Universal Healthcare! Come on U.S. Get with it.

[Iriemon]

Health Ins. is just really HIGH....over $400.00 a month. After that is taken out you really don't have much left.

You are getting off cheap. I pay over $700 a month, just for the wife and two kids.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

At one time we had marginal rates up to 91% even without health care. I don't doubt that taxes would have to be raised to pay for global national health care, but you cannot point to some other country and conclude that since that country has nationalized health our tax rate would have to be the same as theirs.

Are there any other countries that have less of a tax burden (Assuming 33% as an average) per individual worker then the US?.

I think it would increase considerably, but your right I have no proof of that, It's just an opinion. But if it does go up 5 to say 8% we are allready in the red as compared to what people are paying now.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

You are getting off cheap. I pay over $700 a month, just for the wife and two kids.

I have never seen 700 a month, not even close actually. I find it to land somewhere between 350 and 450 with most of the people I know

 

[Iriemon]

I have never seen 700 a month, not even close actually. I find it to land somewhere between 350 and 450 with most of the people I know

I'll send you my bill -- if you promise to pay it

 

[alphieb]

I have never seen 700 a month, not even close actually. I find it to land somewhere between 350 and 450 with most of the people I know

Actually, if you are self employed and have to pay for a private premium it is between 700-800 per month. Through employers it is usually like you said.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I'll send you my bill -- if you promise to pay it

NA you keep that big monster... :rofl

 

[Bergslagstroll]

So I benefit by paying more and getting less.. Yeppers thats brilliant. Explain to me how exactly I benefit? Your clueless when trying to drive home a point using examples of a few million people when comparing to the most industrialized capitolist countries in the world with a population of almost 300,000,000... What benefits does the comon man see that there not seeing now? I am still waiting for what is in it for the common working guy whos putting in his 40-60 hours a week?

First why was I clueless? Because if you are so many people couldn't you be more effecient then a small country because you could be more specialized and use your resource better? Also don't you belive in capitalist so wouldn't that also lead to more effeciency?

But instead as I proved your supposely best country in the world has almost as much taxes per person as we swedes for your healthcare and at the same time you have to pay alot more per person privately. And at the same time we swedes live longer and also have alot less infant mortality rate.
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/)

So maybee it is something wrong with you capitalist country or your private healtcare system?

But my point was that countries with universal healtcare manage to have much smaller costs for there healthcare compared to USA with a private system, as percent of gdp gross domestic product like for example:

France 10,1%
Canada 9,9 %
Germany 11,1%
United Kingdom 7.7%
Sweden 9,4 %

Compared to the USA 15 %

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/28/35529791.xls

So that can lead to the conclusion that universal healthcare leads to smaller costs for healtcare. Something USA also probably could benefit from.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

First why was I clueless? Because if you are so many people couldn't you be more effecient then a small country because you could be more specialized and use your resource better? Also don't you belive in capitalist so wouldn't that also lead to more effeciency?

But instead as I proved your supposely best country in the world has almost as much taxes per person as we swedes for your healthcare and at the same time you have to pay alot more per person privately. And at the same time we swedes live longer and also have alot less infant mortality rate.
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/)

So maybee it is something wrong with you capitalist country or your private healtcare system?

But my point was that countries with universal healtcare manage to have much smaller costs for there healthcare compared to USA with a private system, as percent of gdp gross domestic product like for example:

France 10,1%
Canada 9,9 %
Germany 11,1%
United Kingdom 7.7%
Sweden 9,4 %

Compared to the USA 15 %

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/28/35529791.xls

So that can lead to the conclusion that universal healthcare leads to smaller costs for healtcare. Something USA also probably could benefit from.

Lets start out with this.... Sweden has NO drain on there economy other then healthcare... You are not a global player in the political arena, nobody looks to you for your economic stability, No military or defense needs or expenses. Don't compare your economy to that of the US. Your not even in the same ballpark as far as that goes. Were the largest importer and exporter of goods and services in the world. Even in a global economic market we drive that market. Your making a comparison between a country with less then 10,000,000 and covers an area the size of California. Yet you still have a higher death rate then the US and rate the 7th highest suicide rate in the world. NOBODY looks to sweeden for major issues so there is no major drain on your economy, resources or citizens.

