RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care

RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:23:33 PM)
Yes, you should. But, you should do it of your own ability, not force it from other's abilities. You can choose for you, not others. So you do not believe in democracy???

mnottertail -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:24:42 PM)
Well my point being that our GDP would be per capita larger than yours, I believe we are still not even in the ballpark at the 9% or 11% measurements being thrown about. 9% of 100 dollars compared to 11% of a thousand Somebody (other than the fucking measurement of GDP which is the same usefulness of measuring against mouse turds) does not account for the fact that we have: X number of bankruptcies due to medical bills. You have Y number of bankruptcies due to medical bills. Your Y = 0 (ZERO, ZED, OWT and so on and so forth) our X is significantly (on the order of Quasar significantly) larger than that. (and not included in GDP percentages of cost....as are other issues not included. So we have that whole divided by zero thing going on here and somebody is hiding logarithms with GDP percentages and pretending that a comparison is inside of hallucination enough so as not to be macabre blather. So, I was just trying to scale the foolishness to equivalent foolishness. Because if we are talking foolishness, we should be on the same joke at least.

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:29:15 PM)
Yes, you are right. Our politics are backwards. We the People hold the power, except that which we give to government. We don't rely on our rights being given to us by government, but to be protected by government. Very different. And what exactly is different?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well my point being that our GDP would be per capita larger than yours, I believe we are still not even in the ballpark at the 9% or 11% measurements being thrown about. So, I was just trying to scale the foolishness to equivalent foolishness. Point taken. my bad. But how do you explain that to someone like Desi (and a few others) who just can't grasp the essential differences between a state funded single-payer system and that of private medical insurance systems?? They seem to want to shoe-horn their understanding into a private scheme and it just doesn't fit at all.

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:30:48 PM)
because the US Constitution does not give unlimited authority to the Federal Government. What specifically is denied to the fed?

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:33:43 PM)
Protecting someone's life via health care is different, though. If someone climbs to the top of a bridge and is threatening to commit suicide by jumping into the river, the local police, fire and water rescue teams will show up to attempt to talk the person down. This, is definitely saving that person's life. But, it's also removing that person's right to choose whether to live or die. Isn't that a right? Since attempting to commit suicide is a crime in the u.s. just how do you justify the above moronic conclusion?

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:34:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Either there was "profit" in the system before prices rose, or other things are now not being funded as money is shifted towards rising NHS costs. This is where you're missing the label. The rises in costs are met by shifting taxes from one pot into the NHS where needed. The burden to the tax payer doesn't rise. ETA: Profit is not required in a single-payer system like there needs to be for a private one. Ergo, whether there is profit or not is irrelevant in a single-payer system - it is all funded by taxes. I'm not explaining my point well. lol [image]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46402000/gif/_46402070_uk_budget466_280.gif[/image] Since the UK is running deficits, there aren't enough tax revenues to cover all spending. Rising health care costs means less money is going to other public goods. What I meant by "profit" was that there was more money coming in than being spent, which, obviously isn't the case. What isn't being funded fully, or who is going to end up footing the bill for the rising costs? The consumer may not be paying at the point of service, but there are consumers who will be having to add more into the pot. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It is a good thing that providers can concentrate on the patient more, but, at some point, someone will have to face the fiscal implications. That's why we have a health minister - that's their responsibility. And, the taxpayer... quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I mis-spoke. Please allow me to correct my comment thus: "That there is even the existence of a private market in the UK demonstrates that there are wants not being met by the NHS." And I'll give you the same answer. Those wants are to beat waiting lines for non-essential surgery or for the luxury of having a private room. It is for expediency, not essential healthcare. Exactly. I was incorrect in using "needs," so I changed it to "wants." Completely my error. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Charity care can be gained every day of the week if you're a visitor, legal or illegal. Only here, in the single-payer system, it's not charity. It's the same regular service that everyone gets regardless of wealth or position in society. In a private system, you seek charity. Which from my understanding of things, is often inferior service to what you might have received under a fully-paid insurance scheme. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Charity care is given out by pretty much every provider. There aren't - to my knowledge anyway - public clinics where charity care patients are required to seek care. Whether the care provided at a hospital is of the same quality, I can't say yes or no, but I can't imagine the care providers are truly shorting those without insurance. I would not have any problem believing the opposite, that providers charge insurance more.

