Universal Health Care in the U.S.A.
 

I'm sure a few people have seen Micheal Moore's new movie Sicko and thought to themselves "why the hell dont we get free health care. the f-ing french do"(and yes i know comparing the best of the french system to the worst of the american one is ridiculous and i dont think its the right thing to do). Well theres a very simple reason why we dont because the majority of people dont know enough about the issue, so I figured I'd post a few sites with a little info about the subject on a few sites that I like to look at across this here interweb.
So here you go folks and feel free to post even if you dont think its something that the U.S.A. needs, maybe you feel we should just find a way to take the power out of the hands of lobbyists in D.C. or whatever, lets just hear some thoughts.

These are just some of the sites I was able to put up if I have the time later i will post some more or you guys can.

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_ca...ted_states.htm

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

http://www.pnhp.org/

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_co/

"Universal Health Care in the U.S.A." Implies that anybody gets Health Care for free in america...

You mean "NATIONAL Health Care in the U.S.A." right?!

See I don't care much for national health care.

What I want is health insurance that doesn't cost 300 dollars a month.

that basically means national health care.

I dont know about everyone else, but I for one am sick and tired about being afraid that I will become sick and tired. Do you have any idea how many people I know that have had to declare bankruptcy because the couldn't afford their medical bills? My income should not be a factor when deciding which medical treatment I select

Every other developed nation has free health care, why dont we? Yea I know, they tax you for it, well like Arlankels said, when your paying 300 a month how much worse could it really be?

Well, the farther money has to travel to get you the service you want, the more it loses value.

One option is to just go straight to the doctor's office and buy his services there. A second option is for the government to tax you. Then, when you need money, you submit an application to the government and then they use some of your tax money to pay someone to look at your application. If they approve your application, and there is no guarantee that they will be accurate in doing so, then they'll give the doctor some of the tax money to help you pay your bills.

So yeah, there's pros and cons to both sides. The real question is whether the money that's lost in the red tape process is worth as much as the labor that we save by treating poor people for free. Oh yeah, and then there's something about human rights, but that's not nearly as entertaining as economics!

or show the doctor a card, you get your healthcare and let the big wigs worry about the messy paperwork. Its not "will it be accepted" it just is.

Oh, your stuff is accepted now, for the most part and at that moment... Later on is when you start getting the bills and the ass raping begins. A word of advice to any and all of you, take nothing the insurance company tells you as truth. Don't agree to anything, don't ever say you'll pay for anything. When the bills start coming start asking questions and making a stink, or you'll pay for anything they can screw around at all on. Also remember that if you truly can't afford payments most hospitals have debt forgiveness programs.

Well, somebody has to pay the big wigs right? The point is that their wages come out of the taxes that you pay, when you could just cut out the middle man by paying the doctor yourself.

you do understand how much doctors cost right? We are talking about often tens of thousands of dollars for anything serious. I dont know about you, but me and most of america cant afford that.

Having health insurance is like paying a mechanic hundreds of dollars a month to belong to their 'service club' in case your car breaks down and then when your car does break down they refuse to fix it and then charge you more per month to belong to the club. Surely there are enough varied examples of alternatives that we can hash together something better; just about anything would be at this point. We have the same situation in health care that we had when we finally nationalized the fire department; fire companies would literally stand outside your house and haggle the price with you while your stuff burned. We as a nation realized that was really bad for us as a people and did something about it. I wonder how much longer it's going to take us to come to our senses in regards to medicine.

Where do you think the money comes from? It doesn't just materialize right there in the white house. It comes out of our taxes. If the government is maintaining a public health care system, then they have to charge us extra taxes to pay for it. It's basically government-enforced health insurance.

Public health care costs everybody money. It's more about saving labor by keeping the lower-class workforce healthy. It might save you money in the long run, it might not. It's an investment.

The first option is pretty much a fantasy. It just doesn't happen. A lot of people have insurance. Those that do have to jump through hoops and go through middlemen as much as in the second option. Those that don't pretty much can't afford medical care anyway.

You're right in that national healthcare would be like socialized insurance. The difference is that it wouldn't be profit-driven; the government wouldn't be looking to skim off the top and provide as little actual service as possible, so all the "insurance payments" that go in would come out as doctor's salaries. I mean, in theory, of course; social security was supposed to be kinda like that too.

yup, in addition to that, like other systems your income influences how much is taxed. Rich give more then the poor, because they have more to give.

