.” It quoted a British surgeon as saying that in Britain, government health care was “crumbling to utter ruin” and suggested that the United States might be heading in the same direction.
“The basic concerns and arguments were the same” in 1935 against Social Security, in 1965 against Medicare, and today against universal coverage, said Nancy J. Altman, author of “The Battle for Social Security,” a history of the program. (The quotes against Social Security above were taken from that book.)
These days, the critics of Medicare have come around because it manifestly works. Life expectancy for people who have reached the age of 65 has risen significantly. America is no longer shamed by elderly Americans suffering for lack of medical care.
Yet although America’s elderly are now cared for, our children are not. A Johns Hopkins study found that hospitalized children who are uninsured are 60 percent more likely to die than those with insurance, presumably because they are less likely to get preventive care and to be taken to the doctor when sick. The study suggested that every year some 1,000 children may die as a consequence of lacking health insurance.
Why is it broadly accepted that the elderly should have universal health care, while it’s immensely controversial to seek universal coverage for children? What’s the difference — except that health care for children is far cheaper?
Granted, there are problems in the House and Senate bills — in particular, they falter on cost-containment. In the same way, there were many specific flaws in the Social Security and Medicare legislation, but, in retrospect, it’s also clear that they were major advances for our nation.
It’s now broadly apparent that those who opposed Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 were wrong in their fears and tried to obstruct a historical tide. This year, the fate of health care will come down to a handful of members of Congress, including Senators Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. If they flinch and health reform fails, they’ll be letting down their country at a crucial juncture. They’ll be on the wrong side of history.
There are two answers to be given one is to the question you posed in the thread title, the other is in response to the article.
Universal healthcare, and by which I mean real universal healthcare not the ACA, will absolutely not kill our freedom unless it is somehow co-opted like the patriot act was.
The article is ridiculous. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking either social security or Medicare are resounding successes. These are the real problems in government spending, but Medicare is especially responsible for the current climate of entitlement on the part of the healthcare industry. In short Medicare is the reason healthcare reform is necessary. Social Security is unrelated to the topic of the thread but as it was in the article I would argue it has either failed or run its useful course and now or back in 2009 is hardly something Id use as an example of the success of government programs.
The answer is yes, of course. I haven't felt free since the last time I watched a poor man die of cancer without health insurance. Since then I've felt the icy prison of anti-freedom closing in, crushing my heart and draining my will to live. If we don't have the freedom to watch the less fortunate suffer and die, can we really be considered free at all?
Suicide is the only escape from this bleak anti-free world, but I know that the traitor doctors of socialism would spend society's money on trying to revive. Until then, I will cling to my memories of a free world and pray that Saint Reagan will return and restore American freedom to our once-great nation.
How much do you guys pay for your medical cover? Knowing how much it is over here it can't be cheap? So if you introduced universal healthcare wouldn't it cost each person less? More money in your pocket and everybody is covered, result?!
Wolfstan wrote: How much do you guys pay for your medical cover? Knowing how much it is over here it can't be cheap? So if you introduced universal healthcare wouldn't it cost each person less? More money in your pocket and everybody is covered, result?!
It's better to be broke, sick and free than it is to be healthy, rich and oppressed by a tyrant.
AustonT wrote: The article is ridiculous. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking either social security or Medicare are resounding successes. These are the real problems in government spending, but Medicare is especially responsible for the current climate of entitlement on the part of the healthcare industry.
'climate of entitlement on the part of the healthcare industry'
What I love is that those words have some kind of meaning inside your head.
Wolfstan wrote: How much do you guys pay for your medical cover? Knowing how much it is over here it can't be cheap? So if you introduced universal healthcare wouldn't it cost each person less? More money in your pocket and everybody is covered, result?!
An annual checkup or doctors visit is somewhere in the $100 - $200 range. for a once a year health expense that is not bad. Catastrophic coverage with a few thousand dollar annual deductible will cover all your big stuff, heart attack, stroke, cancer, broken leg. Runs about $200 a month.
Generic prescriptions for $4 a month.
Various medical services can be found at an affordable price, though most people do not think to look. An MRI was obtained for around $80 for cash sometime in the last year I heard in a report.
All in all it is no where near as expensive as the insurance industry would lead you to believe. Most people of course have been suckered in.
Really? My dad works in Canada, has about a 40% tax rate, comes to around $36,000 a year he pays in taxes. Ends up being roughly $8,000 more a year then what he'd pay back home, and about $3,000 more a year then what he'd pay for insurance for himself (actually, about $7800, since he's retired military). Then on top of that the 12% sales tax he has to pay for anything he purchases, then gas taxes of about $1.30 per gallon... It's not a wonder he's sick and tired of living there. Doesn't even make $100k a year, and ends up bringing home less then half of his pay after taxes.
If "socialized medicine" means I have to pay so much more in taxes for a system that his fiance still wanted private insurance for, then you can keep it.
I'm not sure if it's a fixed amount or depends on you earnings for national health contributions, but it works out cheaper than paying for the same thing privately. There also isn't any restrictions on how many times I get treated or if I've had the same problem before. Had a heart attack 3 years ago? With NHS if it happened again, no problem, it will be dealt with. private health cover... no go, you are too much of a risk, or you have to pay a crazy premium.
If paying a health tax works out cheaper per person and covers everybody, no matter what the medical problem. what is the issue? I have some ideas but I will hold back for now, just to see what pops up.
The point I was trying to make is that just like with Insurance companies running health, Government running all health will also equate to the prices constantly going up, becoming more and more of a burden on citizens.
Does this equal a loss of freedom? Yes and no. The bigger part of that is a yes, because the average citizen will have even less money in their pocket to pay the bills, buy minis, eat dinner. As the prices consistently increase, and they will, the Government will then look for more money. The main way they do this is taking it from the citizens.
Even if they have the FED "prints it" it causes even more economic problems, which again ends up with the citizens having less buying power. Sure you might end up with wheelbarrows full of cash and coin, but you will need at least that to buy a loaf of bread.
No. because people have the power to take back control of the governments, their lives, etc, at any time. It is just a matter of exercising it. When things ever get bad enough, people tend to start rising up to change it.
The point I was trying to make is that just like with Insurance companies running health, Government running all health will also equate to the prices constantly going up, becoming more and more of a burden on citizens.
Does this equal a loss of freedom? Yes and no. The bigger part of that is a yes, because the average citizen will have even less money in their pocket to pay the bills, buy minis, eat dinner. As the prices consistently increase, and they will, the Government will then look for more money. The main way they do this is taking it from the citizens.
Except that you are ignoring the part where every other system that utilizes some sort of "socialist" health care system pays less per capita than the United States and gets better results. It is hard to argue that socialist healthcare will make our prices go up when we are spending more money per capita than countries with socialized health care.
Also "taking my money makes me loose freedoms" is not exactly a valid point.
AustonT wrote: There are two answers to be given one is to the question you posed in the thread title, the other is in response to the article.
Universal healthcare, and by which I mean real universal healthcare not the ACA, will absolutely not kill our freedom unless it is somehow co-opted like the patriot act was.
