1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

So anyone care to be factual about how social security started, and how it is now?

For instance the low tax rate then versus now? 

Sure. Here are the facts:

 

In 1935 when social security was introduced, so was the Revenue Act of 1935. It included a progressive tax legislation which took up to 75% of the highest incomes.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1935

 

You are, of course, familiar with the cause(s) of the Great Depression, right?

1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Democrats are the biggest warmongers known to humanity and are notorious tax & spend politicians. If you think that Dems are going to scale anything back on any front, you’re delusional. 

I was not referring to Democrat’s, I was referring to citizens.

 

If you truly believe that, “democrats are the biggest warmongers known to humanity”, I strongly suggest you pick up a history primer.

13 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

You know what’s worse than a liberal? A liberal that’s too ashamed to admit he’s a liberal. 

 

And apprently youre not smart enough to know that Obamacare took an already optional system of insurance providers and made it mandatory for the population and did precisely what you’re railing against in your last paragraph. 

 

Now that same party wants socialized medicine but can’t (or won’t) tell people how they plan to go about it (giant federal tax increase). 

 

Everyone wants healthcare, that’s not even debatable. Everyone also wants to have money to do stuff. 

I'm an economist and I'd privatise most things if I could. Medical care just isn't one of them.

 

As for the rest of it, you, like many Americans, are too narrowly focused on the ACA and what is happening now.

 

The system before it was crap, when nearly 20% of your population was uninsured or under insured. And it cost more than is should.

 

Obama care was supposed to be a way of helping to increase the insurance pool and lower premiums, but that didn't work out for everyone given how it it has been gutted and amended.

 

I'm guessing you are going rely on Medicare at some point, which is basically 'socialised' medicine if you are intent on calling it.

 

As for insurance, you know the whole reason it works is other people pay for you?

10 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...The health industry has opposed single-payer proposals, saying they would ultimately lead to less access to care. Critics include the American Hospital Association and America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the health insurance industry's biggest trade group. 

"This bill will hurt patients, consumers, and taxpayers: Americans will pay more, to wait longer, for worse care," AHIP said in a statement. "Let’s focus on real solutions that deliver real results, not a one-size-fits-all government system.,,"

 

The single-payer system, when the kinks are worked out, would deliver superior healthcare to ALL Americans, as it does in every other Industrialized, first-world country. In Canada, the health system delivers care to ALL citizens, gets better outcomes, and costs half of the US system (yes, that is correct. It costs HALF of what the US system costs AND gets better results!). The evidence is crystal clear if one has the good sense to stop listening to those who would lose financially with the change; no longer would the vultures at the insurance companies and the hospital companies be able to reap billions in profit off of sick Americans, and that is why they oppose it.

 

Hey USA! Why not join the civilized world and care for your citizens? Simply put, it is both cheaper all around and better for all.

 

 

If they don't like the Canadian system they could always go for the Australian system? It's utter nonsense to say that the US can't afford a single payer system!!

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Let's see...

 

US Civil War: started by Democrats

WW1: US entered under a Democrat

WW2: US entered under a Democrat

Korean War: US entered under a Democrat (finished by a Republican)

Vietnam War (as well as Laos and Cambodia): US entered under a Democrat (finished by a Republican)

You are aware that US history is a microscopic bit of world history, right? The poster I was replying to claimed “the worst in HUMANITY”... Do you still want to claim Democrats as the worst warmongers in the history of the planet?

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

I hear a lot of people lauding the Canadian system. In truth, it's not bad, but... there are many procedures that have long waiting lists and even seeing a specialist can take months. In that time, the patients' condition can deteriorate, they can be in pain, and so on. Hell, the government even publishes the waiting times on the internet!  For example, it takes from one to six months to even get an appointment to see an orthopaedic surgeon. Plus up to six more months to actually get the surgery performed. 

 

However, Canada IS fortunate in that there is an alternative available. Not in Canada, since it is basically illegal for doctors to open private practices. No, if you don't want to wait you can go to the States and have it done by the weekend. 

I had a top notch PPO insurance plan in the usa and had to wait weeks to see a GP.  In Canada there are 24 hour clinics you can see a doctor within hours or minutes.  Outside normal hours you must go to emergency in the usa.  I had mild food poisoning once and a visit to a rather dumpy hospital in a high income area cost my carrier thousands of dollars for a few hours of an iv.  This is a good system?

