Government Involved In Healthcare? Can't Be Good!

[godsfavoritecolor]

Prior to Medicaid and medicare, people could pay the doctor directly and it was not a financially backbreaking issue, even major surgery. For indigent people, there were not for profits and charities who helped them out and even doctors who volunteered.

 

Are you referring to the nineteenth century?

 

You do realize that in paying your healthcare insurance, you are paying extra for the sickest people in your insured group, plus profit for providers, plus thirty percent overhead and profit for the insurance company, don’t you?

 

godsfavoritecolor,

 

You act as if you are still a christian without the christian verbage. You cannot shake that belief. Since you seem to know what is better for everyone, at least go back to the church and be a good christian. You are awfully good at telling people how bad they are and feeling morally superior. I don't need anyone to tell me how to think or what I should do. I am about freedom and that is what this country was founded on, if you don't like it, there are any number of countries who do what you would like....why not emmigrate there?

 

When I became an ex-christian, I didn't become a Nazi. As for emmigration, why don't you emmigrate?

[Legion]

You do realize that in paying your healthcare insurance, you are paying extra for the sickest people in your insured group, plus profit for providers, plus thirty percent overhead and profit for the insurance company, don’t you?

We can't have profits. Profits are bad. Every business ought to be non-profit.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I remember the days when I paid 67% in tax... that's why I moved to US...

 

Was that your marginal tax rate? And what was your total income in current US dollars? Did you pay sales tax, property tax, any other taxes?

Probably. The top marginal income tax reached 80% late 80's and early 90's. I was making about 240,000 Swedish Kronor, which at that time was about $24,000 gross income. At that time it was probably about mid-income, and not really high, but not really low either. And I was getting some money from the state for my kids too, but it was not enough. I was keeping about $1100 per month (a little bit more than half). I think the basic tax rate was about 30%, and then it was scaling up rather quickly, so my tax was effectively close to 50%.

 

They increased the sales tax to 25% in late 80's (IIRC), and I dont' remember the property tax, but you of course have luxury tax too (like if you have a patio, or tile in the bath room and such, it increases the property tax). And taxes on investments too, of course, 22% or something like that.

 

(Property tax now is about 1.5%, I had to check, and it was probably something like that back then too.)

 

A couple of years before we moved, we had a big financial crash in Sweden, and the banks borrowing rent from the government went to several hundred percent for a while. And we had the "new" ARM loan on our house, and my interest went to $1500 a month. So our financial situation was really bad, and we were planning on filing for bankruptcy, but I got the chance to move to US instead, and when I did, my net income increased several times, because I got higher pay, but also my taxes went down to 24%. We sold the house with a huge loss, but managed to pay the rest of the debt off, from my paycheck in US. Which was neat.

 

My income is upper middle class. My marginal tax rate is over 42% here in the US, and I don’t get free healthcare. But, I’m not starving and I’m not whining about the taxes I pay.

Sure.

 

I’m better off than most Americans. I have health insurance. And I believe that everyone in the richest country in the world has the right to adequate healthcare whether he can pay for it or not.

I'm not really arguing for or against, but rather keeping it balanced. It's not like we pull out a wand and wave it a little and we'll have a lot of money to spread around. If there are other ways of solving the problem, I think it should be considered before we just go for the "socialist" model and think it's going to be heaven for all of us.

 

You have to also consider other sides of the solution too. One reason why Sweden can keep a low cost on the medical care is that everything is centralized. We have to create a national ID, and centralize medical records, and many other things, before you can get the same efficiency. And yet, even with this, there's a lot of waste.

 

--

 

What I'm trying to say here is that it's not just: "It works just great in Europe... check mate!" situation.

 

It's just not that simple.

 

So my question is rather: can it be done in some other way? Is there any ideas of any other solution which could provide with similar results? And also, what is adequate care for a socialized health-care? Perhaps it would be wise to set limits on what kind of health-care is provided?

[godsfavoritecolor]

We can't have profits. Profits are bad. Every business ought to be non-profit.

That’s a straw man fallacy.

 

Is profit appropriate in all activities? A for profit healthcare industry makes profits by treating the most profitable patients. If the patient is not profitable, it attempts to deny treatment. Is that ethical?

[Ouroboros]

In 1976 we had a scandal in Sweden. Astrid Lindgren, who wrote Pippi Longstocking, her marginal tax had risen to 102%. They named it the "Pomperipossa effect". It turned into a heated debate, and the Social Democrats lost in the parliament election for the first time in 40 years, probably because of this. It was the first step to some tax reforms.