If only that actually worked all the way up through the income column instead of stopping at the income level where people have enough money to control lobbyists and by extension politicians.

Anyways, we know nationwide government health care works because it works in every industrialized country that bothers with it. At this point its less about taking a risk and more about getting insurance companies to let go of their profits.

Yeah, these days most people buy medical insurance or get insurance from the company that they work for, and might get that supplemented with government funding. But just because people don't do it doesn't mean that the option to pay straight up cash isn't still there. I'm sure that a lot of rich people do it. And you might have enough money to do it too, if you stop paying for medical insurance long enough. :p

I suppose you have a point about the government not being like an insurance company. However, it worries me that an organization like the government, without the potential for profit, would not have much incentive to do a good job as opposed to a crappy job. An organization that profits can actually pass the incentives down to its employees, whereas the government is working under a tight, rigid budget with little room for promotions and raises.

That's entirely subjective and unverifiable.

Fine. We know that in every country with nationalized health care more people per capita get competent healthcare. Is it always as good as its possible to get in America; well no. Conversely only a very small percentage of people actually get this super health care because its prohibitively expensive. (I personally went to the ER and got nothing but a CT, some IV vitamins, an X-ray, and talk with a psychiatrist and the bill came to over $6000. I'm fighting that one as its basically the same amount as one years tuition and I was only there for like 4 hours.) By any objective measurement significantly more people getting adequate health care is significantly better then a select few getting exceptional health care.

Well, I don't know the technicalities of our system (Canada, btw), but I can say I'm really glad I wasn't billed $6,000 the couple of times I've had x-rays done. O.o

But see you might have had to wait a few weeks to go get those x-rays done, which is clearly much less convenient than getting them done now, and then spending the next several months / years working to pay off your bill.

Well, no, I prefer waiting. And I only waited about a week. Sure, it's a bitch to spend 6 hours in the waiting room, but if my family were billed with $6,000, we'd be really, really screwed. And like... I've been to the hospital so many times for the most random problems. It would add up.

Suppose I was a college student living on my own (which isn't too far off...) I couldn't afford to pay each time I visit a hospital.

It's more of a problem if you have a serious medical problem, but then they're more likely to speed you through the process. (Tip: if you don't want to wait too long, complain about chest or heart pains >_>; )

Edit: I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not. Either way here's my reply :P

I know from family experience that in Canada, it's generally easier to have some sort of insurance, offer it up whenever you need something, and then claim the deductible on your tax return for credit that way. You still have to have insurance for the plan to work, but it's much easier in the long run. Many jobs also offer insurance as part of their benefit's package (for example, Loblaws gives it's employees family medical if they worked 400 hours over the last year), so it isn't like all poor people are screwed under this plan.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=334650

Wisconsin is trying it, $510/month per person under 65 in the state.

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I figured the italics on "wait a few weeks," the use of the word "clearly," and the general insanity of the proposition as phrased were sufficiently identifying, but I guess people (self included) tend to approach discussion threads with their "serious brain" on so these things can end up being less obvious than one might assume.

Next time I'll just put up [SARCASM] tags.

The worst part is that the X-ray and CT are less than like half the bill. The majority of the bill is for the Psychiatrist that came down and talked to me for 10 minutes. He then concluded that I was mentally stable and not depressed but slightly stressed. (Show me one damn working class person anywhere in the world that isn't stressed a little.) For that I was charged like $3000 and that just ain't right.

Here are two methods to find more money for national health insurance.

1) Stop spending money on making shitloads of bombs every year.

A normal bomb can feed and house a family for quite some time.

Smart bombs can feed and house same family more comfortably for several years if managed correctly.

2) Tax the fucking rich.

Seriously, who the hell though a flat% would work? You need sliding %s. Sure with the less money rich people might not invest as much but they also might not "invest" in yachts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, too.

Rich rule this country, doubt me? Last time I checked, everyone in the goverment is rich.

What I dont get is why are they doing all these pay-offs when they can just pay their freakin taxes in the first place.

Well in my little island we have both a public and a private healthcare system.
You can have everything subsidised by the government but wait for ages for treatment or pay lots (or with insurance) and go to the private one. It's a compromise between both worlds, kind of.
I don't know what the American system is like so I can't compare but I haven't died yet.

here is my problem, insurance wont cover a pre-existing condition. I was born with asthma. Now I am lucky, I have an unusually high breathing capacity which offsets it. So I can get by even though its active. But some people have it much more serious and need continual treatment.

