GaryD

US Government Shutdown

100 posts in this topic

I've been trying to stay out of this conversation, mostly because my views are not really in line with the majority view on the thread, but I think I'll venture into the water for a moment.  Probably I shouldn't because I don't really want to debate it, but at the same time I don't want to be a thread troll.

 

I am an American, born and raised.  I did, however, live and work in the U.K. for thirteen years.  I have experienced the best and worst of both systems.  I love both countries.  I think all the time about moving back to Scotland, but frankly, it's easier to make a go of your life here.  I speak from experience as a man who lost everything. And I mean everything.  I was jobless, penniless and homeless. I will spare you the details, for now, but I'm writing a book about my journey and you can learn all the gore, then.  I was sleeping in my car.  There was no 'safety net' for me in either country, mostly because I was a single, white male.  I was told as much by council workers in both countries.  I am not making that up.  I am also not one to look for others to pay my way, so I took what work I could, where I could, to earn my daily bread.  Eventually, I landed a mimimum wage job in call center.  Over time, by hard work, I began to climb the corporate ladder.  I made many mistakes and I did a few things right.  Today, I have a comfortable income, but my wife and I give a large portion away to help those who don't.  I choose very carefully where my money goes, because in my job  I work very closely with a Govt. agency AND with a large multinational corporation.  I see public and private financial malpractice on a daily basis.  I also work daily with the takers and moochers of society who appear to be among the 'have nots' but are in reality, lazy, entitled, spoiled, selfish users, who believe everyone owes them something. They give the genuine 'have nots' a bad name. And they make the 'safety net' much less safe.  I assure you that the economic issues and the assumptions about the 1% vs. the 99% are distorted.  I resent and abhor that fact that I work my tail off, only to see the Govt. take a third of it, mismanage it and hand it out to people who won't do their share then claim I won't pay mine. Bull Hockery.  So I choose to support organizations committed to providing a hand up rather than a Govt. hand OUT.  On the other hand, I despise publicly traded companies who play games with their accounting, walk over customers and employees to make the share price stable or appear to be healthier than they are. Their books are lies.

 

The current plan in America that is called, 'Obamacare', will make the average American poorer and provide poorer health care. That's a fact. I live with it.  I work behind the curtain.  Under the guise of 'affordable health care reform', the American people will be enslaved at an unprecidented rate.  This is about power.  It's a mess.  And I will end up losing my job because my company will not be able to afford the 'employer mandate' portion of the plan. 

 

I have said way too much and I know many will disagree, but I'm speaking from knowledge, not emotion.  Save this thread. Mark my words. You will see.

 

My primary point is this; Our economy and our society is much more complex and nuanced that is captured by a few news soundbites and video clips.  There is beauty and ugliness in our political and economic system.  But I am a living example of one who was able to start from below the bottom and work my way up.  I did it without handouts or federal assistance.  I had no other choice.  I am glad for that. I made it.  When I lose my job in a few months, I'll be just fine.  I have no debt. I can still work. I can grow, raise, hunt and forage my own food.  I can live on the grid or off the grid.  I have a wife who can do the same.  This is still a land of opportunity.  And I love it.  I hope you all love your countries, too.  Our diversity makes this world an awesome place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kellen, Gary, et al. if my above comments are too much and you need to take them down, I have no hard feelings.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sam.  I truly would like to hear your story one day.  You mentioned that 

 

The current plan in America that is called, 'Obamacare', will make the average American poorer and provide poorer health care. That's a fact. I live with it.

 

I currently support the ACA/Obamacare because I think that it won't do that.  But if it does do that, nobody should want it.  Can you tell me how you know this statement is a fact?

Cecil likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

I'll try.

 

Besides the fact that Government NEVER makes anything more efficient (that's a bipartisan statement and Oh, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat), it becomes a math issue.

