So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[sheeplady]

My wife and I have enjoyed many a visit to Uncle Sam's shores, but we have always agreed that it's not a country that you would want to be poor in. I have been following these comments on insurance health care and in honesty, I find it painful to read.

You can call it political manipulation if you like, but having no worries of a medical bill certainly helps you sleep at night. For those interested this is what it costs to have a National Health Service:
An employee is deducted 12% of their wage for every penny above the first £162 (per week) of their pay. On top of this, employers contribute 13.8%. The median wage is £27,195. That's somewhat lower because part time workers are included, but working on that figure the cost would be.
Employee £27,195 less £8,424 (that's the annual figure of the first £162 per week.) 12% of £20,771 = £2492 per annum.
Employer £27,195 13.8% = £3,753. Total cost £6245. (employee & employer costs combined.)
At the current rate of exchange that's $8300 US or $160 per week for full, complete, medical cover.

There are a few variations and there are exemptions, the main ones being, those in full time education, the elderly and those out of work. If any of those categories have unearned income though, they will become liable to pay. The reason for that is to stop the wealthy from transferring funds to family members.

Remember that the above figures do not include income tax.

I pay about 15% of my paycheck, my employer pays an equivalent amount as well. I hold my own insurance through my employer, my husband has his own employer insurance that he covers the children under. His plan covers more items, but is more expensive in both cost and copays than mine.

Having me under my own insurance saves about 3k a year.

With our "good" insurance we had while I was treatment, we incurred debt. Some of this was health expenses, but the rest was because in the US you can't get loan deferments for cancer treatment. I was suddenly out of work, with no pay, no unemployment, and no disability with a young child for 3 years. Thankfully we owned a home at the time that we took out a home equity line of credit against. We cleared the loan when we sold the house, before the payback period.

We don't own a home now, and not having an asset to borrow against worries me. We did add insurance under my husband that will pay out a lump sum if one of us gets seriously ill, and that makes it easier to swallow that we aren't sitting on a bunch of equity.

But I'll have to say that it hurt when we got the check from the sale of the house and it was half what it should have been just because I got cancer. I'm lucky to have the best husband in the world; so he'd never think this way, but I still sometimes get angry thinking about how much money I cost my family. It would've paid for a chunk of a college education.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm reading Sheeplady's post with a simmering rage which is exacerbated by the offensive "It's Time To Start Saving For Retirement" E-Trade ad that appears under it.

 

[sheeplady]

For most of my adult years I've worked as a "graduate assistant." One of the consequences was that I never paid into Social Security during those years. I tried; but graduate assistants were made exempt from Social Security taxes in the 1980s. (I went to HR and escalated it to see if my contract could be written otherwise or if I could just voluntarily GIVE the money out of my pay check; it was a no go.)

As a consequence, I don't qualify for Social Security death benefits. If I keeled over, my kids would get $0 from Social Security. If I had social security taxes collected out of my check for those years, they'd get about $300 a month until they turned 18.

It's the same for anyone who stays home with children, or goes to graduate school, or takes time out to care for an aging or sick family member. (And if you don't think a stay at home parent or a family caregiver adds value to a family of at least $300 a month, your head isn't on straight.)

I'll be fine when I retire (I've been married 10 years, so I can qualify for an amount up to half my husband's when the time comes). But I really wish the feds had just *taken my money like I asked.*

 

[tonyb]

A few days ago I mentioned how there was a fatal car wreck about half a mile from here and how a couple three or four weeks prior to that there was a double fatality a couple miles away in the other direction.

That more-recent wreck has since claimed another life. An injured person later succumbed.

The cops report that excessive speed was a contributing factor in both incidents. Street racing, they say.

This afternoon our district’s city councilman reported that the police caught wind of a street racing meetup of sorts last night and clamped down hard. More than 100 citations issued.

Apparently our district had turned into prime territory for this sort of activity. There is a mostly straight limited-access highway (aka “freeway”) nearby and several arterials with long stretches of uninterrupted right-of-way. So if you’re given to driving way too fast, the roads here offer many opportunities.

