Are you willing to pay more taxes to ensure health coverage for all?

[HM2VikingRN]

cbs/new york times poll, february 2 007

if you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the

country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent

years or make sure all americans have access to health care?

cutting taxes 18%

access to health insurance 76%

would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes so that all

americans have health insurance they can't lose, no matter what?

willing 60%

not willing 34%

(if "willing") would you be willing or not willing to pay $500 a

year more in taxes so that all americans have health insurance

they can't lose, no matter what?

willing 82%

not willing 6%

http://home.ourfuture.org/assets/20070612_theprogressivemajority_report.pdf

interesting poll numbers...

[DutchgirlRN, ASN, RN]

Thank you Karen. I would like to add that this thread is entitled "Are you willing to pay more taxes to ensure health coverage for all"? Not what is the tax rate in Canada. Tanks!

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.........!!!!!

[Jolie, BSN]

benefits which our country can certainly afford to grant each other....

i wholeheartedly disagree. with the exception of those who are truly incapable of providing for themselves (the disabled, the mentally ill, orphaned children), we ought to be providing benefits ourselves, not expecting others to do it for us!

[headsup]

:smiley_ab

May I respectfully suggest that we drop furture discussion of Canada's taxes....websites been posted + caculators available to do the math...

to continue bickering is :deadhorse and counter productive.

TY

Sounds good. I am tired of repeating myself anyways

[pickledpepperRN]

i wholeheartedly disagree. with the exception of those who are truly incapable of providing for themselves (the disabled, the mentally ill, orphaned children), we ought to be providing benefits ourselves, not expecting others to do it for us!

anh thoughts on how to organize care for the disabled and mentally ill homeless people?

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

A salary cut may not happen, but your take home pay would be severely lowered. Same result: you have less discretionary spending ability; you have less control over your own money; more people who choose not to work or are here working illegally will be using your hard earned cash.

How? If we're not having to have medical and dental insurance taken out, we may be taking home more pay. Also, if the hospitals don't have the added expense of subsidizing our insurance, they may be able to pay us better. One can dream :).

[jjjoy, LPN]

The key to all of this, IMO, is separating the insurance industry from healthcare altogether; right away, getting the profiteers out and simplifying paperwork will save money AND time. Access will also no longer be a problem, as insurers won't be there to 'cherry-pick' healthy consumers and deny policies to the less-healthy.........or charge them whopping premiums while denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, plus demanding high deductibles and co-pays for doctor visits and prescriptions.:angryfire

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but I agree with this here. Health insurance should be just that - insurance - not managed care. You pay into health insurance in the hope that you won't need to use it, like car insurance or life insurance, not to guarantee or lock in lower prices for service. Managed care programs have their own strengths and weaknesses but let's de-tangle health insurance from managed care, as that alone causes much beaucratic expenses and on-going back-and-forth attempts to game the system.

In general, I am willing to pay more in taxes for a good social/health safety net. I'm not sure what it would look like, but I do believe there are several different ways to balance individual and social needs and responsibilities.

[Jolie, BSN]

i hear and understand what your saying steph but isn't trying to compare tax rates in different countries like trying to compare apples and oranges? if i compare hollands tax system to ours it's extremely difficult because there's alot that goes into it that others are not aware of. we don't get paid maternity time unless we have the time save up. in holland they get 12 months paid maternity leave (dad gets 2 months maternity leave) and don't use any vacation time. when they take vacation time they not only get their full pay but they get it doubled so they have the money to take that much needed vacation. these are costs included in the tax rate that others don't realize unless they live it.

spacenurse quote:

originally posted by jolie

i wholeheartedly disagree. with the exception of those who are truly incapable of providing for themselves (the disabled, the mentally ill, orphaned children), we ought to be providing benefits ourselves, not expecting others to do it for us!

anh thoughts on how to organize care for the disabled and mentally ill homeless people?

i think some of our discussions are getting muddled, spacenurse. in my post above, i was referring to the "cradle-to-grave" taxpayer-funded benefits such as extended paid maternity and paternity leave, vacation funding, etc. that result in higher marginal tax rates in many european countries than we have here in the u.s. hm2 viking indicated in his post that we in the u.s. ought to be able to provide those benefits for each other. i wholeheartedly disagree.

i believe that as a civilized society, we are obligated to care for those who truly are unable to care for themselves, such as the mentally ill, disabled, orphaned children, and those who are able-bodied, but temporarily out of work. there are already systems in place within our federal, state, local governments and volunteer organizations that make that possible. perhaps such services could be improved, but by and large, mechanisms and funding already exist.

