Support for national health insurance

[Bheckel169]

KeithB,

 

That was exactly the question I wanted to ask. Could we have those that have universal healthcare give us some understanding of the taxes both federally and locally you pay and I'd also like to know what other taxes you have such as on fuel per liter, property taxes? or any other forms these taxes may take. I think it would be helpful to the discussion and I look at your responses as informational only, not as ammunition for an extended argument.

[steve.foote]

That's a very reasonable request.

[Boffin]

Keith et al,

 

Wages are taxed in bands, there is a tax-free allowance of a couple of thousand based on status, then very low-wage earners pay 10%, then there is a band of 20%, then 40%. The tax free allowance is offset by things like health care, company cars etc. So a higher earner pays 20% on the first £35K, then 40% above that.

 

I pay 11% hational health insurance, and my employer pays a similar amount.

 

I am just below the higher tax bracket and all in all 30% of my salary is deducted in taxes each month.

 

Sales tax is 17.5% on "luxury items", so not on food, books, childrens clothes or razors. It is paid on magazines or sanitary towels. (Guess the sex of the legislators).

 

Fuel is taxed at about 70pence per litre, plus the 17.5% sales tax.

 

I pay about £1500 per year in property tax.

 

Sales tax is not payable on used goods.

 

Andy

[awagnon]

Yes, there are some things the government does better as noted above by Ken. I personally believe the government does healthcare better. Medicare's administrative overhead is about 1% compared to 15-20% with private insurers. They actually don't restrict PROVEN medical care as much as many private payers. As a physician, Medicare was one of the best payers.

 

As far as our health care compared to Canada, France, UK, etc. Most studies show those countries are ahead of the US in almost every measure of healthcare. In fact, the US is behind some third world countries in certain areas. The thought that US has the best healthcare in the world is a myth. We're also about the last to retain private insurance as a provider.

 

Employer provided healthcare isn't free. Economic studies show wages are lower where health insurance is provided in order to compensate for the cost.

[smiller]

I completely disagree with you that more government and regulation is the answer.

Actually I'm not sure that it's the answer either and would be happy to look at any other solutions that might work.

 

I favor a complete decentralization of our current mostly employer paid insurance scheme.

Me too, maybe. How would your plan work?

[Bob Palin]

Just ask France, England, and Canada how they like their national healthcare system. THE ONES THAT CAN AFFORD IT ARE COMING TO THE U.S. TO BE TREATED.

Maybe, and good for them, the point is that those THAT CAN'T AFFORD IT STILL HAVE IT.

[smiller]

Andy, out of curiosity do you know how much of your taxes go specifically towards health care? Just the 11%, or is this amount supplemented from general taxes? Are there any statutory controls on this?

 

Just FWIW, your middle-income income tax rate is similar to ours, perhaps a bit higher. You seem to have a much more progessive tax system though as your high-income tax rate is significantly higher. Also so with regard to sales and fuel taxes. And feminine hygiene items.

[Bob Palin]

Just FWIW, your middle-income income tax rate is similar to ours, perhaps a bit higher.

I don't think it is any higher when you consider Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, ~15% Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax and that we still have to buy our own health insurance (whether our employer does it or we do, it's part of our income).

[smiller]

Just FWIW, your middle-income income tax rate is similar to ours, perhaps a bit higher.

I don't think it is any higher when you consider Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, ~15% Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax and that we still have to buy our own health insurance (whether our employer does it or we do, it's part of our income).

I meant the taxes I pay in Texas.

 

But yes, good points all.

[Rob_Mayes]

I am really impressed with this level of discussion. I have learned a lot from a very knowledgable crowd. I am also thankful that the moderators did not cut this discussion off. What is more important than health insurance to a motorcycle rider?

 

Keep it up.

[keithb]

To HAVE IT HERE Bob all you have to do is go to the emergency room which is happening all to frequently in our country. I do not deny our system could use some tweaking but it is not my responsibility to pay for my neighbor's healtcare nor is their responsibility to pay for mine.

[steve.foote]

Me too, maybe. How would your plan work?

 

This is the "when Steve is king" plan.