I’m confident the people cited last night for anything the cops could cite them for (no slack was given, from the sounds of it) are quite displeased by this effort. And I’m equally confident they have no appreciation for how that effort may have saved their lives.

 

[GHT]

I'm sure somebody in this nearly 500 page tome has mentioned it already, but I'm here to vent my spleen on internet comment sections. It matters not what site you go to or what position they take, many comments both in support and opposition of any article take the affliction of moronism to new heights.
It saddens me that the ability to discuss or debate in a reasonable manner has been completely lost, but even worse the stupidity shown by far too many people on both sides of any argument has caused me to completely swear off of even reading what they have to say.

You are not wrong, social media has given a public metaphoric soap box on which they can stand and show their stupidity to all and sundry. Of course that also means that they can hide in anonymity behind a pseudonym. Their modus operandi being one of: "light blue touch paper, stand well clear."

 

[tonyb]

I pay about 15% of my paycheck, my employer pays an equivalent amount as well. I hold my own insurance through my employer, my husband has his own employer insurance that he covers the children under. His plan covers more items, but is more expensive in both cost and copays than mine.

Having me under my own insurance saves about 3k a year.

With our "good" insurance we had while I was treatment, we incurred debt. Some of this was health expenses, but the rest was because in the US you can't get loan deferments for cancer treatment. I was suddenly out of work, with no pay, no unemployment, and no disability with a young child for 3 years. Thankfully we owned a home at the time that we took out a home equity line of credit against. We cleared the loan when we sold the house, before the payback period.

We don't own a home now, and not having an asset to borrow against worries me. We did add insurance under my husband that will pay out a lump sum if one of us gets seriously ill, and that makes it easier to swallow that we aren't sitting on a bunch of equity.

But I'll have to say that it hurt when we got the check from the sale of the house and it was half what it should have been just because I got cancer. I'm lucky to have the best husband in the world; so he'd never think this way, but I still sometimes get angry thinking about how much money I cost my family. It would've paid for a chunk of a college education.

Alas, I’ve heard this account, with minor variations, so many times it has become almost normal.

In a culture that regards poverty as a moral failing, many people in such circumstances (men especially) suffer, along with depleted resources, diminished self-esteem.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In a culture that regards poverty as a moral failing, many people in such circumstances (men especially) suffer, along with depleted resources, diminished self-esteem.

The legacy of the perverted pseudo-Christianity of our Puritan forebearers. This country would be a better place if that boat had sunk.

 

[Harp]

Yu Darvish started Saturday nite against his ol' team, Tex Rangers, punched out the first two bats
with good stuff, then completely lost sight of the strike zone. Joe pulled him after 2 2/3 rounds.
Too-soon-to-tell-time, but it ain't lookin too good from the bleacher bum perspective.
Bummer.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Even worse is to ask someone "Whattaya think?" As any perusal of Twitter will confirm.

My standard reply to everything from politics to the pitch clock is "you don't really want to know what I think".

 

[HudsonHawk]

That's one of the reason libertarians like me are against socialized medicine as it leads to arguments such as the one you made. That said, I want to point out that my post didn't get into that as, if we take this any further, we'll be into a political discussion.

We have socialized medicine here in the US...it's called insurance. Few people can afford to pay for their own healthcare out of pocket, so we pool our resources and draw out of the global fund as necessary. What you object to, I assume, is being forced to join said pool, government run through taxes, or otherwise. This is fine in concept, except we Americans, as a general rule, don't have the stomach for the necessary consequences of opting out of the pool. You get hit by a bus and are bleeding in the streets, we're going to pick you up and take you to a hospital, not push you to the side to die and say "well, that's what he wanted..."

 

[Trenchfriend]

Yesterday evening, I wanted to go to bed. But damn, Stellan Skarsgard on TV-screen!

"River", the first episode and I watched it until the end. Not a crime movie, but a fine psychothriller and I liked it very. And Nicola Walker was so charming!

