I hate the phrase "Redistribution of wealth"

[daleduke17]

My husband and I think that we're getting a pretty good deal for the taxes we pay.

It wouldn't be so bad in the USA if we were getting a good deal for our taxes. We send in taxes on every check, but it doesn't seem like we get anything back for them. I am ineligible for public aid since I work, I have health insurance so nothing from the state, I'm 26 years old so I don't qualify for free transportation on the city busses, I didn't serve in the military so I don't qualify for the Montgomery GI Bill or anything associated with it, I don't drive a "green" vehicle so I can't get credit on my taxes for that, I'm too young to qualify for deductions for being in Vietnam, I'm not a minority so the government pretty much says "F*** you" to me.

As far as state and local taxes: we have several pothole marred streets (not just little ones, large car-damaging ones), I make too much money to have the city pay for my child's schooling and I don't believe that I qualify for job placement assistance.

So, pretty much we get little return on our taxes. I do not believe in universal health care, but would like to see something done with schooling for everybody.

[Seshat]

You still get a lot of protections and resources you haven't mentioned. Police and fire, for example. You may or may not have a state emergency service &/or rescue force. You do have environmental protections intended to avoid a Bhopal-style chemical disaster. Your 'blackwater' (ie toilet and other contaminated wastewater) is hauled away without you having to pay attention to it. Your buildings follow strict building codes so they're much less likely to fall on your head. Lots of invisible benefits you get from your taxes.

However, I'm curious about one thing: why don't you believe in subsidised/free public medical care?

I see it as an obviously good thing, but I'll explain why after I hear why you think it's not. I'd like to hear the 'other side'.

[AFPheonix]

I frankly would like to see a plan instituted here similar to what you have there. I think if instituted correctly, it could really take care of a lot of the overhead expenses that are dragging down our health care system.
I deal with prescription coverage in-depth. I don't know a ton about health other than my own plan, really.
However, I could see us instituting a basic plan for everyone: health, dental and rx, maybe vision, with one formulary, accepted at all providers and portable across state lines. (something that medicaid cannot do now). Merge medicaid, medicare, and tricare into this one umbrella plan, take the funding from all three of those plans and funnel it into the one plan. Take a certain amount of tax to pay for the rest, and remove the burden from employers to pay for their employees' health care, allowing for higher wages and lower costs of goods.
Allow patients to purchase private coverage above and beyond the basic plan if they so wish, depending on what their needs are.
I think instituted correctly (and it would be a miracle, considering what a mess congress made of medicare part D), it could really be a boon for all of us. Yes, it would be a total madhouse probably for a year or two before the system got sorted entirely, but in time it could really be efficient and easy for everyone to understand, which is more than I can say for the system we have now.

[CancelMyService]

I don't want to speak for daleduke17, but a lot of the people around here that don't favor universal health care have that opinion from having talk radio shows beat it over their head since 1994 or so (when Hilary Clinton tried to get momentum for it and the Republicans went ape) that it's bad. The common refrains are "They'll take our money and then you'll have to wait forever for a doctor", or "it's the first step to introducing socialism in America" since most people have a mental link of socialism = communist dictatorships.

[daleduke17]

However, I'm curious about one thing: why don't you believe in subsidised/free public medical care?

I see it as an obviously good thing, but I'll explain why after I hear why you think it's not. I'd like to hear the 'other side'.

I don't feel as though the taxpayers should have to go to bat for everyone else and give even more money to the government. Taxpayers are already giving people food (LINK card*), housing (section 8**) and schooling (tuition vouchers***) among other things. I know the first two are being abused horribly and it would only be a matter of time before healthcare would be as well.

Also, it seems our nation is getting more and more of a belief that they are entitled to whatever and don't want to work for anything anymore. I'm not against people who need the help receiving it, I'm against people abusing it and that is what I see happening with universal healthcare.

* - that's the Illinois title for foodstamps.
** - probably another Illinois specific term.
*** - part of the wonderful No Child Left Behind act.

[Boozy]

I have never seen the difference between government-provided emergency services such as fire and police, and government-provided health care. Both are fundamental services necessary for the health and well-being of the populace.

The only reason the US doesn't have public health care is because the health care industry has been raking in the profits for far too long and are worried that the gravy train will end.