As for your number they seem pretty high. I can't say as if I know anyone that pays 15% for healthcare. I pay closer to 6-7 % of my total wages for healthcare. Some people may be as high as 9. But I have never run into anyone or heard of anyone paying that high until Iriemon. If your self employed then your health cost may be upwards of 15%. But the average i am running into seems to be much lower. As far as canada goes I just read an article stating that if you live in Ontario you pay 48% of your wages to taxes. And 46% of that is spent on healthcare. Yet they still can't see doctors and specialist. They are still coming to the US for treatment. And the option for private healthcare is becoming more ad more popular. The universal healthcare in this country is in trouble. I don't know abou the other countries. But if you can find me a like for like comparison with the US then it may be worth a read.

 

[alphieb]

You are getting off cheap. I pay over $700 a month, just for the wife and two kids.

Through your employer....that is outrageous. I bet that doesn't leave much income left.

 

[Iriemon]

Through your employer....that is outrageous. I bet that doesn't leave much income left.

My employer pays for my health insurance. The plan offered by my employer to cover my family was slightly more expensive than buying it privately.

I make a nice income, so I am lucky that I can afford it. Still is a big bite though.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Lets start out with this.... Sweden has NO drain on there economy other then healthcare... You are not a global player in the political arena, nobody looks to you for your economic stability, No military or defense needs or expenses. Don't compare your economy to that of the US. Your not even in the same ballpark as far as that goes. Were the largest importer and exporter of goods and services in the world. Even in a global economic market we drive that market. Your making a comparison between a country with less then 10,000,000 and covers an area the size of California. Yet you still have a higher death rate then the US and rate the 7th highest suicide rate in the world. NOBODY looks to sweeden for major issues so there is no major drain on your economy, resources or citizens.

As for your number they seem pretty high. I can't say as if I know anyone that pays 15% for healthcare. I pay closer to 6-7 % of my total wages for healthcare. Some people may be as high as 9. But I have never run into anyone or heard of anyone paying that high until Iriemon. If your self employed then your health cost may be upwards of 15%. But the average i am running into seems to be much lower. As far as canada goes I just read an article stating that if you live in Ontario you pay 48% of your wages to taxes. And 46% of that is spent on healthcare. Yet they still can't see doctors and specialist. They are still coming to the US for treatment. And the option for private healthcare is becoming more ad more popular. The universal healthcare in this country is in trouble. I don't know abou the other countries. But if you can find me a like for like comparison with the US then it may be worth a read.

Ok I will try to make things simple.
Countries with universal healthcare have to put around 10 % of that they produce (GDP) into healthcare while USA have to put around 15 % percent of that it produce (GDP) into healthcare a year. Also this difference becomes even bigger if you look at the actual cost per person because you produce more per person and year (higher GDP per capita) but still have to lay a higher percents of that you produce on healthcare.

The total cost of healthcare as percent of GDP: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/28/35529791.xls

The total expenditures on healthcare as percent of capita:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/27/35529803.xls

Another thing I have try to tell you is that USA have big public cost for healthcare even if in your private healthcare system, that 44,4 % of your healthcare is a public cost. So even in a country with a private healthcare system you have a big public cost that have to be financed through taxes.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/49/35529832.xls

All sources together and other sources on this page: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2825_495642_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

Finally we can get to discus the sources, the source I use is OECD a respected organisation there the member states is the most developed countries in the world. www.oecd.org. So I trust this organisation more then one article even if of course the cost can be higher in one Canadian state. Also I presume you trust worldfactbook. Finally it could be interesting to see the sources of your other claims.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Ok I will try to make things simple.
Countries with universal healthcare have to put around 10 % of that they produce (GDP) into healthcare while USA have to put around 15 % percent of that it produce (GDP) into healthcare a year. Also this difference becomes even bigger if you look at the actual cost per person because you produce more per person and year (higher GDP per capita) but still have to lay a higher percents of that you produce on healthcare.

