Single payer healthcare system discussion

Curtis,

Does you definition of "privilege" take into account that I work as much as I choose too?  I do not limit my self to a traditional 40 hour work week and that I am grateful for my success, but also responsible for my failures.

I grant you your vote, but please be carful your motivations that would limit the success of others.  Our tax structure, incrementally cost those who make money a higher tax burden on that increase in income.  Please know that the Government is very efficient at collecting what they consider their share of my efforts.  I would take issue that "you or the government" can save me, money or other wise to improve, very much.  Free will and ability to supper size your fries and soda with your meal, remind me that the belief our government can fix things is a question that comes up for a vote every four years.

If you work hard, are lucky and make more, you will be sharing, more.     

Why is this not a good thing?

David 

The world I work in can be summed up in the fraise: I help people manage their expectations.  I no longer try to sell health insurance because a clients expectations can not be met, the Government mandates the construction of a product that is so vast in it's coverage that it has to cost the preverbal "arm and both legs".

The next time you are having a client/provider interaction with your health care professional please take note of how they are documenting your visit.  They now are responsible for the electronic records update of your file,  you now have to fit in a pre approved box of available options for your care.  If they end up taking short hand notes of your visit they will have to return to your file and input them at a later time.  I had a very enlightening meeting with a Doctor who after is shift at the clinic, still had hours of charting to do at the end of the day because he chose to see clients during his shift rather than catch up on a computer.

The time spent to update the charts was not on the clock.  But it has to be done.

The out come of ones interaction with any health care system is eventually going to end, with our demise.  The old saw, something about "death and taxes" is not avoidable.  The quest is having access to a system that will be helpful, available and one would like to think affordable.  

If you could only pick two, what would you chose?  

In reply to jr02518 :

I don't think anyone is arguing the current system isn't broken.  The question is how to fix it?  Other developed countries seem to be able to make a universal system work.  The one thing I really don't like about the ACA is it basically has the Govt funding the currently extremely inefficient system even more.  One way to reduce the inefficiency is to reduce the number of "middle men" - with the obvious one being the insurance companies themselves.  Also obvious is this idea would be fought hard.  

Ian F said:

In reply to jr02518 :

I don't think anyone is arguing the current system isn't broken.  The question is how to fix it?  Other developed countries seem to be able to make a universal system work.  The one thing I really don't like about the ACA is it basically has the Govt funding the currently extremely inefficient system even more.  One way to reduce the inefficiency is to reduce the number of "middle men" - with the obvious one being the insurance companies themselves.  Also obvious is this idea would be fought hard.  

The problem with fixing the inefficiency, is that the people who profit from that inefficiency have the funds from that inefficiency to campaign long and hard to perpetuate it, through convincing lawmakers that this inefficiency is good, and through propaganda campaigns to convince the public that it's better than any alternatives ("In Canada you have to wait 17 months to get an X-ray!")

Throughout history, this only ever ends badly for them.

In reply to Knurled. :

Well, that is essentially the definition of "The Deep State" - a conglomeration of industries all vying to get as big a slice of that pie as they can.  

I disagree that it ends badly for them. They've been playing this game for a long time and they have hit upon the ultimate strategy that is working for them in spades: pitting the "left" and the "right" against each other. The deeper the distrust, the more they profit.

Wayslow said:

As a Canadian I find it strange that people rail against government run healthcare as as a form of socialism but are generally ok with road maintenance, fire departments, police departments and the military being government run. Aren’t these also a form of socialism?

Here in America there has been a pretty steady move towards privatizing those areas as well.  Between private company run toll roads, private company speed cameras, private company military contracts, and countless other contracts awarded at the local, state, and national level under the promise of cost savings and efficiency its well underway.  Based on the Pontiac minivan I saw with duct tape covering rust holes that was being used as school student transport by the contracter our district uses, somebody is making a lot of money off all of it.  

In reply to logdog :

Rest assured it is not the soul driving that rusting minivan.

jr02518 said:

If handing your self up to big brother for care is something you can embrace and are comfortable with I will not stand in your way. 

The government is accountable to the voters, who are the users of the system. The insurance companies that you're handing yourself up to are only in it for profit and are only accountable to their shareholders. If they think that they can get away with letting you die for increased profits, they'll absolutely do it, or else free market sources will drive them out of business. If you're truly comfortable with that, you have very different ways of thinking than I do.

