On June 29 2012 17:16 CoR wrote: so strange that usa is the ONLY western country without free healthcare , in europe there is 5€ or 10€ for medicin (no matter how much) and even kuba have 2cent for something that kost120€ in usa (medicine, the doc is free there aswell ... only amerca send you ill away if you have no money) i really dont get it
Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
On June 29 2012 21:36 LaughingTulkas wrote: Disclaimer: I haven't read the thread, this is just my reaction.
The main issue for me here is that unprecedented expansion of the governments power.
Basically, the government now has the right to demand money from me (tax) when I don't do what they want me to do. Sure, right now it's healthcare, which is a good thing. I'm not mad about it being healthcare. But the precedent is now set that they can do this for whatever they see fit. There's nothing to stop them from demanding I pay them money if I don't by HoTS, or any other private product sold by a private company.
I'm not saying they will do this, but the power is now theirs to control, and with human nature being what it is, its more than likely it's only a matter of time before such power gets abused. These are the liberties we are giving up, and who knows when the price will need to be paid.
(I am all for having everyone have healthcare, especially those who want it but can't afford it, but there has to be a better solution than forcing under penalty of law those who don't want to buy it, especially at the cost of giving the government such control over our lives.)
Is everyone in the US so paranoid about government having some actual power? As I see it, one of the biggest problems the US are facing now is that they got blinded by capitalism too much which led to overgrowth of private sector and now they need to fix it by taking some of it back into public sector. I know that words like "socialism" scare the hell out of Americans but you need to understand that socialism=/=communism and some of it is actually good. Even if I were to take my own country as an example, where we have free healthcare and government-controlled pension system (if you work a % of your income is automatically added to your pension, the same with healthcare), which aren't perfect as there's constantly some problems with it, but they work. After all, if you make more money you can use it to get better healthcare by purchasing insurances from private companies, better pension by investing your money wisely etc. But the best example would be the schools. Most of the schools and universities in Poland are public, completely free and much better than private ones, which cost a lot. This is beneficial for the country as you get qualified workers who aren't in horrible debt at the start of their career.
Really guys, if you don't trust your own government, then why would it trust you? Put some faith in it and maybe things will start moving towards a better future. Democracy at its finest...
If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. I would humbly submit that governments throughout the entire history of man, including democracies, do not have a good track record of being trustworthy institutions. European countries are really not ones to talk either, I'm sure the Greek people put their faith in their government to provide for them, and certainly gave them the power to do it, but right now I think everyone agrees no matter what happens, the Greek people are screwed.
This is such crap. People are not trustworthy, not just governments. In place of government having more power (which is how it is in most European countries), we have massive corporations that have a ton of power, and they do even less to help the people since they are not accountable to them.
On June 29 2012 21:41 DoubleReed wrote: Got into an argument with a conservative friend and I was wondering the following questions. I was hoping my fellow TLers could help real quick.
1-How do the people who can't afford healthcare pay for it? Is it subsidized by government? Do the healthcare companies take the hit?
2-How does this affect the deficit?
3-How does this affect premiums?
4-Aren't we putting in a bunch of higher risk people into the pool? Would this raise costs?
1- Government gives deep tax breaks for people who *really* cant afford it. 2- Shouldn't affect the deficit according to the CBO. 3- Ideally it will reduce premiums. Since Obamacare started being instituted, premiums have increased at a slower rate. Our premiums go up largeley because the uninsured STILL get health care, they just don't pay for it. For instance, they go to the ER, get their meds, then dont pay the bill. That cost is dumped on the rest of us. 4- There are more people in the pool (some higher risk - many not), which may increase overall costs, but will also increase the number of people paying into system.
Okay, the only issue I see is the tax cuts. I have a hard time believing that they pay taxes at all, let alone enough that removing them would allow them to purchase healthcare.
On June 29 2012 17:16 CoR wrote: so strange that usa is the ONLY western country without free healthcare , in europe there is 5€ or 10€ for medicin (no matter how much) and even kuba have 2cent for something that kost120€ in usa (medicine, the doc is free there aswell ... only amerca send you ill away if you have no money) i really dont get it
Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
Not to mention that when the penalty rises to a substantial amount by 2016 ($695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater), you might as well pay some more and have insurance in the meantime.
On June 29 2012 21:41 DoubleReed wrote: Got into an argument with a conservative friend and I was wondering the following questions. I was hoping my fellow TLers could help real quick.
1-How do the people who can't afford healthcare pay for it? Is it subsidized by government? Do the healthcare companies take the hit?
2-How does this affect the deficit?
3-How does this affect premiums?
4-Aren't we putting in a bunch of higher risk people into the pool? Would this raise costs?
1- Government gives deep tax breaks for people who *really* cant afford it. 2- Shouldn't affect the deficit according to the CBO. 3- Ideally it will reduce premiums. Since Obamacare started being instituted, premiums have increased at a slower rate. Our premiums go up largeley because the uninsured STILL get health care, they just don't pay for it. For instance, they go to the ER, get their meds, then dont pay the bill. That cost is dumped on the rest of us. 4- There are more people in the pool (some higher risk - many not), which may increase overall costs, but will also increase the number of people paying into system.
Okay, the only issue I see is the tax cuts. I have a hard time believing that they pay taxes at all, let alone enough that removing them would allow them to purchase healthcare.
People who don't pay taxes at all typically qualify for Medicare and related programs.
On June 29 2012 21:36 LaughingTulkas wrote: Disclaimer: I haven't read the thread, this is just my reaction.
The main issue for me here is that unprecedented expansion of the governments power.
Basically, the government now has the right to demand money from me (tax) when I don't do what they want me to do. Sure, right now it's healthcare, which is a good thing. I'm not mad about it being healthcare. But the precedent is now set that they can do this for whatever they see fit. There's nothing to stop them from demanding I pay them money if I don't by HoTS, or any other private product sold by a private company.
I'm not saying they will do this, but the power is now theirs to control, and with human nature being what it is, its more than likely it's only a matter of time before such power gets abused. These are the liberties we are giving up, and who knows when the price will need to be paid.
(I am all for having everyone have healthcare, especially those who want it but can't afford it, but there has to be a better solution than forcing under penalty of law those who don't want to buy it, especially at the cost of giving the government such control over our lives.)
Is everyone in the US so paranoid about government having some actual power? As I see it, one of the biggest problems the US are facing now is that they got blinded by capitalism too much which led to overgrowth of private sector and now they need to fix it by taking some of it back into public sector. I know that words like "socialism" scare the hell out of Americans but you need to understand that socialism=/=communism and some of it is actually good. Even if I were to take my own country as an example, where we have free healthcare and government-controlled pension system (if you work a % of your income is automatically added to your pension, the same with healthcare), which aren't perfect as there's constantly some problems with it, but they work. After all, if you make more money you can use it to get better healthcare by purchasing insurances from private companies, better pension by investing your money wisely etc. But the best example would be the schools. Most of the schools and universities in Poland are public, completely free and much better than private ones, which cost a lot. This is beneficial for the country as you get qualified workers who aren't in horrible debt at the start of their career.
Really guys, if you don't trust your own government, then why would it trust you? Put some faith in it and maybe things will start moving towards a better future. Democracy at its finest...
If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. I would humbly submit that governments throughout the entire history of man, including democracies, do not have a good track record of being trustworthy institutions. European countries are really not ones to talk either, I'm sure the Greek people put their faith in their government to provide for them, and certainly gave them the power to do it, but right now I think everyone agrees no matter what happens, the Greek people are screwed.
This is such crap. People are not trustworthy, not just governments. In place of government having more power (which is how it is in most European countries), we have massive corporations that have a ton of power, and they do even less to help the people since they are not accountable to them.
I would also argue that the Greek example isn't very good as one of the big problem of the Greek is the high level of tax evasion...
On June 29 2012 20:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Good thing the USA isn't in a 15 trillion dollar debt hole and they can easily afford this policy. Whats next on Obamas policy radar? Maybe closing Guantanamo Bay like he promised when he won the election back in 08'? Deadline over two years now and counting..... Balls in your court Obama.
A 15 trillion dollar debt hole is pretty big. Good thing we have a 15 trillion dollar GPD ladder to help climb out of it with. Big scary numbers don't mean much without context. The debt-to-GDP ratio we have now is the same we had in WWII. Being that both events, the war and the 2008 financial crisis, were pretty big world changing events this isn't an unfathomable position to be in nor is it an unfathomable position to get out of, we've done it once before. But to answer your question, here's how we can afford the policy:
Lol....please.... Post the trade balance in WWII and post WWII and post the US trade balance today. The USA can't pay back it's debts if it is in a 600 billion per year trade deficit. USA hasn't had a trade surplus since the early 70s , US standard of living has been dropping since the early 70s masked by rapidly increasing personal debt which is all coming to a head the past few years with 45 million Americans on food stamp programs.
But hey , Obama has racked up more on the deficit in four years than Bush did in 8 so i guess that means the debt is under control.(Note i'm no Bush fan either) http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/04/bush-vs-obama-deficits-in-pictures.html Good thing the global economy is going great and there won't need to be another economic stimulus package!
On June 29 2012 22:33 corumjhaelen wrote: I would also argue that the Greek example isn't very good as one of the big problem of the Greek is the high level of tax evasion...
It's hardly fair that Christine LaGarde who earns $500,000 tax free at her IMF job wants the Greeks making 20,000 Euros a year to pay their taxes.There needs to be income tax applied to all UN , IMF & World bank jobs immediately! Income tax on someone earning as much as LaGarde brings in as much revenue as 40 regular citizens paying income tax!
On June 29 2012 21:53 Manit0u wrote: Really guys, if you don't trust your own government, then why would it trust you? Put some faith in it and maybe things will start moving towards a better future. Democracy at its finest...
Trust in government? Like when Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq? Like when Obama said he would close Gitmo? Like when the government said the 2000 election was above board? Like when the government said Fukushima was safe after they raised the acceptable radiation hundreds of times what it was previously? Like when Donald Rumsfeld said he had never heard about building 7 coming down on 9/11?
Give it a rest dude , people are sick of the government and their lies i just wish more people here would wake up.
Is everyone in the US so paranoid about government having some actual power? As I see it, one of the biggest problems the US are facing now is that they got blinded by capitalism too much which led to overgrowth of private sector and now they need to fix it by taking some of it back into public sector. I know that words like "socialism" scare the hell out of Americans but you need to understand that socialism=/=communism and some of it is actually good.
Just reiterating what i have said many times here , under a capitalist model banks like JP Morgan would no longer exist , they would have gone bankrupt.There would have been no bank bailouts.US Deficit alone would be 2 trillion+ smaller without the bank bailouts.US system is not capitalist anymore it is corporatist.People bail out the banks but recieve none of the benefits when those banks make a profit , thats not capitalism....
Trust in capitalism you say?
What about the strike breaking of the robber barons? (ie Homestead Strike) The total lack of safety and care for employees? (ie triangle shirtwaist factory fire) When a bunch of industrialists got together and tried to assassinate a president? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)
Unregulated capitalism is brutal for most of the population and we abandoned it as a society, we aren't going to go back to the fucking 1800s
TARP is a profitable series of investments for the government, fine public policy right there and without it the US financial system would have been utterly wrecked by the failure of any liquidity injection the total cost to US taxpayers through oversight and administrative costs is $50 bil. That the system needed a liquidity injection isn't even econ or policy 101, its remedial, like 98 level courses.
Do not bring that 9-11 truther shit in here either, 9-11 was a tragedy engineered by a group of terrorists and there were some odd things but that always happens in a crisis, who cares if Rumsfeld remembered building 7 or not, its not something I could think of off the top of my head most days, because its just not important compared to the actual WTC towers.
The main difference between handing power to government and to companies is that you can actually vote for the government while companies have remote and inaccessible governance. Between the two institutions, one was built to protect you and one was built to make money for its owners.
On June 29 2012 21:36 LaughingTulkas wrote: Disclaimer: I haven't read the thread, this is just my reaction.
The main issue for me here is that unprecedented expansion of the governments power.
Basically, the government now has the right to demand money from me (tax) when I don't do what they want me to do. Sure, right now it's healthcare, which is a good thing. I'm not mad about it being healthcare. But the precedent is now set that they can do this for whatever they see fit. There's nothing to stop them from demanding I pay them money if I don't by HoTS, or any other private product sold by a private company.
