• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

single-payer system ... singled out

Architect said:
there seems to be some sort of political or philosophical objection to their helping out those who they perceive as having failed to take adequate steps to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

Not at all. But there's a difference between giving freely of your own money to help out those in need and taking from someone else to give to those in need.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Not at all. But there's a difference between giving freely of your own money to help out those in need and taking from someone else to give to those in need.
Click to expand...

So you object to being forced to give money to help those in need?
 
ddt said:
Did the government set a uniform percentage? When I lived in Germany (1993-95), the percentages differed between insurers. E.g., the "Techniker Krankenkasse" (an insurer for people with technical professions) asked a lower percentage than most local-based insurers.
Click to expand...

As of this year there is indeed the uniform percentage of 15.5 for all public insurers. It will be lowered to 14.9% next month, however, in the hope that this will stimulate the economy. ;)
 
balrog666 said:
How many of those people are foreigners here illegally?

And how many of the rest get "free" medical services at Emergency Rooms?

And, in for the win, just why is California broke now?
Click to expand...

Ah good, you're back. .f you're claiming that the answer to these questions shows why you spend 15% of GDP for partial healthcare coverage but we pay roughly half that for universal healthcare, then do feel feel free to post some evidence.
 
Last edited:
mr rosewater said:
Hey Rolfe, Question for you, how bad is your country's debt due to all your free ponies. Without health care we in the US have a 12 trillion debt not including our obligation to SS and medicare about 50 trillion the Chinese own us how about you?
Click to expand...

Another one who hasn't read the links and is repeating ignorant talking points without research.

Read the rest of this thread, and the other threads linked. Read the statistics posted. Note that the UK NHS costs the UK taxpayer less than the USA's broken system - and outs covers everyone, whilst yours only covers a few.

In other words, whatever point you think you're making by talking about "free ponies" is, to coin a phrase, not even wrong.
 
balrog666 said:
How many of those people are foreigners here illegally?

And how many of the rest get "free" medical services at Emergency Rooms?

And, in for the win, just why is California broke now?
Click to expand...

"For the win"?

You pay more, get less and are at the mercy of a crappy, crappy system - and you think that you "win", ideologically?

What colour is the sky on your planet?
 
mr rosewater said:
Hey Rolfe, Question for you, how bad is your country's debt due to all your free ponies. Without health care we in the US have a 12 trillion debt not including our obligation to SS and medicare about 50 trillion the Chinese own us how about you?
Click to expand...


Huh? How bad is our country's debt due to bailing out failed financial institutions and getting involved in futile and destructive foreign wars started by the USA might be a reasonable question.

You do know that we pay slightly less (proportionately) in taxes to fund the entire NHS than you do just to fund Medicaid and Medicare, don't you? You really need to get your head round this. We are "forced" to pay slightly less than you are, to fund the medical system that we are entitled to access and benefit from, whereas your (larger) contribution goes to fund a system that you can't access.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
balrog666 said:
1. The freedom to buy whatever medical services I want from whomever I want whenever I want without interference from the US government bureaucrats.

2. The freedom to not have my assets confiscated to pay for the medical service requirements of foreigners here illegally.
Click to expand...


This, for the record, was Balrog's answer to my question about what freedoms he has under the curent US system that we benighted heathens suffering under the burden of universal healthcare do not have.

1. Wrong. I also have the freedom to buy whatever medical services I want from whomever I want whenever I want, without interference from any government bureaucrats whatsoever. Other than those charged with making sure that the relevant medical providers aren't practising without a licence and stuff like that.

2. Wrong. You also have your assets "confiscated" to pay for social healthcare provision. Slightly more of your assets (proportionately) than I have of mine, actually.

And of course, since I benefit from the healthcare system my taxes pay for, it doesn't seem to me to be "confiscation", rather like damn good value for money. I can see, however, that those who are obliged to pay out such taxes to fund a system they can't benefit from might come to see it as confiscation.

You have my sympathies.

Rolfe.
 
Balrog - just an observation, but I find your position on this issue even more shocking given a post of yours I just read in another thread...

"Back a long, long time ago, when I had some family medical problems and three kids to feed, I took a second job to make ends meet - working on a swing shift at a major, albeit minor-scale, retailer, working a few weeknights and weekends."

You've been there. You know how screwed the system is for people in your position [then]. How can you still stand behind it?
 
I've noticed this reaction in a number of people who've had problems with medical costs but have managed to solve these through extremes of hard work and sacrifice. It may be that once someone has been through that, they feel virtuous, and don't see why less virtuous people should get what they had to work hard for, and even why anyone should have it easy when they didn't.

"Dammit, I didn't get where I am today by not having to worry about medical bills...." and all that.

Rolfe.
 
I wonder whether the amount of GDP spent on medical costs is harming the US economy in general? Even at a conservative estimate, there's about 5 to 6% of GDP being used for that purpose (over and above what it should cost to provide good universal healthcare, based on the experience of other countries) which isn't available for other things. I particularly wonder about the tied-up savings.

I've got some savings, lucky me. But I save, ulitmately, to have the money to spend. Numbers on a bank statement aren't a barrel of laughs per se. Some of this, obviously, I do intend to hoard for a rainy day. I do not intend ever to be in a position where I can't heat my house and pay my bills. But that's only some of it. Some of the money I plan on spending after I retire, on luxuries that I might not otherwise be able to afford. Maybe I'll go round the world! And some of it I plan on spending a lot sooner than that. I'm having a lovely time planning some alterations to my house. And although I'm fond of my 11-year-old car, I realise I'll have to replace it in the fairly near future, and that will be fun as well.

But it's not just fun. A building company will benefit, as will a bathroom fitter, a painter and decorator, and a carpet shop. And Architect and his staff, too. (And the Velux window company.) And a car manufacturer. And in the longer term, some travel company.

But if I knew that a bad dose of Mexican flu, or a simple accident, or developing a long-term illness, could potentially require me to find significant amounts of money, then I don't think I'd do any of these things. The money would stay locked up in bank accounts, doing little or nothing for the economy.

Is this a significant economic factor in the USA, I wonder?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom