Social healthcare?

[kamn]

I have a quick question to all of our american friends. Why are you fighting the health reform so badly?

That sounds worse than I mean, but I am curious. We have a working social healthcare system (former Yugoslavia) and pay about 10% of our income on average for it. A recent conversation with a friend of mine, she says, she pays something like 400$ each month for it (her insurance that is). Now granted, income is different, you have almost double of what I will ever achieve, but from what I could gather, her insurance is way over 20% of her paycheck. And she now has a kid, that she has to pay seperatly. So, why are people fighting the healthcare reform?

Now, granted, I haven't done even the basic research, and am just posing this out, half fishing, half curiosity. But, from what I gather, your taxes would go up by a small amount, and EVERYONE who is employed would be insured. And the tax increase would be WAY less than 20%. So, you would gain money, someone who you know and like, that is going to lose his job, or isn't making enough to visit a doc today would be able to, and you DON'T like that? WHY?

Are my figures screwed? It is just 1 person, I will admit, but even you, yourselves have said multiple times that the health insurance premiums can be really high for what you get out of them. AND you have to take out loans, when you DO have bigger accidents, becouse it takes them months to years to figure out that "HEY! We owe that guy money! His story checked out!". So again, what is the big downside that I am missing about it?


Thank you for clearing this up.
Kamn

[jackfaire]

Because many people have this logic break in their heads where they don't realize that Health Insurance is socialized health care and they are of the opinion, "I don't want no socialized health care I will pay for my own damn health insurance"

[HYHYBT]

My main problem with it is that, as I understand it, the "reform" requires everyone to buy health insurance at *whatever price the for-profit insurance companies wish to charge.* It would be far better to throw them out entirely and instead modify Medicare to cover everybody, or else at least severely limit premiums.

I've heard that, once upon a time, health insurance companies were required to be non-profit organizations. If you want to keep a system with more options than single-payer would offer, how about returning to that?

[IDrinkaRum]

Because there are some people out there who want to see whatever doctor they want to without someone telling them they can't.

Let me explain.

I have a PPO health care. This means I can pick any doctor out of the phone book/internet listing/on a family/friend's recommendation and I can go to that doctor's office, pay a co-pay ($20 for a regular doctor, $30 for a specialist), see the doctor, and then after insurance pays up, if there is anything else left over that I need to pay, I will. (Usually no more than $10 extra).

There are some who think that if you have socialized health care, you do not have the freedom to choose where/when/whom you see. You can't see that world-renowned specialist in hearts/cancer/whatever because they're too expensive and under a health care system that does not allow (in their eyes) the freedom to pick and choose, they think socialized healthcare is the evil.

ETA: HYHYBT also has some great ideas. I really think we need to overhaul Medicare and Medicaid. They're already there. Semi-working and with some tweaking can be good again. I didn't know that health insurance companies used to be non-profit. We should definitely go back to that. Also, from my understand with the Obamacare, you don't even have to buy insurance. You can pay the fine of not having insurance (which from what I've read/heard is cheaper than actually paying for the insurance), and still not have insurance. So, if you can do that, what's the point of saying EVERYBODY has to have insurance if you're going to make that distinction?

[Andara Bledin]

Mostly because people don't understand that the system that is supposed to be enacted is a hybrid. It's not intended to replace the free-for-all capitalism-based medical system we have now, but to supplement it so that those who can't afford to actually have insurance, or who have it but can't afford to use it (that would include me >_< ) aren't fucked because we had the poor grace to 'choose' not to be born to parents of means.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

pay about 10% of our income on average for it

And...right there. At a time when people bitch about how much they pay in taxes and how much those taxes are being wasted, suggesting we give the government more money to waste on crap is not going to work. Is it a flat rate we pay a.k.a. everyone pays literally the same amount of dollars? Or is it everyone pays 10%? The former makes sense, the latter not so much.

[Andara Bledin]

Is it a flat rate we pay a.k.a. everyone pays literally the same amount of dollars? Or is it everyone pays 10%?

This is an incredibly ignorant statement.

The flat dollar amount is ridiculous. To be fair, everybody would have to pay more than what most people even make. Can you provide a reason why a flat percentage (what a 'flat tax' would actually be) would make "not so much" sense?

My health insurance currently equals 15% of my wage, and that's only because I'm not yet "old" and I don't have kids. I'd be overjoyed to be able to enjoy decent health benefits at only 10%. And the people with kids wouldn't have to settle for less of everything else just to ensure that their kids were covered; they currently pay 20% or more to be covered.

And you seriously think that 10% is a huge amount for health insurance. Your disconnect from reality really cracks me up, sometimes.

