Whats the difference where one pays - private insurance (with deductibles/denial) or taxes?

a reply to: Cabin


What percentage of your gross income is taken by taxes?

a reply to: Lumenari

If they charged everyone 1/10th of what the insurance companies are charging us, there will be plenty left over for education and preventive care.

Insurance companies are indeed parasites. They evolved from a useful service to parasitic organizations that have made the whole system septic.

a reply to: Lab4Us

No, it wasn't my intent... and thank you for acknowledging the same.

And I would say my response was no more or less ingenuous than yours. Because you do know that life is one big risk. Where do we draw the line in assessing these risks? And in confirming those risks? And in enforcing those risks? At what point does money become more important than the right to life? And the right to nurture and nurse that life??? That was the point of my response. By necessity, your position requires that some people judge other people and determine if they deserve healthcare.... determine if their choices in pursuing their happiness are worthy or not... whether the risks one person takes is acceptable or not. And of necessity that requires some level of interference and loss of privacy for verification, tracking and enforcement -- and that's above and beyond the loss of freedom and pursuit of happiness.

You want me to focus on smoking, okay, I'll focus on smoking. Those who die of smoking related diseases die quickly. On the other hand, tobacco smokers do not get Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease and other "manageable" conditions that require ongoing long-term care. So will you give smokers any slack for the diseases they won't get because they smoke? Smokers can also take supplements -- such as Vitamin C and CoQ10 and Inositol -- to mitigate any smoking related conditions. There are also centenarians that smoke like chimneys and drink like sailors, so we know that smoking isn't a death sentence in and of itself. And there is some evidence that those smokers most susceptible to smoking related diseases are far less likely to eat properly, exercise, and probably drink and possibly do other drugs. It's also believed that many asbestos-related conditions have been wrongly attributed to smoking (and perhaps by design). In other words, there are more factors involved than simply smoking.

But that does bring us to nutrition and how we feed and nurture our body. Does the person who prepares their own meals from whole organic fresh foods get any slack over the frozen TV dinner person? Or the junk food junkie? Are we going to make sure everyone eats the proper balance of foods and nutrients? Will our grocery store receipts be forwarded to the Minister of Health to make sure we aren't getting too much of this or not enough of that? Will our food choices be limited to those approved by Big Bro? In pre-determined amounts? Will we all be forced to buy margarine rather than butter even if we don't have any weight problems or cholesterol issues?

It doesn't end there....

This is the path we will of necessity be going down if we try to penalize some for their "risky" behavior. I know you don't want that any more than I do, but that's exactly where it will go. No matter where we draw the line, someone won't be happy and will want to draw it a little further... and then someone else won't be happy and will want to draw it just a little further than that... and so on. It's best if we just don't go there and we find better ways to educate and encourage and empower people to take better care of themselves. The healthier and stronger the people are, the more independent and resourceful the people are and the less they need from government or anyone.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Actually the same level of care without insurance companies would cost ~70-80% of what it does now. That's according to most of the research put out I have read on single payer proponents.

a reply to: carewemust

It's about 20%.
Saved my life 3 times the NHS has and is saving my mothers life also which is going well, we do not have to worry about money when we get sick plus we have the option of going private.

I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.
Stephen Hawking

No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means. - Aneurin Bevan, Founder of the NHS

originally posted by: Lab4Us
a reply to: Boadicea

And therein lies the problem. I’d wager there are thousands of Americans on these boards alone who will maintain to their dying breath that it’s their right to smoke, drink, use drugs, routinely engage in proven risky behaviors, etc., regardless of who pays for their healthcare throughout their lives. Guarantee all these behaviors will permanently cease and you would instantly have everyone on board (except insurance companies) for universal care. As long as my money would be going for healthcare for those who intentionally destroy their health, I will never support universal healthcare.

Their is an easy fix to this. Taxes on whatever items are known to cause health issues. 100% of that tax goes into health care.

In this way we are all taxed at the rate of the health conscious through payrol. However, when I buy a pack a smokes I pay a tax that goes to medical care. Same if I have an alcoholic beverage.

If someone is convicted of illegal drug use we could impose a fine on them that would go to health insurance. Of course I think we need to reevaluate what should be illegal and what should be a controllled substance. I am for legalization of many currently illegal substances.

I think this is a fair way to have universal health care and penalize those who harm themselves by excersing their freedom to do so, without having a negative impact on the health conscious. You should not have to pay for my bad habits, nor should you try to limit my freedoms to participate in my bad habits.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn


Since ObamaCare, health insurance companies can only keep 10%-15% of the revenue they generate, for admin expenses, payrolls, etc.. The rest MUST be used for treating illnesses of customers. (Official Term: Medical Loss Ratio - MLR)

Looks good on the surface, but Insurance companies raised their prices by over 200% between 2010 and 2018 so that the 10%-15% became a huge chunk of $$$.

Government pushed this upon us, and government enables the companies to rob everyone, since the Feds/States must APPROVE the requested price increases every September/October.

Those of you who are Christian and attend church regularly, should look into
www.chministries.org...

