OT. How much does it cost the average American (family) for health care insurance.
terry
US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
employer?
Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
Smitty Two
<78b60f47-69c4-4bb4...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
terry <tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote:
According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."
--x--x--x--x--
Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.
Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.
Tony Hwang
Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.
Kurt Ullman
Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
> of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
> business.
You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.
--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett
Ralph Mowery
"terry" <tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:78b60f47-69c4-4bb4...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
I live in North Carolina. The company I work for lets you retire before 62
if you have worked over 30 years for them. They used to pay part of the
insurance and it would cost a man and his wife around $ 300 or less per
year. They quit doing that and the average cost for the same coverage is
around $ 1000 per month or $ 12,000 per year. You can get some high
deductiable insurance that only starts paying out after you pay around $
3000 for medical bills or more for around $ 300 a month.
Doug Miller
>According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.
>
>http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
>
>"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
>to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."
>
>--x--x--x--x--
>
>Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
>have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
>funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
>dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.
>
>Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
>if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
>entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.
The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
wages.
It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.
Doug Miller
>Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything.
Absolute nonsense. Did you think health care was free, that the doctors and
nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
magically appear at no cost to anyone?
> No premium payment.
"No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.
You figure out how.
Tony Hwang
> In article <2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad>,
> Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
>> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
>> of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
>> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
>> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
>> business.
> You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.
>
Our tax rate is lowest in Canada and no sales tax here as well.
Why then your tax does not cover those who don't/can't have coverage?
When we go down there I notice more over weight folks and the portion of
meal they eat at restaurants!!!! Wife and me, one order is enough to
fill us up. Ultimately health is individual responsibility. We just came
back from week end alpine trek reaching up to ~7000 feet in the rockies.
Our ages are closer to 70 now. I retired in '96 from Honeywell. Wife
from hospital operating room in '92. One of my kid is MD. She takes care
of us here half year, then she goes away for volunteer service the other
half. October this year she is going to East Timor to work at TB clinic
there run by Aussie nuns and American doctor. About 5000 suffer from TB
over there due to climate.
Smitty Two
spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
Well, if we're segueing into "convenient fictions," here's another one:
Governments have to pay high salaries and provide luxury-class benefits
in order to attract qualified workers away from private industry. In
truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
for comparable skill sets. The city, county, and state here are all
going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.
ransley
When you are sick you cant get it, or you might pay 10,000 a year for
1 person and co pay alot of it. Insurance companies are in business
for profit , not to pay claims. 62% of the 1.5 million US bankruptcies
are medicaly related and any imigrant can walk into Cook County
hospital knowing its free for them.
nor...@earthlink.net
Do they have "death lists" for granny and gramps? :o) What the poor,
ignorant Americans don't realize is that granny and gramps, when they go
to the nursing home, get great care - well, sort of - until Medicare or
their own money runs out. Then they go to the "hopeless" list,
entertained with Bingo games, unidentifiable food, and not much prospect
of rehabilitation. Rehab meaning to increase their function to the max.
possible for their medical condition - like walking to the dining room,
not back to running marathons. The PR is fantastic - granny gets hosed
down at least twice a week in a multi-stall shower room, gets her face
washed and lipstick slathered on daily, and kept in diapers if she isn't
up to running to the toilet without assistance. This is quite fine with
those Americans who favor corporate profit and began voting like
corporate board members when they bought their first share of stock.
Granny is out of the f------ way and her estate might turn a few bucks
when she is gone.
Most dumb bastards don't know that if GOOD CARE was rendered, granny
might be able to walk around living quarters, use a toilet, not suffer
from untreated conditions that might require "risky" treatment or
surgery. Load her with pills every time a new side effect comes along,
give her some magical antidepressants and cholesterol drugs so she will
think she is "happy" and actually receiving treatment that is best for
her. There are hours and hours and hours of paperwork done by nurses,
physicians, pharmacists, dieticians, activity directors, physical
therapists, all making treatment plans that are garbage, and then
writing volumes about how the "plan" ain't working.
When I last worked in a nursing home, I remember a plate of food being
served - cold - that had three unidentifiable items on it. It looked
like samples of stool for some poor human with a rare disease of the GI
system. Family Values? Christian Coalition? Compassionate
Conservatives? What insufferable, hypocritical b.s.
nor...@earthlink.net
> In article <2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad>,
> Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
>> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
>> of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
>> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
>> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
>> business.
> You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.