 

First, we have to identify the actual cost to employers of company paid health insurance per employee. Whatever this figure is, it's part of that employee's compensation and must be known so it can be returned to the employee as part of their compensation.

 

For example, let's say Bob earns $52,000 a year from XYZ corporation. His employer pays $4,200 annually for the medical insurance it provides for him. At the cutover time for decentralization, Bob's pay would be increased to $56,200 and his company would discontinue paying insurance. Simultaneously, Bob would shop for and aquire his own insurance.

 

The effect here would be to increase competition by increasing the number of individual consumers in the market. If Bob want's a better plan, he might pay more for it. But, if Bob want's to save some of his own money, he has the option of purchasing a lower cost plan. In the end, it's his choice.

[RichEdwards]

Andy, Mark

I am glad to hear the system works for you. It is not quite the spin we hear over here and I realize there is spin to all topics. Especially where the government is concerned. I am curious to know what the tax rate is on wages in England and Canada

 

I get to meet a whole bunch of Canadian "snowbirds" here in Florida during the winter months. I have yet to meet one who would trade their system of health care for the U.S. system. I have my own health care paid by my employer. I would be glad to pay more in taxes so that all Americans can have healthcare.

And for those who argue that less government involvement is the answer to everything, just take a look at our current economic crisis. If the government did a better job of regulating lending practices, the crisis never would have occurred.

[Boffin]

The 11% National Insurance also covers pensions, but both of these are actually funded by the general fund, so it is probably more I'll try and find out.

 

I think for completness I should point out that I made an error in the amount of tax I pay - I included my payroll deduction for my company pension, so it is nearer 27%.

 

I should also include the cost of prescriptions. For those over 16 and under retirement age (60 female, 65 male) each prescribed medicine costs £6-85, regardless of actual price or quantity. So if prescribed a course of antibiotics and some painkillers I would pay £13-70. You can buy pre-payment certificates, which save money if you have more than 4 prescriptions in 3 months or 14 in 12 months (depending on if you buy a 3-month or 12 month certificate).

There is also no charge to those in receipt of social security or who are pregnant.

87% of prescriptions are free.

 

We also pay high levels of duty on alcohol.

 

OK, UK tax spend for 2006

 

Social Security, Pensions & Tax Credits - £136.6 billion

Health - £81.5 billion

Education - £63.3 billion

Police & Public Order - £28.7 billion

Defence - £28.2 billion

Government Debt - £24.5 billion

Overseas Aid - £4.1 billion

 

Andy

 

Edited to fix crappy spelling.

[marcopolo]

KeithB,

 

That was exactly the question I wanted to ask. Could we have those that have universal healthcare give us some understanding of the taxes both federally and locally you pay and I'd also like to know what other taxes you have such as on fuel per liter, property taxes? or any other forms these taxes may take. I think it would be helpful to the discussion and I look at your responses as informational only, not as ammunition for an extended argument.

 

That's a pretty tall order, but a fair question and I'll give it a shot, recognizing that it’s pretty hard to compare tax systems from one country to the next. First, a small bit of background at least insofar as healthcare is concerned. Our healthcare system is effectively paid for out of general government revenues, the principal source being personal and corporate income taxes. The feds collect income tax, then transfer some of that revenue to the provinces/territories to help fund healthcare, education etc. The provinces deliver healthcare, so your health card is unique to each province, but can be used anywhere in the country, such as when you’re travelling. When you visit a doctor (you choose, by the way), you must present your card. The doctor bills the province and gets paid. There is an established fee schedule for specific procedures. Doctors are not employees of the state; they’re effectively small businessmen/women, but are paid by their respective province. Hospital stays are handled the same way; you present your card when you are admitted and the hospital bills the province. As an individual, you never see a bill, nor do you pay premiums directly. There are still many people who have private insurance to supplement the public system. My private plan covers things like prescription drugs, the incremental cost of a private hospital room, and supplements what the public system would pay for healthcare during out-of-country travel.

