Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
Participant[quote=AN]I rather get a large bill than die or get my legs chopped off.
4-6 hours wait if there is trauma patient. They take precedent. I went to urgent care in Torrey Pine a few months ago and no one was there. I was the only patient, so I went in immediately. Although, it was ~11PM.
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you. If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Which, of course, is paid for by higher premiums on insured folks, and the remainder picked up by the US Government.
However, comparing “Obamacare” to Canada’s healthcare system is a bad comparison. Canada’s healthcare system is entirely government run.
A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
Theres a few reasons for this:
1) We currently do subsidize the poor, young, and ill who cannot get insurance on their own – but we do it in the worst possible way, treating emergencies as they arise in the most expensive setting (the ER), as opposed to providing preventative care which is far less expensive, in a significantly less expensive setting (the Dr’s office).
2) Private insurance agencies are, of course, profit motivated. Ergo, they have motivation to cut corners in your healthcare. I worked at a private insurance agency once before – there is an entire division of folks who do nothing but scrutinize their most expensive claims to find ANY reason at all to deny coverage (and that’s not even mentioning that for something really expensive, the “stop loss” clause will get triggered and you’ll find that the insurance company just stopped paying the bills.
The advantage of a private/public insurance system should be obvious – the government run insurance system provides coverage to those not able to afford the private insurance, and also provides the private system with competition, both for quality and cost of service. And costs in general should fall due to those folks who previously weren’t insured no longer seeking emergency care in as large numbers, and being able to instead have far less expensive preventative care to stop them from becoming ill in the first place.
Participant[quote=AN]I rather get a large bill than die or get my legs chopped off.
4-6 hours wait if there is trauma patient. They take precedent. I went to urgent care in Torrey Pine a few months ago and no one was there. I was the only patient, so I went in immediately. Although, it was ~11PM.
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you. If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Which, of course, is paid for by higher premiums on insured folks, and the remainder picked up by the US Government.
However, comparing “Obamacare” to Canada’s healthcare system is a bad comparison. Canada’s healthcare system is entirely government run.
A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
Theres a few reasons for this:
1) We currently do subsidize the poor, young, and ill who cannot get insurance on their own – but we do it in the worst possible way, treating emergencies as they arise in the most expensive setting (the ER), as opposed to providing preventative care which is far less expensive, in a significantly less expensive setting (the Dr’s office).
2) Private insurance agencies are, of course, profit motivated. Ergo, they have motivation to cut corners in your healthcare. I worked at a private insurance agency once before – there is an entire division of folks who do nothing but scrutinize their most expensive claims to find ANY reason at all to deny coverage (and that’s not even mentioning that for something really expensive, the “stop loss” clause will get triggered and you’ll find that the insurance company just stopped paying the bills.
The advantage of a private/public insurance system should be obvious – the government run insurance system provides coverage to those not able to afford the private insurance, and also provides the private system with competition, both for quality and cost of service. And costs in general should fall due to those folks who previously weren’t insured no longer seeking emergency care in as large numbers, and being able to instead have far less expensive preventative care to stop them from becoming ill in the first place.
Participant[quote=AN]I rather get a large bill than die or get my legs chopped off.
4-6 hours wait if there is trauma patient. They take precedent. I went to urgent care in Torrey Pine a few months ago and no one was there. I was the only patient, so I went in immediately. Although, it was ~11PM.
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you. If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Which, of course, is paid for by higher premiums on insured folks, and the remainder picked up by the US Government.
However, comparing “Obamacare” to Canada’s healthcare system is a bad comparison. Canada’s healthcare system is entirely government run.
A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
Theres a few reasons for this:
1) We currently do subsidize the poor, young, and ill who cannot get insurance on their own – but we do it in the worst possible way, treating emergencies as they arise in the most expensive setting (the ER), as opposed to providing preventative care which is far less expensive, in a significantly less expensive setting (the Dr’s office).
2) Private insurance agencies are, of course, profit motivated. Ergo, they have motivation to cut corners in your healthcare. I worked at a private insurance agency once before – there is an entire division of folks who do nothing but scrutinize their most expensive claims to find ANY reason at all to deny coverage (and that’s not even mentioning that for something really expensive, the “stop loss” clause will get triggered and you’ll find that the insurance company just stopped paying the bills.