Also, a healthy, well educated public is a benefit to private industry and makes your country a more attractive place to build a business.

jr02518 said:

Curtis,

Does you definition of "privilege" take into account that I work as much as I choose too?  I do not limit my self to a traditional 40 hour work week and that I am grateful for my success, but also responsible for my failures.

The very defiinition of privilege is that you have the body and mind that is capable of working at all and not being sympathetic to those who can't.  I won't assume anything about you in specific, but your words so far have implied that you feel special for being born "capable" and would prefer to profit from the misfortune of others at their expense.

I grant you your vote, but please be carful your motivations that would limit the success of others.  Our tax structure, incrementally cost those who make money a higher tax burden on that increase in income.  Please know that the Government is very efficient at collecting what they consider their share of my efforts.  I would take issue that "you or the government" can save me, money or other wise to improve, very much.  Free will and ability to supper size your fries and soda with your meal, remind me that the belief our government can fix things is a question that comes up for a vote every four years.

The current government?  Broken.  I don't trust them to do much of anything except mess everything up.  But your view of the tax structure is a bit naive.  Take a look at what the kill-three-trees-to-print tax code actually allows.  The amount that the top earners pay in actual revenue to the IRS is monstrously different from the bracketed tax structure.

If you work hard, are lucky and make more, you will be sharing, more.     

Why is this not a good thing?

David 

Again, this is a remarkably naive viewpoint.  You assume that effort = product. You said the words yourself... Lucky.  THAT is privilege.  I don't care if you work hard and make tons of money.  I promise you, I work far more than any CEO on the planet.  I work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week at a job I love and make $35k.  And it's not light work, it is heavy construction.  By myself.  I don't begrudge them their luck, the efforts, or their skills, I begrudge the government that lets them claim ridiculous exemptions and end up not paying their fair share of taxes.  On the surface, they may be in a 28% tax bracket, but their effective tax rate is much lower.

I won't get into the benefits and drawbacks of a bracketed tax system, but just assuming that rich people pay more taxes is not only naive, it is not the issue I'm talking about.  Corporate taxes.  One example:  In 2017, WalMart posted $123B in profits, laid off 9400 employees (for which they got a tax reduction), and raised the salary of the CEO to $22.8M.  Thanks to the new tax code, their corporate tax rate is only 19% to start with.  Using the tax code to write off everything they legally could, including special tax breaks for employing people who are marginalized, on welfare, or othewise handicapped, they wrote off $373M in taxes.  This made their effective tax rate 0.3%.

Amazon is contributed even less. Of their $5.6B in profits, their CEO having a net worth of over $100B,  Amazon paid zero dollars in taxes.  How?  Tax breaks for executive stock options.  Not only did they avoid taxes by using potentially legit means, they did it by giving billions of dollars to executive in stock options.  Even written into the new administration's tax code is a one-time tax break of $789M.

So, when people complain about their $6 going toward medicare, I don't have much sympathy that they are missing the bigger picture.  In 2015, the government actively gave away $1.22T in tax breaks.  That is more than the entire US government's discretionary budget which includes military spending, transportation and infrastructure, medicare, and social security to name just a few.  The government gave away over 7 times what we spent on the entire military, DHS, and border patrol combined.  This isn't about you and your taxes.  This isn't about lazy people.  It isn't even about non-lazy but unable to work people.  You are operating as a lucky, privileged person in a flawed structure.  The fact that your words seem to lean toward the "I'm taking my stuff and keeping it for myself"... and that's fine if its that's what you believe, they just indicate a "la la la la... not listening" viewpoint.  I simply choose to not take that road.  I choose to fight for a system in which we don't punish the health of the poor by shifting money up the ladder to those who haven't worked for it. 

You know, I typed a long response. Read it and remembered that no one in these discussions listens or changes their opinion on anything. They don't process the information, they read just enough to respond as disdainfully as they can. Some of you gents have been pretty disappointing. 

Everyone has come down on the same side of the discussion that they always do. 

We have a rather profound difference in philosophy on what the responsibility of the federal government should be and even what the Constitution says. That isn't going to change. Ever. 

