cAnadian medical is amazing. i talked to friends from there. basically, dont get hurt in the us if u are canadian
Actually no. I prefer universal health care for the usual reasons, but likewise, the usual wait time criticisms are real in Canada. I had a Canadian friend who got injured while he was studying in the States, and he decided to stay at school over the summer because it was a choice between a 2 month wait there or an 8 month wait back home.
Something I've noticed about the US system (I'm a Canadian studying in the States btw) is the massive bureaucracy that follows through it. I had to go get checked 3 times before I went to Brazil, and while it was great that it was only a 1 minute wait for a 10 minute appointment, this was followed up by 30 minutes waiting for paper work to get filled. It's good that they're thorough, but it's completely driven by fear of getting sued.
The moral of the story is have good health insurance coverage if you're ever in the States.
You go and get medical services from some hospital/doctor
They charge a certain amount of their choice *(qualifier:see next step)
If you have insurance your insurance company pays some of the amount (and often the insurance company limits how much the hospital/doctor can charge, otherwise they don't pay.. and people don't go to that doctor/hospital because that doctor/hosptal doesn't accept the persons insurance)
Now in terms of how people Get insurance it is Very different from Car insurance. Car insurance= any time an accident is your fault, your rates go up. Medical Insurance = your employer pays the same basic rate for all their employees.. if you have an accident/medical problem while you are on insurance that doesn't affect your rate. (you may have to pay a portion of the rate as well... and may have multiple options that your employer provides) BUT If your employer doesn't provide medical insurance, or if you are unemployed
Then (unless you are very healthy) medical insurance is often unavailable*. (qualifier in next step) If you are very healthy, then it is usually too expensive for someone who has a job so bad that it does not provide health insurance
Qualifiers If you are between jobs, there are ways of paying for the health insurance you had with your employer for a time period. Various government managed and/or subsidized insurance plans are also offered (usually by insurance companies) if you meet a number of possible different criteria.
You do have the bureaucracy, since there are almost always 4 parties involved.
Patient Doctor/Hospital Health Insurance company Organization Patient is geting that Health Insurance plan through (employer, government)
The US health system is a hybrid system where there are both elements of private sector and public sector. The private sector is basically the medical insurance part whereas the public sector is a lot harder to define. Of course there are bits of overlap, but this is the main divide.
In the private sector, almost all medical insurance is provided through employers. The amount of benefits varies from employer to employer. Some variables include whether you can include your family in your coverage, the level of care you can get, inclusion of pharmaceuticals, deductible paid and amount of other health support (like dentistry, mental health, home care, etc). For example, an employer with a stellar medical plan would cover their employees and their spouse/kids; provide primary, secondary, and tertiary care; pay for all varieties of cutting edge drugs, not just generics; have a low deductible; and would also provide good dental, mental health, home care. Of course almost no employer actually provides benefits this good, but that's the general principal. In fact, some employers even require their employees to pay for their own health insurance, but the legality of this varies from state to state. On the same token, the amount of health care employers are required to provide varies from state to state.
The apparent problem with this is that the employer acts as an unnecessary intermediary between health insurance providers and consumers. This is the result of legislation passed nearly a century ago trying to encourage to work to receive health insurance; but the problem was that the US government also provided a safety net by having public sector health insurance. Thus the original incentive for people to work to receive health insurance was nullified because there was really no risk (health insurance wise) to /not/ work as you would be covered by the government.
...But public sector benefits declined in the public sector due to shortfall in funding and an aging population. So the federal government roped in all the state governments to provide additional support in the health sector (this was in the 1960s). As a result of this, the US now has a dauntingly complex public health care system with partial federal coverage, partial state coverage, and some inbetween. The largest portion of federal only coverage is Medicare which covers health insurance for the elderly. On the state level, Medicaid provides health insurace for the low income. The amount of coverage, again, varies from state to state. Through Medicaid, the federal government sponsors state governments a certain amount. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I am pretty sure that it varies from state to state. As you may have noticed, this is starting to become increasingly complicated. Each state has it's own set of legislation dictating what amount of health care to provide, how much to pay for this health care, and who to cover in this health care; simulatenously, the federal government has it's own set of guidelines on what/how much/who to cover so you get a lot of fed-state conflict. A lot of this is still unresolved and floating around in various courts, which only perpetuates the delayed health care.