 

In terms of how much we pay, like Andy said for the UK, income tax is graduated. For example, on the first $37,000 of taxable income, the federal tax rate is 15%; for that chunk of taxable income between $37,000 and $75,000 the federal rate is 22%; for that chunk between $75,000 and $121,000 the rate is 26%; for any taxable income above $121,000 the federal tax rate is 29%. Of course, not all income is taxable; we have a series of deductions (basic personal amount, age amount, pension income amount, charitable donations, registered retirement savings accounts etc., etc., etc.) which we deduct from gross income to arrive at our taxable income.

 

Each province also collects income tax, on top of what the feds collect. The rate varies by province. The guys with all the oil out in Alberta pay the least. Here in Ontario, the rates are graduated like federal tax rates. It’s 6% on the first $35,000 of taxable income; 9% between $35,000 and $71,000; and 11% on any taxable income above $71,000.

 

When you buy something in a store, you will pay sales tax – both a provincial sales tax and a federal goods and services tax (GST). Again the former varies by province. In Ontario, I pay a combined 13% (8% provincial sales tax, and 5% GST). These taxes are payable on most things, except for groceries. This money simply goes into general revenues for the province and federal government.

 

I pay annual property taxes based on the assessed value of my house. Assessments are generally done every two years and are based on house sales in my neighbourhood. These annual taxes are paid to the city in two installments to cover police, fire, ambulance, public transit, garbage collection etc. and to the school board of my choice (public, Catholic, French, English and so on) to help fund local schools.

 

There are also other taxes (generally federal) buried in the in the price of things like gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes. The federal excise taxes on gas are displayed on a sticker on the gas pump, so you can read that when you fill up.

 

Again, that should give you some idea, but I can’t say I’ve done the question justice. We certainly pay for healthcare, it’s just not in the form of premiums to an insurance company, but as part of our tax system. I would certainly not argue that our system is cheaper; though I’ve read that the US system has a significant built-in overhead simply to handle all the billing. That billing overhead, at least, is much lower in our system from what I understand, though I don’t claim to be an expert. I think what sets our system apart is the basic philosophy that everyone has universal access to healthcare, regardless of means. It is now so entrenched that no political party would dare suggest otherwise, unless they wanted to engage in political suicide.

[Pilgrim]

Even more likely is that it will remove good care from anyone's reach. As socialist dogma calls for, nobody gets to have anything better than anyone else, even if it takes law to make it so.

What in any of the currently-proposed health care plans calls for that?

 

Seth, neither of the currently-proposed plans call for government health care. They call for government-underwritten health insurance. Words matter.

 

It would still turn into an expensive boondoggle, though, as the government began dictating what would or would not be covered, by whom, for how much, etc. If the government provides money for something it inevitably wants control. That's true in the private sector, too, of course, and it's as it should be. If it's someone's money then that someone should have a controlling say-so in how it's used. The problem with government administration of funds is that the money it uses does not belong to the government, so typically, very little attention is ever paid to efficient use of it.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

 

Here's one for you: Google "Wackenhut prison abuse" and you'll see that there are some areas traditionally left to the government where the profit motive can have disastrous results.

 

I'm not in favor of the broad-ranging public healthcare programs proposed by some, but the notion that government can't work more effectively and economically than the private sector is just flat wrong. It's a weak argument. Try harder . . . I know you can do better than that.

 

Mike, I disagree. I don't think there is anywhere that the government works more effectively and economically than the private sector.

 

BUT - "effectively" and "economically" are not always the controlling factors, nor should they be in every case. Prisons are one of them. The costs of the government overseeing private prisons to assure the humane management of prisoners called for in lodging contracts skews the "economically" side of that equation. Warfare is another one. Use of mercenaries is very effective, and economical, too, but if warfare is to be used as a tool by a nation, the nation should be willing to invest the blood of its citizens in the hostilities, not just its treasure.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

In a country known for its generosity, many in the U.S. are totally selfish when it comes to health care. "I want it available to ME and screw everyone else."

If we ran our road system the way we run our health care system, there would be huge tolls to travel the highways. Good employers would pay the tolls for their workers. Wealthy drivers would be able to pay their own tolls. And a half of us would be unable to travel at all. But there would be no traffic delays.

