Is Health Care a Right?

igloorn93 · May 9, 2003

Having been born and raised in the Canadian healthcare system, then having worked in the American healthcare system I can honestly say that a blending of the 2 systems would be close to ideal. I think the Canadian one gives too much, the American one not enough. Some states now have what's called "CHIPS" which is insurance for children of low income families. Most times all that is required is the completion of an internet form. I've heard too that they will back pay if the child becomes elegible. IE: Winds up in the hospital and the financial assistance department gets them hooked up with CHIPS, then the program pays for that hospital stay. I can't remember the website, but I do work with people (Nurses even) whose children qualify. You can also ask at your childs school.

jenac · May 10, 2003

The problem with some of the assistance programs is that you can make too much on paper-but not make enough to pay for your insurence, or the deductibles that go along with long hospital stays, or even emergency room visits. I am young, with a young family. I quite work for a year to get my "training". I am not yet out of the red-it would take just one emergency or serious illness to knock us flat. My previous insurence Co. wanted $425 a month for premiums. I could not afford that-and still buy food for my kids. Thanksfully- it's much less now with a new Co.-and we finally have coverage. But what about those people who don't? What about those people who are struggling-and could lose everything with one hospital stay? Or worse- couldn't get the care they needed because they couldn't afford the cost? Too many offices and what-not demand immediate payment, and refuse service unless it is paid if someone has no coverage.

Here's a great example (although I still prefer my earlier example of the two women with breast cancer) a two-year old was born with a calcium deficiency. Her front teeth were hollow, and chipped away revealing the roots and leading to an impaction in the gum. Full of infection- this child could not eat, couldn't sleep. And the Dentist refused to even see her untill her parents could pay $1500 to have her teeth pulled. Why? Because they had no insurence. That child's quality of life was seriously comprimsed-and her development seriously hampered, not to mention her health because of these two little teeth. But- they had to pay the money up front. No exceptions. And this was the only Pediatric Dentist in the tri-county area. I do not now- nor have I ever had an extra $1500 laying around. If she were my child- it would have taken months do be able to do anything.

Just a simple Dr. visit costs $75.00 these days. If you need ongoing care- that's $75.00 a month, plus medications which can be hundreds of dollers. Medicaide requires a set monthly income-above that in anyway, and your on your own. Tough luck-should have quite your job first. We have all heard of the famous "spend down"-sell your house and everything you have and use up every cent before you can get any help. So much for discharge planning, right? Plan on staying there forever if you go-because you'll have nothing left when it comes time to go.

It's a said state when anyone can't get the care they need due to finances.

jenac · May 10, 2003

igloorn- I do agree. I think a blending of both systems would be the best.

Gromit · May 10, 2003

Originally posted by nurse2002
Amotor cycle is a motor cycle
basic healthcare is basic healthcare
And a cynic is a cynic

Very true, and a Realist is a realist, and a dreamer is often unrealistic.

You dream, but I'll take a practical and realistic look when it comes to my budget.

Can't get something from nothing -if you do, you are taking from someone else. (What, pray tell, gives you the right to take from someone else, unless they freely offer it?)

But your taking my quotes a step further was not much of an answer. I do find it interesting that while many are ready to yell 'free healthcare for all!' they are not so ready to explain or answer any of the questions of us cynics.

ABOUT THE MERGING of the two systems. On this, there may be some merit. I'm very quick to say 'our' system is pretty sorry, and needs some major reworking. I personally know of nobody who would dispute that.

Good_Queen_Bess · May 10, 2003

Originally posted by maureeno
Federal Personal Income Tax Rates for 2002
There are six tax rates from 10% to 38.6%.
For single status the figures go:
under $6,000--------- 10%
$6T - $27,950-------- 15%
$27,951-$67,700---- 27%
$67,701-$141,250-- 30%
$141,251-$307,050- 35%
$307,051 or more---- 38.6%

for married filing jointly:
up to $12,000---------- 10%
$12,001-$46,700----- 15%
$46,701-$112,850---- 27%
$112,851-$171,950--- 30%
$171,951-$307,050--- 35%
$307,051 or more------ 38.6%

Note that these rates are on taxable income, meaning minus exemptions and deductions [at least $7,700 for a single person with no dependents]. Note also that everyone pays the same rate for the same income, in other words if I make $50,000 I don't pay 27% of the entire amount, but on the taxable amount over $27,950.