 

I know that after I moved away from Sweden in the 90's, there were many new laws and tax changes, so today I think it's a lot better than when I lived there, except that there's no jobs there anymore, and every rich company owner moved out years ago. Monaco is rather nice they say. I think the jobless rate is about 14% there now, and US is getting there too.

[Ouroboros]

We can't have profits. Profits are bad. Every business ought to be non-profit.

That’s a straw man fallacy.

 

Is profit appropriate in all activities? A for profit healthcare industry makes profits by treating the most profitable patients. If the patient is not profitable, it attempts to deny treatment. Is that ethical?

Actually I think the result of a well kept health-care would have indirectly profitable effects, since it would increase the output of products, but it requires an industry and that there's jobs for everyone. So for it to be fruitful, we have to get the market to move again, and production to increase, and more jobs created. Otherwise a constant stream of fewer workers will pay for an increasing amount of non-workers health-care, and we'll have a spiraling tax increase. Basically, we need more jobs to be able to do this.

[godsfavoritecolor]

It's just not that simple.

I didn't say it was simple. I don't think it is simple. But there are too many doctrinaire solutions offered on this forum and elsewhere. That's my point. It is not simple, but it does not have to be perfect. The solution does have to do something effective for the forty or fifty million uninsured in the richest country in the world. I think modified? single-payer would be the most effective.

[godsfavoritecolor]

About profits in healthcare, when I was in grade school in the fifties, most hospitals were non-profit. My lower-middle-class family without health insurance could afford to pay for a doctor to come to our home and treat me for an illness.

 

When was it written in the capitalist bible that healthcare must be for profit?

[Ouroboros]

I didn't say it was simple. I don't think it is simple. But there are too many doctrinaire solutions offered on this forum and elsewhere. That's my point. It is not simple, but it does not have to be perfect. The solution does have to do something effective for the forty or fifty million uninsured in the richest country in the world. I think modified? single-payer would be the most effective.

Agree. Something is a little amiss in this country with the large amount of penurious people.

 

What do you mean with "single-payer?"

 

About profits in healthcare, when I was in grade school in the fifties, most hospitals were non-profit. My lower-middle-class family without health insurance could afford to pay for a doctor to come to our home and treat me for an illness.

 

When was it written in the capitalist bible that healthcare must be for profit?

What I meant is that we can view the "profit" on a different scale. Basically, it's not a matter of a profit for the hospital per se, but there is a latent effect on society as whole as profiting from a well functioning health care for everyone.

 

But it will only work if we also make sure we solve the job situation. More jobs, more can afford not only food, but also to pay for the common health care.

 

A question remains though which is, does the "State" have moral or ethical obligations, when it is a virtual institution and not a person? How about encouraging systems where people can get into some deals with the local hospitals instead? Is it possible to do something like that? In other words, more localized solutions instead of federal?

[godsfavoritecolor]

So, when you call me a Nazi, you obviously don't know your ideologies very well....

I didn't call you a Nazi, and I didn't imply it.

 

Well, it's been a hoot being threatened by you, but I have to go now. I'll check this thread again in a few days.

[Legion]

"Some libertarians call themselves ‘minarchists’, indicating a belief in the minimal or ‘night-watchman’ state which confines its activities to defence of its boundaries and the enforcement of contracts and a (minimal) body of criminal law."

 

This strikes me as being the primary role of government. And I think that we should authorize activities outside of these with great trepidation.

[godsfavoritecolor]

A question remains though which is, does the "State" have moral or ethical obligations, when it is a virtual institution and not a person? How about encouraging systems where people can get into some deals with the local hospitals instead? Is it possible to do something like that? In other words, more localized solutions instead of federal?

Gotta go, but one quick comment, in a patchwork system, the generous states get screwed economically and the stingy states screw their citizens. Check Missouri healthcare, where I live (citizens screwed).

[godsfavoritecolor]

"Some libertarians call themselves ‘minarchists’, indicating a belief in the minimal or ‘night-watchman’ state which confines its activities to defence of its boundaries and the enforcement of contracts and a (minimal) body of criminal law."

 

This strikes me as being the primary role of government. And I think that we should authorize activities outside of these with great trepidation.

You mean like the Bush administration?

[Legion]

... the generous states...

I don't believe any such creature exists. But I do believe there are States that force others to be 'generous'.

