America's nightmare of it's sick poor.

[Expounder]

Wendall Potter, an ex senior executive at the giant US health care firm Cigna speaks out about the desperate plight of people without medical insurance.

He said that the industry he had worked for did not care about the human cost in the relentless search for profits. He said, " I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick all so that they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." Unquote.

The dog eat dog culture of the American medicare system is condemning half the US population to permanent untreated medical conditions, left in limbo by the greed of medicare company giants.

Even people who are insured are not guaranteed treatment as these rapacious companies look for the slightest technicality that will allow them to refuse treatment.

Read the link which exposes the actions of the profit making medicare companies


Whistleblower tells of America's hidden nightmare for its sick poor | World news | The Observer

[pauli007001]

Wendall Potter, an ex senior executive at the giant US health care firm Cigna speaks out about the desperate plight of people without medical insurance.

He said that the industry he had worked for did not care about the human cost in the relentless search for profits. He said, " I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick all so that they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." Unquote.

The dog eat dog culture of the American medicare system is condemning half the US population to permanent untreated medical conditions, left in limbo by the greed of medicare company giants.

Even people who are insured are not guaranteed treatment as these rapacious companies look for the slightest technicality that will allow them to refuse treatment.

Read the link which exposes the actions of the profit making medicare companies


Whistleblower tells of America's hidden nightmare for its sick poor | World news | The Observer

Disgruntled EX employee!!!!
He wasnt complaining whilst getting paid his huge salery + bonuses.

The poor in the USA choose to be poor.Others choose to be irrisponsible and dont buy insurance because they would rather go down the local and swill cheap beer than insure themselves against injury and illness.Choice!!
Any person in the USA can afford insurance if they work for it, some people think they are too good to work!!

This is the usual socialised medicine argument, why forigners think Americans should suffer under an NHS type system.I understand, most British people hate America and americans and wish to see them suffer under a crappy NHS type system, it would make them feel happy to see Americans suffer!!



Profit making MEDICARE companies?

MEDICARE is a federal welfare type programme offering FREE healthcare to people who qualify, how can a welfare programme be for profit? there is no such thing as a Medicare company, just the federal Govnt.

How often do i have to respond to this same point before you stop using it in your propeganda!!!

[Balthazar]

Read the link which exposes the actions of the profit making medicare companies


Whistleblower tells of America's hidden nightmare for its sick poor | World news | The Observer

Yeah, I read that yesterday. Amazing story. But it's straightforward social Darwinism at work. The poor are blamed and punished for their poverty and the salutary message sent out: compete effectively in the market system or you and your children WILL suffer.

It's enormously important for the US political right to defeat Obama. But if the health reforms are steered through - looking increasingly unlikely - it will be a social revolution in the US with profound long-term effects.

The churches, for example, will take a big hit. Organised religion exists on fear, and few things frighten people more than being sick - or their children being sick - without adequate medical care. So the entire red-neck, Sarah Palin, Gun 'n' God culture is at stake.

I hope the US government is countering each lying TV ad from the insurance companies with one of their own. There's a massive right-wing propaganda exercise occurring and if the left sits back and lets the population suck it up they'll lose. It's that simple. Britain went through all this in the 1940s. You've got to meet each lie head on.

[Balthazar]

disgruntled ex employee!!!!
He wasnt complaining whilst getting paid his huge salery + bonuses.

The poor in the usa choose to be poor.others choose to be irrisponsible and dont buy insurance because they would rather go down the local and swill cheap beer than insure themselves against injury and illness.choice!!
Any person in the usa can afford insurance if they work for it, some people think they are too good to work!!

This is the usual socialised medicine argument, why forigners think americans should suffer under an nhs type system.i understand, most british people hate america and americans and wish to see them suffer under a crappy nhs type system, it would make them feel happy to see americans suffer!!



Profit making medicare companies?

Medicare is a federal welfare type programme offering free healthcare to people who qualify, how can a welfare programme be for profit? There is no such thing as a medicare company, just the federal govnt.

How often do i have to respond to this same point before you stop using it in your propeganda!!!

q.e.d.

[pauli007001]

Meet each Lie head on!!
OK there is no such thing as a MEDICARE company, medicare is a federal benefit offering free health care to those who qualify!!!

[Balthazar]

Meet each Lie head on!!
OK there is no such thing as a MEDICARE company, medicare is a federal benefit offering free health care to those who qualify!!!

And? The point is that medicare doesn't work. I don't give a fig who owns it. You're playing with words while the poor, and their children, suffer. But that's social Darwinism for you. Let the kiddies suffer, because they've got inferior genes, and their torment encourages others to line the pockets of insurance companies. It's a form of child abuse, designed to lubricate the markets and fill the churches. Not nice.

[Expounder]

Disgruntled EX employee!!!!
He wasnt complaining whilst getting paid his huge salery + bonuses.

