> > > Speaking as a Canadian, it seems to me that the US health-care > > > bill is a bad solution, but it's the only solution that can be > > > imposed by the federal gov't given the fractured nature of how > > > your country operates at the State level.
> > I agree that a solution (if one exists) must originate and be > > enforced at Federal level.
> Um, please re-read what I said.
> I was not saying that a solution should or must originate and be > enforced at the federal level. That certainly DOES NOT HAPPEN in > Canada. That's not the way it works here.
> I was saying that because of the fractured way the US operates at the > state level, there is no hope that this issue of healthcare reform > would ever be solved at the state level, which is where it should be > solved. Hence the US gov't had to impliment something at the federal > level, and by all accounts it's a monster of a plan, but it's > probably the best plan that could ever come out of the federal gov't > and do something to bring the health care issue under control for > Americans.
No, it isn't. The Republican sponsored bill, which was also bad, would have been a thousand times better than the Democrat/Socialist sponsored bill that did pass.
> > But this is not the "only" solution, it is the worst.
> Why wasn't this issue solved in the state legislatures by all the > states, one at a time, individually, years ago?
You're asking me? I could only guess at the answer for a few states that I have lived in. My current state (NY) is too liberal to come up with a conservative approach to even begin to solve the problem. If there was an individual state that could step up to the plate and find a solution, it would likely be a more conservative state like New Hampshire, perhaps?
> Was it because the health-care lobbies were too powerful?
Well it's hard to overestimate them, for sure.
> > > Many people wonder why they can't subscribe to out-of-state > > > health care insurance programs,
> And you have nothing to say about that ???
I'd say it's a damned good idea. But I wasn't commenting on that earlier.
> > > But we can't choose our genetics or the types of illness we > > > will suffer, yet the current US health-care insurance industry > > > formulates your insurance premiums based on your current health > > > condition or other indicators of future health problems.
> Or that???
Again, I wasn't commenting on that earlier. You're asking me to focus on petting the puppy at my feet while an 18-wheeler is about to run me over. The Health Care Reform bill, as passed by the House recently, is the 18-wheeler that is about to squash the pedestrian known as the U.S. lifestyle. Why should we be worried about what might have been?
> > > Malpractice insurance
> Or that???
Yes, yes yes that needs to be addressed. But we have much more important issues to consider. Thanks to Pelosi, one of those will be, how do we pay for food to feed our families?
> > > What was needed in the US was universal, single-payer health > > > insurance implimented at the state level - not the federal level.
> Or that???
Ok, I'll comment on that. I think it is an interesting idea. Not sure it will work, but it would have been worth considering, if this other disaster hadn't just been foisted upon us.
> > > You should have forced your state legislatures to act years > > > ago to give you a better health insurance and health care > > > system at the state level.
> Or that ???
OK, now you've struck a nerve. You seem to think that an individual citizen has the power to compel the liberal (for the most part) state governments to bend to the will of the people. I have long believed (like, for decades) that representative democracy simply doesn't work as the representatives are for sale to the highest bidder...and therefore never truly represent the people who they are supposed to represent. I suppose I could force a change at the state level, if I could come up with billions of dollars to buy me a few State Representatives. Now, tell me where I can find a few extra billions of dollars to use to buy me some politicians.
> > > The US is now in a great position to be an exporter because > > > the US dollar has fallen in value compared to other major > > > currencies.
> See, this is exactly why Canada was able to export more to the US than > any other country in the world, even China. Our labor costs are high > (compared to China) but not as high compared to Europe or Japan. > Setting up and operating small business is a breeze in Canada when you > don't have to hire a back-office to deal with health insurance for > your employees.
> > Do you think U.S. families are going to care that we export more > > goods built in the U.S., when we are all living in cardboard > > boxes under the railroad bridges? -Dave
> You wouldn't be living in cardboard boxes if your manufacturing > businesses was able to compete with the rest of the first-world > countries and export high-value-added finished goods in a competitive > manner. But what screws you over are your high health care costs per > employee.
I'm fully aware that the root of the problem is the high health care cost per employee. But the Health Care Reform bill just passed in the house makes the problem much, MUCH worse. If you study it even a little bit, you soon discover that all current health care plans are null and void. Even if you like your current health insurance, you have to switch plans to a much more expensive plan now. Who is going to foot the bill for that? It's going to simply result in higher unemployment. The employers will have to pay for higher health insurance. They can't pass those costs onto customers, so they're going to have to make do with fewer employees.
On a side note, the official unemployment figures are over 10% now, the actual unemployment rate has been over 20% for many months. The last thing we need is health care "reform" that will double current unemployment figures, official or otherwise.
> It's a shame that with the US dollar at historic low levels compared > with other countries, that you can't export more to Europe or Canada > because your health care costs are so out of whack.
> And Canada isin't going to buy your stuff if you keep beating that > "Buy American" drum. We're not going to buy your expensive finished > products if you're going to embargo ours.
I don't give a rat's ass what Canada buys or does not buy. I've always known that "buy American" is the wrong approach. -Dave
You can't drive a car legally in any state without having liability insurance in place for the car.
That means (in theory) that everyone's car insurance is the lowest it can possibly be because everyone is basically forced to obtain insurance for their car. Everyone is paying into the system.
The single biggest problem with US health care is that many people elect not to obtain insurance. The common belief is that young, single adults or couples without children are the largest segment of that group.
When you have a large fraction of healthy people not paying into the system, what you have left are the people that (more or less) are consumers and are in need of health care. So the premiums are higher because of it.
