It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would you pay extra tax for heath services ?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 04:06 PM
Many people dislike what Tony Blair and the earlier Governments have done to the UK Health Service.

The original idea was a good one - everyone pays national insurance and everyone is guaranteed a certain level of heath care when needed without having to pay more for it (unless you choose to go private).

However, Blair is constantly lauding the US version whereupon people need private insurance policies in order to get basic heath benefits. This is fine for those who can afford it or get it as a perk of their jobs, but if you are on minimum wage and can't afford the insurance, you can't really afford to go to the doc. Another problem with this system is that if you are seriously ill and your insurance runs out, you are expected to pay for any extras. (As happened to Christopher Reeve).

Now - a question for the American members of ATS ... this has intrigued me for quite a while.

How many of you would be willing to pay more taxes if everyone in the US was guaranteed a certain level of health care free of extra payments?

Apologies for the typo in the title

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by Pisky]

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 04:11 PM
If I could be assured that is (the tax) what it would be used for and they would be top line health facilities , sure I wouldn't mind.

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 04:17 PM
Yes, I would gladly pay more taxes for a socialized form of health insurance.

Americans, don't believe the hype! As an American, when I was living in Germany, I at first was so pissed about the tax rate. Almost 40% of my check went to taxes. But guess what?

When our son had a seizure, and we had to rush him to the hospital, guess how much was our 'out of pocket' expense? answer= 0

Guess how much we had to pay towards a deductible? answer=0

Did we have to wait months to be able to see a doctor?

We we able to choose any doctor we wished( even one not in the 'network')?

Did we have to wait years for the surgery he needed?

On the other side, we just had a baby here in Chicago in July of last year.

Deductible: $1000.00

Insurance after deductible: out of pocket expense is 10%, then insurance covers the remaining 90%

Every doctor visit: for required immunizations, check ups and so on on a newborn/baby=$125.00 per visit, up to the deductible of $1000.00

In Germany, we never had to pay a stinking cent.

Socialized medicine is the one form of Socialism I'll accept in a heartbeat.

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 04:25 PM
Good topic. In Canada we have had it all. Supposedly we have free health care but the reality is this:

several provinces levy a health tax on all paid employees of a firm, the employer pays.

some provinces make each working adult pay a modest fee every month.

nearly all provinces have existing tiered service eg. blue cross and other plans which depending on your employer or you own pocket book determines your level of care.

with stories of people laying in a hall way for hours with broken legs and bleeding etc., due to shortage of staff and beds and doctors and rooms etc., welcome to the animal hospital.

in fact most animal hospitals are starting to look better than hospitals for people, most vets make more money that regular medical doctors too.

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 04:49 PM
This is one of those topics that really get yer head spinnin...

As a lib'ral, you'd expect that I'd want nationalized health care.

Well, maybe I do. But the trouble is, of course, that we've learned any process that eliminates competition devolves into crap.. I'm interested to know how Germans rate their health care, quality wise. I have seen the accounts of Brits and Canucks who aren't happy, but I've never heard the Germans before now. So are they overall happy with what they have? They get access, but is it to excellent doctors and nurses?

At any rate, I don't see nationalized health care as a panacea. But then our present system is full of holes too.. a real problem that doesn't get talked about enough is in the realm of malpractice insurance.. many specialists are leaving their professions because they can't afford the insurance.

I have this sneaking hunch that this is an area so complex that no solution is perfect. You will have to pick your poison, so to speak. In that case I follow the dictum "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:04 PM

believe me man, the US system is not that bad. What they need to do is find a way for more coverage for people that do not have it because not everyone works at a multi-national firm with full benefits etc.

socialized health care is no plum by any means.

now they are bringing in foreign trained doctors with questionable creditentials and experience to practice here because they are cheaper. That is nasty, really nasty.

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:06 PM
It depends I would have to see the plan before I said yes or no

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:11 PM
I would do HANDSPRINGS to have National Health Insurance. YES YES YES

I'd pay more taxes in a heart beat. This $415 a month out of my pocket or $5,000 a year for private coverage THAT DOESN'T PAY FOR # ANYWAY IS REPUBLISCAM BS!

TO HELL WITH PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICINE! DAMN IT TO HELL! I'm a few hundred thousand in the hole from insurance over the past 20 years and haven't even been sick yet! But I need it "just in case".

Socialization saves you and I money!!!

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 08:20 PM
If there was not a law preventing me from doing so I would join a large(really large) group that could twist the arm of the insurers and government to put fairness back in the system for both patients and doctors - I would start with the outragous amounts spent on advertising by pharmacutical companys followed by fair tort reform where the loser pays so that my insurance company would not settle because its cheaper to do so, this is the method used by many to scam the money out of my pocket and yours.

Can you believe this is against the law, thats the change needed - let the patient make the decision for christs sake.