If that wasn't enough, you also have various government programs like VA (veteran affairs) and federal employee health benefits programs (and their state equivalents). Also, somebody else mentioned it, but if you get laid off, you can go on a federal-state-private hybrid program called COBRA. This is basically your employee based health care without you actually being an employee. The governement will subsidize you for X number of months on the program until you find another job and can get health insurance through your new employer.
A lot of people bitch and moan about the American health care system, but really, there's not a whole lot that the USA can do. When comparing the system to Canada and Europe, the primary issue is that the USA is HUGE and has a lot of geographical/demographic diversity. Toss in strong state governments and the symptomatic bureauracracy of democracies, and any refrom takes decades to happen. That's why it's not really fair to say that the XX country has a lot better health care than the USA. If you think about it, how can you really compare the amount of health care needed and health care available for a farmer in Nebraska to somebody living in NYC? The situations are completely different and the amount of wealth they have is completely different. Europe benefits from having a densely populated, relatively wealthy, homegenous population (at the country level) so providing "universal health care" costs a lot less than it would in the United States.
My uncle is a Canadian citizen (has lived here married to my aunt for like 40 years) and he was angry a lot at the health care his dad received in Canada. He gets excellent insurance through his church (hes a pastor) and it covers his whole family. With me and my mom we were both pretty well covered through my mothers insurance (she was a nurse and they get great package) so I never had to want for anything health wise. My fiancee though is a student pretty much on her own but he has had decent health care that she got as a student from medicaid. Also a lot of Universities (I think anyway mine did) give some free medical care (3 visits per year or semester something like that) which was useful for me when I got mono (didnt have to pay anything for the visit and like less then 20 bucks for the tests and medication I got). In summary if you have a job that isn't a bottom teir job you should be getting at least decent insurance for yourself. If your at that bottom teir job you most likely will qualify for the low level medical insurance, but it is still limiting for the expensive stuff.
Compare the health care needed? Wtf? Just cure them.
In Switzerland we got a ruelset according to this: A treatment has to be: Effective, Economical, Efficient and "makes sense" to be paid by your private BUT obligatory assurance. It's clearly defined which medicaments get paid by the basic insurance... In effect: If you have cancer in Switzerland you get the *standard* treatment paid that fills the above criteria's. If you have broken a leg you get everything paid that fills the above criteria's. If you got a cold you get the standard treatment paid. If you got the flu you get the standard treatment paid. Until your cured!
Our whole system is based on this (well, you pay the first 300/600/1000/1500/2500 Francs yourself (having this amount higher lowers your assurance cost per month).
If you want *more* (nicer hospital room, chose the hospital yourself, specific medicaments, specific treatments, complementary medicine - you can have one for basically everything) then you need an additional Insurance which is not obligatory and also not really necessary. My Father is the director of a Health Assurance company and he himself has only the basic/obligatory assurance. The additional Insurance is not expensive (my basic insurance costs 217 francs a month, the addition insurance would cost additional 17 francs a month).
I like the system... The problems we got are mainly due to climbing prices in the health sector altogether making the assurance bills more expensive every year... But this hits about every country, no matter the system... Swiss people just often feel it more direct because most of us pay their assurance directly themselves like for instance a telephone bill.
Basically: The Swiss state sais what treatments/medicaments and so on the insurances have to pay. The Swiss Cantons say how much what treatment costs (stuff like consultations, cost stationary hospital per day.... This is a little unnecessary bureaucracy and could be handled by the state instead, but well, we are also a federalist state ^^) The private Insurances handle according to plan and try to make some money and offer additional insurances.
