Healthcare, who pays?

[mom2hunangirls]

Isn't some of our problem the insane amounts insurance companies and hospitals charge for their services? Everybody wanting a piece of the pie so everyone raises the rate for an X-ray (as an example) until the thing costs $1000 which is no where near what it actually costs to have one?

 

In other countries, is there the greed for more and more profit to more and more people that actually have nothing to do with the service?

 

What are they/your countries doing different with the habitual assistance seekers? It is common for that group to come up in our debates about what to do with our system....don't they exist in other countries? I don't even mean it in a good or bad way, I'm just curious why we don't hear how the other systems handle that. And I guess I don't just mean in regards to health care (clearly they get it)..I guess generally. If you don't have the long term users, why don't you?

 

Because I usually avoid politically polarized topics, I'm really hoping I can just ask questions because I genuninely really want to understand and so often I can't get real answers because people don't want their side to have a negative piece. I'm thankful for those here that will take the time to answer so thoughtfully.

 

The other question that I'm wondering is in response to people saying they can't get appts because of a shortage of doctors in their area....wouldn't universal coverage make this worse? I'm thinking of all those that I see at the ER suddenly going to the regular over-booked doctor...plus the ones that don't bother going to the ER but suddenly could go to the regular doctor anytime they had a sniffle.....wouldn't that part get worse? So basically, if there are not enough doctors now when only some can go, what will happen when everyone can go? Or is the assumption doctors would come because demand goes up?

[PIE!]

*sigh* Not slamming as there are some like this. On the other hand, it's presumptuous. People do sometimes receive things from family members, get handed down NICE brand name clothing (used, but nice or bought, but never worn), and some people do scrimp in some areas to make sure that they can get a nice haircut for WORK, because it's required that they keep a certain appearance. People in poverty may occasionally have a few extra bucks and they spend it on something nice. It doesn't affect their food stamps, their income does and an increase one week of a few bucks doesn't change the amount...it has to be a significant amount at the time of their review.

 

yup.

 

There are some who abuse the system. There are some who don't, but look like they do.

 

I've been on food stamps and medicaid. It was a huge help when we needed it. We pinched every penny. I shopped at thrift stores and got some very nice designer clothes for less than 50 cents a piece. We got some amazing clothes for my kids from freecycle. I had friends on welfare who had been given nice phones and cameras from relatives. Sometimes when you're going to the store someone will give you money and ask you to pick something up for them. Sometimes you scrimped and saved a couple of bucks to buy something for a special occasion. So you can't really be sure that the person who looks like they're abusing the system really is.

 

BUT - I've also seen plenty of people who really do abuse the system. While I was on medicaid and food stamps, I declined other services that I qualified for, but we could manage ourselves. I had conversations with other people who had every welfare service available and couldn't understand how I could possibly live without satellite TV. They considered it quite a sacrifice, and one they didn't think they could make. The same people told me how they paid $100 a month in rent, had food stamps, medicaid, and cash assistance. But they "deserved" new jewelry every month and ended up spending everything they had.

 

So - some of those folks are abusing the system, and some are not. You really can't tell by appearance alone.

[Denise in Florida]

When I was referring to "free riders" earlier in the thread, I mean the nearly half of all Americans who do not pay Federal income tax. I believe that percentage is WAAAAAAAY too high, and really only the most destitute should be exempt. It embarrassed me that in 2006 we got a larger refund than the total of our withholdings (essentially a handout from the government). We weren't poor, either, but had an income around $50k.

 

I used the term 'free riders' because that is what I hear in the news. :001_smile: I was not trying to reflect on your post.

 

I am not sure what the tax solution is. I wish I could trust either party to work on a common sense and compassionate system. Where I live there are many working poor families, who hold jobs yet still need food stamps and other aid. There are even homeless families who are working yet drift from one long term hotel to another or live in one of the many 'tent cities' in the area.

 

I would love reform that gets folks working but also the kind of economy that pays enough to live. We can't just keep raising the minimum wage. Is there a solution?

 

My sister and bil have a home, supported a child who pretty much worked her way through college with their help. They were supporting themselves and paying taxes. But now...no savings...no retirement plan...bankruptcy over medical bills.

 

Sorry OP, this got off topic. :tongue_smilie:

[mom2hunangirls]

I used the term 'free riders' because that is what I hear in the news. :001_smile: I was not trying to reflect on your post.

 

I am not sure what the tax solution is. I wish I could trust either party to work on a common sense and compassionate system. Where I live there are many working poor families, who hold jobs yet still need food stamps and other aid. There are even homeless families who are working yet drift from one long term hotel to another or live in one of the many 'tent cities' in the area.

