weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Mar 25, 2017 15:53:17 GMT -5
We pay National Insurance and that covers the populations medical needs... cradle to grave. Its like a form of tax really.... there is no profit to be made by any insurance company. You can take out private insurance if you want plush carpets and better food....but you'll see the same doctor and if something goes wrong you'll be taken to the nearest local hospital. There are problems in that they don't seem to have enough money... but we love the fact that no-one ever has to worry about medical bills. Same here. You can buy insurance for the "extras", but you'll still have the same doctor, same anesthesiologist, etc, and be in the same hospital.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Mar 25, 2017 15:55:54 GMT -5
... ....but you'll see the same doctor ... Who paid for that doctor's education/training? Med school is heavily subsidised by the taxpayers. That's why it really pisses me off when we have American students coming here, getting a great education that WE pay for, and then taking off to the U.S.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2017 16:17:29 GMT -5
Who paid for that doctor's education/training? In Scotland tuition fees are free, ... Who paid for that doctor's education/training? Med school is heavily subsidised by the taxpayers. ... Which is a part of the equation we need to look at in this country.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 25, 2017 16:33:07 GMT -5
I have been hearing this for many years, and I'm not sure how that would work. Would insurance companies be disbanded and Medicare just be expanded until it includes everyone? Or would the government just pay all the insurance companies? Due to the financial relationship between insurance companies and politicians, I don't see either of those happening. It would be financially devastating to the insurance companies, and since they pay politicians to make laws, I just don't think it would go that way. I could be missing something here. What do the insurance companies want to happen and why? I could care less what happens to the ins companies. Imo, they are blood sucking leeches on the system. Lots of developed countries have single payer. And people have their choice of hc providers. Switzerland does have ins companies, but they are heavily regulated by the gov't. I'm not asking out of concern for the industry - I am asking because their existence is a fact and will directly effect what happens next.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 25, 2017 16:35:03 GMT -5
We pay National Insurance and that covers the populations medical needs... cradle to grave. Its like a form of tax really.... there is no profit to be made by any insurance company. You can take out private insurance if you want plush carpets and better food....but you'll see the same doctor and if something goes wrong you'll be taken to the nearest local hospital. There are problems in that they don't seem to have enough money... but we love the fact that no-one ever has to worry about medical bills. How much do you pay? Does everyone pay the same? Is it based on income?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,086
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 25, 2017 19:21:49 GMT -5
We pay National Insurance and that covers the populations medical needs... cradle to grave. Its like a form of tax really.... there is no profit to be made by any insurance company. You can take out private insurance if you want plush carpets and better food....but you'll see the same doctor and if something goes wrong you'll be taken to the nearest local hospital. There are problems in that they don't seem to have enough money... but we love the fact that no-one ever has to worry about medical bills. How much do you pay? Does everyone pay the same? Is it based on income? When I worked in London, it was 10 pounds a week. This was 80s, and not sure if it was sliding scale or flat fee
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Mar 25, 2017 19:29:14 GMT -5
Sorry its in pounds and I don't know the current conversion....also its quite complicated. www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10078062/why-do-we-pay-national-insurance from 2010 "National Insurance is now used to pay for: The National Health Service Unemployment benefit Sickness and disability allowances The state pension any money you earn between £110 and £844 per week - you pay 11% If you earn more than £844 per week, there's an extra 1% added on top. If you are self-employed:A flat rate of £2.40 per week, Fortunately, employer’s National Insurance is a tax deductible expense for business. For self-employed business owners this means the employer’s National Insurance that they pay will reduce their own tax bills." Different countries have different systems, some better or worse than ours....( like the above although the figures may have changed) We have always paid it, so don't even think about it. Its prioritised by need and free at the point of access to UK citizens.......(and those Countries for whom we have reciprocal arrangements) I don't know the ins and outs of Obamacare tbh....... but it seemed that the US was getting something that all the other developed Countries already have. I'm not surprised there is little support for taking it away.............only for making it better. Quite why insurance companies are making a living out of sick people seems very strange.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 25, 2017 19:30:33 GMT -5