Not disgruntled, but disillusioned person with a conscience

The poor in the USA choose to be poor.Others choose to be irrisponsible and dont buy insurance because they would rather go down the local and swill cheap beer than insure themselves against injury and illness.Choice!!
Any person in the USA can afford insurance if they work for it, some people think they are too good to work!!

This is the usual socialised medicine argument, why forigners think Americans should suffer under an NHS type system.I understand, most British people hate America and americans and wish to see them suffer under a crappy NHS type system, it would make them feel happy to see Americans suffer!!



Profit making MEDICARE companies?

MEDICARE is a federal welfare type programme offering FREE healthcare to people who qualify, how can a welfare programme be for profit? there is no such thing as a Medicare company, just the federal Govnt.

How often do i have to respond to this same point before you stop using it in your propeganda!!!

Whichever way you look at it it's health care being sold in order to make profit, decisions taken with regards to this question will be in the interests of the shareholders of the company at the expense of those who are buying it. As as been pointed out it's not just people without medicare insurance who suffer it's those who pay and and are cheated out of treatment by the companies looking for any loophole not to honor their commitments.

[pauli007001]

And? The point is that medicare doesn't work. I don't give a fig who owns it. You're playing with words while the poor, and their children, suffer. But that's social Darwinism for you. Let the kiddies suffer, because they've got inferior genes, to encourage others to line the pockets of insurance companies. It's a form of child abuse, designed to lubricate the markets and fill the churches. Not nice.

My kids dont suffer, i get off my arse and work to provide for them.Lazy people do not work, irrisponsible folk buy trinkets booze and drugs instead of the essentials.Me im responsible, Im alright its the work you see!!
Darwinism is wrong but so is faith?I thought that the 2 were opposites!!

Darwin is wrong and so is faith, i guess the PARTY is all knowing and right then!!

Medicare does work for those who qualify, usually the elderly, many states including MA offer state programmes to the poor. The post was completely wrong, biased and dishonest, if it claimes that such a thing as medicare companies exist i know it is a load of tosh and refuse to read it.If you are going to post on a subject at least get the very basics correct.Like i said im alright, why should i pay to support the illigitamate filthy dirty offspring of others, they aint my responsibility, my own kids are!!!

[Balthazar]

If this reform goes though another excellent effect - as well as weakening the churches - will be to teach ordinary Americans that socialism doesn't involve people being carted off to prison camps, or loudspeakers on every corner extolling the Marxist dialectic. Just straightforward decency and common sense: everyone chipping in while they're young and fit so oldies, children, and the sick are treated with dignity and respect. It's not rocket science. But oh how the rich hate it, and their indoctrinated running dogs! It's fabulous to watch.

[DeadJoe]

The poor in the USA choose to be poor.

No. No, they don't. The wealthy in the USA choose it for them.

[Midas]

If this reform goes though another excellent effect - as well as weakening the churches - will be to teach ordinary Americans that socialism doesn't involve people being carted off to prison camps, or loudspeakers on every corner extolling the Marxist dialectic. Just straightforward decency and common sense: everyone chipping in while they're young and fit so oldies, children, and the sick are treated with dignity and respect. It's not rocket science. But oh how the rich hate it, and their indoctrinated running dogs! It's fabulous to watch.

No, maybe it does teach ordinary Americans, or ordinary people in any country, "that socialism doesn't involve people being carted off to prison camps, or loudspeakers on every corner extolling the Marxist dialectic". What is does teach is that socialism involves people just expecting that they can just hold out their hands to the state and expect to be provided with all those things for which they should have made provision for themselves.

As you say, it's not rocket science, but shouldn't everyone be expected to look after themselves, contributing towards their own medical care, their own pensions, their own housing, their own unemployment benefits... whilst they are capable of doing so, rather than expecting the wealthy to look after them courtesy of money forcibly taken from others by the state?

All such socialism does is to take money from those people who are the most able and the most productive in society and dole it out to anyone who is too feckless or too lazy to make provision to look after themselves.

[Tantal]

.......everyone chipping in while they're young and fit so oldies, children, and the sick are treated with dignity and respect.

We currently have a system like that for retirement called 'Social Security'. It is a Ponzi scheme that is projected to collapse in just a few years. Bernie Madoff is currently serving a life sentence (rightfully) for running a Ponzi scheme that pales in comparison; however, lefties just love it when the government runs one.

[pauli007001]

No. No, they don't. The wealthy in the USA choose it for them.

I aint wealthy nor am i poor, i get by OK because i choose to work, yes the job will kill me at an early age but at least i pay my own way, now why should i die so that some lazy sponger can live a long comfortable life with free cars and insurance?

[pauli007001]

I have got the basics correct. You're in favour of abusing sick children. You've made that very clear. Sorry, but I don't like child abusers. I think you're sick.

So you still belive that a welfare benefit is run for profit by private companys?

I am not in favour of abusing kids, the lazy and irrisponsible parents of those kids are abusing them.Why do they have a right to my money, i am working myself into an early grave because of the damage my job is doing, so i die young so that some lazy scummer can live a long comfortable life on the sweat of my brow and my blood?
Nah you want it, go and get it your self!!
I suggest you refrain from putting words in my mouth and making personal attacks.