my interest in this debate is twofold: 1.) the provision of healthcare benefits for those who are unable to fund their own despite working, and 2.) the provision of healthcare benefits for those who are capable of providing their own, yet choose not to, either by opting out of employer-sponsored insurance, or able-bodied and healthy individuals who choose not to work at all. (again, i am not talking about those who are temporarily unemployed, but those who chronically rely on tax-payer funded benefits for their livelihood.)

it is my personal opinion that the only way to reign in healthcare costs and demand personal responsibility in healthcare choices is to put the payment for such services back in the hands of the individual. as long as people perceive that the "government" is paying for anything, there is very little personal motivation to control costs, whether that be healthcare, education, food, whatever. i propose a system that gives each individual or family an "allowence" for healthcare expenses, which they can then spend on catastrophic insurance and a hsa, a more expensive full insurance policy, or put under the mattress for safe keeping until they need to spend it on a doctor's visit and prescription. making each individual responsible for his/her own expenses will go a long way toward encouraging less expensive preventive care, and discouraging use of expensive and unnecessary er visits. obviously there would be many bugs to work out of this system, including mandating insurance companies to provide coverage for all who apply. but i believe that as long as the "government" is viewed as the payor of services, costs and unnecessary utilization will only increase.

[headsup]

But I believe that as long as the "government" is viewed as the payor of services, costs and unnecessary utilization will only increase.

But this is proven not to be true.

In over a dozen countries. In fact, the US has the highest cost per capita of ANY country in healthcare.

Therefore your argument is unfounded.

Using your argument, I would say that considering the worldwide statistics, the current US healthcare system is the most expensive, wasteful system there is...

[headsup]

Also - in thinking more about it, I realized that WHY on earth would the taxes for the US citizens be higher with a UHS?

Here:

http://www.bcbs.com/betterknowledge/mcrg/chap1/ch1_Slide_1.html

The US spends more of its GDP on healthcare than anyone in the world. Perhaps...just PERHAPS your taxes might even GO DOWN if you went universal!!!!:uhoh3::uhoh3:

Think about that!

[jjjoy, LPN]

it is my personal opinion that the only way to reign in healthcare costs and demand personal responsibility in healthcare choices is to put the payment for such services back in the hands of the individual.... i propose a system that gives each individual or family an "allowence" for healthcare expenses, which they can then spend on catastrophic insurance and a hsa, a more expensive full insurance policy, or put under the mattress for safe keeping until they need to spend it on a doctor's visit and prescription. making each individual responsible for his/her own expenses will go a long way toward encouraging less expensive preventive care, and discouraging use of expensive and unnecessary er visits.

i agree that if there were a government administered program that it would need to work into it someway to discourage abuse of it. it is a human tendency to take advantage of what we can and so we want a system that doesn't inadvertedly encourage wasting resources.

i don't like the idea of government administered 'allowances' for difference expenses. even with such a system, you end up with people who don't have the resources to meet their basic needs. perhaps they didn't plan well. or they had an unexpected health emergency or chronic disease condition develop. or they squandered their allowance by being too liberal with it (eg seeing a doctor for every little cold). so you still have the question of determining who receives what, if any, extra support in addition to their allowance. perhaps some kind of allowance for kids', however, that the child can then put towards education if there's any extra at the age of 18.

anyway, i think we need to start with removing a good chunk of the middlemen from health care. (as another poster mentioned, that would probably threaten quite a few people's livelihoods.) managed care organizations and bulk contracts served their purpose of countering the "charge as much as you like" culture that had developed in health care. now, i think things need to shift the other way, allowing the providers more freedom to set the prices and services as opposed to it being dictated from middlemen organizations. as another noted, providers tend to overcharge insurances because they know that only a fraction of what they charge will be covered. and the amount of manpower needed to authorize this or that expense generates costs of its own.

some kind of government incentive program for the provision of basic affordable care i think is necessary. and maybe government subsized screening and chronic disease programs for those conditions most likely to help keep folks productive and off of full government subsidies. perhaps its best to do that at a state level as opposed to federal. or federal can mandate, or create incentives, that states must come up with some plan, but not dictate the specifics.

i also think some kind of no or low-interest loans should be available for important health care costs. probably providers could do this through simple payment plans.

i'm not completely against universal care, but i think there are many different ways to make health care more affordable and accessible in the us.

just thoughts!

[DarrenWright]

Sounds good. I am tired of repeating myself anyways

As was I, which is why I shared the view of another Canadian RN.

[mvanz9999, RN]

.....