 

First, most Americans, including doctors, are unhappy with the current system. Insurance agencies and HMOs make it difficult for doctors AND patients, because the agencies and HMO's are profit centers.  Many doctors would like to work out pricing and services directly with the patient so they can focus on health care rather than bottom lines, but I digress.  Unfortunately, the ACA will make a bad system worse by trading many bad agencies for one terrible one.  The IRS can't oversee their own house, how in the world will they manage the ACA?

 

Most people who support the ACA do so for noble reasons.  We want people to have access to health care regardless of income, but the ACA doesn't do this.  Example: insurance companies are dropping out right and left because the mandate to accept pre existing conditions makes it cost prohibitive to operate.  Those that are staying are being forced to double or even triple premiums.  Very few people have tried to sign up so far, but those who have are overcome by sticker shock.  These are people who provide their own health insurance. 

 

The reason rates are going up is a math equation.  If you've ever seen an actuary table you know that premiums are based on a kind of average of what the insurance company spends per customer.  Pre existing conditions obviously cost more because you have automatic sick people coming into the system.  That extra cost is spread out among the other people who are customers.  In essence, the healthy people are paying for the health care of the sick.

 

It sounds simple enough to say that the insurance companies could just eat the difference out of profits, but they only get a portion of their money from premiums.  A large percentage comes from investors.  People don't invest in companies when profits go down.  So, unless the additional costs are passed on via premiums, investors pull their money out and the company collapses and no one has health care.

 

On the other side, there are employers who are mandated to provide health insurance.  A huge multinational can eat some or all of the additional cost.  A small business with 60 or 70 employees can't.  Many of them are barely getting by.  So, they are forced to let people go or cut them to part time.  If you are suddenly without work, or your hours are cut, you lose money and are poorer.  Those people are now forced into the exchanges which have these high premiums.  So you now have less income and higher insurance costs.  At the same time, the small business may not be able to meet order requirements because they've had to cut staff and they risk closing their doors throwing even more people into the system.

 

Many of the 'uninsured' are that way because they have chosen to be.  My son is one of those.  He is healthy, young and fit.  Under the ACA, he is forced to either buy into an exchange or pay the penalty.  For 2 years those penalties are small.  Beginning the third year, they become significant, cutting into his disposable income, making him...poorer.

 

In less than 10 years the system will be overloaded and out of cash, even if it becomes a single payer system and health care rationing WILL happen.  It's simple math.  The money will have to be distributed to those 'who are most deserving'.  Is a Government agency the best place to have that handled?  Is the IRS the best choice?  Doctors and patients will be taken out of the equation. 

 

Doctors and nurses are already dropping out because of this monstrosity, including my own primary care physician who is the best doctor I've ever had.

 

Make no mistake, this will be a financial nightmare for everyone in just a few short years.  That's why unions, congress and a few other groups are trying to get exemptions.  They understand the financial disaster that is ahead.  Once people see what is actually in the bill, they will all beg to get out.

 

We need health care reform. The current system has issues.  The ACA is not the reform we need.  We all want affordable healthcare for everyone, but despite the way the proponents have touted it, The ACA is neither affordable nor healthcare.  It is about Govt. control of more money and services.  The average American will have less say than ever before in his or her healthcare. 

 

A better solution would simply be to allow interstate competition among insurance companies.  The competition would drop prices overnight and open healthcare to millions.  Alternatively, freeing doctors from the handcuffs of the HMOs that run the industry and allowing them to work with their patients, would also improve care and drop prices and could all be done without Government oversight.

 

Ok, my rant is over.  I don't know if I helped.  I do wish I'd kept my thoughts to myself.  A discussion board is no place to discuss complex issues.  I have sinned.