The next healthy, young person to obtain his or her own health insurance plan is going to pay a lot of money for it. Now, if EVERY and ALL healthy young persons were to all of a sudden start paying into the system, then their rates (and everyone's rates) would (or should) fall immediately.
Now, how are you going to get *everyone* to start paying into the system?
In Canada, there are no visible health insurance premiums. No forms. No paperwork. No need to force people or threaten them to sign up for health insurance or go to jail. Every citizen of every Canadian province has a health insurance card in their wallet. It's got their name and a number on it. You go to see your family doctor, or have any test done, or get admitted to the hospital for a proceedure. You just hand over your card for them to scan. That's it.
If you need a test, or an operation, it gets done. No consultation with a gov't burocrat or insurance company.
How does all this work? Simple. We pay income tax and sales tax. That money goes into a big pile. The provincial gov't takes that pile of money and spends it. Some of that goes to pay doctors and clinics and hospitals. It's just that simple. That's what "single-payer" means. Anyone or any institution that performs or provides health care gets paid by that single payer.
Canada gets a bad rap for having higher taxes than the US. Our income tax rates are higher. The taxes we pay on gasoline is higher. We have a FEDERAL SALES TAX and the US doesn't (it's 5% right now, it was 7% a few years ago). Now you know what those extra taxes pay for.
But I'll tell ya something. I'd rather pay $5k more a year in income tax instead of $10k a year for private-sector health insurance and deal with claims paperwork or worry about what happens when I get laid off or axed from my job. Do the math.
Sum Guy <S...@Guy.com> wrote: > You can't drive a car legally in any state without having liability > insurance in place for the car.
> That means (in theory) that everyone's car insurance is the lowest it > can possibly be because everyone is basically forced to obtain > insurance for their car. Everyone is paying into the system.
Wow is that some fucked-up logic, or what? If we weren't forced to buy insurance for our cars, insurance companies would have to work harder to convince us that it's worth buying. Like making it cheaper for us. But since we're forced to buy it, there's no point in even trying to keep the cost low for the individual driver. And don't tell me that there's competition. In most states, only a few companies are allowed to offer car insurance. That's not competition, and does nothing to keep prices low for drivers.
> The single biggest problem with US health care is that many people > elect not to obtain insurance.
You don't get it. Nobody wants to live without health insurance. Many people in the U.S. are forced to make the agonizing decision to do without, simply because they can't afford to pay for it.
> The common belief is that young, > single adults or couples without children are the largest segment of > that group.
That could be true, but your understanding of why it is true is wrong.
> When you have a large fraction of healthy people not paying into the > system, what you have left are the people that (more or less) are > consumers and are in need of health care. So the premiums are higher > because of it.
You can't force people who can't afford insurance to buy insurance. That won't reduce costs for anybody.
> The next healthy, young person to obtain his or her own health > insurance plan is going to pay a lot of money for it. Now, if EVERY > and ALL healthy young persons were to all of a sudden start paying > into the system, then their rates (and everyone's rates) would (or > should) fall immediately.
Good theory. There are a couple of problems with it. First, most people who don't have health insurance don't have it because they simply can't afford it, even if it was MUCH cheaper than it currently is. If you can't afford to pay $1000 a month for health insurance, then lowering the cost to say, $700 a month (which would be a significant decrease) is not going to entice you to all of a sudden pull the trigger and BUY. Second, the legislation just passed will greatly INCREASE the cost of health insurance for everybody, by specifying coverage levels higher than most private plans have, currently. So even if we assume that rates are dropping (due to a greater risk pool), that will be after the rates increase. Kind of like those sales where stores jack up the price 50% so that they can turn around and claim that the sale price is 75% off....where it's actually close to regular price.
> Now, how are you going to get *everyone* to start paying into the > system?
> In Canada, there are no visible health insurance premiums. No forms. > No paperwork. No need to force people or threaten them to sign up > for health insurance or go to jail. Every citizen of every Canadian > province has a health insurance card in their wallet. It's got their > name and a number on it. You go to see your family doctor, or have > any test done, or get admitted to the hospital for a proceedure. You > just hand over your card for them to scan. That's it.
> If you need a test, or an operation, it gets done. No consultation > with a gov't burocrat or insurance company.
> How does all this work? Simple. We pay income tax and sales tax. > That money goes into a big pile. The provincial gov't takes that > pile of money and spends it. Some of that goes to pay doctors and > clinics and hospitals. It's just that simple. That's what > "single-payer" means. Anyone or any institution that performs or > provides health care gets paid by that single payer.
> Canada gets a bad rap for having higher taxes than the US. Our income > tax rates are higher. The taxes we pay on gasoline is higher. We > have a FEDERAL SALES TAX and the US doesn't (it's 5% right now, it > was 7% a few years ago). Now you know what those extra taxes pay for.
> But I'll tell ya something. I'd rather pay $5k more a year in income > tax instead of $10k a year for private-sector health insurance and > deal with claims paperwork or worry about what happens when I get > laid off or axed from my job. Do the math.
I like it. Too bad it is in no way even remotely related to the horror that just passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. -Dave
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:36:22 -0500 > Sum Guy <S...@Guy.com> wrote:
>> You can't drive a car legally in any state without having liability >> insurance in place for the car.
>> That means (in theory) that everyone's car insurance is the lowest it >> can possibly be because everyone is basically forced to obtain >> insurance for their car. Everyone is paying into the system.
> Wow is that some fucked-up logic, or what?
No more fucked up than your pathetic yet oddly plaintive cry of running away to Canada.
> No more fucked up than your pathetic yet oddly plaintive cry of > running away to Canada.
