hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 9:41:46 GMT -5
When you take the right to decide from themselves you take away a part of their independence Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the overall good...if not going to make them to correct a problem, and one of the major things that has to be done if we want to fix our health system which most of us feel needs major work, is that all citizens are in as far as paying their share of medical coverage, like the citizens of the Netherlands.. As we do know regarding Social Security...there are some who are against it, feel they could do a better job on investing their $ then the government but I know that if polled, asked.. great majority don't want to do away with SS...as far as those who don't agree...basically majority has said.."tough nuggies"... To the first point, the question (as always really) is "what's your share?". That's the problem. Most people seem to think "my share" is "less". To the second point, I think a great majority still think of SS as "free money". I could certainly do a better job of investing my money on my own, but that's just not what SS is, SS is protecting the inept masses from their own bad decisions. It's insurance (but to that point, i also think most people don't understand insurance basics either).
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 22, 2020 9:56:34 GMT -5
Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the overall good...if not going to make them to correct a problem, and one of the major things that has to be done if we want to fix our health system which most of us feel needs major work, is that all citizens are in as far as paying their share of medical coverage, like the citizens of the Netherlands.. As we do know regarding Social Security...there are some who are against it, feel they could do a better job on investing their $ then the government but I know that if polled, asked.. great majority don't want to do away with SS...as far as those who don't agree...basically majority has said.."tough nuggies"... To the first point, the question (as always really) is "what's your share?". That's the problem. Most people seem to think "my share" is "less". To the second point, I think a great majority still think of SS as "free money". I could certainly do a better job of investing my money on my own, but that's just not what SS is, SS is protecting the inept masses from their own bad decisions. It's insurance (but to that point, i also think most people don't understand insurance basics either). "SS is protecting the inept masses from their own bad decisions." I couldn't disagree with u more..I don't consider myself inept and have great help from SS..way beyond , I believe, from what I personally put in the fund while working..also the contributions of my employers...but no way would I have been able to save the $ that I have received in benefits from SS...I saved and invested , still am in on investments..100% of my savings... As far as their fair share for medical coverage...the idea of all in , including younger folks who wouldn't be useing services anywhere close to the use of the older folks...thus bringing average costs down to reasonable rates and still having coverage for them selves when medical coverage is needed and for many younger folks...they will need coverage for illnesses, accidents...
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 10:03:16 GMT -5
To the first point, the question (as always really) is "what's your share?". That's the problem. Most people seem to think "my share" is "less". To the second point, I think a great majority still think of SS as "free money". I could certainly do a better job of investing my money on my own, but that's just not what SS is, SS is protecting the inept masses from their own bad decisions. It's insurance (but to that point, i also think most people don't understand insurance basics either). "SS is protecting the inept masses from their own bad decisions." I couldn't disagree with u more..I don't consider myself inept and have great help from SS..way beyond , I believe, from what I personally put in the fund while working..also the contributions of my employers...but no way would I have been able to save the $ that I have received in benefits from SS...I saved and invested , still am in on investments..100% of my savings...As far as their fair share for medical coverage...the idea of all in , including younger folks who wouldn't be useing services anywhere close to the use of the older folks...thus bringing average costs down to reasonable rates and still having coverage for them selves when medical coverage is needed and for many younger folks...they will need coverage for illnesses, accidents... I have no idea how old you are, how long you worked, etc...are you saying that given the same money put INTO SS from yourself and your employer, and invested at 10%/year, you'd have LESS money than what you're taking out of SS now? That may be true specifically for you possibly, but for the masses, it isn't true at all.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 22, 2020 10:11:48 GMT -5
When you take the right to decide from themselves you take away a part of their independence Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the overall good...if not going to make them to correct a problem, and one of the major things that has to be done if we want to fix our health system which most of us feel needs major work, is that all citizens are in as far as paying their share of medical coverage, like the citizens of the Netherlands.. As we do know regarding Social Security...there are some who are against it, feel they could do a better job on investing their $ then the government but I know that if polled, asked..great majority don't want to do away with SS...as far as those who don't agree...basically majority has said.."tough nuggies"... I honestly think it is pretty funny that people think they have choices and are acting independently. My choices are pretty much take it or leave it. Whatever my employer says my insurance is, my insurance is. I go to the doctors they say I can. I go to the hospital that is near me that they say I can. I pay what they tell me to, because the option is to be uncovered. With a chronic condition, an body in the 2nd half of life, 2 athletic children and a family history of a variety of cancers, that seems like a stupid idea. I also think it is funny that there are people that don't want socialized medicine because they will have to subsidize others. Do people not understand the concept of an insurance pool? If you have insurance, either you got less than the amount of care you could have, and you are already subsidizing people, or you got more than the amount of care you paid for, and others are subsidizing you. But yes, we are solitary individuals with choices up the butt hole!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 10:18:24 GMT -5
Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the overall good...if not going to make them to correct a problem, and one of the major things that has to be done if we want to fix our health system which most of us feel needs major work, is that all citizens are in as far as paying their share of medical coverage, like the citizens of the Netherlands.. As we do know regarding Social Security...there are some who are against it, feel they could do a better job on investing their $ then the government but I know that if polled, asked..great majority don't want to do away with SS...as far as those who don't agree...basically majority has said.."tough nuggies"... I honestly think it is pretty funny that people think they have choices and are acting independently. My choices are pretty much take it or leave it. Whatever my employer says my insurance is, my insurance is. I go to the doctors they say I can. I go to the hospital that is near me that they say I can. I pay what they tell me to, because the option is to be uncovered. With a chronic condition, an body in the 2nd half of life, 2 athletic children and a family history of a variety of cancers, that seems like a stupid idea. I also think it is funny that there are people that don't want socialized medicine because they will have to subsidize others. Do people not understand the concept of an insurance pool? If you have insurance, either you got less than the amount of care you could have, and you are already subsidizing people, or you got more than the amount of care you paid for, and others are subsidizing you. But yes, we are solitary individuals with choices up the butt hole! Yes, but with most insurance you are "subsidizing" risk, not subsidizing people who aren't paying their expected premium amount. If I pay $100 in car insurance premiums for myself, whether or not I have a claim I'm getting something, I'm getting risk protection. If I pay my neighbor's $100 car insurance premiums, I get nothing out of it really. You get something out of insurance, even if the only thing you get is downside risk protection and don't get a payout of money.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 22, 2020 10:28:53 GMT -5
"SS is protecting the inept masses from their own bad decisions." I couldn't disagree with u more..I don't consider myself inept and have great help from SS..way beyond , I believe, from what I personally put in the fund while working..also the contributions of my employers...but no way would I have been able to save the $ that I have received in benefits from SS...I saved and invested , still am in on investments..100% of my savings...As far as their fair share for medical coverage...the idea of all in , including younger folks who wouldn't be useing services anywhere close to the use of the older folks...thus bringing average costs down to reasonable rates and still having coverage for them selves when medical coverage is needed and for many younger folks...they will need coverage for illnesses, accidents... I have no idea how old you are, how long you worked, etc...are you saying that given the same money put INTO SS from yourself and your employer, and invested at 10%/year, you'd have LESS money than what you're taking out of SS now? That may be true specifically for you possibly, but for the masses, it isn't true at all. 10% a year return? and your saying I get the sum my employers contributed? Where does that come from and what about the years a major purchase is happening..automobile, home ...seriouse illness not fully covered...or just a year of frivolity...cruise, ski week, Disneyland for the family... Of course don't do it BUT human nature being what it is..I know, none of these things of not staying with the plan is you...but lets face it, we all are not as wonderful as you..Just saying.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 10:36:43 GMT -5
I have no idea how old you are, how long you worked, etc...are you saying that given the same money put INTO SS from yourself and your employer, and invested at 10%/year, you'd have LESS money than what you're taking out of SS now? That may be true specifically for you possibly, but for the masses, it isn't true at all. 10% a year return? and your saying I get the sum my employers contributed? Where does that come from and what about the years a major purchase is happening..automobile, home ...seriouse illness not fully covered...or just a year of frivolity...cruise, ski week, Disneyland for the family... Of course don't do it BUT human nature being what it is..I know, none of these things of not staying with the plan is you...but lets face it, we all are not as wonderful as you..Just saying. Yes, any average investor can get a 10% annual return in the long run (and we're talking long run if we're talking investing the money starting when you begin contributing to SS for most folks). What about years a major purchase is happening NOW? I'm not sure what you mean by "where does that come from", we're talking about a hypothetical where people could take that money put into SS, and instead invest it themselves for retirement. It would simply mean taking money ALREADY contributed by you or on your behalf, and putting it into a 401k-like account for you to manage for your retirement. And yes, if there were ways to cash that money out, that's where the "inept masses" come in. Taking money out of what is supposed to be for your retirement life to buy a ski week. That's financially inept IMO.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Jan 22, 2020 12:01:25 GMT -5
you don't seem to understand that the VA is "government healthcare".
hoops- you made a blanket statement about "government healthcare". that statement was false.
own it, or change it.