The article is ridiculous. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking either social security or Medicare are resounding successes. These are the real problems in government spending, but Medicare is especially responsible for the current climate of entitlement on the part of the healthcare industry. In short Medicare is the reason healthcare reform is necessary. Social Security is unrelated to the topic of the thread but as it was in the article I would argue it has either failed or run its useful course and now or back in 2009 is hardly something Id use as an example of the success of government programs.
No a universal system would not IF
It didn’t give the nanny state the excuse to start telling me what to do. Although I am a supporter of a Canadian/Swiss style I fear this will inevitably happen. And by inevitably I mean almost immediately.
Would there be “death panels?” You betcha. The horror show that is the ACA has them, and Medicare has it now. However, it’s a tradeoff. As technology expands the cost expands as well.
AustonT wrote: There are two answers to be given one is to the question you posed in the thread title, the other is in response to the article.
Universal healthcare, and by which I mean real universal healthcare not the ACA, will absolutely not kill our freedom unless it is somehow co-opted like the patriot act was.
Even the Patriot Act hasn't killed our freedom, though it's certainly impinged on a lot of our liberties and is a lot scarier than the ACA.
The question isn't exactly the same, but I'm echoing the claims of these laws's most strident critics, in the past (like Reagan, Taber, and Reed), using language like "when men were free", and "lash of the tyrant".
AustonT wrote: The article is ridiculous. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking either social security or Medicare are resounding successes.
If you look at the before and after for each of them, they certainly are. Far fewer old people die destitute, or from lack of care. Medicare covers far more people effectively, for a much lower percentage of overhead, than any private insurer. They're both amazing efficient when you look at their scale and compare them to private programs.
Would there be “death panels?” You betcha. The horror show that is the ACA has them, and Medicare has it now. However, it’s a tradeoff. As technology expands the cost expands as well.
In the sense that you're using the absurd inflammatory troll term "death panels", every private insurance provider has death panels too. Only they deny a lot higher percentage of people care, because they need to save money for profit.
Would there be “death panels?” You betcha. The horror show that is the ACA has them, and Medicare has it now. However, it’s a tradeoff. As technology expands the cost expands as well.
In the sense that you're using the absurd inflammatory troll term "death panels", every private insurance provider has death panels too. Only they deny a lot higher percentage of people care, because they need to save money for profit.
Its not absurd when you're on the bad end of one of these decisions. I know people on Medicare who already are.
I call it what it is, but also said as technology/cost expands these sorts of decisions come into play. They have here, in Canada, and the UK. Its the fundamental law of economics.
If you're going to respond harshly to everyone who wants to discuss it, even those I'm sure you essentially agree with, you should probably step back and not, er respond. You're too ready for a fight.
As a rule, ideologues are often very willing to fight for "rights" they have no intention of exercising.
How many liberals actually want crazy japanese bondage porn? How many fight to preserve the right to have it?
Likewise, how many people actually dont' want health coverage?
I"m not saying everybody wants governemnt insurance, but that's not what this is about. I hear people arguing for the "right to not be insured." Which sounds good, in a theoretical sort of way... but what the hell?
Wolfstan wrote: How much do you guys pay for your medical cover? Knowing how much it is over here it can't be cheap? So if you introduced universal healthcare wouldn't it cost each person less? More money in your pocket and everybody is covered, result?!
An annual checkup or doctors visit is somewhere in the $100 - $200 range. for a once a year health expense that is not bad. Catastrophic coverage with a few thousand dollar annual deductible will cover all your big stuff, heart attack, stroke, cancer, broken leg. Runs about $200 a month.
Generic prescriptions for $4 a month.
Various medical services can be found at an affordable price, though most people do not think to look. An MRI was obtained for around $80 for cash sometime in the last year I heard in a report.
All in all it is no where near as expensive as the insurance industry would lead you to believe. Most people of course have been suckered in.
I pay $10 for a regular checkup. My prescriptions run about $10 a month.
djones520 wrote: Ends up being roughly $8,000 more a year then what he'd pay back home, and about $3,000 more a year then what he'd pay for insurance for himself (actually, about $7800, since he's retired military).
djones520 wrote: Ends up being roughly $8,000 more a year then what he'd pay back home, and about $3,000 more a year then what he'd pay for insurance for himself (actually, about $7800, since he's retired military).
Do you even see what you did here?
You mean to tell me that in Canada I would pay 1% more in taxes than I do now, and get fancy health care? That 1% is still less than I pay for my premiums...
AustonT wrote: The article is ridiculous. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking either social security or Medicare are resounding successes. These are the real problems in government spending, but Medicare is especially responsible for the current climate of entitlement on the part of the healthcare industry.
'climate of entitlement on the part of the healthcare industry'
What I love is that those words have some kind of meaning inside your head.
What I love is you have no idea what I'm talking about and post anyways. Twice in one night.
"You may make us healthy, and ban pre-existing conditions... but you'll never take our FREEDOM!!"
This thread needs more bootstraps, because only bootstraps give maximum freedom with regards to Healthcare, anything less is suffering under the hell of a tyrannical socialist dictator.
With that said, I'm for Universal Healthcare, though I'd rather have a single-payer option.
Isn't that basically the same thing though? I guess if everyone HAD to actually purchase the single-payer option, it would be universal; but I wouldn't see them rolling it out any other way.
Frazzled wrote: You would also pay a 20% VAT tax on everything you buy.
Federal AVT is at 5% in Canada. So at this point my "expense" to get that fancy Canadian healthcare is an additional 1% income tax, and a 5% AVT at the federal level.
That puts me at between $350-450 a month in "cost of healthcare".
Our insurance/vision/dental/HSA costs us $593.98 a month.
So it would only cost me $-150 to $-250 a month to get that system, and that is not counting the out of pocket expenses I currently also have to pay.
How do people live under such an archaic and barbaric system.
Frazzled wrote: You would also pay a 20% VAT tax on everything you buy.
Federal AVT is at 5% in Canada. So at this point my "expense" to get that fancy Canadian healthcare is an additional 1% income tax, and a 5% AVT at the federal level.
That puts me at between $350-450 a month in "cost of healthcare".
Our insurance/vision/dental/HSA costs us $593.98 a month.
So it would only cost me $-150 to $-250 a month to get that system, and that is not counting the out of pocket expenses I currently also have to pay.
How do people live under such an archaic and barbaric system.
Combine it with the state VAT and you're in 20% range.
Frazzled wrote: You would also pay a 20% VAT tax on everything you buy.
Federal AVT is at 5% in Canada. So at this point my "expense" to get that fancy Canadian healthcare is an additional 1% income tax, and a 5% AVT at the federal level.
That puts me at between $350-450 a month in "cost of healthcare".
Our insurance/vision/dental/HSA costs us $593.98 a month.
So it would only cost me $-150 to $-250 a month to get that system, and that is not counting the out of pocket expenses I currently also have to pay.
How do people live under such an archaic and barbaric system.
Combine it with the state VAT and you're in 20% range.