>
tax dollars. Wonder what would happen to small business if Workers Comp
suddenly disappeared, and just plain one-for-all universal coverage
replaced it? Is it possible highly profitable businesses, small or
large, would pay more than those less profitable? No more ambulance
chasers or insurance adjustors....ohmygosh, watch out for the horrible
"bureaucrats" from the gov.; they might shoot you rather than video-tape
you, with your bad back, up on the roof throwing bundles of shingles
around :o)
nor...@earthlink.net
employee benefits, folks screamed bloody murder when the ded. went from
$75 to $100 for FREE, EMPLOYER-PROVIDED INSURANCE COVERAGE. Probably
the same morons who thought Reagan's plan for using temp. workers was
going to work miracles for the economy.
Shy Picker
I'm self employed and my health insurance just for me $500 a month now
and goes up every year. That's with no drug or dental coverage, $1k
deductible per year and I pay 20% of everything else until I pay
another $1k out of pocket a year.
I hope Obama does something but I am skeptical about the huge bill(s)
that are going through congress. I would rather they just do something
about the run-away costs for insurance, drugs and health care. The way
my insurance costs are rising, there is no way I will be able to
afford to pay those costs for 9 more years when I reach 65.
David
Doug Miller
Well, they have to do *something*.
>In
>truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
>for comparable skill sets.
Maybe in your state; not in mine, and, I suspect, not in most.
And that's not even remotely close to true in the Federal civil service,
*especially* in management positions. The salary of a cabinet secretary is
something like $160K -- try finding a CEO who will work for that.
For scientists and engineers, Federal salaries are significantly lower than
corresponding private-sector salaries. The principal attractions of Federal
employment are stability, benefits, and the fact that the Federal civil
service in general, and Defense in particular, hand much more responsibility
to capable people at a much younger age than they'd ever see in the private
sector -- it's good for your career.
>The city, county, and state here are all
>going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.
That's because you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. Don't make the
mistake of supposing that the rest of the nation has the same insane public
policies. Most state legislatures are wiser than yours.
AZ Nomad
>Maybe in your state; not in mine, and, I suspect, not in most.
>And that's not even remotely close to true in the Federal civil service,
>*especially* in management positions. The salary of a cabinet secretary is
>something like $160K -- try finding a CEO who will work for that.
That's assuming they don't steer federal work to their companies.
BushCo's croniies got stinking rich doing exactly that.
nor...@earthlink.net
>
> That's because you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. Don't make the
> mistake of supposing that the rest of the nation has the same insane public
> policies. Most state legislatures are wiser than yours.
Horida has borrowed 600k to continue paying unemployment. From the
federal government.
Steve Stone
A friend of mine is a building contractor.
His monthly Blue Cross family plan for his wife, himself, and 3 children
is $1,250 per month.
For me, working for a large business the PPO plan for a family of 3 is
$150 per month, but I have to spend close to $10k
in annual family medical bills before it starts covering anything. Until
I hit the magic number the cost of treatment is reduced if I use in
network doctors. FWIW the dental plan has a $2k annual cap. You can run
thru that in one sitting.
EXT
Well Alberta is a Province that is rich with oil and gas revenues. That is
why they have no health care surcharges nor sales tax.
In Ontario, it is a different story. In addition to part of our Federal and
Provincial Income Taxes covering health care, every employer has to pay a
head tax, sometimes called a payroll tax to cover health care plus every
wage earner has to pay a surcharge on their Provinical income tax to the
amount of about $550.00 per year. The only people who get free health care
are the unemployed, retired, welfare cases and ill people who do not earn
any wages. Doing it this way evens the cost over everyone. This is only for
basic health and hospital care. Drugs, dental and other costs are paid by
suplimental insurance or out of our pockets.
Steve Stone
> something like $160K -- try finding a CEO who will work for that.
They might work for a $160K salary, but the CEO compensation package
will include all sorts of perks that go way beyond that paltry amount.
Doug Miller
Fine. Prove that in court, and throw their butts in jail.
Kurt Ullman
Steve Stone <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
>
> A friend of mine is a building contractor.
> His monthly Blue Cross family plan for his wife, himself, and 3 children
> is $1,250 per month.
>
> For me, working for a large business the PPO plan for a family of 3 is
> $150 per month, but I have to spend close to $10k
Is that total premium or just what you pay? The OP was discussing
total premium, you and employer parts.
Kurt Ullman
"EXT" <noe...@reply.in.this.group> wrote:
> Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Well Alberta is a Province that is rich with oil and gas revenues. That is
> why they have no health care surcharges nor sales tax.