They will not cover something you already have, what do they expect, me to have gotten insurance as an embryo. Worse is if you are covered at birth, if for some reason you lose it and go more then six months before getting a new one, its no longer covered.

As per my above link; For Wisconsin to do this they need to bring in a couple billion more than their total income and sales taxes combined. They will be taxing the shit out of everything and drive businesses from their state with the employment taxes that will more be more than the federal rates.

And more support for what I said earlier.
Really? I know for a fact that that is BS. Well not totally, just not in the US or any first world country.

Totally untrue, and again, and one more before I have to go to work. The idea of a transparent tax system appeals to me, everyone paying the same percentage with no exceptions strikes me as pretty darn fair. Especially when you consider that the countries that have adopted this (and New Jersey) are doing well and are exceeding their projected income from taxes.

All your articles don't really address the issue which is that flat taxes are based on the trickle-down effect which was big in the early 90's/late 80's.
Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
Most economists I've talked to don't believe in trickle_down economics anymore, especially with the rise of the "super-rich lifestyle" which sees the new rich spending lots on massive yachts and lots of resorts that are now catering to the super-rich. There are special clubs across the world, mostly in the US, for such super-rich promoting such expenditure which harms trickle-downs. I can get an article on this if someone wants to dispute that last point. I'll just need to do it at uni.

Taxes cap out in a progressive tax system and they provide many loop holes that only high bracket earners can qualify for.

1. None of those links in any way disproves anything he said.

2. Tax-code transparency is completely separate from tax-code progressivity

3. (and this actually underscores point one) America functionally has a flat tax, even skewing towards regressivity, when you calculate all the various taxes we have to pay.

And seriously weren't you complaining two whole days ago about spoiled girls in SUVs or whatever? So your solution is to make it even easier for Paris Hilton and the cast of MTV's Laguna Beach to pile up money while contributing nothing to the economy?

The idea that people who benefit the most from our society pay proprtionate to the benefits they enjoy strikes me as pretty darn fair, personally.

The idea that people at the bottom of the ladder should have the chance to improve their lot in our society do so without being crippled by a disproportionately burdensome tax bill also strikes me as pretty darn fair.

The idea that the wealthy should contribute to the public good rather than indulging their bottomless greed by accruing ever greater shares of our society's riches, ultimately allowing them to wield massively disproportionate and corrupting influence over our society, strikes me as extremely gosh-darn fair.

That was possibly even more grossly dishonest than most Wall Street Journal editorials, I honestly don't know where to even begin.

So the fact that the countries using these flat taxes are getting more revenue and growth than they did with a progressive tax scale means what then? Please tell me how that example doesn't disprove that flat taxes are a bad idea? They are working, the concept is in practice and working. It is being used in NJ, has been sice the 50's. It is working there.

I agree that people should pay what they can to contribute. All told I pay around 30% of my income to taxes, I own no property so I'm not paying property taxes yet, but those will add a couple more percentage points. With the flat taxes, the high end of the spectrum has a 19% tax, that sounds pretty good to me.

So you are now endorsing the policies of the government that you so often speak out against? So feel free to pull up more stuff that isn't pertinent.

All I'm saying is that the flat tax system is in use is working and working well, if the numbers reflected in those countries would be at all similar in the US then we'd be able to take care of the Social Security issues and reduce the defecit.

Consumers now are more aware of buying trends, how the stock market is affected by tax and interest rates, and allow that to affect their buying decisions. People are likely to buy more and invest more when things are good. Infusing that much more cash into the system does work, tax breaks have raised the stock market to all time highs. Trickle down failed massively in the Depression, there is no denying that fact. I think today it works, my previous statement about the stock market and trends in buying due to tax breaks, people are more aware and their spending reflects that.

I heard about a "fast food" hospital, where you go in, get charged a small sum of money for the ER stay, and get out of the hospital within 20-40 minutes.

Anyone have any specifics, or is this just a rumor with no factual basis?

You do realize none of those things at all indicate trickle down is working. Heck it almost demonstrates the opposite. For starters, the vast majority of people with enough invested in the stock market to see a noticeable profit already have a very considerable wealth. Not to mention as the buy more stock the majority of the money goes to majority stock holders, who are already pretty damn rich. Its a viscous cycle. Further, the products that are increasing in purchase amount the most are those high end multi-million dollar super toys. The profit generated from them goes mainly to the owners of the company who once again are already rich. So of all the money freed up by tax breaks for the rich most of it cycles right back around to the rich.