Actually, the data I find is that the states collect a Harmonized Sales Tax, and the highest combined rate I can find for both is 15% but it seems the average combined rate is 13%.
But keep in mind that I already pay a sales tax here in the United States, so to see how much the AVT is really going to impact me we will have to take into consideration the difference between the two.
So let me take the 5% federal AVT, and add my current sales tax to see what I end up with. My current sales tax is 8.37%.
The total Canadian "sales tax" would average out to 13%, my current sales tax is 13.37%.
Looks like I just saved a couple more bucks, thanks Frazzled
But just to keep things fair I will see how much the maximum rate would cost me, so at 15% I would pay another 1.67% in taxes.
So worst case scenario I "only" spend $75 to $175 less than I do now.
Frazzled wrote: You would also pay a 20% VAT tax on everything you buy.
Federal AVT is at 5% in Canada. So at this point my "expense" to get that fancy Canadian healthcare is an additional 1% income tax, and a 5% AVT at the federal level.
That puts me at between $350-450 a month in "cost of healthcare".
Our insurance/vision/dental/HSA costs us $593.98 a month.
So it would only cost me $-150 to $-250 a month to get that system, and that is not counting the out of pocket expenses I currently also have to pay.
How do people live under such an archaic and barbaric system.
Combine it with the state VAT and you're in 20% range.
Actually, the data I find is that the states collect a Harmonized Sales Tax, and the highest combined rate I can find for both is 15% but it seems the average combined rate is 13%.
But keep in mind that I already pay a sales tax here in the United States, so to see how much the AVT is really going to impact me we will have to take into consideration the difference between the two.
So let me take the 5% federal AVT, and add my current sales tax to see what I end up with. My current sales tax is 8.37%.
The total Canadian "sales tax" would average out to 13%, my current sales tax is 13.37%.
Looks like I just saved a couple more bucks, thanks Frazzled
But just to keep things fair I will see how much the maximum rate would cost me, so at 15% I would pay another 1.67% in taxes.
So worst case scenario I "only" spend $75 to $175 less than I do now.
You should consider yourself lucky. I pay 9-11% depending on which city I buy in and a 2% tax on food. A 5% federal tax in addition would bring me pretty close to 20%. Hypothetically that would be in addition to income taxes right? That seems like an awful lot.
Frazzled wrote: You would also pay a 20% VAT tax on everything you buy.
Federal AVT is at 5% in Canada. So at this point my "expense" to get that fancy Canadian healthcare is an additional 1% income tax, and a 5% AVT at the federal level.
That puts me at between $350-450 a month in "cost of healthcare".
Our insurance/vision/dental/HSA costs us $593.98 a month.
So it would only cost me $-150 to $-250 a month to get that system, and that is not counting the out of pocket expenses I currently also have to pay.
How do people live under such an archaic and barbaric system.
Combine it with the state VAT and you're in 20% range.
Actually, the data I find is that the states collect a Harmonized Sales Tax, and the highest combined rate I can find for both is 15% but it seems the average combined rate is 13%.
But keep in mind that I already pay a sales tax here in the United States, so to see how much the AVT is really going to impact me we will have to take into consideration the difference between the two.
So let me take the 5% federal AVT, and add my current sales tax to see what I end up with. My current sales tax is 8.37%.
The total Canadian "sales tax" would average out to 13%, my current sales tax is 13.37%.
Looks like I just saved a couple more bucks, thanks Frazzled
But just to keep things fair I will see how much the maximum rate would cost me, so at 15% I would pay another 1.67% in taxes.
So worst case scenario I "only" spend $75 to $175 less than I do now.
You should consider yourself lucky. I pay 9-11% depending on which city I buy in and a 2% tax on food. A 5% federal tax in addition would bring me pretty close to 20%. Hypothetically that would be in addition to income taxes right? That seems like an awful lot.
I just calculated the difference in income tax between my bracket here and what my bracket would be in Canada (1%), figured out how much money I would spend each month that would collect federal VAT (5%), and then added the difference between the state AVT in Canada (average of 8%) and my current sales tax (8.37%).
That gives me the "Additional Taxes I would spend in Canada in exchange for Canadian healthcare" total that I can compare to my current monthly cost of health insurance and find that I would spend between $150-250 less a month in Canada.
If I had kids that drive up my premiums I would save even more in Canada, and also keep in mind that the savings don't include all the out of pocket expenses that I don't have to pay in Canada.
I'm regularly forced to attend the doctors at gunpoint by the NHS police (they get guns unlike our regular police) whether I want to or not.
Wait a second...
I'm quite happy paying a small additional amount of tax which covers me for virtually everything rather than a large insurance premium covers me for pretty much nothing (as it seems most health insurance "products" do). It doesn't impinge on my freedom; my healthcare costs do not increase if I want to do extreme sports, nor will they increase if I get some kind of long term illness, nor will I suddenly find myself with a huge bill if I go in for some common treatment that I am somehow not covered for because my health provider decides that they don't want to pay for that any more.
So yeah, I feel pretty free, pay less, get a large range of payment free treatments and never have to worry about suddenly finding possibly thousands of pounds for medical treatment if I get ill or am injured.
Surely any treatment refused by a "Death Panel" would be completely unaffordable to the average American anyway?
The NHS is on the ropes a bit with financing, but that can be addressed by not pissing money up the wall on foreign aid to countries with space programs and nuclear weapons. Cutting down on our illegal and protracted wars as well as loosing the nukes would be another good place to start.
Medium of Death wrote: Surely any treatment refused by a "Death Panel" would be completely unaffordable to the average American anyway?
The NHS is on the ropes a bit with financing, but that can be addressed by not pissing money up the wall on foreign aid to countries with space programs and nuclear weapons. Cutting down on our illegal and protracted wars as well as loosing the nukes would be another good place to start.
MoD for El Presidente!
One of the more stupid things the NHS does is pay "fines" for things like not getting GP letters typed and sent out within 3 days of being dictated, as well as paying ridiculous amounts to outsource all sorts of things that should be done in house.
No way in hell. I pay more than that for over the counter painkillers every month. And, while I don't know what my parents pay for their meds, it is certainly above $4 per month.
Various medical services can be found at an affordable price, though most people do not think to look. An MRI was obtained for around $80 for cash sometime in the last year I heard in a report.
Probably at a subsidized (by government or charity, doesn't matter) clinic.
Frazzled wrote: You would also pay a 20% VAT tax on everything you buy.
Federal AVT is at 5% in Canada. So at this point my "expense" to get that fancy Canadian healthcare is an additional 1% income tax, and a 5% AVT at the federal level.
That puts me at between $350-450 a month in "cost of healthcare".
Our insurance/vision/dental/HSA costs us $593.98 a month.
So it would only cost me $-150 to $-250 a month to get that system, and that is not counting the out of pocket expenses I currently also have to pay.
How do people live under such an archaic and barbaric system.
Combine it with the state VAT and you're in 20% range.
Actually, the data I find is that the states collect a Harmonized Sales Tax, and the highest combined rate I can find for both is 15% but it seems the average combined rate is 13%.