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Yesterday evening, I wanted to go to bed. But damn, Stellan Skarsgard on TV-screen!

"River", the first episode and I watched it until the end. Not a crime movie, but a fine psychothriller and I liked it very. And Nicola Walker was so charming!

All six episodes are on Youtube but in English.

 

[Fading Fast]

We have socialized medicine here in the US...it's called insurance. Few people can afford to pay for their own healthcare out of pocket, so we pool our resources and draw out of the global fund as necessary. What you object to, I assume, is being forced to join said pool, government run through taxes, or otherwise. This is fine in concept, except we Americans, as a general rule, don't have the stomach for the necessary consequences of opting out of the pool. You get hit by a bus and are bleeding in the streets, we're going to pick you up and take you to a hospital, not push you to the side to die and say "well, that's what he wanted..."

Respectfully, that is not what I object to. To wit, I've argued that if we won't let people die in the streets - as, overall, we don't (at least in NYC where hospitals have to treat everyone who shows up regardless of if he or she can pay or not) - then we should require everyone to get insurance and we should subsidize those who can't afford it. I'm willing to live in a die-in-the-street world, but since that is not politically acceptable, I think Obama was correct in requiring everyone to get insurance, since, otherwise, the rest of us who do get insurance subsidize those who don't. Unfortunately, Obama didn't make the argument that way.

What I object to (to your implied question) - which is only one of the reasons why I oppose socialized medicine - is that it all starts out sounding nice, but one of the next potential steps is - as was implied in the post I was replying to - to start controlling everyone's "healthcare" decisions. So, for example, of course you have to wear a seatbelt / stop smoking / eat healthier because these are no longer just individual risk / life decisions, they effect "all of us," as, if you get sick now, everyone pays. So, socialize medicine becomes an infringement on personal freedom and choice and takes away our rights to make risk decisions for ourselves. I think that freedom is worth more than the (putative) benefits of socialized medicine - which, I don't believe is truly a benefit.

One, if the bartenders think this post is too political - please delete. I only posted in response (and tried to stay consistent with many other posts in this thread re their amount of political comments), but that's not an excuse - if it's over the line - kill it. Second, I am not trying to change anyone's mind, just responding to the post. I don't think FL is the forum to debate these things, so if you don't agree with me, please say and post anything you wish against my ideas, but I do not plan to respond because that would just turn into a political debate.

 

[Trenchfriend]

All six episodes are on Youtube but in English.

I know, but in this case, the original tone doesn't work for me. The german synchro gives more atmosphere.

 

[GHT]

You get hit by a bus and are bleeding in the streets, we're going to pick you up and take you to a hospital, not push you to the side to die and say "well, that's what he wanted..."

That is so true, but in pre-NHS UK you might not have been pushed aside, but you certainly wouldn't get the medical care that we get now. The downside to a National health Service is the way it gets abused, that can cause a serious waste of funds and time. I've explained it in a previous post. HudsonHawk, your language might be blunt but your argument is succinct, right on the button, well said.

Here in the UK, and I'm sure it's the same across the English speaking countries, as well as many others, if you are charged with a crime, no matter how heinous, you will be given, free of charge, a qualified barrister, (lawyer) and legal team who will submit your defence in a court of law. Legal representation isn't cheap, the cost of it comes out central taxation. You can of course appoint and pay for your own defence, just as you can appoint and pay for your own healthcare.

Milton Freidman famously said: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." meaning that there's always a cost, hidden or otherwise. After reading some of the posts about Loungers and their health insurers, I'm glad not to have that to worry about. My motoring insurance is an annual bun fight about how much the insurer wants to increase my premium and how much I am/am not prepared to go to. British insurers would love to have our healthcare insurance, they salivate at the thought.

