Dem Robert Rubin - "We must raise taxes"

Quote from jem:

hey I am willing to listen. We pay a ton and have huge deductible. I have three kids and my wife is still child bearing age and has to get and expensive blood thinner if she gets pregnant to save the child for getting choked off.

We paid over five grand out of pocket for our last kid on top of the coverage we had. (at least thats what my wife told me, we probably paid more.)

I personally thought it was fair. But if you want to group me in with everyone else go for it.

Give me a cite that shows that other countries pay half and get better care. Please dont cite me to that study that said we were in the twenties in terms of health care, when the rating critera was based on infant mortality.

We already discussed that study. If you remember we attempt to save babies that other countries don't count as live births.
More...


don't be fooled. In a thrity second campaign commerical it sounds super-fantastic, free world-class healthcare!!! Here's my take:



In addition to a tax increase, they'll also deduct a new health care premium from your paycheck. The federal care will be mind-boggling shitty, (think the IRS, the DMV, FEMA, etc ...) as to necessitate your purchasing a private plan add-on. ( In Canada, it is AGAINST THE LAW for private providers to offer services covered by the state, so many are forced to come here)

Canadian nightmares:
http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPressRele...5350615e774d6ff285256c0f006967e4?OpenDocument
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/klaus081805.htm

My situation, I'm a single, healthy guy, pay $100/mt for a catastrophic plan. I'd expect an additional 5-10% off my pay, so perhaps as high as $1k+ a month.


So, What we will have:

1. increased FICA
2. a new federal health care premium deducted from our checks
3. a likely need for an additional purchase of a private plan because the federalized system will eventually fall apart.
4. ZERO price competition, therefore all reasons for increasing effeciency vanish.
5. 10-30 Illegal immigrants
6. millions of people suddenly become federal employees
7. etc, I could go on and on ...


Ontop of this, the Federal liabilities will increase 100's of trillions.

An unelected wife of a president, Hillary, emerges from a 3 month sequester with a 40,000 page document describing the New Universal Health Care system in the United States. Forty Thousand Pages! And the left ridicules Bush for the complexities of his bloated Drug give-a-way program.

I can't fricking believe the faith people put in bureaucracy.
yeah, Go Big Government, GO, ...GO !!!!!
 
Yes, I think the government should be given more responsibility. Let's all make a list of examples where the gov is doing an outstanding job.

FEMA was mentioned. Great job, FEMA. How many people died because of FEMA, I mean Katrina? Louisianna received something like $2 billion over 10 years to control flooding, hurricanes and levee improvements and New Orleans received $2 million to improve the levees out of that $2 bil.

I've heard of awful stories about the healthcare that veterans receive.

Social security, brilliant. How's that dog food taste, grandma? More like social insecurity. Seems like SS tax started out at around 2%, now it's around 14%. Same with income tax, start out around 2% rate, then see what the stupid people can tolerate.

Medicare fraud. Around $100 billion in overcharges annually.

And so on.
 
Quote from jem:

Give me a cite that shows that other countries pay half and get better care. Please dont cite me to that study that said we were in the twenties in terms of health care, when the rating critera was based on infant mortality.
More...
I am not sure what study you're talking about. In every legitimate study infant mortality is just one of a dozen criteria they evaluate and rank, unfortunately we're losing and falling further and further behind not in infant mortaility only but in all other categories as well.

Anyway, here is a couple of links:

Christian Science Monitor
May 05, 2004

Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as other countries, but it turns out that they're not getting twice the quality for the price when they go to the doctor or hospital
...
"The US should be particularly concerned about these findings," says Gerard Anderson, director of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "If I'm spending twice as much, I'd expect to have the better outcomes." [ Editor's note: In the original version, the quote was misattributed.]

But it turns out, the US was in the middle of the pack for the majority of health issues that were compared...Advocates of the current system routinely cite the high quality of care compared to that in government-run health systems when justifying the significantly higher costs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html


Robert Garrett asked about a report ranking healthcare systems, possibly from the WHO. I think he was probably referring to this widely cited report which ranked the United States thirty-seventh?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031201/drmarc


Here is another one, it's a very old study but things only got worse since then:

Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP) (1)

United States 13.4%
Canada 10.0
Finland 9.1
Sweden 8.6
Germany 8.4
Netherlands 8.4
Norway 7.6
Japan 6.8
United Kingdom 6.6
Denmark 6.5

Life Expectancy (years):
Men Women
Japan 76.2 82.5
France 72.9 81.3
Switzerland 74.1 81.3
Netherlands 73.7 80.5
Sweden 74.2 80.4
Canada 73.4 80.3
Norway 73.1 79.7
Germany 72.6 79.2
Finland 70.7 78.8
United States 71.6 78.6
United Kingdom 72.7 78.2
Denmark 72.2 77.9


Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change:

United States 60%
Sweden 58
United Kingdom 52
Japan 47
Netherlands 46
France 42
Canada 38
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
 
Quote from neophyte321:

In addition to a tax increase, they'll also deduct a new health care premium from your paycheck.
More...
Your employer currently pays $12,000 - $15,000 a year to provide coverage for you and your family. With Universal Healthcare your employer will no longer need to pay it.

Why is it so hard to understand?
 
Quote from dddooo:

Your employer currently pays $12,000 - $15,000 a year to provide coverage for you and your family. With Universal Healthcare your employer will no longer need to pay it.

Why is it so hard to understand?
More...

(First, don't take me wrong, I admire your tenacity about this issue. )

Incorrect... I'm a subcontractor. I pay $1200/per annum with a $3000 Deductiable (never used once). Under, a federalized plan, I'd wager a guess and say I'll pay closer to 5-10k a year in increased taxes. With ZERO discernable benefit. If my taxes go up from, say 5-10%, that is ALOT of fricking money out of my pocket.