If you build 1 good house and 99 bad ones, you are inept at building houses. You're trying to argue that if someone builds 1 good house that takes them 50 years to complete, and 99 houses that are horrific, that you can't say they're bad at building houses. Your argument is laughable. I'm still waiting for your data to back up your claims on the VA in terms of approval level though. Can you explain the 99 bad houses that the government runs in your analogy? Because the way I am reading it sounds like you have it completely ass backwards. Presumably the 1 good house you reference is the VA healthcare system. What are the 99 bad houses? Medicare? Medicare isn't healthcare, it's insurance. While there are certainly exceptions, people getting treatment covered by the VA are generally doing so at the large network of hospitals and outpatient facilities owned, staffed and managed by the federal government. People getting coverage via medicare in general are not. If they are unhappy with their care or facility, is that the government's fault? Maybe? To the same degree that it is my insurance company's fault if I don't like my doctor or have a crap experience at a hospital. So what are the metrics you are using to claim that the 99 houses run by government are horrific compared to other privately managed houses? What metrics is private insurance beating the crap out of government insurance on? The overall satisfaction with care received compared to private insurance? The overall satisfaction with medicare coverage compared to private insurance? The cost to consumer, both in premium and out of pocket expenses? Overhead and administrative costs? The % of each group (medicare vs privately insured) that go without needed care because of out of pocket costs? In what way is private insurance delivering better "healthcare" at better cost than medicare?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 12:37:09 GMT -5
If you build 1 good house and 99 bad ones, you are inept at building houses. You're trying to argue that if someone builds 1 good house that takes them 50 years to complete, and 99 houses that are horrific, that you can't say they're bad at building houses. Your argument is laughable. I'm still waiting for your data to back up your claims on the VA in terms of approval level though. Can you explain the 99 bad houses that the government runs in your analogy? Because the way I am reading it sounds like you have it completely ass backwards. Presumably the 1 good house you reference is the VA healthcare system. What are the 99 bad houses? Medicare? Medicare isn't healthcare, it's insurance. While there are certainly exceptions, people getting treatment covered by the VA are generally doing so at the large network of hospitals and outpatient facilities owned, staffed and managed by the federal government. People getting coverage via medicare in general are not. If they are unhappy with their care or facility, is that the government's fault? Maybe? To the same degree that it is my insurance company's fault if I don't like my doctor or have a crap experience at a hospital. So what are the metrics you are using to claim that the 99 houses run by government are horrific compared to other privately managed houses? What metrics is private insurance beating the crap out of government insurance on? The overall satisfaction with care received compared to private insurance? The overall satisfaction with medicare coverage compared to private insurance? The cost to consumer, both in premium and out of pocket expenses? Overhead and administrative costs? The % of each group (medicare vs privately insured) that go without needed care because of out of pocket costs? In what way is private insurance delivering better "healthcare" at better cost than medicare? It's not about people being unhappy and it being the government's fault, it's about how inefficiently things are run. Government run healthcare is horrifically inefficient in comparison to all the other countries running socialized healthcare/insurance. That's why we can't simply say "let's copy the Dutch system", or really "let's copy system run in X country". OR if you DO want to copy that system, you have to work to change the SYSTEM. You aren't copying that system by throwing a bunch of money into a currently inefficient system. People seem to want to compare the government system to the private system...but if you want to copy X country, then you have to compare the government system to X's system. All parties have $200k. If Germany can build a house for $200k, and Private US Citizen can build the exact same house for $400k, and US Government can build the same house for $400k (let's just call it even) then it's ridiculous to say "let's take $200k from Private US Citizen and give it to US Government, then US Government will have the $400k they need to build a house". The correct answer is "US Government already has $200k, we know that house can be built with $200k, let's find a way to get as efficient as Germany and build the same house for the same price they do". US Government has the $200k they need, if they can build the house with that money now...then great! It only becomes a problem when they say "we're inefficient, so give us more money to compensate". Otherwise what you're really saying is "Let's copy the Dutch system, but let's copy it really poorly and inefficiently!". Hard to believe anyone supports that premise.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 12:59:03 GMT -5
It is not the government that is inefficient, it is the medical system. THAT is why it costs so much more here. The medical system EXISTS within the confines of government rules and regulations. The government CREATED the "system". At best you can say "the government is really efficient at creating inefficient systems"...that's not an endorsement of the government running things. ETA: That also doesn't really change my stance though. Whether you say the government is inefficient or the system the government created and administers is inefficient, I'm not in favor of throwing money at inefficient things. Presumably any single payer "system" is going to fundamentally change the medical system. Either way, the point is that the money for healthcare needed to pay for people in an efficient system exists, and it already exists in the hands of the government earmarked for healthcare. It isn't "Copying X's system" to provide the same things X provides but in a far less efficient way.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 22, 2020 13:10:04 GMT -5
It's not about people being unhappy and it being the government's fault, it's about how inefficiently things are run. Government run healthcare is horrifically inefficient in comparison to all the other countries running socialized healthcare/insurance.