But keep in mind that I already pay a sales tax here in the United States, so to see how much the AVT is really going to impact me we will have to take into consideration the difference between the two.
So let me take the 5% federal AVT, and add my current sales tax to see what I end up with. My current sales tax is 8.37%.
The total Canadian "sales tax" would average out to 13%, my current sales tax is 13.37%.
Looks like I just saved a couple more bucks, thanks Frazzled
But just to keep things fair I will see how much the maximum rate would cost me, so at 15% I would pay another 1.67% in taxes.
So worst case scenario I "only" spend $75 to $175 less than I do now.
VATS all the way up. (15% in Nova Scotia by the way which means 20% total). The cumulative effect is substantially higher.
I'm just saying it not just income tax its VAt and other taxes. VAT is what everyone complains about.
No way in hell. I pay more than that for over the counter painkillers every month. And, while I don't know what my parents pay for their meds, it is certainly above $4 per month.
Various medical services can be found at an affordable price, though most people do not think to look. An MRI was obtained for around $80 for cash sometime in the last year I heard in a report.
Probably at a subsidized (by government or charity, doesn't matter) clinic.
Sure it can be that. Thats just what that person is paying, not the total cost. Medicare prescriptions are generally hyper low as well.
I'm more free with the NHS than I ever would have been had I been born in America.
Born with a rare condition (affects about 1 in 40,000) which has caused me to suffer from chronic renal failure my entire life.
No private insurer would touch me with a ten foot pole without charging an extortionate amount of money for it. One of the drugs (in total I take 6 different drugs) I'm on now costs £750 for a months supply, that is around $1200. I will be on this drug for the rest of my life. Anyone care to take a ball park estimate on how much private health insurance would cost a month for someone like me?
On the NHS I got free prescriptions, free check ups and a free live donor kidney transplant which prevented me from having to go onto dialysis. All that has given me more freedom to live my life than I will ever pay back through taxes.
Frazzled wrote: You would also pay a 20% VAT tax on everything you buy.
Federal AVT is at 5% in Canada. So at this point my "expense" to get that fancy Canadian healthcare is an additional 1% income tax, and a 5% AVT at the federal level.
That puts me at between $350-450 a month in "cost of healthcare".
Our insurance/vision/dental/HSA costs us $593.98 a month.
So it would only cost me $-150 to $-250 a month to get that system, and that is not counting the out of pocket expenses I currently also have to pay.
How do people live under such an archaic and barbaric system.
Combine it with the state VAT and you're in 20% range.
Actually, the data I find is that the states collect a Harmonized Sales Tax, and the highest combined rate I can find for both is 15% but it seems the average combined rate is 13%.
But keep in mind that I already pay a sales tax here in the United States, so to see how much the AVT is really going to impact me we will have to take into consideration the difference between the two.
So let me take the 5% federal AVT, and add my current sales tax to see what I end up with. My current sales tax is 8.37%.
The total Canadian "sales tax" would average out to 13%, my current sales tax is 13.37%.
Looks like I just saved a couple more bucks, thanks Frazzled
But just to keep things fair I will see how much the maximum rate would cost me, so at 15% I would pay another 1.67% in taxes.
So worst case scenario I "only" spend $75 to $175 less than I do now.
VATS all the way up. (15% in Nova Scotia by the way which means 20% total). The cumulative effect is substantially higher.
I'm just saying it not just income tax its VAt and other taxes. VAT is what everyone complains about.
Except that it is not cumulative.
Each stage of the industry chain gets it refunded. Only the end consumer in the street actually pays the tax.
d-usa wrote: [
I just calculated the difference in income tax between my bracket here and what my bracket would be in Canada (1%), figured out how much money I would spend each month that would collect federal VAT (5%), and then added the difference between the state AVT in Canada (average of 8%) and my current sales tax (8.37%).
That gives me the "Additional Taxes I would spend in Canada in exchange for Canadian healthcare" total that I can compare to my current monthly cost of health insurance and find that I would spend between $150-250 less a month in Canada.
If I had kids that drive up my premiums I would save even more in Canada, and also keep in mind that the savings don't include all the out of pocket expenses that I don't have to pay in Canada.
I see what you did but it doesn't make sense. Your city/state still has to provide the services it does not in addition to universal health care. DO you really think that difference is .37%? Last year we raised the sales tax to support schools that was 1% I have to imagine expanding medical coverage would be more than that; significantly more. I thought you and Frazz had agreed on a 5% number and if I add that on top of what I pay now, just in sales taxes its 1/6th of my earnings. It's pretty steep, and also I think more realistic in the end if not in methodology.
Looking at it from the POV of someone with some epidemiology experience, nationalised healthcare makes a pretty good amount of sense. You can ensure people are vaccinated and so on. And preventative treatments are much more efficient long term. I dunno, it just seems like a nicer way to run society than the other. Of course, some people take the piss with the NHS and it could be more efficient, but at least it's not actually creaming off a tasty profit from your suffering.
Remember folks, we have over 300 million folks here in US of A... how populous is Canada?
Around 34 million according to Google. Thing is, the US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world. That it does this and yet apparently cannot provide universal coverage is kinda absurd.
I think it's feasible to have a Canadian model... and on top of that a private service/insurance model (that's illegal in Canada) for those who can afford it.
whembly wrote: Remember folks, we have over 300 million folks here in US of A... how populous is Canada?
It is harder and more expensive to provide services to a small, disperse population than it is to population that is generally highly clustered so a direct comparison of population and cost is not valid. But even so Canada comes out ahead
Of course. Health is a commodity, the more other people have the less mine is worth. Making other people healthier is basically stealing from me. The government has no right to do that.
Chongara wrote: Of course. Health is a commodity, the more other people have the less mine is worth. Making other people healthier is basically stealing from me. The government has no right to do that.
But it is OK for private health insurers to skim some (lots) off the top and provide a worse service for a higher cost to do exactly the same thing?
I've never really understood the point of view you have expressed...
Chongara wrote: Of course. Health is a commodity, the more other people have the less mine is worth. Making other people healthier is basically stealing from me. The government has no right to do that.
But it is OK for private health insurers to skim some (lots) off the top and provide a worse service for a higher cost to do exactly the same thing?
As my statements were questioned about $4 generic prescriptions. This is what Walmart says in their advertisements. It is a loss leader to get you into the store for 30 minutes while you wait for your prescription to be filled. The assumption is that you will shop around and buy other stuff, or at least see things you like for the price, and come back and buy stuff.
There are also a lot of medications with no generic, then you are screwed on price. You contact the manufacturer directly to get the medication either for free or reduced cost. Nearly every pharmacutical company has a program like this.
As for an $80 MRI, that is called shopping around and making places bid against each other for your money. They just started some sort of medical website like priceline.com
I figure this is what the future of health care actually looks like. There is at least one entrepranuer looking to start up a convenience store/fast food model of health care clinic for super routine type stuff.