 

I would love reform that gets folks working but also the kind of economy that pays enough to live. We can't just keep raising the minimum wage. Is there a solution?

 

My sister and bil have a home, supported a child who pretty much worked her way through college with their help. They were supporting themselves and paying taxes. But now...no savings...no retirement plan...bankruptcy over medical bills.

 

Sorry OP, this got off topic. :tongue_smilie:

 

I agree, Denise. I wish I could trust either side to really work something out and not give sound bites to win....I'd give anything to hear someone say "here's a plan, here are the draw backs."

[sthompson]

Sorry OP, this got off topic. :tongue_smilie:

 

No problem, judging from other threads I figured it would. ;)

 

I very much appreciate those that have answered my question :001_smile:

[ktgrok]

Well sure, some people who are unemployed won't pay in, and will use healthcare (fyi...they already do..medicaid). But how is that different than the unemployed using public streets, or the police, or the schools?

[Carpe]

Would it help if I worded it this way?

 

My family has an effective tax rate of about 15% (a marginal rate of 32%). There is also an additional 5% tax on "non-essential" goods and services. (Which is basically everything but groceries and prescriptions.)

 

We pay out of pocket (or could have insurance for) dental, drug, and glasses. All other medical costs are covered. Our drugs are significantly less expensive here as well. For my family it's about 1.5% of our income per year, but we have bad teeth and I'm nearly blind.

 

So adding everything together assuming we send all our money on non-essential goods that would mean our total tax+healthcare burden would be 21.5% of our income. Obviously we buy groceries, and not every year are OOP health costs that high.

[Crimson Wife]

Our drugs are significantly less expensive here as well.

 

That's because Canada and European countries have been benefiting from the pharmaceutical R&D done for the lucrative U.S. market while using the governmental monopoly to keep the prices they pay low. If the U.S. started doing the same thing, there would be no reason for the drug companies to so heavily invest in finding new cures for diseases. Would Canada and Europe be willing to fork up a fairer share to keep medical advances coming?

[Abeille]

Or "those who know no other way of life and are unable to break the cycle of poverty and abuse of many varieties into which they were born, and who despite living in the richest nation in the world are single parents and are so overwhelmed by life circumstances that they become hardened, defensive and downright resentful of the disdain that they KNOW the "haves" are flinging their way, so they hold their heads up to preserve some basic dignity and pride, which can appear to be arrogance to those who look from the outside, and in the absence of a true way out they continue in the only life they know."

 

Or whatever.

 

astrid

 

:iagree:I think you're my new hero. And for the record, no, my family does not receive government assistance. We are very blessed, and try to never forget that.

[Ravin]

Most americans who receive some form of public assistance are either disabled or the working poor, and get food stamps and medicaid. Long term cash welfare which let mothers stay home and raise their own children was dismantled a generation ago.

 

Many people subsist by the informal economy--means of income outside the traditional stream, some of which are less than legal, most of which is under the table. That sort of income may go unreported to ensure steady food stamp and medicaid. People like me who follow the rules drive public assistance caseworkers crazy. the bureaucratic maze of rules drives ME crazy!

[Carpe]

That's because Canada and European countries have been benefiting from the pharmaceutical R&D done for the lucrative U.S. market while using the governmental monopoly to keep the prices they pay low. If the U.S. started doing the same thing, there would be no reason for the drug companies to so heavily invest in finding new cures for diseases. Would Canada and Europe be willing to fork up a fairer share to keep medical advances coming?

 

I don't think that Canadians pay less than our fair share; I think that Americans are being forced to pay more than their fair share. The costs you pay for some drugs are obscene compared to the costs of manufacturing those drugs.

 

It's mind boggling to me that anyone would think that progress would stop because drug companies aren't making billions annually. They're going to choose to make millions rather than to make nothing.

[TammyS]

They have enough income to buy a moderately price insurance if it were available, it isn't. They are not asking for a hand out just a chance to get into the same market as everyone else.

 

They should look into Samaritan Ministries (there are others like it, this is just the one that I know). It's not "insurance" is cost sharing. I would try to explain it, but you would do better just to look it up.

[Slartibartfast]

They need to make drug prices the same across the board. I don't get why drugs are cheaper in other countries than they are in the US.

 

Other countries cap prices but the US does not and we are footing the bill, along with our other excessively high health care costs.

 

I received three months worth of Singulair for $447 ($55 with my insurance) If I look online at Canadian pharmacies I can see them getting the same amount for $129. Merck is an American company but it is three times as much here. I don't think Americans can afford to pay those prices, particularly when so many are uninsured.

