President Empathy

Do other countries tax private health benefits to pay for their government's version?

The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits....


It would be an incentive to drop that healthcare and go with 0bamacare. If enough people dropped their employer's health benefit package, the insurance companies would go belly up.


Britain--Which White House Suggests Is Model of Single-Payer Health Care System That 'Works'--Doesn't 'Work' for Everyone

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs raised eyebrows last week when he attempted to clarify President Obama's startling admission that he thought there were countries where single-payer healthcare systems work "pretty well."
 
You know why there is no system like you described in today's world? Because it wouldn't work! There are very few people in the world who are stuck on this idea for good reason. There would be no cohesion or rules of fair play. At best we'd have a lot of feuding between states and a dissolution of the union within probably less than a decade.

Spoken like a true victim of the system.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Written by Men who started a country that changed the world, for the better.

Today, we look for what I can get. mememememememe


Yes, T.R. was a full-blown Progressive in the best way-

Out of power is the only way.

Throwing out most of the incumbents in Congress,

There we can agree.

no one has suggested that the government be the ONLY option. quit trying to create drama where there is none.

Your company has two options. Purchase healthcare for its employees & their dependents at an ever increasing rate;

or;

Drop coverage & allow your employees & their depndents to pick up government controlled care.

Which is financially more workable?
 
Kinda weird that it ever turned into company responsibility anyway. People should be able to choose the public option or an insurance company regardless of their work situation.
 
As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.

While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.


There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.

Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.


Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.


From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427
 
Take two .38 Specials orally and call me in the morning.

There are some states who already have state run health care--Massachusetts and Oregon for starters. This is a story, which Mark Levin commented on earlier, about the system in Oregon. This should be required reading for all Americans, because Barack Obama isn't going to tell you this side of government health care. Barack Obama never has to worry about being turned down for treatment like you and I will.

This story is not a new story, but the realities of this story will be what Americans face if Obama and the Democrats take over health care. As you read this, put yourself in Barbara Wagner's shoes.

Barbara Wagner's lung cancer came back, just like it did with my grandfather 17 years ago. Wagner lives in Oregon, where the state runs the health care industry and rations care. She was diagnosed with a terminal stage of lung cancer this time, and Oregon denied her treatment and drugs that would prolong her life and give her a few more weeks to spend with her family and friends. Under Oregon's law they ration the care so you die faster, which I find ironic. They don't want a person who has gone to work and paid their taxes all their life to inconvenience the tax payers by giving them a few weeks, but they will encourage people to spend a lifetime on welfare.

So Wagner was denied care. Luckily her story was publicized and those 'evil' pharmaceutical companies which the Democrats love to demonize stepped up to the plate and saw that Wagner was given the drugs she needed to have those few extra days.

Instead of funding the drugs Wagner needed, the state of Oregon sent Wagner a letter reminding her the state of Oregon would pay for her physician assisted suicide if she chose that road. In her shock she asked, "I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?'"

Welcome to Obamacare 2009.

But, what the hell. Who wants to live to be a 100 anyway?......I mean....besides the 99 year olds.

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2009/06/story-of-barbara-wagner-explanation-why.html
 
We are the world, we are the children.

Why should it be your country's duty to maintain your health or fix you if you're not??



Hint:

(Soylent Green is people)
 
Kinda weird that it ever turned into company responsibility anyway.

It was, and is, an employee benefit, not a company responsibility. The government was tryng to make it a responsibility.

What is weird is that the HMOs took less than a decade to create a dependance on cheap medical care.
 
Once a government plan is in place, private insurance companies will be run out of business.

Established MDs will retire. The best students won't enter the field.


Angry Docs Say Proposed Government-Run Health Care Plan Will Drive Physicians out of Medicine


Access to the latest drugs will be curtailed. The federal health czar will determine which drugs and treatments are cost effective -- compared to medically effective.

Yeah that's a fringe group of ultra right wing doctors known to lie to the public.

Wikipedia said:

Quackwatch has that publication, (put out by the unethical docs) on its list of non-recommended publications described as "Journals (Fundamentally Flawed)".

So now why don't you try and make a case with information and not lies and spin?

Oh wait I just remembered where I am posting....NEVERMIND!
 
It was, and is, an employee benefit, not a company responsibility. The government was tryng to make it a responsibility.

What is weird is that the HMOs took less than a decade to create a dependance on cheap medical care.

yes, it shouldn't be tied to your job at all and the HMOs took shitty healthcare to new levels.
 
We are the world, we are the children.

Why should it be your country's duty to maintain your health or fix you if you're not??



Hint:

(Soylent Green is people)

I'll give you a reason (why I'd bother is a mystery).

How about because every other industrialized nation cares enough about its people to do that? How about because our system is getting so bad that if we weren't the big kid on the block I think people in other countries would be shouting about human rights violations? How about the majority of Americans want it?

You guys who argue against this think you have good health care, but come up with any expensive disease and then see how much you like it! I don't wish it on anyone, but I hate to admit I'd get an uneasy chuckle out of it and be the first to tell you "I told you so".
 
Life expectancy is typically longer in countries with government healthcare.

Aren't stats fun. Did you know there is a direct correlation between the incidence of diaper rash in New York city and the miles of highway laid in Ireland. I guess that means that we should be suing Ireland for diaper rash, huh. After all, we wouldn't want to dig any deeper in to cause and effect.