Edited by Sam Burton (see edit history)
Journeyman likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam, I agree with every word you've said here.  It makes me spittin' mad to listen to the supposedly learned politicians talk this trainwreck up.  It's all a power grab and a backdoor way to raise taxes. I can't figure how anyone is going to be able to survive this, financially.  I'm afraid America is headed for some very bad times in the near future.  Seems there's a plan afoot to crush this country.  I can drag out my soapbox, but I did a little bit early on, so I'm going to leave it alone this time.  I'm doing my best to stock up and prepare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 P.S.  I, for one. appreciate your input on this subject.  I don't consider telling the truth is a rant, at all.  I just wish more people would open their eyes and minds to what O/C ( I can't bring myself to even write his name) really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sam,

 

Ok, my rant is over.  I don't know if I helped.  I do wish I'd kept my thoughts to myself.  A discussion board is no place to discuss complex issues.  I have sinned.

 

On the contrary, I've found your most recent posts extremely helpful.  Better understanding of each other (and our respective problems and opportunities) is the result of exchanging ideas and talking about things.

 

My original post read......

 

Hi,

 

We're all hearing plenty about the US Government Shutdown.

 

What is the day-to-day impact of the shutdown for the American people.

 

What is the core issue here?   Is it really about Obamacare?  If so, isn't universal health care one hallmark of a civilised country?

 

Gary

 

 

I thought that Obamacare was about universal health care......access to health care for all people according to their means. 

 

What I'm beginning to realise (that I didn't before) is the role that insurance companies are going to play in the proposed arrangement......and I can understand what irritates people about that.   My personal belief is that insurance companies have no place in the health system.

 

To that extent, I've gained something out of this discussion.

 

Gary

bigdaddy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...I also appreciate the input Sam

 

It certainly helped me understand a few things too...

 

I would indeed be upset if your thoughts were taken down(and I certainly do not think they would be)...Particularly, for the reason of the comments being too harsh..

 

I thank you for posting your thoughts so eloquently...

 

Please continue to discuss this subject...If you want of course...

 

I see they have come up with some type of agreement to extend funding for three months or so, while they work on a resolution...

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some poster above in the thread said Canada have a terrible health system because Canadians go to the US to buy/get a opperation. Well "a lot of" Norwegians go to the US, or other countrys, to get treathement, on differente illneses as well, mostly it's paid for by our health care system (some do it private by choice) The idea is that if you are sick more than 4-8 weeks, it's a big cost to society as a hole (lack of income means, lack of tax, and lack of money to use in the general economy) so the country (Norway) benefit as a hole from people being fit to work and spending money, as a result of this logic (comunist ?) most health care services are "free" and if there is a que on the spesific need, buy it abroad (offshore). The system does normaly not pay for cosmetic surgery other than "needed" (result of injuries and/or abnormalities are paid for but not fanity).

 

Our public health care funds, are with the state, not with innsurance companys.

 

Sad to say it's easyer for me(Norwegians) to achive "The American Dream" in the US as of to day, any Norwegian can get funding by the governement to study at home or abroad, so if you qualify intelectualy you just aply for the funding, deepending on your "fortune" you will either get it as a loan or a scollarship (commonly 50/50) pay back over 30 years no interest ,or down payment untill 15 months after you have established a income (if your income is to low, you can get payments postsponed, but interest will "normaly" start run).

So any Norwegian (rich or poor) with a avarage IQ/skill, can have a financed, go at a uni level, if interessted (aprox 40 % finish a college deegre of some kind). You are covered by our public health care system, when abroad, including transport home, and/or to the nearest hospital, if that is better for your spesific surcumstances/problem, with werry few exceptions, anounced by our foreign office (declared war zones etc.).

 

As a curiosiety (other big difference from the US compared to Norway) We just had "fall break" here, it's a "old" traditional break, for students to be able to go home to help out home, on the farms, at fall harwest time (hardly any knows it's origin or participate in such activeties, anymore).  I heard on the news how the trend was changing, about how people spent their "fall break".

"Only" 40 % went abroad,a cruise, a palm beach...... etc. a few years back it was up to 70%, now the trend are doing something "alone" or with friends, the boys/gals rather than a family thing, it was like hiking in the wildernes, hills, canoing, fishing, hunting etc. prusuing a pasion or hobby.... 

(the difference)

But overall it didn't effect the avarege of going abroad.