One more note, I haven't seen anyone on this thread demand 'free health care for all'. What I've read is about the sad fact that in America 2003 affordable health care is not available to many.

This is what we pay in the UK. I won't even pretend to fully understand it.

I hope this makes sense as it looked so much neater when I typed it, but looks a mess when I saw it on the forum!!!!

Income tax allowances 2002-03 (£) 2003-04 (£)

Personal allowance 4 615 4 615

Personal allowance

for people aged 65-74 6 100 6 610

Personal allowance

for people aged 75

and over 6 370 6 720

Income limit for

age-related

allowances 17 900 18 300

Married couple's

allowance for

people born before

6 April 1935

5 465 5 565

Married couple's

allowance - aged 75

or more 5 535 5 635

Minimum amount

of married couple's

allowance 2 110 2 150

Children's tax credit

5 290 abolished replaced by

Tax credits

Children's tax credit -

baby rate 10 490 abolished replaced by Tax credits

Blind person's

allowance 1 480 1 510

The rate of relief for the continuing married couple's allowance and maintenance relief for people born before 6 April 1935, and for the children's tax credit, is 10%.

Taxable bands 2002-03 (£) 2003-04 (£)

Starting rate 10% 0 - 1 920 0 - 1 960

(above personal

allowance)

Basic rate 22% 1 921 - 29 900 1 961 - 30 500

Higher rate 40% Over 29 900 Over 30 500

Hope this makes SOME sense!!!!! :)

My basic salary is £17,500. This is about $28,500. (Although I get extra for unsocial hours - but that's just gettting too complicated)

I worked out that according to your figures, I would pay approx $4520 in tax (I think I worked it out right!!), taking home approx $23650 per annum.

On my basic salary in the UK, I pay approx £2604 ($4174) and take home £14,896 ($23, 879).

We ALSO have to National Insurance (NI) which pay's towards our state pension (the rates are far too complicated to work out!!) There is also value added tax (VAT) on certain goods we buy.

Therefore (yawn!!!) I would earn after tax

$23, 650 in the US

$23, 879 in the UK

Figure for the UK, does NOT take into account NI which is also taken off my basic salary (approx £100 per month), plus VAT on goods (17.5%).

I don't know if you guys have to pay tax in any other way.

If not, I don't see what you're complaining about!!! Yes, tax IS wrongly distributed, but I would gladly pay more tax on my salary for better health services/education etc in the UK. Also, we pay higher income taxes the higher up the wage bracket we go SIGNIFICANTLY more than you guys.

In other words (I will finish soon!), I would be significantly better off finacially in the US, as not only are salaries for nurses better, but I would also pay less tax. You have nothing to complain about when it comes to tax.

Please forgive me if I have my figures inaccurate!!! Maths is not my best subject.

Good_Queen_Bess · May 10, 2003

BTW, I am going on holiday tomorrow (costa de sol in spain - yipeeee!!!!!) for 2 weeks, so I may not get to read replies b4 I go. It's not that I'm ignoring replies, so don't be too mean to me whilst I'm gone :) as I won't get the chance to reply back. Although I suspect my email box will be bursting!! :) :smokin:

Yipee, holiday!!!!!!!!!!

nurse2002 · May 10, 2003

Originally posted by Gromit
Very true, and a Realist is a realist, and a dreamer is often unrealistic.

You dream, but I'll take a practical and realistic look when it comes to my budget.

Can't get something from nothing -if you do, you are taking from someone else. (What, pray tell, gives you the right to take from someone else, unless they freely offer it?)

But your taking my quotes a step further was not much of an answer. I do find it interesting that while many are ready to yell 'free healthcare for all!' they are not so ready to explain or answer any of the questions of us cynics.

ABOUT THE MERGING of the two systems. On this, there may be some merit. I'm very quick to say 'our' system is pretty sorry, and needs some major reworking. I personally know of nobody who would dispute that.

None is yelling for free health care they are wanting AFFORDABLE healthcare. As far as taking from someone else ......if the goverment would get their priorities straight and spend our taxes on something that is NEEDED. Thus cutting research financing for things such as I posted earlier thaey would NOT have to cut into other budgets such as education or raise taxes.

And, as earlier stated, I went into how affordable healthcare could be paid for.

And I do believe in FREE healthcare for our elderly population. They have been paying into the system FOREVER yet now as they age they cannot afford their medicine? Realistically WE SHOULD take care of our elderly and our children.