It is interesting that if you look at life expectancy of cancer victims and heart attack patients, it is much higher in the US.

BTW, the answer to first examle is Summer. The answer to Spikes misleading stat is most likely a combination of genetics, auto deaths, diet, drug use, recreational activities, and, oh yeah, global warming.
 
Yeah that's a fringe group of ultra right wing doctors known to lie to the public.



Quackwatch has that publication, (put out by the unethical docs) on its list of non-recommended publications described as "Journals (Fundamentally Flawed)".

So now why don't you try and make a case with information and not lies and spin?

Oh wait I just remembered where I am posting....NEVERMIND!

markie, markie, markie.

Pretty funny watching you rant about "ultra rightwing fringe groups" and "lies and spin" and then citing Media Matters, Wikipedia, and Quackwatch as a sources to try to debunk the AAPS.

Interesting fellow, by the way, that Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch.

:rolleyes:


That AAPS website has good points. Thanks for focusing on it. ;)

An Open Letter to America’s Physicians June 25, 2009

Congress and President Obama are proposing to turn doctors into servants of the state, insurance companies, hospitals, and everyone except who matters most: the patient. We will be turned into bean counters, computer entry clerks, dutiful “providers” and will not resemble anything like a “professional”.

:thumbup:
 
I'll give you a reason (why I'd bother is a mystery).

How about because every other industrialized nation cares enough about its people to do that? How about because our system is getting so bad that if we weren't the big kid on the block I think people in other countries would be shouting about human rights violations? How about the majority of Americans want it?


The government shouldn't be in the insurance business, no way, no how. Big government bad. Make citizens dependent.


"A majority of Americans want it" :rolleyes: Anything current to back that up?


And if you feel that it is so well received by the country, why are State Lawmakers Considering Move to Opt Out of Federal Health Care?

"Our state legislatures are looking at what's going on in Washington as trampling state's rights," Herrera says.

Some state legislators say they worry that a government-mandated program will effectively eliminate their traditional role in regulating health insurers -- an important power base. Others raise constitutional concerns. "The real goal of national health insurance exchange isn't competition -- it's a federal power grab that flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment," says Wisconsin state Rep. Leah Vukmir, a Republican.

The Tenth Amendment ensures that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's the same constitutional roadblock Franklin D. Roosevelt ran into during the Great Depression when he tried to ram through the first round of recovery programs under the New Deal. In a series of rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court found the National Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act and several other recovery programs unconstitutional.


You guys who argue against this think you have good health care, but come up with any expensive disease and then see how much you like it! I don't wish it on anyone, but I hate to admit I'd get an uneasy chuckle out of it and be the first to tell you "I told you so".

But jackass, you already did wish it.

:shrug:
 
Oh yes and the Hippocratic Oath's notion of "first do no harm" and insurance and profit are quite incompatible.


First, Do No Harm

Doctors take a Hippocratic oath, the most well-known portion being to do no harm to their patients. It’s time Congress applies this maxim to their health care proposals and to the plethora of wasteful social engineering programs they’re rushing to enact.

We’re told 49 million Americans have no health care. What we’re not told is that of those 49 million, at least 12 million are illegal aliens. Another 12 million are people who already qualify for some form of government-subsidized health insurance. And another 12 million are people who could otherwise easily afford to buy their own health insurance, but who choose not to.

This fallacious argument about 49 million uninsured is the dubious reason we’re given to justify the latest unconstitutional takeover of yet another private sector of our economy, the nationalization of America’s health insurance industry.

By the way, don’t we already have a national insurance plan? Look at your next pay stub, that little deduction line that reads FICA. That stands for the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Remember, Social Security was supposed to be a voluntary program.

It doesn’t matter that 85% of Americans with insurance say they want to keep their current insurance programs. Congress and the Obama Administration are plowing ahead with plans to ultimately force us all into a one-size-fits-all health insurance program administered by the federal government.

Businesses will be forced to provide some form of health insurance to their employees. Those that don’t will be penalized with higher taxes. So will they choose to buy private insurance, or by into the taxpayer-subsidized (lower cost) public insurance?

When government bureaucrats start talking about “efficiencies” in health care, they’re talking about rationing. It will be up to some unknown bureaucrat to decide if you’re life is valuable enough to “invest” precious health care resources into. And those decisions can and will change with the political winds.

Meanwhile, the legislation says nothing at all about reforming the nation’s tort laws. Those are the laws that allow someone to sue for millions in malpractice cases. Insurance companies all say that if such malpractice awards were limited to actual expenses associated with the malpractice, plus a limited amount as a penalty (punitive damages), say $250,000, they could reduce insurance premiums for everyone.

It’s not surprising, considering the nation’s trial lawyers contribute heavily to the Democrats now in control in Washington.

It doesn’t seem to matter that absolutely none of this is authorized by the Constitution. Our federal government shall have only those powers delegated to it by our Constitution. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The rumblings of a new American Revolution have reached critical mass.
 
There has to be a thousand logical arguments against everything you said but I'm tired of wasting time on your, (all of you who can't see my point) paranoid, ignorant, set in stone, opinions for today, and hopefully a while to come.
 
Back
Top