I'm not saying they will do this, but the power is now theirs to control, and with human nature being what it is, its more than likely it's only a matter of time before such power gets abused. These are the liberties we are giving up, and who knows when the price will need to be paid.
(I am all for having everyone have healthcare, especially those who want it but can't afford it, but there has to be a better solution than forcing under penalty of law those who don't want to buy it, especially at the cost of giving the government such control over our lives.)
Is everyone in the US so paranoid about government having some actual power? As I see it, one of the biggest problems the US are facing now is that they got blinded by capitalism too much which led to overgrowth of private sector and now they need to fix it by taking some of it back into public sector. I know that words like "socialism" scare the hell out of Americans but you need to understand that socialism=/=communism and some of it is actually good. Even if I were to take my own country as an example, where we have free healthcare and government-controlled pension system (if you work a % of your income is automatically added to your pension, the same with healthcare), which aren't perfect as there's constantly some problems with it, but they work. After all, if you make more money you can use it to get better healthcare by purchasing insurances from private companies, better pension by investing your money wisely etc. But the best example would be the schools. Most of the schools and universities in Poland are public, completely free and much better than private ones, which cost a lot. This is beneficial for the country as you get qualified workers who aren't in horrible debt at the start of their career.
Really guys, if you don't trust your own government, then why would it trust you? Put some faith in it and maybe things will start moving towards a better future. Democracy at its finest...
If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. I would humbly submit that governments throughout the entire history of man, including democracies, do not have a good track record of being trustworthy institutions. European countries are really not ones to talk either, I'm sure the Greek people put their faith in their government to provide for them, and certainly gave them the power to do it, but right now I think everyone agrees no matter what happens, the Greek people are screwed.
This is such crap. People are not trustworthy, not just governments. In place of government having more power (which is how it is in most European countries), we have massive corporations that have a ton of power, and they do even less to help the people since they are not accountable to them.
Not really a very good reply, as you agree with me that governments aren't trustworthy, and then go on a rant against things I didn't say I support.
I agree with you that corporations are not better than governments (though I could make a quibble about how accountable each are to people, it's probably more similar than different.) I do think the cause is largely because our corporations either control or are in close collaboration with the government that they became so large and powerful. And the reason they want to be close to the government is because the government has so much power to help them by forcing us to do things through taxes, subsidies, etc.
But this is digressing from ACA, which again, now specifies that we can be taxed not just for things we do, but for things we don't do that Congress wants us to do. And that is a new power as far as I know, and not one I really want them to have. As now they can in effect force me to do other things that I don't support (I actually want everyone to have healthcare, if they want it). An extreme example is still that they could enact a tax on anyone who doesn't pay for an MLG gold pass, because ESPORTS is a common good that is beneficial to everyone. No matter how true the second is, it's still not right for people to be taxed for NOT buying a private good from a private company.
A single payer system would be better than this in terms of limits on Congress' power.
edit: why do I always see spelling errors AFTER I press post? Bah.
edit 2: Have to work, sorry if I can't reply to any replies to this. I'll check back later on! Hopefully not too many pages later
Funny to see an Australian against Obamacare. You want to end our Medicare too?
Lol economics 101.... thousands of small business will shrink or close their doors due to the healthcare provisions and extra costs added.Tax take will fall.Pretty basic stuff we are talking about here.
As to ending medicare yes i believe it should be ended.Removing added costs and taxes involved with public health systems would stimulate the economy and allow more people to purchase private health cover.Private health cover should be assessed on a per person basis with overweight people paying more , smokers paying more etc rather than the system we have where healthy people subsidise diabetes medication for fat slobs who eat cakes all day and don't exercise.
And now you've changed the subject from cost of the bill to the effect on businesses. I guess you concede the point that it will reduce the deficit, not increase it.
I told you to follow the discussion there, and you didn't.
Funny to see an Australian against Obamacare. You want to end our Medicare too?
Lol economics 101.... thousands of small business will shrink or close their doors due to the healthcare provisions and extra costs added.Tax take will fall.Pretty basic stuff we are talking about here.