The total cost of healthcare as percent of GDP: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/28/35529791.xls

The total expenditures on healthcare as percent of capita:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/27/35529803.xls


Another thing I have try to tell you is that USA have big public cost for healthcare even if in your private healthcare system, that 44,4 % of your healthcare is a public cost. So even in a country with a private healthcare system you have a big public cost that have to be financed through taxes.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/49/35529832.xls

All sources together and other sources on this page: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2825_495642_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

Finally we can get to discus the sources, the source I use is OECD a respected organisation there the member states is the most developed countries in the world. www.oecd.org. So I trust this organisation more then one article even if of course the cost can be higher in one Canadian state. Also I presume you trust worldfactbook. Finally it could be interesting to see the sources of your other claims.

Maybe am just to friggin dense to understand this.

But the 15% your talking about is for what, medicare and medicade? I would assume thats what they would have to be since they are basically the only two major health plans sponsored by the goverment. This is for the elderly and those that are disabled, incapable, or other various reason can't get insurance. If thats the case then thats part of the 30 percent we pay in taxes, its not in addition to it.

Medicare, which will provide health care coverage for over 40 million elderly Americans and people with disabilities, consists of Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (insurance for physician costs and other services). Since its birth in 1965, Medicare has accounted for an ever-growing share of spending. Medicare growth slowed down in 1998 and 1999, but is expected to accelerate in 2000 and beyond. In 2001 it will comprise 12 percent of all Federal spending.


Medicaid, in 2001, will provide health care services to almost 34 million Americans, including the poor, people with disabilities, and senior citizens in nursing homes. Unlike Medicare, the Federal Government shares the costs of Medicaid with the States, paying between 50 and 83 percent of the total (depending on each State's requirements). Federal and State costs are growing rapidly, although the rate of growth has fallen from the double-digit pace of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Medicaid accounts for seven percent of the budget.

We spend about 450 bilion in medicare and medicade which will be about 15%. But thats included in our 30% wage taxes that we pay not additional. If unicersal healthcare were to take effect You would be adding another 210,000,000 + people to the roll call. This would suredly increase my take wage into the 40 - 50% range. Theres no way your going to include over half the country and not greatly increase the cost.

 

[Kelzie]

Maybe am just to friggin dense to understand this.

But the 15% your talking about is for what, medicare and medicade? I would assume thats what they would have to be since they are basically the only two major health plans sponsored by the goverment. This is for the elderly and those that are disabled, incapable, or other various reason can't get insurance. If thats the case then thats part of the 30 percent we pay in taxes, its not in addition to it.

Medicare, which will provide health care coverage for over 40 million elderly Americans and people with disabilities, consists of Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (insurance for physician costs and other services). Since its birth in 1965, Medicare has accounted for an ever-growing share of spending. Medicare growth slowed down in 1998 and 1999, but is expected to accelerate in 2000 and beyond. In 2001 it will comprise 12 percent of all Federal spending.


Medicaid, in 2001, will provide health care services to almost 34 million Americans, including the poor, people with disabilities, and senior citizens in nursing homes. Unlike Medicare, the Federal Government shares the costs of Medicaid with the States, paying between 50 and 83 percent of the total (depending on each State's requirements). Federal and State costs are growing rapidly, although the rate of growth has fallen from the double-digit pace of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Medicaid accounts for seven percent of the budget.

We spend about 450 bilion in medicare and medicade which will be about 15%. But thats included in our 30% wage taxes that we pay not additional. If unicersal healthcare were to take effect You would be adding another 210,000,000 + people to the roll call. This would suredly increase my take wage into the 40 - 50% range. Theres no way your going to include over half the country and not greatly increase the cost.

It's the total amount of money spent by the country on medical services. It's what you pay, what your employer pays, and what the government pays. A country that spends a larger percentage of their GDP is, in theory, less efficient.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

It's the total amount of money spent by the country on medical services. It's what you pay, what your employer pays, and what the government pays. A country that spends a larger percentage of their GDP is, in theory, less efficient.

If you look at it with a simplistic view maybe. But I highly industrialized country is going to have more healthcare needs. There are definetly freedoms we have in this country that add to that number. Not to mention the fact that I still don't see comparing a country with 9,000,000 people to one with 290,000,000 million. Numbers change everything.

we spend about 15 Percent of the federal budget on medicare and medicade. Along with other federal spending makes our per worker tax burden about 30%. How much does that increase ya think if I add an additional 290,000,000 people to the mix?

