Republicans must be capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm.. not as telling as someone who says "** the poor, the weak and the unfortunate". What's your excuse then?

[Danno 1,228]

Hmmm.. not as telling as someone who says "** the poor, the weak and the unfortunate". What's your excuse then?

Wait a minute, you do realize Religious folk give at both the church / Synagog ... AND on April 15th.... I'm bettin you only contribute in one of those avenues. (under threat of the IRS)

Why must I endorse and fund your failed poverty programs.... to be considered "compassionate"?

What percentage of people were in poverty when the "great society" era started?

What percentage are now in poverty?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Medicare proposals are not set to kick in right away. The President's sponsored health care system will kick in soon (2014). I thought that the new system was supposed to protect health care users from the practices that the new Medicare Plan is going to bring with it in 2022 when it kicks in for people that are 55 now.

So the question is simple. If the new health care system (which will be single payer very soon if the President is reelected) then why the panic about Ryan's Medicare Plan? You just said that single payer healthcare is Medicare for all, so where is the problem? You will get what you want after all when single payer kicks in, and it will because the Obama Administration will see to it that no private insurance company will be able to stay in business leaving a gap for another effective Government Agency. (Just as good as USCIS / DHS I am sure.)

Is there really a problem or just a chance to make an issue to further the class warfare the Democrats are so good at? And I bet you don't even realize how they are using you.

First off, Ryan's plan stipulates that PPACA is repealed. That means that patient and insured protections embedded in this legislation would vaporize.

Second, what makes you think that Obama will be able to push a single payer system through Congress if he is re-elected? Have you not been around in 2009/2010 when the health care debate took place?

So yes, there is a real problem and it's not just a lot of noise over nothing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wait a minute, you do realize Religious folk give at both the church / Synagog ... AND on April 15th.... I'm bettin you only contribute in one of those avenues. (under threat of the IRS)

Why must I endorse and fund your failed poverty programs.... to be considered "compassionate"?

What percentage of people were in poverty when the "great society" era started?

What percentage are now in poverty?

How many more bizarre and contextless questions are you going to ask.

And you would bet wrong Danno, as always.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It was not free as so many Americans think European Health Care is. It was on average 14% of gross income.

Let's be clear for the benefit of those not familiar with the German system that the cost of health care insurance is 14% which is split 50/50 between employer and employee.

Family coverage that would be equivalent to the typical coverage you have in Germany - full coverage with minimal co-pays - runs at about $15K per year down here in sunny FL. Matters none what you make, this is what it costs. Employers that provide health care coverage options to their employees absorb, on average, 65% - 75% of the cost rather than that 50/50 split you find in Germany.

Now, median household income in FL is below $50K. Let that sink in for a moment. Half of the households in this state make $50K or less. The health care coverage costs 15K - 30% of which the employee pays. That's 9% of your earnings for folks at the median (a whopping 21% for the employer). These rates get worse for those below, and better for those above.

To arrive at 7% for the employee, you'd have to make 65K - some 30% above the median. For the employer to arrive at that 7%, you'd have to make 150K - three times the median.

And then there's the Medicare tax (another 1.45% from both the employer and employee) on top of that.

And all of a sudden, a contribution of 7% each from the employer and employee doesn't sound all that bad.

[Captain Oates 911]

Well ok then if the homeless weak poor etc don't do it for you, then what about the concept of us 'fireproof' people pooling some money and if any of us ends up in big economic trouble, they can draw on the pool ? That is self interest or self insurance

Naturally you will say that if I want to do that then go ahead but don't take your money compulsorily

If you hit hard times and need emergency treatment, you wouldn't think twice about getting treated for free - in other words at my cost - thereby taking my money compulsorily the next time i need to pay for treatment

Also consider car insurance. The State commands you to pay it and the money is pooled for the benefit of those who have an accident