 

[GHT]

What I object to (to your implied question) - which is only one of the reasons why I oppose socialized medicine - is that it all starts out sounding nice, but one of the next potential steps is - as was implied in the post I was replying to - to start controlling everyone's "healthcare" decisions. So, for example, of course you have to wear a seatbelt / stop smoking / eat healthier because these are no longer just individual risk / life decisions, they effect "all of us," as, if you get sick now, everyone pays. So, socialize medicine becomes an infringement on personal freedom and choice and takes away our rights to make risk decisions for ourselves. I think that freedom is worth more than the (putative) benefits of socialized medicine - which, I don't believe is truly a benefit.

You do make for a very valid point in your freedom of choice argument. the only thing political about healthcare being available to all is if one argues for it, or against it. Discussing it's pro's and cons is sensible, it allows readers to make their own mind up. As I have said previously, there's a trade off, I don't smoke, but feel much better since I quit fifty years ago. I begrudge buckling up in the car, but do so and I drink alcohol well within the safety limits that my nanny state insists upon.

I am not sure if this is myth or fact, but I do remember watching a political argument on TV many years ago where an American journalist was banging the drum for free healthcare in the US. Someone mentioned that Uncle Sam has something called The Catastrophe Fund. The implication is that such a fund was for those who have a medical catastrophe that they can't and their insurers won't, fund. Although it might have been something about treating people who were injured in a catastrophe, it's lost in the mists of time.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Respectfully, that is not what I object to. To wit, I've argued that if we won't let people die in the streets - as, overall, we don't (at least in NYC where hospitals have to treat everyone who shows up regardless of if he or she can pay or not) - then we should require everyone to get insurance and we should subsidize those who can't afford it. I'm willing to live in a die-in-the-street world, but since that is not politically acceptable, I think Obama was correct in requiring everyone to get insurance, since, otherwise, the rest of us who do get insurance subsidize those who don't. Unfortunately, Obama didn't make the argument that way.

I think that *was* one of the underlying arguments for the ACA...that everyone should put at least *something* in the kitty.

What I object to (to your implied question) - which is only one of the reasons why I oppose socialized medicine - is that it all starts out sounding nice, but one of the next potential steps is - as was implied in the post I was replying to - to start controlling everyone's "healthcare" decisions. So, for example, of course you have to wear a seatbelt / stop smoking / eat healthier because these are no longer just individual risk / life decisions, they effect "all of us," as, if you get sick now, everyone pays. So, socialize medicine becomes an infringement on personal freedom and choice and takes away our rights to make risk decisions for ourselves. I think that freedom is worth more than the (putative) benefits of socialized medicine - which, I don't believe is truly a benefit.

So If I understand your position, you don't oppose the "socialized" nature of healthcare so much as "government-run" healthcare? Do you think that insurance companies run less risk of controlling individual healthcare decisions than does the government? As a person with a background in economics, do you think that for-profit healthcare companies can walk that line, or is that something you think is an issue, albeit to a lesser degree?

One, if the bartenders think this post is too political - please delete. I only posted in response (and tried to stay consistent with many other posts in this thread re their amount of political comments), but that's not an excuse - if it's over the line - kill it. Second, I am not trying to change anyone's mind, just responding to the post. I don't think FL is the forum to debate these things, so if you don't agree with me, please say and post anything you wish against my ideas, but I do not plan to respond because that would just turn into a political debate.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either, just having a discussion. I think we can discuss social issues without it getting into the "politics" category. At least you and I can, we are reasonable men.

 

[HudsonHawk]

That is so true, but in pre-NHS UK you might not have been pushed aside, but you certainly wouldn't get the medical care that we get now. The downside to a National health Service is the way it gets abused, that can cause a serious waste of funds and time. I've explained it in a previous post. HudsonHawk, your language might be blunt but your argument is succinct, right on the button, well said.

Freeloaders have always been, and will always be, and issue in society, be it healthcare or otherwise. Some people are simply going to take without contributing back. So how do we deal with them? In the US, we've traditionally decided not to...that it's simply the "cost of doing business". We accept and move on. I don't know if that's the right way or not.