[Lisbeth]

My view is that much of this could be solved by adults taking personal responsibility. Don't have kids you can't afford. If you can't budget for bc, don't have sex. Take reasonable precautions w yr health. Put home, food, and the basics first, perks second. It isn't your neighbors' job to fund yr lifestyle. If society is to pay for yr food and shelter, society should have the right to determine that yr money isn't going for illicit drugs, pay tv and etc. What incentive is there to take resposibility if being irresponsible is comfy?

[Slartibartfast]

My view is that much of this could be solved by adults taking personal responsibility. Don't have kids you can't afford. If you can't budget for bc, don't have sex. Take reasonable precautions w yr health. Put home, food, and the basics first, perks second. It isn't your neighbors' job to fund yr lifestyle. If society is to pay for yr food and shelter, society should have the right to determine that yr money isn't going for illicit drugs, pay tv and etc. What incentive is there to take resposibility if being irresponsible is comfy?

 

That did not work out so well for Florida, it seems it wastes a ton of money to discover fewer people on welfare are doing drugs than they thought.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

 

Your post has nothing to do with my family's health care expenses. We have never been on welfare/wic/food stamps or any sort of assistance. We have a baby with a heart defect. Do you call that a lifestyle problem?

 

Your post has little to do with the problem as a whole. Lower income children and disabled people are usually covered. Lower income *adults* and middle class families are the ones struggling. But disabled people are often stuck unable to work or they risk losing their benefits. We need to do better.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Sis

[Carpe]

They need to make drug prices the same across the board. I don't get why drugs are cheaper in other countries than they are in the US.

 

Other countries cap prices but the US does not and we are footing the bill, along with our other excessively high health care costs.

 

I received three months worth of Singulair for $447 ($55 with my insurance) If I look online at Canadian pharmacies I can see them getting the same amount for $129. Merck is an American company but it is three times as much here. I don't think Americans can afford to pay those prices, particularly when so many are uninsured.

 

Maybe this is too presumptive, but I suspect that your insurance company isn't footing a $392 bill. I bet they have an agreement with Merck; Merck gets about the same from your purchase as they would from mine. If I were Merck, I wouldn't agree to a price for Canadians that is did not net me a profit (even if just a small one). The people losing out are the ones without insurance that pay the $447 OOP.

[kalanamak]

I'm from an area where welfare queens are the norm.

 

Norm? As in greater than 50% of the population? How do you define a welfare queen? The usual definition is someone using fraud to get extra payments or payments when employed.

 

You must live in an unusual place.

Edited July 18, 2012 by kalanamak
in the end, didn't

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe this is too presumptive, but I suspect that your insurance company isn't footing a $392 bill. I bet they have an agreement with Merck; Merck gets about the same from your purchase as they would from mine. If I were Merck, I wouldn't agree to a price for Canadians that is did not net me a profit (even if just a small one). The people losing out are the ones without insurance that pay the $447 OOP.

 

That is for three months with the mail in prescription drug plan. If I walk into a drug store my cost is much higher. I think I paid $77 with insurance for a one month supply last time I did that.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Sis

[WishboneDawn]

That's because Canada and European countries have been benefiting from the pharmaceutical R&D done for the lucrative U.S. market while using the governmental monopoly to keep the prices they pay low. If the U.S. started doing the same thing, there would be no reason for the drug companies to so heavily invest in finding new cures for diseases. Would Canada and Europe be willing to fork up a fairer share to keep medical advances coming?

 

I think this is an oft repeated, rarely supported claim. Important research happens outside the US while much of the research in the US is concerned with questionable but profitable and marketable endevours rather than truly important discoveries. It would be interestib to see some good information regarding this.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't think that Canadians pay less than our fair share; I think that Americans are being forced to pay more than their fair share. The costs you pay for some drugs are obscene compared to the costs of manufacturing those drugs.

 

It's mind boggling to me that anyone would think that progress would stop because drug companies aren't making billions annually. They're going to choose to make millions rather than to make nothing.

 

A very large percentage (around 80-90%) of pharmaceutical R&D never leads to an approved medication. The costs of those failures are subsidized by the high prices on the successful drugs. You may consider those prices "obscene", but how else are the companies going to recoup the huge amount of money spent on failed R&D?

 

If no one is willing to pay high prices for pharmaceuticals, the drug companies will simply stop investing heavily in R&D. I personally think it is *HIGH* time that other countries step up to the plate and pay a fairer share of the costs of the medical innovations from which they have benefited over the past several decades.

[FaithManor]

I don't think that Canadians pay less than our fair share; I think that Americans are being forced to pay more than their fair share. The costs you pay for some drugs are obscene compared to the costs of manufacturing those drugs.