 

And don't even get me started on preventative care.  So many in the usa either don't have insurance, don't have the copay or simply don't want to see a doctor because their rates may soon go through the roof.  So a lump that is not dealt with early and inexpensively can easily become major surgery and cost and even death in the future.

 

The key to a good healthcare system is accessibility.  The Canadian system is far superior to the usa model as is Germany, England and all the others using it. Don't let the bought off politicians and mainstream media tell you differently. 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Not in Canada, since it is basically illegal for doctors to open private practices

According to an article published on the website of the US National Center for Biotechnology Information (link below) private medical practices in Canada are not illegal 'per se' rather it is the case that in:

Quote

all of the Canadian provinces (except Newfoundland) [...] physicians must opt in or out of the public plan and thus are effectively prevented from working in both the public and private sectors. 

Article on private health care in Canada

 

By contrast, as the article also mentions:

Quote

In the United Kingdom and New Zealand, physicians are usually employed in the public sector and top up their incomes by working in the private sector on a fee-for-service basis.

As far as I'm concerned this is a less restrictive/better arrangement.

2 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

According to an article published on the website of the US National Center for Biotechnology Information (link below) private medical practices in Canada are not illegal 'per se' rather it is the case that in:

Article on private health care in Canada

 

By contrast, as the article also mentions:

As far as I'm concerned this is a less restrictive/better arrangement.

Canadian physicians don't need topping up.  My friend a gp and not even a specialist worked both countries and he said he will take the canadian pay with no legal suits and collection problems.  Specialists in canada do very well too.  How much is enough?

25 minutes ago, samran said:

The system before it was crap, when nearly 20% of your population was uninsured or under insured. And it cost more than is should.

 

That’s a weird opinion because most people that had medical insurance at that time (like myself) were completely satisfied with the cost & coverage. It was only after Obamacare did these people get screwed (like myself and still am) so the only reason socialized healthcare seems like “a deal” to some is literally BECAUSE of Obamacare. 

 

Democcats have driven the the cost of healthcare so high that they are now trying to get even more control over people by trying to sell Medicare for all. 

 

All i want to know is how much it is going to cost me. Another 10% in federal tax? 20%? How much? What, exactly?

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

Some troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

That’s a weird opinion because most people that had medical insurance at that time (like myself) were completely satisfied with the cost & coverage. It was only after Obamacare did these people get screwed (like myself and still am) so the only reason socialized healthcare seems like “a deal” to some is literally BECAUSE of Obamacare. 

 

Democcats have driven the the cost of healthcare so high that they are now trying to get even more control over people by trying to sell Medicare for all. 

 

All i want to know is how much it is going to cost me. Another 10% in federal tax? 20%? How much? What, exactly?

You seem obsessed by Obama care which isn’t anything like what most people use.

 

Nice for you that ‘your’ set up was fine. Everyone else be damned I guess...

 

In Australia my ‘premium’ is 3% of my salary. 

Edited February 27, 20197 yr by samran

 
That’s a weird opinion because most people that had medical insurance at that time (like myself) were completely satisfied with the cost & coverage. It was only after Obamacare did these people get screwed (like myself and still am) so the only reason socialized healthcare seems like “a deal” to some is literally BECAUSE of Obamacare. 
 
Democcats have driven the the cost of healthcare so high that they are now trying to get even more control over people by trying to sell Medicare for all. 
 
All i want to know is how much it is going to cost me. Another 10% in federal tax? 20%? How much? What, exactly?

You need to be more specific. Were you among those purchasing coverage yourself but having a higher level income? Yes that group ended up paying much more. It's related to the point I made before that employer based coverage has been subsidized. Not saying you are wrong to be angry. Ideally we want a system more fair to all.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, tlandtday said:

Canadian physicians don't need topping up.  My friend a gp and not even a specialist worked both countries and he said he will take the canadian pay with no legal suits and collection problems.  Specialists in canada do very well too.  How much is enough?

The issue I was addressing wasn't how much physicians get paid, it was whether private medical practices were illegal in Canada. I was pointing out that they are not, but that doctors are more or less forced to choose between public and private practice there, whereas in other countries (such as the UK and NZ) they are not, which gives doctors a greater freedom of choice.

Edited February 27, 20197 yr by GroveHillWanderer

6 minutes ago, samran said:

Nice for you that ‘your’ set up was fine. Everyone else be damned I guess...

Why do I need to pay out the ass and others not? 