 

Uhhh, help me out here. I'm trying to find the downside . . .

Pilgrim

[Dave McReynolds]

The effect here would be to increase competition by increasing the number of individual consumers in the market. If Bob want's a better plan, he might pay more for it. But, if Bob want's to save some of his own money, he has the option of purchasing a lower cost plan. In the end, it's his choice.

 

And if Bob happens to have cancer, and no one wants to insure him, he's just SOL, and that's okay?

[velomoto]

A few basic thots to keep in mind...

 

You've got two big brothers. Both want your $$$, but one treats you nicer the more money you give him. When providing health care one brother is motivated by profit - the other is not.

 

If you're concerned with being turned down for new or experimental treatments or drugs be wary of your insurance provider and READ THE FINE PRINT in your policy. Even if your insurer will cover a treatment, it is likely they will force your doctor to follow a sequence of treatments before approving a very costly treatment such as major surgery.

 

Our current health care system already is somewhat socialized - we just don't want to admit this and as a result hospitals are closing. Uninsured can not be turned away from a hospital but hospitals need to be paid to stay in business. The end result is that the "paying" patients are billed more to compensate for those who do not pay. Hospitals which receive too many uninsured patients have gone bankrupt.

 

Hospitals charge differently based on your insurance, or lack there of. If you go into the hospital without insurance you can expect to be bill much more than an insurance company. The insurance companies negotiate much lower rates.

 

Living without medical insurance is a game of roulette where one can easily go bankrupt. Had I gone the no insurance route with my young family I'd have had to sell the house and cars to pay for medical treatments. We were blessed to have had full coverage when we needed it - many other families aren't so fortunate.

 

The common perception among our friends in the medical industry (most are MD's) is that the best paying job is to be a plastic surgeon. Why? Because they do not have to deal with insurance companies - most plastic surgery is elective and thus is not covered by insurance. The paperwork required by insurance companies is costly and gets rolled into the prices charged. Also, insurance companies are slooooow to make payments as they can collect interest on money not paid.

 

The wealthy do not need to worry about the warts in any health care system - they will be able to get the best possible treatment regardless of what the majority of America uses. Those who are less well to do will continue to be squeezed as insurance companies try to turn a profit and health care costs continue to rise. For our family, each year we see the cost of insurance increase in the forms of higher premiums, higher co-payments, lower (or more restricted) services.

[Matts_12GS]

I would be glad to pay more in taxes so that all Americans can have healthcare.

 

Rich, I'm stunned to see a statement like that....

 

If you feel that you really don't want all the money you have, my address is in the tech day thread. You can mail your extra money to me and I'll use it to pay for better schools for my son.

[velomoto]

For example, let's say Bob earns $52,000 a year from XYZ corporation. His employer pays $4,200 annually for the medical insurance it provides for him. At the cutover time for decentralization, Bob's pay would be increased to $56,200 and his company would discontinue paying insurance. Simultaneously, Bob would shop for and aquire his own insurance.

 

The effect here would be to increase competition by increasing the number of individual consumers in the market. If Bob want's a better plan, he might pay more for it. But, if Bob want's to save some of his own money, he has the option of purchasing a lower cost plan. In the end, it's his choice.

This is BS.

 

Bob's company can write off Bob's $4K against profits so there is no tax on this money. Bob can not so Bob's $4K gets taxed for social security and other income taxes so now Bob only has $3K or so...

 

Additionally Bob can't negotiate with insurance companies as he is an individual. A corporation can shop around and negotiate with insurance companies so that company XYZ can get a better deal on a group policy than Bob can do on his own.

 

Hopefully Bob and his family are healthy as it is very difficult to find ANY insurance if one has a preexisting condition.

 

So in the end, for the same amount of $$$ paid by XYZ Bob is screwed.

[steve.foote]

And if Bob happens to have cancer, and no one wants to insure him, he's just SOL, and that's okay?

 

Last time I checked, we still have Medicaid to cover those who fall between the cracks.

[Matts_12GS]

Additionally Bob can't negotiate with insurance companies as he is an individual. A corporation can shop around and negotiate with insurance companies so that company XYZ can get a better deal on a group policy than Bob can do on his own.