In the course of a year, still 60-70% of the "middleclass" (counting 70% of the population here) trawell abroad, twice a year, on longer hollyday/vacation, counting weekend(another trend) tours to London, Milan, New York, Barcelona, Copenhagen..... etc. off work time,  we go abroad 7-10 times a year.

Resent years it has been a increase, in aranging work kickoff event tours abroad as well.(you are on sallary, not using your off time)

 

I'm not saying this is a ideal, but it sure is a big difference compared to average in the US.

I do think going abroad, for any nationality, is educating towards your mindset, and opening your eyes, on both the, negative and positive sides, of your homelands way, on all matters.

We have poverty, unemployment ................. etc. but more equality IMO and I wish for you guys to have the same, of all my heart

 

Edit: I just had to add this video

hehe

:D - I'm surprised Norway isn't on the Axis of Evil list and lined up for the next US invasion. So much evil Socialism to be gotten rid of. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has a severe income inequality problem.  I'm talking about 1% of the population owns something like 40% of the entire wealth of the country.  Is Australia anything like that?  I wonder if other industralized European nations are similar.

 

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you know that the 8 family members of Walmart own 40 percent of this country's wealth?

 

I'm all for captialism but that just seems so high for a corp that pays so little to it's employees that many states have to make up the difference with food stamps and other entitlements.

 

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Craig,

 

Just on the Wall mart thing...But slightly different...

 

We have a big inequality problem with our corporate Giants...

 

The supermarket "Duopoly"(Woolworths and Coles) own about 80 percent of the market...Condoned by The Australian government (because all governments refuse to reign in these people and control them for the greater good of the Australian community)....This Monopolisation allows these companies to be unscrupulous to it's suppliers and it also allows them to control the entire supermarket pricing including supply....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong...But I believe that is totally illegal in The U.S. with any corporation not being allowed to own more than 20 per cent maximum of the market....I believe Wall Mart, the biggest chain over there?....only own 18 percent of the market...

 

Previously and At the moment, The industrial laws allow for OK incomes from supermarket employees...The concern is for the income of their suppliers....Forcing the little man out, allowing for these Giants to buy the suppliers out, and/or eliminating the suppliers without buying them out, forcing them to go broke then sourcing cheap goods from overseas...and on it goes...There are a myriad of variations to this, but you get the picture don't you?...

 

Our governments have failed us, big time in this area and soon, if it is not already, it will be too late...

 

Sorry for moaning but we really have some problems in these areas...

 

Cheers.

Edited by bigdaddy (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kellen, Gary, et al. if my above comments are too much and you need to take them down, I have no hard feelings.  :D

 

 

No worries Sam. I may not agree with all of your opinions but I sure do respect you as a man that made it against odds. I salute you sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres my 0.02,

 

I worked in insurance for a while and left it because it was not the kind of work I wanted to do.  Lying for living just isn't appealing to me.

 

One of the things I learned was the secret govenment funds that bail out insurance companies during extreme losses, only insiders know about the fund and it not on the official books. There are backroom deals going on frequently in our government. 

 

For decades, the cost of insurance has skyrocketed and companies  count that as part of the pay given to employees. Before the afordable care act, it was equivalent to a 50% tax on income for the lowest wage earners. The employers had to have complete enrollment, so employees don't have the option to opt out.   For middle income workers with higher wages, this percentage dropped to 25%. The poor basiclaly subsidize the wealthy by paying more of their income to insurance.   

 

Health care costs too are part of the equation, they go up  hand in hand with insurance cost. Big pharma  charges 10 to 20 times in the US what it charges in other countries. How does it get away with it? One reason is insurance. People don't worry about the cost as long as they can afford the copay.   I forget the source, it's not mine, but health care is the one thing that free markets will not control, because unlike buying a car or a tv and waiting for the price to fall, with healthcare you can't wait if you need it.  

