|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,813
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,813 |
Quote:
I don't want a system that our government runs. Period.
I can understand that point but I still side with giving it a try.
...always have been, always will be...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I don't want a system that our government runs. Period.
As long as that is an option, I will fight against it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,579
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,579 |
::Saint gives up.. not arguing.. too pooped for that:: :: waves white flag, anyone that disagrees with me is right.. besides I have another plumbing job to do between now and 4:30pm::
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656 |
The Rising Cost of Health Care and Your Retirement By Rick Sauder Setting savings goals and steadily building your nest egg are important steps toward a secure retirement. But even the best-laid plans need occasional adjustments in response to shifting trends. Stock market fluctuations are a prime example, but not the only one. A concern that may be just as significant for workers of all ages is retiree health care. In fact, the sharply rising cost of health care in America has become one of the primary risks to a financially secure retirement, a growing number of economists and financial planners say. Health insurance premiums and medical expenses consume a hefty portion of retiree savings at today's levels. But the future looks more troubling. Health care costs are expected to continue to increase faster than inflation, and many employers are re-evaluating their ability to continue to offer the same level of retiree health insurance coverage. Despite recent passage of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, Fidelity's Health and Welfare consulting experts estimate that a couple retiring today at age 65 will need $190,000 in savings to pay the health care tab. The total is even higher if you include potential long-term care costs for living in a nursing home, or if you're thinking about retiring early. "If workers do not plan early for potential medical costs during retirement, they may not be able to afford needed medical care or they may become destitute trying to pay for it," warned University of Notre Dame professor H. Fred Mittelstaedt in recent testimony before Congress. Experts like Mittelstaedt point to several trends that are driving the need for individuals of all ages to evaluate how rising healthcare costs will affect their retirement savings needs and to regard adequate health insurance coverage as an essential part of their retirement plans. Soaring medical costs. One of the most-talked-about trends is the skyrocketing costs of medical care, which has outpaced inflation for the past 20 years. Health care spending grew 7.5% in 2004, and is expected toreach $6,423 per person in 2005, according to the journal Health Affairs. Increases are expected to continue in the years ahead, with many companies predicting that costs will grow by 10 percent or more annually. Personal out-of-pocket costs can be especially steep if you retire early and must purchase coverage on your own until you become eligible for Medicare. Of course, expenses will vary greatly depending on how long you live, your health status, and the cost of medical care in your area. The Baby Boomer effect Looking ahead, an aging population is likely to put additional pressure on the health care industry. The 2000 U.S. Census found that one in eight Americans was 65 or older, but demographers estimate that by 2030 the ratio will shrink to one in five, giving America its largest proportion of retirees in history.The Baby Boomer retirement "bubble" is forcing employers to rethink how to structure their retiree health insurance plans.Over 80% of companies with more than 200 employees surveyed by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2004 said they were likely to increase the amount their employees pay for health insurance. That's making it more important than ever for employees to familiarize themselves with what their employers offer and to evaluate how health care costs will impact theirretirement. What about Medicare? As Baby Boomers approach retirement and medical costs continue to rise, who's going to meet the growing need? Government-sponsored Medicare is part of the answer, but it has significant limitations. Most people qualify automatically at age 65 for Medicare hospital insurance (known as Part A), which doesn't cost you a penny if you or your spouse paid Medicare taxes during your working years. There's a monthly premium, however, for Medicare medical insurance (Part B), which covers doctors' services, outpatient hospital care, and some other medical services such as physical and occupational therapy and some home health care. Beyond the monthly premium for Part B ($78.20 in 2005 ), it's important to keep in mind that there's no annual limit on out-of-pocket expenses, as there is with many private insurance policies, and there are significant medical needs that aren't covered by Part A or Part B. "Employees have become accustomed to company-sponsored insurance coverage that pays typically 80 percent or more of their medical costs while they are employed, and they expect the same thing from Medicare," says Sunit Patel, vice president-Health and Welfare at Fidelity. "But there are many studies that show Medicare picks up only about 50 to 55 percent of a person's total medical costs in recent years." The new Medicare drug benefit and other coverage changes enacted early in 2004 will increase those percentages by about 5 to 10 percent, which is perhaps not as much as some retirees would have hoped. For the average retiree, who the Kaiser Foundation projects will spend $3,160 on prescription drugs in 2006, the year that Medicare Part D becomes effective, the new drug benefit will reduce out-of-pocket costs by only $1,080. Those savings will be quickly eaten up by continually rising health care costs overall, Patel points out. Plus, some key items, such as vision, at home care, and dental