 

That's what the CHPA legislation in the 90's was to address. Community health purchase alliance was designed to allow individuals (and small businesses IIRC) to buy insurance at group rates by joining something an alliance.

 

I would suppose it's kind of like a credit union.

 

I've not followed up on that (I left the HR business as FMLA was being shoved down the throat of American business) so I don't know a great deal of how it played out, what I referenced was the intent of the legislation.

[Whip]

Me too, maybe. How would your plan work?

 

This is the "when Steve is king" plan.

 

First, we have to identify the actual cost to employers of company paid health insurance per employee. Whatever this figure is, it's part of that employee's compensation and must be known so it can be returned to the employee as part of their compensation.

 

For example, let's say Bob earns $52,000 a year from XYZ corporation. His employer pays $4,200 annually for the medical insurance it provides for him. At the cutover time for decentralization, Bob's pay would be increased to $56,200 and his company would discontinue paying insurance. Simultaneously, Bob would shop for and aquire his own insurance.

 

The effect here would be to increase competition by increasing the number of individual consumers in the market. If Bob want's a better plan, he might pay more for it. But, if Bob want's to save some of his own money, he has the option of purchasing a lower cost plan. In the end, it's his choice.

 

I tried to explain this to Killer not to long ago.

 

I've read about this idea.

 

I like it.

 

..it works for automobiles.

 

The government only has to eliminate the employers deducts for insurance and it would end tomorrow.

 

[steve.foote]

This is BS.

 

Bob's company can write off Bob's $4K against profits so there is no tax on this money. Bob can not so Bob's $4K gets taxed for social security and other income taxes so now Bob only has $3K or so...

 

Sounds like a problem you should be taking up with your congressman.

 

Additionally Bob can't negotiate with insurance companies as he is an individual. A corporation can shop around and negotiate with insurance companies so that company XYZ can get a better deal on a group policy than Bob can do on his own.

 

Now, that's just classic collectivism. If that were true, everything at wally world would be more expensive to individuals than to companies. It's simply not the case.

 

Hopefully Bob and his family are healthy as it is very difficult to find ANY insurance if one has a preexisting condition.

 

So in the end, for the same amount of $$$ paid by XYZ Bob is screwed.

 

Yawn. M-kay. I'm feeling all emotional now.

[Whip]

For example, let's say Bob earns $52,000 a year from XYZ corporation. His employer pays $4,200 annually for the medical insurance it provides for him. At the cutover time for decentralization, Bob's pay would be increased to $56,200 and his company would discontinue paying insurance. Simultaneously, Bob would shop for and aquire his own insurance.

 

The effect here would be to increase competition by increasing the number of individual consumers in the market. If Bob want's a better plan, he might pay more for it. But, if Bob want's to save some of his own money, he has the option of purchasing a lower cost plan. In the end, it's his choice.

This is BS.

 

Bob's company can write off Bob's $4K against profits so there is no tax on this money. Bob can not so Bob's $4K gets taxed for social security and other income taxes so now Bob only has $3K or so...

 

Additionally Bob can't negotiate with insurance companies as he is an individual. A corporation can shop around and negotiate with insurance companies so that company XYZ can get a better deal on a group policy than Bob can do on his own.

 

Hopefully Bob and his family are healthy as it is very difficult to find ANY insurance if one has a preexisting condition.

 

So in the end, for the same amount of $$$ paid by XYZ Bob is screwed.

 

 

It works for your car insurance.......and why not let us write off all our health care costs.

[SageRider]

And if Bob happens to have cancer, and no one wants to insure him, he's just SOL, and that's okay?

 

Last time I checked, we still have Medicaid to cover those who fall between the cracks.

Medicaid provides coverage for only specific levels of people with low income/assets. In the example of "Bob with cancer", Medicaid would likely not apply.

Classic case of too much and too little...

[steve.foote]

The government only has to eliminate the employers deducts for insurance and it would end tomorrow.

 

Ask me sometime about my views on employer witholding of taxes. That's the other travesty which effectively hides how much an employee actually pays in taxes.