The difference is I am talking real world numbers for the individual person that works for a living. And I'm getting GDP numbers thrown at me that I don't think represent the true workforce of America as it does the entire population. I don't care what the goverment spends on healthcare. ......I spend 30% in taxes and about 6% for healthcare.... If we put that 210,000,000 people into universal healthcare is that 30% People pay going to rise, and if so by how much would you think?

 

[Kelzie]

If you look at it with a simplistic view maybe. But I highly industrialized country is going to have more healthcare needs. There are definetly freedoms we have in this country that add to that number. Not to mention the fact that I still don't see comparing a country with 9,000,000 people to one with 290,000,000 million. Numbers change everything.

we spend about 15 Percent of the federal budget on medicare and medicade. Along with other federal spending makes our per worker tax burden about 30%. How much does that increase ya think if I add an additional 290,000,000 people to the mix?

The difference is I am talking real world numbers for the individual person that works for a living. And I'm getting GDP numbers thrown at me that I don't think represent the true workforce of America as it does the entire population. I don't care what the goverment spends on healthcare. ......I spend 30% in taxes and about 6% for healthcare.... If we put that 210,000,000 people into universal healthcare is that 30% People pay going to rise, and if so by how much would you think?

I really can't say if it will rise, or by how much. If we nationalize it, medical care will become more efficient (at least it will if other countries are any indication). Will your taxes rise by the 6% you're already paying for insurance? Maybe. But your employees pay for part of it. There's no reason that they shouldn't give the money back in the form as a higher wage.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I really can't say if it will rise, or by how much. If we nationalize it, medical care will become more efficient (at least it will if other countries are any indication). Will your taxes rise by the 6% you're already paying for insurance? Maybe. But your employees pay for part of it. There's no reason that they shouldn't give the money back in the form as a higher wage.

Are there any countries of our size and industrial magnitude that Have a succesful nationalized healthcare? I mean canada is considerably smaller and they are having some serious problems. I don't hear as much about the others so I am ignorant on there successes and or failures.

How about stifling of new drugs and technology? The global powerhouse in new drugs, medical research, medical procedures is IMO definetly the US. It seems that if the money is no longer there to be made that these will suffer also. It won't go away completely, there are other countries that involved also. Just seems like you take a huge incentive away to spend billions on a new drug or cure if your going to have a problem recouping your cost

 

[Kelzie]

Are there any countries of our size and industrial magnitude that Have a succesful nationalized healthcare? I mean canada is considerably smaller and they are having some serious problems. I don't hear as much about the others so I am ignorant on there successes and or failures.

How about stifling of new drugs and technology? The global powerhouse in new drugs, medical research, medical procedures is IMO definetly the US. It seems that if the money is no longer there to be made that these will suffer also. It won't go away completely, there are other countries that involved also. Just seems like you take a huge incentive away to spend billions on a new drug or cure if your going to have a problem recouping your cost

That's not entirely true. Germany and France are huge players in new medical technology. France especially. And of course there are critics of Canada's health care. There's always critics. For everything.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

That's not entirely true. Germany and France are huge players in new medical technology. France especially. And of course there are critics of Canada's health care. There's always critics. For everything.