 

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You need to be more specific. Were you among those purchasing coverage yourself but having a higher level income? Yes that group ended up paying much more. It's related to the point I made before that employer based coverage has been subsidized. Not saying you are wrong to be angry. Ideally we want a system more fair to all.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

You think employer sponsored healthcare plans weren’t negatively hit? 

16 minutes ago, samran said:

In Australia my ‘premium’ is 3% of my salary.

 

And that is only a small part of the overall costs you pay. 

6 minutes ago, samran said:

Nice for you that ‘your’ set up was fine. Everyone else be damned I guess...

Why do I need to pay out the ass and others not? 

 

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You need to be more specific. Were you among those purchasing coverage yourself but having a higher level income? Yes that group ended up paying much more. It's related to the point I made before that employer based coverage has been subsidized. Not saying you are wrong to be angry. Ideally we want a system more fair to all.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

You think employer sponsored healthcare plans weren’t negatively hit? 

 
You think employer sponsored healthcare plans weren’t negatively hit? 

So I was right about your situation?

In any case people getting employer paid benefits without being taxed on it are indeed being subsidized. That was happening before and after ACA.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

6 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Irrespective, the cost of Medicare for All is estimated to be $32.6 Trillion.

That is a widely-quoted figure for the cost over 10 years, and much has been made of it since it came out. (Other estimates show the costs up to $8 trillion dollars lower).

 

What I find interesting is that even the report with the higher cost estimate shows that the overall amount the US would spend on 'Medicare for all' over those ten years would be some $2 trillion less than the amount spent on health care under the current system. Obviously, if the lower estimates were correct the amount saved for the country as a whole would be greater.

 

The difference of course is that while at the moment the costs are split between private individuals, employers, states and the government, under a 'Medicare for all' system the costs would all be met by the government. Obviously some of the costs would have to be met by raised taxes for at least some people but on the other hand, private citizens, states and businesses would all make savings.

 

The bottom line is that the country as a whole would be better off to the tune of trillions of dollars and around 30 million people who do not have health care now, would be covered.

 

The report on the link below from Business Insider gives the full details.

 

Medicare for All would actually save money

45 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

That is a widely-quoted figure for the cost over 10 years, and much has been made of it since it came out. (Other estimates show the costs up to $8 trillion dollars lower).

 

What I find interesting is that even the report with the higher cost estimate shows that the overall amount the US would spend on 'Medicare for all' over those ten years would be some $2 trillion less than the amount spent on health care under the current system. Obviously, if the lower estimates were correct the amount saved for the country as a whole would be greater.

 

The difference of course is that while at the moment the costs are split between private individuals, employers, states and the government, under a 'Medicare for all' system the costs would all be met by the government. Obviously some of the costs would have to be met by raised taxes for at least some people but on the other hand, private citizens, states and businesses would all make savings.

 

The bottom line is that the country as a whole would be better off to the tune of trillions of dollars and around 30 million people who do not have health care now, would be covered.

 

The report on the link below from Business Insider gives the full details.

 

Medicare for All would actually save money

I agree with you and your analysis. The problem is you are trying to argue facts and inform people - and those people you are addressing do not want facts they want anger. 

Historical background on why the U.S. developed into a majority employment based health insurance system and also why because of that transitioning to anything resembling universal health care as in most advanced nations might never happen at all. It's a crying shame. 

 

But it underlines that political slogans rallying for Medicare For All won't really become a reality until and unless the underlying reasons for the status quo (which Obamacare was but a tweak of) are fully and openly addressed. Plus of course democrats winning everything including the supreme court back. Back to earth, that is not going to happen anytime at all soon, or maybe never.

 

Not trying to be Debbie Downer. Just realistic. Do the democrats want to make promises they know are impossible to fulfill in the near future just to excite the voters? (Similar to 45 and his fantasy Mexican paid wall.) Or do they want to tell the voters straight what is actually possible in the near term IF they win? 

 

I don't have the answers. Do parties need to tell massive lies and make promises they know they can't keep to have any chance of winning? Maybe the answer is yes. 
 

Quote

 

The Real Reason the U.S. Has Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance

The basic structure of the American health care system, in which most people have private insurance through their jobs, might seem historically inevitable, consistent with the capitalistic, individualist ethos of the nation.

In truth, it was hardly preordained.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-the-us-has-employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html

Edited February 27, 20197 yr by Jingthing

3 hours ago, Thainesss said:

Why do I need to pay out the ass and others not? 