[pauli007001]

Not disgruntled, but disillusioned person with a conscience




Whichever way you look at it it's health care being sold in order to make profit, decisions taken with regards to this question will be in the interests of the shareholders of the company at the expense of those who are buying it. As as been pointed out it's not just people without medicare insurance who suffer it's those who pay and and are cheated out of treatment by the companies looking for any loophole not to honor their commitments.

My Insurer never rufused me any treatment and i spent 3 days a week in the Dana farber for 3 months during last winter, no waiting lists no nothing, now i am well.The condition they treated is not covered by the NHS even though it is a life threatening disease.The treatment is available in scotland i believe, but you go on fooling yourself with this propeganda.I live here i know the system, it is nothing like the BBC tells you.There are layers of safety nets and regulation to prevent insurers from pulling coverage, then the states and the feds have health care benefits for the elderly or Indigent via welfare type programmes.All this and no waiting lists.

Medicare is one of those welfare benefits yet you still refer to it as a programme run for profit by private companies.We have covered this before but you refuse to accept it.
Just for giggles GOOGLE MEDICARE, it will explain to you how this federal healthcare welfare benefit works, it simply taxes people and then passes on those taxes to others to pay for health care, it is what you advocate for all in the USA(wether they want it or not).Along with it you will probably advocate CCTV,thought police and gulags just like NULAB have introduced in the UK for those who speak out against them.

[flash]

In my considerable years I have never heard of anyone in the US being denied health care for anything serious, regardless of the ability to pay. There are too many avenues of fundings available for those without health insurance.

By the way, the poor in the US is better off than most people in the world. Here is an article on the American poor that puts everything in the right perspective:

Understanding Poverty in America (Putting latest Census Number into Context)

Heritage Foundation ^| Jan. 5, 2004 | Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

*** Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

*** Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

*** Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

*** The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

*** Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

*** Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

*** Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

*** Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

*** Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year--the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

[Balthazar]

... shouldn't everyone be expected to look after themselves, contributing towards their own medical care, their own pensions, their own housing, their own unemployment benefits... whilst they are capable of doing so, rather than expecting the wealthy to look after them courtesy of money forcibly taken from others by the state?

Sure, but that's what a taxation system's for. Everyone contributes, if they're not too young, old or sick, and the community, in the form of the state, provides the items you list. The waste, duplication, corruption, inefficiency and unfairness of a private profit system is removed from the equation.

I know what's happening here. You're alienated from the state. You see it as the big bad wolf, rather than as a liberating institution controlled by the populace through politicians whom they elect.

I'm sorry you're alienated but it's not my fault you've got anarchist tendencies and have a problem with authority!

We currently have a system like that for retirement called 'Social Security'. It is a Ponzi scheme that is projected to collapse in just a few years. Bernie Madoff is currently serving a life sentence (rightfully) for running a Ponzi scheme that pales in comparison; however, lefties just love it when the government runs one.

LOL another market anarchist. By a Ponzi scheme do you mean the shortfall is filled by taxation? If so, what's wrong with that? That's precisely what a tax system's for. Honestly, these state-hating anarchists will have us all back in pre-Leviathan caves eating raw meat and fighting with the tribe down the road. It's amazing such attitudes still exist in advanced 21st century nations.

[Balthazar]

So you still belive that a welfare benefit is run for profit by private companys?

Uhhh.... no. But I never believed that in the first place. You're confusing me with someone else old bean.

[pauli007001]

Uhhh.... no. But I never believed that in the first place. You're confusing me with someone else old bean.

Yet you responded to my post on the challenging that point with insults AND you agreed with the original poster.If the most basic part of the post(the beginning)is completely wrong i am sure the rest of it is also completely wrong.A work of fiction, propeganda.No one is denied treatment in the USA.Go and re check your facts, that one is a piece of propeganda.

[Opinionated]

As you say, it's not rocket science, but shouldn't everyone be expected to look after themselves, contributing towards their own medical care, their own pensions, their own housing, their own unemployment benefits... whilst they are capable of doing so, rather than expecting the wealthy to look after them courtesy of money forcibly taken from others by the state?

All such socialism does is to take money from those people who are the most able and the most productive in society and dole it out to anyone who is too feckless or too lazy to make provision to look after themselves.

OK lets take a fictitious character endow them with extreme versions of human failings such as laziness, remove them from any social or psychological context and them blame them for their own failure to compete in what is essentially an unjust and dog eat dog world! That's such a limited view, just as wrong as my arguing all successful people have no social conscience, nobody is motivated by a single characteristic.

Is it a coincidence that the rise of the perceived "welfare scrounger" largely began in the eightees? Could it have something to do with the lack of skilled and semi-skilled manufacturing jobs, which would have given people a sense of acheivement and pride?

[Midas]

OK lets take a fictitious character endow them with extreme versions of human failings such as laziness, remove them from any social or psychological context and them blame them for their own failure to compete in what is essentially an unjust and dog eat dog world! That's such a limited view, just as wrong as my arguing all successful people have no social conscience, nobody is motivated by a single characteristic.

