Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Fun fact, according to Palau's metric, Switzerland (11.3% of GDP) does a better job of controlling healthcare costs then Cuba (11.8% of GDP).  Yes, Cuba, the place known for having one of the most efficiently run healthcare systems in the world.

[Leafsnail]

If we are talking about a comparison to England that because the Swiss GDP per capita is 7,000$ higher at PPP per person than English GDP. Richer people spend more on healthcare than poorer people do. Switzerland's Healthcare costs are inflating at a slower rate than GB, as you can see in Forbes if you didn't just shoot the messenger.

Yes, Switzerland is a tax haven full of lots of rich people and companies (some of which have virtually zero actual presence in the country), massively inflating their GDP.  That doesn't magically make their inefficient healthcare system any more efficient.  Per capita, the system is expensive.  GDP is irrelevant.

[DJ]

I hear the average inhabitant of Monte Carlo is filthy rich, so obviously all countries should emulate Monte Carlo.

As far as the "I'm healthy so it's not fair I pay for it" argument is concerned: I've never set my house on fire, so why should I have to pay taxes that go to finance firefighting? I don't have any kids, so why should I have to pay taxes that go to finance schools? I don't give a damn about the environment, so why should I pay taxes that go towards pollution processing and park maintenance? I bet I could stave off criminals with my trusty shotgun, so why should I have to pay taxes that go to finance the police? I bet me and my local NRA chapter could fight off a Russian invasion (I watched Red Dawn a dozen times!), so why should I have to pay taxes that go to finance the military? Why the hell should I pay any taxes at all?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why the hell should I pay any taxes at all?

You think you've made an argument, but you will cry when you discover that there are plenty of anarcho-capitalists who honestly believe everything in your post.

[Knight of Fools]

I'll quote myself, DJ.

My issue with the bill isn't that people will no longer be too poor to go to the hospital, my issue is that the government is forcing me to buy a product that I do not want and do not need. If you haven't noticed, I'm alright with people getting healthcare. I'm not alright with the government forcing me to buy stuff, even if it's for something good. Pay taxes? Sure. Be forced to pay a for-profit company for something I probably won't need? Not so much.

[nenjin]

I'm fine with taxes. I'm not fine with being required to pay my taxes to a greedy industry when the federal government can and should be doing that. Again, this is not about the principle, it's about the execution.

[mainiac]

The government taxes you and buys stuff from private companies all the time.  I assume you are okay with this.  Why are you not okay with the government just cutting itself out as a middleman and having you buy it instead?  I can understand protesting that the indirect system is inefficient but I don't see how it's more abhorrent.

Also the government has for more then half a century created a tax bias that penalizes you if you don't get employer sponsored health insurance.  Is it a problem that they changed that tax bias to penalizing you if you don't get employer sponsored health insurance OR buy it yourself?

Maybe it would make you better to know that the law gives the federal government the authority to decide that there aren't enough reasonable plans offered in a state exchange and force the state to provide a public plan in that case.  It's not like they are mandating you buy this stuff without cost controls.  They are requiring you to buy off the public sector only so long as the private sector delivers acceptable price and quality.  If the private sector can not deliver these things then the system basically defaults into a public entitlement program where the state governments are insuring people.  It's just not discussed much because everyone thinks that the private sector won't have much trouble meeting those standards now the the reform has corrected the largest perverse incentives.

[DJ]

Hey, it's what you get for living in a country where "socialism" is a dirty word.

[nenjin]

I can understand protesting that the indirect system is inefficient but I don't see how it's more abhorrent.

After the last 10 years of malfeaseance between the government and industry, for everything from oil oversight, to banking, the last thing I think we should be striving for is again relying on large financial industries as the basis for what we do. It's not just inefficient to me, it's begging for trouble. It's also more abhorrent to me because there were better plans out there, and maybe it wasn't the right time to try and pass massive healthcare reform. The desire to have something to show during his re-election campaign, to me, overrode what was better for everyone.

Is it a problem that they changed that tax bias to penalizing you if you don't get employer sponsored health insurance OR buy it yourself?

As a matter of fact, yes! Especially for people who don't have an employer to begin with.

It's just not discussed much because everyone thinks that the private sector won't have much trouble meeting those standards now the the reform has corrected the largest perverse incentives.

It remains to be seen if it actually improves their performance and business ethic though.

Hey, it's what you get for living in a country where "socialism" is a dirty word.

Yes, I sure do hate dem der socialisms while I'm asking for nationalized government healthcare that isn't based on a free market solution.

[Flare]

I'll quote myself, DJ.

Pay taxes? Sure. Be forced to pay a for-profit company for something I probably won't need? Not so much.

Hypothetically, what if these for-profit companies did it in a more efficient manner than the government can at the time?

[Knight of Fools]

Irregardless, we shouldn't be forced to pay a company for a product. It just allows for too many problems to pop up as far as quality and abuse go. Efficiency is hardly reason enough for a hand wave when you look at the problems that could come out of having a 100% mandatory product on the market. Few companies would be efficient to the benefit of the customer.

[MonkeyHead]

I get the impression that many living in the US has made people think of healthcare as a "product", rather than as a "service" (blame the NHS for me considering it a service that all have equal rights to take advantage of). I suspect peoples opinions hinge around which defention they use to define healthcare.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Uh, services aren't necessarily government provided either. They're just non-tangible products.

[mainiac]

As a matter of fact, yes! Especially for people who don't have an employer to begin with.

It's more abhorrent for them that they are going to a system that biases against them less?

It remains to be seen if it actually improves their performance and business ethic though.

If they don't then they get disqualified from the exchanges.  If they get disqualified from the exchanges then they lose the vast majority of their customers.

I trust the ethics of large corporations about as far as a corpse can spit.  But it's possible to take advantage of their greed for the common good.  Environmental regulations don't make businesses feel more remorse about polluting, they make it less profitable.  This law makes it so that there is more profit in a more sustainable service model and more in a more sustainable model.

Yes it would have made more sense to just go for medicare for all.  But the votes weren't there.  This is an improvement over what we had before.  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Irregardless, we shouldn't be forced to pay a company for a product. It just allows for too many problems to pop up as far as quality and abuse go. Efficiency is hardly reason enough for a hand wave when you look at the problems that could come out of having a 100% mandatory product on the market. Few companies would be efficient to the benefit of the customer.

So I take it that you don't drive?  Because state laws in all 50 states require you to have auto insurance.

[rtg593]

TL;DR

Realisticly speaking, a $700 a year penalty isn't really anything compared to what health insurance costs. I understand if you don't have it, it's a sucky fine to add on, so I don't agree with it, just sayin. My health insurance through my company was going from $400 a month to $600 a month this year, I dumped them and went to a major medical plan, basically just covering surgeries and hospital stays, $200 a month. Cheapest in the my area. If I decided to go without, going from $2,400 a year to $700 a year is still quite a difference.