You walk in, the prices for tests are clearly displayed, you say "yea hello, I'd like the #2 combo with a side of prostate exam." You wait 5 minutes, have your tests, wait another 5 minutes, have your results, and you are done.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: I figure this is what the future of health care actually looks like. There is at least one entrepranuer looking to start up a convenience store/fast food model of health care clinic for super routine type stuff.
You walk in, the prices for tests are clearly displayed, you say "yea hello, I'd like the #2 combo with a side of prostate exam." You wait 5 minutes, have your tests, wait another 5 minutes, have your results, and you are done.
That's sorta happening...
Urgent care outfits are popping up all over the place that works sorta like that.
A national health service takes a little bit from everyone so that anyone can access the vast majority of treatments and services for free at point of use. A health insurer takes a lot from some people to pay (or partially pay while the "customer" makes up the shortfall) for a very limited range of treatments and services while taking a big chunk of cash to the bank.
People who complain that national health services "pay for others to have treatment!!!!!1111111oneoneonesqrt-1" and yet are quite happy paying through the nose for health insurance which does exactly the same thing (except for a greater cost to the person paying the insurance and getting a worse overall level of service) just don't make sense to me.
Really? My dad works in Canada, has about a 40% tax rate, comes to around $36,000 a year he pays in taxes. Ends up being roughly $8,000 more a year then what he'd pay back home, and about $3,000 more a year then what he'd pay for insurance for himself (actually, about $7800, since he's retired military). Then on top of that the 12% sales tax he has to pay for anything he purchases, then gas taxes of about $1.30 per gallon... It's not a wonder he's sick and tired of living there. Doesn't even make $100k a year, and ends up bringing home less then half of his pay after taxes.
If "socialized medicine" means I have to pay so much more in taxes for a system that his fiance still wanted private insurance for, then you can keep it.
I'm gonna call shenanigans on the 40% tax rate, because that's not a thing. And our health care coverage doesn't hire armies of lawyers to try and deny you the coverage that you've paid for, like a private insurance company does. Nor does our health care make its decisions based on what the insurance company's accountants feel is best (for the company, not for you). The sales tax varies by province, and oddly enough gas is so expensive because the government stopped regulating its price. A while back the government used to own a company called Petro Canada, which allowed the government to jump into the competitive market and thus effectively regulate the price of gas for consumers. It doesn't do that anymore, and now gas is stupid expensive. I miss the days when it was about $1.40 per gallon. Anyway, it seems like D-USA has ninja'd me to calculating why your dad either needs to fire his accountant or else needs to stop inventing reasons to whine, so I'll leave it at that.
Would there be “death panels?” You betcha. The horror show that is the ACA has them, and Medicare has it now. However, it’s a tradeoff. As technology expands the cost expands as well.
In the sense that you're using the absurd inflammatory troll term "death panels", every private insurance provider has death panels too. Only they deny a lot higher percentage of people care, because they need to save money for profit.
Its not absurd when you're on the bad end of one of these decisions. I know people on Medicare who already are.
I call it what it is, but also said as technology/cost expands these sorts of decisions come into play. They have here, in Canada, and the UK. Its the fundamental law of economics.
If you're going to respond harshly to everyone who wants to discuss it, even those I'm sure you essentially agree with, you should probably step back and not, er respond. You're too ready for a fight.
Canada doesn't deny healthcare to anyone. Ever. Even a 98-year-old meth addict is entitled to a replacement kidney. He might be very, very low on the transplant list, but if that many kidneys are available then he'll get one.
Frazzled wrote:yea but look what happened to your head. You're bald and grey!
(Frazzled likes the Canadian system fyi).
It's silver!
Spoiler:
Jihadin wrote:Whats the classroom size? How many students per teacher? USA pop vs Canada pop?
Class size varies by province. In British Columbia the size is currently 30 students to one teacher, I believe. However this is a point of contention at the moment between the provincial government and the BC Teachers Union, and a really complicated issue. And Canada's population is about 36 million, which I believe if roughly 1/10th of the USA. However, our country is much larger and our populations is spread out more, so keep in mind that a small, spread-out population is actually harder and more costly to administrate for than is a larger centralized population.
Jihadin wrote:Whats the classroom size? How many students per teacher? USA pop vs Canada pop?
Class size varies by province. In British Columbia the size is currently 30 students to one teacher, I believe. However this is a point of contention at the moment between the provincial government and the BC Teachers Union, and a really complicated issue. And Canada's population is about 36 million, which I believe if roughly 1/10th of the USA. However, our country is much larger and our populations is spread out more, so keep in mind that a small, spread-out population is actually harder and more costly to administrate for than is a larger centralized population.
Remember folks, we have over 300 million folks here in US of A... how populous is Canada?
Are you saying that having lower population makes a country's education system better?
Not necessarily... I need to look at that study as it seems dodgy... I want to look at the raw numbers and methodology used... will take some time to look at it tonight.
azazel the cat wrote: Class size varies by province. In British Columbia the size is currently 30 students to one teacher, I believe. However this is a point of contention at the moment between the provincial government and the BC Teachers Union, and a really complicated issue. And Canada's population is about 36 million, which I believe if roughly 1/10th of the USA. However, our country is much larger and our populations is spread out more, so keep in mind that a small, spread-out population is actually harder and more costly to administrate for than is a larger centralized population.
Canada isn't that much larger size wise than the US, and your population is actually not very spread out either.
Spoiler:
Our population density is roughly 10x yours and we have 10x the people and are only about 20,000 sq miles (100,000 sq, km) so basically you aren't any more spread out, if anything you may be less given your population density is 9 to our 84. Basically your population is more centralized than ours, which does not invalidate your point it's just food for thought.
Edit:Less obnoxious map
Chongara wrote: Of course. Health is a commodity, the more other people have the less mine is worth. Making other people healthier is basically stealing from me. The government has no right to do that.
But it is OK for private health insurers to skim some (lots) off the top and provide a worse service for a higher cost to do exactly the same thing?
Of course. That's private industry at work - what the Free Market says the people demand. You can't argue with the Free Market, Jesus invented the Free Market! Questioning it is like spitting in the face of our lord & savior, the very man who penned the US Constitution. Maybe you're comfortable doing that over in Europoplous or wherever you're from that's basically France and not the greatest country on earth but not here.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: As my statements were questioned about $4 generic prescriptions. This is what Walmart says in their advertisements.
Looking at the list of Walmart $4 prescription drugs I don't see any actual prescription drugs. I see drugs that are often prescribed, but that can obtained without a prescription.
I mean, they have 100 mg Ibuprophen on there, I take that gak like candy because of muscle issues related to complications with an ACL tear. Granted $4 is a pretty good price for some of the featured items (including 100 mg Ibuprophen, thanks for the heads up), but they're still not drugs that you need an actual prescription in order to obtain.
d-usa, yea no problem. I saw 800mg Ibu on the list as well. They deliver it to your house for free as well in case you can not make it out.
Walgreens has a similar program, I think they advertise $5 for 30 days, and $12 for 90 days.