Your employer currently pays $12,000 - $15,000 a year to
Basically your advocating replacing the cost to employers with payroll taxes on their employees. That is the bottom line effect. How else could the feds collect the premiums besides payroll taxes? You've mentioned that you believe admin costs are at 30%. OK, let's cut those in half under a federal plan. What will the costs be for implementing such a plan, and what will the costs be if the implementation fails?

Health care costs are skyrocketing because healthcare services have made leaps and bounds in the past 20 years.... artifical limbs, face transplants, etc, etc ...

Kiss that good bye! Remove profit, remove advancement. My solution for increased costs? Increased price competition, which is very difficult in healthcare, but I'm sure it is possible

Dem Hillary Clinton - "We must raise taxes! My 40,000 page document declares it so"!
 
Quote from dddooo:

Your employer currently pays $12,000 - $15,000 a year to provide coverage for you and your family. With Universal Healthcare your employer will no longer need to pay it.

Why is it so hard to understand?
More...

And who's going to pay for it? Is universal health going to be a gift from God?
 
Two points. Toss African/Americans out of the stats (they bring life expectancy down with murder, hyper-tension, crappy lifestyle choices, ect) and American's live as long as anyone else. (white males here live to 73.6 avg)

Secondly, I don't know about you but I find it pretty darn telling that Englishmen and Swedes are almost as dissatisfied with their health services as Americans. Considering that MOST uninsured Americans would "poll" that they "believe their health care system needs fundamental change" it would seem reasonable to extrapolate that insured American's are happier with the present system than those sampled in either the U.K. or Sweden.

Quote from dddooo:

I am not sure what study you're talking about. In every legitimate study infant mortality is just one of a dozen criteria they evaluate and rank, unfortunately we're losing and falling further and further behind not in infant mortaility only but in all other categories as well.

Anyway, here is a couple of links:

Christian Science Monitor
May 05, 2004

Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as other countries, but it turns out that they're not getting twice the quality for the price when they go to the doctor or hospital
...
"The US should be particularly concerned about these findings," says Gerard Anderson, director of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "If I'm spending twice as much, I'd expect to have the better outcomes." [ Editor's note: In the original version, the quote was misattributed.]

But it turns out, the US was in the middle of the pack for the majority of health issues that were compared...Advocates of the current system routinely cite the high quality of care compared to that in government-run health systems when justifying the significantly higher costs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html


Robert Garrett asked about a report ranking healthcare systems, possibly from the WHO. I think he was probably referring to this widely cited report which ranked the United States thirty-seventh?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031201/drmarc


Here is another one, it's a very old study but things only got worse since then:

Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP) (1)

United States 13.4%
Canada 10.0
Finland 9.1
Sweden 8.6
Germany 8.4
Netherlands 8.4
Norway 7.6
Japan 6.8
United Kingdom 6.6
Denmark 6.5

Life Expectancy (years):
Men Women
Japan 76.2 82.5
France 72.9 81.3
Switzerland 74.1 81.3
Netherlands 73.7 80.5
Sweden 74.2 80.4
Canada 73.4 80.3
Norway 73.1 79.7
Germany 72.6 79.2
Finland 70.7 78.8
United States 71.6 78.6
United Kingdom 72.7 78.2
Denmark 72.2 77.9


Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change:

United States 60%
Sweden 58
United Kingdom 52
Japan 47
Netherlands 46
France 42
Canada 38
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
More...
 
Quote from neophyte321:
More...

Incorrect... I'm a subcontractor. I pay $1200/per annum with a $3000 Deductiable (never used once). Under, a federalized plan, I'd wager a guess and say I'll pay closer to 5-10k a year in increased taxes. With ZERO discernable benefit. If my taxes go up from, say 5-10%, that is ALOT of fricking money out of my pocket.
I was not talking about you personally, I was talking about a typical american family which gets their health insurance (most likely HMO) though their employment. Your coverage sucks, I bet you don't have a family, and you pay $1,200 to cover yourself only, then you have to pay $3,000 deductible and then your insurance will cover 70-80% of your healthcare expenses with a bunch or restrictions, limitations and exclusions. Comparing your coverage with a comprehensive coverage that Universal Healthcare would provide is comparing apples and oranges. The kind of coverage you have may suit you just fine today but it does not suit 90% of the country and it will not be nearly sufficient for you when you are 45-50 with family and kids.



Basically your advocating replacing the cost to employers with payroll taxes on their employees.
One way or another these insurance premiums are part of your compensation package. The employers will either pass thes savings on to you or will be required to pay a healthcare tax instead of paying insurance premiums. Chances are they will end up paying significantly less in taxes than what they are currently paying in premiums and they'll be absolutely happy to avoid a huge headache and expense associated with managing private insurance plans, enrollments, claim forms etc. Everyone wins, with the exception of insurance companies of course.


You've mentioned that you believe admin costs are at 30%. OK, let's cut those in half under a federal plan. What will the costs be for implementing such a plan, and what will the costs be if the implementation fails?
It's already implemented, it's called Medicare, its overhead is 2%.



Health care costs are skyrocketing because healthcare services have made leaps and bounds in the past 20 years.... artifical limbs, face transplants, etc, etc ...
What makes you think they don't have it in Paris, Tokyo or Tel Aviv?
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

And who's going to pay for it? Is universal health going to be a gift from God?
More...
I was merely refuting the claim that Universal Health will require taxes on top of what we already pay. If it's ever fully implemented the tax will replace $12k-$14k of insurance preimums it costs the average american family today and this tax will likely be singificantly lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top