Ya .. maybe so. But until someone can show me its not going to cost me anymore then I am spending now, and my care and service won't decrease at all. I will stick with private healthcare.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Here's an agent's perspective. If healthcare is nationalized it will be a huge drain on the economy, the fact is that most health insurance companies are hanging on for dear life right now because of rising costs, including the one's I sell for, so what makes people think that the national government can solve this, number one, the national plan would probably put the money in the general fund, which will mean that the system will always be teetering on bankruptcy, demanding ever increasing tax increases. I also believe that these taxes will take more money out of everyone's pockets than they would have spent on the health insurance to begin with, since there will be no risk management system in place, everyone will be pro-rated to a flat contribution fee from their taxes, whether you are healthy and see a doctor for a yearly routine checkup or not(same with contributing group insurance), you'll end up paying the "group" rate meaning you'll also be paying bad health bob's "fair share" whereas in the private sector you would pay according to your risk class. As well, you will see obscene wait times in hospitals, we have a system in Louisiana where the poor get free health care and the wait is a minimum of three hours at any given time, under a national system, every hospital would pretty much share that trait. Also, as was mentioned before, the government would pay professionals their price, which would be lower than the private sector would, meaning two things 1) less doctors, and 2) no incentive to insure you get the highest level of care(considering most doctors wouldn't care if they lost that job, since the private sector would offer more money and less risk than medicine).
- Point two:
I am a life/health insurance professional, if national health plans are adopted, you are taking away my ability to make money along with my colleagues, there are alot of us and that would reduce buying power in our business community, meaning less goods sold, also meaning less workers in those fields because of the reduced demand, this would not only extend suffering across many career paths, but it would also shrink the tax base meaning those still working would have to pay yet another tax increase to keep the now failing national medical system solvent. Here's where it gets really good! After the health insurance companies dissappear, investment dollars spent by those companies also go away, less investment means less hiring, meaning we are now in a downward spiral approaching Jimmy Carter sized misery indexes.
After a couple of years of this economic shrinkage, eventually the U.S. economy would underperform along the lines of socialist European nations.
-enjoy the free healthcare-

 

[Bergslagstroll]

First of I think Kelzie is much better then I explaining things seems like I mostly repeting myself.

But GDP is basicly all the money a country produce in one year. If you then see there that money goes 15 % goes to private and public healthcare costs in USA, both money you spend yourself and money the goverment spend. While in countries with universal healthcare around 10 % of GDP goes to private and public healthcare costs. Also then it comes to that healthcare cost around 80 % is a public cost and financed by taxes and around 20 % is a private cost while in the USA the public cost is 44 % and the private cost is 66 %. So even with a private healthcare system you have a big public cost that have to be financed through taxes.

But if who's number should mean anything you have to look at other factors like for example how big the GDP is. Because a country with a smaller GDP per person would have to spend a bigger percentage of the GDP to get a decent level of healthcare. But the fact is opposite for USA you produce more money a year then for example European countries but you still have to spend a larger percentage of that money on healthcare.

Athor important factor as you pointed out is extra burdens. But we have it in Europe to like for example a aging population that needs more healthcare.

Also it of course important to consider that services you get for the money. But if you look at OECD numbers you can see that the countries with universal healthcare compared with the USA is rougly the same (a bit better a bit worse) then it comes to things like services like doctors, nurses and hospital beds but also then it comes life exptance.

But yes no universal healthcare country is as big as USA but Germany has 80 million people and the UK has 50 million.

I only got the tabell of PPP dollar per person tabell, but how large part of population that is productive is roughly the same between USA and countries with universal healthcare.

This is my last post of the cost of healthcare, because both I, and I guess everyone else is bored to death about it.

 

[Iriemon]

Here's an agent's perspective. If healthcare is nationalized it will be a huge drain on the economy, the fact is that most health insurance companies are hanging on for dear life right now because of rising costs, including the one's I sell for, so what makes people think that the national government can solve this, number one, the national plan would probably put the money in the general fund, which will mean that the system will always be teetering on bankruptcy, demanding ever increasing tax increases. I also believe that these taxes will take more money out of everyone's pockets than they would have spent on the health insurance to begin with, since there will be no risk management system in place, everyone will be pro-rated to a flat contribution fee from their taxes, whether you are healthy and see a doctor for a yearly routine checkup or not(same with contributing group insurance), you'll end up paying the "group" rate meaning you'll also be paying bad health bob's "fair share" whereas in the private sector you would pay according to your risk class. As well, you will see obscene wait times in hospitals, we have a system in Louisiana where the poor get free health care and the wait is a minimum of three hours at any given time, under a national system, every hospital would pretty much share that trait. Also, as was mentioned before, the government would pay professionals their price, which would be lower than the private sector would, meaning two things 1) less doctors, and 2) no incentive to insure you get the highest level of care(considering most doctors wouldn't care if they lost that job, since the private sector would offer more money and less risk than medicine).
- Point two:
I am a life/health insurance professional, if national health plans are adopted, you are taking away my ability to make money along with my colleagues, there are alot of us and that would reduce buying power in our business community, meaning less goods sold, also meaning less workers in those fields because of the reduced demand, this would not only extend suffering across many career paths, but it would also shrink the tax base meaning those still working would have to pay yet another tax increase to keep the now failing national medical system solvent. Here's where it gets really good! After the health insurance companies dissappear, investment dollars spent by those companies also go away, less investment means less hiring, meaning we are now in a downward spiral approaching Jimmy Carter sized misery indexes.
After a couple of years of this economic shrinkage, eventually the U.S. economy would underperform along the lines of socialist European nations.
-enjoy the free healthcare-