The effect? Administrative cost are at about 4-5% in the Swiss health assurance Business, that’s VERY low and it grants full healthcare at the same time.
Btw: We overhauled the full system in ~1995 and had another big overhaul again in ~2004?... No reason the USA should not be able to do this too? I mean, as it sounds you still follow the same system as 50 years ago O_o.
When I got tonsilitis a few years ago I had no insurance and I had to go to the ER and then they worked out this free health insurance called MSI (in california). It covered all the expenses as far as I know, (unless my family paid for some shit in the lobby when I was fucked up in the bed). It lasted for a year and during that time I used the coverage to go to the dentist a few times and I had to pay like 5 bucks for a filling out of my pocket and the rest was covered, the cleaning and xrays and all.
But it seemed like bullshit because at first they schedule me for the doc to look at my teeth and do xrays. then they tell me to come back in a month, and he just does a cleaning, then I come back a month later and he does a filling, and then they schedule me for another filling a month later and the people scheduled it for a day when the doc wasn't even there so I had to come back the next day, then when I come back my MSI is expired and they tell me its gonna be 100$ or some shit so I just left. Haven't been back to the dentist since, I really need to go too.
When they put me on the MSI I had to go through at least 3 different meetings with hospital worker, then later with some social worker or something, then again with the actual ENT doctor's nurse before he did the procedure. I had to fill out a questionaire every time too for shit if I smoked/drank and how much money I made etc. They each asked me like 5 different ways if I smoked.
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately.
It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well.
Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1
My greenshield covers me for out of province and state injuries. I'm completly covered in NA. Everyone saying it takes 8 months to see a doctor in Canada is a retard who's clearly never been to a medical center in Canada.
Also, if a situation was to arise where there wasn't proper treatment available then they actually send you to the states or a different Canadian city. I've known people who have gotten shipped to Michigan or London for specific surgery's. For free ofc.
On May 15 2009 17:16 gchan wrote: The US health system is a hybrid system where there are both elements of private sector and public sector. The private sector is basically the medical insurance part whereas the public sector is a lot harder to define. Of course there are bits of overlap, but this is the main divide.
In the private sector, almost all medical insurance is provided through employers. The amount of benefits varies from employer to employer. Some variables include whether you can include your family in your coverage, the level of care you can get, inclusion of pharmaceuticals, deductible paid and amount of other health support (like dentistry, mental health, home care, etc). For example, an employer with a stellar medical plan would cover their employees and their spouse/kids; provide primary, secondary, and tertiary care; pay for all varieties of cutting edge drugs, not just generics; have a low deductible; and would also provide good dental, mental health, home care. Of course almost no employer actually provides benefits this good, but that's the general principal. In fact, some employers even require their employees to pay for their own health insurance, but the legality of this varies from state to state. On the same token, the amount of health care employers are required to provide varies from state to state.
The apparent problem with this is that the employer acts as an unnecessary intermediary between health insurance providers and consumers. This is the result of legislation passed nearly a century ago trying to encourage to work to receive health insurance; but the problem was that the US government also provided a safety net by having public sector health insurance. Thus the original incentive for people to work to receive health insurance was nullified because there was really no risk (health insurance wise) to /not/ work as you would be covered by the government.
...But public sector benefits declined in the public sector due to shortfall in funding and an aging population. So the federal government roped in all the state governments to provide additional support in the health sector (this was in the 1960s). As a result of this, the US now has a dauntingly complex public health care system with partial federal coverage, partial state coverage, and some inbetween. The largest portion of federal only coverage is Medicare which covers health insurance for the elderly. On the state level, Medicaid provides health insurace for the low income. The amount of coverage, again, varies from state to state. Through Medicaid, the federal government sponsors state governments a certain amount. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I am pretty sure that it varies from state to state. As you may have noticed, this is starting to become increasingly complicated. Each state has it's own set of legislation dictating what amount of health care to provide, how much to pay for this health care, and who to cover in this health care; simulatenously, the federal government has it's own set of guidelines on what/how much/who to cover so you get a lot of fed-state conflict. A lot of this is still unresolved and floating around in various courts, which only perpetuates the delayed health care.
