Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Scooby01_98 Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:07 pm

Pez go to the IRS website look at the stats they are there.

I could go with a national insurance plan as long as the cost were the same no matter the income. the person making 10K pays the same as the person making 1M. After all the person making 1M is going to pay for private insurance instead of the government, just take away his tax deduction for having private insurance.

Guest Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:20 pm

Bman wrote:
Scooby01_98 wrote:
Right now I am just a pissed off taxpayer. Pissed off because 40 some percent of the taxpayers pay nothing to the federal gov't and they expect everything.

Ok I would like to weigh in here. First back in 2004 the week I started dialysis my colon ruptured and I was in Lutheran Hospital for over 30 days, running up a bill of over $350,000 and my dialysis for that year (2004) added another $50,000 to my yearly tab. M-Plan forced me out so insurance companies do cut their losses at the expense of someone's health. That should NOT be allowed to happen.

Secondly, your comment about being a pissed of taxpayer is kind of remarkable. So you think you should not pay for healthcare for the poor and underemployed. So Scooby needs a few extra dollars so that means Sally and Steve go without medicare and die. We are a better nation than that. If our society is so broke then I say we cut the military to the bare bones and just defend our own country, bring the troops home from Europe, Japan, Asia, the Middle East and just defend our borders. I would much rather take care of my brothers and sisters here at home that need help than play world policeman.

Third, you guys rail against national healthcare but almost all of the rest of the world has it and I have known Canuck for almost 7 years now and he has never complained about their healthcare up north.

If I had to choose between paying an extra couple percentages in taxes and having ALL Americans have good quality healthcare sign me up. I can see the bigger picture, not just the impact to MY wallet. Greed is what got us into this problem, the greater good can get us out of it.

Please permit me to use Scooby's comment as an example. There are plenty of people that feel like him, so he's not alone.

I continually have to remind myself that it makes no sense to get pissed off at what someone ELSE either DOES or DOES NOT do. Whether that means go to the doctor for a kidney stone or a melanoma, diabetes, or stomach ulcers. I pay my taxes, as do Bman, LTRT, Cincy, et al. What I am NOT torqued about is how poor the rest of the country is. The way I understand taxes is if you don't make enough money, the Gov doesn't take taxes. It's as simple as that. I've known people who evaded taxes, but that's a whole separate issue (mark rich) that's more about knowingly stiffing the government than inability to pay.

Essentially, I nod to Pez's comment about 40%, there's not 40% of people who are evading taxes, but rather don't make enough to pay taxers - if the number is actually that high.

Flat tax is the best for everyone.

Scooby01_98 Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:31 pm

Meta is correct I wasn't saying people were not paying taxes by cheating. They don't make enough to pay an income tax. It was even in the campaign that the 40% number was used and under the Obama tax plan it would increase to 46%.

Agree on the flat tax. Everyone should pay something.

Guest Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:50 pm

On flat tax:
I think everyone should pay something also, but, if we are taxing individuals and end up having to increase their food stamp benefit because they have less money seems a bit bureaucratic... I guess it would allow the government to make those types of decisions vs the individuals themselves (who are likely not sound Money managers to begin with). I would like to see a combination of flat tax with deductions based on lack of income, number of children etc. Perhaps an income tax for those at the high end of the spectrum...

In general:
A person paying little or no tax because of little or no income is more likely to be a bigger recipient of tax-funded social benefits. A higher income person is considerably less likely to take advantage of tax-funded social programs, but pays the lions share of the cost.

floridafun Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:20 pm

Scooby01_98 wrote:Nothing like wanting communism huh Mort....All make the same money.....yeah that works real well....

what a 50's mentality spin...maybe we should just go back to the good old days and jail anyone who says anything or attends any function that can be perceived as commie leaning, we could ruin their lives and livilihoods, family relationships, any prospect of a successful future here in gods country....yeah that the ticket! Rolling Eyes

floridafun Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:26 pm

Mort wrote:Health care systems works great in many countries, of course USA is behind the times as usual. I mean what do you expect from a country who still has pot as a class 1 Controlled substance.