How much do you pay? Does everyone pay the same? Is it based on income? When I worked in London, it was 10 pounds a week. This was 80s, and not sure if it was sliding scale or flat fee Approximately what percentage of your gross income was that? Being in pounds , and 30 years ago, your number doesn't give me much context. Also, was it based on income or did everyone pay 10 pounds per week - rich or poor?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 25, 2017 19:37:45 GMT -5
Sorry its in pounds and I don't know the current conversion....also its quite complicated. "National Insurance is now used to pay for: The National Health Service Unemployment benefit Sickness and disability allowances The state pension any money you earn between £110 and £844 per week - you pay 11% If you earn more than £844 per week, there's an extra 1% added on top. If you are self-employed:A flat rate of £2.40 per week, Fortunately, employer’s National Insurance is a tax deductible expense for business. For self-employed business owners this means the employer’s National Insurance that they pay will reduce their own tax bills." Different countries have different systems, some better or worse than ours....( like the above although the figures may have changed) We have always paid it, so don't even think about it. Its prioritised by need and free at the point of access to UK citizens.......(and those Countries for whom we have reciprocal arrangements) I don't know the ins and outs of Obamacare tbh....... but it seemed that the US was getting something that all the other developed Countries already have. I'm not surprised there is little support for taking it away.............only for making it better. Quite why insurance companies are making a living out of sick people seems very strange. Either I missed this, or you and I were posting at the same time. Thanks for this info. 11% is 3.4% higher than our FICA, so if everyone paid 3.4% of their income, with some cap, it would cost us a lot less. I currently pay $8,500 and my company pays another huge sum (like another $8,500 maybe). I guess our contribution is about 4% of our combined income. But it would be $8,500 no matter what we earned.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 21:00:55 GMT -5
I thought it was pretty funny that the Freedom Coalition were really responsible for the death of this. They wanted less than the 'replace' offered, but instead left the full Obamacare in place. I just keep on wondering, can something implode and explode at the same time?Yes. That's how the "Fat Man" version of the Atomic Bomb works. Implosion compressing the Uranium, causing explosion when it reaches critical mass.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 21:06:50 GMT -5
Although so many conservatives here worship Trump, he really isn't one. The conservatives in Congress, the Freedom Coalition, killed this bill before it could even achieve a vote. The existing rift in the Repo party, spackled over with election win hubris, has cracked open yet again. They showed Trump up and it was another major loss for the POTUS. I don't blame Trump, I blame the GOP in congress. Trump doesn't control congress. But I agree it looks bad for Trump. A major campaign promise goes unfullfilled and his reputation, to the extent there was one, of a deal maker has flopped. I disagree. Even the best "dealmakers" in the world don't have a 100% success rate. Now... if his "deals" continue to flop, it would be another story... but one or two?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 21:09:19 GMT -5
Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare 68 times, and replace it with "something terrific". You elected a guy who doesn't understand...well....anything. "Who knew healthcare was so complicated?" Everyone but you, Mr. Trump. Everyone but you. Healthcare isn't complicated. Getting anything worthwhile past paid politicians who are in the pockets of Insurance and Big Pharma is the problem.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 25, 2017 22:27:54 GMT -5
