It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sc2099
I totally 100% agree that the cost of treatment is the real problem with any medical system, public or private. If prices for treatment weren't ridiculously inflated due to the exhorbitant cost of malpractice insurance and student loans, not to mention the drug pushers, I mean drug reps, medical care would be affordable and socialized medicine would be a nonissue.
chickenshoes, I read where you said that you'd be willing to take some money out of your check to pay for your healthcare...but I'm confused. If you're willing to pay for your own healthcare, why do you want the rest of the tax base to chip in? If it's because the money you could set aside out of your own check isn't enough to cover the expense and you need to have others contribute so you can afford medical care, then I stand by my previous statement that that is stealing money from others.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Medical costs are admittedly ridiculously high in the Western world, hence the outsourcing of operations etc to India, where costs are a 1/3rd but of equal quality.
Naturally the bulk of costs surrounding healthcare go to the medical professionals. Material costs (ie medicine/ implants) will always be high due to the cost of development. For every drug that gets through, ten others will fail (at considerable cost to the company).
Hence artificially lowering the price of healthcare is impossible to do if quality is to be maintained. This is why the NHS uses sub-par implants.
With some sort of public backed medical overdraft facility, a person could choose which level of care to go for; in a free market environment. There would be providers catering to the lower end segments of the market (ie those presently on medicare/ medicaid). However there again market competition means only the most efficient and cheapest hospitals will survive, thereby meaning a better standard of care even on a budget.
A state run system leads to inefficiency and sub-par care. Under the NHS, just until a couple of weeks ago, patients on the NHS were not allowed to pay out of their own pocket to access a better quality of medication while being treated by NHS doctors (who are equally brilliant to their private counterparts).
The only other issue with this proposal, as you pointed out, is that people with chronic diseases will end up racking up huge debts. Here I am inclined to allow natural selection to take its course... I see no point in wider society being burdened by someone who is going to die anyway. If that seems uncaring, its because it is. There is no pragmatic justification for prolonging the life of someone with a chronic condition. As such there should probably be a limit cap on the overdraft account, set by medical professionals.
I am struck by your compassion for your compatriots. Having your hard earned money taken away from you willingly to pay for the treatment of someone you have to obligation to care for is a really strange idea to me. Do you have such love for all your countrymen? What about those who have brought their condition upon themselves? What about those who had the opportunity to be responsible for themselves but didnt want to take it? What about those who irresponsibly bring children into the world without being able to care for them? What about criminals?
Originally posted by chickenshoes
But, who are you to judge who brought what on themselves?
That would however lead to inferior healthcare for the poor. I suppose that poor quality care is better than no care.
The poor wouldn't be able to contribute enough to the system, and their usage of the system would be disproportional to how much they pay in. Basically the UK gov't will never allow opting out because the rich pay into the system without using it.
BS The problem is with all the tax loop holes the rich aren't paying their fair share.
The rich will always pay the brunt of everything. I suppose that is a consequence of having all of the money.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline. Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.
Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.
Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households.
...Based on this, the next time you want to argue with your Primary Care doctor's front desk about a $5.00 co-pay, remember that he makes an average of $149,000.00 per year. On the other hand -- using United Healthcare as an example -- your insurance company paid their CEO -- one man -- $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.
If you are uninsured, try calling any one of these 23 CEOs and see if they will give you free insurance.
BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.
Originally posted by chickenshoes
reply to post by 44soulslayer
Well, could you tell me why you wouldn't use it?
What are the advantages of you having private insurance as opposed to NHS?
And, how much are you required to pay in?
I don't know about where you are, but from what I've seen in the US, Medicaid is pretty darn good. Although, I don't know how high and dry they would leave a person should they develop some chronic illness which would require long months of expensive treatment.
The only problem is that Medicaid is for only the very poor. It doesn't take into account all the people like me and my husband who work very hard but still can't afford insurance for themselves.