Well I've already discussed it with the wife, and she agrees with me that it is a logical course of action, IF the Senate follows suit. I bet we won't be alone. I predict a mass migration. Either that or an uprising. Oooops, too bad about gun control. I guess there won't be an uprising. -Dave
>> No more fucked up than your pathetic yet oddly plaintive cry of >> running away to Canada.
> Well I've already discussed it with the wife, and she agrees with me > that it is a logical course of action,
Then you are both delusional. (No offence to your wife.)
> I bet we won't be alone. I predict a mass migration. Either that or an > uprising. Oooops, too bad about gun control. I guess there won't be > an uprising. -Dave
Okay, well at least it's nice to see you've revealed yourself as just another garden variety internet whackjob.
Good luck with the whole "moving to Canada " thing.
> Dave C. wrote >>> Speaking as a Canadian, it seems to me that the US health-care >>> bill is a bad solution, but it's the only solution that can be >>> imposed by the federal gov't given the fractured nature of how >>> your country operates at the State level. >> I agree that a solution (if one exists) must originate and be enforced at Federal level. > Um, please re-read what I said. > I was not saying that a solution should or must originate and be > enforced at the federal level. That certainly DOES NOT HAPPEN in > Canada. That's not the way it works here. > I was saying that because of the fractured way the US operates at the > state level, there is no hope that this issue of healthcare reform would > ever be solved at the state level, which is where it should be solved.
Like hell it should.
> Hence the US gov't had to impliment something at the federal > level, and by all accounts it's a monster of a plan, but it's probably > the best plan that could ever come out of the federal gov't and do > something to bring the health care issue under control for Americans.
Wrong. Extending medicare to everyone would be much more viable.
>> But this is not the "only" solution, it is the worst. > Why wasn't this issue solved in the state legislatures > by all the states, one at a time, individually, years ago?
For the same reason that didnt happen at the federal level.
> Was it because the health-care lobbies were too powerful?
Nope. EVERY modern first and second world country had great difficulty getting a universal health care funding system up. Its hardly surprisig that it happened last in america given how fucked the political system is there.
It was only the great depression that allowed social security and medicare to get up and that was before it became clear that it had to be universal to be viable.
>>> Many people wonder why they can't subscribe >>> to out-of-state health care insurance programs, > And you have nothing to say about that ??? >>> But we can't choose our genetics or the types of illness we >>> will suffer, yet the current US health-care insurance industry >>> formulates your insurance premiums based on your current >>> health condition or other indicators of future health problems. > Or that??? >>> Malpractice insurance > Or that???
Its a minor part of total health care costs.
>>> What was needed in the US was universal, single-payer health >>> insurance implimented at the state level - not the federal level. > Or that???
Makes absolutely no sense to do it at the state level with so many states.
>>> You should have forced your state legislatures to act years >>> ago to give you a better health insurance and health care >>> system at the state level. > Or that ???
Not even possible to do that.
>>> The US is now in a great position to be an exporter because the >>> US dollar has fallen in value compared to other major currencies. > See, this is exactly why Canada was able to export more > to the US than any other country in the world, even China.
Nope, the real reason was because Canada had so many more exportable resources.
> Our labor costs are high (compared to China) but not as high compared to Europe or Japan.
That last is wrong.
> Setting up and operating small business is a breeze in Canada when you don't > have to hire a back-office to deal with health insurance for your employees.
Yes, but that is a minor part of the cost of doing business in the US.
The problem is the cost of the premiums, not the staff.
>> Do you think U.S. families are going to care that we >> export more goods built in the U.S., when we are all >> living in cardboard boxes under the railroad bridges? > You wouldn't be living in cardboard boxes if your manufacturing > businesses was able to compete with the rest of the first-world > countries and export high-value-added finished goods in a competitive > manner.
Thats wrong too. Manufacturing is only a small part of any modern first world economy and the US still does a lot of that anyway, most obviously with military hardware, pharmaceuticals, movies, TV series, music, software food etc etc etc which they continue to export fine.
All areas where their labor costs arent a major part of the costs except with movies and TV series.
> But what screws you over are your high health care costs per employee.
It isnt a major part of the costs of those export industrys.
> It's a shame that with the US dollar at historic low levels compared > with other countries, that you can't export more to Europe or > Canada because your health care costs are so out of whack.
That aint the reason they dont export low cost consumer goods and cars anymore.
> And Canada isin't going to buy your stuff if you keep beating > that "Buy American" drum. We're not going to buy your > expensive finished products if you're going to embargo ours.
> >> No more fucked up than your pathetic yet oddly plaintive cry of > >> running away to Canada.
> > Well I've already discussed it with the wife, and she agrees with me > > that it is a logical course of action,
> Then you are both delusional. (No offence to your wife.)
> > I bet we won't be alone. I predict a mass migration. Either that > > or an uprising. Oooops, too bad about gun control. I guess there > > won't be an uprising. -Dave
> Okay, well at least it's nice to see you've revealed yourself as just > another garden variety internet whackjob.
> Good luck with the whole "moving to Canada " thing.
I must be pretty close to the truth. Nobody can dispute what I've said, so they are resorting to name-calling and insults. - Dave
> Sum Guy <S...@Guy.com> wrote >> You can't drive a car legally in any state without >> having liability insurance in place for the car. >> That means (in theory) that everyone's car insurance is the lowest >> it can possibly be because everyone is basically forced to obtain >> insurance for their car. Everyone is paying into the system. > Wow is that some fucked-up logic, or what?
We'll see...
> If we weren't forced to buy insurance for our cars, insurance > companies would have to work harder to convince us that it's > worth buying. Like making it cheaper for us.
Yes.
