Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,563 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| No. 50 | 
Jan 08, 2009, 05:54 PM
 Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care
A friendly reminder to please debate the topic, and not each other. If you see a post that you find disagreeable, please report it instead of responding in kind, so we can address it. Thanks.
 | | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 51 |
Jan 08, 2009, 07:34 PM
Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care
I want to understand something first..
If I insulted anyone, I am sorry, that was not my intention.
Here is my issue with so called UHC
It is going to have to be paid for with increased taxes right ? Is everyone equally going to pay the increase in taxes, since everyone will be getting the same service ?
I have good health insurance right now, so will I end up having worse health insurance ? If I chose not to participate in UHC and keep the health insurance that I have, will I have that right also ?
I hope this doesnt offend anyone that reads this, I just want to know
| | No. 52 |
Jan 08, 2009, 07:47 PM
Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care Originally Posted by patrick1rn  I want to understand something first..
If I insulted anyone, I am sorry, that was not my intention.
Here is my issue with so called UHC
It is going to have to be paid for with increased taxes right ? Is everyone equally going to pay the increase in taxes, since everyone will be getting the same service ?
I have good health insurance right now, so will I end up having worse health insurance ? If I chose not to participate in UHC and keep the health insurance that I have, will I have that right also ?
I hope this doesnt offend anyone that reads this, I just want to know
The way I understand it, UHC represents a 3-4% increase in taxes for the average American. This may be offset, however, by proposed tax cuts for working and middle class Americans. Much of the proposed funding for UHC will likely come from repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and closing various tax loopholes for large corporations and people with the top 1% of annual earnings. As many people have noted, UHC is unlikely to cost people like you and me much money in the long run. Its also worth noting that the average country that has UHC typically spends less than half the amount per capita that Americans generally spend. The way I see it, I can either spend $6,000 per year on what would be considered very good health insurance, and have no gaurantee of actual coverage, or I can spend half that in increased taxes [and they may not even increase that much], and have guaranteed access to necessary medical treatment.
In response to preferring private health insurance, please see my earlier post on the nature of capitalism. If you can refute what I posted about the nature of the motivation of private insurance, please do so, as it will go a long way in persuading people toward your point of view.
| | No. 53 |
Jan 08, 2009, 07:54 PM
Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care Originally Posted by OC85 The way I understand it, UHC represents a 3-4% increase in taxes for the average American. This may be offset, however, by proposed tax cuts for working and middle class Americans. Much of the proposed funding for UHC will likely come from repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and closing various tax loopholes for large corporations and people with the top 1% of annual earnings. As many people have noted, UHC is unlikely to cost people like you and me much money in the long run. Its also worth noting that the average country that has UHC typically spends less than half the amount per capita that Americans generally spend. The way I see it, I can either spend $6,000 per year on what would be considered very good health insurance, and have no gaurantee of actual coverage, or I can spend half that in increased taxes [and they may not even increase that much], and have guaranteed access to necessary medical treatment.
In response to preferring private health insurance, please see my earlier post on the nature of capitalism. If you can refute what I posted about the nature of the motivation of private insurance, please do so, as it will go a long way in persuading people toward your point of view.
I dont know where you got 6k a yr for health insurance, is that what you pay right now ? If I had a choice, I would prefer to keep my own private insurance and not pay the extra taxes for UHC, since I dont need it.
Maybe that should be an option for those who dont want to be covered on this UHC. What do you think ?
| | No. 55 |
Jan 08, 2009, 08:19 PM
Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care Originally Posted by patrick1rn I want to understand something first..
If I insulted anyone, I am sorry, that was not my intention.
Here is my issue with so called UHC
It is going to have to be paid for with increased taxes right ? Is everyone equally going to pay the increase in taxes, since everyone will be getting the same service ?
I have good health insurance right now, so will I end up having worse health insurance ? If I chose not to participate in UHC and keep the health insurance that I have, will I have that right also ?
I hope this doesnt offend anyone that reads this, I just want to know
Increased taxes, yes. This is the same as any tax increase, even though you may not 'need' the services provided as a result. Such as increased police and fire protection, or national defense.