 

 

You realise that everyone pays with universal coverage?

 

Lowers the overall cost to the individual cause they are not paying premiums to an overly aged and relatively sick insurance cohort. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

And that is only a small part of the overall costs you pay. 

Australian total tax to GDP is approx 24%. Very little difference to that if the US and one of the lower taxed countries in the OECD. We can manage to walk AND chew gum at the same time. 

 

Seems that the US is incapable of doing do. 

 

My public health premium (via direct or indirect taxation) will be less that you’ll ever pay privately. And with better coverage. 

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Historical background on why the U.S. developed into a majority employment based health insurance system and also why because of that transitioning to anything resembling universal health care as in most advanced nations might never happen at all. It's a crying shame. 

 

But it underlines that political slogans rallying for Medicare For All won't really become a reality until and unless the underlying reasons for the status quo (which Obamacare was but a tweak of) are fully and openly addressed. Plus of course democrats winning everything including the supreme court back. Back to earth, that is not going to happen anytime at all soon, or maybe never.

 

Not trying to be Debbie Downer. Just realistic. Do the democrats want to make promises they know are impossible to fulfill in the near future just to excite the voters? (Similar to 45 and his fantasy Mexican paid wall.) Or do they want to tell the voters straight what is actually possible in the near term IF they win? 

 

I don't have the answers. Do parties need to tell massive lies and make promises they know they can't keep to have any chance of winning? Maybe the answer is yes. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-the-us-has-employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html

Indeed. The party of smaller government and freedom has no compunction in levying what amounts to a huge inefficient stealth tax on business via forcing them to carry the can on insuring their workers. 

4 minutes ago, samran said:

Indeed. The party of smaller government and freedom has no compunction in levying what amounts to a huge inefficient stealth tax on business via forcing them to carry the can on insuring their workers. 

I don't think you get it fully.

Yes the employers pay for group plans for which they get group discounts on private insurance.

The insurance is then not taxed to the recipient.

This privileged class of people is receiving a kind of welfare and they aren't going to willingly give it up. Yes, universal means everyone pays a progressive portion based on income. Such a change be represent a loss for the vast majority of Americans getting employer paid plans. 

Edited February 27, 20197 yr by Jingthing

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think you get it fully.

Yes the employers pay for group plans for which they get group discounts on private insurance.

The insurance is then not taxed to the recipient.

This privileged class of people is receiving a kind of welfare and they aren't going to willingly give it up. Yes, universal means everyone pays a progressive portion based on income. Such a change be represent a loss for the vast majority of Americans getting employer paid plans. 

It’s a great article. Thanks for sharing. 

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think you get it fully.

Yes the employers pay for group plans for which they get group discounts on private insurance.

The insurance is then not taxed to the recipient.

This privileged class of people is receiving a kind of welfare and they aren't going to willingly give it up. Yes, universal means everyone pays a progressive portion based on income. Such a change be represent a loss for the vast majority of Americans getting employer paid plans. 

 

I’ve been struggling here, trying to figure out what point you’re trying to make. 

 

Blue collar workers with employer healthcare plans (that we pay for) are a “privileged class of people” who are “receiving a kind of welfare”?? 

 

What? 

 

Because the “insurance is not taxed to the recipient”??? 

 

Huh? 

 

My healthcare contributions have always been made from income that is declared and taxed at the end of the year. This isn’t exempt from taxation. 

 

It clear as day to me that there are 2 things going on with you:

 

1: you honest to god have no idea what you’re talking about. 

 

2: you are deliberately obfuscating this issue. 

Elephant in the room for all of this is health care costs in the US.

No matter what insurance plans we come up with the healthcare industry will bankrupt it.

 

I tried to explain to my Senator, John Thune, Thailand is an unregulated market, yet my asthma medication, in Thailand cost me approx $8, yet I pay $56 here. 

I'm assuming they are not selling Ventolin at a loss in Thailand, yet somehow they can justify a 7x price differential

 

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

I’ve been struggling here, trying to figure out what point you’re trying to make. 

 

Blue collar workers with employer healthcare plans (that we pay for) are a “privileged class of people” who are “receiving a kind of welfare”?? 

 

What? 

 

Because the “insurance is not taxed to the recipient”??? 

 

Huh? 

 

My healthcare contributions have always been made from income that is declared and taxed at the end of the year. This isn’t exempt from taxation. 

 

It clear as day to me that there are 2 things going on with you:

 

1: you honest to god have no idea what you’re talking about. 

 

2: you are deliberately obfuscating this issue. 

It isn’t rocket science. 

 

The government gives tax breaks for insurance payments payments by employers. 

 

Money foregone by tax exemption due to allowing deductions is a still a cost to the government. 

 

It is an employee benefit yet a tax deduction is given for providing it. 

 

So yeah, it is welfare. Corporate welfare. Government is paying for your health insurance. They tax other employee benefits, why not this one? A benefit in lieu of income is still income.

 

Its also inefficient. Why direct your health policy through employers?

 

For workers, they are more likely to be tied to an employer for fear of losing this benefit. Does nothing for having a competitive job market does it. 

 

Now I’ve read enough and spoken to enough Americans on this. Many just can’t envisage health care being delivered any way other than the crap way it already has. 50 years of socialization and propaganda that one must worry about ‘socialized medicine’. I

59 minutes ago, samran said:

It isn’t rocket science. 

 

The government gives tax breaks for insurance payments payments by employers. 

 

Money foregone by tax exemption due to allowing deductions is a still a cost to the government. 

 

It is an employee benefit yet a tax deduction is given for providing it. 

 

So yeah, it is welfare.

 

First, no. Just stop. You’re so far out of your depth it’s laughable. 

 

Second, you must be an economist from the Ocasio-Cortez school of business if you think that money generated by a company, that they made in the first place, and that they put back into their own employees, is any kind of welfare. Welfare is getting something for nothing. Thinking that keeping more of your own money (that you generated in the first place) being “welfare” is so far detached from reality that everyone browsing this thread is now dumber for reading such nonsense. 

 

Third, you are aware that most insurance plans are mostly paid for by the employees and that only a small percentage is actually helped along by the employer. Most of the middle class (like myself) fall into this category. Employers do not pay all of people’s healthcare unless you’re a super CEO of a fortune 5 billion company. 

 

Lastly, “cost to the government”? On what planet is keeping your own money to put into youremployees a “cost” to the government. 

33 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

First, no. Just stop. You’re so far out of your depth it’s laughable. 

 

Second, you must be an economist from the Ocasio-Cortez school of business if you think that money generated by a company, that they made in the first place, and that they put back into their own employees, is any kind of welfare. Welfare is getting something for nothing. Thinking that keeping more of your own money (that you generated in the first place) being “welfare” is so far detached from reality that everyone browsing this thread is now dumber for reading such nonsense. 

 

Third, you are aware that most insurance plans are mostly paid for by the employees and that only a small percentage is actually helped along by the employer. Most of the middle class (like myself) fall into this category. Employers do not pay all of people’s healthcare unless you’re a super CEO of a fortune 5 billion company. 

 

Lastly, “cost to the government”? On what planet is keeping your own money to put into youremployees a “cost” to the government. 

Read the article. It was talking about tax deductions given to employers who provide insurance.  Numbers were given. 

 

A tax forgone by the government on one type of income (direct or indirect) over taxation of ‘normal’ cash in hand income is still a ‘cost’ to the budget.

 

Just because it a fringe benefit from the employer shouldn’t make it any less taxable. 

 

You dont have to like the definition. It is what it is. 

 

You have self justifing definitions of what is welfare and what isn’t. 

 

As for employee contributions... well done champ. Given the system you have, you are still paying 75% more than the rest of the world. 

Edited February 28, 20197 yr by samran

10 minutes ago, samran said:

A tax forgone by the government on one type of income (direct or indirect) over taxation of ‘normal’ cash in hand income is still a ‘cost’ to the budget.

 

It is not, and never will be a “cost” to the government of funds they didn’t even have in the first place. You can squirm and wiggle and use quotes around the word ‘cost’ but that literally isn’t what cost means. 

 

Its almost like you’re taking crazy pills that are making your brain break. 

 

17 minutes ago, samran said:

Just because it a fringe benefit from the employer shouldn’t make it any less taxable. 

 

Just so we’re clear here, the premise of your and jingthings entire argument is that employers should be paying more tax on benefits that they give to their employees, which in turn alleviate government spending (actual cost. Real, actual cost. Not your made up definition) on its population? And that it’s “welfare” for doing so? 

 

Yep. Crazy pills. You’re taking crazy pills.