Healthcare reform -- Can It Happen Here?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The draft Democratic Party platform that was sent out last week puts health care reform front and center. "If one thing came through in the platform hearings," says the document, "it was that Democrats are united around a commitment to provide every American access to affordable, comprehensive health care."

nothing more than a buzzword. i'm still waiting for someone to define what is meant by "affordable"

maybe time for a poll, aj?

It's not that difficult, Charles. You tell Americans that for many of us who are paying high premiums in health insurance - that cost will be deleted from their family's expenses.

so you're happy to let the guvmint decide what's "affordable" to you?

care to take a stab at it? what is affordable to you? what's affordable to me? or aj?

The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.^[5]In 2005, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,401; in Canada, US$3,326.^[5] The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 9.8%.^[5] In 2004, almost 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 44.7% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 87% of total Canadian spending (public and private).^[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

care to take a stab at it? what is affordable to you? what's affordable to me? or aj?

The answer to that question will likely not be a nominal dollar figure, but rather a percentage of income.

Kind of the same way banks determine your maximum mortgage amount - as a percentage of pre-tax income or as the ratio of maximum allowable debt over income.

percentage is fine. care to grab the knife and take a stab at it?

Right now, my med+dental+vision premiums are about 3% of my pre-tax income. For the sake of covering the uninsured, I'd be willing to pony up an additional 1-2%. So let's say between 3-5% of pre-tax, on a sliding scale by income level.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

care to take a stab at it? what is affordable to you? what's affordable to me? or aj?

The answer to that question will likely not be a nominal dollar figure, but rather a percentage of income.

Kind of the same way banks determine your maximum mortgage amount - as a percentage of pre-tax income or as the ratio of maximum allowable debt over income.

percentage is fine. care to grab the knife and take a stab at it?

Right now, my med+dental+vision premiums are about 3% of my pre-tax income. For the sake of covering the uninsured, I'd be willing to pony up an additional 1-2%. So let's say between 3-5% of pre-tax, on a sliding scale by income level.

that sounds about like what i'm paying.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How many percentage points more would you be willing to pay for an increase in service to others, assuming your service stays as-is?

[IAMX 3,055]

How many percentage points more would you be willing to pay for an increase in service to others, assuming your service stays as-is?

There's not really much of a choice, as mentioned in this post:

While normally being an optimistic person, this is the one thing I remain cynical (yet hopeful) about.

This country needs universal healthcare, and the country's mindset needs to go up one notch of intelligence with the rest of the first world.

However, if it does happen, it will be via individual states. I have little faith people in many states (mostly southern and midwestern) are going to wise up to the fact that the healthcare system this country has now is utter failure.

Just to be COVERED by private insurance you sign a waiver with the insurance agency. If you just happen to have the misfortune of a pre-existing condition which just might require care, there's a good chance for denial. Why? Because it might cost the insurance agency. Then there's the outright denial of care in certain situations, none greater experienced in my life than 3 private insurers my sister's step-dad had, working for NASA, who delayed her chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant for her leukemia because they didn't want to cover her, because treating cancer patients doesn't seem like it's profitable enough.

If this seems reasonable to people, they need a good smack upside the head. However great the doctors and medicine is means nothing if one can't even get insurance. That is, a slight bit less than 20% of working adults don't have insurance. And before someone cites their precious taxes.. guess what? If someone can't afford to pay their medical bills because they have no insurance, guess who pays anyways? Yep. TAXPAYERS.

Time to join the 21st century, America.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

How many percentage points more would you be willing to pay for an increase in service to others, assuming your service stays as-is?

zero.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How many percentage points more would you be willing to pay for an increase in service to others, assuming your service stays as-is?

zero.

i figured.

thankfully, when it happens no ones gonna ask you for permission

[IAMX 3,055]

How many percentage points more would you be willing to pay for an increase in service to others, assuming your service stays as-is?

zero.

Too late. You're already paying for others.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

How many percentage points more would you be willing to pay for an increase in service to others, assuming your service stays as-is?

zero.

Too late. You're already paying for others.

i'm aware of that.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think that's the point so few of the 'haters' appreciate. Not only are they already paying, they are paying through the nose for a bad service. What's the point of that?

[Marilyn. 340]

health care here sucks.. we are still paying off a bill we have from over a year ago plus some of the bills I incurred last December... and this is with our health insurance paying 90 percent of the bills..

something needs to be done but I don't know what...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

care to take a stab at it? what is affordable to you? what's affordable to me? or aj?

The answer to that question will likely not be a nominal dollar figure, but rather a percentage of income.

Kind of the same way banks determine your maximum mortgage amount - as a percentage of pre-tax income or as the ratio of maximum allowable debt over income.

percentage is fine. care to grab the knife and take a stab at it?

Right now, my med+dental+vision premiums are about 3% of my pre-tax income. For the sake of covering the uninsured, I'd be willing to pony up an additional 1-2%. So let's say between 3-5% of pre-tax, on a sliding scale by income level.

If Canadians are only paying per capita, under $4,000, I'd take that over our current system any day.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

4,000 per year? Per capita? That's about 3,800 USD a year.

That's a lot. In this country the per capita income is a shade less than 40,000 annually, right? So that's 9.5%.

Per capita in a state like West Virgnia is less than 30,000. So 4,000 there starts getting near 13%.

[HAL 9000 96]

care to take a stab at it? what is affordable to you? what's affordable to me? or aj?

The answer to that question will likely not be a nominal dollar figure, but rather a percentage of income.

Kind of the same way banks determine your maximum mortgage amount - as a percentage of pre-tax income or as the ratio of maximum allowable debt over income.

percentage is fine. care to grab the knife and take a stab at it?

Right now, my med+dental+vision premiums are about 3% of my pre-tax income. For the sake of covering the uninsured, I'd be willing to pony up an additional 1-2%. So let's say between 3-5% of pre-tax, on a sliding scale by income level.

I am glad you are willing to sacrifice. However, if it were a percentage thing, don't you think that an additional 0.5% would probably be enough to cover such a plan?

Of course, we could just reallocate spending from other sectors we currently waste money on, like all those $500 light bulbs at the Pentagon.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

However, if it were a percentage thing, don't you think that an additional 0.5% would probably be enough to cover such a plan?

How would I know?