Chef Jim Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 and they would be incorrect... And what is incorrect? Chicot who lives there says they pay for it in taxes. Were my other comments incorrect? If so I'd like to see a link to your survey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 And what is incorrect? Chicot who lives there says they pay for it in taxes. Were my other comments incorrect? If so I'd like to see a link to your survey. I think he was saying those who think it's free would be incorrect, and if so he's right, and that's the irony. All the people who think some rich ass hole is going to pick up the tab don't realize that they pay taxes which are built in to the prices they pay for everything else. They'll still have to pay, they're just relinquishing what little control they still have over their coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 I think he was saying those who think it's free would be incorrect, and if so he's right, and that's the irony. All the people who think some rich ass hole is going to pick up the tab don't realize that they pay taxes which are built in to the prices they pay for everything else. They'll still have to pay, they're just relinquishing what little control they still have over their coverage. you really are very bright. no wonder you've repeatedly landed positions with good benefits. remember, though, that many are not equally gifted. finally, you're right to point out the little control of even the privately insured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) I think he was saying those who think it's free would be incorrect, and if so he's right, and that's the irony. All the people who think some rich ass hole is going to pick up the tab don't realize that they pay taxes which are built in to the prices they pay for everything else. They'll still have to pay, they're just relinquishing what little control they still have over their coverage. Well no **** they would be incorrect thinking it's free because nothing is free. The fact is many of them in fact DO think it's free and that would be the reason they'd prefer the NHS versus the "paid" system. Maybe the line should be "people love **** that perceive as being free." Edited August 2, 2012 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I think he was saying those who think it's free would be incorrect, and if so he's right, and that's the irony. All the people who think some rich ass hole is going to pick up the tab don't realize that they pay taxes which are built in to the prices they pay for everything else. They'll still have to pay, they're just relinquishing what little control they still have over their coverage. The rich ass hole will actually pay more towards it than those less well off as he will pay more tax and if you were poor enough that you were under the tax threshold you would technically get it for free. Yes, you relinquish control over your coverage but, on the other hand, you know that however bad your financial situation gets you will still have access to healthcare. Well no **** they would be incorrect thinking it's free because nothing is free. The fact is many of them in fact DO think it's free and that would be the reason they'd prefer the NHS versus the "paid" system. Maybe the line should be "people love **** that perceive as being free." And maybe the line is just plain wrong and should be done away with altogether. I very much doubt that anyone save the very stupid is unaware that the NHS is paid for by taxation. There are other reasons for the preference which I've attempted to explain to you but for some reason you choose to ignore in favour of your snappy one-liner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The rich ass hole will actually pay more towards it than those less well off as he will pay more tax and if you were poor enough that you were under the tax threshold you would technically get it for free. Yes, you relinquish control over your coverage but, on the other hand, you know that however bad your financial situation gets you will still have access to healthcare. I was referring to how it would work here. Most taxes, particularly corporate taxes, are passed down to consumers, so you can't dodge de facto taxation on those in lower income circles, except for the very poor that live off the system anyway. As to the bolded part we have that already in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, free clinics, and laws requiring hospitals to treat the uninsured. They don't necessarily get the best care money can buy, but getting first world medical treatment is pretty good when you're having it provided at someone else's expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 And maybe the line is just plain wrong and should be done away with altogether. I very much doubt that anyone save the very stupid is unaware that the NHS is paid for by taxation. There are other reasons for the preference which I've attempted to explain to you but for some reason you choose to ignore in favour of your snappy one-liner. Go ahead, take a survey. Ask people how much they pay for NHS. I'd like to know what you get as responses. I may be completely wrong but I bet you get a lot of people who tell you "nothing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Go ahead, take a survey. Ask people how much they pay for NHS. I'd like to know what you get as responses. I may be completely wrong but I bet you get a lot of people who tell you "nothing". I think, if pressed, most people would correctly answer that it was paid for by taxation. I think the confusion is that people often refer to their treatment as being free. Technically that is correct inasmuch as you pay for the system and not the actual treatment you receive. Someone who is ill all their life and whose treatment costs a small fortune would pay no more than someone who is healthy all their life and whose treatments cost far less (assuming they were in the same tax bracket). As I understand the US system, insurance rarely covers the entire cost of treatment so you do have to pay something for the treatment you receive. Is that not the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) I think, if pressed, most people would correctly answer that it was paid for by taxation. I think the confusion is that people often refer to their treatment as being free. Technically that is correct inasmuch as you pay for the system and not the actual treatment you receive. Someone who is ill all their life and whose treatment costs a small fortune would pay no more than someone who is healthy all their life and whose treatments cost far less (assuming they were in the same tax bracket). As I understand the US system, insurance rarely covers the entire cost of treatment so you do have to pay something for the treatment you receive. Is that not the case? I live in Canada and I believe we have the same system that you guys have. On our side, there has been increasing issues with regards to 1) Being able to get treatment in a timely matter (long wait periods for major surgery) 2) Hospital emergency rooms constantly at overcapacity 3) Impossible for people to get a family doctor unless you had one for a very long