mnottertail -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:36:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well my point being that our GDP would be per capita larger than yours, I believe we are still not even in the ballpark at the 9% or 11% measurements being thrown about. So, I was just trying to scale the foolishness to equivalent foolishness. Point taken. my bad. But how do you explain that to someone like Desi (and a few others) who just can't grasp the essential differences between a state funded single-payer system and that of private medical insurance systems?? They seem to want to shoe-horn their understanding into a private scheme and it just doesn't fit at all. You can't because they cannot see that whether you pay the taxes to the government or write it directly to the nhs as a separate number it would be the same except paper, postage, hassle, yadda yadda yadda. (except less than private insurance, for reasons of fragmenting the market and releasing a great deal of restraint of trade which we practice here as free market. (Every bloke calls himself a tory here has misread adam smith, that old tax collector) ****************************************** Taxes..........EE-YUL EE-YUL EE-YUL. Pay a check for free market: BRILL!!! Work on that but sort of dumb it down, and you might chip the china.

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:46:26 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I still believe, wholeheartedly, that Senators shouldn't be directly elected by the population, but by the State legislatures, as originally written. Is it possible that there was a reason for changing the constitution? Is it possible that a student of american history might be mindful of those reasons? Is it possible that if a student of american history were mindful of those reasons such idiotic shit as is being responded to might cease.

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:47:39 PM)
The moral and charitable side of me does want to help people who are less fortunate for me. of course[8\|] Government is force and threat of force. And here we all thought it was of the people,by the people and for the people....when did it change? Not surprisingly, we were a nation of charity care filling the gaps Perhaps on tv but not so much in the real world. And, initially, insurance was a perk from an employer to enrich the employee (by reducing the amount of money the employee would have to spend on health care). This was because there was a wage freeze and employers circumvented the freeze by offering perks. The only wage freeze in the u.s. since ww2 was in 1971 and it only lasted about a thousand days and 93% of all the request for exceptions to the freeze were granted. Are we to believe that there was no employer supplied health insurance until 1971[8\|] I am gonna call bullshit on that one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomes_policy That's how employers started offering health insurance; because of government intrusion. Disease kills you. Health care heals you. Lack of health care does not kill. Disease kills.

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:50:57 PM)
Two points: National Defense is in the US Constitution. The fact that national defense is in the constitution is irrelevant to the question. And, bank robbers have no way of not paying for police. Even though they are opposed to the efforts of the police, they are still gaining protection (like, from other robbers) The winnebago decisson,that you are quite aware of, makes it quite clear that that is not one of the cops jobs.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 12:53:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Either there was "profit" in the system before prices rose, or other things are now not being funded as money is shifted towards rising NHS costs. This is where you're missing the label. The rises in costs are met by shifting taxes from one pot into the NHS where needed. The burden to the tax payer doesn't rise. ETA: Profit is not required in a single-payer system like there needs to be for a private one. Ergo, whether there is profit or not is irrelevant in a single-payer system - it is all funded by taxes. I'm not explaining my point well. lol [image]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46402000/gif/_46402070_uk_budget466_280.gif[/image] Since the UK is running deficits, there aren't enough tax revenues to cover all spending. Rising health care costs means less money is going to other public goods. What I meant by "profit" was that there was more money coming in than being spent, which, obviously isn't the case. What isn't being funded fully, or who is going to end up footing the bill for the rising costs? The consumer may not be paying at the point of service, but there are consumers who will be having to add more into the pot. Actually, no, none at all. They re-route where other taxes may have gone; like the defense budget or triming the costs of minister's expenses etc. They may also sell-off government subsidised enterprises, like our Royal Mail postal system so they get the revenue from the sale of shares