> But since we're forced to buy it, there's no point in even > trying to keep the cost low for the individual driver.
They do anyway, essentially because they try to get that individual driver's business themselves, instead of the competition getting it.
> And don't tell me that there's competition.
Corse there is.
> In most states, only a few companies are allowed to offer car insurance.
Thats enough to provide real competition.
> That's not competition,
Corse it is.
> and does nothing to keep prices low for drivers.
Corse it does.
>> The single biggest problem with US health care >> is that many people elect not to obtain insurance. > You don't get it.
You dont.
> Nobody wants to live without health insurance.
Hordes of the young fit and healthy with no kids dont bother with health insurance.
I never ever did before my country went for a decent universal health care funding system.
And our health insurance was never as expensive as the american system either.
> Many people in the U.S. are forced to make the agonizing decision > to do without, simply because they can't afford to pay for it.
And hordes of the young fit and healthy with no kids dont bother with health insurance even when they can afford it fine.
>> The common belief is that young, single adults or couples >> without children are the largest segment of that group. > That could be true, but your understanding of why it is true is wrong.
Nope.
>> When you have a large fraction of healthy people not >> paying into the system, what you have left are the people >> that (more or less) are consumers and are in need of >> health care. So the premiums are higher because of it. > You can't force people who can't afford insurance to buy insurance.
You can however force those who can afford insurance but choose not to buy insurance to buy insurance, just like is done with car insurance.
> That won't reduce costs for anybody.
Corse it does while ever you force those who dont make claims on the insurance to buy the insurance.
>> The next healthy, young person to obtain his or her own health >> insurance plan is going to pay a lot of money for it. Now, if EVERY >> and ALL healthy young persons were to all of a sudden start paying >> into the system, then their rates (and everyone's rates) would (or >> should) fall immediately. > Good theory. There are a couple of problems with it. First, most > people who don't have health insurance don't have it because they > simply can't afford it, even if it was MUCH cheaper than it currently is.
That is just plain wrong.
> If you can't afford to pay $1000 a month for health insurance, > then lowering the cost to say, $700 a month (which would be a > significant decrease) is not going to entice you to all of a sudden > pull the trigger and BUY.
Yes, but compulsion certainly will, just like it does with car insurance.
Sure, a few will flout the law, but most wont.
> Second, the legislation just passed will greatly INCREASE the > cost of health insurance for everybody, by specifying coverage > levels higher than most private plans have, currently.
Thats another lie, and its only the bill thats passed the House anyway, what becomes law will be different in detail.
> So even if we assume that rates are dropping (due to > a greater risk pool), that will be after the rates increase.
You dont know that the rates will increase.
> Kind of like those sales where stores jack up the price > 50% so that they can turn around and claim that the sale > price is 75% off....where it's actually close to regular price.
Nothing like. Because there is no deliberate increase in the price.
>> Now, how are you going to get *everyone* to start paying into the system? >> In Canada, there are no visible health insurance premiums. No forms. >> No paperwork. No need to force people or threaten them to sign up >> for health insurance or go to jail. Every citizen of every Canadian >> province has a health insurance card in their wallet. It's got their >> name and a number on it. You go to see your family doctor, or have >> any test done, or get admitted to the hospital for a proceedure. You >> just hand over your card for them to scan. That's it. >> If you need a test, or an operation, it gets done. No consultation >> with a gov't burocrat or insurance company. >> How does all this work? Simple. We pay income tax and sales tax. >> That money goes into a big pile. The provincial gov't takes that >> pile of money and spends it. Some of that goes to pay doctors and >> clinics and hospitals. It's just that simple. That's what >> "single-payer" means. Anyone or any institution that performs or >> provides health care gets paid by that single payer. >> Canada gets a bad rap for having higher taxes than the US. Our >> income tax rates are higher. The taxes we pay on gasoline is >> higher. We have a FEDERAL SALES TAX and the US doesn't (it's 5% >> right now, it was 7% a few years ago). Now you know what those >> extra taxes pay for. >> But I'll tell ya something. I'd rather pay $5k more a year in income >> tax instead of $10k a year for private-sector health insurance and >> deal with claims paperwork or worry about what happens when I get >> laid off or axed from my job. Do the math. > I like it. Too bad it is in no way even remotely related to the > horror that just passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.
>>>> No more fucked up than your pathetic yet oddly plaintive cry of >>>> running away to Canada.
>>> Well I've already discussed it with the wife, and she agrees with me >>> that it is a logical course of action,
>> Then you are both delusional. (No offence to your wife.)
>>> I bet we won't be alone. I predict a mass migration. Either that >>> or an uprising. Oooops, too bad about gun control. I guess there >>> won't be an uprising. -Dave
>> Okay, well at least it's nice to see you've revealed yourself as just >> another garden variety internet whackjob.
>> Good luck with the whole "moving to Canada " thing. > I must be pretty close to the truth. Nobody can dispute what I've said,
Thats a lie.
> so they are resorting to name-calling and insults.
>>> Wow is that some fucked-up logic, or what? >> No more fucked up than your pathetic yet >> oddly plaintive cry of running away to Canada. > Well I've already discussed it with the wife, and she agrees with > me that it is a logical course of action, IF the Senate follows suit.
All that proves is that some agree with you. No news.
> I bet we won't be alone.
I doubt anyone, including you, will actually move to canada just because of that bill when it comes to the crunch.
> I predict a mass migration.
Taint gunna happen.
> Either that or an uprising.
That didnt even happen during the great depression.
> Oooops, too bad about gun control. I guess there won't be an uprising.
There wasnt even during the great depression when there was no gun control.