care, will continue to fall outside of Medicare coverage. Filling the gap Some retirees are able to fill the Medicare coverage gap with insurance from their former employer. About one-third of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries have employer-sponsoredsupplemental coverage, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported in 2002. For the poorest retirees, there is help in the form of Medicaid, a federal/state welfare program for the near destitute. Retirees not covered by an employer's policy or Medicaid can purchase a Medigap policy to help pay costs not covered by standard Medicare. Standardized Medigap policies come in 10 levels with costs that increase accordingly with the level of coverage. Alternatively, rather than enroll in traditional Medicare, retirees may choose a plan through the Medicare Advantage program, formerly known as Medicare "plus" Choice. What you can do? Anyway you look at it, paying for health care in retirement is expensive and, despite recent changes to Medicare, is likely to become much more so. Rather than rely on guesswork and government action, you can take control of your future retirement health care costs by following these steps: •Check your company's retirement benefits. You might work for a company that provides retiree medical benefits, but make sure you understand how much of the premium you will be required to pay, along with deductibles and co-pay amounts. Also, keep in mind that your employer's benefits could change by the time you're ready to retire .•Make sure you have adequate insurance. Having sufficient health insurance for your needs is critical for protecting yourretirement savings. If you're planning to retire before age 65, you won't be eligible for Medicare, but you might be able tobuy insurance under your company's group plan for active workers. If not, shop around for an individual policy that meets your needs. If you are 65, Medigap insurance should be a retirement plan priority. Also, Medicare Advantage regional PPO plans will become available in 2006, offering retirees inall areas greater potential for finding a privately managed plan that may offer lower premiums or better benefits than traditional Medicare. •Understand the risks of long-term care. Roughly 50% of Americans now turning 65 will be admitted to a nursing home at some point in their lives. Because the average annual cost of full-service nursing home care ranges between $33,000 to $91,000, depending where you live, financial planners increasingly recommend looking into long-term care insurance in addition to a solid health care policy .•Estimate your anticipated medical costs. In addition to getting a handle on what health insurance is going to cost, you should evaluate your general health and your family's health history. If your risk of heart disease is high, for example, you should pay close attention to hospital deductibles and drug costs, as well as keeping in mind that there's no limit, under Medicare, on your out-of-pocket expenses. •Review your retirement plan. Many retirement planning models don't adequately take into consideration the cost of health care. Once you know what to expect in the way of health care costs in retirement, you can determine how much additional savings you are likely to need. •Choose a method for saving. Many experts recommend starting a separate fund or account specifically to pay for health care costs in retirement — much like a separate account for a child's college education. The advantages of that approach are that it adds focus to your saving and itallows you to better assess your progress toward your goal. Even if your anticipated retirement health care costs seem high, you can reach your goal by starting now and contributing regularly as part of a disciplined plan.Helping you plan No matter your age, the time to start thinking about health care in retirement is now. Financial planners and economists agree almost universally that health care is going to be a major expense for retirees for the foreseeable future, much more so than many workers might have anticipated. To educate employees about the cost of health care in retirement and to help them develop accurate estimates, Fidelity is providing planning resources, including a Retirement Health Care Calculator, and actively encouraging employees to be aware ofthe issue.Planning and saving adequately for medical expenses will prevent painful consequences later, Patel says. Employees who save now are more likely to be able to enjoy the activities they have always looked forward to, such as travel and recreation. "It's very important for people to remember that most health care costs aren't optional like the lifestyle choices you make for your retirement," Patel says. "So when you have to make trade-off decisions, it's the optional activities that have to be dropped." The good news, he adds, is that Baby Boomers in the 38 to 55age range have sufficient time to adjust their savings strategies to meet their retirement health care needs. "If you set up a separate account and contribute the same way you do for other future needs," Patel says, "you'll greatly improve the chances that your retirement will live up to your expectations." Rick Sauder is a freelance writer based in Lancaster, Pa. and a frequent contributor to Stages® magazine The estimates of $160,000 and $200,000 are expected-value calculations and will vary from individual to individual. For example, the amounts could be insufficient for those who live well beyond their life expectancy and/or whose health status is significantly worse than average. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:QO6...cd=10&gl=us
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Well.. this was in Calgary with a metro population of 1,079,310 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary
Compare to Columbus Ohio with a metro poulation of 1,725,570 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus,_Ohio
Calgary hospitals: Calgary has three major hospitals; the Foothills Medical Centre, the Rockyview General Hospital and the Peter Lougheed Centre, all overseen by the Calgary Health Region.