Remember, you're already paying more than you would be under UHC as it is. Paying for people to go to the emergency room is not an efficient way to do healthcare. This would remedy that, by providing the (much cheaper) preventative care ahead of time. Surely, everyone can see the benefits of that.
| | No. 56 |
Jan 08, 2009, 08:22 PM
Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care Originally Posted by patrick1rn I dont know where you got 6k a yr for health insurance, is that what you pay right now ? If I had a choice, I would prefer to keep my own private insurance and not pay the extra taxes for UHC, since I dont need it.
Maybe that should be an option for those who dont want to be covered on this UHC. What do you think ?
For the average family, yes, it would be at least that. I'll admit, currently the plan I have for just myself, a 23 year old male with no history of health problems, will be about $330/month once I am no longer a full time student [my insurance company sent me a letter stating this the last time I left school]. In addition to the premium paid, I have a $1,000 deductable that I am responsible for before my insurance begins to pay for anything. And even then, medical coverage is not free. I am still responsible for paying a small percentage of treatment and prescription costs.
I think there is some merit to being able to "opt out" of UHC, however, you can't deny that this creates serious problems. Despite what some people may think, no one does "not need" medical coverage. Let's say someone decides they are young, healthy, and have no "need" for health insurance, or decide to purchase the most inexpensive private insurance they can find. What happens if they have a serious accident, or are diagnosed with cancer or some other disease requiring costly treatment [and their bargain basement insurance denies their claim, as many do]? Should they be turned away because they cannot afford treatment? You can bet they'd be crying out for the UHC system to take care of them.
Again, it should be noted that if you eliminate the unreasonable tax breaks that many corporations/ very wealthy individuals have been enjoying for the past decade, then financing UHC may not require a significant tax increase for people like you and me. Finding a way to pay for UHC doesn't necessarily mean raising taxes across the board. It may be possible to simply examine current tax law re-evaluate certain sections that unfairly give preferential treatment to the very wealthy. Some may be tempted to call this socialism, I prefer to think of it as re-balancing tax law so that everyone, including the the wealthy, pays their fair share.
| | No. 57 |
Jan 08, 2009, 08:28 PM
Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care
You would have more money in your pocket under UHC. My health care premiums that I pay through my taxes were less than $400 last year.
| | No. 58 |
Jan 08, 2009, 08:39 PM
Updated
Jan 08, 2009 at 08:39 PM by ghillbert
Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care
Here's how it works in Australia. Everyone pays a 1.5% Medicare levy in your taxes. You are encourage to also take out private coverage (mine was around $1500/yr). If you earn over $50K and you do NOT have private cover, you pay an extra surcharge of a further 1%. In total I still spent far less on my medicare levy and private cover than I do in the US for employer group insurance, by the time co-pays, deductible, contributions etc are added in.
You do also have the choice of when to use the private/public coverage. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ma...rview-contents | | No. 59 |
Jan 08, 2009, 09:20 PM
Re: 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care Originally Posted by ghillbert Here's how it works in Australia. Everyone pays a 1.5% Medicare levy in your taxes. You are encourage to also take out private coverage (mine was around $1500/yr). If you earn over $50K and you do NOT have private cover, you pay an extra surcharge of a further 1%. In total I still spent far less on my medicare levy and private cover than I do in the US for employer group insurance, by the time co-pays, deductible, contributions etc are added in.
You do also have the choice of when to use the private/public coverage. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ma...rview-contents
So everyone pays the same percent at 1.5 % and people can still keep their private insurance ? Maybe I misunderstood then.
Maybe I should look into this. I am into people having affordable health care. I get tired of the political jabs that some have taken at me. If we are still allowed to keep our private health insurance, then it is not trully socialized.
Although, on principal I am opposed to any government interference in the private lives of people. To me government should regulate, not dominate industry. I guess in this case though, they would not dominate the health care industry, but would be more like a buffer. Maybe I will go to the Catalina Wine Mixer this year after all.
|
| 103 members
1,264 guests 1,367
| 1 | | | 13 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 16 | | | 16 | | | 38 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | | | 11 | |
|
Nursing News