Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
because you don't live in a vacuum. You already pay taxes. Maybe a few dollars at most pay for the health care of others uninsured.For example, I'm able to remove a maximum $2,500 from my paycheck, pretax, to pay for health costs. Why am I limited to only $2,500? Why not allow me $10,000? Why not simply let me keep my money and find my own goddamn insurance?
How much was your fwd tax bill? Divide that up with the cost of war, etc and fed grants to small biz etc, and divide some more.... get the drift?
Stop whining about responsibilies and obligatulions. Freedom isn't free, so STfU and pay your bill.
:jO
Anyone who has half a brain in Britain goes private... they don't use the NHS unless they can't afford insurance... because it's crap.
Why do the right wing-nuts always mention Canada and also misrepresent Great Britain?
Why do the conservatives always ignore that what Americans want and will do is make their own way and not copy a system from others?
Why does the GOP have so little respect for American ingenuity when it comes to figuring out a way around the health care crisis even they admit is real?
Here is how 5 Capitalist Democracies have dealt with health care. Maybe we can pick and choose things from them and stay away from mistakes made and stop trying to say as the GOP does, that we should re-invent the wheel?
bumpSwitzerland
An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system +Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6
Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.
Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.
What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.
How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.
What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are..
Sure, but collapse of the nation is infinitely less likely than a low or no return on investments.
Sure, but if you were to look at the return on Social Security Benefits/Social Security Taxes paid you would find it negative in all but a very few who reach very old ages. Low returns trump negative returns and with the market performing as it has throughout history, you are much more likely to do well with a private fund compared to the current SS system.
And if you don't happen to reach retirement age, at least your heirs have something.
Immie
I would disagree with the assessment that it's negative returns. Of course, I'd also point out that Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's a form of social insurance.
Sure, but if you were to look at the return on Social Security Benefits/Social Security Taxes paid you would find it negative in all but a very few who reach very old ages. Low returns trump negative returns and with the market performing as it has throughout history, you are much more likely to do well with a private fund compared to the current SS system.
And if you don't happen to reach retirement age, at least your heirs have something.
Immie
I would disagree with the assessment that it's negative returns. Of course, I'd also point out that Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's a form of social insurance.
most arguments about SS ignore this basic fact: ''Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's a form of social insurance'' ... this exposes the idiocy of most arguing
go figure
I would disagree with the assessment that it's negative returns. Of course, I'd also point out that Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's a form of social insurance.
most arguments about SS ignore this basic fact: ''Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's a form of social insurance'' ... this exposes the idiocy of most arguing
go figure
Like I said, piss poor insurance that no one in their right mind would purchase if not forced to by the government.
Does that remind you of something else that they are trying to force upon us?
Immie
most arguments about SS ignore this basic fact: ''Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's a form of social insurance'' ... this exposes the idiocy of most arguing
go figure
Like I said, piss poor insurance that no one in their right mind would purchase if not forced to by the government.
Does that remind you of something else that they are trying to force upon us?
Immie
Social Security is a safety net program. Safety of the program is more important than rate of return on any monies. Keep greed out.
Quote: Originally Posted by california girl
anyone who has half a brain in britain goes private... They don't use the nhs unless they can't afford insurance... Because it's crap.
FACT!!!!!!!!!!!
We have been adjusting things in SS since it's establishment. There is no way to exactly plan for something like SS. Nobody has a crystal ball that can predict the things we'd need to know. Models are the best we have...flawed models, but one thing is clear...Like I said, piss poor insurance that no one in their right mind would purchase if not forced to by the government.
Does that remind you of something else that they are trying to force upon us?
Immie
Social Security is a safety net program. Safety of the program is more important than rate of return on any monies. Keep greed out.
A safety net with a hole in it the size of Rhode Island is no safety net.
It seems to me that the program is more important to some than providing for the needs of the people that it is supposed to help.
Immie
Kennedy didn't get to choose country. He was an American.health care family feud
top 5 answers on the board.
here's the question: which country did ted kennedy choose for his end of life care?
Kennedy didn't get to choose country. He was an American.health care family feud
top 5 answers on the board.
here's the question: which country did ted kennedy choose for his end of life care?
Ted fought to try and get others the same quality of care he got.
Contrast that with what you propose and the Conservatives propose: a tiered system where you get to pay and get next to nothing in return.
I'll go with what Kennedy wanted Americans to have as opppsed ti your ''just say no'' approach.
*wink
Kennedy didn't get to choose country. He was an American.health care family feud
top 5 answers on the board.
here's the question: which country did ted kennedy choose for his end of life care?
Ted fought to try and get others the same quality of care he got.
Contrast that with what you propose and the Conservatives propose: a tiered system where you get to pay and get next to nothing in return.
I'll go with what Kennedy wanted Americans to have as opppsed ti your ''just say no'' approach.
*wink
...
Ted fought to try and get others the same quality of care he got.
Contrast that with what you propose and the Conservatives propose: a tiered system where you get to pay and get next to nothing in return.
I'll go with what Kennedy wanted Americans to have as opppsed ti your ''just say no'' approach.
*wink
I knew your where naive, but you are gullible too.....
All Uncle Teddy wanted is for you to believe that's what he wanted, he never intended for you to have the same care he received.....
yawn.Kennedy didn't get to choose country. He was an American.health care family feud
top 5 answers on the board.
here's the question: which country did ted kennedy choose for his end of life care?
Ted fought to try and get others the same quality of care he got.
Contrast that with what you propose and the Conservatives propose: a tiered system where you get to pay and get next to nothing in return.
I'll go with what Kennedy wanted Americans to have as opppsed ti your ''just say no'' approach.
*wink
Kennedy could have went anywhere on the planet for his care, why didn't he go to Canada or anywhere else, Mawst? There's no law that says Americans must stay in the USA, are you THAT dumb?
ObamaCare does NOT give everyone access to high quality care!!! In fact, under Emanuel's "Complete Lives Sysytem" Teddy would have been denied care!
Because Canada's system is fubarred about as bad as England's.
Then why do you guys keep mentioning all these other countries and why we should be like them?
We have a lot of respect for Americans far beyond just their ingenuity. There could have been 50 individual experiments on this problem, but the federal government decided to try just one. Then when they couldn't make a reasonable plan that saved money, they came up with this bastardization. Ignoring waht Americans told them they didn't want by the way.
What innovation?Because Canada's system is fubarred about as bad as England's.
Then why do you guys keep mentioning all these other countries and why we should be like them?
We have a lot of respect for Americans far beyond just their ingenuity. There could have been 50 individual experiments on this problem, but the federal government decided to try just one. Then when they couldn't make a reasonable plan that saved money, they came up with this bastardization. Ignoring waht Americans told them they didn't want by the way.
This is the essential problem with the current solution. Once enacted, there will be no place to go except for the very rich, and innovation will have been quashed outside of the control of a federal bureacracy.