 

Most people simply don't want to be responsible for themselves and are willing to pay through the nose not to have to.

[Whip]

The real problem with health insurance is that the people that don't need it don't want to pay for it. The people that do need it either can't get it or can't afford it.

 

The only way to make Steve's system work is the same way that car insurance works. Everyone must get it to keep the average costs down. I hate government forcin me to do anything, but it may be the only way this will work.

 

You can't drive your car legally on the road without insurance........so ......................maybe you can't get a drivers license without health insurance....or.......???????????????????????

 

 

There has to be away.

 

 

Whip

[Rob_Mayes]

I heard last night that if you work for Walmart it takes a full year of employment before you qualify for health insurance. I think you still have to pay for it or at least part of it. I bet this will be the trend unless goverment get involved.

 

The real flaw we have with the current system is that if you get chronically sick you cannot work and you loose your insurance. To protect the insurance company COBRA is time limited and real expensive. If you have your own insurance your assigned group will eventually consist of only sick people who cannot go elsewhere and you will not be able to afford your insurance even if you are healthy. This also protects the insurance company from sick people. Our system can be fixed, but it will take a regulation overhaul by the FEDS.

[Mike]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

 

Here's one for you: Google "Wackenhut prison abuse" and you'll see that there are some areas traditionally left to the government where the profit motive can have disastrous results.

 

I'm not in favor of the broad-ranging public healthcare programs proposed by some, but the notion that government can't work more effectively and economically than the private sector is just flat wrong. It's a weak argument. Try harder . . . I know you can do better than that.

 

Mike, I disagree. I don't think there is anywhere that the government works more effectively and economically than the private sector.

 

BUT - "effectively" and "economically" are not always the controlling factors, nor should they be in every case. Prisons are one of them. The costs of the government overseeing private prisons to assure the humane management of prisoners called for in lodging contracts skews the "economically" side of that equation. Warfare is another one. Use of mercenaries is very effective, and economical, too, but if warfare is to be used as a tool by a nation, the nation should be willing to invest the blood of its citizens in the hostilities, not just its treasure.

 

Pilgrim

 

Kent--

 

I think we're pretty much in total agreement, though my focus was on the term "effectively." My definition of that term encompasses more than pure economic effectiveness, and extends to the concept of getting the job done in the best, most socially beneficial manner. My reference to the Wackenhut issues is illustrative of that--most likely the states involved saved some money on a per capita basis, but at what social cost?

[Ken H.]

As far as our health care compared to Canada, France, UK, etc. Most studies show those countries are ahead of the US in almost every measure of healthcare. In fact, the US is behind some third world countries in certain areas. The thought that US has the best healthcare in the world is a myth.

Exactly. And 42 million with no coverage at all.

[Ken H.]

If might be more productive if persons involved in this discussion would actually read the current proposals and address them specifically rather than providing only vague ideological objections. None of the three plans proposed by McCain, Obama, or Clinton restrict choice or significantly change the way health care providers themselves operate. Private insurers will still provide the lion's share of coverage and in fact none of plans represent any kind of radical change.

 

They do represent some changes of course. Insurers will have to create pool coverage for the current 'uninsurable' population so that no one will be denied affordable coverage based on preexisting conditions, and in some plans your insurance coverage will no longer be linked to/controlled by your employer (something that even many of the currently-insured would like to see.)

 

I don't know if the government will do a perfect job of execution, probably not, and if you think the system that exists now represents perfection then you probably don't want to see a change. But I don't think that you have to be a pinko commie liberal in order to feel that there are significant opportunities for improvement in the current US healthcare system.

Yes, and nobody's proposing that the US government take over the healthcare system either. Those that voice that are just fear mongering. There's a big difference between Universal Health Care and government provided health care.

[Ken H.]

When I my audiologist wanted a diagnostic MRI I had to wait 10 days, not bad for a non-urgent test.

Yeah, and when I needed one for my (non emergency) shoulder injury I had to wait 4 weeks. So much for the long lines in a universal health care setting vs. short ones our private system myth. Average wait time to see a specialist in most major cities in the USA these days - 45 days.