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 09:57 PM
Would this theoretical health system that were paying into be a hmo, or ppo? J/k

Socialized medicine would be a step in the wrong direction, I think. Sure, it sounds good on paper and propaganda and it's a nice thought, sounds caring and all. But it would be a mistake. It would probably look a little like the VA system. Do we really want the government in charge of health care?? I'd bet health care would cost more socialized than in our current system. Besides, the money still has to come from somewhere!

I think tort reform is needed too. Doctors can't afford insurance. And sure, prescription drugs are expensive. Only a few hours away, seniors in my state travel to Canada for meds. Canada has price fixing so their drugs are cheaper. In other words, the US is subsidizing Canadian health care. They sell low to Canada and other countries and have to charge Americans more. The drug companies, Im sure, could use a beat down but without the for-profit system how can they recoup their R&D and move on to develop the next life saving drug? Its real easy to blame the drug companies! Politicians love to make big business the boogieman. And then, how do we retain quality doctors developing and providing leading edge care? Great minds wont give the health care profession a shot if its socialized.

Granted, there are a lot of problems with our healthcare system but socializing it isnt the answer.

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:04 AM
"Yes, I would gladly pay more taxes for a socialized form of health insurance. " Followed by a signature of Live Free or Die? Color me confused?

What I want is Health Insurance not a socialized health care plan. About 20-25 years ago we got away from people paying for their own health care and started to migrate to "plans." Now you go for a check up-the plan covers it. Got the Flu? Use the plan. Need a pill, no problem, big discount on the "plan." Who the heck cares what it cost's? It ain't like I'm paying for it. Nothing but the best for me!

Insurance used to connotate coverage for catastrophic loss. OMG, I need heart surgery-It's OK...I have insurance...the most it will cost me is $1500 plus $25 a day in the hospital.

There was a time that normal health costs were bourne by you, the consumer. If the X-Ray's are $250, you asked the Doc if they were really necessary or maybe decided that you had the option of shopping a better deal. "Maybe we just shoot one or two pictures Doc instead of 5 different angles-my kids need new shoes?"

Now the plan negotiates what they think is a fair price to pay. Doctors aren't set up for you to actually pay for your own service! In many cases, by law, the Doctor can only accept what is paid by "the plan." If they say well, your plan will pay $200 for the needed X-rays and your co-pay is $50-they have just broken a US federal law! Take what we say it's worth or don't do business with "the plan." Charge more? Go to jail.

Try to give a doctor cash. Watch for the office manager, they will have to call her out because no one ever tried to pay with money before. They'll look at you like you are from freakin' Mars!

(And who can blame them? Despite popular opinion you have no right to health care-health care providers deserve to be paid for their services)

Here's the real kicker; there are fewer and fewer plans out there. If you listen real close to the current crop of Dem's they will tell you, "We need a single payer plan to fix health care!" That's code for "The Government should run Health Care via controlling what is covered and how much can be charged for it," AKA HillaryCare.

What we need here now is a Canadian or a Brit to finish this post! (That or someone with lots of experience with Tri-and-get-Care)

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade
"Yes, I would gladly pay more taxes for a socialized form of health insurance. " Followed by a signature of Live Free or Die? Color me confused?

And Socialized medicine would have what to do with freedom? No rights are being taken away from consumers. The government won't tell you what is covered, and who you have to see. Never had that problem in Germany.

Ever had a major medical procedure? Ever have a child?

After the $1000.00 deductible (which I'm still paying on), the hospitable bill, including room, delivery, circumcision, food, shots, and so on, came out to over $6000.00. Now, we have to pay 10% of that, equaling a grand total of $1600.00 out of pocket expense. I don't know about you, but $1600.00 is alot of cash to me.

Then, what about well baby care? All the immunizations that are required by law? Hepatitis( how the hell a baby can contract hepatitis is beyond me. Hepatitis is contractable through sex or sharing needles), rubella, and the myriad of other diseases a human can contract. Every three months we have to go to the doctor for shots, until the baby is 2 years of age. That's $250.00 per visit. Well guesss what? It's 2004, and a new year has begun! The deductible starts all over again. Another $1000.00 out of pocket expense.

And don't try this,' they can only charge you what the plan will pay' nonsense. You get a bill from the hospital, you pay it, or else your credit is ruined. Or you end up in court. It'll cost more to try and fight a few thousand dollar bill, than to just pay it and be done with it.

That is the reality of it

Under Socialized medicine, none of this would occur. You can choose your own doctors; they do not have to be in the network of your 'plan'. And no, it is not free. Our taxes would pay for it. Just like our taxes pay for the $180 billion dollar defense budget. Or for the roads we drive on, that are still falling apart. Or for the schools, that are still run down and decrepid.

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:16 AM
First, this will never happen. The drug companies and their lobbyists make way too much $$$$ the way things are. And, it's not the Dems or the Repubs, it's BIG business. Politicians go along with the status quo because they get $$ from the durg cos and their lobbyists.