The government here doesn't "run" healthcare. It merely pays for it. Your health care, treatment and options are between you and your doctor of choice. When all is said and done, the doctor submits a bill to the provincial government.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 13:18:43 GMT -5
It's not about people being unhappy and it being the government's fault, it's about how inefficiently things are run. Government run healthcare is horrifically inefficient in comparison to all the other countries running socialized healthcare/insurance.
The government here doesn't "run" healthcare. It merely pays for it. Your health care, treatment and options are between you and your doctor of choice. When all is said and done, the doctor submits a bill to the provincial government. It "runs" healthcare just like governments everywhere run healthcare, they set all the rules and regulations for the system. It "merely pays for it". They "don't run healthcare" in the same way that the US government doesn't "run healthcare" for the elderly via Medicare, they "merely pay for it". By paying for it, they effectively run it, they decide what they will pay for, how much they will pay for it, and on and on. They set the rules and regulations, and they decide on payments. It's not like people are getting their prostates checked by the City Council, but it would be hard to argue they don't actually run it (acknowledging that you put it in quotation marks, so maybe we mean the same things...they aren't picking your doctor for you, but they have a very high level of control over the system).
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 22, 2020 13:26:31 GMT -5
It's not about people being unhappy and it being the government's fault, it's about how inefficiently things are run. Government run healthcare is horrifically inefficient in comparison to all the other countries running socialized healthcare/insurance.
The government here doesn't "run" healthcare. It merely pays for it. Your health care, treatment and options are between you and your doctor of choice. When all is said and done, the doctor submits a bill to the provincial government. It "runs" healthcare just like governments everywhere run healthcare, they set all the rules and regulations for the system. It "merely pays for it". They "don't run healthcare" in the same way that the US government doesn't "run healthcare" for the elderly via Medicare, they "merely pay for it". By paying for it, they effectively run it, they decide what they will pay for, how much they will pay for it, and on and on. They set the rules and regulations, and they decide on payments. It's not like people are getting their prostates checked by the City Council, but it would be hard to argue they don't actually run it (acknowledging that you put it in quotation marks, so maybe we mean the same things... they aren't picking your doctor for you, but they have a very high level of control over the system).How is that any different from your insurance companies? They decide what they will pay for, how much they will pay, and on and on. Furthermore, they DO pick your doctors for you...you have to be in-network. That's a poor argument against universal healthcare.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 13:34:10 GMT -5
It "runs" healthcare just like governments everywhere run healthcare, they set all the rules and regulations for the system. It "merely pays for it". They "don't run healthcare" in the same way that the US government doesn't "run healthcare" for the elderly via Medicare, they "merely pay for it". By paying for it, they effectively run it, they decide what they will pay for, how much they will pay for it, and on and on. They set the rules and regulations, and they decide on payments. It's not like people are getting their prostates checked by the City Council, but it would be hard to argue they don't actually run it (acknowledging that you put it in quotation marks, so maybe we mean the same things... they aren't picking your doctor for you, but they have a very high level of control over the system).How is that any different from your insurance companies? They decide what they will pay for, how much they will pay, and on and on. Furthermore, they DO pick your doctors for you...you have to be in-network. Since you asked how it is different: They don't set any of the laws, including which people can and can't be doctors. They don't do any of the zoning which determines where hospitals can be built. They don't decide which medications are legal. They don't decide what you can advertise on television or other mediums for things like medications. And there isn't a single private insurance company, there are many, so if you don't like the rules of one you can find another. For the record, you don't HAVE to be in-network. My doctor right now is out of network because I changed jobs and liked my doctor. But this thread isn't about private vs public. The point posed was about copying another country's system. And there seems to be this confusion that if we just make our current government a single payer and give it a bunch of money, that it effectively "copies the Dutch system", without actually doing ANY of the things that the Dutch system actually does to make it work. Copying the Dutch system is infinitely more than "give the Government more tax dollars".