 

That the insurance costs is going up due to covering the uninsured now  is ludicrous.  They are already paying out, through higher fees, the cost of taking care of the uninsured as hospitals have the EMTALA law that require them to treat anyone that comes within 150 ft of the hospital.  The insurance companies are railing against the cap of a maximum of 20 % profits, due to a requirement to refund the excess.  .  This is a very, very good profit margin for a business, as fortune 500 companies celebrate 10%.   The insurance companies dropping out, are not dropping out of all of ACA, just select markets. They have figured out how to game the system would be my guess and just be in select markets.

 

There are people that went hungry and were only able to get food from charities due to the shutdown.  If anything is bound to trigger a civil war in the US.... I'm betting it's hunger.,

ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

A quick over view from both sides of the fence...

I am American born with direct family linage to the original Fuller on the Mayflower.

 

Over the centuries my family has lost no less than 50-60% of the men to war, defending the 'American Dream' whist wearing uniforms & cammo's.

Back in 1974 my late mother had decided enough is enough... having lost 3 husbands & lost 4 out of 8 of her boys to war. We immigrated to Oz a year later.

 

Nearly 40yrs later and nothing has changed for the better, especially in the States. Another 2 brothers lost in 911 leaves just little ole me and my oldest brother, now 73yrs old. Even with the medical support offered to returned servicemen (he did 4 tours of Viet Nam & 2 in Korea) he is still waiting for an operation that was needed over 8yrs ago... an operation I also needed 3yrs ago.. the only difference, I got mine within 3 months of diagnosis and now lead a relatively 'normal' life on the disability pension.

 

My brother lives off his savings & defence pension equal to $1000/month, still pays an astronomical amout in medical insurance to cover the gap not provided for by the American system. He is currently saving up for another needed operation.

Conversently, I on the Aussie pension, recieve $1400/mth plus numerous other 'pensioner' discounts... ie: subsidised medications, FREE medical checks, scans & another operation due in 2 weeks making it a total of 7 ops in 3yrs... with a grand total of $0.00 being due by me.

Oww, and for the record, I have worked hard for 30yrs to achieve some sort of middle ground between the 'haves' & 'have nots'... an average year of me paying tax was approx $30,000.

 

The American systems... political, medical & social are now run by corporations & cash flow, simply designed to ensure their survival... NOT what is in the best interests of the people.

 

Like every country, Australia has its fair share of political 'gravy trainers' and a system that can be improved on... and like every other country, the largest obstacle's are not political... they are corporate.

 

The human race is not in a good place at the moment. Civil uprising accross the globe is rapidly seeing how bad the worlds system's are being turned into more corporate profit at the expence of basic human wrights & liberties.

 

WW3 is just around the corner... and it wont be America v's the commies, nor religion v's religion....

It will be civilians v's the corporates.

 

All of the content of this thread and 99% of this forum, when boiled down, confirms our mutual desire's...

At the end of the day, we all really want the same thing... A happy, safe & healthy place to grow our families in peace.

 

Tiss my 2cents worth.

 

Cheers

Joe

Cecil and ande like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joe,

 

An insightful post from someone who understands the issues from an American and Australian perspective.....great stuff!

 

It seems that the crisis is over.....for now.  Let's hope that Obama can marshall the cohesiveness that is going to be necessary to sort the debt ceiling issue in three months' time.

 

From my perspective, he seems to have had a victory (and a significant one).  The Affordable Care thing that allegedly triggered this crisis almost became a side play in the end......and it appears to have proceeded without major alteration.

 

Is that a correct assessment of the situation?

 

One outcome is that the US will never be able to credibly point to people from other countries and rant about the evils of religious fundamentalism.  It's alive and well on Capitol Hill.