Don't we already have national health care systems -- Medicare and Medicaid?

How does health insurance companies make investments that benefit the health system as a whole? I agree that a national health system would remove some need for private health insurance agents -- like you? While that would cause some job loss, overall I'd think this would be a savings for the health care system.

I wonder what % of health care nationally is covered by existing national health care systems versus private systems. Anybody know?

 

[UtahBill]

Don't we already have national health care systems -- Medicare and Medicaid?

How does health insurance companies make investments that benefit the health system as a whole? I agree that a national health system would remove some need for private health insurance agents -- like you? While that would cause some job loss, overall I'd think this would be a savings for the health care system.

I wonder what % of health care nationally is covered by existing national health care systems versus private systems. Anybody know?

Insurance companies, home, auto, health, etc. control or mangage a major chunk of the wealth in this country. They can afford to give up a portion of their control by allowing a limited Universal Health care program, like I have described before. We still take care of ourselves either thru our own funds or an insurance plan that only covers ordinary health issues. The big items that would destroy the finances of a family, or require them to sell their home just to pay for life saving treatment, are the ones that Universal Health care should cover. If people are not paying the first $5000 or so out of their own pocket, they will disconnect from the responsibilities of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Those who insist on smoking, drinking excessively, etc. can pay extra accordingly. Those who are getting drugs and sex off the street can pay for all of their healthcare themselves.
The insurance companies can take a partial hit on loss of income and the nation will likely be better for it. They surely don't PRODUCE anything that we can sell to other countries.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Don't we already have national health care systems -- Medicare and Medicaid?

When talking about universal health care, these are unrelated and it's an apples/oranges comparison. Medicare is similar to ssi, all Americans contribute to the system and are eligible after x amount of quarters of taxation to use the system, it's a true entitlement system in that those who pay into it are owed services, medicaid is a welfare program, it's only available to certain lower income brackets and other extenuating circumstances. Both of these have one thing in common however, neither can beat a good private insurance plan.(notice I said a good one.)

How does health insurance companies make investments that benefit the health system as a whole?

It's simple, if your contribution to the pool of risk were all that funded your insurance, only the top 10% in the country would be able to afford it, insurance companies have two methods to keep your costs down, they re-insure, in other words, have secondary companies write a policy on their coverage of your contract, and they invest in the stock market, these investments are circulated throughout the tech sectors which include medicine, as well as commodities and the overall market.

I agree that a national health system would remove some need for private health insurance agents -- like you? While that would cause some job loss, overall I'd think this would be a savings for the health care system.

No, it wouldn't, because the government would now be liable for all of the claims that private insurance absorbed, on top of that, with free insurance for all, the demand would skyrocket and that would increase payout, it would be a horrible mistake. Add to that the fact that many agents feel alot like me, if the nation priced us out of our subsistance market(health) and left us only our life market, we wouldn't work any harder to make the difference up, sure, we'd have to scale down our spending a little, but it would screw the rest of the country because our tax base would shrink, thus compounding the problem.

I wonder what % of health care nationally is covered by existing national health care systems versus private systems. Anybody know?