Columbus has no less than 7 Hospitals
Children's Hospital - Columbus
Doctors Hospital West - Columbus
Grant Hospital - Columbus
Mt. Carmel Hospital - Columbus
The Ohio State University Medical Center - Columbus
Riverside Methodist Hospital - Columbus
St Ann's Hospital - Columbus
Of these I believe Grant and OSU are level 1 Trauma rated.
More beds in Columbus.. if there is a statistical anomaly and more preemies are occupying beds at a Calgary Hospital, then they simply relocate the patients.
Just a slight correction... If including Children's Hospitals, Calgary also has a children's hospital therefore 4 hospitals. A fifth is in the works but has experienced various hold ups.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Remember, health care in the US didn't always cost a life's worth of wages.
You do realize there are some very legitimate reasons for a lot of the health care cost increases?
Yes, but not to the tune of an $80 tylenol. 
My stepson was in an ATV accident in April, needed 25 stitches and they put an ace bandage on his wrist til he could go see a doctor to set it and put a cast on it.
6-1/2 hrs in the ER, 5-1/2 of it was sitting around waiting for them to do anything, and it cost 13k...13k to pop 25 staples and wrap his arm and give him 6 pain pills, and a few xrays.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 08/17/07 03:21 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Coach,I'd rather see outragious malpractice suits stopped. I'd rather see drug companies give us the same prices they do in Mexico and Canada. I'd rather see HMO's actually pay legitimate claims.
If you stop the first one, the other two would fall in place ... The problem with everything right now isn't the "capitalism" ... it's lawyers and the sue happy mentality of everyone in this country. The problem is, the country is run by lawyers (called politcians) ... and rather than sell everyone on a true solution that would cost them money, they come up with a "solution" that would just make matters worse. But it's easy to sell the whole, "Hey, you get free healthcare ... you don't have to pay for it!" 
Quote:
All of those things would go a long way to fix the system we have and stop the outcry for national health care. Nothing would make me happier Coach. But nobody is doing anything about it.
It's going to be a tough hike to "do something" about it. First you would have to get a bill drawn up by a group of lawyers ... then passed by a Congress full of a bunch of lawyers, and then somehow validated in the courts as Constitutional by more lawyers.
Quote:
I just don't see all these pharmaceutical companies,lawyers,HMO's and the rest of the "business end" of the medical community just "going along" with making our current system efficiant. People don't want to legislate it and they don't want national health care.
Pharms, HMO's and all "business ends" would LOVE to put a stop to the rampant lawsuits going around right now. The only problem is lawyers won't pass it as law.
Quote:
My question is,how do you stop voters from ending up mandating national health care if we don't fix the current system and what should we do to fix it?
The solution isn't to "give up" and just take the worst option possible, just because it's the one politicians are trying to sell us on. It's to educate everyone as to what the REAL problem is, and get people to stop buying the excuse that if we just allow national healthcare, then things will magically be better.
You can't compare our potential healthcare to other countries, because they don't have the rampant lawsuits and system abusers that we do. It would be a complete disaster here!
Pitt, I don't understand you. You complain ad nauseum about how horribly run our federal government is from side to side ... yet you want them to be in charge of our health care!? Just look at the issues with Veterans hospitals! And those don't even factor in a good portion of the sue happy gold miners and illegal immigrant moochers that are sucking the private healthcare system dry.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I can understand that point but I still side with giving it a try.
I understand that iam... the problem is our government, they don't "try" anything... what is the last thing you remember from history that our government got control of, failed at, then gave back to the private sector? Good luck coming up with something... anything.... ever.... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
I agree that there needs to be cuts in pricing. As Excl said, if you fix the first, most of the rest would fall in line accordingly
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Two quick points...
The 48 per cent tax figure is bunk. Knock it down I'd say about 10 or 12 per cent. High yes.... but certainly not half of what we make. Seems like alot sure...but that's a social welfare state for you. Lots of safety nets and whatnot.
That being said, universal health care will likely never work in the States because it goes against basic American ideals. This health care conversation pops up every so often and it always amazes me how anti-government many folks on here are. But looking at the history of the US, even so far back as the War of Independence, the American mindset has always been very "hands off".
