The cost of "free" health care
- Thread starter keith
- Start date
- Status
People just don't get the whole supply-demand thing. I truly believe that the biggest issue between libs and conservatives comes from completly opposing basic assumptions about how the world works. I have talked to numerous supporters of state provided medicine, and all of them truly believe that there would be no massive increase in the number of doctor visits etc... The altruistic goals of the left tend to backfire. The needs of the many are best served by the self serving behavior of the individual who is producing. These government programs promote the needs of the few in our society who do not produce and do nothing to attempt to better their lives. Yes, I am painting with a broad brush, and yes, there are many who all on hard times and need some help, but the majority of individuals who cannot provide for themselves are simply living in a state enabled by those of us with altruistic goals and no logical understanding of human behavior. No Hillary, you can't lead us out of this horrible capitalist free society.
Pretty soon our seniors are going to be overloading the new medicare "free" prescription drug program. Costs will balloon out of sight, but fortunately the taxpayers will pick up the tab and the seniors won't mind a little rationing will they?
Keith.
Keith,
It sickens me. Senior citizens have a very high per-capita income, and yet since they vote they get more govt. benefits than the rest of us. Most of them seem so interested in their children's lives, until they are out of the house, then they are only interested in their own selfish goals. Of course, this isn't all of them, but from experience in a city with the 2nd oldest population in the country, Pittsburgh, it is extrememly evident that they could care less about they producing portion of the populace.
It sickens me. Senior citizens have a very high per-capita income, and yet since they vote they get more govt. benefits than the rest of us. Most of them seem so interested in their children's lives, until they are out of the house, then they are only interested in their own selfish goals. Of course, this isn't all of them, but from experience in a city with the 2nd oldest population in the country, Pittsburgh, it is extrememly evident that they could care less about they producing portion of the populace.
Wouldn't it be nice to have an "election holiday" that runs from, say, Friday morning at 7 am nonstop through Saturday evening at 9pm Eastern/6 Pacific? Then working people (3rd shifters too) could vote as easily as those on the dole available mid-days Tuesday.
Plus, polls all across the nation would close at the exact same time, so people won't give up and skip voting based on early returns from the east coast.
Plus, polls all across the nation would close at the exact same time, so people won't give up and skip voting based on early returns from the east coast.
I'm just glad our conservative controled government is protecting us from the dangerous drugs that could come in our country from Canada. I know that Canada has lower prices for drugs and I'm sure that they are inferior to the drugs that are safe and sold at a higher price here in the USA.
PS - Carrera79, I agree with you no one should get a free ride. I served in the USMC and based on your comments I am sure you also volunteered to serve and protect your country. It does feel good when you work hard, go to night school and put yourself through college, not sucking your parents potential retirement money from them, but rather doing it all on your own. Unlike you and me some people think that the world owes them something. But in reality the tougher our life is and the more adversity we have to overcome the stronger we become. With that strength hopefully comes some wisdom and we then realize that we got to this point in our life by standing on the shoulders of the Americans that suffered and worked and sacrificed before us. Next time you look at one of though unproductive "old" people, think of him when he was a young man in a foxhole in Germany, risking his life and youth so you can type your complaints into this website. Now go back to work and thank God you have the opportunity to work hard so that "old guy" has it a little easier in his old age.
PS - Carrera79, I agree with you no one should get a free ride. I served in the USMC and based on your comments I am sure you also volunteered to serve and protect your country. It does feel good when you work hard, go to night school and put yourself through college, not sucking your parents potential retirement money from them, but rather doing it all on your own. Unlike you and me some people think that the world owes them something. But in reality the tougher our life is and the more adversity we have to overcome the stronger we become. With that strength hopefully comes some wisdom and we then realize that we got to this point in our life by standing on the shoulders of the Americans that suffered and worked and sacrificed before us. Next time you look at one of though unproductive "old" people, think of him when he was a young man in a foxhole in Germany, risking his life and youth so you can type your complaints into this website. Now go back to work and thank God you have the opportunity to work hard so that "old guy" has it a little easier in his old age.