 

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there are a lot of problems with the ACA (and a lot of good things too), the primary problem is that it relies on massive numbers of young, healthy folks (people who won't USE the insurance) to participate (pay) in order to fund the system.  However, young, healthy folks tend to go without health insurance, and I doubt that will change, particularly considering the penalty/fine is far less than the cost of coverage.  This means you can just wait until you get sick to sign up, and you'll be money ahead.  Since the IRS has already officially stated that it has no authority to impose criminal or civil charges for non-compliance, there is basically zero incentive, or punishment for that matter, for the people who don't need it, to actually enroll.  The money to fund this program has to come from somewhere, and it won't come from premiums paid in, to the extent that it becomes sustainable.   

Cecil likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kellen,

 

The money to fund this program has to come from somewhere, and it won't come from premiums paid in, to the extent that it becomes sustainable.  

 

For my understanding......why do so many people get so cut up about supporting their own countrymen around health care.....and yet are able to accept the much larger amounts of money that the US (and Australian) Governments spend on waging war in foreign places?  If the US economy is the parlous state that it is said to be, has it occurred to anybody that may be because of the obscene amounts of money that are spent on military spending.

 

Wars benefit the arms makers (who are owned by the same 1% as own most of the rest of the place) but these are paid for by the remaining 99%.  Even worse is that 99% supply the fathers, brothers and sons who die in the pursuit of US military objectives.  The 1% (in any country) never seem to feature in the casualty list.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing I've noted is the poorer people in america, tend to be the most charitable.   The ACA could easily be absorbed by our budget if the warmongering part of our budget was brought to a reasonable amount. The politicians sell this as "protecting our interests".  Almost half of our budget goes to having a military presence world wide.  They(the politicians, primarily republicans) tell us that if we withdraw or trim down the military we will be conquered.  It's odd to me that since the attack on pearl harbour, there has not been an attack on US soil by a military force, yet we spend more on military force than the next 15 nations combined.

 

By the rhetoric we are the nation of peace and opportunity, but by out actions militarily, I would  see us as the nation of fear and oppression we so feared.   Hmmm, wasn't there a famous quote somewhere that went something like, what I've feared, I have become?

Cecil likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah... but the wars are not being conducted for the People, nor to protect the US from 'conquering' but to provide Corporations with ever-increasing revenue. Think of it as the US Govt 'investing' in creating territory for the Corporations to run rebuilding projects and to take over local resources.

 

Have a read of John Perkins 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' or just read about hi8m and what he was. He says the US war machine was seen as the final tool when nothing else worked.

 

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly-paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.
Edited by Journeyman (see edit history)
Cecil likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there are a lot of problems with the ACA (and a lot of good things too), the primary problem is that it relies on massive numbers of young, healthy folks (people who won't USE the insurance) to participate (pay) in order to fund the system.  However, young, healthy folks tend to go without health insurance, and I doubt that will change, particularly considering the penalty/fine is far less than the cost of coverage.  This means you can just wait until you get sick to sign up, and you'll be money ahead.  Since the IRS has already officially stated that it has no authority to impose criminal or civil charges for non-compliance, there is basically zero incentive, or punishment for that matter, for the people who don't need it, to actually enroll.  The money to fund this program has to come from somewhere, and it won't come from premiums paid in, to the extent that it becomes sustainable.   

 

After thinking for a while, why does the money have to come from premiums. Why not from main fund taxes. If main fund taxes can be used to kill people  in other countries and that's ok, whats wrong with it being used to heal and care for people here in the states.

 

I'm not sure if your old enough to remember, but we used to do just that. Hospitals were supported by local taxes and were not private enterprises just a few decades ago. Then the call came to privatize the hospitals and end government waste and taxes. How is that working out for us. A week in the hospital might cost a weeks paycheck for an unskilled laborer, now you almost have to file for bankruptcy.

Edited by Ravnis (see edit history)
ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst our system is a long, loooooooooooooooooong way from perfect, from what I can see (and I freely admit to being ignorant of U.S. stuff) It's very much better than what you have there.

 

Why not do as the Australian Govt do...We have two types of hospitals...Government run Hospitals and private hospitals...

 

Every Australian worker must pay an extra 1 percent Medicare tax to help pay for Medicare...This scheme was bought in the 1970's and seems much better...They later hit the people that earned a bit more for another 0.25 percent of their total earnings...

 

Every Australian worker can choose just to be covered by Medicare...and sometimes you have to pay but the majority of the time you don't....Or you can have the the extra insurance as well, provided by Private companies....There are many benefits for this extra care such as being able to choose your own Hospital and own doctors....Having the nice things payed for like Chiropractic treatment for example....and having most of the dentist work being mostly paid for....It gets way more complicated than that but the point is why not have an extra tax on all the earnings of the U.S. workers to help pay for a national health care scheme.

 

Again I plead ignorance but to my simple mind that would seem fair...It tends to work here....

 

Cheers.

Edited by bigdaddy (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Medicare (from the 1970's and introduced by Gough) was originally free - Little Johnny introduced the tax I think. Along with his guarantee that the costs for the almost-mandatory Private health would not go up more than CPI. It then promptly jumped more than double CPI within the first 6 months and again before the end of the budget cycle. 

 

I know a couple of Doctors and both said they and their families use the public system. Maybe they are freaks or maybe they don't earn enough - one is in the hospital system (surgical) and the other is a GP.

 

Reagan introduced the Insurance Company version of Healthcare to the US - worth a Google if you want to see how corrupt politicians are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After thinking for a while, why does the money have to come from premiums. Why not from main fund taxes. If main fund taxes can be used to kill people  in other countries and that's ok, whats wrong with it being used to heal and care for people here in the states.

 

I'm not sure if your old enough to remember, but we used to do just that. Hospitals were supported by local taxes and were not private enterprises just a few decades ago. Then the call came to privatize the hospitals and end government waste and taxes. How is that working out for us. A week in the hospital might cost a weeks paycheck for an unskilled laborer, now you almost have to file for bankruptcy.

 

That's a good point Ravnis.  The way I look at healthcare is that there should be a "safety net" for all citizens.  It's important.  If we restructured medicare and medicaid, we could probably accomplish it right there, without creating yet another government entity that will come with its own set of administrative inefficiencies.  It would require an increase in the taxes for those programs, but the intention of those programs was to provide a "safety net", so why don't we simply IMPROVE those?

 

But should all citizens HAVE to have the same (or very similar) coverage?  If someone wants a "Cadillac plan", shouldn't they be able to buy it, without being taxed (penalized) for doing so?  Shouldn't there be logical cost of living adjustments for the subsidies that are based on "percentage of poverty"?  I mean, it costs a LOT more to live in New York than it does in Kansas City, for instance.  Then, there is the fact that employers still have received no actual instruction on reporting requirements... big problem, especially considering there are potentially very large penalties/fines/taxes, depending on how many full time equivalents (not full time PEOPLE) a company employs.  For micro small businesses, they stand to make out like bandits, basically receiving dollar for dollar tax credits for implementing a health insurance plan REGARDLESS of company income and REGARDLESS of employee salaries.  The "mid sized" small businesses have to make a very odd decision once they get close to the 50 FTE cutoff.  At that point, they could be subjected to substantial penalties/fines/taxes once they hit the magic 50 FTE threshold, which begs the question for any small business owner in this segment... Do we bother expanding?  Worse, do we decide to simply form a new company for that division, for expansion purposes, and then get another 50 FTE allotment to work with?  There are ways to cheat the "intent" of the system.  There are companies that will get "freebies" with the system.  There are companies that are possibly prevented from adding employees with the system.  There are financial motivations for some companies to DROP existing, superior group insurance plans because it's cheaper to pay fines/taxes for not having it than providing it.  