The reason that the Canadian health care system wouldn;t work for the US is simply because the common will of the american people is the government should not poke their noses into their business and just let the market decide.
Now, for alot of things, I completely agree with approach. A free market economy ensures fair competition for things and allows value providers access to the market as well as high end providers. However, with health, I don't think that people should have to access "value providers" or go without needed health care because they can't afford it. I think it is the role of the government to ensure that a person's basic liberties are taken care of... chief among these is, in my mind, a person's life and health.
I'm certainly not slamming the US way of doing things. Its just different philosophies... probably the only significant difference between the US and Canada really...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656 |
No,you're wrong. You actually "quoted me saying" that nothing would make me happier than to fix our current system.  I'm just stating the innevitable. The "public at large" WILL vote in national health care by candidates they vote for. Every year the percentage of people who advocate it are on the rise. You summed up quite well why our current system "won't be fixed". And as a direct result,the American public WILL forge ahead with installing politicians that will mandate national health care. The system we have is quite flawed and people are fed up with it. That's a reality that neither of us can change. I'm just fully aware of the fact that national health care is on its way. Because you just explained exactly why this current system won't be fixed. I'd rather see it fixed. But you know as well as I do that it won't be. And there will be a natural progression occur as a result of that. JMHO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
My stepson was in an ATV accident in April, needed 25 stitches and they put an ace bandage on his wrist til he could go see a doctor to set it and put a cast on it.
6-1/2 hrs in the ER, 5-1/2 of it was sitting around waiting for them to do anything, and it cost 13k...13k to pop 25 staples and wrap his arm and give him 6 pain pills, and a few xrays.
Now THAT is unreal.... that seriously boggles my mind.
Maybe the NFL could lower players salaries if health care didn't cost so much... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656 |
Quote:
I agree that there needs to be cuts in pricing. As Excl said, if you fix the first, most of the rest would fall in line accordingly
I agree that's the first thing that needs to be done. And I believe it would help greatly in those other departments too.
I still don't think HMO's will pay legitimate claims without trying to persistantly deny them unless they're forced to by ennacting a severe penalty ,but we'll save that for another time.............
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Good post Canada... Quote:
I think it is the role of the government to ensure that a person's basic liberties are taken care of... chief among these is, in my mind, a person's life and health.
So then the government should have a say in if, where, and how much you can smoke and drink... how many cheeseburgers you can eat... how much you should weigh... how many different sexual partners you are allowed to have.... whether or not you can go rock climbing or skydiving... what mental state you should be in.... If looking out for your health is a really a primary responsibility of the government then should they only be limited to the back end of healing you?
This is the hypocritical part of the argument to me and a lot of people take this stance... the government should be totally hands off in the wide variety of ways that I'm allowed to abuse my own body... it's my body, it's my life, and if I want to take lousy care of myself then dammit, it's none of the government's business, but then the government should be on the hook for paying for my healthcare because healthcare is a "liberty"?.... I'm sorry, that makes ZERO sense to me...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
The 48 per cent tax figure is bunk. Knock it down I'd say about 10 or 12 per cent.
I've seen that amount quoted quite a few times after a google. You better tell some Canadian publications it's not true because they are quoting that also.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
If Canadians are paying 10-12% in taxes, I'll move there in a heartbeat and take my own arse back to Montana for healthcare...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Well I can tell you that my annual wage certainly isn;t cut in half...and thats after taxes, union dues and pension contributions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
They said "average", some people could be paying more than half. Unreal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316 |
no-one answered the question, but for those who want national healthcare, are you willing to pay upwards of 40% in federal taxes and not 15,20, 27%?
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, tell the world I'm coming home
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,061 |
I no longer pay taxes, so I guess I should be all for it.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
No, I'm not... but then I'm not in favor of it so I don't fit your response criteria...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,061 |
Quote:
SSI tax
Aren't you the one who said this isn't a tax, it's a benefit? Why is it a tax now?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Any money the government takes from you without your consent, whether they plan to give it back at some point or not... is a tax.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
So then the government should have a say in if, where, and how much you can smoke and drink... how many cheeseburgers you can eat... how much you should weigh... how many different sexual partners you are allowed to have.... whether or not you can go rock climbing or skydiving... what mental state you should be in.... If looking out for your health is a really a primary responsibility of the government then should they only be limited to the back end of healing you?