 

It's mind boggling to me that anyone would think that progress would stop because drug companies aren't making billions annually. They're going to choose to make millions rather than to make nothing.

 

 

Well, actually yes. The reason for this is these are stock owned companies, stock invested companies, and share holders expect very, very large payouts. If they don't get them, they invest elsewhere, end of discussion. There really isn't any larger picture, or moral drive behind it.

 

Major share holders expect to make multi-millions of dollars each or they aren't interested in investment. Most of the drug companies have 50-100 major stock holders and some have more. Each of these expect that their personal investment will net them in the 100's of millions per annum. That means the company has to gross many billions in order to net even a billion. Research isn't cheap, the technology is not cheap to produce. The average vaccine costs 1 billion dollars from research through to FDA approval.

 

I am no fan of drug companies and their actions in many cases have been unconscienable. However, we have to face the facts that millionaires and billionaires invest in medicine to get rich, not to help humanity. Now, if they can pick up the humanitarian label and wear that hat around, then by George they'll do it! But, at the end of the day, it all about money and money only.

 

Faith

[ktgrok]

My view is that much of this could be solved by adults taking personal responsibility. Don't have kids you can't afford. If you can't budget for bc, don't have sex. Take reasonable precautions w yr health. Put home, food, and the basics first, perks second. It isn't your neighbors' job to fund yr lifestyle. If society is to pay for yr food and shelter, society should have the right to determine that yr money isn't going for illicit drugs, pay tv and etc. What incentive is there to take resposibility if being irresponsible is comfy?

 

So I suppose that you, as a responsible person, have a few hundred thousand dollars set aside for health care needs? Probably at least a quarter million is needed, if you really want to take personal responsibility for your own health. Oh, and before you have a child make sure you can afford the NICU, and really, make sure you can afford life long nursing care just in case that child is born with a medical problem.

 

I know that we must have been horribly irresponsible not to be able to afford all the bills from my ex husband's heart transplant work up, multiple hospitilizations, etc. And my friend, who has always paid every bill she has recieved, is incredibly irresponsible not to have realized ahead of time that her youngest would be diagnosed with a degenerative brain disease at 2 years old, guaranteeing she will be needing therapy and bone marrow transplants and probably hospice care before she is 5 years old.

 

Please. The idea that in this economy anyone can afford those things is crazy.

[stripe]

Who pays with private insurance? Many elderly people collect vastly more than they ever paid in.

 

The only way to have it be that you get exactly what you pay for, is to pay cash.

 

And I think it's worth pondering other government "hand outs" such as a special tax deduction for seniors and the handicapped, deductions for charitable donations to organizations (not for handing down to relatives), and tax credits for people who insisted on buying a house they couldn't actually afford (otherwise known as a mortgage) instead of living in an apartment or wherever until they could save up the cash, much less tax breaks for companies.

 

Why is it okay for a company to come to town, be wooed by the town/state via a complete elimination of taxes, so they can pay jobs that are usually part time for which they don't pay benefits, and then the employees are so poor that they qualify for food stamps, medicaid, assistance with housing, and/or earned income tax credit. In this situation it baffles me why it's seen as the employees who are taking advantage of the system, rather than companies who get the profits while leaving their employees impoverished. Sounds to me that corporations are getting something out of this game.

 

It's also worth wondering if the health of the person preparing your food or packaging it in the factory really doesn't affect you. Oozing sores, hepatitis, colds, flu, diarrhea, HIV....I'd rather other people have access to health care so that they will not infect me.

[stripe]

My view is that much of this could be solved by adults taking personal responsibility. Don't have kids you can't afford. If you can't budget for bc, don't have sex. Take reasonable precautions w yr health. Put home, food, and the basics first, perks second. It isn't your neighbors' job to fund yr lifestyle. If society is to pay for yr food and shelter, society should have the right to determine that yr money isn't going for illicit drugs, pay tv and etc. What incentive is there to take resposibility if being irresponsible is comfy?

 

I have a (married) relative who is employed and has health care through the employer.

 

When this person had a child, the child was found at birth to have a heart defect that required $1 million in costs to treat, happily, successfully.

 

This relative had, before birth, paid $0 towards this child's health care costs. It was covered by insurance, however, immediately at birth. Couldn't one wonder why this child should be covered at such an expense? Who actually footed the bill? My relative certainly hadn't paid in anywhere near $1 million for self+spouse before having the child.

 

I highly doubt most people chose to have children with health problems, or chose to have health problems themselves. Many things are caused by other things than not "taking care" of oneself. And some people, if they thought they would have to be homeless for the rest of their lives, might wonder if they should even give birth to a child who would have a horrendously expensive yet treatable ailment. It simply is awful to ponder that we are supposed to place a very low value on human existence.