The advantage of a private/public insurance system should be obvious – the government run insurance system provides coverage to those not able to afford the private insurance, and also provides the private system with competition, both for quality and cost of service. And costs in general should fall due to those folks who previously weren’t insured no longer seeking emergency care in as large numbers, and being able to instead have far less expensive preventative care to stop them from becoming ill in the first place.
Participant[quote=AN]I rather get a large bill than die or get my legs chopped off.
4-6 hours wait if there is trauma patient. They take precedent. I went to urgent care in Torrey Pine a few months ago and no one was there. I was the only patient, so I went in immediately. Although, it was ~11PM.
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you. If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Which, of course, is paid for by higher premiums on insured folks, and the remainder picked up by the US Government.
However, comparing “Obamacare” to Canada’s healthcare system is a bad comparison. Canada’s healthcare system is entirely government run.
A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
Theres a few reasons for this:
1) We currently do subsidize the poor, young, and ill who cannot get insurance on their own – but we do it in the worst possible way, treating emergencies as they arise in the most expensive setting (the ER), as opposed to providing preventative care which is far less expensive, in a significantly less expensive setting (the Dr’s office).
2) Private insurance agencies are, of course, profit motivated. Ergo, they have motivation to cut corners in your healthcare. I worked at a private insurance agency once before – there is an entire division of folks who do nothing but scrutinize their most expensive claims to find ANY reason at all to deny coverage (and that’s not even mentioning that for something really expensive, the “stop loss” clause will get triggered and you’ll find that the insurance company just stopped paying the bills.
The advantage of a private/public insurance system should be obvious – the government run insurance system provides coverage to those not able to afford the private insurance, and also provides the private system with competition, both for quality and cost of service. And costs in general should fall due to those folks who previously weren’t insured no longer seeking emergency care in as large numbers, and being able to instead have far less expensive preventative care to stop them from becoming ill in the first place.
Participant[quote=AN]I rather get a large bill than die or get my legs chopped off.
4-6 hours wait if there is trauma patient. They take precedent. I went to urgent care in Torrey Pine a few months ago and no one was there. I was the only patient, so I went in immediately. Although, it was ~11PM.
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you. If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Which, of course, is paid for by higher premiums on insured folks, and the remainder picked up by the US Government.
However, comparing “Obamacare” to Canada’s healthcare system is a bad comparison. Canada’s healthcare system is entirely government run.
A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
Theres a few reasons for this:
1) We currently do subsidize the poor, young, and ill who cannot get insurance on their own – but we do it in the worst possible way, treating emergencies as they arise in the most expensive setting (the ER), as opposed to providing preventative care which is far less expensive, in a significantly less expensive setting (the Dr’s office).
2) Private insurance agencies are, of course, profit motivated. Ergo, they have motivation to cut corners in your healthcare. I worked at a private insurance agency once before – there is an entire division of folks who do nothing but scrutinize their most expensive claims to find ANY reason at all to deny coverage (and that’s not even mentioning that for something really expensive, the “stop loss” clause will get triggered and you’ll find that the insurance company just stopped paying the bills.
The advantage of a private/public insurance system should be obvious – the government run insurance system provides coverage to those not able to afford the private insurance, and also provides the private system with competition, both for quality and cost of service. And costs in general should fall due to those folks who previously weren’t insured no longer seeking emergency care in as large numbers, and being able to instead have far less expensive preventative care to stop them from becoming ill in the first place.
July 15, 2009 at 1:34 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #430754Participant[quote=Veritas]I hope you are right about small business. As they go, so goes the economy and jobs.[/quote]
I don’t know any small business owners who make > 1 million. The average small business owner makes about 230K/yr (source: WSJ), and this includes all businesses with 500 or fewer employees. And, of course, the additional tax is only at the margin – their taxable earnings on the amount of their salary under a million is exactly the same.
Finally, of course, is that the past 8 years have seen the lowest tax rates on the wealthy (by a significant margin) on both capital gains and salary since WW II. It doesn’t appear like the nation suffered unduly before when the rich were being soaked to the tune of far higher marginal rates on both cap gains and salary.
Neither, for that matter, did the rich, though a few decades ago, the CEO’s had to make do with only earning annually 10-20x the average salary of their employees – instead of the 100x multiplier that seems common today. Amazingly enough, it appears that not making insane amounts of dough failed to make them decide to either quit or stop growing their companies. Turns out making LOTS of dough is still worth their while.