Toyman,

Thank you, I will take your comments to heart and return to my lurking.

David

In reply to Ian F :

No doubt.  And Im sure the benefits package offered by "Toothless Joe's Lowest Bidder Kid Haulin' Service and Bait Shoppe" is close to nonexistant. 

Yep.  Retiring as well.

Although we got pretty deep on things, I appreciate the spirited debate.

In reply to Curtis :

Curtis, While I happen to agree with what you said, you failed in one respect.  
You neglected to explain  how the rules that benefit the Uber wealthy  affect the person  you're talking to.  
In short what Bezos fails to pay the rest of the tax payers who do need to pay taxes have to pay.  
 

Not paying your share of taxes is not victimless.  
 

Toyman01 said:

You know, I typed a long response. Read it and remembered that no one in these discussions listens or changes their opinion on anything. They don't process the information, they read just enough to respond as disdainfully as they can. Some of you gents have been pretty disappointing. 

Everyone has come down on the same side of the discussion that they always do. 

We have a rather profound difference in philosophy on what the responsibility of the federal government should be and even what the Constitution says. That isn't going to change. Ever. 

 

Do you agree that one of the obligations for Government is to provide for the common defense?  
Do you further agree that providing that defense is expensive and hence the need to collect taxes? 
Taxes not paid is not a victimless crime because  what is not paid, the rest have to pay extra to make up the shortage.  

jr02518 said:

Curtis,

Does you definition of "privilege" take into account that I work as much as I choose too?  I do not limit my self to a traditional 40 hour work week and that I am grateful for my success, but also responsible for my failures.

I grant you your vote, but please be carful your motivations that would limit the success of others.  Our tax structure, incrementally cost those who make money a higher tax burden on that increase in income.  Please know that the Government is very efficient at collecting what they consider their share of my efforts.  I would take issue that "you or the government" can save me, money or other wise to improve, very much.  Free will and ability to supper size your fries and soda with your meal, remind me that the belief our government can fix things is a question that comes up for a vote every four years.

If you work hard, are lucky and make more, you will be sharing, more.     

Why is this not a good thing?

David 

Our country was founded on making the system more fair.  Only the king and other nobility had access to massive wealth and power.  
Our founding  fathers thought that was wrong and started  and won a war  over that. 
The very system our founding fathers objected to Is the corruption that is fouling politics today. 

3 people realize it’s going down the wrong road, and bow out respectfully. Here comes Frenchy to drag it up again. 

[sarcasm] I’m shocked [/sarcasm]

And once again Steve types what many others are thinking.............

Steve_Jones said:

3 people realize it’s going down the wrong road, and bow out respectfully. Here comes Frenchy to drag it up again. 

[sarcasm] I’m shocked [/sarcasm]

But 150,000 pages of tax code that is supported by hand hewn timbers says that healthcare must be run on the Jaguar v12!!

(Frenchy: I mean this in good spirits, I hope it's received that way!)

logdog said:

Wayslow said:

As a Canadian I find it strange that people rail against government run healthcare as as a form of socialism but are generally ok with road maintenance, fire departments, police departments and the military being government run. Aren’t these also a form of socialism?

Here in America there has been a pretty steady move towards privatizing those areas as well.  Between private company run toll roads, private company speed cameras, private company military contracts, and countless other contracts awarded at the local, state, and national level under the promise of cost savings and efficiency its well underway.  Based on the Pontiac minivan I saw with duct tape covering rust holes that was being used as school student transport by the contracter our district uses, somebody is making a lot of money off all of it.  

Yup, and while I'm generally a libertarian/republican/fiscally-conservative-democrat (uh, I forget what I am anymore), I personally think this is a horrible path to go down. It doesn't have to be, but when you have companies leasing a highway for 99 years, it is just stupid. Chicago Skyway tolls, starting January 1, 2020, will be $5.60 - that gets you 8 miles. That is for 2 axles; I think a 6 axle vehicle is currently at $40. The increase matches inflation, but... Really? The city could have been taking that toll, and God knows Chicago needs it. Now, I don't know if that measures out to a good deal for the city ($1.2B for said lease), but it sure doesn't feel like it. 

Can I get in my kick? The horse is still twitching. 

In reply to pheller :

That depends, is it covered by the horse's HSA?