Not to mention I real indicator of the health of our economy is property. The vast majority of investments made by the lower income bracket are in realistate and somewhat in cars. Last time I heard the realistate market, more specifically mortgages, were heading for disaster. That is not a good sign for things to come; at least not for the lower income brackets.

trickle down only works if the rich spend money, but fact is they dont. When you are making hundreds of thousands a day, you litterally cant spend the money fast enough.

Now I dont understand why this is an issue, why if you have 50 billion dollars you dont just give a few to those in need, but fact is they have it and they dont. In fact they use this money to bribe their way out of taxes.

The best solution is not a flat % but a percent that increases as you go up the economic bracket. The poor pay 1%, the extremely wealthy pay 75%. Oh and I did the math. The super rich can actually live their life style on only about 2% of what they have.

Aerozord, I could live, without having to work for the rest of my life, on three million dollars.

Comfortably. Very comfortably.

That is what we have, a progressive tax scale, I'm suggesting an alternate that is working quite well in Europe.

We have a progressive tax scale in theory. In truth once you hit a certain tax bracket options appear that make it regressive. Also, its a bit too progressive in that it severely burdens the middle class. You start making about $80-$100 thousand a year and all of a sudden you owe a thousand dollars or more over and above what was taken from your paycheck. That's even claiming 3-4 dependents. I know this because my dad finally got a decent job and we suddenly found ourselves in this new tax bracket. We had been living just fine on $50-60 thousand a year and now suddenly things got super tight because the income taxes went through the roof.

So yes we have a progressive tax but all the progressiveness is packed into the bottom 30% or so of the tax bracket. The rest of it is either flat or even slightly regressive due to tax loopholes. We don't need a flat tax, we need a non-biased tax system that is truly progressive over the entire income range.

I've been backwards and forwards through both of those links (of the three links, two linked to copies of the same interview) and the only parts I saw which even appeared to address this claim were this from the interview --

-- which makes no claim as to tax revenues and itself admits that the GDP increase cannot be disentangled from other changes, and this from the Wiki entry --

-- which is footnoted to this Hoover Institute statement which itself states that GDP growth was halved after the change in tax code and this IMF study which notes that the Russian tax is not even particularly a flat tax (as well as noting that tax revenues in several tax-flattening countries did in fact fall), and neither article in any way addresses the confounding effects of concurrent reforms .

In addition to which neither article makes any particular effort to address the impact of such taxation on wealth concentration or median income

And further in addition to which neither article makes anything like a prediction of what would be the expected effects of a flat tax on an actual developed economy.

Please clarify what you mean by this statement.

EDIT:

Again, I would add to this that after accounting for the entire tax burden - payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, consumption taxes, state and local taxes - progressivity pretty much entirely disappears.

maybe we are looking at this wrong, instead of just further taxing the rich to copensate for the various loopholes we should remove those loopholes. For example, I dont think you should get a tax break for giving to chariety. If you give to the poor it should be out of the goodness of your heart not for a tax break, beside they would do it for some good PR anyways.

That of course is just one example, I know there are others. My point being is there are way too many ways to turn that 75% tax to 0%

There's that 90% of the wealth, 1% of the population stat.

So why the hell are we paying the majority?

Anyway returning to the health care issue, as we had been discussing waiting times, this seems worth mentioning.

I just read an article about how the fastest(I think it was Iowa) state for people going to the ER was something like a one hour to two hour time for the whole stay. And that's the fastest out of the country. Craazzyyy pickles.

Wish I could find that article again ;.;

I can tell you that coming from a country that has a healthcare system in place to one that doesn't actually really blows. Before, I had the NHS to take care of me. I wouldn't notice/care about the tax that came out of my paycheck every week because I knew that no matter what kind of illness/injury I had, I could just go to the hospital and get treated.

Now I had to wait until Shiney managed to get insurance for the both of us before I could even go in for a doctor visit to confirm I was pregnant. That was five months into my pregnancy. And now, every single scan/test that I have is added onto my bill. The insurance agency will only pay up to a certain amount, which means that if I need extra tests, I pay the extra money.

So you're constantly weighing up if it's worth going to see a doctor or pondering if you can live with your injuries instead to avoid the medical bill. That's sick.

Apparently the New York State college system, or maybe just the one I go to, have realized that sick students don't do well in school. So in order to combat that they tacked an extra $900 onto the tuition and sign every uninsured student up for health insurance. I don't know if its good or bad yet we'll see when I go back this fall.