Poll: Is Obamacare good or bad for Americans?
- Thread starter HeSaidSheSaid
- Start date
Our govt is larger than many, if you are going to spend money you have to pay for it. What's good for the US is far LESS SPENDING and lower taxes. Also, another look at our posted tax rate of 26.9% on that table made me choke on the sandwich i was eating. LOL most other countries don't have States and state taxes etc. I guess they used the federal rate but most tax paying US citizens are paying more than 27%. edit: that might be the avg on second thought, i don't know. Either way, the avg tax rate alone doesn't show the whole picture (but i'm not going to do a detailed comparison). Our govt is not small, traditionally or relative to the rest of the 1st world.
From Wiki:
Healthcare in Switzerland is universal[1] and is regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). International civil servants, members of permanent missions and their family members are exempted from compulsory health insurance. They can, however, apply to join the Swiss health insurance system, within six months of taking up residence in the country.
Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. However, the insured person pays part of the cost of treatment. This is done (a) by means of an annual excess (or deductible, called the franchise), which ranges from CHF 300 to a maximum of CHF 2,500 as chosen by the insured person (premiums are adjusted accordingly) and (b) by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess up to a stop-loss amount of CHF 700.
In 2010, the average monthly compulsory basic health insurance premiums (with accident insurance) in Switzerland are the following:[3]
CHF 351.05 for an adult (age 26+)
CHF 293.85 for a young adult (age 19â25)
CHF 84.03 for a child (age 0â18)
[ 1 CHF = 1.10 U.S. Dollar]
As far as the compulsory health insurance is concerned, the insurance companies cannot set any conditions relating to age, sex or state of health for coverage. Although the level of premium can vary from one company to another, they must be identical within the same company for all insured persons of the same age group and region, regardless of sex or state of health. This does not apply to complementary insurance, where premiums are risk-based.
[N.B. Switzerland's health care costs per capita, at roughly half the U.S. cost, is the closest in cost to the U.S. of all industrialized nations. ]
Quote from Scataphagos:
A realistic hypothesis.
This is one of those rare moments when I've agreed with you, Scat,
though I don't think Piggy has it right.
The original bill wasn't designed to fail to push us toward single payer. Rather it was intended to extend coverage to millions not now covered. Simultaneously, it was aimed at introducing more competition into insurance with the goal of bringing cost down. The latter goal was successfully beaten back by the insurance lobby when the Public Option was taken out of the bill. This did great harm to the bill's efficacy. But to believe, as piggy does, that the bill was intentionally designed to fail, so as to push us toward single payer, expresses a degree of paranoia and wrongly credits the single payer advocates with an accomplishment of their opposition.
But in the end, this badly damaged bill may result in exactly what its detractors feared most, the dreaded Single Payer Health System. I can't say that I feel sorry for them. If that happens they will have fully deserved it!
Incidentally, I think it is a fair criticism to say that the Public Option, had it been left in the bill, might have eventually led to a de facto Single Payer System anyway, assuming everyone, regardless of income or their current insurance situation, had been allowed access. Had the insurance companies really believed they could compete with the non-profit Public Option they would not have fought so hard behind the scene to defeat it. Let us recall that as originally written into the bill, the Public Option was required to be fully premium supported without tax subsidy. But it was always intended that those below a certain income level would have their premiums subsidized, and that feature remains even without the Public Option.
I could be wrong but I'm not inclined to think Obamacare was intentionally designed to fail either. 1) Most of those who passed it never even read it. 2)
Most federal programs aren't designed to fail but do anyway. They do so because of idiot lawmakers regulating issues they know little or nothing about, too many compromises, excessive bureaucracy, incompetent federal employees and gross inefficiencies.
The dept of ED, DHS, DEA, BATF, dept of energy to name a few were not designed to fail. But they have in fact failed miserably and at enormous cost to the tax payers. Because they were not designed to succeed. See #2 above.