This is the hypocritical part of the argument to me and a lot of people take this stance... the government should be totally hands off in the wide variety of ways that I'm allowed to abuse my own body... it's my body, it's my life, and if I want to take lousy care of myself then dammit, it's none of the government's business, but then the government should be on the hook for paying for my healthcare because healthcare is a "liberty"?.... I'm sorry, that makes ZERO sense to me...
Also decent points back atcha...and an issue that is ongoing in Canada.
Rather than outlawing these practices however, the government usually uses incentives in one way or another. Booze and smokes are taxed heavily. Tax breaks for physical fitness have been tossed around as ideas. healthcare funding includes money that is used for preventative measures and public information campaigns etc.
Your point is very valid....but what about the other end of the stick? The person who takes perfectly good care of themselves who gets sick...or hurt... Should I be expected to pay out thousands because of a twist of fate?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
And I still say I highly doubt it. Here's the 2007 rates for Provincial and Federal tax combined.....
2007 Taxable Income Tax Rate
first $37,178 25.50%
over $37,178 up to $74,357 32.00%
over $74,357 up to $120,887 36.00%
over $120,887 39.00%
Highest tax rate is 39 per cent....EDIT: I checked the other provinces and am actually surprised that max tax rate is much higher in other provinces. Mid to high 40s in the East.
Should be noted that this is certainly NOT the average though and for people who are making over 120 G a year.
Last edited by CanadaDawg; 08/17/07 04:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656 |
Quote:
They said "average", some people could be paying more than half. Unreal.
Figure yours Jules
Income tax
SSI tax
City tax
State tax
Fuel tax
Sales tax
Alcohol tax
Luxury tax
Property tax
Capital gains tax
Add all those taxes together and see "in reality" what percentage of your income is "paid in taxes".
Then look at Canadas rate. We may be closer than you're willing to admit.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656 |
Quote:
no-one answered the question, but for those who want national healthcare, are you willing to pay upwards of 40% in federal taxes and not 15,20, 27%?
I don't really "want it" but let's clear up the falicy here.....
It didn't say anything about "their national or federal taxes". It said in TOTAL taxes. See my post above to see exactly how much YOU "really" pay in taxes. They don't just tax you when you make it brother man!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
I'm just stating the innevitable. The "public at large" WILL vote in national health care by candidates they vote for. Every year the percentage of people who advocate it are on the rise.
Mostly because baby boomers are the biggest portion of this country, and they're all hitting retirement age now. Of course they want everyone else to pay for their healthcare.
Quote:
You summed up quite well why our current system "won't be fixed". And as a direct result,the American public WILL forge ahead with installing politicians that will mandate national health care.
Why don't they forge AHEAD and elect people that will stop the rampant abuse of lawsuits ... rather than forge backwards and try to use two wrongs to make a right? I'll tell you why ... because Americans tend to be stupid, and actually believe that if they get Federal Healthcare, they won't be paying for it. We'll be paying for it in more ways than one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656 |
Quote:
Quote:
SSI tax
Aren't you the one who said this isn't a tax, it's a benefit? Why is it a tax now?
All I said was that it's unlike any other exemption. It's a fund you recieve in return.
Why do you consider paying for national health care a "tax" rather than a benifit program?
Do you call your health insurance premiums" a "tax"? How about your retirement fund? But SSI is different?
Since everybody wishes to call "benifit programs a tax" we'll all stay on the same page. If not,this debate gets sidetracked.
Myself? I don't consider SSI or anything paid towards health care is a "tax". I see it as money paid into a benifit program. But everybody "calls it a tax" so for the sake of arguement,I'll work with "their" assertions.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Rather than outlawing these practices however, the government usually uses incentives in one way or another. Booze and smokes are taxed heavily.
We in the states.. well, those of us that pay attention... are all too familiar with social manipulation through the tax plan... take those things the government doesn't want you to do and tax the crap out of them... take those things they do want you to do and give tax breaks...
smoking, drinking, driving... bad
buying homes, saving for retirement, having children .... good
It's just my own personal opinion, but the whole thing sort of flys in the face of the "freedom" and "liberty" thing... it's like, "We're going to give you the freedom to do some things, but you're going to pay for them." pay who? Why the government of course....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Sounds like you're a real deal anarchist DC!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
Quote:
Quote:
They said "average", some people could be paying more than half. Unreal.
Figure yours Jules
Income tax
SSI tax
City tax
State tax
Fuel tax
Sales tax
Alcohol tax
Luxury tax
Property tax
Capital gains tax
Add all those taxes together and see "in reality" what percentage of your income is "paid in taxes".