 

[Fading Fast]

I think that *was* one of the underlying arguments for the ACA...that everyone should put at least *something* in the kitty. ....

Yes, but it's really more than that. It is explicitly explaining the binary decision. Either we let people die in the street or the gov't or "the system" pays for their healthcare (to some degree, in some situations, etc.). Hence, if we won't let people die in the street, then forcing (that's the right word - call it a tax or rule - but it's force if the gov't can, ultimately, fine or jail you if you don't) people to buy health insurance is a fairer way to do it. Otherwise, those who don't, effectively, sponge off those who do. Obama was squishy on this point - but, at least to me, it is THE reason to "require" everyone to have health insurance. Again, I, personally, am okay with a die-in-the-streets approach, but since that isn't politically acceptable, then requiring insurance is the (almost oddly) libertarian approach as it at least tries to make individuals more responsible for themselves.

...So If I understand your position, you don't oppose the "socialized" nature of healthcare so much as "government-run" healthcare? Do you think that insurance companies run less risk of controlling individual healthcare decisions than does the government? As a person with a background in economics, do you think that for-profit healthcare companies can walk that line, or is that something you think is an issue, albeit to a lesser degree?...

Here the terms get grey. Insurance is a form of socialism (in the sense of pooling risk), but when it's in the private sector, an individual can chose to take it or not; hence, private insurance (with "mutualized" or, if you like, "socialized" risk) is fine IMHO as it doesn't infringe on individual choice. When it's done at the gov't level, my main issues are (1) it is forced on you as it is not a choice you can make of your own free will, (2) in many add on ways, it also infringes on individual freedom and (3) overall, I believe capitalism (not crony capitalism) - free markets - is immensely more efficient at providing services than the gov't.

More specific to your question, I absolutely believe a regulated free-market system w/ subsidies for those who need it can deliver quality healthcare that will offer many options on personal risk management. The private insurance biz already does that with, for example, car insurance - you pay more or less based on your risk decisions such as buying a sports car versus a sedan - or in life insurance - you pay more if you smoke (we pay less for our homeowners insurance for not smoking, too, I think), etc.

...I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either, just having a discussion. I think we can discuss social issues without it getting into the "politics" category. At least you and I can, we are reasonable men.

Thank you, I feel the same about you.

 

[tonyb]

Respectfully, that is not what I object to. To wit, I've argued that if we won't let people die in the streets - as, overall, we don't (at least in NYC where hospitals have to treat everyone who shows up regardless of if he or she can pay or not) - then we should require everyone to get insurance and we should subsidize those who can't afford it. I'm willing to live in a die-in-the-street world, but since that is not politically acceptable, I think Obama was correct in requiring everyone to get insurance, since, otherwise, the rest of us who do get insurance subsidize those who don't. Unfortunately, Obama didn't make the argument that way.

What I object to (to your implied question) - which is only one of the reasons why I oppose socialized medicine - is that it all starts out sounding nice, but one of the next potential steps is - as was implied in the post I was replying to - to start controlling everyone's "healthcare" decisions. So, for example, of course you have to wear a seatbelt / stop smoking / eat healthier because these are no longer just individual risk / life decisions, they effect "all of us," as, if you get sick now, everyone pays. So, socialize medicine becomes an infringement on personal freedom and choice and takes away our rights to make risk decisions for ourselves. I think that freedom is worth more than the (putative) benefits of socialized medicine - which, I don't believe is truly a benefit.

One, if the bartenders think this post is too political - please delete. I only posted in response (and tried to stay consistent with many other posts in this thread re their amount of political comments), but that's not an excuse - if it's over the line - kill it. Second, I am not trying to change anyone's mind, just responding to the post. I don't think FL is the forum to debate these things, so if you don't agree with me, please say and post anything you wish against my ideas, but I do not plan to respond because that would just turn into a political debate.

Does it get any more mealy-mouthed than this?

There’s so many qualifiers here that the gist of the argument, such as it is, is so diluted as to disappear.