[edit for perspective]
The average household income in the US is $40,000 per year. My household makes about $50,000 with two adults employed full time. We pay about 18% of our gross income for health insurance. If we had a single child, that figure would jump to about 24% and a second child moves it to about 30%. That's nearly 1/3 of the gross pay, not take-home, that is lost just to insure a family of 4. A flat rate of 10% would be a godsend to all but the most affluent of working families.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

And...right there. At a time when people bitch about how much they pay in taxes and how much those taxes are being wasted, suggesting we give the government more money to waste on crap is not going to work. Is it a flat rate we pay a.k.a. everyone pays literally the same amount of dollars? Or is it everyone pays 10%? The former makes sense, the latter not so much.

Um, you do realise that if you're not paying the insurance companies directly, then the government acts as an intermediary in a socialised healthcare system? You just don't give it straight to a 'for profit' organisation.

Effectively, the majority of people would be shelling out less money every pay period for healthcare under a rate of tax system. However, I pay less than ten percent on a reasonable income level, and the money from that covers me for healthcare as well as my future pension and unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job.

Given that, I think it worth wondering how much profit the for profit medical companies are making.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

And you seriously think that 10% is a huge amount for health insurance. Your disconnect from reality really cracks me up, sometimes.

^-.-^

Yes, I do think 10% for health care is a lot. Let me look at my last pay statement. Thanks to the insurance I have through my company, I paid a whopping 0.0067% of my paycheck for my health insurance. So jumping from there to 10% is a rather large jump. And when I'm trying to save for my future so I can own my own house, afford fun, and not have to live paycheck for paycheck, plus the fact that as of May, I will be unemployed, every little bit counts.

So who is the one disconnected from the reality? The one who doesn't think about those negatively affected is that person I'm guessing.

I understand that some people are toughing it out and don't have insurance because they can't afford it. The second I graduated college, my step-mom dropped me from her insurance and I didn't have insurance for almost a year. Did I expect other people to foot the bill for doctor visits or dentist visits? No. My bills, my responsibility to pay for them. Is it right for me to expect some guy who makes hundreds of millions a year to pay for a $100 doctor visit? Not in my opinion. He earned his money, he should spend it however he wants.

[Andara Bledin]

That's nice. And how much did your company pay to insure you? It's not magically free just because your employer has chosen to bear the brunt of the costs.

That "0.0067%" figure is misleading at best and completely unrelated to the real cost of your insurance.

So, how much does it actually cost to insure you?

^-.-^

[Greenday]

According to what the rate would be for one person my age, it'd be around $150 a month total. Which is still fairly less than 10% for me.

[Andara Bledin]

Do you actually get anything for that rate? That is severely below the average single person rate for insurance. You are a statistical anomaly and should not even try to pretend that your situation is even close to the norm.

Currently, the average rate is $5,429 annually, which is about what mine costs and is more than 10% for 53% of the households in the country.

The average rate for a family is $15,073 annually. 15% of all households don't even make that much money. Only about 6% of the households in the US make enough that the cost is only 10% of their income.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Do you actually get anything for that rate? That is severely below the average single person rate for insurance. You are a statistical anomaly and should not even try to pretend that your situation is even close to the norm.

Currently, the average rate is $5,429 annually, which is about what mine costs and is more than 10% for 53% of the households in the country.

I'm just assuming based on which plan I have and what different policy finders say for my age.

Even at $5,429 a year, that's not 10% for me. So why should I get hurt worse now when I'm going to need it later? Sure I can go on unemployment the second I get back because as an unemployed person, I'd be entitled to that according to the government. I'm not taking it because it'd be wasteful spending. I'm saving for my future and this would be taking away from my future.

[Andara Bledin]

Ah, right.

I keep forgetting that you're part of the "I've got mine and the rest of you can get sick and die in the gutter" party.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

No. My bills, my responsibility to pay for them.

What if you can't afford? What if the business that could have employed you has fallen into dire straits because of the misdeeds of a number of overpaid buffoons on Wall Street?

Should you constantly pop pain pills for cavities in your teeth? Should you go without antibiotics for treatable diseases?

Is it right for me to expect some guy who makes hundreds of millions a year to pay for a $100 doctor visit? Not in my opinion. He earned his money, he should spend it however he wants.

I'd expect him to contribute his fair share to the society that enabled him to make his millions. The more you have, the more you can avoid paying in tax, as Warren Buffet pointed out recently. Big business is no exception.

These people have got rich off your labour. Why shouldn't you get some of that back?

Besides, in what way is a nation poorer for having a healthier citizenry?

Rapscallion