[WishboneDawn]

I think you have to first understand that the idea of "paying your fair share" is irrelevant in many countries outside the US, and irrelevant to a discussion of UHC to those in a UHC country. It is simply not part of the equation.

 

This is a very different way of thinking about fellow countrymen than your approach to the argument is implying. I find it useless to have discussions on UHC from a UHC perspective when someone has the mentality of "fair shares" clouding them.

 

To me the "fair share" thing always comes across as someone standing over a cake worrying that someone else might get a bigger piece then them.

[WishboneDawn]

:iagree: but you're probably going to get slammed for telling it like it is. :leaving:

 

But citing a couple of subjective anecdotes isn't "telling it like it is". If the claim is that those anecdotes are representative of some larger pattern then there's a burden to provide some actual data, isn't there?

[kalanamak]

To me the "fair share" thing always comes across as someone standing over a cake worrying that someone else might get a bigger piece then them.

 

 

I have a sudden imagine of a friend with two kids. One would cut the cake, but the other would get to choose his/her piece first. Kept the first one "honest".

[WishboneDawn]

A very large percentage (around 80-90%) of pharmaceutical R&D never leads to an approved medication. The costs of those failures are subsidized by the high prices on the successful drugs. You may consider those prices "obscene", but how else are the companies going to recoup the huge amount of money spent on failed R&D?

 

If no one is willing to pay high prices for pharmaceuticals, the drug companies will simply stop investing heavily in R&D. I personally think it is *HIGH* time that other countries step up to the plate and pay a fairer share of the costs of the medical innovations from which they have benefited over the past several decades.

 

Again...I think this is an oft repeated, rarely supported claim. Important research happens outside the US while much of the research in the US is concerned with questionable but profitable and marketable endeavors (restless leg syndrome, another twist on an anti-depressant that's been on the market for 30 years) rather than truly important discoveries. It would be interesting to see some good information regarding this.

 

Is there some information out there to support the claim that those of us in other countries are somehow not doing our bit to support R&D?

[EmilyK]

This may be somewhat OT, but I'm confused about the 50 percent pay no income tax? Is that 50 percent of all people in the country, or is that after taking out children, those in school and the elderly?

 

On a flat tax, the issue is that, say 20 percent, of someone whose income is $30,000 is quite different than someone who makes $300,000. For the latter person, they can more easily afford a $60,000 tax bill and still have money for housing, food, transport etc. Not necessarily the former person.

 

On who pays for it, as others have said, we would likely save money as a system on UHC. As a self-employed couple, we pay about $1000 a month for our health insurance, plus deductibles and copays (80 percent coverage and $30 copay). So our current system is quite expensive.

[justLisa]

My view is that much of this could be solved by adults taking personal responsibility. Don't have kids you can't afford. If you can't budget for bc, don't have sex. Take reasonable precautions w yr health. Put home, food, and the basics first, perks second. It isn't your neighbors' job to fund yr lifestyle. If society is to pay for yr food and shelter, society should have the right to determine that yr money isn't going for illicit drugs, pay tv and etc. What incentive is there to take resposibility if being irresponsible is comfy?

 

Typical to just put the stereotype of the welfare queen, drug using, watching tv all day, walk to the mailbox to collect your paycheck as the "norm" of what UHC really is about and the people who need it. My dad pulls that one and I don't listen to it for a second. People will screw the system and continue to screw any system regardless. Their stories stick because they suck as a people. But I will not believe the lazy arse poor wanting to suck the rich and government of their money are the "norm." And I *am* considered the upper class. But if my kid were born needing hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Sorry, but I like people. I am a humanitarian. If EVERYONE cared for the good of the people maybe there would not BE so many lazy apathetic weasels collecting paychecks:glare:

 

No it's not your job to pay for your neighbors choice lifestyle. But it *should* be in everyone's interest to want the government to adopt some kind of system that provides medical care for everyone.

 

People who are fat and comfy have a lot to say, but I guarantee you change your mind when faced with truly not being able to make it.

[Crimson Wife]

To me the "fair share" thing always comes across as someone standing over a cake worrying that someone else might get a bigger piece then them.

 

To me, it's like 10 people who go out to a restaurant as a group and order a whole cake. But after the cake has been eaten and the bill comes, all of a sudden, half the people claim to be "too broke" to pay one red cent. Of the remaining 5, 2 pay a small amount, 1 pays what would be his fair share if the cost had been evenly divided, 1 pays about double his fair share, and the last unfortunate person gets stuck with the majority of the bill.

