kcmetro wrote:
If we had universal health care, the UAW wouldn't even be in trouble right now.
That statement is full of bulls---. The pension plan costs are high. The job bank costs are high. The average hourly wage is higher than in the foreign auto plants in the USA. And the list goes on.
By the way universal health care does carry some costs. Who pays for those costs? And where does the money come from?
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
phuqueue wrote:
Probably also worth noting: I mentioned previously that per capita cost in Canada is only a little more than half of what it is here. Under our current system, the government already pays almost half of all health care costs. I'm not saying we'd pay exactly the same as Canadians do -- I have no idea what other intervening factors could make our per capita costs higher or lower than they are in Canada. But it is at least an interesting point to note, that the government already pays almost enough to cover everybody if per capita costs are similar here to what they are in Canada.
Given some of the readings and programs I have watched on this issue I would say that one reason the per capita cost is lower is the rationing of health care. Yes, if there is an emergency you will be taken care of but on routine stuff you can wait and wait for care and treatment. Yes, there are certain overhead costs that can be eliminated and profits taken out but that still leaves a large portion of costs that will remain with universal health care plus adding the additional costs for treatments that certain people forgo now because of costs.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
phxcat wrote:
Besides your over reliance on unsourced case studies, you are completely missing the point. Through the examples of Canada and Western Europe, we know what does not work. We have the opportunity to create a system that does work by fixing the problems that we have while finding ways to avoid the problems that the other systems have.
Yes we can. By providing more timely treatments and care which will drive up the costs.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
KCMax wrote:
Well of course it does. I'm saying that pointing to one problem and saying "capitalism doesn't work" is just as silly as pointing to a problem with universal health care and saying it doesn't work. I don't see why we can't take what works in other countries while taking steps to avoid what doesn't.
Who has actually said universal health care doesn't work? For me, all that I have been saying it is not the cureall that many expect and the costs will be higher than supporters think they will be. And that universal health care is not perfect.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
LenexatoKCMO wrote:
How about if we try a deregulated health care system. Imagine how much cheaper and efficient things could be if hospitals didn't have to drown under a mountain of regulatory paperwork. A huge expense in hospitals and doctors offices right now is the compliance processes mandated by medicaid and medicare - the sheer vastness of this burden is incredible and it already accounts for a significant portion of the reason why they charge $20 for a disposable bed pan. They have to employ entire staffs and experts to manage the paperwork and bullshit. Imagine how much greater that burden would be if we were all involved in a similar program. We could go ahead and deregulate the insurance industry why we are at it - give people some real choices rather than the federally imposed HMO model. Currently there is really only one flavor of insurance people can buy. Give people choices and costs would drop like a rock.
My wife's experience with home health care is an example. She started in the home health care field in its infancy. She spent most of her time actually seeing the patients. By the time she left that area of health care she would spend two hours doing paperwork for every hour of seeing patients (including driving time). And I can't remember the exact term but it is like per diem but patients were released from the hospital because their time was up not that they were well enough and so after a few visits from my wife they would be back in the hospital. Also there were cases where the patient was entitled to only a certain number of visits so my wife would have to end treatment no matter the condition of the patient. The patient would then have to go to the hospital, if my wife had continued her visits she would have monitered the case and had the patient see the doctor before the patient turned to the worse.
So much for a universal health care system like Medicare.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
mean wrote:
I understand it, too, but the philosophical argument against universal care is pretty shaky, unless the one making it also supports victims being billed by the fire department for putting out a fire, or victims being billed by the police to investigate crimes against them.
Sorry, they are already paying for those services via taxes.
Yes, taxes of some sort will pay for universal health care but that is a choice our political system has to make. Many years ago an individual had to pay to have a fire put out and there were competing fire departments (see the movie Gangs of New York for an example).
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Sorry, they are already paying for those services via taxes.
Yes, taxes of some sort will pay for universal health care but that is a choice our political system has to make. Many years ago an individual had to pay to have a fire put out and there were competing fire departments (see the movie Gangs of New York for an example).
That is, in fact, exactly the kind of scenario I was alluding to. I don't know that anybody really wants to go back to that kind of primitive fire protection service. I don't see anyone making arguments about how poor people are statistically more likely to wire their homes poorly, replace a fuse or breaker with a copper wire, or make meth in their bathtub, so why should we have to pay for their fire protection.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
If you think universal healthcare/government regulated healthcare is a good idea, you need to spend some time in a VA hospital. Most those places look like the room from the movie "Saw"
Police and Fire departments are emergency services. I believe all people should be allowed treatment for emergency medical services. It's the people that abuse the system because a hospital is a better place than their home or work. Lot of sympathy, attention seekers, pity party crap driving up the costs. My fiance is a nurse, and this stuff is pretty obvious. Same person(s) find an excuse to spend a week in the hospital every month without showing any physical symptoms or being able to diagnose any problems.
Or they spend all their money on cigarettes, drugs, booze, and KFC and can figure out why their backs hurt and they feel faint climbing stairs. I might indulge some of these sins, but I don't expect anyone else to pick up the tab or feel sorry for me. I'll change my habits before I start crying for help.
I don't go to the doctor unless I need absolutely need to. Even though I have good insurance, the co-pays can be a bitch. If I didn't work and had nothing, I wouldn't have an incentive to pay my bills. Because I have assets, I have plenty to lose if I was to go uncovered and something happened.
