<p>Yes, I did understand that we pay Social Security and Medicare taxes based on our income. It was news - and depressing news - to me that the eventual benefits we received from Medicare are reduced as our income goes up. Waiting for the same to happen with Social Security. Depressing. I don’t mine paying taxes, believe in government services, safety net, etc but at some point you do feel as if you pay the most and receive the least.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059832563-post91.html]#91[/url]”>quote</a> Most people are in prison because they are poor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is an example of the critical-deficient thinking that univeral health [s]care proponents use. The fact is, most people are in prison because they were accused of breaking the law, went through the criminal justice system and were found guilty.</p>
<p>Many are headstrong in pushing government mandated health care in spite of the shortcomings countries (and state…see below) are experiencing. The best social policies are made with heart and mind. </p>
<p>The heart tells us that our fellow Americans should have access to health care. The mind asks what is the best way to make that come about. Do we decree another entitlement and suffer the [economic</a> externalities](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality]economic”>Externality - Wikipedia) from such a policy or do we create a society where individuals are empowered to purchase the services they need; directly (yes…doctors and hospitals still accept cash, checks and credit cards) or through insurance.</p>
<p>We are lead down the road to unintended consequences by the pied pipers of all heart and ‘never-mind’. </p>
<p>Consider the following:</p>
<p>[Boston</a> Globe:Success could put health plan in the red: Mass. program may come up $147m short](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2007/11/18/success_could_put_health_plan_in_the_red]Boston”>http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2007/11/18/success_could_put_health_plan_in_the_red)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this:</p>
<p>[Boston</a> Globe: Firms find ways around state health law](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2007/12/23/firms_find_ways_around_state_health_law/?page=full]Boston”>http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2007/12/23/firms_find_ways_around_state_health_law/?page=full)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the difference between repairing your heart and repairing a car. If you don’t repair your heart, YOU DIE. You don’t die from not being able to use your car…you might actually benefit from the exercise.</p>
<p>That’s the reason healthcare is an entitlement…or a RIGHT. Lack of healthcare deprives you of your life, liberty and property without the due process of law.</p>
<p>The solution is to have a universal healthcare system with private companies as an option. Oh, and make it a LAW for the government to deny coverage to ANYONE, IN ANY WAY, FOR ANY REASON. Someone goes to the hospital for a legitimate health reason, goes to the gov’t office to turn in the bill, government writes person a check on the spot. No approval process. Doctors, NOT buraucrats, decide what treatments they get. Government just writes checks unquestioningly.</p>
<p>The proposal about tying medicare benefit to income is about medicare part D, the prescription drug benefit.</p>
<p>“FF, it is flat after retirement now. But if you earn too much money from other sources, your social security is taxed. It is just another way to tax our social security after we retire. Yes, I love it!”</p>
<p>Time to get some facts straight:</p>
<p>Soc Security has been taxed at a progressive rate for years. There is nothing new with that.</p>
<p>Medicare Part B payments were changed in 2003 (and became effective in 2007 with additional increments built in in subsequent years.)
[Medicare</a> Part B Premiums: New Rules For Beneficiaries With Higher Incomes 2006](<a href=“http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10161.html]Medicare”>http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10161.html)
For people with incomes in retirement of under $164K, there is no change - everyone pays the same flat rate which is currently $96.40 per month. Above that income level, the amount that you must pay increases per the 2003 law.</p>
<p>I’m assuming that most Democrats would be happy with this because it “taxes the rich”. The alternative would be to raise the rate for everyone (or let Medicare go bust that much sooner.)</p>
<p>
This is not the case now and I have seen nothing to indicate that this is proposed.</p>
<p>Bush is proposing linking the medicare drug premium to beneficiaries’ income.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/washington/16health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/washington/16health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>The strange thing is that the Democrats are against it while the republicans are trying to force the congress to discuss it.</p>
<p>I am especially worried that there will be means testing for receiving social security benefits down the road.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059837042-post111.html]#111[/url]”>quote</a> This is the difference between repairing your heart and repairing a car. If you don’t repair your heart, YOU DIE. You don’t die from not being able to use your car…you might actually benefit from the exercise.</p>
<p>That’s the reason healthcare is an entitlement…or a RIGHT. Lack of healthcare deprives you of your life, liberty and property without the due process of law.</p>
<p>The solution is to have a universal healthcare system with private companies as an option. Oh, and make it a LAW for the government to deny coverage to ANYONE, IN ANY WAY, FOR ANY REASON. Someone goes to the hospital for a legitimate health reason, goes to the gov’t office to turn in the bill, government writes person a check on the spot. No approval process. Doctors, NOT buraucrats, decide what treatments they get. Government just writes checks unquestioningly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By your argument, food should be an “entitlement”/“RIGHT” because without it “YOU DIE”. </p>