As to ending medicare yes i believe it should be ended.Removing added costs and taxes involved with public health systems would stimulate the economy and allow more people to purchase private health cover.Private health cover should be assessed on a per person basis with overweight people paying more , smokers paying more etc rather than the system we have where healthy people subsidise diabetes medication for fat slobs who eat cakes all day and don't exercise.
Yes, let us throw a baby out with bathwater. Because there is no way how to incorporate different payments into public system. Oh wait, we already do it by income levels, so we could actually change the system to account for other criteria. Not that I support it as I think the gains are not really worth it compared to the price of complicating the system.
Also funny how you mention the possibly positive things while forgetting all the other stuff. Like with unemployment benefits, even the guy who does not want to help others in need should be for state paying them from his money as he actually pays for his own protection from increased crime rates that otherwise occur. Much cheaper then hiring actual protection later after the crime rates are up. Same with healthcare, people falling into poverty just because they cannot afford healthcare and increased crime rates following that. Not even mentioning you just sentenced a lot of hard working people who take care of their health to poverty and possibly death.
On June 29 2012 21:41 DoubleReed wrote: Got into an argument with a conservative friend and I was wondering the following questions. I was hoping my fellow TLers could help real quick.
1-How do the people who can't afford healthcare pay for it? Is it subsidized by government? Do the healthcare companies take the hit?
2-How does this affect the deficit?
3-How does this affect premiums?
4-Aren't we putting in a bunch of higher risk people into the pool? Would this raise costs?
1- Government gives deep tax breaks for people who *really* cant afford it. 2- Shouldn't affect the deficit according to the CBO. 3- Ideally it will reduce premiums. Since Obamacare started being instituted, premiums have increased at a slower rate. Our premiums go up largeley because the uninsured STILL get health care, they just don't pay for it. For instance, they go to the ER, get their meds, then dont pay the bill. That cost is dumped on the rest of us. 4- There are more people in the pool (some higher risk - many not), which may increase overall costs, but will also increase the number of people paying into system.
Okay, the only issue I see is the tax cuts. I have a hard time believing that they pay taxes at all, let alone enough that removing them would allow them to purchase healthcare.
People who don't pay taxes at all typically qualify for Medicare and related programs.
There are also state programs. In Wisconsin we have a program called BadgerCare that provides limited health care to help cover the gap for those who cannot afford other care. Most states have SOME sort of program.
As for #4 of the original question: Preventative care is the problem. The added costs here derive mostly from homeless/poor. They are unable to get basic preventative care for basic things such as the flu or a cold or that sore spot they have, and before long it spirals into something far worse that becomes life-threatening or debilitating (which only further compounds to problem). While this group gets tax breaks, most of them do not spend this money on health care. They just have different priorities (whether it's an addiction or something) and they know that push comes to shove, they can get ER care or visit a free clinic when it becomes unbearable. I'm not saying they're complete moochers; they have logical reasons for what they do. The system just isn't very efficient at helping this group. And most of them are just very good at manipulating the system because all they know is the system and they survive because of the system.
Basically the idea is that if you can provide these groups with basic preventative care without cost, you don't get a lot of the more costly "wait until the ER takes me" situations that occur. We pay for it either way, whether through higher health insurance costs (because the hospitals balance their expenditures on these people on their paying customers) or through higher taxation in a nationalized health care system. The question is how to get them preventative care, not how do we pay for it (we already do).
His parents claim they both have full time jobs but don't qualify for the health care required for their baby, but I'm sure they're really just lying and are wasting the money on nefarious activities.
Who would want to help these bums? Society is better off with an unhealthy population.
On June 30 2012 00:21 BuddhaMonk wrote: It's really just all those drunken bums on welfare are the ones who can't afford health care. Why do we want to care for them?
You know, drunken bums like this 7 year old with Leukemia.
His parents claim they both have full time jobs but don't qualify for the health care required for their baby, but I'm sure they're really just lying and are wasting the money on nefarious activities.
Who would want to help these bums? Society is better off with an unhealthy population.
Those are different issues with the healthcare system. Those who don't qualify have nothing to do with the inability to pay.