and no longer have to further subsidise that enterprise. No consumer throughout the land pays any extra for any rise in healthcare costs. Not one red cent extra. ETA: there are more than enough revenues to cover the spending - it's where that spending occurs that causes the problems. But simple things like shelving long-term infrastructure spending can be cut or moth-balled to cover rising healthcare costs. Those costs are not passed on to the patient like they would have to be for a private system where a profit is essential to viability. quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It is a good thing that providers can concentrate on the patient more, but, at some point, someone will have to face the fiscal implications. That's why we have a health minister - that's their responsibility. And, the taxpayer... They don't pay any extra. quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I mis-spoke. Please allow me to correct my comment thus: "That there is even the existence of a private market in the UK demonstrates that there are wants not being met by the NHS." And I'll give you the same answer. Those wants are to beat waiting lines for non-essential surgery or for the luxury of having a private room. It is for expediency, not essential healthcare. Exactly. I was incorrect in using "needs," so I changed it to "wants." Completely my error. And you'll still get the same answer.... it's all for expediency and extra comforts, not essentials. ETA: It's not any different to running a household budget. If you don't have funds to pay for essential items, that landscaping project or whatever gets put on hold until you can afford it so your finances get to pay for those essentials you need. In a single-payer system, the government ministers juggle the budget. For private systems, they don't have that luxury - they have to make a profit or go bust; hence rises are passed onto patients in increased premiums to cover those costs and to maintain profit margins.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 1:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Either there was "profit" in the system before prices rose, or other things are now not being funded as money is shifted towards rising NHS costs. This is where you're missing the label. The rises in costs are met by shifting taxes from one pot into the NHS where needed. The burden to the tax payer doesn't rise. ETA: Profit is not required in a single-payer system like there needs to be for a private one. Ergo, whether there is profit or not is irrelevant in a single-payer system - it is all funded by taxes. I'm not explaining my point well. lol [image]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46402000/gif/_46402070_uk_budget466_280.gif[/image] Since the UK is running deficits, there aren't enough tax revenues to cover all spending. Rising health care costs means less money is going to other public goods. What I meant by "profit" was that there was more money coming in than being spent, which, obviously isn't the case. What isn't being funded fully, or who is going to end up footing the bill for the rising costs? The consumer may not be paying at the point of service, but there are consumers who will be having to add more into the pot. Actually, no, none at all. They re-route where other taxes may have gone; like the defense budget or triming the costs of minister's expenses etc. They may also sell-off government subsidised enterprises, like our Royal Mail postal system so they get the revenue from the sale of shares and no longer have to further subsidise that enterprise. No consumer throughout the land pays any extra for any rise in healthcare costs. Not one red cent extra. ETA: there are more than enough revenues to cover the spending - it's where that spending occurs that causes the problems. But simple things like shelving long-term infrastructure spending can be cut or moth-balled to cover rising healthcare costs. Those costs are not passed on to the patient like they would have to be for a private system where a profit is essential to viability. quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It is a good thing that providers can concentrate on the patient more, but, at some point, someone will have to face the fiscal implications. That's why we have a health minister - that's their responsibility. And, the taxpayer... They don't pay any extra. Are tax rates capped? quote: quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I mis-spoke. Please allow me to correct my comment thus: "That there is even the existence of a private market in the UK demonstrates that there are wants not being met by the NHS." And I'll give you the same answer. Those wants are to beat waiting lines for non-essential surgery or for the luxury of having a private room. It is for expediency, not essential healthcare. Exactly. I was incorrect in using "needs," so I changed it to "wants." Completely my error. And you'll still get the same answer.... it's all for expediency and extra comforts, not essentials. I know. That's why I changed the wording. "Wants" are not "essentials." I admitted I was incorrect in using "needs."