 

That's how our current tax system is set up. :glare:

Edited July 18, 2012 by Crimson Wife

[QueenCat]

This may be somewhat OT, but I'm confused about the 50 percent pay no income tax? Is that 50 percent of all people in the country, or is that after taking out children, those in school and the elderly?

 

 

I was wondering that myself. I've never seen that substantiated.

[WishboneDawn]

I have a sudden imagine of a friend with two kids. One would cut the cake, but the other would get to choose his/her piece first. Kept the first one "honest".

 

And I just had a sudden flashback to a Discovery magazine article I read years ago on game theory that posed just that scenario and solution.

 

Regardless, I don't mind. I just figure someone who grabbed a bigger piece is hungrier or likes cake more then me. No biggie. :D

[sthompson]

To me the "fair share" thing always comes across as someone standing over a cake worrying that someone else might get a bigger piece then them.

 

Actually, to me it means paying something and not just getting a continuous free ride. I am all for helping those in need, but continuing to carry others with them giving nothing, should that continue?

 

I appreciate everyone's constructive criticism to my use of words. I will not give my life story here so that you all can understand why I've said what I have.

 

Again, thanks to those who have answered my original question!

 

Stephanie

[Audrey]

To me the "fair share" thing always comes across as someone standing over a cake worrying that someone else might get a bigger piece then them.

 

Exactly. The cake analogy is a good one, too. I figured out pretty quickly when I emigrated here that, on the whole, Canadians are of the mindset that "hey look! Everyone can have some cake!" and aren't so concerned about how big a piece they get, or even if they get a piece of that particular cake. They just know that hey! there's cake for everyone!

 

It took a while to really understand the Canadian ethos having come from a country to whom that mindset is alien, but once I "got" it, it really opened my eyes. And, I'd thought I was a pretty progressive gal before. Canadians sure taught me a thing or three! :lol:

[fraidycat]

That's because Canada and European countries have been benefiting from the pharmaceutical R&D done for the lucrative U.S. market while using the governmental monopoly to keep the prices they pay low. If the U.S. started doing the same thing, there would be no reason for the drug companies to so heavily invest in finding new cures for diseases. Would Canada and Europe be willing to fork up a fairer share to keep medical advances coming?

 

:001_huh: Um. Wow. :lol:

[WishboneDawn]

To me, it's like 10 people who go out to a restaurant as a group and order a whole cake. But after the cake has been eaten and the bill comes, all of a sudden, half the people claim to be "too broke" to pay one red cent. Of the remaining 5, 2 pay a small amount, 1 pays what would be his fair share if the cost had been evenly divided, 1 pays about double his fair share, and the last unfortunate person gets stuck with the majority of the bill.

 

That's how our current tax system is set up. :glare:

 

Here too. My husband and I are in a much higher tax bracket then my sister for instance and so pay a much higher percentage of our income in tax. She pays nothing. Big whoop. We spent many years making so little that we effectively paid no tax and it was because of that break that we could survive as a family and be in the position we are now. So we pay more taxes now as a percentage of our income to support those who are making a similar journey through incomes or to support those who will likely not make more but because they perform a role in society that adds value to our lives and the lives of our community. My sister doesn't pay her "fair share" of taxes but adds a lot to the lives of community children at the daycare where she works.

She takes some of the burden of some of the community with her work while we shoulder some of her burden by paying more taxes so she can afford to do that work.

 

It's not like a restaurant at all. It's like a cake where someone looks at the big slice another person cuts and resents it without acknowledging the fact that the other person helped bake the bloody cake.

 

The widow's mite has something to say on all this as well but I can't grasp it right at the moment.

Edited July 18, 2012 by WishboneDawn

[Frances]

There was a great article in the NY Times yesterday debunking five myths surrounding the Affordable Care Act:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/keller-five-obamacare-myths.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&gwh=8A648FC1A04AB7820BA1758FC5052E4A

[Joanne]

My husband works his butt off for our family of 10, but we keep to a tight budget and do not have things like cable or satellite tv, smart phones, nice clothes or shoes, or even get our hair cut at a salon, etc.

 

The cycle of low income is a challenge that can be very difficult to break away from.

 

But what I can not stand is when I am behind someone who buys all their food with foodstamps and WIC(Women, Infant, Children food assistance program), and then with their extra money, buys a case of beer and carton of cigarettes. I've been behind people like this who are on their smart phones, wearing designer clothing, have nice hair cuts and salon-colored hair:confused: And all I can think is, "If I could get on foodstamps I could have all this stuff too".. They obviously don't need government assistance if they can have all those things.

 

:confused: How can you assume that their hair is salon-colored? :confused: I've BEEN on foodstamps, and I never know, see, or notice if someone is paying with a SNAP card. The WIC is a little more identifiable, but I never survey their cart, style, or phones.