Dave C. wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:21:45 -0500 > Sum Guy <S...@Guy.com> wrote:
>> "Dave C." wrote:
>>>> Speaking as a Canadian, it seems to me that the US health-care >>>> bill is a bad solution, but it's the only solution that can be >>>> imposed by the federal gov't given the fractured nature of how >>>> your country operates at the State level.
>>> I agree that a solution (if one exists) must originate and be >>> enforced at Federal level.
>> Um, please re-read what I said.
>> I was not saying that a solution should or must originate and be >> enforced at the federal level. That certainly DOES NOT HAPPEN in >> Canada. That's not the way it works here.
>> I was saying that because of the fractured way the US operates at the >> state level, there is no hope that this issue of healthcare reform >> would ever be solved at the state level, which is where it should be >> solved. Hence the US gov't had to impliment something at the federal >> level, and by all accounts it's a monster of a plan, but it's >> probably the best plan that could ever come out of the federal gov't >> and do something to bring the health care issue under control for >> Americans.
> No, it isn't. The Republican sponsored bill, which was also bad, > would have been a thousand times better than the Democrat/Socialist > sponsored bill that did pass.
>>> But this is not the "only" solution, it is the worst.
>> Why wasn't this issue solved in the state legislatures by all the >> states, one at a time, individually, years ago?
> You're asking me? I could only guess at the answer for a few states > that I have lived in. My current state (NY) is too liberal to come > up with a conservative approach to even begin to solve the problem. > If there was an individual state that could step up to the plate and > find a solution, it would likely be a more conservative state like New > Hampshire, perhaps?
>> Was it because the health-care lobbies were too powerful?
> Well it's hard to overestimate them, for sure.
>>>> Many people wonder why they can't subscribe to out-of-state >>>> health care insurance programs,
>> And you have nothing to say about that ???
> I'd say it's a damned good idea. But I wasn't commenting on that > earlier.
>>>> But we can't choose our genetics or the types of illness we >>>> will suffer, yet the current US health-care insurance industry >>>> formulates your insurance premiums based on your current health >>>> condition or other indicators of future health problems.
>> Or that???
> Again, I wasn't commenting on that earlier. You're asking me to focus > on petting the puppy at my feet while an 18-wheeler is about to run me > over. The Health Care Reform bill, as passed by the House recently, > is the 18-wheeler that is about to squash the pedestrian known as the > U.S. lifestyle. Why should we be worried about what might have been?
>>>> Malpractice insurance
>> Or that???
> Yes, yes yes that needs to be addressed. But we have much more > important issues to consider. Thanks to Pelosi, one of those will be, > how do we pay for food to feed our families?
>>>> What was needed in the US was universal, single-payer health >>>> insurance implimented at the state level - not the federal level.
>> Or that???
> Ok, I'll comment on that. I think it is an interesting idea. Not > sure it will work, but it would have been worth considering, if this > other disaster hadn't just been foisted upon us.
>>>> You should have forced your state legislatures to act years >>>> ago to give you a better health insurance and health care >>>> system at the state level.
>> Or that ???
> OK, now you've struck a nerve. You seem to think that an individual > citizen has the power to compel the liberal (for the most part) state > governments to bend to the will of the people. I have long believed > (like, for decades) that representative democracy simply doesn't work > as the representatives are for sale to the highest bidder...and > therefore never truly represent the people who they are supposed to > represent. I suppose I could force a change at the state level, if I > could come up with billions of dollars to buy me a few State > Representatives. Now, tell me where I can find a few extra billions > of dollars to use to buy me some politicians.
>>>> The US is now in a great position to be an exporter because >>>> the US dollar has fallen in value compared to other major >>>> currencies.
>> See, this is exactly why Canada was able to export more to the US >> than any other country in the world, even China. Our labor costs >> are high (compared to China) but not as high compared to Europe or >> Japan. Setting up and operating small business is a breeze in Canada >> when you don't have to hire a back-office to deal with health >> insurance for your employees.
>>> Do you think U.S. families are going to care that we export more >>> goods built in the U.S., when we are all living in cardboard >>> boxes under the railroad bridges? -Dave
>> You wouldn't be living in cardboard boxes if your manufacturing >> businesses was able to compete with the rest of the first-world >> countries and export high-value-added finished goods in a competitive >> manner. But what screws you over are your high health care costs per >> employee. > I'm fully aware that the root of the problem is the high health care > cost per employee. But the Health Care Reform bill just passed in the > house makes the problem much, MUCH worse. If you study it even a > little bit, you soon discover that all current health care plans are null and void.
Thats a lie.
> Even if you like your current health insurance, you > have to switch plans to a much more expensive plan now.
And that in spades.
> Who is going to foot the bill for that?
There is no bill to foot, because its a lie.
> It's going to simply result in higher unemployment.
Nope.
> The employers will have to pay for higher health insurance.
No they dont, they can decide to stop paying for it.
> They can't pass those costs onto customers,
Corse they can.
> so they're going to have to make do with fewer employees.
Or just stop offering health insurance to their employees.
> On a side note, the official unemployment figures are over 10% now, > the actual unemployment rate has been over 20% for many months.
Another lie.
> The last thing we need is health care "reform" > that will double current unemployment figures,
> official or otherwise. >> It's a shame that with the US dollar at historic low levels compared >> with other countries, that you can't export more to Europe or Canada >> because your health care costs are so out of whack. >> And Canada isin't going to buy your stuff if you keep beating that >> "Buy American" drum. We're not going to buy your expensive finished >> products if you're going to embargo ours. > I don't give a rat's ass what Canada buys or does not buy. I've > always known that "buy American" is the wrong approach.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Dave C. wrote >>>>> This is going to destroy our economy AND destroy our health-care system. >>>> It did not do that in any other modern first or second world country. >>> In any other first or second world country, did the powers >>> in charge mandate a new tax equal to or exceeding the >>> average mortgage payment for a middle-class family? >> That new bill doesnt do that. > Yes, it does.