I haven't seen the numbers unfortunately. This doesn't matter to the overall argument however. The fact is people keep demanding ever more services from the national government, where does it all end? What's next after universal health care? Free vehicles for everyone? You gotta get to work. Everyone gets a gym memebership paid for by uncle sam? Everyone deserves access to these places right? See where I'm going with this? it is NOT the federal governments right or responsibility to provide universal health care, they have already overstepped their authority grossly with the New Deal and The Great Society.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Insurance companies, home, auto, health, etc. control or mangage a major chunk of the wealth in this country. They can afford to give up a portion of their control by allowing a limited Universal Health care program, like I have described before.

Some can, most can't, most health companies are niche products, in other words, they dissappear under universal health and that means less jobs, which means a smaller tax base which means taxes have to go up.

We still take care of ourselves either thru our own funds or an insurance plan that only covers ordinary health issues. The big items that would destroy the finances of a family, or require them to sell their home just to pay for life saving treatment, are the ones that Universal Health care should cover. If people are not paying the first $5000 or so out of their own pocket, they will disconnect from the responsibilities of maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

First of all, insurance companies have ways of minimizing loss, see my above post for the basic explanation. Second, why not just get a major medical policy that would cost less than the taxation caused by the increased need through universal medical programs, they do exist BTW.

Those who insist on smoking, drinking excessively, etc. can pay extra accordingly. Those who are getting drugs and sex off the street can pay for all of their healthcare themselves.

Then it wouldn't be legal due to anti-discrimination laws, the private sector can eliminate due to risk, the federal government cannot

The insurance companies can take a partial hit on loss of income and the nation will likely be better for it.

Wrong, loss of income is loss of income, also, like I said earlier, you wouldn't simply have companies losing revenue, you would lose whole companies

They surely don't PRODUCE anything that we can sell to other countries.

You're opinion, there are plenty of international insurers, health excluded because many countries are going to communist......er, I mean socialized medicine.

 

[UtahBill]

Some can, most can't, most health companies are niche products, in other words, they dissappear under universal health and that means less jobs, which means a smaller tax base which means taxes have to go up. First of all, insurance companies have ways of minimizing loss, see my above post for the basic explanation. Second, why not just get a major medical policy that would cost less than the taxation caused by the increased need through universal medical programs, they do exist BTW.
Then it wouldn't be legal due to anti-discrimination laws, the private sector can eliminate due to risk, the federal government cannot

Wrong, loss of income is loss of income, also, like I said earlier, you wouldn't simply have companies losing revenue, you would lose whole companies You're opinion, there are plenty of international insurers, health excluded because many countries are going to communist......er, I mean socialized medicine.

My retirement does not cover my medical so I have a major medical policy for myself to cover me until medicare age. At age 59, I pay only $142 per month for $5,000 deductible. Not a bad deal at all. Beer and cigarette money for a lot of people. But there still could be situations where an insurance company drops you, or you lose your job taking care of a spouse and they drop you. There needs to be a safety net so we don't lose all we have just to stay alive. Perhaps an umbrella policy of sorts?
My rates are based on age, general good health history, and being a non-smoker/drinker. My only bad habit is caffeine.
However, a friend has to pay a LOT more for his wife due to serious long term debilitating disease and it is eating up his retirement income. He pays almost $15,000 per year just for her insurance alone. His retirement includes his medical.
As for loss of income, you are being very self centered. We have had whole industries and job types displaced by technology, and we adapted. We can't be Luddites selectively. Besides, the 4 insurance agents that I know make very good money for doing very little. One of them sells one product, AFLAC, and he lives very well. He was the first agent for them in the area, tho.
I found out how much my stock broker was getting paid to give me bad advice (when he wasn't out playing tennis or handball) and found a better deal elsewhere. There are some jobs out there where the people think that they are entitled to live off the sweat of others. Insurance is necessary, some is even required, but that doesn't mean that the industry can't adjust itself a bit.
Try firing 20% of all upper management, 10% of all middle management, and 5% of all others. Then pass the savings on to your customers. What a concept!
Make insurance more affordable, and stop ripping off those who have high dollar illnesses thru no fault of their own, and you will likely get more customers.
Charge a LOT extra for those who insist on unhealthy lifestyles. That is legal discrimination, by the way.
Not all aspects of communism/socialism are bad, and not all aspects of capitalism are good. You can't scare me with those old ghosts.:2wave:

BTW, are you posting from WORK?