You're quite right in saying that you can't base any comments, even generalisations, on such a supposition, because there is a whole range of people throughout society. However, regardless of that, don't you think that it's everyone's duty to themselves, if not to anyone else, to make some sort of provision against the bad times in life rather than to simply expect that the state will look after them, using money taken directly from those people who by and large have shown that responsibility? Perhaps I should qualify that by saying everyone who is physically and mentally able to do so.

Is it a coincidence that the rise of the perceived "welfare scrounger" largely began in the eightees? Could it have something to do with the lack of skilled and semi-skilled manufacturing jobs, which would have given people a sense of acheivement and pride?

I'm not going to deny that there could well be a correlation, and FWIW I do think that it was wrong to have decimated our manufacturing base to the extent it was. But on the other hand we did have to find ways of retaining our international competitiveness, and I'm afraid that many years of neglect, much of it within nationalised industries by preceding socialist governments, meant that the only way that could be achieved in the face of international competition was to shut them down and try to divert from a manufacturing nation to a service one. I will agree though that one side effect was a loss of pride and achievement amongst many very skilled people. That should have been dealt with there and then by the Thatcher administration, but sadly it wasn't......

[JAMC]

Perhaps this is apt...



Gotta love that graph

[claire]

I think the real issue is that people won't seek care in the first place. It's become so expensive. Even people with health insurance are skipping out on tests or check ups because they don't want to pay the copay. My older sister had horrible scoliosis (64% curvature) Her surgery cost $250,000. Our family had to pay 10,000 out of pocket and fly her out to Texas from Pennsylvania so we didn't have to pay in full. And we are supposed to have the best insurance. Could you even imagine a poor family paying 10,000 of their own money and flying someone out for a month of recovery time???? It's ridiculous.

[Midas]

I think the real issue is that people won't seek care in the first place. It's become so expensive. Even people with health insurance are skipping out on tests or check ups because they don't want to pay the copay. My older sister had horrible scoliosis (64% curvature) Her surgery cost $250,000. Our family had to pay 10,000 out of pocket and fly her out to Texas from Pennsylvania so we didn't have to pay in full. And we are supposed to have the best insurance. Could you even imagine a poor family paying 10,000 of their own money and flying someone out for a month of recovery time???? It's ridiculous.

As an aside to the topic Claire, I do hope that the surgery was successful!

[claire]

Thanks and it was! She grew three inches at 22!

[Balthazar]

I think the real issue is that people won't seek care in the first place. It's become so expensive. Even people with health insurance are skipping out on tests or check ups because they don't want to pay the copay. My older sister had horrible scoliosis (64% curvature) Her surgery cost $250,000. Our family had to pay 10,000 out of pocket and fly her out to Texas from Pennsylvania so we didn't have to pay in full. And we are supposed to have the best insurance. Could you even imagine a poor family paying 10,000 of their own money and flying someone out for a month of recovery time???? It's ridiculous.

It's stories like that which make British jaws drop. But I'm confused. Who's telling the truth, claire or flash? Here's flash's take.

In my considerable years I have never heard of anyone in the US being denied health care for anything serious, regardless of the ability to pay. There are too many avenues of fundings available for those without health insurance.

Both claims can't be true. It's logically impossible.

[Expounder]

I think the real issue is that people won't seek care in the first place. It's become so expensive. Even people with health insurance are skipping out on tests or check ups because they don't want to pay the copay. My older sister had horrible scoliosis (64% curvature) Her surgery cost $250,000. Our family had to pay 10,000 out of pocket and fly her out to Texas from Pennsylvania so we didn't have to pay in full. And we are supposed to have the best insurance. Could you even imagine a poor family paying 10,000 of their own money and flying someone out for a month of recovery time???? It's ridiculous.

Hi Clare, you have quoted from personal experience the sting in the tail for many people who have medical insurance. Your family is just one example of the tight fisted companies who sell this insurance who rake in the dollars for the shareholders and who are obliged by the system to pay as little back to their clients as possible in the interests of maximum profit. How many other untold similar stories never make the media headlines?

I am certain that the companies concerned spend millions to keep any adverse publicity out of the media. I would guess that should a Senate investigation be set up to investigate the behavior of medicare companies treatment of their clients, many more tragic stories would be uncovered.

[Expounder]

I aint wealthy nor am i poor, i get by OK because i choose to work, yes the job will kill me at an early age but at least i pay my own way, now why should i die so that some lazy sponger can live a long comfortable life with free cars and insurance?

The problem with your argment Pauli is that you equate the entire American population against your own financial income and expereince.

The point is that their must be a few million people on the US who are not workshy but on minimum wage and find it impossible to cover their families with private health insurance because their income is just sufficient to keep their families in food and a roof over their heads.

I know that the glib answer to this is that you feel that they all spend part of their income wastefully and are not responsible. But are people expected to go through life sell their service to an employer and live on bread alone in this day and age?