[Legion]

You mean like the Bush administration?

[Ouroboros]

Gotta go, but one quick comment, in a patchwork system, the generous states get screwed economically and the stingy states screw their citizens. Check Missouri healthcare, where I live (citizens screwed).

Then what would happen with a stingy Federal Government?

 

If it doesn't work on a State level, why would it work better on a Federal? To be screwed on a small scale or screwed on a big scale, we're still screwed. So I think we have to know what we get into before we just decide this is the best way. Right?

[Vigile]

But it will only work if we also make sure we solve the job situation. More jobs, more can afford not only food, but also to pay for the common health care

 

Yes, key right now is getting the economy back on track and creating more jobs. Spending more money right now only decreases opportunities for jobs and puts the economy on thinner and thinner ice. It's probably too late at this point, but who knows?

 

I'm probably like you Hans more in the middle on this issue than taking a strong side. I don't see how anyone can defend the current health care system in the US with a straight face. Especially by those who claim they want the government out of their lives.

 

The US health care is about as far from free market as it gets. Government intrusion abounds, but not to the chagrin of the health care industry. Just the opposite. Corporate interests have lobbied a perfect system for those in the business of health and insurance while flipping a middle finger and both the consumer and the free market.

 

This doesn't mean that the solution is to give the government a different type of control over the industry. Health is way overpriced in the US. A regulated free market would reduce those fees and make it more accessible without costing the government a dime.

[RankStranger]

I agree, Vigile. But it will never happen- neither major party is discussing anything of the sort.

[Ouroboros]

Agree with both of you, because seriously, I don't think those on the top really know what they're doing.

[woodsmoke]

Oh, I think they know exactly what they're doing. That's what's truly horrifying about all this.

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I think they know exactly what they're doing. That's what's truly horrifying about all this.

Yeah, that's one way of seeing it too.

 

I'm not sure what they get out of it though, by intentionally screwing up the system, except a bigger mess than before. Both sides have done their fair share of putting us in this spot. What would they gain, but political power and flexing their muscles?

[woodsmoke]

As you said, they get political power, as well as massive profits for their corporate flunkies. What else would they want?

[Ouroboros]

As you said, they get political power, as well as massive profits for their corporate flunkies. What else would they want?

I don't know. They create chaos so they can get more power? Sounds a bit like the Illuminate or Bilderberg conspiracy.

 

But who knows... maybe it is true.

 

I have Asian friends who are totally, positively, absolutely convinced it's all controlled by the Jews.

 

Maybe it's several conspiracy groups? Illuminate v Bilderberg v The Jews. Perhaps someone should make a game out of it. A board game even?

 

Oh, I forgot one, the Reptilians. Perfect balance. Four different forces and the ignorant people in the middle. It would be cool to have a game like that.

[RationalOkie]

The Pro-Business groups have, for years, been stripping away at any obligation by the government to provide ANY TYPE of benefits for their employees. They don't want to pay for health care or retirement (so they gave us the 401k, yea'). Like I said, they've already shed the retirement obligations and have been desperately trying to get rid of all employer sponsored health care incentives.

[woodsmoke]

I don't know. They create chaos so they can get more power? Sounds a bit like the Illuminate or Bilderberg conspiracy.

 

But who knows... maybe it is true.

 

I have Asian friends who are totally, positively, absolutely convinced it's all controlled by the Jews.

 

Maybe it's several conspiracy groups? Illuminate v Bilderberg v The Jews. Perhaps someone should make a game out of it. A board game even?

 

Oh, I forgot one, the Reptilians. Perfect balance. Four different forces and the ignorant people in the middle. It would be cool to have a game like that.

I'd play it!

 

Seriously, I don't mean it to sound like some massive conspiracy theory. We're all well aware of the fact the fed can't tie its shoes without running it through half a dozen sub-committees and getting it wrong at least 3 times, and the only power Big Pharma is interested in is that of political lobbies and the greenback. There's no sinister force at work behind the scenes, but there doesn't have to be. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by reckless greed.

 

I see the same thing in the economic collapse. I admit I get a bit tinfoil hat-ish with Goldman Sachs, but Bear Stearns, Freddie/Fannie, AIG, Citigroup, etc? There wasn't any massive conspiracy there to collapse the American economy and usher in the Age of the Banking Overlords, just a bunch of greedy, short-sighted moneylenders who were high on their own supply and had neither the wisdom nor the desire to consider the potential ramifications of their actions.