The system we have now is a corrupt joke. Everyone should be able to go to a doctor or a hospital when they need it. without it costing their house and everything they own. Because your child gets some outrageous infliction it should not cost you so much that you cannot live long enough to pay it off, in fact the debt is so high that it gets passed on to your benefactors.

We need a total revamp of the system: Doctors will make all the same not one making 700,000 a year and another doing the same thing make 300,000. Insurance company's are choking the system to say the least about them. They are what's holding us back .
The system is not designed for the sick its designed for certain people to get rich very rich

The system will need fail safe audits on a regular basis unlike today where corruption is ramp id.<cant remember how to spell that lol

well said mort!

Markwes Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:52 pm

meta4 wrote:I guess I should have asked why you think it hasn't worked well anywhere. Are you looking at the costs? Feedback from patients? Which countries specifically are you comparing? I've heard good things from France, and Germany. Doctors over there (Germany) seem to think it's doing well and they claim Europeans are healthier because of these programs. The good reports I hear from France and Switzerland had positive things to say about Pre and Neonatal care (FR) and in Switzerland they have a special part of the program that helps families get some of the best care in the world for Downs/Aspbergers/Autism.

No, admittedly I have not done a lot of research, which is why I did not try to state my thoughts as fact. I just know I have seen (or heard) accounts from Canadians of how difficult it is to get help sometimes, and how long one can be on a waiting list compared to the U.S. Maybe Canuck has had a different experience - I don't know. If it truly has had some success in some countries, then we need to see what they are doing differently.

meta4 wrote:In my previous comment, I guess I should have been more _______ when I was comparing a national healthcare program to a bailed out bank or auto company. Yes, perhaps these are ideas that in the past we would rather not have tax dollars go to, but ethically it's a hard sell to prefer a shiny new sub-standard American automobile instead of good healthcare.

Which do you think makes people happier? To be in good health or to have a new car?

I would say good health. But I still don't see the comparison. The government is discussing bailing out the Big 3 to save jobs, not to make sure everyone can afford a car.

Guest Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:58 pm

Markwes wrote:But I still don't see the comparison.

That's exactly why I asked you where you're coming from (financial, etc.). If you have no point, how would you understand mine?

My assumption was that you may be referring to France and Germany's programs have been criticized in the recent few years for their rising costs, and my point was to compare what we taxpayers are now seeing our government do with our tax dollars.

Basically, we're giving hundreds of billions of dollars to incompetent financial managers. All for the pleasure of saving some people's jobs.

Markwes Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:58 pm

floridafun wrote:
Scooby01_98 wrote:Nothing like wanting communism huh Mort....All make the same money.....yeah that works real well....

what a 50's mentality spin...maybe we should just go back to the good old days and jail anyone who says anything or attends any function that can be perceived as commie leaning, we could ruin their lives and livilihoods, family relationships, any prospect of a successful future here in gods country....yeah that the ticket!

Wow, good job of spinning that one. So you agree that 2 doctors performing the same procedure should be paid the same flat rate by the government, even if one is a respected physician who has been around for years and the other is fresh out of med school? That's a scary thought.

floridafun Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:47 pm

i think each doctor should receive the same amount for a specific procedure that all the other doctors receive, yes.

BUT bearing in mind this amount may vary nationally--- just like wages at a place of some business in downtown chicago where 12.00 is standard starting wage, in comparison to in columbia city where the same kind of business may pay an average of 9.00 starting wage, in columbia city a doctor might have lower compensation in proportion for medical procedure payments in comparison to doctors in chicago.

i think length of successful time on the job is deserving of additional compensation. however i dont think the difference should be disporportionately higher pay. and it should come from the facility paying the payroll.. (guilty in the scamming for medicaid/insurance money also), not from the expense of the procedure in question? i dont see each procedure being the only money being handed to the doc for his wages? disporportionately higher pay "entitlement" is the part of the kind of thinking that got us where we are.

Sponsored content