People need to interact and socialise as means of getting through life, otherwise what would be the point of living? A part of any income will always be spent things that can relieve some of the stress of an uncertain future.

[flash]

Both claims can't be true. It's logically impossible.

Claire was talking about some people making a decision on health care due to the out of pocket cost.

I was talking about people having free or reduced cost health care available to them if they really need it.

Apples and oranges.

Many people that are have access to private health care are very reluctant to avail themselves of public programs due to the welfare stigma attached.

However, Claire does have a good point. There is a high cost to quality health care in the US as it is in the rest of the world.

Total health care in the US is mostly borne by those that can pay and that leads to higher cost because a paying individual is charged a “welfare tax” each time they use.

Let me give you an example. Back three or four years ago my wife broke her arm one afternoon and we went to the emergency room. After awhile my wife saw a doctor and he put her arm in a sling, gave her some aspirin and told her to go see an orthopedic specialist the next day. For the visit to the ER room and the ten minutes with the doctor we were charged around $5,000. The cost was way out of line with the service rendered. Our insurance paid $4,000 of it and we paid the rest.

We were charged so much money that evening because we were in essence paying for other people’s use of the emergency room. We were paying for the goddamn illegal aliens and the welfare ****s that got their services for free that night.

For us that night the high cost was our punishment for allowing elected officials to make public policy with our money. The stupid worthless elected officials passed laws that said the hospitals must take in all comers, regardless of ability to pay and my wife and I wound up paying for it.

Another very high cost care component is malpractice insurance for the healthcare professionals. It is a big input into the cost of a visit to the doctor. The Trial Lawyer’s Association pumps millions of dollars into the coffers of elected officials and there is no way that is ever going to be fixed. The Trial Lawyer’s Association was second only to the Unions as to the amount of money they gave the Democrats in the last four election cycles.

There are ways to substantially cut down on the high cost of health care in the US but we will never do it as long as we have this Socialist mentality and the filthy Democrats take the money of the Trial Lawyer’s Association.

[Balthazar]

The stupid worthless elected officials passed laws that said the hospitals must take in all comers, regardless of ability to pay and my wife and I wound up paying for it.

I agree that's an unsatisfactory arrangement. How much of the $5,000 was a subsidy? Can you put a percentage on it?

I'd argue it's wrong not because it's a subsidy - it's reasonable in a civilized society for you to care for your neighbours and pay for the privilege - but because it's a poll tax. It takes no account of your ability to pay. A millionaire would pay the same subsidy if he broke his arm and attended that clinic. Tax should be graduated and based on ability to pay.

We had riots in Britain in the 1990s when the state introduced a poll tax to fund local authority services (rubbish collection* etc). It led to Margaret Thatcher's downfall as Prime Minister. So poll taxes do - and should - really wind people up. They're unjust.

Sorry to hear about your wife btw. I hope she made a full recovery. I'm also sorry to hear about the $5000 bill and the poll tax element. You've every right to be angry.




* Only the British would riot over garbage....

[Expounder]

Claire was talking about some people making a decision on health care due to the out of pocket cost.


Total health care in the US is mostly borne by those that can pay and that leads to higher cost because a paying individual is charged a “welfare tax” each time they use.

Let me give you an example. Back three or four years ago my wife broke her arm one afternoon and we went to the emergency room. After awhile my wife saw a doctor and he put her arm in a sling, gave her some aspirin and told her to go see an orthopedic specialist the next day. For the visit to the ER room and the ten minutes with the doctor we were charged around $5,000. The cost was way out of line with the service rendered. Our insurance paid $4,000 of it and we paid the rest.

We were charged so much money that evening because we were in essence paying for other people’s use of the emergency room. We were paying for the goddamn illegal aliens and the welfare ****s that got their services for free that night.

The doctor was an extortionist, it's like taking your car, when it breaks down, to a garage not designated by the insurance company. The sky's the limit as they know the insurance will pay, and if they don't, you are liable for the balance or the whole lot if the insurance company deems you acted outside of their policy conditions.

If the doctor you went to was a part of a universal medicare scheme he would have referred you you a hospital it would have cost you nothing[except your contributions to the state medicare scheme], as it does in England.

It sounds to me like it's not the unemployed that are ripping you off, it sounds like most doctors and dentists in the US are not the business of just making a living, but ripping the off insurance companies. The companies and shareholders in turn are ripping off their clients. The doctors and the company executives are living it up In large houses, driving expensive cars going on expensive holidays on your contributions.

I must say Flash that was a very expensive doctors visit for just a few aspirin and a sling. It's the very stories like yours that convinces the British that our system is best, warts and all.

[Balthazar]

It's the very stories like yours that convinces the British that our system is best, warts and all.

Too right. I'm amazed by the poll tax element. Flash and his wife's broken arm not only subsidises the poor, it subsidises the rich. Some wealthy man who attends the same clinic with an identical injury pays the same subsidy as flash. So, in percentage terms, it costs flash more than the rich man. Ergo flash is stuffing money into the rich guy's pocket.