time 4) People opting to pay for semi-private since they can't get a family doctor or important tests a doctor might deem unnecessary. This after I'd estimate at least 40% of tax revenues (federal/provincial) are set aside for healthcare. To help reduce abuse of the system, the province tried to implement a $25 fee for every hospital visit which led to protests and a lot of pressure. They eventually scrapped the idea and just added a mandatory $200 medical fee on tax returns. Have you had the same issues? Edited August 2, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I live in Canada and I believe we have the same system that you guys have. On our side, there has been increasing issues with regards to 1) Being able to get treatment in a timely matter (long wait periods for major surgery) 2) Hospital emergency rooms constantly at overcapacity 3) Impossible for people to get a family doctor unless you had one for a very long time 4) People opting to pay for semi-private since they can't get a family doctor or important tests a doctor might deem unnecessary. This after I'd estimate at least 40% of tax revenues (federal/provincial) are set aside for healthcare. To help reduce abuse of the system, the province tried to implement a $25 fee for every hospital visit which led to protests and a lot of pressure. They eventually scrapped the idea and just added a mandatory $200 medical fee on tax returns. Have you had the same issues? You don't know what you're talking about. Socialized medicine provides everyone with medical care so that people don't leave medical problems until they become big and expensive. It also creates empty ER's and gigantic cost savings as a result of that. And it reduces healthcare costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 You don't know what you're talking about. Socialized medicine provides everyone with medical care so that people don't leave medical problems until they become big and expensive. It also creates empty ER's and gigantic cost savings as a result of that. And it reduces healthcare costs. It's always about presentation. I have plenty of conversations with friends/colleagues who believe the health care system we have here is a sacred cow that must never be touched until you present them with the actual costs that most likely come out of their pocket. The situation here is dire and it's sad that people are paying both public and private simply because it's so badly managed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 It's always about presentation. I have plenty of conversations with friends/colleagues who believe the health care system we have here is a sacred cow that must never be touched until you present them with the actual costs that most likely come out of their pocket. The situation here is dire and it's sad that people are paying both public and private simply because it's so badly managed. That's the problem with people: most are dumb. Most think that government money is "free." I consider Canadians pretty conscientious about their health, or at least, far more than Americans. Now take your system, put in America, and what do you think is going to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 That's the problem with people: most are dumb. Most think that government money is "free." I consider Canadians pretty conscientious about their health, or at least, far more than Americans. Now take your system, put in America, and what do you think is going to happen? Obamacare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Obamacare Already happening. I mean after it's fully implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I live in Canada and I believe we have the same system that you guys have. On our side, there has been increasing issues with regards to 1) Being able to get treatment in a timely matter (long wait periods for major surgery) 2) Hospital emergency rooms constantly at overcapacity 3) Impossible for people to get a family doctor unless you had one for a very long time 4) People opting to pay for semi-private since they can't get a family doctor or important tests a doctor might deem unnecessary. This after I'd estimate at least 40% of tax revenues (federal/provincial) are set aside for healthcare. To help reduce abuse of the system, the province tried to implement a $25 fee for every hospital visit which led to protests and a lot of pressure. They eventually scrapped the idea and just added a mandatory $200 medical fee on tax returns. Have you had the same issues? Wow that's oppressive. Carefull, next is voter ID. I've seen it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) I think, if pressed, most people would correctly answer that it was paid for by taxation. I think the confusion is that people often refer to their treatment as being free. Technically that is correct inasmuch as you pay for the system and not the actual treatment you receive. Someone who is ill all their life and whose treatment costs a small fortune would pay no more than someone who is healthy all their life and whose treatments cost far less (assuming they were in the same tax bracket). As I understand the US system, insurance rarely covers the entire cost of treatment so you do have to pay something for the treatment you receive. Is that not the case? yes,that is the case. and even people with "good" private insurance opt out of expensive treatment and tests because their out of pocket costs are out of their reach. there's even a travel-medicine micro industry cropping up as many americans can pay cash in places like india or mexico and get elective surgeries cheaper than their out of pocket costs here. it's common to farm out after hours xray reading to indian docs at a fraction of the cost while very wealthy american radiologists sleep. folks go into bankruptcy for their chance at survival (actually ,many people do). so it's economic rationing but if you're well off, you do great. sorry to break up the circle jerk guys. Edited August 2, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 some info if any of you are looking to save 20 grand or so on your heart valve replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 http://www.travelagentcentral.com/trends-research/medical-tourism-wave-future-22797 "The impact of newly passed [Obamacare] will be substantial," he contined. "Medical tourism (as an industry) actually started in countries that have socialized medicine in place. It's been common in Europe, Canada, and Australia. People have to go outside of the country in order to obtain many procedures that are needed. The U.S. is number 37 on the list of the World Healthcare Organization (WHO)." Another feather in the cap of socialized medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) http://www.travelagentcentral.com/trends-research/medical-tourism-wave-future-22797 Another feather in the cap of socialized medicine. ra, ra, ra ! we're number 37. just behind costa rica and dominica! yeah!!! Edited August 3, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 economic rationing Stop it with this claptrap. Again, there is no such thing as economic rationing. That's just marx-speak for supply and demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts