US v European Healthcare

[barts]

Not only do I argue that government socialism is inherently flawed because it purports to be humanitarian while reaping the lion's share in its delivery, its existence as such actually perverts the naturally communal humanitarian sentiment that gave rise to its concept in the first place.

Is it fair for me to assume, then, that in your view government should play no part, whatsoever, in what we might call charitable or socially beneficial activities? Things like providing low cost housing, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. And everything charitable or that might be considered a "public good" should be left to the voluntary good works of people like yourself? For example, the US Medicare and Medicaid programs should be ended, as should food stamps, Head Start, and SCHIP.

Unless you state otherwise, commonsense, I'm going to assume that's your view. Is it fair for me to do that?

[commonsense]

might be considered a "public good"

They are demonstrably a "public evil".

should be left to the voluntary good works of people like yourself?

And to the voluntary works of good people like you, and the majority of misguided leftist voters who so zealously advocate for such works. They are in abundance.. the majority,,, so why wouldnt it achieve what Jane Addams set out to accomplish... and was doing, until corrupted by politics?

For example, Things like providing low cost housing, health care, unemployment insurance, etc.the US Medicare and Medicaid programs should be ended, as should food stamps, Head Start, and SCHIP.

These things are self-perpetuating. It is historically demonstrable that the number of persons falling into need of such things, or availing themselves of them and their increased progeny is directly proportional (exponentially!) to these programs' existence..

Is it fair for me to assume, then, that in your view government should play no part, whatsoever, in what we might call charitable or socially beneficial activities?

So yes... Removing them would be a catalyst to superior methods.


I advocate the humanitarian genius of the U.S. Constitution.
What the states might enact experimentally as official govt arms is up to them, but such efforts are self-limiting because states (until recently) can't indiscriminately print money
(as occurred in Minnesota, for example, when they "liberalized" their welfare benefits... all it did was encourage young able-bodied kids to become unproductive and fall into drug use and attracted run-aways from all around)

Charitable humanitarian efforts would eventually take precedence over govt folly.

i volunteer teaching English at a Catholic Church to adult latinos, for example,, and I'm not a believer at all....

[Matt W]

Once more. There's a topic. Stick to it.

[do not respond]

[lsbskins1]

What I state and argue does not support having government removed from health care. Medicaid patients get no ground because Medicaid is STATE administered and suffers from severe fee for service imbalance. Medicare, on the other hand, is becoming the standard of fee and/or service for the industry because it is such a large provider. Medicare has finiancial problems because of two major issues. Just as every other business in the country operates on the privatize profit, socialize loss ideal, major insurance companies do the same. They will not pay for drugs and treatments that help you stop smoking or other treatments that increase long term health, so instead of 65 year olds in relatively good health hitting Medicare, you have clogged arteries, COPD racked lungs and other such expensive ailments costing the system considerably more in the long term, because it preserves profits for the profit makers and shoves cost down the throat of tax payers. And all this crap about the "high administrative costs of public health care" is pure crap. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of HHS getting million dollars bathrooms and office suites. Nor do government agency heads make the salaries of CEO's. Medicare is in trouble because of the overall skyrocketing costs of health care and because of having to pay the long term bills private companies "pre-auth" themselves out of or simply flat out deny. Also consider this. part of the reason our production costs are higher than foreign competetors...their governments provide health care benefits. They do not have to factor those costs into wage structures. What American business seems to want is to have the benefits of a relatively healthy workforce without ever having to pay the cost. We suck in health care not because of government involvement, but because we refuse to streamline. in areas that would benefit from streamlining (billing, coding and standardized reporting forms and formats) and refuse to expand where we need to expand (more doctors graduating so that there are enough Ortho's to treat the number of orthopaedic problems ,thus avoiding false scarcity of service costs, more preventative care/health education funding, thus preventing a large chunk of unneeded costs). Even the AMA leans towards expanding government involvement in health care, and they just love to guard-dog doctors pay. The issue really isn't the providers, it is the damn ass middle men insurance and Rx companies. If it was a universal system, where the back end loss would be carried by the same insurer, we wouldn't have those huge back end costs, because they would not be avoiding anything.

[Cruella]

A very interesting post, Ibskins1.

[barts]

Ironically, or perhaps tragically, it is in the interest of most developed countries that the United States does not have universal health care.

As Canada is discovering, its "American" automobile manufacturing facilities are more economically efficient than US factories for the simple reason of Canada's public health care system. It's cheaper to build an American car in Canada than in the US.

The competitive edge applies to many products and the lack of a public health care system in the US is one of the reasons that production is taken overseas, and Americans have fewer jobs.

If the US adopted a single payer, universal health care system its manufacturing sector would be more competitive which would be a disadvantage to other countries.

Indeed, individual taxes in the US would need to rise somewhat, but industry costs would decline. Industry makes decisions based its costs, not the tax burden on its workers.

[commonsense]

Ironically, or perhaps tragically, it is in the interest of most developed countries that the United States does not have universal health care.

As Canada is discovering, its "American" automobile manufacturing facilities are more economically efficient than US factories for the simple reason of Canada's public health care system. It's cheaper to build an American car in Canada than in the US.

The competitive edge applies to many products and the lack of a public health care system in the US is one of the reasons that production is taken overseas, and Americans have fewer jobs.

If the US adopted a single payer, universal health care system its manufacturing sector would be more competitive which would be a disadvantage to other countries.

Indeed, individual taxes in the US would need to rise somewhat, but industry costs would decline. Industry makes decisions based its costs, not the tax burden on its workers.

i dont have time now to refute this point by point, but the summary is this:
you are mixing apples and oranges. The reason the U.S. companies have satellites in Canada is because your notoriously corrupt leaders (just good at masking it) colluded with them to lower their costs to legitimate U.S. LABOR agreements they'd like to get out of.
Yet another example of why the most vehemnt socialist is a Big Multinational Corp CEO !

single payer health care system

Yeah! The single payer being the health care consumer !

[barts]

The reason the U.S. companies have satellites in Canada is because your notoriously corrupt leaders (just good at masking it) colluded with them to lower their costs to legitimate U.S. LABOR agreements they'd like to get out of.
Yet another example of why the most vehemnt socialist is a Big Multinational Corp CEO !

Next stop twilight zone.

[ironeagle]

Ironeagle, you were the one who suggested that you paid 60% taxes, m'dear. You've stated the figure several times, so I've been asking you where it came from. Do people in the US in fact actually pay 60% as you've insinuated several times, or are you imagining that you would have to pay 60% taxes in order to get UHC, as your arguments here seem a little confused - to say the least - not to mention confusing.

As you've already demonstrated more than once that you don't know the difference between Canada and Europe, I hope you'll understand why I'm asking you for clarification before I respond to your points in a detailed manner. It's important to know what someone is arguing before you argue about it, I've found.

commonsense: Today, Americans would be astonished to learn that over 60% of all they produce is usurped in the form of various taxes. It is a parasitic loss with accompanying gravely negative sociodynamics and no redeeming benefit.

I do know the difference between Canada and Europe I just wrote the wrong name on my post oh oops. You still haven't debated any of the alternatives to UHc frankly because it's clear you are not interested in any alternative remedies. Common sense and I are using the 60% figure because after you calculate payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, tax on savings and intrests earned to bank pay and the five hundred other variable taxes that appear on utility bills, and bills such as cell phone, cable, internet etc, including license fees and permits amount to about 60% of overall pay.

Here's an example, you have a family of 3 and earn 25,000.00 per year. One pay period you would earn a gross of $961.54 but you will lose $112.21 so your net is $849.33. You pay your internet bill $35.00 before taxes, $37.45 after, cable bill $55.00 B $58.85 A, Gas and electric $225.00 B $240.75 after. You also owe taxes on your home this check of $400.00. You also have to renew your tags on your car at $50.00. with what you have left you by your children $40.00 worth of clothes equaling $42.80. You now have 19.48 left to put in oyur savings account, which will also be taxed. So far you have paid $587.06 in taxes aproximatly 60% of your pay.

Now obviously most people will not have to pay property taxes out of every check however once you start putting money into accounts, and savings you will see that income is taxed as follows: each dollar in this man's pay is taxed at 11 cents on the dollar (11%) after he get his check he pays 7% on all his bills and purchases for his family so now paying 18%, when you add in all the yearly variable taxes such as property, license, tags, and other fees you get at least another 5-10% over all so 28% now add the 3% taxes on savings and you have about 31% taxation over a yearly period. The sixty percent taxation is more of a time period calculation whereas more bills and taxes may be due at once on one pay check. This doesn't include taxes on other services or local option taxes one might pay.

[lsbskins1]

ironeagle -
Ok, so would you be happier if you had to cut a check directly to the schools, for your children, the US Road Building Corp for your use of their highways, The Smithville Private Police Company for every crime investigated, the cost that would be passed to you from every business that had to pay a monthly fee to the Jones Family Fire Dept. Co. for the protection fees, oh and your monthy bill to the Fire Dept. Co. of your choice, ummmm...lets see, your portion of the costs of building the planes the Military flies, ummmmm, the Million Dollar a year bonus for the CEO of Air Traffic Control Enterprises, ummm, garbage pick up, ummmm, snow plowing, ummmm...oh, lets just say AND A THOUSAND OTHER SERVICES THE GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES? It ain't like someone is doing all of those things for free. Your taxes do PAY for things, you know. Do you think you will get to keep that money? It is really no different than paying for the loaf of bread you buy at the store. You are exchanging your wages for products and services you use. Really, you are. And if your neighbor chooses NOT to buy the monthly protection of the Fire Dept and his house catches fire, either you pay his fees in added costs too, when they have to come ANYWAY to protect your home, orrrrrr, they let your house burn down. Just extrapolate those extra charges across all areas of what are now government services. Either you cover the costs or your cheap/poor neighbor gets to put piles of stinking garbage in his front yard, etc. etc.. Some things are just better handled through taxation. But hey, you know, you just might be swimming in 100.00 extra dollars a month AND your neighbors garbage. That would be a real bargain, wouldn't it?