Jolly decent of you flash to subsidise the rich! But isn't that taking socialism a bit far?

[JAMC]

I think the real issue is that people won't seek care in the first place. It's become so expensive. Even people with health insurance are skipping out on tests or check ups because they don't want to pay the copay. My older sister had horrible scoliosis (64% curvature) Her surgery cost $250,000. Our family had to pay 10,000 out of pocket and fly her out to Texas from Pennsylvania so we didn't have to pay in full. And we are supposed to have the best insurance. Could you even imagine a poor family paying 10,000 of their own money and flying someone out for a month of recovery time???? It's ridiculous.

What I find most staggering is that a procedure could be valued at $250k.

The only possible justifications are market based, not clinically based - i.e. go elsewhere if you think you can find it cheaper.

For $250,000 I would not only expect the original medical problem to be corrected, but also to have my entire skeleton replaced with a platinum one at the same time.

I mean even if she was in there for 10 hours, that's $25,000 per hour.

[Balthazar]

I'm reading Michael Foot's biography of Bevan atm. The same arguments went on when Bevan was health secretary in 1948 and brought in the British NHS. The way the rich fought like rats to preserve their "right" to profit from the poor's suffering and misery made him so angry he famously called the Tories "vermin" to be "stamped out like snakes."

God how he hated them. He regarded himself not as a politician but "as a projectile discharged from the Welsh valleys."

America needs a Bevan now.

[flash]

I agree that's an unsatisfactory arrangement. How much of the $5,000 was a subsidy? Can you put a percentage on it?

I'd argue it's wrong not because it's a subsidy - it's reasonable in a civilized society for you to care for your neighbours and pay for the privilege - but because it's a poll tax. It takes no account of your ability to pay. A millionaire would pay the same subsidy if he broke his arm and attended that clinic. Tax should be graduated and based on ability to pay.

We had riots in Britain in the 1990s when the state introduced a poll tax to fund local authority services (rubbish collection* etc). It led to Margaret Thatcher's downfall as Prime Minister. So poll taxes do - and should - really wind people up. They're unjust.

Sorry to hear about your wife btw. I hope she made a full recovery. I'm also sorry to hear about the $5000 bill and the poll tax element. You've every right to be angry.




* Only the British would riot over garbage....

I have no idea how much of the $5K was a welfare tax. If I had to render a guess I would have said $1K would have been a reasonable charge for the ER and the doctor. That means $4K was the welfare tax.

I don't think anybody is entitled to health care. It is a commodity just like many other things. Those that can afford it should get it and those that can't should try to be a little more productive in their lives so they can afford it.

There is nothing in our Constitution that says an American citizens is born with the right for medical care.

Because I am a generous person I don't mind contributing to charity and helping out those they have problems and need a little assistance from time to time. Illegal aliens and third generation welfare recipients usually don't fall into that category as far as I am concerned. The sleazy Democrat special interest groups don’t fall into that category.

The very fact that this country is debating nationalized health care just shows the low that we have sunk.

[Balthazar]

That means $4K was the welfare tax.

Thank you. That's quite a poll tax - 80%! If that was tried in Britain there would be a revolution. As I said, the British rioted over a small garbage collection poll tax (on Saturday March 31, 1990). Imagine their reaction to a £2,500 poll tax for a broken arm!! Why are you Yanks so passive? Where's your famous get up and go?

YouTube - Poll tax riots

[flash]

If the doctor you went to was a part of a universal medicare scheme he would have referred you you a hospital it would have cost you nothing[except your contributions to the state medicare scheme], as it does in England.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Here in the US we get great examples of that on a daily basis because many people from all over the world (including from countries that have socialized medicine) come here for quality medical treatment. The quality medical treatment is a result of free enterprise and not government. Government screws up health care.

One of the most lucrative businesses in America is on our northern border supplying health care to the Canadians. The Canadians have socialized medicine much like the Brits and other Europeans but the only way they get decent care is to come to the US.

The fair thing is not to have medical cost socialized at all.

Here in the US there are about 300 million people. About 270 million can afford their own health care. They would afford it even better if the Trail lawyer's Association didn't pay off the Democrats to not reduce malpractice claims.

Of the 30 million left many of them are goddamn illegal aliens and multigenerational welfare recipients.

The Democrats and other stupid Liberals want to social medicine so they can get the votes of the 30 million people, not because it is good for the US.

The US has the best health care in the world. Socialize medicine will destroy it just like socialism destroys everything it touches.

[Balthazar]

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Here in the US we get great examples of that on a daily basis because many people from all over the world (including from countries that have socialized medicine) come here for quality medical treatment. The quality medical treatment is a result of free enterprise and not government. Government screws up health care.

One of the most lucrative businesses in America is on our northern border supplying health care to the Canadians. The Canadians have socialized medicine much like the Brits and other Europeans but the only way they get decent care is to come to the US.

The fair thing is not to have medical cost socialized at all.

Here in the US there are about 300 million people. About 270 million can afford their own health care. They would afford it even better if the Trail lawyer's Association didn't pay off the Democrats to not reduce malpractice claims.

Of the 30 million left many of them are goddamn illegal aliens and multigenerational welfare recipients.

The Democrats and other stupid Liberals want to social medicine so they can get the votes of the 30 million people, not because it is good for the US.

The US has the best health care in the world. Socialize medicine will destroy it just like socialism destroys everything it touches.

Well, my life was saved by the NHS in 1996 and they were wonderful. I received thousands of pounds worth of expert care in a modern hospital from highly qualified doctors, nurses, and other specialists. I then received months of aftercare from my doctor and hospital specialists. I made a full recovery and paid not one penny except from taxation. So you're describing a different world.

[JAMC]

America needs a Bevan now.

America? He'd be hung from the highest yard-arm in Texas.

And besides, America has already offloaded it's lame duck leader, we're still stuck with ours!

[flash]

Well, my life was saved by the NHS in 1996 and they were wonderful. I received thousands of pounds worth of expert care in a modern hospital from highly qualified doctors, nurses, and other specialists. I then received months of aftercare from my doctor and hospital specialists. I made a full recovery and paid not one penny except from taxation. So you're describing a different world.

You can correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that your country has about a 45% tax rate. In other words the government takes 45% of the GNP and uses it for whatever, including "free" health care.

You paid for it big time. Like I said, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Here in the US the cost of government is the biggest single household expenditure, regardless of income. It is even worse in your country. That is the cost of your "free" health care.

I would rather keep my own money and make my own choices on how it is spent, thank you.

[JAMC]

I don't think anybody is entitled to health care. It is a commodity just like many other things.

Cutting through the BS, this is the crux of the matter.

I fail to understand how the same conservatives that squeal like pigs on fire about the sanctity of the unborn life become so blasé about the lives of those who've exited the womb.

The issue really revolves around the question of whether we're prepared to allow an individual to die by withholding treatment, for the sole reason that the price of the treatment has been set higher than the individual is able to pay.

There is, in the UK, something in law known as the duty of care. I see this issue pretty much as an extension of this principle - is there such a thing in the US?

[JAMC]

You can correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that your country has about a 45% tax rate. In other words the government takes 45% of the GNP and uses it for whatever, including "free" health care.

You paid for it big time. Like I said, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Here in the US the cost of government is the biggest single household expenditure, regardless of income. It is even worse in your country. That is the cost of your "free" health care.

I would rather keep my own money and make my own choices on how it is spent, thank you.

Income tax:
The first £6,475 = 0%
The next £2,440 = 10% (this is currently being phased out)
The next £34,960 = 20% (used to be 22% until very recently)
Anything extra = 40%

From next year there will be a new higher band of 50% on earnings over £150,000.

[flash]

Cutting through the BS, this is the crux of the matter.

I fail to understand how the same conservatives that squeal like pigs on fire about the sanctity of the unborn life become so blasé about the lives of those who've exited the womb.

The issue really revolves around the question of whether we're prepared to allow an individual to die by withholding treatment, for the sole reason that the price of the treatment has been set higher than the individual is able to pay.

There is, in the UK, something in law known as the duty of care. I see this issue pretty much as an extension of this principle - is there such a thing in the US?

I work hard for my money and I don’t think I should have to pay for the health care of an illegal aliens or somebody else that is too lazy to work as hard as me.

It is a choice that is made by that individual and I assume no responsibility for that choice.

A baby being aborted is a different matter. It is an innocent child being killed by her mother. I think human beings generally will protect children that can’t protect themselves. It is in our nature to do so.

I am a generous person and give a lot of money to charity each year. I don’t have a problem temporally helping somebody out. However, I don’t assume the responsibility to provide health care for them for their entire lives while they sit around using drugs and making poor life choices.

There is nothing magical about health care. An individual should make responsible choices in their lives to make sure they can take care of it if needed just like other things like food and shelter. It is morally wrong to force me to pay for somebody else’s health care. I would never vote for any public official advocating that I do so, like Obama.

This Socialist mindset that the government should provide everything is a scourge on Humanity. It just doesn’t work.

When money is taken from me and used to provide health care to some worthless drug addict then I don’t have it to spend on other things that create jobs and contribute to efficient economies. Everybody get screws except the unproductive drug addict.

My understanding is that the debt of the UK is about three times the GNP. That is the cost of providing “free” health care to every Tom, Dick and Omar in the UK. The list of countries that have been bankrupted through Socialism is very impressive.

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch

[flash]

Income tax:
The first £6,475 = 0%
The next £2,440 = 10% (this is currently being phased out)
The next £34,960 = 20% (used to be 22% until very recently)
Anything extra = 40%

From next year there will be a new higher band of 50% on earnings over £150,000.

You are quoting some tax schedule and not addressing the total cost of government.