On June 29 2012 17:16 CoR wrote: so strange that usa is the ONLY western country without free healthcare , in europe there is 5€ or 10€ for medicin (no matter how much) and even kuba have 2cent for something that kost120€ in usa (medicine, the doc is free there aswell ... only amerca send you ill away if you have no money) i really dont get it
Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
Not to mention that when the penalty rises to a substantial amount by 2016 ($695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater), you might as well pay some more and have insurance in the meantime.
The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.
On June 29 2012 22:33 corumjhaelen wrote: I would also argue that the Greek example isn't very good as one of the big problem of the Greek is the high level of tax evasion...
It's hardly fair that Christine LaGarde who earns $500,000 tax free at her IMF job wants the Greeks making 20,000 Euros a year to pay their taxes.There needs to be income tax applied to all UN , IMF & World bank jobs immediately! Income tax on someone earning as much as LaGarde brings in as much revenue as 40 regular citizens paying income tax!
I wasn't aware that Lagarde doesn't pay any tax on her income. Source?
But seriously, can you possibly think of anything more inconsequential to complain about?
On June 30 2012 00:21 BuddhaMonk wrote: It's really just all those drunken bums on welfare are the ones who can't afford health care. Why do we want to care for them?
You know, drunken bums like this 7 year old with Leukemia.
His parents claim they both have full time jobs but don't qualify for the health care required for their baby, but I'm sure they're really just lying and are wasting the money on nefarious activities.
Who would want to help these bums? Society is better off with an unhealthy population.
Those are different issues with the healthcare system. Those who don't qualify have nothing to do with the inability to pay.
I'm not sure what are you referring to.
The point I was making was in reference to those who claim that people who can't afford health care are just the bums in society who didn't take care of themselves.
On June 29 2012 17:16 CoR wrote: so strange that usa is the ONLY western country without free healthcare , in europe there is 5€ or 10€ for medicin (no matter how much) and even kuba have 2cent for something that kost120€ in usa (medicine, the doc is free there aswell ... only amerca send you ill away if you have no money) i really dont get it
Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
Not to mention that when the penalty rises to a substantial amount by 2016 ($695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater), you might as well pay some more and have insurance in the meantime.
The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.
On June 29 2012 20:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Good thing the USA isn't in a 15 trillion dollar debt hole and they can easily afford this policy. Whats next on Obamas policy radar? Maybe closing Guantanamo Bay like he promised when he won the election back in 08'? Deadline over two years now and counting..... Balls in your court Obama.
A 15 trillion dollar debt hole is pretty big. Good thing we have a 15 trillion dollar GPD ladder to help climb out of it with. Big scary numbers don't mean much without context. The debt-to-GDP ratio we have now is the same we had in WWII. Being that both events, the war and the 2008 financial crisis, were pretty big world changing events this isn't an unfathomable position to be in nor is it an unfathomable position to get out of, we've done it once before. But to answer your question, here's how we can afford the policy:
Lol....please.... Post the trade balance in WWII and post WWII and post the US trade balance today. The USA can't pay back it's debts if it is in a 600 billion per year trade deficit. USA hasn't had a trade surplus since the early 70s , US standard of living has been dropping since the early 70s masked by rapidly increasing personal debt which is all coming to a head the past few years with 45 million Americans on food stamp programs.
But hey , Obama has racked up more on the deficit in four years than Bush did in 8 so i guess that means the debt is under control.(Note i'm no Bush fan either) http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/04/bush-vs-obama-deficits-in-pictures.html Good thing the global economy is going great and there won't need to be another economic stimulus package!
You don't need a trade surplus for the government to pay back its debt.
The standard of living in the US has not been dropping over the past 40 years.
On June 30 2012 00:21 BuddhaMonk wrote: It's really just all those drunken bums on welfare are the ones who can't afford health care. Why do we want to care for them?
You know, drunken bums like this 7 year old with Leukemia.
His parents claim they both have full time jobs but don't qualify for the health care required for their baby, but I'm sure they're really just lying and are wasting the money on nefarious activities.
Who would want to help these bums? Society is better off with an unhealthy population.
Those are different issues with the healthcare system. Those who don't qualify have nothing to do with the inability to pay.
I'm not sure what are you referring to.
The point I was making was in reference to those who claim that people who can't afford health care are just the bums in society who didn't take care of themselves.
No, but those are the uninsured that are responsible for costing the insured money.
EPT