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 13:35:32 GMT -5
It "runs" healthcare just like governments everywhere run healthcare, they set all the rules and regulations for the system. It "merely pays for it". They "don't run healthcare" in the same way that the US government doesn't "run healthcare" for the elderly via Medicare, they "merely pay for it". By paying for it, they effectively run it, they decide what they will pay for, how much they will pay for it, and on and on. They set the rules and regulations, and they decide on payments. It's not like people are getting their prostates checked by the City Council, but it would be hard to argue they don't actually run it (acknowledging that you put it in quotation marks, so maybe we mean the same things... they aren't picking your doctor for you, but they have a very high level of control over the system).How is that any different from your insurance companies? They decide what they will pay for, how much they will pay, and on and on. Furthermore, they DO pick your doctors for you...you have to be in-network. That's a poor argument against universal healthcare.Who is arguing against universal care? I've said it multiple times. The US Government HAS the money that other countries spend to make universal care work, and it's already earmarked for healthcare. Make it work with the money already in the coffers!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 22, 2020 13:36:54 GMT -5
They don't set any of the laws, including which people can and can't be doctors.
Wait...what? You think the law here decides who can and can't be doctors? What on earth are you talking about?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 13:39:01 GMT -5
They don't set any of the laws, including which people can and can't be doctors. Wait...what? You think the law here decides who can and can't be doctors? What on earth are you talking about? You don't have any government agency that certifies doctors and allows them to practice as such?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 22, 2020 13:44:17 GMT -5
They don't set any of the laws, including which people can and can't be doctors. Wait...what? You think the law here decides who can and can't be doctors? What on earth are you talking about? You don't have any government agency that certifies doctors and allows them to practice as such? Well, yes, of course. We don't want any doctors who AREN'T certified. You allow any Joe Blow to practice medicine in the US? Would you go a doctor for a heart transplant who isn't certified? Perhaps a doctor who learned how to do surgery from watching YouTube?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 13:53:26 GMT -5
You don't have any government agency that certifies doctors and allows them to practice as such? Well, yes, of course. We don't want any doctors who AREN'T certified. You allow any Joe Blow to practice medicine in the US? Would you go a doctor for a heart transplant who isn't certified? Perhaps a doctor who learned how to do surgery from watching YouTube? No, but I said the government decides who can and can't be a doctor, and you seemed shocked by it.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 22, 2020 13:58:20 GMT -5
Well, yes, of course. We don't want any doctors who AREN'T certified. You allow any Joe Blow to practice medicine in the US? Would you go a doctor for a heart transplant who isn't certified? Perhaps a doctor who learned how to do surgery from watching YouTube? No, but I said the government decides who can and can't be a doctor, and you seemed shocked by it. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Of course anyone can be a doctor here, with the right education, grades, residency requirements, etc. I wouldn't go to an uncertified or unlicensed doctor. Would you?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 14:02:51 GMT -5
No, but I said the government decides who can and can't be a doctor, and you seemed shocked by it. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Of course anyone can be a doctor here, with the right education, grades, residency requirements, etc. I wouldn't go to an uncertified or unlicensed doctor. Would you? You have no idea what i'm talking about when i quote YOUR entries? Or you don't remember what you wrote less than an hour ago even when it's displayed back to you? Let me see if I can refresh your memory: What I said about the private insurance compared to government: They don't set any of the laws, including which people can and can't be doctors.