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 1:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are tax rates capped? Yes! Income tax rates are set by the government and those taxes collected go into the treasury pot for spending. Our N.I payments are also capped at just over 8% to pay for the majority of the the NHS costs. It doesn't cover all the costs, just the majority of them. Shortfalls come from the general treasury pot. The patient does not have to make up the differences - the government do that by juggling expenses. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I know. That's why I changed the wording. "Wants" are not "essentials." I admitted I was incorrect in using "needs." But the emphasis is just the same - its for expediency and extra comforts, not essentials. Private healthcare over here doesn't work the same as it does in the US where not having it is both punitive (fines) and where it actually pays for essential healthcare. Here, it just pays for non-essential extras and you aren't fined for not having it.

eulero83 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 1:19:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 the whole talk you are making sounds like: "Mercedes is way too expensive for all of us having one of their cars"... "So buy a toyota"... "No! I will never consider a car if it's not a merceds, it's mercedes that must lower it's prices"... "but mercedes has no intention to produce cheap cars"... "I'll walk till mercedes won't do it" My talk is that I want a Corvette (my favorite care of all time) that's truly a Corvette, and not a Yugo hiding under a Corvette body. Are there no graphs that support the claim that the US moving to a national health care system would reduce costs? No graphs showing before/after national health care was instituted in other countries? If you will just pay to the privates for the bills of who ever happens to be sick of course it will raise, as a matter of fact we are talking about producing health care directly because supply from the private sector is not enought to satisfy demand and with health care this means that for prices "sky is the limit". How do you determine there isn't enough supply to satisfy demand? Just basing it on prices being high? I was locked into a discussion with a friend of mine on FB who is a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic Republican. We agree on most issues, but he made the comment that the way to lower the cost of a hospital stay is so to have more beds available. While there are merits to the supply/demand argument, it's overly simplistic in his case. If there is not a frequent over demand of beds, increasing the number of beds isn't going to help outside of those infrequent times when there is a high demand. I am not saying we don't have a glut of supply. I'm questioning the claim that there is a glut of demand. I try to exand the concept better, this speech is just about economy and not on moral issues: An investor will spend risk his money to reach the highest profit possibe, profit margin can vary from one to the other option and usually big investors have high profit expectations, so if spending 20 milions to build a health care facility will give less profit than spending 20 milions in real estate business an investor will choose to the real estate. not all health care is the same, there are procedures that for their "life saving" nature a person, and probably also his relatives, would pay any price to have acces to; other that are necessary for a good quality of life but not life threating so whoever have the money to pay the asked price will spend those money who has not those money will just go on with a crappy life; Other that have more or less impact in the person life but can be necessary to do some activities or are just esthetic so the higher is the price the fewer person will decide to take part in that procedure. For this two combined reason in a completely free market will provide as much supply of procedures for the first class of procedures as needed, because they will always be highly profitable as demand will not be affected by the price and it will be decided probably negotiating with insurance companies, will prvide as much supply of the second and third category of procedures as the price will make it a profitable investment compared with other business, but in the second class the price will be decided almost like life saving cares, for the other kind of procedures a lower price will attract more clients and so it will be a pure supply/demand consideration. A public health care system will build facility to provide as much supply as needed for the first two class of procedures and a limited supply or none of the third class usually will provide it if equipment required is also needed for one of the other two categories, the price will depend only on the productive costs. With a public health care system as competitor private facilities' prices will depend on supply and demand in all the three category because the patien will decide if buy that service pushed by other reasons like waiting time, quality of food, additional services provided, privacy in the rooms and so on, but not pushed by a thread on the quality of his future life, this wll of course reduce the number of private investor in health care services but it doesn't affect economy as they can invest their money in other kind of business, it's the good thing of money they are versatile.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 1:30:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are tax rates capped? Yes! Income tax rates are set by the government and those taxes collected go into the treasury pot for spending. Our N.I payments are also capped at just over 8% to pay for the majority of the the NHS costs. It doesn't cover all the costs, just the majority of them. Shortfalls come from the general treasury pot. The patient does not have to make up the differences - the government do that by juggling expenses. Do tax rates ever go up? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I know. That's why I changed the wording. "Wants" are not "essentials." I admitted I was incorrect in using "needs." But the emphasis is just the same - its for expediency and extra comforts, not essentials. Private healthcare over here doesn't work the same as it does in the US where not having it is both punitive (fines) and where it actually pays for essential healthcare. Here, it just pays for non-essential extras and you aren't fined for not having it. I understand the difference. I erred. I admitted such. I corrected my error.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 1:42:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do tax rates ever go up? Extremely rarely and when they do, by a very miniscule amount. In fact, considering the starting threshhold and personal allowances have both risen, that has a net result in lower taxes for most people in the middle and lower earnings brackets. Source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm So to answer your question more precisely, for the average wage earner, they have actually come down, not gone up.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 3:06:02 PM)
Nah. If I hated or disliked the forums, those that post here or anything else, then I wouldn't volunteer to help. I try to change it up to fit the circumstance, and in that one I was apologizing for breaking the discussion. Thank you for making CollarMe a better place, Gamma quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminGamma This topic has been temporarily locked for pull violations of guidelines. We apologize for any inconvenience and hope to have it re-opened as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience, Gamma You didn't say 'Thank you for being part of CollarMe' there, Gamma. Is that because you hate us all deeply for posting here and want to kill us? Just wondering.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 3:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do tax rates ever go up? Extremely rarely and when they do, by a very miniscule amount. In fact, considering the starting threshhold and personal allowances have both risen, that has a net result in lower taxes for most people in the middle and lower earnings brackets. Source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm So to answer your question more precisely, for the average wage earner, they have actually come down, not gone up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666 Average income in the UK rose to £26.5k. How much in taxes would that person pay? I'm not acting obtuse, I'm just used to the way it's done in the US and not used to the way it's done in the UK.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 3:44:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do tax rates ever go up? Extremely rarely and when they do, by a very miniscule amount. In fact, considering the starting threshhold and personal allowances have both risen, that has a net result in lower taxes for most people in the middle and lower earnings brackets. Source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm So to answer your question more precisely, for the average wage earner, they have actually come down, not gone up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666 Average income in the UK rose to £26.5k. How much in taxes would that person pay? I'm not acting obtuse, I'm just used to the way it's done in the US and not used to the way it's done in the UK. The first £10k is tax free. An extra £3k~ish if you're married. The remainder is taxed at about 20% plus 8.something NI (8.6%?? not sure). So on 26K, you'd be taxed around £3,200 in PAYE tax plus £1,376 in NI. The rest is all yours to spend.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875