No it doesnt.
> It costs about $12,000 per year per worker for health insurance.
The 'worker' doesnt pay that.
> The average mortgage payment is less than that.
The new bill doesnt require the average worker to pay that $12K per year, so that is irrelevant.
> There is a cheaper option which amounts to paying > a fine (and not having health insurance then).
So, like I said, the new bill doesnt do what you claimed it does.
And that is only what has passed the House anyway, its still got to get thru the Senate and that aint gunna happen in that form, essentially because there arent enough Dems in the Senate for that to happen.
> But either way you look at it, this is money directly out of the pockets of individuals.
Yes, but not more than they currently pay for their mortgage.
> $12,000 a year,
That number is not in the bill.
> or a hefty fine collected by the IRS, with the power to garnish > your wages, and/or THROW YOU IN JAIL for not paying it.
But nothing like what is paid on the mortgage.
>> If you are happy with your current health care arrangements, you are free to stay with them. > No you aren't.
Yes you are.
> The bill has specified the level of coverage.
And most already have that, so they are happy to stick with what they currently have if they prefer that.
> No current private plan meets the level of coverage requirements.
Thats a lie.
> So we'll all have to switch to a different plan somehow, even if > we just get a much more expensive plan from our current provider.
Another lie.
And it wont get thru the Senate in that form anyway.
>>> In any other first or second world country, are they forcing you to >>> buy health insurance instead of paying other bills such as >>> groceries or mortgage payment? >> Yes, they all do that, usually by taxation. > Only in the U.S., this is a separate, additional tax.
Another lie. Quite a few other countrys have a separate additional tax that pays for the new universal health care coverage.
> The cost structure here (U.S.) is unsustainable.
>>> Please tell me for example, how you think that the Health >>> Care Reform bill that just passed in the House will benefit >>> anybody at all? Please be specific. >> Most obviously those who cant currently get insurance due to a pre existing medical condition. > Offering them health insurance that they can't afford is an improvement?
You havent established that that is the case, just claimed it.
>> Also those whose employer doesnt pay for health insurance and the self employed etc. > The reason more employers don't offer health insurance, > and self-employed people have trouble getting it, is cost.
Yes.
> If we mandate they buy it, we have done nothing to address the cost.
Thats not true either. If those who currently choose not to pay for health insurance because they are young and fit and healthy and have no kids, and so have no significant health care costs, are forced to have health insurance, that will produce more revenue for the insurance companys and their costs wont go up, so that will address the cost of health insurance.
> We are not solving a problem by creating new ones.
No new problems are created if health insurance premiums drop because those who currently choose not to be insured because they are young and fit and healthy and have no kids, and so have no significant health care costs, are forced to have health insurance.
> Employers will have to lay off 1 or more workers > for every 2 that they offer health insurance to.
They can just stop paying for the health insurance of their employees instead.
> This is not speculation, just simple mathematics.
Like hell it is.
> You can't suddenly increase your payroll expenses by about $12K per worker.
That number is just your claim.
> You will have to lose workers.
Nope, not if you stop paying for their health insurance.
> Oh, and if the self employed can't afford health insurance to the tune of about > $12K per year, making it mandatory for them to buy it won't help them pay for it.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Dave C. wrote >>>> What the US should be doing is extending medicare to the >>>> rest of the population instead, what almost all modern first >>>> and second world countrys have had enough of a clue to do. >>> Many doctors won't accept medicare because it >>> doesn't pay enough to cover their operating expenses. >> They wouldnt get any choice on that if medicare was universal. > Sure there's a choice. You can stop practicing medicine,
Yes.
> or practice it somewhere else.
Everywhere else has their equivalent of universal medicare, so that cant fly.
Yes, they could just do what isnt covered by a universal medicare, like say cosmetic stuff, and wear the fact that far fewer pay for that sort of thing out of their own pocket than get universal medicare to pay for it.
>>> Many more doctors would simply quit if that was the only third-party payee. >> Yes, a few did that in every other modern first and second world country >> that moved away from an insurance system, but not enough to matter. > If none of them quit we'd still have a tremendous shortage of doctors available.
Nope, there arent all that many who have no health insurance at all, and no medicare or medicaid.
>>> No more fucked up than your pathetic yet >>> oddly plaintive cry of running away to Canada.
>> Well I've already discussed it with the wife, and she agrees with >> me that it is a logical course of action, IF the Senate follows suit.
> All that proves is that some agree with you. No news.
>> I bet we won't be alone.
> I doubt anyone, including you, will actually move to canada > just because of that bill when it comes to the crunch.
That's the whole point.
You guys are indulging in the OP's silliness here.
I.e. we all know the OP will never upstakes and move to a foreign country. That's a given and to claim otherwise is simply absurd. Therefore the whole discussion is worthy of nothing but ridicule and derision. It's just that simple.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote: > Dave C. wrote
> >>> Please tell me for example, how you think that the Health > >>> Care Reform bill that just passed in the House will benefit > >>> anybody at all? Please be specific.
> >> Most obviously those who cant currently get insurance due to a pre > >> existing medical condition.
> > Offering them health insurance that they can't afford is an > > improvement?
> You havent established that that is the case, just claimed it.
> >> Also those whose employer doesnt pay for health insurance and the > >> self employed etc.