[smiller]

This is the "when Steve is king" plan.

I just felt a shudder for some reason...

 

I like the idea of transferring the funds currently expended by employers to the individual, in fact this is what some of the proposed plans do, albeit with the government in the middle. I'll agree that latter factor is not necessarily desireable but I'm not sure how some of the attendant issues could be settled without it. For example, as some others have noted transferring control from the employer to the employee only solves one of the current problems and does nothing for the others, i.e. lack of affordable coverage for those with more serious medical conditions and coverage for the unemployed.

 

It works for your car insurance

Auto insurance is mandatory, and insurers must provide pool coverage for high risks... kind of like some of the proposed health care plans...

[Ken H.]

Just FWIW, your middle-income income tax rate is similar to ours, perhaps a bit higher.

I don't think it is any higher when you consider Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, ~15% Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax and that we still have to buy our own health insurance (whether our employer does it or we do, it's part of our income).

I can't speak for the UK, but as married to a Canadian, I do know that when you and up the TOTAL tax burden - income taxes (federal, state, county, city, school disticts and others); sales taxes (state, city, school disticts); property taxes (state, city, county, school districts) on homes, property, cars, boats, ATVs, livestock; capital gains (short term, long term), S.S.; Medicare; Medicaid; and some I'm sure I've missed, Canada is par, and depending on the mix, even slightly lower total tax burden that in the USA. And they have UHC, paid college education (in some providences) and more.

[Ken H.]

it is not my responsibility to pay for my neighbor's healtcare nor is their responsibility to pay for mine.

Yes it is. It's called a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

[Ken H.]

Our current health care system already is somewhat socialized - we just don't want to admit this and as a result hospitals are closing. Uninsured can not be turned away from a hospital but hospitals need to be paid to stay in business. The end result is that the "paying" patients are billed more to compensate for those who do not pay. Hospitals which receive too many uninsured patients have gone bankrupt.

And that's a good point. By not covering 42M people up front, we're paying for it on the back side, it's just buried in additional cost to us. And at the most inefficient and highest overhead point in the whole system to boot - at an emergency center of a high dollar hospital.

 

And that's without even addressing the whole preventative care issue, and how much that would ultimately save is in having healthier people.

[Ken H.]

Last time I checked, we still have Medicaid to cover those who fall between the cracks.

Oh don't even get me started... I'm my mother's Conservator who is on Medicare & Medicaid. I could write a book on how big the cracks are anyone can, and does, fall through.

 

Each and every Sunday afternoon I spend on average 4 hours working all the paperwork for her. I shudder to think how any average elderly person could ever possibly figure it all out. And don't forget - Medicaid is privately ran under contract in most states. So much for efficiency of the private health care sector.

[Mike]

it is not my responsibility to pay for my neighbor's healtcare nor is their responsibility to pay for mine.

Yes it is. It's called a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

 

I bet you'll get a response or two to that one. Out of curiousity, how far does your view of this extend? I'd guess it would encompass life-saving treatments, but do you feel a moral obligation to pay for that annoying rash on your neighbor's elbow?

 

I'm not asking to be contentious . . . I don't actually know if I agree or disagree with your statement, but the way you put it strikes me as curious.

[Bheckel169]

I'd like to take this in another direction and thanks to our neighbors in Canada and the UK. This is good information.

I have a company with approximately 400 employees.

Health insurance, though provided, was becoming ever more expensive until we had to plot a new course and deny some coverage to our employees. We looked to alternatives.

As an ADP client who handled our payroll, we joined their program and transferred our employees to them and into their hundred thousand plus employee pool.

Much better rates and claims and risk is spread over a larger group.

The concept has certainly been discussed before but why haven't we seen a national pool of Americans who still pay for various levels of service (same applies to auto insurance and the level of coverage you find appropriate for your needs and budget)at a discounted rate by simply spreading risk and costs over a larger group. This could be provided by a private contractor with gov't overview.

Works for me with our employees.

[Mike]

Our current health care system already is somewhat socialized - we just don't want to admit this and as a result hospitals are closing. Uninsured can not be turned away from a hospital but hospitals need to be paid to stay in business. The end result is that the "paying" patients are billed more to compensate for those who do not pay. Hospitals which receive too many uninsured patients have gone bankrupt.