[commonsense]

Look Barts, Ive been sufficiently admonished to stick to the topics here... although this is debatable because if one knows history, is cognizant of the deliberately obscured political goings-on and the massive graft and collusion that exists between govt and business and labor leaders, and is unjaundiced in their analysis of current events, practically every social ill (or the exacerbation of it) one can point to in any country is directly or indirectly traceable to the advent of their govts socialistic address of it.

Barts, you indirectly claim that your govt is not nearly corrupt as I say it is.. do you really think the mass of your country's unfathomably ample natural resources are being equally shared by your populace in some sort of utopian economically egalitarian fashion because you have shoddy national healthcare and a few nice sidewalks and beautiful national parks?
Just one instance of your govt's corruption: I own stock in a canadian natural gas exploration trust and a silver mine. These smaller "upstart" companies underwent costly and economically risky exploration with additional investment in unproven tecnologicalically experimental methods of locating and extracting. Their investors gambled because of various conditions making the risks high. They gained all the necessary offical "green" provisions and permits etc etc and had to grease quite a few wheels at all levels to get them. Nobody expected the gamble to pay off, in fact they were expected to dry up and go away, offical pockets having been laughingly lined all the way .
Suddenly, because some of your govt fatcats in collusion with the "connected" firms who lay in wait, suddenly exercise ecological concerns and devise new provisions once the wildcats go into debt to discover the mother lode.
They now have them between a rock and a hard place because they are overextended and all they have worked for is lost for want of the cost of new permits etc etc etc.
your country has massive wealth in the hands of a few, and socialism colludes it. They are wise enough not to flaunt it, not as good at it as they are in New Zealand, but good all the same. In fact, I just think there is more open space in Canada to so that its less noticeable to you commoners... in NZ they have to be more creative about it and play up the "green" facade inorder to build their mansions on plots alongside the restricted from building national parklands everywhere there are the best mountaintop views.
I heard it was leaked to the press your PM regularly has secret medieval themed sex parties reserving the entire Banff Castle for his invited guests.... jk

[ironeagle]

Ironeagle, you were the one who suggested that you paid 60% taxes, m'dear. You've stated the figure several times, so I've been asking you where it came from. Do people in the US in fact actually pay 60% as you've insinuated several times, or are you imagining that you would have to pay 60% taxes in order to get UHC, as your arguments here seem a little confused - to say the least - not to mention confusing.

As you've already demonstrated more than once that you don't know the difference between Canada and Europe, I hope you'll understand why I'm asking you for clarification before I respond to your points in a detailed manner. It's important to know what someone is arguing before you argue about it, I've found.

ironeagle -
Ok, so would you be happier if you had to cut a check directly to the schools, for your children, the US Road Building Corp for your use of their highways, The Smithville Private Police Company for every crime investigated, the cost that would be passed to you from every business that had to pay a monthly fee to the Jones Family Fire Dept. Co. for the protection fees, oh and your monthy bill to the Fire Dept. Co. of your choice, ummmm...lets see, your portion of the costs of building the planes the Military flies, ummmmm, the Million Dollar a year bonus for the CEO of Air Traffic Control Enterprises, ummm, garbage pick up, ummmm, snow plowing, ummmm...oh, lets just say AND A THOUSAND OTHER SERVICES THE GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES? It ain't like someone is doing all of those things for free. Your taxes do PAY for things, you know. Do you think you will get to keep that money? It is really no different than paying for the loaf of bread you buy at the store. You are exchanging your wages for products and services you use. Really, you are. And if your neighbor chooses NOT to buy the monthly protection of the Fire Dept and his house catches fire, either you pay his fees in added costs too, when they have to come ANYWAY to protect your home, orrrrrr, they let your house burn down. Just extrapolate those extra charges across all areas of what are now government services. Either you cover the costs or your cheap/poor neighbor gets to put piles of stinking garbage in his front yard, etc. etc.. Some things are just better handled through taxation. But hey, you know, you just might be swimming in 100.00 extra dollars a month AND your neighbors garbage. That would be a real bargain, wouldn't it?

Woh where are you coming from? I said there are reasonable taxes and that those include the military, limited government administrations for public health and safety, roads and schools. I do not approve of most other use of taxes because they are not justified by the constitution. even with that the amount we pay is not just for those simple necessary services these taxes are excessive usery taxes, designed to fund unwaranted projects and government institutions with no merit. I might actually cut some checks to some other worth while programs if I though they were worth it, if the majority of my pay wasn't taxation for programs that have no real use except to waste our money. By the way we pay for our garbage, water, sewer, utilities (gas and electric), out of pocket here not through taxes, although we are additionaly taxed on top of our bills. Here's your real problem the THE GOVERNEMT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED NOR DESIGNED TO SUPPLY THOUSANDS OF SERVICES. The government was designed to secure our borders, elect officials to make important decisions and to uphold freedom . The government has violated it' scope of authority, to provide thousands of services which actually rarely if ever do much but set the people back, instead of help them. I wouldn't need the police if I didn't have to fight for my right to use a firearm to protect my property. In what way does tax money stop a neighbor from piling garbage on their lawn?