> > The reason more employers don't offer health insurance, > > and self-employed people have trouble getting it, is cost.
> Yes.
> > If we mandate they buy it, we have done nothing to address the cost.
> Thats not true either. If those who currently choose not to pay for > health insurance because they are young and fit and healthy and have > no kids, and so have no significant health care costs, are forced to > have health insurance, that will produce more revenue for the > insurance companys and their costs wont go up, so that will address > the cost of health insurance.
> > We are not solving a problem by creating new ones.
> No new problems are created if health insurance premiums drop > because those who currently choose not to be insured because > they are young and fit and healthy and have no kids, and so have > no significant health care costs, are forced to have health insurance.
> > Employers will have to lay off 1 or more workers > > for every 2 that they offer health insurance to.
> They can just stop paying for the health insurance of their employees > instead.
Rod - I know you are a troll. But this specific issue is too important to obscure with lunatic ratings, regardless of your motives. You don't live in the U.S., so this issue doesn't matter to you, one way or the other.
But this specific issue (the health care reform bill that was just passed by the House of Representatives in the U.S.) will single-handedly destroy both the U.S. econonomy and the U.S. health-care system.
You are entitled to have an opinion on this issue, and I'm sure that you will be dead wrong, as usual.
But if you can't say anything constructive, shut the fuck up. Or gloat that the U.S. which you seem to hate is destroying itself.
But stop spouting off about shit you know nothing about. Under the bill that was just passed (soon to be law) employers will be mandated to provide health insurance. So they can't just stop paying for health insurance, they (U.S. employers) will be forced to cut their payroll expenses in other ways. This is going to lead to massive layoffs, there is no way around it.
Now don't even try to claim that this is otherwise as you obviously do not know what you are talking about (as usual) and this specific issue is too important to obscure with bullshit. -Dave
Rod - Again, everything you have posted on this issue is WRONG. Unless you bother to try to inform yourself, all you are doing is obscuring the issue with bullshit. This issue is too important for that. Inform yourself, or shut the fuck up. -Dave -- Dave C. <no...@nohow.never>
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Dave C. wrote >>>>> Please tell me for example, how you think that the Health >>>>> Care Reform bill that just passed in the House will benefit >>>>> anybody at all? Please be specific. >>>> Most obviously those who cant currently get insurance due to a pre >>>> existing medical condition. >>> Offering them health insurance that they can't afford is an >>> improvement? >> You havent established that that is the case, just claimed it. >>>> Also those whose employer doesnt pay for >>>> health insurance and the self employed etc. >>> The reason more employers don't offer health insurance, >>> and self-employed people have trouble getting it, is cost. >> Yes. >>> If we mandate they buy it, we have done nothing to address the cost. >> Thats not true either. If those who currently choose not to pay for >> health insurance because they are young and fit and healthy and have >> no kids, and so have no significant health care costs, are forced to >> have health insurance, that will produce more revenue for the >> insurance companys and their costs wont go up, so that will address >> the cost of health insurance. >>> We are not solving a problem by creating new ones. >> No new problems are created if health insurance premiums drop >> because those who currently choose not to be insured because >> they are young and fit and healthy and have no kids, and so have >> no significant health care costs, are forced to have health insurance. >>> Employers will have to lay off 1 or more workers >>> for every 2 that they offer health insurance to. >> They can just stop paying for the health insurance of their employees instead. > Rod - I know you are a troll.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
> But this specific issue is too important to obscure > with lunatic ratings, regardless of your motives.
You're the one doing that, with mindless silly stuff about moving to Canada which ALREADY HAS WHAT YOU CLAIM TO HATE.
> You don't live in the U.S., so this issue doesn't matter to you, one way or the other.
Wrong, as always. Its very powerful evidence of how completely fucked the US political system is and how it completely incapable of actually doing what needs to be done heath care wise, and how pig ignorant fools like you havent got a clue about what is actually in the bill thats just got passed by the House, and are so stupid that you cant even manage to grasp that what has just got passed by the House IS NOT WHAT WILL GET PASSED BY CONGRESS.
> But this specific issue (the health care reform bill that was > just passed by the House of Representatives in the U.S.) > will single-handedly destroy both the U.S. econonomy > and the U.S. health-care system.
Easy to claim. How odd that you cant actually substantiate that claim.
> You are entitled to have an opinion on this issue,
And you arent. You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that until the bill gets passed by the Senate, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
> and I'm sure that you will be dead wrong,
Nope, the US economy wasnt even destroyed by the great depression or WW2, so wont be destroyed by this particular bill, even if it does get thru the Senate unchanged, and that aint gunna happen, you watch.
> But if you can't say anything constructive, shut the fuck up.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
> Or gloat that the U.S. which you seem to hate is destroying itself.
I dont hate it, fool. Its still where virtually all of the full commercialisation of almost all technology happens first, the technology that has completely revolutionised by entire life. Its also what saved the free world in WW2.
> But stop spouting off about shit you know nothing about.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
> Under the bill that was just passed (soon to be law)
Like hell it is soon to be law. IT CANT BE LAW UNTIL ITS PASSED BY THE SENATE, AND THAT AINT GUNNA HAPPEN.
> employers will be mandated to provide health insurance.
Another pig ignorant lie. They can pay a fine too.
> So they can't just stop paying for health insurance,
Another pig ignorant lie. They can pay a fine too.
> they (U.S. employers) will be forced to cut their payroll expenses in other ways.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> This is going to lead to massive layoffs, there is no way around it.
Another pig ignorant lie. They can pay a fine.
> Now don't even try to claim that this is otherwise as you obviously > do not know what you are talking about (as usual) and this > specific issue is too important to obscure with bullshit.