If that wasn't enough, you also have various government programs like VA (veteran affairs) and federal employee health benefits programs (and their state equivalents). Also, somebody else mentioned it, but if you get laid off, you can go on a federal-state-private hybrid program called COBRA. This is basically your employee based health care without you actually being an employee. The governement will subsidize you for X number of months on the program until you find another job and can get health insurance through your new employer.
A lot of people bitch and moan about the American health care system, but really, there's not a whole lot that the USA can do. When comparing the system to Canada and Europe, the primary issue is that the USA is HUGE and has a lot of geographical/demographic diversity. Toss in strong state governments and the symptomatic bureauracracy of democracies, and any refrom takes decades to happen. That's why it's not really fair to say that the XX country has a lot better health care than the USA. If you think about it, how can you really compare the amount of health care needed and health care available for a farmer in Nebraska to somebody living in NYC? The situations are completely different and the amount of wealth they have is completely different. Europe benefits from having a densely populated, relatively wealthy, homegenous population (at the country level) so providing "universal health care" costs a lot less than it would in the United States.
Got it right, for the most part. I think the US's lack of universal healthcare is largely due to conservative "small government" ideals and considerations regarding how taxing it would be, bureaucratically. I personally prefer privatization of healthcare, with some caveats, but there are some undeniable social benefits of a "guaranteed" health provision, however theoretical. In reality, heavy taxation is quite the bitch.
On May 15 2009 16:10 omninmo wrote: cAnadian medical is amazing. i talked to friends from there. basically, dont get hurt in the us if u are canadian
I will add another story to the many of people unhappy with Canadian health care. I really do not understand the system at all, but in my personal experience with Canadians who have moved to the US, they really hate the Canadian system and prefer the US one.
One person I know was pregnant, but her doctor wanted to go on vacation at the time the baby was due, so did it early and surgically removed the baby early, which was dangerous to the baby and left a scar on the woman. AFAIK she was unable to get another doctor. She also complained that when she takes children for check ups in Canada they literally look at the child over for 30 seconds and say he's fine.
I know that is anecdotal, and I hope it is unrepresentative. My point is just Canadian's seem to greatly prefer the US system, unless I've met a unrepresentative group.
Nothing that is ever worth anything is free. There is no such thing as 'free' healthcare. Frankly, I am infinitely more predisposed to spend my own money much more wisely than the Government. That, and philosophically and lawfully, the government has no right to intervene in my healthcare, tell me, what treatments I will get and what I won't, when I will, and when I won't, where I will and where I won't, and basically become a Totalitarian state.
It is not my responsibility to give the fruits of my labor to others because they made poor decisions, are lazy, or have no societal motivations. It is akin to government induced slavery. Tax rates are all ready highly absurd, and providing massive bureaucratic healthcare would easily jump the taxes up even higher. We would be essentially turning the US into a third world country for the benefit of the societal miscreants. Yes, let's punish society as a whole, for the bad decisions of the minority. Sounds like a swell plan.
Now, those who are unable to work, or to provide for themselves should be covered by the Government. These account for about 1-3% of people if that. Easily manageable.
In the end this boils down to my QUOTE. Read, and learn it well. Those who are have-nots are only in the business of voting in those who will take. Stealing is wrong, so is slavery.