<p>Assuming the post is a recommendation of public policy rather than being satirical ala [Swift’s</a> Modest Proposal](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal]Swift’s”>A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia), the following should be considered:</p>
<p>History - the subject we are encouraged to study, lest we repeat its lessons - is replete with human LAWs that ignored basic economic principles; sometimes with disastrous consequences. </p>
<p>Chairman Mao, during the [The</a> Great Leap Forward](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward]The”>Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia), mandated production laws that euphemistically ‘fell short’ of their intent.</p>
<p>From [The</a> Great Leap Backward: The story behind Mao’s policies of the late 1950’s, which led to the starvation of tens of millions](<a href=“The Great Leap Backward”>The Great Leap Backward):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “ANYONE, IN ANY WAY, FOR ANY REASON” advocacy is reminiscent of the same utopian/myopic zeal Mao had during his ‘leap’ (pun intended) of faith and euphemistically naive. Let’s look at each one individually:</p>
<p>ANYONE:</p>
<p>Are we going to continue servicing illegal immigrants at a [cost</a> to legal citizens](<a href=“http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070130/news_1n30undoc.html]cost”>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070130/news_1n30undoc.html)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IN ANY WAY:</p>
<p>Should someone be allowed to insist that government insurance pay for a name-brand drug when a [generic</a> drug will suffice](<a href=“http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/nightgenlett.htm]generic”>http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/nightgenlett.htm)?</p>
<p>FOR ANY REASON:</p>
<p>Are [individuals</a> who participate in risky behavior](<a href=“This is London Magazine”>This is London Magazine) and put a burden on the system treated the same as those that don’t?</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059839348-post117.html]#117[/url]”>quote</a> Most retired people not only can’t live on social security, but to have to pay the current insurance costs, makes it even more impossible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From AARP’s [General</a> Information on Social Security](<a href=“http://www.aarp.org/research/socialsecurity/general/aresearch-import-352-FS39R.html]General”>AARP Research: Insights Impacting Americans 50+):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s just round (almost double) that 10.2 percent up to 20% (just to be generous)…that leaves 100% - 20% = 80% above the poverty rate. The myth that our seniors are poor and destitute is just that…a myth. </p>
<p>More evidence from ‘[Retirement</a> Wealth and Its Adequacy: Assessing the Impact of Changes in the Age of Eligibility for Full Social Security Benefits](<a href=“http://www.bc.edu/centers/crr/papers/wp_2001-07.pdf]Retirement”>http://www.bc.edu/centers/crr/papers/wp_2001-07.pdf)’:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re convinced by anecdotes more than facts, go on a [cruise[/url</a>] and observe how many retirees are enjoying their golden years. Heck, cruises may soon be [url=<a href=“http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/nu-cs-102104.php]retirement”>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/nu-cs-102104.php]retirement</a> homes](<a href=“Error 404 page not found - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)”>Error 404 page not found - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)).</p>
<p>Ah, Tommybill. Now I get it. I thought you two had something in common. ;)</p>
<p>This whole “debate” is ridiculous. We consume THE LARGEST portion of our GDP with healthcare costs, and we’re ranked #38 by the WHO, behind gutter economies like Cuba. And its all thanks to the healthcare lobby and big pharma.</p>
<p>If I had a chance to pardon every convicted member of the mafia, and replace them on death row with the CEOs of big pharma and the higherups at aetna/BCBS who pay bonuses to employees based on how many claims they can deny, I’d do it without thinking twice. In fact, the abortion clinic bombers might want to consider a side project this summer.</p>
<p>I consider myself fairly libertarian, but life and death is the one thing you don’t run as a business. And what we have right now is not the “free market” running things. John Galt and the productive members of society are taking it up the rear just as hard as everyone else, because what we have right now is corporate care.</p>
<p>And remember, our supposed savior on this issue receives more money from the healthcare industry than any other candidate in the race.</p>
<p>A follow-on to two previous posts’ ([1](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059836576-post102.html]1[/url],[url=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059840164-post108.html]2[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059836576-post102.html),2</a>) warnings of the unintended consequences when ‘heart’ is used as strategy for public policy absent of ‘mind’:</p>
<p>Daily Mail: [A&E</a> patients left in ambulances for up to FIVE hours ‘so trusts can meet government targets’](<a href=“A&E patients left in ambulances for up to FIVE hours 'so trusts can meet government targets' | Daily Mail Online”>A&E patients left in ambulances for up to FIVE hours 'so trusts can meet government targets' | Daily Mail Online):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>StitchInTime: What’s your point? All kinds of actions - not just government single-payer rules - have unintended consequences. Unintended consequences happen in America now, they happen everywhere else, and they will continue to under any system.</p>