I don’t know all your sources of government revenues but let me show you how I would figure it out here in the US:

Suppose I bought a Bushmaster AR-15 assault weapon at a local gun show. The rifle cost $1000.

In order to spend $1000 in disposable income I would have to earn $1310 because I am in the 31% tax bracket, which I think is similar to what you quoted.

However, in addition to that I would have paid $75 in Social Security tax. My employer also paid in $75.

The cost of the weapon is now up to $1460.

I am also charged property tax that is not directly tied to my income or the cost of the rifle but is a tax by the government. Say $40.

In buying the weapon I would have to pay $61 in Florida sales tax.

We are now up to $1561 for the cost of the rifle because of the government’s share.

In addition the Bushmaster Company would have to pay Federal, state and local taxes. I suspect about $200 worth on a $1000 dollar rifle.

There are transportation and fuel taxes getting the rifle to the gun dealer. Probably $25 worth.

The rifle has now really cost $1786 with $786 of it going to the government.

This is typical in the US where about 33% of the GNP goes to the cost of government. In your country where it is about 45% it is even worse.

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

[claire]

Your nation can have the highest quality health care in the world, but if nobody can access it it's not worth a damn.

[flash]

Your nation can have the highest quality health care in the world, but if nobody can access it it's not worth a damn.

That is funny you said that because living in this country all my life and having been in several economic groups at different times I have always had access to good quality health care. Everybody I know has access to health care in one way or another. All of us bitch about it but I don't see anybody doing without. Doctor's offices and hospitals are crowded anytime you go. Not very many people are doing without.

Obama will destroy health care in America with his filthy little scheme to provide reparations for Blacks by instituting universal health care.

He want to rush his stupid plan through because he knows that the longer he waits the more people will understand what he really doing and they won't like it.

[Tantal]

LOL another market anarchist. By a Ponzi scheme do you mean the shortfall is filled by taxation? If so, what's wrong with that? That's precisely what a tax system's for. Honestly, these state-hating anarchists will have us all back in pre-Leviathan caves eating raw meat and fighting with the tribe down the road. It's amazing such attitudes still exist in advanced 21st century nations.

Find yourself an economics book and look up the term 'point of diminishing returns'. Unfortunately, the only solution the left can ever raise for any problem is 'raise taxes'. Eventually, a level of taxation is reached where revenues to the government actually DECREASE. The government keeps taking a larger slice of a pie that their policies are causing to grow smaller. If left to their own devices, the left would be perfectly happy to take 100% of $0. That way, the misery is shared equally. Everyone broke (including the government), everyone starving.

[Tantal]

If the doctor you went to was a part of a universal medicare scheme he would have referred you you a hospital it would have cost you nothing[except your contributions to the state medicare scheme], as it does in England.

The doctor and hospital ARE part of a universal medical care scheme. The government has injected itself into medical decisions, including the financing thereof, by legislative decree.

It sounds to me like it's not the unemployed that are ripping you off, it sounds like most doctors and dentists in the US are not the business of just making a living, but ripping the off insurance companies.

The have NO CHOICE but to rip off the insurance companies due to the constraints put on them by government. Let's assume you have 5 patients in the E.R. that each need $1,000 worth of treatment. Let's assume that 4 of them are unemployed and have no insurance or money. Since the government DEMANDS that they be treated regardless of ability to pay, the doctor and hospital have only 2 options. #1-They simply close down because they're losing money. #2-They get the one guy that has insurance, then pass the costs of care for the other 4 people on to his insurance company.

The whole thing is a shell game. A shell game created by the government that keeps driving the costs of care higher. A majority of people don't care what things cost because they're not paying for them.

[Midas]

Find yourself an economics book and look up the term 'point of diminishing returns'. Unfortunately, the only solution the left can ever raise for any problem is 'raise taxes'. Eventually, a level of taxation is reached where revenues to the government actually DECREASE. The government keeps taking a larger slice of a pie that their policies are causing to grow smaller. If left to their own devices, the left would be perfectly happy to take 100% of $0. That way, the misery is shared equally. Everyone broke (including the government), everyone starving.

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future

[Balthazar]

Find yourself an economics book and look up the term 'point of diminishing returns'. Unfortunately, the only solution the left can ever raise for any problem is 'raise taxes'. Eventually, a level of taxation is reached where revenues to the government actually DECREASE. The government keeps taking a larger slice of a pie that their policies are causing to grow smaller. If left to their own devices, the left would be perfectly happy to take 100% of $0. That way, the misery is shared equally. Everyone broke (including the government), everyone starving.

LOL you're deliciously frightening yourself with a red-menace straw man fantasy. It's analogous to an old fashioned socialist who believes capitalists all dress in top hats and stand with one boot on the neck of a grovelling proletarian. Are you objecting to the use of taxation to fund a social security system?

That's the problem with delicious straw men fantasies - the original question, and rational discussion generally, tends to get lost once they're produced. If I was a cynical man I'd conclude that's the function of your fantasy. You fear you've met with an argument you can't answer so whip out a straw man.