 

I also went to a friend's house who is on WIC and she also has satellite tv. She told me they pay $120/month for a subscription. :confused: So they can afford to spend $120/month on satellite tv but not the same on milk, cheese and bread? Where are people's priorities? It sickens me that we think like this is this country.

 

Is the T.V. part of their limited recreation?

 

 

I also have a cousin who is on WIC, yet takes a 2 week vacation to Disney every year. I'd LOVE a 2 wk vacation every year, but since we have to feed our family...

 

I would love a vacation as well; I haven't had one in over 10 years. There is a known dynamic in which people who live a low income lifestyle *splurge* for psychological reasons associated with the mentality and culture of low income.

 

I wish we could somehow just give it to the people who need the assistance, the ones who actually are living at a minimum and pinching pennies.

 

My own experience with the "system" was a total challenge to the assumptions I held before I needed the system to survive.

 

I read all 38 pages of the healthcare thread. I see the points in favor of NHC/UHC in other countries but I am wondering though.....who foots the bill? I understand that you pay through your taxes. However not everyone pays taxes here in the states. I'm from an area where welfare queens are the norm. Generations abusing the system. They don't have jobs, own homes/property. They live in public housing and collect their welfare checks. They are not paying their "fair share". Does that make sense? So I'm wondering who pays and how. Sales tax? Property tax? Income tax?

 

Thanks for you info!

 

Stephanie

 

This is functionally unlikely.

 

 

Or "those who know no other way of life and are unable to break the cycle of poverty and abuse of many varieties into which they were born, and who despite living in the richest nation in the world are single parents and are so overwhelmed by life circumstances that they become hardened, defensive and downright resentful of the disdain that they KNOW the "haves" are flinging their way, so they hold their heads up to preserve some basic dignity and pride, which can appear to be arrogance to those who look from the outside, and in the absence of a true way out they continue in the only life they know."

 

Or whatever.

 

astrid

 

Here's another whatever: "Those who despite working one or more jobs at minimum wage can't sustain an adequate living or gain enough momentum to move beyond the cycle of poverty." ;)

 

When I was on Food Stamps, I was working more than one job - and I reported income for all of them. Health insurance for the family consumed my husband's entire paycheck as a school bus driver.

[Bee Happy]

For those complaining about what the person in front of them in line has, note that people that get Food Stamps can have someone else go to the store for them. The person purchasing the food, may not even be the owner of the card. Why assume so much?

[Frances]

I was wondering that myself. I've never seen that substantiated.

 

Here's a good article that explains what percentage of Americans pay federal taxes and other types of taxes:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

[Frances]

Here too. My husband and I are in a much higher tax bracket then my sister for instance and so pay a much higher percentage of our income in tax. She pays nothing. Big whoop. We spent many years making so little that we effectively paid no tax and it was because of that break that we could survive as a family and be in the position we are now. So we pay more taxes now as a percentage of our income to support those who are making a similar journey through incomes or to support those who will likely not make more but because they perform a role in society that adds value to our lives and the lives of our community. My sister doesn't pay her "fair share" of taxes but adds a lot to the lives of community children at the daycare where she works.

She takes some of the burden of some of the community with her work while we shoulder some of her burden by paying more taxes so she can afford to do that work.

 

It's not like a restaurant at all. It's like a cake where someone looks at the big slice another person cuts and resents it without acknowledging the fact that the other person helped bake the bloody cake.

 

The widow's mite has something to say on all this as well but I can't grasp it right at the moment.

 

We're in a very similar situation, probably now in the top 10% of taxpayers in the country. However, we definitely benefitted from government programs along the way, and are now giving back more through higher taxes on our income.

 

We both had small federally subsidized student loans as undergrads, received the EIC for a few years after our son was born and my husband was in grad school making about $12,000 per year, received state health insurance for one year during my husband's post-doc year when we were unlucky enough to move to an area with ridiculous rents due to a housing boom, and most recently, paid basically no federal taxes (due to moderate income and various tax credits) for a couple of years when I worked full-time while my husband went back to school for a professional degree.

 

For us, all of these benefits worked exactly as designed. We used them to get the education and training that now enables us to make very high incomes and contribute more to the tax system. And I'm more than happy to pay my "fair share", even though it's much more than most other Americans.

[Embassy]

Why is there concern for fairness when it comes to payment of taxes for healthcare, but not as much concern for fairness when it comes to accessing medical care?

[Joanne]

For those complaining about what the person in front of them in line has, note that people that get Food Stamps can have someone else go to the store for them. The person purchasing the food, may not even be the owner of the card. Why assume so much?