What you said: Wait...what? You think the law here decides who can and can't be doctors? What on earth are you talking about?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 22, 2020 14:06:38 GMT -5
Anyone can become a doctor here with the right education. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? If you suck, you don't get certified or licensed.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 22, 2020 14:08:05 GMT -5
I guess bad doctors who can't pass the board exams are A-OK in the US. That's a shame. Do you also allow lawyers who can't pass the bar exams to practice law?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 22, 2020 14:11:16 GMT -5
and ours range from 18% to 37%.
and then, after that, we pay 20% for our healthcare, on average.
between the two, we pay 38-57%. sounds like the Dutch are getting a bargain. superior care at a lower cost.
I thought our tax rate is 10 to 37% Healthcare cost is not the same as income tax. If you don't need it you don't pay extra just the premium. I know we don't even Co e close to pay 5% of our income for healthcare This just in from the Harper’s Index: In 2018 the effective tax rate for the richest 400 households was 23%. By the poorest half of American households 24%.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 14:18:38 GMT -5
Anyone can become a doctor here with the right education. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? If you suck, you don't get certified or licensed. I said the private insurance companies don't decide who can and can't be a doctor like the governments do. The governments do that with licensing and certifications. You said that doesn't happen in Canada. You said, and I quote: "You think the law here decides who can and can't be doctors?" Yes, Yes I do think that. The law DOES decide that. You're making me reconsider whether I'm ok with a single-payer system actually. If mental health resources are so poor in Canada that you're so confused by such simple things, it seems like a true indictment of the system.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 22, 2020 14:28:45 GMT -5
Anyone can become a doctor here with the right education. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? If you suck, you don't get certified or licensed. I said the private insurance companies don't decide who can and can't be a doctor like the governments do. The governments do that with licensing and certifications. You said that doesn't happen in Canada. You said, and I quote: "You think the law here decides who can and can't be doctors?" Yes, Yes I do think that. The law DOES decide that. You're making me reconsider whether I'm ok with a single-payer system actually. If mental health resources are so poor in Canada that you're so confused by such simple things, it seems like a true indictment of the system. Knock yourself out.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2020 14:46:59 GMT -5
I thought our tax rate is 10 to 37% Healthcare cost is not the same as income tax. If you don't need it you don't pay extra just the premium. I know we don't even Co e close to pay 5% of our income for healthcare This just in from the Harper’s Index: In 2018 the effective tax rate for the richest 400 households was 23%. By the poorest half of American households 24%. this is one of the reasons I am in favor of scrapping the US tax code in favor of a flat tax of 30% with only a household deduction.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 15:03:20 GMT -5
I thought our tax rate is 10 to 37% Healthcare cost is not the same as income tax. If you don't need it you don't pay extra just the premium. I know we don't even Co e close to pay 5% of our income for healthcare This just in from the Harper’s Index: In 2018 the effective tax rate for the richest 400 households was 23%. By the poorest half of American households 24%. I was kind of interested to see their method. Unfortunately it starts out with sources that are numbered, while the statistics themselves aren't (an annoyance, but easily overcome). And then in the source it's literally a guy's name and a school. Not very helpful lol. You can find the guy, and some sources, but why not just name the book or article or SOMETHING? lol One thing I found interesting in an article on a similar topic though said: "The U.S. tax system is supposed to be progressive, meaning that wealthier households pay a larger share of their income to the taxman than the middle class and the poor. " Is it? Says who? The Federal Income Tax system is supposed to be progressive, I've never heard anyone saying that something like sales tax is meant to be progressive. Just let everyone pay 1/4 of their income in taxes, no matter how much or how little you make, get rid of estate taxes, property taxes, sales tax, etc. If the "effective rate" is around 25%, just take it, make it simple, and move on (or whatever the actual effective rate is, since 400 households is not necessarily indicative of the upper half who may be somewhere higher).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2020 15:09:29 GMT -5
you don't seem to understand that the VA is "government healthcare".
hoops- you made a blanket statement about "government healthcare". that statement was false.
own it, or change it.
If you build 1 good house and 99 bad ones, you are inept at building houses. agree.
but what other examples are there of "government healthcare" than the VA, hoops?
so, really, what we have here is that the government built one good house, and you are ASSUMING they will build 99 bad ones.
that seems strange to me.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jan 22, 2020 15:15:43 GMT -5
I'm sorry your government sucks
Knock yourself out.
Weltz, aren't you glad you escaped this horrible country?
|
|