Naturally you will say that people have a choice about buying a car but the mandate gives no choice. To that I would say that we are all born driving our own bodies and we have no choice about that and the cost if something goes wrong will fall on others and therefore it is a responsibility of being alive and having a body, that we should insure it so other don't have to pay if we get sick and can't pay

Don't say the C word - charity because we don't ask for charity when our car crashes and we shouldn't have to ask for charity when our body crashes

Driving your uninsured body around for 70 years and expecting others to pick up the tab is irresponsible. Yes you have insurance now, but next week you could be a penniless paraplegic and then I would have to pay for you

Edited May 26, 2011 by Alan the Red

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The issue with people not contributing to the coverage of medical expenses is that we mandate emergency care for everyone. We pay for that through higher cost at the providers, higher insurance cost and higher taxes. And we encourage free riding that way.

If the country wants to say that providing for your medical needs is your individual problem and yours alone, then we need to that in a very consequent way by requiring payment - or proof of the ability to pay - at the time of service. Are we going to do that? Of course not. And since we won't and since we will maintain a system where everyone is entitled to at least basic, life-saving emergency care, we then need to be honest and require everyone to contribute the cost.

[Captain Oates 911]

The issue with people not contributing to the coverage of medical expenses is that we mandate emergency care for everyone. We pay for that through higher cost at the providers, higher insurance cost and higher taxes. And we encourage free riding that way.

If the country wants to say that providing for your medical needs is your individual problem and yours alone, then we need to that in a very consequent way by requiring payment - or proof of the ability to pay - at the time of service. Are we going to do that? Of course not. And since we won't and since we will maintain a system where everyone is entitled to at least basic, life-saving emergency care, we then need to be honest and require everyone to contribute the cost.

[Danno 1,228]

The issue with people not contributing to the coverage of medical expenses is that we mandate emergency care for everyone. We pay for that through higher cost at the providers, higher insurance cost and higher taxes. And we encourage free riding that way.

If the country wants to say that providing for your medical needs is your individual problem and yours alone, then we need to that in a very consequent way by requiring payment - or proof of the ability to pay - at the time of service. Are we going to do that? Of course not. And since we won't and since we will maintain a system where everyone is entitled to at least basic, life-saving emergency care, we then need to be honest and require everyone to contribute the cost.

The very best approach would be for states to have their own programs, where by we can compare them,

THe hugest blunder some want to make is to do it on a national level.

The size and manageability of this country alone would suggest a single program would provide, moderate service at sky rocketing costs, which would be added to the national debt.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The very best approach would be for states to have their own programs, where by we can compare them,

THe hugest blunder some want to make is to do it on a national level.

The size and manageability of this country alone would suggest a single program would provide, moderate service at sky rocketing costs, which would be added to the national debt.

As I've said a million times before - let the states do it their way as long as they meet a very simple standard: Everyone is afforded access to the basic human necessity called health care. Coverage ought not to include every conceivable medical procedure but needs to include effective care. As long as the sates meet that very basic requirement, let them have at it and work out their own plans.

And as I've also said a million times, PPACA provides for that as it allows states to do their own as long as some very basic requirements are met.

[wshc 46]

Let's be clear for the benefit of those not familiar with the German system that the cost of health care insurance is 14% which is split 50/50 between employer and employee.

Family coverage that would be equivalent to the typical coverage you have in Germany - full coverage with minimal co-pays - runs at about $15K per year down here in sunny FL. Matters none what you make, this is what it costs. Employers that provide health care coverage options to their employees absorb, on average, 65% - 75% of the cost rather than that 50/50 split you find in Germany.

Now, median household income in FL is below $50K. Let that sink in for a moment. Half of the households in this state make $50K or less. The health care coverage costs 15K - 30% of which the employee pays. That's 9% of your earnings for folks at the median (a whopping 21% for the employer). These rates get worse for those below, and better for those above.

To arrive at 7% for the employee, you'd have to make 65K - some 30% above the median. For the employer to arrive at that 7%, you'd have to make 150K - three times the median.

And then there's the Medicare tax (another 1.45% from both the employer and employee) on top of that.