And the people that do use police and fire departments because of their own fault, are often penalized with fines or lawsuits. Maybe the government should start paying my parking tickets.
Nobody is making the argument that the government should take over hospitals or medical care. That is a huge strawman that the right has been putting up to knock down through this whole thing. All they are talking about is a single payer system, which, for all the free marketeers out there, would actually lead to more competition in the medical field since the consumer would then be able to choose his or her own doctor, as opposed to the current system where factors other than insurance cause the consumer to pick an employer who then chooses an insurance company who then decides who the consumer may or may not patronize. Would there be people taking advantage of the system? Of course- but would we rather allow some (emphasis on some) people to take advantage of the system or allow many to go without medical care?
As for the VA, remember it is run by a government whose governing beliefs are that government can't do anything right.
phxcat wrote:
Nobody is making the argument that the government should take over hospitals or medical care. That is a huge strawman that the right has been putting up to knock down through this whole thing. All they are talking about is a single payer system, which, for all the free marketeers out there, would actually lead to more competition in the medical field since the consumer would then be able to choose his or her own doctor, as opposed to the current system where factors other than insurance cause the consumer to pick an employer who then chooses an insurance company who then decides who the consumer may or may not patronize. Would there be people taking advantage of the system? Of course- but would we rather allow some (emphasis on some) people to take advantage of the system or allow many to go without medical care?
As for the VA, remember it is run by a government whose governing beliefs are that government can't do anything right.
I think that the burden of healthcare should fall on each individual person. The only reason that employers began providing healthcare as a benefit of employment was after WWII when wages were frozen. This would be one way that employers could entice employees to come and work for them. People now just expect either the gov't or their employers to give them health insurance. I don't know where in the constitiution that it states that your employer or the gov't has to give you health insurance. As an employer, I would love to put the responsibility on the employees. We have a full time employee that is hired just to handle benefits/healthcare and it is an absolute drain on us financially and timewise in dealing with keeping up the group program. Unfortunately, it's what we have and we're doing the best we can to deal with it.
If people actually knew what it cost to insure them as an employer, they would probably take much better care of themselves and not visit the doctor for every cold that came upon them. I think that employees that are covered need to wake up and realize how good they have it, even if they do share in some of the costs by having money kept out of their paychecks. Typically this is only about 10-15% of the actual costs.
i have this happen at my job mc86. my employees dont realize how much the company covers, they think they pay for it, the employer just provides a means to sign up and deduct the full cost. yeah, umm, not even friecken close.
one girl, my morning kitchen supervisor, in the past year had carpel tunnel ( sp? ) surgery done on both her left and right wrists. BOTH!! one in may, then the other in july. then had her back worked on. all in the same year. you know the kind of jack the company pays for that?? we were joking in my office one day, and i told her, in joking, yeah, shit, we paid for those!!! ( pointing at her wrists ) and she was like "i pay for my insurance!!!" and i told her the lo-down. she was in shock. she thought the measely $189 a month she pays takes care of everything. had no idea the company pays on average twice what she pays a year.
most people probably feel the same way, they have zero clue.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!
kcdcchef wrote:
most people probably feel the same way, they have zero clue.
Yeah, how dare employees actually use the insurance! Don't the employees know that directly impacts the bottom line and reduces executive bonuses? Do us all a favor and just stay home, shrivel up and die so bonuses are not impacted!
lock+load wrote:
Yeah, how dare employees actually use the insurance! Don't the employees know that directly impacts the bottom line and reduces executive bonuses? Do us all a favor and just stay home, shrivel up and die so bonuses are not impacted!
Unless the company is self insured or has a small group, individual claims are not likely to impact the company's bottom line/executive compensation.
lock+load wrote:
Yeah, how dare employees actually use the insurance! Don't the employees know that directly impacts the bottom line and reduces executive bonuses? Do us all a favor and just stay home, shrivel up and die so bonuses are not impacted!
the individual claims do not affect the bottom line, and i was not saying that. i was just pointing out that the average person doesnt realize that what the employer pays is fucking huge.
when we sit in executive committee talking about hiring for various positions within the hotel, we always throw out there paying overtime to others to cover it, using temps, etc, to reduce the benefits we pay by hiring another body full time. benefits are damned expensive to an employer.
and i have never heard of executive bonuses at a hotel being affected by employees having surgeries. too many people collecting benefits in general, sure.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!
LenexatoKCMO wrote:
Unless the company is self insured or has a small group, individual claims are not likely to impact the company's bottom line/executive compensation.
kcdcchef wrote:
the individual claims do not affect the bottom line, and i was not saying that. i was just pointing out that the average person doesnt realize that what the employer pays is fucking huge.
That's part of the employees total compensation. If the employer didn't send that money to the insurance company, they'd make it part of the employees base pay and let them pay the insurance them self. Just the the "employer portion" of the FICA taxes.
It's a myth that the company pays this out of the goodness of their heart.
KCFutbol wrote:
That's part of the employees total compensation. If the employer didn't send that money to the insurance company, they'd make it part of the employees base pay and let them pay the insurance them self. Just the the "employer portion" of the FICA taxes.
It's a myth that the company pays this out of the goodness of their heart.
they are not paying it out of the goodness of their heart. but it does cost them dearly.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!