Then look at Canadas rate. We may be closer than you're willing to admit.
Do not Canadians also pay most of these taxes? If so, your comparison actually proves nothing.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
has old fashioned conservatism come so full circle as to be considered anarchy now? 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656 |
Quote:
Why don't they forge AHEAD and elect people that will stop the rampant abuse of lawsuits ... rather than forge backwards and try to use two wrongs to make a right? I'll tell you why ... because Americans tend to be stupid,
And how many candidates use that as a part of their platform again Ex?
Americans often times don't "have" such choices to make. Now we hear all of these politicians running for office. But how many of them actually try to use what you suggest as a "major part of their platform"?
Just earlier you said that this thing wouldn't be straightenned out because "politicians are lawyers". Now you're suggesting we have a "choice" to vote for someone who wishes to "truely address" overhauling the current system?
I'm a tad confused by this? I have seen a candidate here and there who have advocated and "stumped on it" like they really meant it. But that's been far more the acception than the rule from what I've seen.
I mean just look at the prescription drug legislation that was written. You know,they COULD have added a writ in there to "negotiate drug prices" with the pharmaceutical companies to help cut the cost of this program dramaticly,but they didn't.
Instead,tax dollars are used to pay "full price" for prescription drugs INSTEAD of negotiating those prices down to save tax dollars.(BTW- the military DOES negotiate such prices) So I don't see where that is showing me anything that would logicly lead me to believe anyone is really serious about saving money on health care.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
If the government has no role in actually governing the people, I'm pretty sure its stretched beyond conservatism DC I'm not slamming on you... I just find your view point very interesting... especially since, by Canadian standards anyways, I'm pretty right wing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Instead,tax dollars are used to pay "full price" for prescription drugs INSTEAD of negotiating those prices down to save tax dollars.(BTW- the military DOES negotiate such prices) So I don't see where that is showing me anything that would logicly lead me to believe anyone is really serious about saving money on health care.
So lets elect people who will advocate federally funded healthcare and make us pay full price for EVERYTHING healthcare related ... brilliant!
You see what we are getting at here Pitt? Government Health care is taking two steps backwards in trying to solve the problem. It's a very short-sighted solution, which will cause much more problems than what it will solve.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,656 |
Quote:
Do not Canadians also pay most of these taxes? If so, your comparison actually proves nothing.
Yes. And their gand total,according to published reports ,of ALL of their taxes adding up to 48%.
This is ALL of our taxes!
It's called appleas and apples buddy.
They don't pay "48% in income taxes"
That's NOT what it said. Go back and read it. It said they pay "48% in taxes". That's their "entire tax burden". You know,the grand total of ALL the taxes they pay? Just like I'm doing here.
Comparing the taxes in both countries is fine. But you can't include ALL of these taxes they pay,and just make it "sound like" that's what they pay in "income tax".
They included "all tax money" paid by a Canadian". I'm simply saying,let's do the same with Americans to arrive at a fair comparison.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316 |
I have no problem paying taxes when I get a perceived benefit out of it.... -property taxes to make the school district one of the best and/or the park systems top notch.... -social security assuming I'll actually receive it when I retire in 35 years... -federal/state taxes for the country's well being (security, some social programs, education, etc) I don't think I would get much of a perceived benefit out of a federally run healthcare system because I work and have medical insurance. Maybe that's being naive, but I think there are much better alternatives then a national healthcare system. My favorite tax would actually be the flat sales tax. I save the maximum you can in my 401K, fund a Roth IRA, and save additonal monies in a taxable account. I spend very little on clothes, cars, electronic gadgets, and other non-essentials so the tax would probably be better for me in the long run plus you would have everyone paying into it, not just those that are signed up on a 1040 Form (pimps, hoes, drug dealers, illegals, etc..  ) Again, it's pretty naive, but you have to be pretty lazy, physically sick/disabled, or really really really dumb not to live a good life in America. By good life, I mean own a home, car, and pay for groceries. All it takes is the will to want to succeed.
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, tell the world I'm coming home
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
If the government has no role in actually governing the people, I'm pretty sure its stretched beyond conservatism DC
I'm not anti-government... it should definitely have a role in governing the people... It's when it goes beyond governing to controlling and manipulating that I have a problem...
But we are getting into a much deeper realm of political debate than just healthcare....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
DawgTalk Poli Sci.... love it....
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum For those Universal Healthcare
Lovers
|
|