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
First, this will never happen. The drug companies and their lobbyists make way too much $$$$ the way things are. And, it's not the Dems or the Repubs, it's BIG business. Politicians go along with the status quo because they get $$ from the durg cos and their lobbyists.

Also true. In Illinois, they are trying to pass a law to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from Canada.

Hope it goes through.

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 03:20 PM
Ya know, I come out against many forms of socialism time and time again and you all know it. Health care might be the one area I'd conceed in if it were done the right way. See, as we have it now, our health care system isn't all that good. We do have national health care for the poor and elderly but the stickler is it isn't 100% free all the time. If the government want to regulate healthcare, thats fine and if everybody wants to pay a yearly fee for it thats fine too provided we all paid and not just the ones that bust our asses all day to make money. Inevitably, you will have leeches upon every program that offers to help people and they are a large part of why most social programs that confiscate money from the people that earn it and redistribute it to those who can't (or worse..just plain won't) fail.

I'll admit, it'd be great to lose 50 bucks a month and have health care whenever I needed it but realistically, once we get into the cost, for most of us working stiffs, its easier and more affordable to buy our own through a group you might think thats not very generous but when you consider we also pay for the thousands upon thousands who are already on the govt. tit with free health care, who are the ones that are really struggling?

So, my point of view is, if it can be done at a substancial savings to the people and if the cost can be collected evenly for services rendered, (maybe if you have a lot of medical proceedures, you pay a little more than those who didn't use it up to a cut-off point not much higher) then I say go for it. I'm not holding my breath however and here's why. When it comes to effectively managing fiscal programs, which entity do we know that just plain sucks at it? Yep, the Federal Government. Probably the worst run enterprise ever concocted financially speaking. 70% of everything they run through is waste! 70%! So why are we to assume that they could effectively manage health care?

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 03:47 PM
I don't usually contribute here but I like the socialized medicine.I just retired from Canadian Air Force and thats sure going down hill but I think I had fairly good medical coverage in forces.I retired in Saskatchewan a province in the prairies and they have no premium health care and that is nice but I do have an extra package that I carried over from military that gives me %80 coverage for meds and a better room in hospital.This costs me $17 something Canadian a month.I know our system isn't perfect by far and there is a longer wait for some procedures but I feel fairly safe medical wise

posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 12:51 PM

And Socialized medicine would have what to do with freedom? No rights are being taken away from consumers. The government won't tell you what is covered, and who you have to see. Never had that problem in Germany.

Perhaps not in Germany, but the closest thing we have here is Medicare and in my case Tri-Care. And yes, they do control who you see by virtue of controlling the funds. In Tri-cares world they tell you you must go to a certain hospital (1 in our city of 250K) and what Dr's. you can see (only some are Tri Care providers) they set a price for a service and the Dr./Hospital by law can't charge you anything else. This generally equates that the better Drs. don't accept the low payments and I end up with some guy who got his diploma from Rwanda by corespondence! IF I even get to go. First you get checked out by someone (usually a RN or PA) who decides if you get to see a real Dr or specialist.

So, yeah, keep telling me how great it would be to put the Government in charge. one thing the US government does an economicaly efficient job of.

posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 08:28 PM
Just look across the northern border:

"Premiers fear collapse of health-care system" 350116467

I don't care how much more GDP the US has over Canada, this would likely be the same outcome within the US 'if' and 'when' the US adopted a socialized healthcare system/plan.


posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 09:13 PM
I would gladly pay more taxes for health care. If and only if there were no other out of pocket expenses.

I think that we should go one step further with it though. What I mean by this is they should take 35% of our paycheck; this would pay for health care as well as utilities such as electric, water, and gas (well whatever you use for heating).

There is no reason that this couldn't be accomplished through taxes. We already pay way too many in taxes and receive nothing in return. The government wastes too many tax dollars on stupid crap and pay raises for legislators. I mean come on when are Americans going to wake up and question the fact that congress tries to pass a bill most every year for a pay raise. Congress already makes too much money there is no way they should be making over $100,000/yr that is a little ridiculous when there are people living on the streets or like me (I frame houses) who are barely making it by the skin of my teeth.

In short raising our taxes to 35% or even 40% to pay for health care and necessary utilities wouldn't put a strain on anybody including the providers of these services. It would make life easier for most Americans simply because we wouldn't have to worry about being able to pay the bill.

posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade

And Socialized medicine would have what to do with freedom? No rights are being taken away from consumers. The government won't tell you what is covered, and who you have to see. Never had that problem in Germany.

Perhaps not in Germany, but the closest thing we have here is Medicare and in my case Tri-Care.

Im a bit confused. I don't know what 'Tri-Care' is. IS this a form of health insurance? a PPO or HMO? Or is it a form of Medicare?

Not being sarcastic, I just don't know what it is.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in