[Seshat]

I don't feel as though the taxpayers should have to go to bat for everyone else and give even more money to the government.
<snip>
I know the first two are being abused horribly and it would only be a matter of time before healthcare would be as well.
<snip>
I'm not against people who need the help receiving it, I'm against people abusing it and that is what I see happening with universal healthcare.

Ah. I can only say that in Australia, universal healthcare isn't being significantly abused. Those who are hypochondriac or have Munchausen's get diagnosed and treated just like anyone with any other problem, and - well, I can't figure out any other way to abuse healthcare. You get sick, you go to a doctor, you get treated. If you're not sick, why go to a doctor? (Other than preventative medicine, which also isn't abuse.)

Possibly I'm naive. Maybe there are reasons or ways to abuse universal healthcare that don't happen here but might in some other culture.

Anyway. I promised my views. Universal health care is good because:

* It reduces everyone's chance of getting sick.

* The herd immunity provided by immunisation squeezes out some virii and bacteria.
* Rapidly curing everyone who gets a contagious illness reduces everyone's exposure to the contagion. With Multiply Resistant Tuberculosis in the wings, we really need to be careful about contagious illnesses.
* Rapidly treating everyone who gets a mutating virus (such as influenza) reduces its rate of mutation as well as peoples' exposure to the contagion. This one will be even better as we develop effective broad-spectrum antivirals.

* It increases the proportion of the population who can work.

* The people least able to afford medical care are often those who most need it. Many of these people want to work, either out of social conscience or simply to be able to afford to live well.
* A significant proportion of these people can work if their illness or disability is treated.
* Universal health care will get them treated and into the work force.

* It reduces the proportion of people driven to crime by desperation or mental illness.

* Treating those capable of work means they can work, and don't become desperate enough to steal bread or medicine. (Sure, they might steal for other reasons, but not out of desperation.)
* Treating those who are mentally ill will let some of them work and function normally in society. Another subset will function if provided carers, and will live happy and relatively normal lives in halfway houses or other supervised accomodation. Another subset, unfortunately, will need to live in enclosed accomodation of some sort, but at least they and society can become mutually safe from each other.

* The additional tax income of those made capable of work, and the reduced crime costs, and the unquantifiable benefit of less sick leave due to herd immunity and epidemic prevention, will offset the cost of the universal health care. Not necessarily a complete offset, but certainly some.
Add the unquantifiable benefit of the emotional comfort of knowing you will get treatment when you fall sick, and - well, I think it's overall a good thing.

* Note that cosmetic surgery doesn't fall under universal health care, except when it's medically necessary cosmetic surgery: such as fixing cleft palate, or preventative removal of potential melanoma. Universal health care only covers problems of a medical nature.

[Rapscallion]

With that last part, you have to be careful. We've had GPs referring patients for breast enhancement on grounds of psychological harm caused by breasts that are too small. I don't mind reduction where back pain is involved, but that? Nah.

Rapscallion

[Sylvia727]

Jumping back in a bit late here...

Pederson, I think I expressed myself unclearly. I wasn't taking about redistribution in that post; I was responding to the SCs of tax laws, those who have no justification for evading taxes other than "I don't wanna." Yeah, governments wastes money, perhaps the USA's more than others'. I don't like 33% taxes either. But taxes are necessary, and the government is "entitled" to your money as payment for services rendered. Like others have pointed out, we reap invisible protections from our government every minute. Anyone who enjoys the protection of the police department or sends their kids to a public school and then refuses to pay taxes is a thief. How much taxes you think should pay...I'm willing to listen. But you have to pay some.

Redistribution of wealth is in itself disturbing, I think. Putting 33% of my earnings into a community pool so that it can be handed back out to the lower income earners makes no sense. My government should be supporting a minimum standard of living, not ironing out the differneces. How much of my tax money is really necessary to provide food, medicine, roads, schools, even the department of weed control? And how much is being thrown away on programs that still don't work, like the war in Iraq or the war on drugs or the war on sex? The government won't be giving that money back to me even if they do decide to straighten up their act.

There's only two reasons I should be paying taxes. The first is the infrastructure of this country that everyone enjoys, like roads and schools. The second is protective measures for my fellow citizens, like ensuring that they have food and a roof over their heads. My money should not be buying the poor luxuries like cable tv or cigarettes, nor should it be wasted by my government on functions or facilities that don't fulfill one of those two objectives, with the possible exception of the political system as that is supposed to support the first two.