And when you do pay OUTRAGOUS premiums, when you can afford insurance the insurance co. will try to scheme so they dont have to pay.

Anyway REALISTICALLY there are ways for our goverment to make sure everyone is covered. But why should they make sure? You can bet they have coverage. What it boils down to REALISTICALLY that our politicians, for the most part, do not care about their own citizens, unless it is election time.

a cynic is a cynic stands

Gromit · May 10, 2003

well, we can at least agree on that part. politicians care only about politicians (except, as stated, around election time).

I'm proud to be a cynic. I'm also proud to be a realist, which is the same thing in the eyes of most.

the pittance given for silly research (number of wings and mechanics of such on flies??? ugh! rates up there with the 'cow farts and methane' of a number of years ago) is not going to offset the amount insurance costs.

You make it essentially 'free' (and the word 'free healthcare' was not first uttered by me. but figure this, socialized will mean free to many, but not those of us who 'earn too much'.) and your demand will skyrocket.

I've lost count on the number of times I used to take in (and see come into the ER when I get slotted to that dept) so many 'I don't feel goods' (when even they would admit that the reason they dialed '911' was because "I'll get seen faster if I go by ambulance, -I don't want to wait in the waitingroom for hours". Admittedly, there are times I probably SHOULD have gone to the hospital but would not because #1 I didn't have the co-pay amount handy, and #2 I didn't want to wait for hours just to get a little treatment.

But there are many who will gladly take advantage of a percieved 'gift' or 'freebie' no matter what. And you think nurses complain about being overloaded NOW? hahahaha. Thats a laugh. I've worked both sides of the ladder when hospitals have been on bypass (as was the next facility and the one after that). Imagine it going on all the time!

But this isn't about that. I do wish there were a good solution to the lousy state of insurance premiums etc. but government control, well, its just not one I'd favor.

EVERYTHING the government gets its hand in (at least here in the U.S.) they make more complicated, more expensive, and less compassionate, less user-friendly.

I know of no exceptions.

jenac · May 10, 2003

Gromit- if you take the "pittance" th govenment spend on counting the wings of flies-and cow farts, and combine it with the other USELESS spending that is so rampant, we could atleast do more for the un/under-insured than we are doing now. I for one could certainly find much better uses for billions of dollers a year.

You definiation of a "free health system" is exactly what we have right now- which, as many have said, is just not working. By keeping it the same-you solve nothing and help only those who are already in the system. You have changed nothing. Where is the answer there?

Gromit · May 10, 2003

I've never said that the status quo was the answer, but have been quick to say that having government run/subsidized care isn't the answer either. It would just be medicaid/medicare on a yet larger scale, and run just as inefficiently (if not more so). Hardly an answer. And I totally understand what you are saying (regarding the pittances, pileing up) but lets be at least a little realistic here. There is NO way you are going to get all those fat cats in washington to give up their little projects (no matter how silly) and put money toward this common good. We would have just as much success and even more to spend if we just cut foreign aid. I THINK England gives foreign aid (I'm fairly sure of it) but who else does, to any signifficant amount? And I'm positivive that NOBODY does so in anywhere near the amount WE do. Imagine how much better off our heathcare (for that matter, how much lower our taxes could be, equating to more opportunities when you can spend your money YOUR way) if we just did some drastic cutting in the foreign aid dept.

Why not?? You talk about billions, I'm talking trillions. Personally, I considder that to be a lot of waste as well.

For example, how many governments get subsidized by our foreign aid just so they can feed their people, while using their own scratch to build thier armies and weapons systems? I have no problem donating grain, but lets see some effort on THEIR part as well!

Charity should start at home.

Gromit · May 10, 2003

Just got back from about 150 mile ride (stop and go). Its 97F outside, and sunny (very few clouds). I'm slightly burned. Sigh. Excellent ride, though!

graysonret · May 10, 2003

Don't know how it came to pass, that universal healthcare was a "right". Who came up with that idea? Another leap toward more socialism. I've seen the gov't run things over the years and having them run my healthcare just doesn't do it for me. They've managed to screw up everything else they control. Once they have that under control, it's only a small step to running my life as to what I can or can't do...and especially for children. "For the children" will be the keyword to dictate to parents on how to raise their children, and keep them "healthy" and reduce the healthcare budget. Having universal coverage is also another way of more money coming out of my pocket to pay for medical expenses for others...besides my own. I don't mind helping others but enough is enough.