As an edit: US Healthcare is the best in the world. That is; the actual care you receive, not on how socialistic the healthcare system is according to WHO (Which actually ranks the countries by this criteria)
The rich in a private and a public system both get the same quality of healthcare, and both get it private. In a private system they save some tax money by not having to pay for public healthcare provision they will never use but they can afford it. The middle class get about the same standard of care under both systems, although the upper middle class do lose out on the public system because (at the very least in the UK) you can't top up the public healthcare with private so they are limited to whatever provision they get on the state. How good this standard is varies from country to country but there will always be a few people on the cusp between middle class and upper class who will lose out. The lower class benefit hugely from the public healthcare system. They cannot afford a full healthcare plan, no health insurance would cover them because it'd be a bad financial investment, their earnings will not cover the costs. That and the lower classes get sick more, generally due to environmental factors. Under a public system they are taken care of for free, paid for out of general taxation. Under a private system they are either left to die, treat the symptoms without treating the problem or trapped in overwhelming debt.
The reason you can find statistics both ways on the public-private healthcare argument is because the waiting lines are shorter in a private system and the mortality rates are lower. That's because the average patient gets about twice as much spent on him in private as in public, not because of some intrinsic magic in private practice medicine. More lives are saved by the public system though.
The costs of curing someone are less than the costs of treating the symptoms of a condition for years on end. Lower class people without insurance will have trouble paying for the treatment they need immediately and will instead spend far more money with worse results managing the symptoms over a long period of time. Medicine has a diminishing return on investment, the improvement in healthcare is not proportionate to the increase in cost. To put that in context. Public takes X money and treats everyone with Y quality of health care. Private will take X money, treat half the people with only 1.5Y quality. Better for the people being treated but far less cost efficient. Sick people are bad for society in general. Poor people who are ill with a contagious virus ignore it and infect those around them, perpetuating the problem. While that may not bother you, eventually one of those people getting paid so little he can't afford to take a sick day will be the guy coughing over your food. To use a crude analogy, you may not like your toilet on a personal level, you may not think it deserves your investment, but you still buy products to keep it hygenic because if you don't it'll be worse for you. Public health challenges can be met with a co-ordinated, universal approach in a public system. From pandemics to obesity, public can invest (for example) in anti-smoking ads which pay for themselves and more in lower healthcare costs. The economics of healthcare change when the objective is to make a healthy society rather than to treat a lot of patients. On a related note, it's actually advantageous for a private hospital for there to be a surplus of sick people, it increases demand and therefore prices. Basic economics. Whereas a public system is given a set amount of money and told to spend it as best they can on the sick people that year which means if there's anything it can do to save itself money it will. While one profits from a sick society the other does not. I'm not suggesting that private hospitals deliberately make people ill but equally they don't attempt to reduce the healthcare costs of society as a whole. Avoidable money spent on healthcare is ultimately money wasted and is bad for everyone in society. You might think that if someone chooses burn their money that doesn't effect you but it does, its money not spent on goods or invested or put into a house. Having people without insurance burning money away treating symptoms of a condition they can't afford to cure and dying while still capable of work is a net loss for society which in turn means its a net loss for every member of society. It's an indirect loss but a 45 year old man dying of a curable condition still leaves society 20 years of productive labour worse off.
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately.
It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well.
Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1
I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)?
I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys.
Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot.
I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely.
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately.
It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well.
Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1
I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)?
I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys.
Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot.
I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely.
I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first.
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately.
It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well.
Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1
I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)?
I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys.
Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot.
I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely.
I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first.
Thank you FDR. Can we just abolish SS so we don't further bankrupt our country? (Like that would ever happen) (Insert Ronald Reagans government quote here)
The only way we will ever 'reform' 'fix' SS is when the country has gone into chapter 11. Don't delude yourself.
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately.
It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well.
Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1
I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)?
I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys.
Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot.
I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely.
I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first.
Don't delude yourself.
I like to. Removal of the FICA cap and extending the age to 70/75 would be a good start. The original social security (started by the Germans) had an age cap of 65 because the average citizen lifespan was 57 and few people had access to it, so it could easily sustain itself. As a "realist," you should know your plan isn't going to happen. It doesn't even matter who the president is. You'd have to combat the most powerful lobby in the country, which most senators belong to.
EPT
It doesn't even matter who the president is. You'd have to combat the most powerful lobby in the country, which most senators belong to.