 

Because otherwise you can't make the assumption that you (or your DH) works harder, longer, and you sacrifice more.

[tex-mex]

They need to make drug prices the same across the board. I don't get why drugs are cheaper in other countries than they are in the US.

 

Other countries cap prices but the US does not and we are footing the bill, along with our other excessively high health care costs.

 

 

 

That's because Canada and European countries have been benefiting from the pharmaceutical R&D done for the lucrative U.S. market while using the governmental monopoly to keep the prices they pay low. If the U.S. started doing the same thing, there would be no reason for the drug companies to so heavily invest in finding new cures for diseases. Would Canada and Europe be willing to fork up a fairer share to keep medical advances coming?

Well, I disagree with your statement.

 

See my answer below...

I think this is an oft repeated, rarely supported claim. Important research happens outside the US while much of the research in the US is concerned with questionable but profitable and marketable endevours rather than truly important discoveries. It would be interesting to see some good information regarding this.

 

Anecdoctal, but from personal experience, the drug for my son and my rare liver disease was tested first and got Rare Orphan Drug Status in Europe back in 2009. It was only recently that a Phase III FDA Drug Study results got official approval for the drug to be released here in the USA and given Rare Orphan Drug Status in 2013. We were (and still are) part of that drug trial.

 

Interestingly enough, in Europe, there is no fee or expense for the drug under the UHC. However, here in the US, the same (liquid version) drug will cost me close to $10,000 a month once the drug study is over. And since it is a newer drug, my insurance provider will tell me that I will have to pay for it out of pocket. They would however, pay for the older form (pill form) with its $7500 a month cost. I know the Pharmaceutical Company producing it is not making money off it, period. They are breaking even with the small population demographic taking this Rare Orphan Drug. However, in a decade, there will be other rare diseases like those with MSU Disease or those in Chemotherapy using this drug as studies are showing some remarkable results for the kidneys and liver. If it goes out to the general population with Chemo, then yes, they will lower the cost and make lots of money as they own the worldwide patent. HTH

Edited July 18, 2012 by tex-mex

[Trez]

Just out of curiousity, I did some research regarding R&D spending and it would seem that you could perhaps use one part of the information to support the claim that the US spends more as they do in actual $s but as a percentage of all the goods and services made in the US, they are not number 1. The countries that have the highest spending as a % of GDP are (note projected for 2011): Israel, Japan, Sweden, Finland, South Korea and then the US.

[posybuddy]

But what I can not stand is when I am behind someone who buys all their food with foodstamps and WIC(Women, Infant, Children food assistance program), and then with their extra money, buys a case of beer and carton of cigarettes. I've been behind people like this who are on their smart phones, wearing designer clothing, have nice hair cuts and salon-colored hair:confused: And all I can think is, "If I could get on foodstamps I could have all this stuff too".. They obviously don't need government assistance if they can have all those things.

 

My daughter currently uses the WIC program, pinches their pennies very tightly and goes without a lot. For her birthday this year, I treated her to a salon visit to get her hair colored. I sincerely hope it has not been my child that you have been judging so harshly in the grocery lane. :glare:

[momto10blessings]

re: hair cut/color, clothing. I should not have mentioned this because I do know that people can find those clothes in thrift stores and have friends who do cuts/coloring/styling. My apologies.

[SKL]

re: hair cut/color, clothing. I should not have mentioned this because I do know that people can find those clothes in thrift stores and have friends who do cuts/coloring/styling. My apologies.

 

I'm guessing it was the cigarettes and beer that inspired the frustrated feeling. And no, those are not things you buy occasionally because you want to do a rare little splurge. (Now I'm sure I'll be lectured about how impossible it is to kick an addiction when everything else in life is against you, etc.)

 

It's understandable to feel frustrated when you're pinching pennies thanks to taxes, and then you see your taxes used in this way. When you're constantly saying "no" to your kids because you have to pay taxes so other people's kids can enjoy frivolities.

 

(And those cigarettes and beer are going to be linked to healthcare costs that those folks needn't worry about paying for (or insuring against) because we taxpayers have it covered.)

[Bee Happy]

re: hair cut/color, clothing. I should not have mentioned this because I do know that people can find those clothes in thrift stores and have friends who do cuts/coloring/styling. My apologies.

 

I understand your frustrations! But please be careful when judging. I had a cousin that did shopping for her disabled mother. Got her mother's food, and spent HER own money on things she wanted while she was there.

 

I also know someone that gets loaned a phone when they go out for safety. She has no cell phone.

 

One time I was at the store driving my father's Mercedes. It wasn't mine, but a friend saw me and assumed it was. I wasn't in line purchasing anything, but it's easy to make assumptions and be WRONG.