And all of a sudden, a contribution of 7% each from the employer and employee doesn't sound all that bad.

Thanks for the accurate figures and the info about the 50/50 split. I knew that but had forgotten. All I remember is the several hundred euro held out each month for Health Care Insurance.

My point was simply to say that Health Care is not free in Germany, which I feel is not a well known fact among Americans. The news often speaks of European style health care where everyone is covered, without adding - "at a price".

What about the rest of Europe? Is it actually free anywhere or is there always a premium to pay by the insured?

Edited May 26, 2011 by wshc

[Danno 1,228]

As I've said a million times before - let the states do it their way as long as they meet a very simple standard: Everyone is afforded access to the basic human necessity called health care. Coverage ought not to include every conceivable medical procedure but needs to include effective care. As long as the sates meet that very basic requirement, let them have at it and work out their own plans.

And as I've also said a million times, PPACA provides for that as it allows states to do their own as long as some very basic requirements are met.

I know we just disagree on this point but the federal Gov't should not be dictating anything in this regard.... for the simple reason if they can dictate "A" this year... to the states, they can dictate"B" next year.

it's simply not in their job description. (IMO)

[Captain Oates 911]

The very best approach would be for states to have their own programs, where by we can compare them,

THe hugest blunder some want to make is to do it on a national level.

The size and manageability of this country alone would suggest a single program would provide, moderate service at sky rocketing costs, which would be added to the national debt.

Europe has 450 millon people and great deal of diversity and each State does it itself

But the people of every single country want UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Without exception. Nobody ever repealed it - ever

There is no State in the USA that would let Universal Health Care go once it had it

Killing slavery was asserting a human right and the Federal government stepped in (much to the chagrin of the right wing business people)

The Fed should do it again to secure this universal human RIGHT

Anyone who has had toothache on a weekend knows what I am talking about - it isn't a luxury

but a screaming necessity

I am set to get NOTHING from this country as I have ZERO Social Security entitlement and ZERO Medicare entitlement and because my wife is a young chick I will be Clint's age before I qualify on her coat-tails - but I would still pay tax to see OTHER human beings treated properly and given health care as a RIGHT

By the way - if she went to the UK to live, she would have full entitlement as soon as she landed - and it would be 100% free for life. That's the civilized way and not the Tombstone Arizona 1880 way.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Alan the Red

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My point was simply to say that Health Care is not free in Germany, which I feel is not a well known fact among Americans. The news often speaks of European style health care where everyone is covered, without adding - "at a price".

What about the rest of Europe? Is it actually free anywhere or is there always a premium to pay by the insured?

Of course heath care isn't free in Germany or anywhere else for that matter. Somehow it is paid for - either via payroll deductions or premium payments or general taxes or any combination thereof.

The reason why I broke down the numbers the way I did was to make clear that the 14% looks like a large number. But when you look at what the cost in the US is - it's significantly more. Naturally so since no developed country spends the insane amounts on health care that the US spends - both on a per captia basis and relative to GDP.

The interesting part then is that despite significantly lower expenses, all other developed nations cover their entire citizenry and achieve better outcomes than we do. They all get more for less. And yet, we're sitting here listening to politicians talking about the US having the best health care in the world. That's a flat-out lie. There is absolutely nothing that supports any such claim.

The biggest relief that this country could offer the business community, the single best thing that could be done to fire up the economy, encourage hiring by bringing down the cost of labor is to bring our health care expenses in line with other developed nations.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I know we just disagree on this point but the federal Gov't should not be dictating anything in this regard.... for the simple reason if they can dictate "A" this year... to the states, they can dictate"B" next year.

it's simply not in their job description. (IMO)

Someday down the road, there will be consensus even in this country, that health care isn't some luxury but a basic human necessity without which no right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is even imaginable. Over 40,000 fellow Americans are deprived of their right to life each and every year for nothing but a lack of access to adequate health care. Until that is resolved, the right to life is nothing but a hollow phrase.