Now then, Frazzled, I want to meet your primary care physician who charges $10 a visit. If I was in your area, I would want a referral for certain. That's a bargain.
d-usa wrote: If I had kids that drive up my premiums I would save even more in Canada, and also keep in mind that the savings don't include all the out of pocket expenses that I don't have to pay in Canada.
There's a lot more to it than regular out-of-pocket expenses as well. For example, if I feel a bit sick, I can just go to the doctor. I don't have to worry about paying for it, or how this will effect my insurance premiums or excess fees. I can catch a lot of ailments a lot more quickly this way, because I don't have to limit my doctors visits to once a year, or just when I really need it. This in turn allows the government to save a lot of money by early detection and treatment of serious illnesses.
Any kind of medical care or diagnostic tests are all covered by your taxes. And everyone has equal access, no matter if you've got a genetic disorder or your illness is the result of a lifestyle choice (smoking or drinking) or you engage in risky behaviour (motorbike riding or contact sports).
I, my wife and daughter all get free vaccinations, the birth of our daughter was attended by two midwives, two doctors (one our personal doctor, one from the hospital) a specialist and an anesthetist, and included 25 hours in the birthing suite and a week long hospital stay (for both my wife AND me) and didn't cost a penny. We had home visits from both the midwives and the maternal and child health nurse, and follow up visits until my daughter is (I think) five years old, all covered by our taxes. Not a single extra dollar paid by us.
d-usa wrote: If I had kids that drive up my premiums I would save even more in Canada, and also keep in mind that the savings don't include all the out of pocket expenses that I don't have to pay in Canada.
There's a lot more to it than regular out-of-pocket expenses as well. For example, if I feel a bit sick, I can just go to the doctor. I don't have to worry about paying for it, or how this will effect my insurance premiums or excess fees. I can catch a lot of ailments a lot more quickly this way, because I don't have to limit my doctors visits to once a year, or just when I really need it. This in turn allows the government to save a lot of money by early detection and treatment of serious illnesses.
Any kind of medical care or diagnostic tests are all covered by your taxes. And everyone has equal access, no matter if you've got a genetic disorder or your illness is the result of a lifestyle choice (smoking or drinking) or you engage in risky behaviour (motorbike riding or contact sports).
I, my wife and daughter all get free vaccinations, the birth of our daughter was attended by two midwives, two doctors (one our personal doctor, one from the hospital) a specialist and an anesthetist, and included 25 hours in the birthing suite and a week long hospital stay (for both my wife AND me) and didn't cost a penny. We had home visits from both the midwives and the maternal and child health nurse, and follow up visits until my daughter is (I think) five years old, all covered by our taxes. Not a single extra dollar paid by us.
Your system is controlled by monsters! How do you even have room for Freedom in your life when you are being chocked to death by all these medical people always checking up on you
My parents are under the belief that America is the only free country in the world.
They pretty much think you guys (Canadians) are being oppressed and hate your health care system. Yet every Canadian I have ever met likes the system. I guess Canadians don't know they hate it.
I'm ok with a government/tax funded health care system, just like I am ok with it when it comes to military, roads, schools, medicare, social security, etc.
azazel the cat wrote: Class size varies by province. In British Columbia the size is currently 30 students to one teacher, I believe. However this is a point of contention at the moment between the provincial government and the BC Teachers Union, and a really complicated issue. And Canada's population is about 36 million, which I believe if roughly 1/10th of the USA. However, our country is much larger and our populations is spread out more, so keep in mind that a small, spread-out population is actually harder and more costly to administrate for than is a larger centralized population.
Canada isn't that much larger size wise than the US, and your population is actually not very spread out either.
Spoiler:
Our population density is roughly 10x yours and we have 10x the people and are only about 20,000 sq miles (100,000 sq, km) so basically you aren't any more spread out, if anything you may be less given your population density is 9 to our 84. Basically your population is more centralized than ours, which does not invalidate your point it's just food for thought.
Edit:Less obnoxious map
Remember hearing During the 2010 winter Olympics, about 90 percent of All Canadians live about 100 miles from the boarder.
Canada is a huge country. have to wonder why so man Canadians would live so close to the boarder. Obviously they are waiting to invade America, riding on their Moose eating their fancy maple syrup.
Canadian clustering near the border has less to do with us and more to do with the lay of the land. I prefer not to go North of Calgary unless I have to.
God, spare me. I can't believe this sentiment is still alive and well...
You're joking right?
Dunno. He's the guy who type like a 14 years old and who'se avatar is a pic of a gay erogame dude with dildos all over him. So... make his comment what you will...
There may be drawbacks to the left-wing health care policies, but I remain confident that the good outweighs the bad. However many things some may lose due to health care reform, is it really worse than some people not having health care at all?
DOOMBREAD wrote: There may be drawbacks to the left-wing health care policies, but I remain confident that the good outweighs the bad. However many things some may lose due to health care reform, is it really worse than some people not having health care at all?
Yes. You shouldn't take that as opposition to universal health care you should take that as opposition to the ACA. It does some good, but overwhelms it with the bad. Not the least of which is strengthening private insurance. True "left-wing" health care policies that force private insurance to compete with a single payer public system until they wither and die is the only way to reform healthcare.
Eventually my dark hidden secret convert will bear fruitation and slowly transform the ACA into a system that'll weed out the weak.....you all didn't know my side job was selling plots?
DOOMBREAD wrote: There may be drawbacks to the left-wing health care policies, but I remain confident that the good outweighs the bad. However many things some may lose due to health care reform, is it really worse than some people not having health care at all?
Yes. You shouldn't take that as opposition to universal health care you should take that as opposition to the ACA. It does some good, but overwhelms it with the bad. Not the least of which is strengthening private insurance. True "left-wing" health care policies that force private insurance to compete with a single payer public system until they wither and die is the only way to reform healthcare.
Or we do what Europe did, have every thing blown the feth up by Nazi's and decide, screw it, i we can afford this we can afford healthcare
djones520 wrote: Really? My dad works in Canada, has about a 40% tax rate, comes to around $36,000 a year he pays in taxes. Ends up being roughly $8,000 more a year then what he'd pay back home, and about $3,000 more a year then what he'd pay for insurance for himself (actually, about $7800, since he's retired military). Then on top of that the 12% sales tax he has to pay for anything he purchases, then gas taxes of about $1.30 per gallon... It's not a wonder he's sick and tired of living there. Doesn't even make $100k a year, and ends up bringing home less then half of his pay after taxes.
Your numbers are just wrong. Absurdly wrong.
The absolute, top marginal rate you can pay in Canada is 29%, and that's only on income above $132,406.
If your dad is paying $36,000 in taxes, then that means his annual income is about $160,000, and his average tax rate is 23%.
In comparison, if he earned the same pay in the US (about $164,00 USD), and assuming he's married and filing singly, then he'd be paying $42,573 in tax.
Now that I've explained that your worldview is based on basic factual misunderstanding, I happily await your complete change of opinion on this subject.
If "socialized medicine" means I have to pay so much more in taxes for a system that his fiance still wanted private insurance for, then you can keep it.