July 15, 2009 at 1:34 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #430967Participant[quote=Veritas]I hope you are right about small business. As they go, so goes the economy and jobs.[/quote]
I don’t know any small business owners who make > 1 million. The average small business owner makes about 230K/yr (source: WSJ), and this includes all businesses with 500 or fewer employees. And, of course, the additional tax is only at the margin – their taxable earnings on the amount of their salary under a million is exactly the same.
Finally, of course, is that the past 8 years have seen the lowest tax rates on the wealthy (by a significant margin) on both capital gains and salary since WW II. It doesn’t appear like the nation suffered unduly before when the rich were being soaked to the tune of far higher marginal rates on both cap gains and salary.
Neither, for that matter, did the rich, though a few decades ago, the CEO’s had to make do with only earning annually 10-20x the average salary of their employees – instead of the 100x multiplier that seems common today. Amazingly enough, it appears that not making insane amounts of dough failed to make them decide to either quit or stop growing their companies. Turns out making LOTS of dough is still worth their while.
July 15, 2009 at 1:34 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #431262Participant[quote=Veritas]I hope you are right about small business. As they go, so goes the economy and jobs.[/quote]
I don’t know any small business owners who make > 1 million. The average small business owner makes about 230K/yr (source: WSJ), and this includes all businesses with 500 or fewer employees. And, of course, the additional tax is only at the margin – their taxable earnings on the amount of their salary under a million is exactly the same.
Finally, of course, is that the past 8 years have seen the lowest tax rates on the wealthy (by a significant margin) on both capital gains and salary since WW II. It doesn’t appear like the nation suffered unduly before when the rich were being soaked to the tune of far higher marginal rates on both cap gains and salary.
Neither, for that matter, did the rich, though a few decades ago, the CEO’s had to make do with only earning annually 10-20x the average salary of their employees – instead of the 100x multiplier that seems common today. Amazingly enough, it appears that not making insane amounts of dough failed to make them decide to either quit or stop growing their companies. Turns out making LOTS of dough is still worth their while.
July 15, 2009 at 1:34 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #431334Participant[quote=Veritas]I hope you are right about small business. As they go, so goes the economy and jobs.[/quote]
I don’t know any small business owners who make > 1 million. The average small business owner makes about 230K/yr (source: WSJ), and this includes all businesses with 500 or fewer employees. And, of course, the additional tax is only at the margin – their taxable earnings on the amount of their salary under a million is exactly the same.
Finally, of course, is that the past 8 years have seen the lowest tax rates on the wealthy (by a significant margin) on both capital gains and salary since WW II. It doesn’t appear like the nation suffered unduly before when the rich were being soaked to the tune of far higher marginal rates on both cap gains and salary.
Neither, for that matter, did the rich, though a few decades ago, the CEO’s had to make do with only earning annually 10-20x the average salary of their employees – instead of the 100x multiplier that seems common today. Amazingly enough, it appears that not making insane amounts of dough failed to make them decide to either quit or stop growing their companies. Turns out making LOTS of dough is still worth their while.
July 15, 2009 at 1:34 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #431491Participant[quote=Veritas]I hope you are right about small business. As they go, so goes the economy and jobs.[/quote]
I don’t know any small business owners who make > 1 million. The average small business owner makes about 230K/yr (source: WSJ), and this includes all businesses with 500 or fewer employees. And, of course, the additional tax is only at the margin – their taxable earnings on the amount of their salary under a million is exactly the same.
Finally, of course, is that the past 8 years have seen the lowest tax rates on the wealthy (by a significant margin) on both capital gains and salary since WW II. It doesn’t appear like the nation suffered unduly before when the rich were being soaked to the tune of far higher marginal rates on both cap gains and salary.
Neither, for that matter, did the rich, though a few decades ago, the CEO’s had to make do with only earning annually 10-20x the average salary of their employees – instead of the 100x multiplier that seems common today. Amazingly enough, it appears that not making insane amounts of dough failed to make them decide to either quit or stop growing their companies. Turns out making LOTS of dough is still worth their while.
July 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #430758Participantdoublepost
July 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #430972Participantdoublepost
July 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #431267Participantdoublepost
July 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM in reply to: OT- ‘Since when does our great free-market country punish success’… #431339Participantdoublepost
-
AuthorPosts