 

In my day job, I happen to be an executive level director (don't confuse that for me being rich... I'm not... hehe) in a particular segment of the healthcare industry that is expected to benefit, possibly immensely, from the ACA.  I honestly have no professional reason to oppose just about anything regarding the ACA.  I'll probably make more money because of it, maybe a lot more.  However, from a pragmatic point of view, and being a "macro" thinking kind of guy, I see so many problems with this that I feel like it should be tabled for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kellen,

 

 

For my understanding......why do so many people get so cut up about supporting their own countrymen around health care.....and yet are able to accept the much larger amounts of money that the US (and Australian) Governments spend on waging war in foreign places?  If the US economy is the parlous state that it is said to be, has it occurred to anybody that may be because of the obscene amounts of money that are spent on military spending.

I agree Gary, and I think that (out of control spending) is actually part of the "bigger" problem. As a government, we're not just "broke", we're in debt to our eyeballs AND broke. We have to cut spending drastically, and we also need to increase revenue (taxes) to get out of the hole we've already dug. I actually think it's a bit of a common misconception that US citizens get "cut up about supporting their own countrymen around health care." I think the average American views improving access to healthcare "for all" as a very, very important issue. The point of contention really revolves more around "how do we pay for it?" When I say that, I'm not really talking about the individual balking about paying for it, but rather, how we pay for it as a nation, considering we are operating on borrowed money to begin with. I think the average American views our out of control military spending as a bad thing too, and they want major cuts. BUT... The problem with that is, every state in the US has either a big military base, a big military manufacturing facility, both or some other huge military related entity that is seen as contributing substantially to their local economy, so they absolutely refuse to lose their "piece of the pie". Well, if everyone wants cuts, but everyone refuses to have their part cut... Nothing gets cut. I find it odd that so many people who openly chastise the government for it's out of control military spending are often the first to applaud a decision by the government to INCREASE spending when it's in their neck of the woods. During times of war, we used to retool consumer manufacturing facilities for building the various "tools of war". When the war was over, the factories went back to building consumer stuff like cars, tractors, airplanes, etc. Now, we have dedicated manufacturing facilities for our military "tools of war". That's all they do. Build missiles or tanks or bombers. You cut them, and you cut your perceived ability to produce those "tools of war" if/when they're needed. Our government frequently spends money on military contracts, not out of need, but simply to keep the military contractors around, just in case they're needed... which more than likely they'll NEVER be needed. We also have lost a significant portion of our consumer manufacturing base (once the largest in the world), and now it's questionable if we still have enough of a consumer manufacturing base to retool even if we wanted to go back to that far more common sense method. Silly right?

 

Wars benefit the arms makers (who are owned by the same 1% as own most of the rest of the place) but these are paid for by the remaining 99%.  Even worse is that 99% supply the fathers, brothers and sons who die in the pursuit of US military objectives.  The 1% (in any country) never seem to feature in the casualty list.

Very true... But in the US, it's really more like the 0.1%. On top of that, a good portion of the problem is from the 99.9%'s own doing, as mentioned above regarding the "we want cuts, just don't cut ours" mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is not just broke, it is broker than anything can be. Should the rest of the world agree to stop using $US to buy oil, the US instantly implodes. Not from the debt alone ($112 trillion last I saw, with about $17 trillion in current debt) but because EVERY country in the world will instantly present their holdings of $US for conversion back to gold.

 

And somebody has been ripping off US gold for quite some time. Look up US repays china gold and have a read. That gold has provenance from Fort Knox.

 

Libya was handed to al Qaeda because Gaddafi was gaining support for dropping the $US as a standard. The instant that happens The Fed cannot print money fast enough to prevent the US from crashing. The ONLY thing saving the US is they obey implicitly all the instructions they get from the European masters who own The Fed.

 

There will never be a Healthcare system in the States which will benefit the People simply because their Bankster manipulators will never accept a reduction in profits.

 

 

It is strange indeed that the US finds their most urgent battles among those who have least subjugation to the IMF and the World Bank, and once the US has removed their leaders, assassinated the prime movers or even invaded them, the debt owed to the IMF/World Bank heads towards the ceiling.

 

And I say that knowing that us Aussies have a per capita debt to the IMF/World Bank that is slightly higher than the US itself. Worth the research if you would like to know who sold your soul and owns your arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now