And that's a good point. By not covering 42M people up front, we're paying for it on the back side, it's just buried in additional cost to us. And at the most inefficient and highest overhead point in the whole system to boot - at an emergency center of a high dollar hospital.

 

That's a point worth noting. I used to be involved in the review of mergers, including hospitals. The amount of "free care" provided to the uninsured in emergency rooms is staggering. Most of it involves non-emergency care.

[velomoto]

Just FWIW, your middle-income income tax rate is similar to ours, perhaps a bit higher.

I don't think it is any higher when you consider Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, ~15% Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax and that we still have to buy our own health insurance (whether our employer does it or we do, it's part of our income).

I can't speak for the UK, but as married to a Canadian, I do know that when you and up the TOTAL tax burden - income taxes (federal, state, county, city, school disticts and others); sales taxes (state, city, school disticts); property taxes (state, city, county, school districts) on homes, property, cars, boats, ATVs, livestock; capital gains (short term, long term), S.S.; Medicare; Medicaid; and some I'm sure I've missed, Canada is par, and depending on the mix, even slightly lower total tax burden that in the USA. And they have UHC, paid college education (in some providences) and more.

I've seen reports indicating the USofA has a gross tax burden which is on the lower end of the list of countries around the world. FWIW, here's one such report: linky

 

For all the whining about taxes from some folks one would expect our tax burden to be among the highest in the world. Conversely IF our taxes were as high as the "our government is stealing all our money" whiners implied, then one needs to ask the obvious questions: Why do we get so little in return for our tax dollars? How do these other countries do so much more with their tax dollars?

 

Disclaimer: I have no connection to the data or results presented in the above mentioned report and have only included it as a sample of the info being published.

[Ken H.]

Why do we get so little in return for our tax dollars? How do these other countries do so much more with their tax dollars?

Within the context of this specific subject of health care, it's simple, much of it is skimmed off by private providers to fuel profits. Everything from insurance companies, to administration companies, to billing companies, to inefficiencies in duplication of same services/functions 1000s of times over.

[DavidEBSmith]

I don't think there is anywhere that the government works more effectively and economically than the private sector.

 

That's a nice Reaganesque thought, but having worked in both the private sector and the government, I can tell you that the private sector can be every bit as ineffective and uneconomical as the government.

 

The idea that things would be fine if we just removed all government regulation and let the market sort it out is similarly an appealing fantasy, but not connected to reality. We have regulation of the insurance industry because we've found that without it, crooks and fraudsters steal their customers' money. Every day we hear new tales of corporate financial malfeasance and theft, and you think those people are qualified to hold onto our health care accounts without oversight? I should feel safe knowing my Health Savings Account is with Bear Stearns???

[velomoto]

Additionally Bob can't negotiate with insurance companies as he is an individual. A corporation can shop around and negotiate with insurance companies so that company XYZ can get a better deal on a group policy than Bob can do on his own.

 

Now, that's just classic collectivism. If that were true, everything at wally world would be more expensive to individuals than to companies. It's simply not the case.

Ummmm is there supposed to be some sort of logic in this statement???

 

What's so difficult to understand about the concept of bulk purchases getting lower prices? I don't know of many instances where this is not the case (group discounts for airfares, sporting events, fleet purchases of cars, bulk material at Sam's club and Costco, etc. etc.)...

 

Classic Collectivism???

[Matts_12GS]

it is not my responsibility to pay for my neighbor's healtcare nor is their responsibility to pay for mine.

Yes it is. It's called a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

 

WTF?

 

Whoops, now back to our previously scheduled collectivism.

[Matts_12GS]

Exactly. And 42 million with no coverage at all.

 

Yeah, but 20 million of those are here illegally. We should treat them and deport them!!

[Aluminum_Butt]

it is not my responsibility to pay for my neighbor's healtcare nor is their responsibility to pay for mine.

Yes it is. It's called a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

 

I've never seen a statement that better defines the basic belief differences between the left and the right.