Actually, Canada pays less per capita for its healthcare system than you guys.
The point I was trying to make is that just like with Insurance companies running health, Government running all health will also equate to the prices constantly going up, becoming more and more of a burden on citizens.
Your claim here simply does not match reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: What I love is you have no idea what I'm talking about and post anyways. Twice in one night.
It makes you look like a fool.
I know exactly what you posted. It was a collection of emotionally charged political terms that all kind of vaguely has some emotional resonance to you, but actually read like gibberish to anyone who's looking at the actual meaning of those words.
The amount of man-hours needed each year for the regulation added by the Affordable Care Act so far would be 398 times the total amount of man-hours our Space Shuttle program spent in space over its entire 30-year history. That’s each and every year, with it likely to get a lot worse when more of the regulation gets established by HHS.
Frazzled wrote: Well he did say the University of Chicago's ecnomics department was justa fringe group...
And now Frazzled missed the differences between a school of of economic thought, and an actual, literal school.
As if everyone belonging to the Chicago School of Economic thought is actually in Chicago. What's next, you gonna tell me everyone Austrian School person has to be from Austria? Or every Keynesian has to be from Milton Keynes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: Equally goofy to the bootstrap talk is the naivete that leads people to believe that there's no potential downside to this.
With that said, I'm for Universal Healthcare, though I'd rather have a single-payer option.
There's plenty of potential downside, and I've love for their to be an informed, intelligent discussion about the ACA and other possible healthcare reforms. The problem is that we don't get that debate, because people shouting 'freedom' drown out everything else.
It's why i think sensible people need to reach an end point with the nutters, and basically laugh them out of the conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Valued Added Tax. Its like a sales tax thats applied all the way up the manufacturing chain. The cumulative tax is quite high.
There is no cumulative effect to the Value Added Tax. That's what Value Added means - the tax is only applied on the Value Added part made by that point in the supply chain.
ie John buy a piece of wood for $10, and chips it, then sells those chips to Dave for $15. John only pays VAT on the added value, $15 - $10 = $5.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I think it's feasible to have a Canadian model... and on top of that a private service/insurance model (that's illegal in Canada) for those who can afford it.
Best of both worlds .
Such models are in existance in places such as Germany and Australia. There's a basic level of care for everyone, with limited copays for doctor's visits and things like that (though dentistry is largely uncovered once you're past school age). But then if you want nicer hospital beds, a greater choice of doctor, shorter waits for elective surgery and the like, then you can get your own private insurance.
The amount of man-hours needed each year for the regulation added by the Affordable Care Act so far would be 398 times the total amount of man-hours our Space Shuttle program spent in space over its entire 30-year history. That’s each and every year, with it likely to get a lot worse when more of the regulation gets established by HHS.
Interesting read, thanks for that. Not the article running with the 79 million man hours stuff, that was just a guy showing he doesn't understand the difference between national level administration and single high profile projects.
But it did include a link to the original IRS report, and that guy made a good point. Real time tax subsidy processed through the exchanges seems a pretty bad idea. Seems to make more sense to have people pay the exchanges up front and then claim their deduction through the IRS as the fellow requests.
It was interesting to see the CBO projects 9 million people will take the exchange option in the first year.
Jihadin wrote: You need the Ranger Candy....thats 800mg Motrin (same thing)
Its treatment for swelling, not pain. The pain in my knee never goes away, but without the ibuprofen I have trouble walking due to inflammation physically blocking the already limited mobility (goes from ~15 degree loss to ~25 degree loss) of my leg.
God, spare me. I can't believe this sentiment is still alive and well...
You're joking right?
Dunno. He's the guy who type like a 14 years old and who'se avatar is a pic of a gay erogame dude with dildos all over him. So... make his comment what you will...
If you don't like what I have to say, or how I write, that's fine, but don't make it a personal matter. I'm free to have my opinions, no matter how naive or inane they may be.
The word socialism is a scare word. It means nothing, and most people who hear it offhand think it's some evil thing. There's nothing wrong with socialism.
Ack that internal. They pump the joint yet with steroids? Not a cure all but it helps. To many years in the 82nd wear and tear on my knees. Its not the jumping that gets us its the running we do.
There's plenty of potential downside, and I've love for their to be an informed, intelligent discussion about the ACA and other possible healthcare reforms. The problem is that we don't get that debate, because people shouting 'freedom' drown out everything else.
It's why i think sensible people need to reach an end point with the nutters, and basically laugh them out of the conversation.
From personal experience I can say that what you describe does happen, it just doesn't happen everywhere all the time. Any policy analyst will tell you that there are two side of ever political campaign: the external side and the internal side. The external side is for everyone doing the voting and funding, the internal side is for everyone doing the actual work.
On the internal side nutters never even get in (so much innuendo), on the external side they need to be dealt with because they are people that you need to win the election.
On the plus side, I have seen a change in the way people think politically. There has been a much stronger moderate (for lack of a better word) voice than I've seen in a long time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Ack that internal. They pump the joint yet with steroids? Not a cure all but it helps. To many years in the 82nd wear and tear on my knees. Its not the jumping that gets us its the running we do.
A bone spur between my kneecap and the other bones involved. To fix it I either need a knee replacement, or a type of surgery that would have the same effect on my life quality. I'm waiting until I can't run a mile, I like running.
The real issue is that I've had it since I was 14, so it has also caused chronic pain every joint on that entire side of my body, as well as scoliosis due to the effective shortening of one leg. Swelling and knots allover, which is why I love a girl that can give a good massage.
Jihadin wrote: You need the Ranger Candy....thats 800mg Motrin (same thing)
Its treatment for swelling, not pain. The pain in my knee never goes away, but without the ibuprofen I have trouble walking due to inflammation physically blocking the already limited mobility (goes from ~15 degree loss to ~25 degree loss) of my leg.
Dude... ow...
Did you get a knee replacement?
EDIT: nevermind... just read your last post.
Would there be “death panels?” You betcha. The horror show that is the ACA has them, and Medicare has it now. However, it’s a tradeoff. As technology expands the cost expands as well.
In the sense that you're using the absurd inflammatory troll term "death panels", every private insurance provider has death panels too. Only they deny a lot higher percentage of people care, because they need to save money for profit.
Its not absurd when you're on the bad end of one of these decisions. I know people on Medicare who already are.
I call it what it is, but also said as technology/cost expands these sorts of decisions come into play. They have here, in Canada, and the UK. Its the fundamental law of economics.
Yes and no. At some point yes, you have to have discussions between patients, doctors, and families about whether or not continuing extraordinary levels of care is appropriate and worthwhile. Often times the most expensive care is that experimental 100-to-1-chance-to-slow-that-cancer-and-live-another-year-but-in-awful-suffering kind of care. Patients and doctors should discuss what they agree is appropriate. It shouldn't be the default expectation that we preserve life at any cost, even when the patients themselves no longer wish for a state of constant suffering to be prolonged. The fact that people choose to characterize those kind of very important and momentous discussions as "death panels" for political gain is sickening and offensive. I hope Sarah Palin (for one prominent example) one day reads some books and wises up and feels shame for the things she's said and done.