In an ideal world, my fellow citizens would have enough to eat and have adequate healthcare, but unless there's some reason they can't work, they shouldn't be getting free handouts. Australia apparently has a pretty good system where anyone can get basic medical care. Why not import that? Why not improve our public transportation system or our school system instead of giving my tax money to people who often can't or don't know how to invest it properly and assuming that it's enough and that they will use it appropritately? I don't think this would take too much of my money. If anything, it should take less of my money.

[protege]

I don't want to speak for daleduke17, but a lot of the people around here that don't favor universal health care have that opinion from having talk radio shows beat it over their head since 1994 or so (when Hilary Clinton tried to get momentum for it and the Republicans went ape) that it's bad.

I don't think it's so much that...but you get the government involved in *anything* and they'll fuck it up. For example (and speaking of infrastructure), one of the local bridges had its deck drop about 8 inches...and the local transit authority has no idea why. Never mind that PA has the *worst* roads on the planet, simply because they weren't built well to begin with...but also aren't maintained worth a damn. Also, the other reason Hilary's health care plan failed...was that the *industry* didn't want it either.

[Boozy]

My dad was talking to an old family friend who lives in Michigan. He's a farmer, and has to pay his own health insurance. For his wife, his hired man, and his two children. He can not afford to cover himself.

His premiums run to almost $100,000 a year.

My dad, when raising his children as a farmer in Canada, was also responsible for a number of people: his wife, his FOUR children, and two hired hands.

We got full health coverage from the government. And let me assure you, we did NOT pay $100,000 a year in taxes.

Health care costs SOAR in free-market run systems. Its because of the insurance factor.

The same friend, our Michigan farmer, was having knee problems. He went to the doctor at his wife's urging. He was reluctant to go because he was the only member of the family not covered by insurance.

The doctor takes a look at him and says, "You need surgery."
Friend says, "Shit. How much?"
Doctor says "$8000."
Friend says, "I don't have insurance."
Doctor thinks for a minute, then says, "I'll do it for $2000."

That's the effect free market health care has on health care costs. If he'd had insurance, or Medicare or Medicaid, that surgery would have been billed out at 4 times the actual cost.

Despite all the hysteria spread by the Republicans about "socialized" health care, the fact remains that the Canadian public system provides equivalent service for half the cost of that of their friends to the south.

[AFPheonix]

Actually, the federal government has executed a number of pursuits really well. Social Security comes to mind. It would probably remain solvent for far longer if other parts of the government would stop bloody raiding its trust fund.
Veteran's hospitals are some of the most efficient around. Yes, we hear horror stories now and again and some are having trouble now, but that's because the DoD did not plan well enough for vets who would actually survive traumatic wounds that normally soldiers would die from. Yay for science making better in-field care possible.

You also have to keep in mind that different layers of government have different competency levels. You are currently complaining about your local government.
Amazingly enough, YOU have more control over it than you do national government. Get involved!

Back to the topic of health care, The US spends more per capita on health care expenditures than any of the countries with socialized medical plans. How's that for ironic?

[TheRoo]

Not only do we spend more per capita, but we are behind other industrialized countries on most health indicators.

[machinest]

A big part of the problem is that the US health care system is not really a system it is many independent providers contracting with each other and the public .This leads to popular high profile technologies being over supplied while less "glamorous" needs are neglected.

[Seshat]

A big part of the problem is that the US health care system is not really a system it is many independent providers contracting with each other and the public .This leads to popular high profile technologies being over supplied while less "glamorous" needs are neglected.

Indeed. When the medical system was checking out my breast lump, my doctors used a sliding system of tests. Simple palpation was first. Nice and cheap, and may well have been able to rule out cancer. It didn't, so we went to ultrasound. Not as cheap, but minimal harm and again, it could have defined it as a non-issue. Again, it didn't, so mammogram time.

Fortunately for me, the radiologists and the specialist in breast disease both decided I didn't have cancer (phew!) but I do have a breast illness which will mean I need regular mammograms (argh).

I did the ultrasound and the mammogram at the same place, and the radiological specialists looked at the ultrasound while I waited and read a magazine. They decided the result wasn't specific enough and had the authority to call for the mammogram 'if necessary'.

There are other fancier and more expensive technologies that would have been called into play if the simple ones didn't define the problem; but with the system we have here, we just went up the scale, starting from 'cheap and noninvasive', and going no further than we had to.