IT CANT BE LAW UNTIL ITS PASSED BY THE SENATE, AND THAT AINT GUNNA HAPPEN.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:22:59 +0800, Dave C. wrote: > I'm seriously thinking of moving out of the country and renouncing my > citizenship. Really. -Dave
As the old saying goes -- don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
This is much ado about nothing since they don't have the votes to pass it in the Senate. Nice first try though but this bill is flawed and AFAIK, doesn't address the insane cost structure that health providers impose and doesn't address the lack of price transparency in health care and that patients have no incentive to shop around since the almighty insurance companies insulates them from what health providers charge. The US health care system does not operate on free market principles and, AFAIK, this bill doesn't seem to address that aspect.
Since it won't pass then it will be back to the drawing board. Hopefully the Republicans who haven't gone batshit crazy (hello Bob Dole, Jeb Bush, etc.) become part of this process and bring some real ideas, instead of tea bag bullshit that appeases the rabble, to the next bill.
Mark Anderson wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:22:59 +0800, Dave C. wrote:
>> I'm seriously thinking of moving out of the country and renouncing my >> citizenship. Really. -Dave
> As the old saying goes -- don't let the door hit your ass on the way > out.
> This is much ado about nothing since they don't have the votes to > pass it in the Senate. Nice first try though but this bill is flawed > and AFAIK, doesn't address the insane cost structure that health > providers impose and doesn't address the lack of price transparency > in health care and that patients have no incentive to shop around > since the almighty insurance companies insulates them from what > health providers charge. The US health care system does not operate > on free market principles and, AFAIK, this bill doesn't seem to > address that aspect.
It isnt addressable. The cost of a serious medical problem is so high that a free market just wont work.
And there cant be a free market anyway, essentially because no modern first or second world country is actually stupid enough to let anyone who wants to do heart bypasses and brain surgery etc.
> Since it won't pass then it will be back to the drawing board. > Hopefully the Republicans who haven't gone batshit crazy (hello Bob > Dole, Jeb Bush, etc.) become part of this process and bring some real > ideas, instead of tea bag bullshit that appeases the rabble, to the next bill.
Taint gunna happen, you watch.
The only thing that makes any sense at all is to make medicare universal or control the prices that can be charged like the japs do, and neither will happen this time, you watch.
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:22:59 +0800, Dave C. wrote:
>> I'm seriously thinking of moving out of the country and renouncing my >> citizenship. Really. -Dave
> As the old saying goes -- don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
> This is much ado about nothing since they don't have the votes to pass it > in the Senate. Nice first try though but this bill is flawed and AFAIK, > doesn't address the insane cost structure that health providers impose > and doesn't address the lack of price transparency in health care and > that patients have no incentive to shop around since the almighty > insurance companies insulates them from what health providers charge. > The US health care system does not operate on free market principles and, > AFAIK, this bill doesn't seem to address that aspect.
> Since it won't pass then it will be back to the drawing board. Hopefully > the Republicans who haven't gone batshit crazy (hello Bob Dole, Jeb Bush, > etc.) become part of this process and bring some real ideas, instead of > tea bag bullshit that appeases the rabble, to the next bill.
Healthcare reform has been brought up by practically every administration since Harry Truman's time and it's been defeated or put on the back burners by the republican party all these years. What makes you think that they want to do anything to come up with an acceptable or even a non-acceptable plan of their own. Their tactic is to delay and stall until the midterm elections and thereby hope the American citizen is disgusted with the Dems enough that they vote Rep in those elections. Then the healthcare bills will be put to sleep for another administration to try.
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:36:22 -0500 >Sum Guy <S...@Guy.com> wrote:
>> You can't drive a car legally in any state without having liability >> insurance in place for the car.
>> That means (in theory) that everyone's car insurance is the lowest it >> can possibly be because everyone is basically forced to obtain >> insurance for their car. Everyone is paying into the system.
>Wow is that some fucked-up logic, or what? If we weren't forced to buy >insurance for our cars, insurance companies would have to work harder >to convince us that it's worth buying. Like making it cheaper for us. >But since we're forced to buy it, there's no point in even trying to >keep the cost low for the individual driver. And don't tell me that >there's competition. In most states, only a few companies are allowed >to offer car insurance. That's not competition, and does nothing to >keep prices low for drivers.
The problem with your logic is that car insurance is *cheaper* where everyone is forced to buy at least a minimum of liability insurance (and I don't just mean there is a law on the books somewhere dusty). Driving without liability insurance or the equivalent assets is an infringement on my rights.
krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:00:30 +0800, "Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> > wrote:
> >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:36:22 -0500 > >Sum Guy <S...@Guy.com> wrote:
> >> You can't drive a car legally in any state without having liability > >> insurance in place for the car.
> >> That means (in theory) that everyone's car insurance is the lowest > >> it can possibly be because everyone is basically forced to obtain > >> insurance for their car. Everyone is paying into the system.
> >Wow is that some fucked-up logic, or what? If we weren't forced to > >buy insurance for our cars, insurance companies would have to work > >harder to convince us that it's worth buying. Like making it > >cheaper for us. But since we're forced to buy it, there's no point > >in even trying to keep the cost low for the individual driver. And > >don't tell me that there's competition. In most states, only a few > >companies are allowed to offer car insurance. That's not > >competition, and does nothing to keep prices low for drivers.
> The problem with your logic is that car insurance is *cheaper* where > everyone is forced to buy at least a minimum of liability insurance
That's because the rates are set artificially low by the state for minimum coverage. Which forces some insurers to say "fuckit" and leave the state. -Dave
|