Pit Bull, I'm having a bad day, so I came off a bit too nasty. I very much respect what those in the past have done for us, however the current political climate has given senior citizens much more power than that have had in the past. My grandfather flew a B-24 over Germany. I have great respect for his generation. However, it irks me that my grandmother will make the statement that she should get benefits for prescriptions since they don't have a lot of available cash-even if they have extremely large amounts of money in the stock market. It is this attitude that really bothers me, and being from pittsburgh it is extremely visable.
Name the last 3 significant drugs brought to market by Canadian drug company research dollars?
Friggin' Canadian FREELOADERS
Keith.
I live in a ''welfare state'' possibly similar to Canada - I must ask my Canadian brother,he is here now - having a baby here is free,in hospital or at home - My mother died a couple of days ago,her last days in the hospice of her small town,in the best of care and free from worry,the hospice is funded by the govnt and donations,her illnes was not a burdon on her or us.
In between these situations there is total abuse of the system,a large portion of our population has never worked a day in their life,taking handouts from the government in some form or other and passing these skills onto their children.It's an almost impossible system to run,giving help to the needy but trying to block those who will abuse the privalidge,after 30yrs it is impossible to pull it apart,the whole mess feeds on itself.Sadly this welfare state was mainly set up by one our best poltitions,a great leader who had no idea that others were not like him and prepared to work hard all their lives,he never considered that others would see it for what it is - a free hand out.
In between these situations there is total abuse of the system,a large portion of our population has never worked a day in their life,taking handouts from the government in some form or other and passing these skills onto their children.It's an almost impossible system to run,giving help to the needy but trying to block those who will abuse the privalidge,after 30yrs it is impossible to pull it apart,the whole mess feeds on itself.Sadly this welfare state was mainly set up by one our best poltitions,a great leader who had no idea that others were not like him and prepared to work hard all their lives,he never considered that others would see it for what it is - a free hand out.
Although we all know it will never happen, some political theorists have suggested that the right to vote should be taken away from older people at some specified age, such as 75. This is because those who are in this age group tend to vote on the basis of their own self interest, which is very short sighted and not in the best interest of the country at large.
On the other hand, there needs to be some kind of public system to deal with people, such as the working poor, who seriously need health care, but can't afford it. Face it, when these people show up at the emergency room of the hospital, they are not going to be turned away. In many cases, because they could not afford health care before their conditions become really serious, the public cost is greater by not providing health care on a timely basis.
Also, the costs incurred by hospitals to treat these people gets picked up someplace. If the government does not pay it directly, the hospitals are allowed to build it into the rates they charge to people who can pay or who have health insurance, driving up the cost of health insurance.
I will give a personal example. I used to live in New Jersey, and a hospitalization plan from Blue Cross/Blue Shield cost me over $650 per month for one person!! NJ has no state health insurance for the working poor.
In Vermont, where I now live, all children and some other lower income people have access to a State run health plan. As a result, I do not have to pay for these people through my health insurance premium, but I do pay a higher state income tax than in NJ.
My annual health insurance bill in Vermont is over $5000 lower than in NJ. My state income tax is about $1500 higher in VT than in NJ. As I see it, I am way ahead by having a State Plan take care of these people than paying a "hidden tax" through my health insurance costs, as I did in NJ.
On the other hand, there needs to be some kind of public system to deal with people, such as the working poor, who seriously need health care, but can't afford it. Face it, when these people show up at the emergency room of the hospital, they are not going to be turned away. In many cases, because they could not afford health care before their conditions become really serious, the public cost is greater by not providing health care on a timely basis.
Also, the costs incurred by hospitals to treat these people gets picked up someplace. If the government does not pay it directly, the hospitals are allowed to build it into the rates they charge to people who can pay or who have health insurance, driving up the cost of health insurance.
I will give a personal example. I used to live in New Jersey, and a hospitalization plan from Blue Cross/Blue Shield cost me over $650 per month for one person!! NJ has no state health insurance for the working poor.
In Vermont, where I now live, all children and some other lower income people have access to a State run health plan. As a result, I do not have to pay for these people through my health insurance premium, but I do pay a higher state income tax than in NJ.
My annual health insurance bill in Vermont is over $5000 lower than in NJ. My state income tax is about $1500 higher in VT than in NJ. As I see it, I am way ahead by having a State Plan take care of these people than paying a "hidden tax" through my health insurance costs, as I did in NJ.
I hear you about havin a bad day. I just thought you were being a little over the top. The problem with everything is that each persons problems/life is different. But we all like to lump everyone into one group or another and come up with the solution to the problem. I don't think there will be a solution. So people will get screwed, so will get a pass and others will die in their sleep after living a healthy and productive life. I've alway been a lucky one but I feel sorry for the individuals that work hard try and do the right thing and then get hammered by the system. I don't feel sorry for the ones that abuse their bodies and then want someone else to pick up the tab. My sister came down with cancer last May and died this March after about $300K in doctor/hospital bills. Her and her husband owned their own small business's and bought cheap health insurance on their own. It was worthless might of paid $10K of the $300K. Funny part is that the Hospital kept treating her right up to the end. I am sure they will write it off and we will all pay for it in the end. Lifes a ***** and then you die
If this criteria were applied to all, not only to the seniors, you wouldn't have many left to vote.
Seniors have the same right to vote for what is best for them as does any other citizen. Seniors tend to have a shorter time horizon, and for obvious reasons.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Sir Winston Churchill.
Keith.
Sorry for them that they subscribed to the BS that a college degree is always a ticket to a high-paying job.
brianl703, I've got to disagree with you there. I don't believe that a degree is the be all end all of existence, or the ticket to a stable job. But, in my journey from dropping out of engineering at Va Tech to trying to finish a BS in Business at night, finding a good job without the degree, even with great experience, is very difficult. Todays BS degree is equivalent to a HS diploma 30 years ago.
I will file this under "Lessons learned from others mistakes".
Keith.
Our experiences must be VERY different. I'll just state that I'm sure glad I'm not one of those minimum-wage workers with a college degree. Gee, that must really be a slap in the face. Minimum-wage AND student loans.
I'll bet Kerry will get their vote in 2004.
[ July 22, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: brianl703 ]
I'll bet Kerry will get their vote in 2004.
[ July 22, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: brianl703 ]
well, I'm not saying that I have a horrible job. I make a good income, but I work in a commision based job, and my income is based on my selling skills. Not everyone can sell, and to get a job without the pressure of sales you need a degree. To get a good job selling you usually need a degree. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they are rare and we need to base this on what is observable by the majority of individuals.
There are some serious misconceptions around about what "Hillarycare" in 1994 would have involved. The Clintons' health care scheme emulated not the Canadian health care system, but the German system. Slick Willie himself reportedly admired the German system greatly.
By our standards, the German approach is filled with government tracking and reporting requirements and with many, many punitive penalties for not following the rules. The Clintonian bill had the same features.
For example, a provision that you would have to report your new address to health care authorities within 30 days after moving was lifted straight from German law and would have facilitated the feds' keeping tabs on you and your family. (If this is truly a national scheme, why would this step be necessary? With a valid card you should have been able to get care anywhere in the US, which is broadly the case for Canadians in Canada. There were other agendas here, such as issuing a national ID card.)
The Canadian system has its flaws, but nothing like the frightful provisions in this other plan. That's why Hillarycare died in Congress.
K1xv is right in that there are a lot of working poor who simply cannot afford insurance but cannot afford doctors, hospitals, or pharmacists either. We need to help them. As it is now, hospitals in particular have become incredibly aggressive on collections, and placing leins on houses or other property is now routine for those who cannot pay. A national health care scheme should make the working poor and their minor dependents the priority--that is, not the chronically unemployed, drug abusers, etc.
If you scoff or say that the working poor are slackers and deserve what they get, may your job never be eliminated or outsourced. There are plenty of people with college degrees who are now working at convenience stores or fast-food joints at minimum wage with no benefits, thanks to corporate greed.
I have less sympathy for senior citizens, who after all had a lifetime to save during some of our country's best years. Many of them used poor judgement in schooling or career choices or deciding to take early retirement, for examples, and now they want the rest of us to pay their bills. (Me--I'm in my early 40s and expect to have to work till I'm at least 70. If I make it that long.)
What has appalled me is the entitlement mentality so many seniors display. Too many of them--not all or even most, and many seniors do productive work by choice or necessity--think they've earned some "right" to pick the taxpayers' pockets. (This is related to the mentality I see with some older workers who seem to believe that after X years of working they are "entitled" to slack off or to get some gravy job. It is also clear that many older women in particular simply don't want to have to work but do so because they must, and their attitudes toward customers and fellow workers show it. These factors might explain some of the discrimination some employers practice against older workers. It's not right, but sometimes it's understandable.)
An example will show why so many senior programs are simply unsustainable, and by extension why I believe any national health care scheme should favor those who are working. Relatives of mine, a married couple, are in a nursing home. He dropped out of school in eighth grade, worked at a series of low-paid farm hired hand jobs, and retired over 25 years ago. By my calculations, Medicaid for medical and nursing home care has spent not only more than they contributed to the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid system--not only more than they paid in total taxes--but more than their entire lifetime earnings, even accounting for reasonable interest from investing the entire amount, had they been able to do so. Not good.
I don't claim to have any really good solutions, but to dismiss a national health care program out of hand is unrealistic. Every other industrialized country except the US has one in some form. We need to consider one, at least for those who are productive and for children, with the long-term unproductive purely secondary. One day, you could be in a bind and need medical care but not be able to pay for it. Don't forget it.
By our standards, the German approach is filled with government tracking and reporting requirements and with many, many punitive penalties for not following the rules. The Clintonian bill had the same features.
For example, a provision that you would have to report your new address to health care authorities within 30 days after moving was lifted straight from German law and would have facilitated the feds' keeping tabs on you and your family. (If this is truly a national scheme, why would this step be necessary? With a valid card you should have been able to get care anywhere in the US, which is broadly the case for Canadians in Canada. There were other agendas here, such as issuing a national ID card.)
The Canadian system has its flaws, but nothing like the frightful provisions in this other plan. That's why Hillarycare died in Congress.
K1xv is right in that there are a lot of working poor who simply cannot afford insurance but cannot afford doctors, hospitals, or pharmacists either. We need to help them. As it is now, hospitals in particular have become incredibly aggressive on collections, and placing leins on houses or other property is now routine for those who cannot pay. A national health care scheme should make the working poor and their minor dependents the priority--that is, not the chronically unemployed, drug abusers, etc.
If you scoff or say that the working poor are slackers and deserve what they get, may your job never be eliminated or outsourced. There are plenty of people with college degrees who are now working at convenience stores or fast-food joints at minimum wage with no benefits, thanks to corporate greed.
I have less sympathy for senior citizens, who after all had a lifetime to save during some of our country's best years. Many of them used poor judgement in schooling or career choices or deciding to take early retirement, for examples, and now they want the rest of us to pay their bills. (Me--I'm in my early 40s and expect to have to work till I'm at least 70. If I make it that long.)
What has appalled me is the entitlement mentality so many seniors display. Too many of them--not all or even most, and many seniors do productive work by choice or necessity--think they've earned some "right" to pick the taxpayers' pockets. (This is related to the mentality I see with some older workers who seem to believe that after X years of working they are "entitled" to slack off or to get some gravy job. It is also clear that many older women in particular simply don't want to have to work but do so because they must, and their attitudes toward customers and fellow workers show it. These factors might explain some of the discrimination some employers practice against older workers. It's not right, but sometimes it's understandable.)
An example will show why so many senior programs are simply unsustainable, and by extension why I believe any national health care scheme should favor those who are working. Relatives of mine, a married couple, are in a nursing home. He dropped out of school in eighth grade, worked at a series of low-paid farm hired hand jobs, and retired over 25 years ago. By my calculations, Medicaid for medical and nursing home care has spent not only more than they contributed to the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid system--not only more than they paid in total taxes--but more than their entire lifetime earnings, even accounting for reasonable interest from investing the entire amount, had they been able to do so. Not good.
I don't claim to have any really good solutions, but to dismiss a national health care program out of hand is unrealistic. Every other industrialized country except the US has one in some form. We need to consider one, at least for those who are productive and for children, with the long-term unproductive purely secondary. One day, you could be in a bind and need medical care but not be able to pay for it. Don't forget it.
- Status