I don't qualify, but several families I know are happy as a Lark. They pay under $400 for the family and get lots of free, and low out-of-pocket medical care.

The Price is lower because church-attending Christians have fewer medial claims.

a reply to: Cabin

I agree with your assessment.

Personally I would rather pay in taxes rather then to corporations that have no incentive to keep people well.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Cabin

I agree with your assessment.

Personally I would rather pay in taxes rather then to corporations that have no incentive to keep people well.

A two-tier system could work well in America. Those who want government health care can opt-in and pay for it. We're headed in that direction.

a reply to: Lumenari

Not only would administrative costs be lower overall - nothing has to go to shareholders. In other words, no dividends or stock buybacks and other stock price manipulations to increase C level pay.

An ever growing population of US citizens have no 'company-sponsored' health insurance and among those who do, deductables and co-pays can be prohibitive.

Bankruptcies in those with, I repeat, with company-sponsored, or any kind of insurance is rising. This does not happen in civilized countries.

a reply to: carewemust

A two tiered system won't work, they'll destroy each other. Same as a pure socialist system that isn't self reliant and trades with a pure capitalist system is doomed to result in the complete destruction and annihilation of the socialist system in time.

For true government healthcare to work, much like a true socialist system, it needs to be able to focus on the good of the people first and foremost, which cannot be done when competing with a greed based healthcare system.

Is why Obamacare is disgusting. It forces people to pay into a greed based system.

Universal healthcare requires the elimination of insurance and anything related to it, not forcing people to buy it.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Cabin

I agree with your assessment.

Personally I would rather pay in taxes rather then to corporations that have no incentive to keep people well.

A two-tier system could work well in America. Those who want government health care can opt-in and pay for it. We're headed in that direction.

I don't think we need to opt out. I think it should look more like public vs private education. The education of our youth benefits everyone, even if they have no children.

Private schools don't opt out of the program. Rather they take the funds that would have gone to the public shools and charge additional fees to the parents who are looking for a different quality of education not found at public schools.

The health of the people is also a benefit to everyone. Less chances of spreading disease if everyone has access to proper medical care.

If we had public and private medical care. At the public facility an X-Ray would cost $100 and be covered by universal helath care. At the private facility an X-Ray might cost $150. Universal medical care would cover the $100 while the patient would be expected to pay the additional $50 to get a level of care they cannot get in the public sector.

a reply to: Lumenari
Genius comment. You must have really reached deep inside yourself and all of your genius connections to make this comment.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Cabin

I agree with your assessment.

Personally I would rather pay in taxes rather then to corporations that have no incentive to keep people well.

A two-tier system could work well in America. Those who want government health care can opt-in and pay for it. We're headed in that direction.

Sounds like a very reasonable solution, a step in the right direction.

originally posted by: wdkirk

Another argument will be RESEARCH. How does that get funded if not by the private sector?

And one which should be funded largely by taxpayer dollars in the interest of the people. Will it be expensive - yes - but perhaps we can build a few less new nukes and other weapons a year to fund comprehensive research.

Much research is already on the taxpayer dime, but it is private industry that PROFITS from the findings with the taxpayer receiving little credit.

We, the taxpayer, have funded this research bill in the past, present and I hope even more so in the future. Take the profit motive out of research and we will see wonders.

a reply to: Puppylove
I agree. When Obama was pushing the affordable care act, it was like putting the sheep in the Lion's den. This entire argument in the buzz feed of politics is inherently dishonest. First of all, I have huge issues with subsidizing deathcare and not preventative, holistic medicine as a community. If what we think of as the government wasn't controlled by the fascist materialists of the Deep State who continue to siphon (e-hem DISTRIBUTE) the wealth of this country into the World Bank and all of it's subsidiary corporations, whose agenda it is to destroy most of the world's population or employ mind control strategies to use human beings as assets for their own domination agenda and the pretend Armageddon the Zionists and the Dominionists. Until we get rid of the criminals and untie ourselves from this financial system and create a real means of exchange that results in a mutually beneficial transaction, we can't have a Universal Healthcare System, because it's just another form of embezzlement for dark money. That's the real answer.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Either way we pay for the research. Either up front by paying scientists to do the research or on the back end by paying exorbitant prices for medicine to recoup the costs of research.

I prefer we fund the scientist up front as a society and maintain affordable medicine on the back end.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Cabin

Easy..

With insurance companies you have a parasite taking .30 off every dollar spent on healthcare THAT IS NOT PREFORMING A HEALCARE RELATED FUNCTION!

They are a middleman taking 1/3 as a few to paper push..


That’s why every other modern country on the planet has dropped them.

I agree. Let's drop the insurance companies entirely and return to the days of the patient paying the doctor directly out of pocket for the services, up front and at the time of service. Costs would go down tremendously... but, as should be the case, you gotta pay to play and if you can't pay, well... no play for you.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: FyreByrd

Either way we pay for the research. Either up front by paying scientists to do the research or on the back end by paying exorbitant prices for medicine to recoup the costs of research.

I prefer we fund the scientist up front as a society and maintain affordable medicine on the back end.

Well said.