<p>Can I just point out that though the occassional horror story does occur, most people get great healthcare in the UK for free. I’ve had some serious eye problems since I’ve been a student here and I have no complaints with the treatment I have received. I first went to casualty (ER) and they sent me to the eye clinic (about 10 mins later) where I had an examination that day, and another one the following day. I had tests over about 2 weeks, and now go back for treatment and check ups every 6 weeks or so. I hardly ever see the same doctor twice, and I’ve been examined by a lot of medical students for their training, but other than that it’s been fine, and completely free. In fact I once had to have an immunisation against rabies, which isn’t free because you can’t get rabies in the UK (I neded it because I was travelling to Eastern Europe) and I found they had no facilities to actually take money. It is a weird concept. Months and months later I the bill came in the mail. This is why the UK gets loads of “health tourists” who turn up, get treated and disappear. Yes, all illegal immigrants are treated, no questions asked. This is definitely one of the reasons health trusts have issues with money.</p>
<p>There is something of a cultural difference here as people in Europe pay their governments lots of moeny and therefore they expect them to work for them. Healthcare is the government’s responsibility. In the US you pay comparatively hardly any tax, so you don’t think health is the government’s business. But also will not hold them responsible if things go wrong. I do think it’s sad that some posters are raving about how amazing and wonderful it is that their insurance gives them free immunisations and mammograms and isn’t that great. If I went to my nice free doctor today and asked for any of these things I would get them free ASAP. No questions asked. They are not a privilege, but a right.</p>
<p>The UK NHS is one company with something like 1.5 million employees and 60 million customers. I am sure sometimes things go wrong, but most of the time it works. This gives some idea of how difficult it might be to set up something similar in the US with 6x the population. 9 million employees needed. </p>
<p>The other point is, don’t ever believe anything you read in the Daily Wail. The self-style “voice of middle England” is full of SKANDAL and intrigue every day. Much of which is completely made up, or at least extremely exaggerated. It’s the absolute worst of worst of the gutter press.</p>
<p>Contrast your eye treatment to mine. Went to ER with “floaters” and lack of clarity in one eye on a Saturday evening. Within an hour a surgical eye specialist (Hopkins MD with Harvard advanced training) came in and performed emergency surgery. Came back at least half a dozen times for additional treatments by the same doctor–no interns, etc. Same Dr did my 6mo and 12 mo checks and knows the indside of my eye like the back of his hand. Total billing–about $60 in copays for regular exams. I’m in a managed care program through my work that was our least costly option (free to me). I pay a little extra for dental and some other options.</p>
<p>If the Congress can outlaw incandescent light bulbs (this generation’s equivalent to the 55 mph Interstate speed limits), just think how they can screw up healthcare. They can Stalinize it(or turn it in a grand VA) as much as they want as long as there is a way to circumvent the government bureaucracy. Let’s hear it for a two-tier system.</p>
<p>Follow-on to [Boston</a> Globe article](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2007/11/18/success_could_put_health_plan_in_the_red]Boston”>http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2007/11/18/success_could_put_health_plan_in_the_red) referenced in [Externalities</a> and Unintended Consequences](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059836576-post102.html]Externalities”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059836576-post102.html).</p>
<p>[Boston</a> Globe: Subsidized care plan’s cost to double: Enrollment is outstripping state’s estimate](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/?page=full]Boston”>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/?page=full):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“most people get great healthcare in the UK for free.”</p>
<p>Please for the last time, … THERE IS NO FREE HEALTH CARE anywhere in this world! You are either going to pay premiums or you are going to pay taxes! </p>
<p>The word “FREE” doesn’t apply… it’s not free, it won’t be free EVER. Please, please, please understand that basic fact… you will still pay for your health care it will never be free. </p>
<p>So please base your single payor arguement on the fact that you would rather pay an increased income tax or flat tax for health care rather than the current set up. It’s not free…</p>
<p>I want to endorse Opie’s post 118. I have made the same point earlier. You either pay premiums or you pay high taxes. In the UK, you think that high taxes entitle you to health care and you get riled up when you don’t receive it (as in the Daily Mail story, only one of many such stories I have read about). In the US, you are far more aware of what your premiums entitle you too, and of the difference between different health plans.
The issue is not one of free vs. paying but what is the most cost effective and efficient way of delivering health care for as many people as possible and preserving the greatest amount of choice. Having lived in the UK and the US, I am not convinced that the UK system is the best. I need to have hard statistics.
As a MA resident, I am also very familiar with the situation described in post #117. I think MA can cope with the unintended consequences, but I don’t think many other states could (again, an argument I’ve made before).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that would be the border states as the liberal Calif Legislature just figured out when they dropped the universal coverage plan…</p>