Although so many conservatives here worship Trump, he really isn't one. The conservatives in Congress, the Freedom Coalition, killed this bill before it could even achieve a vote. The existing rift in the Repo party, spackled over with election win hubris, has cracked open yet again. They showed Trump up and it was another major loss for the POTUS. I don't blame Trump, I blame the GOP in congress. Trump doesn't control congress. But I agree it looks bad for Trump. A major campaign promise goes unfullfilled and his reputation, to the extent there was one, of a deal maker has flopped. Trump did exactly what he said, He brought Trumpcare before the House, At that point he fulfilled his promise! If the representatives didn't pass it, it is no longer his problem! It is now the problem of those that voted against it! He will move on to the next project.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 25, 2017 22:31:44 GMT -5
Or would it have been better for Trump to drag this out, twist arms make false promises like,,,
The Louisiana Purchase or the Nebraska Kickback,,,Yess, proud moments for the Obama administration!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 25, 2017 22:34:38 GMT -5
Let's not forget You have to vote for it to see what's in it. another proud moment!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 23:43:59 GMT -5
I don't blame Trump, I blame the GOP in congress. Trump doesn't control congress. But I agree it looks bad for Trump. A major campaign promise goes unfullfilled and his reputation, to the extent there was one, of a deal maker has flopped. Trump did exactly what he said, He brought Trumpcare before the House, At that point he fulfilled his promise! If the representatives didn't pass it, it is no longer his problem! It is now the problem of those that voted against it! He will move on to the next project. I disagree... because what he promised was "better than Obamacare, everyone will be covered, and it will be cheaper". That's not what he tried to push through Congress. It wasn't better than Obamacare, it wasn't cheaper, and most definitely not everyone would have been covered.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 23:45:47 GMT -5
Or would it have been better for Trump to drag this out, twist arms make false promises like,,, The Louisiana Purchase or the Nebraska Kickback,,,Yess, proud moments for the Obama administration!Obama was president in 1803?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2017 7:14:52 GMT -5
I'm 90% certain tax revenues won't rise significantly before the end of the decade, and provided they did, I'm 99% certain that within two years spending would rise by a commensurate amount, restoring the original shortfalls. Deficits and fiscal sustainability don't matter to people as much as bread and roses. Particularly so with the millennials. These priorities won't change from now until the end, hence the course is set. It just pains me to see it happen with the majority's willingness and consent. why? because we won't raise taxes? and if so, again: why? in the 90's, taxes rose and spending did not, so i am not buying your second point, either. The '90's with it's last vestiges of a generation willing to tolerate a modicum of austerity is long dead. And indeed you won't raise taxes.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2017 10:06:08 GMT -5
Trump did exactly what he said, He brought Trumpcare before the House, At that point he fulfilled his promise! If the representatives didn't pass it, it is no longer his problem! It is now the problem of those that voted against it! He will move on to the next project. I disagree... because what he promised was "better than Obamacare, everyone will be covered, and it will be cheaper". That's not what he tried to push through Congress. It wasn't better than Obamacare, it wasn't cheaper, and most definitely not everyone would have been covered. I read OldCoyote 's post and thought the same. But then research showed me he was correct: Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration: ... 5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days The situation reminded me of a time I was working with a group of young ladies on a Challenge Course. They were a "Home Ec." Club. If you think about all the different groups at a traditional high school (cheerleaders, athletes, band, drama, National Honor Society, etc), these gals weren't a fit for any of them. They were, however, a wonderful support group for each other. When I started to present them with challenges, I learned their group mantra. Each time they quickly failed to overcome the challenge and gave up, at least one would say, "As long as we do are best, that is the best we can do." My response of, "If your best isn't good enough, get better" was met with puzzled looks. I had a good conversation at the end of the day with the two adult women who ran the program getting them to see the problem with that self limiting attitude. President Trump, as @richardintn points out, you offered a vision of a better plan. This wasn't it. Give us this better plan then fight harder to get it passed.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,086
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 26, 2017 11:13:52 GMT -5
more on Ryan as the fall guy...
trump tweeted peeps to watch this show - opening bit was on Ryan.
Since when is loyalty a positive thing for politicians?
What happened to serving the people? voting your conscience?
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,807
|
Post by kadee79 on Mar 26, 2017 11:27:54 GMT -5
more on Ryan as the fall guy... trump tweeted peeps to watch this show - opening bit was on Ryan. Since when is loyalty a positive thing for politicians? What happened to serving the people? voting your conscience? She may not have spoken to DT about it, but some of his people must have been in contact....otherwise, how would he know the show's content prior to it airing
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,807
|
Post by kadee79 on Mar 26, 2017 11:29:56 GMT -5
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 26, 2017 13:34:48 GMT -5
Trump has said 'loyalty' several times. He is right. He learned that his party doesn't have loyalty to him. The difference between running a corporation and running the USA - in one, everyone works for you, and has loyalty to you, so they do what you say or you fire them. The other, the people you need have loyalty to their people, and they don't work for you, and you can't fire them. That is the number 1 reason 'I run a corporation' isn't an indicator you will be a good POTUS.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2017 13:44:58 GMT -5
Trump has said 'loyalty' several times. He is right. He learned that his party doesn't have loyalty to him. The difference between running a corporation and running the USA - in one, everyone works for you, and has loyalty to you, so they do what you say or you fire them. The other, the people you need have loyalty to their people, and they don't work for you, and you can't fire them. That is the number 1 reason 'I run a corporation' isn't an indicator you will be a good POTUS. bingo. corporate CEO's would make wonderful dictators, and really shitty legislators, as a general rule.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2017 13:47:00 GMT -5
why? because we won't raise taxes? and if so, again: why? in the 90's, taxes rose and spending did not, so i am not buying your second point, either. The '90's with it's last vestiges of a generation willing to tolerate a modicum of austerity is long dead. And indeed you won't raise taxes. why?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 26, 2017 13:51:41 GMT -5
I think the millenials have a shot at bring austerity back. Not all of them, of course, but there is a slice of them that don't want to end up like their broke-ass parents. The simple life, with certain conveniences seem to suffice for many. If they lead down that road, who knows.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2017 13:52:04 GMT -5
Trump has said 'loyalty' several times. He is right. He learned that his party doesn't have loyalty to him. The difference between running a corporation and running the USA - in one, everyone works for you, and has loyalty to you, so they do what you say or you fire them. The other, the people you need have loyalty to their people, and they don't work for you, and you can't fire them. That is the number 1 reason 'I run a corporation' isn't an indicator you will be a good POTUS. Trump's #1 requirement for people seems to be loyalty. He will sacrifice competence, intelligence, and reasonableness to it. It may be the only thing he values from people, but he apparently has a warped definition of loyalty that he adheres to. He thinks of it as fawning devotion and acquiescence, rather than a principled telling of the truth that will lead him to what is right. I always liked a piece I heard on the show Sports Night. It concerned the theory of management. What does it say about Donald Trump that he seems to surround himself with dumb people who agree with him?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2017 13:55:00 GMT -5
Trump has said 'loyalty' several times. He is right. He learned that his party doesn't have loyalty to him. The difference between running a corporation and running the USA - in one, everyone works for you, and has loyalty to you, so they do what you say or you fire them. The other, the people you need have loyalty to their people, and they don't work for you, and you can't fire them. That is the number 1 reason 'I run a corporation' isn't an indicator you will be a good POTUS. Trump's #1 requirement for people seems to be loyalty. He will sacrifice competence, intelligence, and reasonableness to it. It may be the only thing he values from people, but he apparently has a warped definition of loyalty that he adheres to. He thinks of it as fawning devotion and acquiescence, rather than a principled telling of the truth that will lead him to what is right. I always liked a piece I heard on the show Sports Night. It concerned the theory of management. What does it say about Donald Trump that he seems to surround himself with dumb people who agree with him? NPD, imo.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2017 13:56:07 GMT -5
Well, that's a given, isn't it?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 26, 2017 13:58:58 GMT -5
I worked for a boss who was about 'loyalty' and 'known commodities'. He hired nice, hardworking people for jobs they were totally unqualified for. It was terrible. Luckily he stumbled upon a guy who somehow turned out to be a decent HR guy despite his utter lack of experience. He was able to pull in a few outsiders for key positions, but had to fight with our GM for every one of those people.
|
|