I think it's particularly galling in light of the fact that rationing happens every day, and far more often, in private insurance. Only instead of being done because of an honest discussion with the patient about what's worthwhile, very often it's done purely on the basis of saving money for profit. Denying coverage for a pre-existing condition or looking for another reason to reduce outlay on patients, even if it's for care the genuinely need. One of the nice parts of the ACA which recently went into effect is a requirement that insurance companies spend at least 80% of the insurance premiums they take in on actual patient care, as opposed to administrative overhead. Thousands of people have already gotten rebate checks, from insurers who spent less than that on care. Medicare operates with what, 2% overhead? That kind of efficiency's not just unheard of in private insurance, it's impossible, due to their need for marketing and profit.
Frazzled wrote: If you're going to respond harshly to everyone who wants to discuss it, even those I'm sure you essentially agree with, you should probably step back and not, er respond. You're too ready for a fight.
If you slap me in the face enough times enough times while I'm trying to talk, you should expect me to fight back at some point. I appreciate the levity you try to bring to discussions, but in my perception I get a real, thoughtful comment from you in a political thread maybe 5% of the time. The rest of the time it's jokes, trolling, or plain refusal to engage honestly.
dogma wrote: From personal experience I can say that what you describe does happen, it just doesn't happen everywhere all the time. Any policy analyst will tell you that there are two side of ever political campaign: the external side and the internal side. The external side is for everyone doing the voting and funding, the internal side is for everyone doing the actual work.
On the internal side nutters never even get in (so much innuendo), on the external side they need to be dealt with because they are people that you need to win the election.
On the plus side, I have seen a change in the way people think politically. There has been a much stronger moderate (for lack of a better word) voice than I've seen in a long time.
Absolutely.
The problem comes when the outside rhetoric effectively shuts down otherwise interesting observations and proposals from the outside. I mean, I know we're not expecting anything inciteful from the genius hanging an empty chair on his lawn, but there are plenty of industry experts and academics with strong insight into policy. Having a really emotive, fact free political debate excludes them from public contribution.
The other problem comes when, through running all that external noise, a political party comes to box itself into a corner. A classic example here is the ACA, where Republican rhetoric was so strong they ended up in a position where they couldn't even negotiate to a bill that gave them everything they wanted.
There's also the problem that the more removed the reality of the political process is from the theatre, the less people are actually voting based on what their politicians are doing.
AustonT wrote:Canadian clustering near the border has less to do with us and more to do with the lay of the land. I prefer not to go North of Calgary unless I have to.
Nobody goes North of Calgary unless they have to. It's called "Edmonton", and it is a terrible wasteland where everyone urinates on everything once the sun goes down.
And I dunno who asked about VAT, but the consumer doesn't typically pay that in Canada.
sebster wrote: I mean, I know we're not expecting anything inciteful from the genius hanging an empty chair on his lawn, but there are plenty of industry experts and academics with strong insight into policy. Having a really emotive, fact free political debate excludes them from public contribution.
Its really the other way around. When the public debate is highly emotive the public is excluded from the real debate because people that are emotionally engaged with an idea are very easy to manipulate. Industry experts and most academics* always have a voice within the real debate. In fact, its often useful to look at the public as a force rather than a collection of individuals, because that tends to be how it operates with respect to policy.
*The claim that originality is required for publication is utter nonsense, especially in social science. There are over 9000 permutations of realism in international politics and all of them are functionally identical.
The other problem comes when, through running all that external noise, a political party comes to box itself into a corner. A classic example here is the ACA, where Republican rhetoric was so strong they ended up in a position where they couldn't even negotiate to a bill that gave them everything they wanted.
That's true. American politics, especially on the Republican side, haven't really caught up with the way people now engage with media. I said this in the Romney 47% thread as well but it bears reiterating: no politician should ever assume that his audience is a controllable variable.
That said, things are changing. In many ways this cycle is a passing of the guard on the conservative side.
AustonT wrote: There are two answers to be given one is to the question you posed in the thread title, the other is in response to the article.
Universal healthcare, and by which I mean real universal healthcare not the ACA, will absolutely not kill our freedom unless it is somehow co-opted like the patriot act was.
The article is ridiculous. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking either social security or Medicare are resounding successes. These are the real problems in government spending, but Medicare is especially responsible for the current climate of entitlement on the part of the healthcare industry. In short Medicare is the reason healthcare reform is necessary. Social Security is unrelated to the topic of the thread but as it was in the article I would argue it has either failed or run its useful course and now or back in 2009 is hardly something Id use as an example of the success of government programs.
No a universal system would not IF
It didn’t give the nanny state the excuse to start telling me what to do. Although I am a supporter of a Canadian/Swiss style I fear this will inevitably happen. And by inevitably I mean almost immediately.
Would there be “death panels?” You betcha. The horror show that is the ACA has them, and Medicare has it now. However, it’s a tradeoff. As technology expands the cost expands as well.
Intriguing. The ACA and Medicare both have Death Panels now in a system that is bass-ackwards socialized... and I have not heard anything about Death Panels at all in systems that are FULLY socialized.
Perhaps you are fearing the wrong thing?
Or did I miss the part where Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, etc. etc. etc. are executing thousands of grandparents a year as 'too expensive to save' ?
Jihadin wrote: You need the Ranger Candy....thats 800mg Motrin (same thing)
Its treatment for swelling, not pain. The pain in my knee never goes away, but without the ibuprofen I have trouble walking due to inflammation physically blocking the already limited mobility (goes from ~15 degree loss to ~25 degree loss) of my leg.
I think he's referring to what seems to be a policy in the Army healthcare system to prescribe Motrin and 2 quarts of water to cure everything from a mild sprang to cancer.
Jihadin wrote:Ack that internal. They pump the joint yet with steroids? Not a cure all but it helps. To many years in the 82nd wear and tear on my knees. Its not the jumping that gets us its the running we do.
The running wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so epically slow, BN "fun runs" carrying the colors is fething awful when 4 miles takes 90 minutes. I thanked Jesus when we got a BC that demanded BN runs be finished under the Abn standard time, still slow but better than the truffle shuffle.
Intriguing. The ACA and Medicare both have Death Panels now in a system that is bass-ackwards socialized... and I have not heard anything about Death Panels at all in systems that are FULLY socialized.
Perhaps you are fearing the wrong thing?
Or did I miss the part where Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, etc. etc. etc. are executing thousands of grandparents a year as 'too expensive to save' ?
There was some kind of hubbub about elderly patients being ushered early into death with the Norfolk Care Plan in the UK. Death Panels are a myth but I'm sure somewhere there is a cost benefit analysis that is and should be done, Whic I suppose is where the mythical beast arose from.
sebster wrote: The problem is that we don't get that debate, because people shouting 'freedom' drown out everything else.
Have you read any of American Empire by Harry Turtledove? The American Nazi party equivalent is called the "Freedom Party" and all they do is chant "FREEDOM" whilst beating anyone who disagrees with them.