They also tend to pay the lowest per capita for health outlay of all
of the prov.
Kurt Ullman
spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In a
> >
> >That's assuming they don't steer federal work to their companies.
> >BushCo's croniies got stinking rich doing exactly that.
>
> Fine. Prove that in court, and throw their butts in jail.
Time honored tradition. I can, with little problem, trace cronies
steering federal work to cronies from Eisenhower forward. Heck that is
the basic concept behind the earmarks. See what happens when you get
things done in a bipartisan manner?
DGDevin
One of Clinton's cabinet members got caught doing the same thing, if memory
serves he arranged for AT&T (which had won a huge contract to upgrade the
Saudi Arabian phone system) to send work to a company he owned. Several of
Clinton's cabinet members had either worked for the industries they were
then put in charge of (like an energy sec. who had worked for a utility
company) or had lobbied for those industries. There were also notable
changes in policy during the Clinton administration which coincidentally
came at the same time as large contributions from certain corporations to
the campaign funds of the Democratic Party and prominent Democrats.
Corruption and politicians are often found together, and it really doesn't
matter which party is in power, they all get their snouts into the trough
soon enough.
HeyBub
It would be awfully stupid to steer business to one's adversaries. Jeeze!
HeyBub
If it works for you, keep doing it.
In the United States, we don't want to die early from heart failure or
cancer and we don't want to wait eleven months for an abortion.
Ralph Mowery
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-311D8...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> In article <h790cv$8n8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Steve Stone <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
> total premium, you and employer parts.
>
> --
What some do not know is that the very large companies do not really pay any
insurance. They pay the insurance companies to handle the billing, but they
are the ones actually paying the claims.
That means you are really giving the company some money back. It would be
just as easy for the company to pay for all the medical insurance and cut
the wages.
It just does not make the dumb employee feel like the company is treating
him badly.
charlie
"Ralph Mowery" <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JeGdnQxBqJu4gAXX...@earthlink.com...
a lot of smaller companies self-insure too. it's much more cost efficient to
do so. of course, those companies that they pay management fees to have a
strong incentive to hold down costs by limiting certain things (new fangled
drugs not on a approved list, new types of operations, etc).
Steve Stone
>> For me, working for a large business the PPO plan for a family of 3 is
>> $150 per month, but I have to spend close to $10k
>
> Is that total premium or just what you pay? The OP was discussing
> total premium, you and employer parts.
>
Employer pays equivalent of $7k, plus my $1.8k annual.
Employer has 120,000 employees in USA.
Employer is "self insured", meaning they pay to have multiple insurance
companies manage claims,
but claim payments come out of the employer pocket, not the insurance
company pocket.
Phisherman
<tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
>US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
>NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>
>We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
>Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
>employer?
>Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
>And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
>
>Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
>$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
>
>But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
I have not seen a doctor in a few years except for free prostate
cancer screenings, don't take any prescriptions, and no health/dental
insurance. My cost is currently zero, but my concern is what the
government's health care will charge me.
Smitty Two
spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> Maybe in your state; not in mine, and, I suspect, not in most.
So your county doesn't hire "Lego engineers" at $40k to teach kids the
principles of engineering by building with Legos? (No I am not making
this up)
Smitty Two
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In the United States, we don't want to die early from heart failure or
> cancer
Really? Then why do we live on McDonalds and Cheetohs? A woman I know,
lifelong smoker, got lung cancer three years ago. Vowed to fight it and
win. Did the whole chemo thing, and was in remission for 16 months. Now
it's back.
Through the whole thing, she never stopped smoking. Americans want to
die early, that's for damn sure.
joevan
wrote:
I have been waiting to see where this subject would go. It is
outrageous that our insurance industry handles our health so they can
all have big yachts and big houses and big bank accounts.
I was paying over 13,000 per year when my wife was dying of cancer 5
and 6 years ago. On top of that we got bills from all sorts of
hospitals etc. Some has to be done and soon or the average person
will be having to pay double that for basic coverage. I am on social
security now and my deduction for med and pharmacy is about 80 bucks a
mo.
I will be 67 in Nov. and my daughter will be 19. I would rather have
my wife back including the charges from hospitals but can't arrange
it. Alas it would have been even better if she could have been
healty, continued on with her nursing career and lived past the 51st
year. Been gone now 5 years this nov 28.
William Munny
news:78b60f47-69c4-4bb4...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
> NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>
> We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
> Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
> employer?
> Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
> And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
>
> Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
> $12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
>
> But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
Early 60's, self-employed. For self and wife pay $19,000 per year in HMO
membership fees + $20/$30 co-pay per MD visit, $15 for 30 day supply of
generic Rx, much more for brand name, no charge for lab work, x-rays, most
diagnostic stuff.
Only bright spot is that being self-employed, the HMO premiums are tax
deductible. But before you rant, remember that self-employed people pay
DOUBLE the rate that employees do for social security tax.
Big bucks overall but I sure as shootin' don't want the government involved
in it!!!
Kurt Ullman
Steve Stone <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> but claim payments come out of the employer pocket, not the insurance
> company pocket.
That depends a little on how the plan is set-up. Many companies may
re-insure or essentially lay off part of the risk to another company.
Think of it as the company's version of a deductible.
RBM
"terry" <tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:78b60f47-69c4-4bb4...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
> US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
> NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>
> We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
> Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
> employer?
> Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
> And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
>
> Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
> $12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
>
> But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
My family health insurance varies every couple of years when whatever
current company I have drops the group, then we sign up with another.
Currently mine costs $17,280 for family of five, no dental
HeyBub
Well, not wanting to die doesn't preclude wanting other things...
Fact is, once cancer or heart disease IS diagnosed, Americans live longer
than Canadians.
As an aside, we're living longer and we're getting fatter. I wonder if
there's a connection...
HeyBub
>>
>>
> 3k is not at all bad for a deductible. In the early days of working
> in employee benefits, folks screamed bloody murder when the ded. went
> from $75 to $100 for FREE, EMPLOYER-PROVIDED INSURANCE COVERAGE. Probably
> the same morons who thought Reagan's plan for using temp.
> workers was going to work miracles for the economy.
The presidency is a temporary job.
ChairMan
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>spewed forth:
but the bennies are forever<g>
Jim Elbrecht
wrote:
>Smitty Two wrote:
>> In article <1OKdncqY-vIAhwXX...@earthlink.com>,
>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the United States, we don't want to die early from heart failure
>>> or cancer
>>
>> Really? Then why do we live on McDonalds and Cheetohs? A woman I know,
>> lifelong smoker, got lung cancer three years ago. Vowed to fight it
>> and win. Did the whole chemo thing, and was in remission for 16
>> months. Now it's back.
>>
>> Through the whole thing, she never stopped smoking. Americans want to
>> die early, that's for damn sure.
>
>Well, not wanting to die doesn't preclude wanting other things...
>
>Fact is, once cancer or heart disease IS diagnosed, Americans live longer
>than Canadians.
That is a *disputed* fact, and way to general to be of any use in
comparing the overall desirability of one system over the other.
for lack of time or desire to find my own source- here's a Wikipedia
article to get the ball rolling-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems
>
>As an aside, we're living longer and we're getting fatter. I wonder if
>there's a connection...
>
I doubt it-- but I see a connection between living longer through
better medicine and higher costs for consumers. It ain't cheap to
keep fixing clunkers, whether they be human or automobile.
Jim
[will there be a 'cash for grandma' program in our futures?]
cshenk
> Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
> have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
> funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
> dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.
And I thank you for that, being one of them. My costs are 478$ a year just
now. There is talk about doubling or tripling it but haven't seen it happen
yet. I do not have vision or dental care though. Those policy additions
are cheaper to get 'out in town' than via the government.
It was medical free before I honorably retired but the family didnt have
dental unless I paid extra and the dental plan for family was so poor, it
was actually better in the end to put the money on the side and just pay as
needed. The dental for example has a lifetime cap of 1,500$.
The 'vision plan' BTW is 'space available' and there has never been space
for dependants in my 26 years except in Sasebo Japan and for the school age
kids only. (it was impossible to find a local optometrist who spoke enough
english to give a child an eye test so once a year they'ed bring one in).
Then again, this was listed as why my pay was 'comparable' to civilian work
of the same sort for 26 years of my life in the Navy. In fact, they would
calculate the 'medical benefits' as 3,000$ a month offset at the end. They
also said the access to 3 stair steppers, 4 sets of weights, and 1 broken
stationary bicycle (shared by 300 crew and 700 marines) was equal to spa
level accomodations at another 500$ a month and equated my job to that of a
first year data entry job. When I retired, I got hired the next day by a
good company. I get dental for the whole family for 12$ a month with a
2,000$ per person annual cap, and the medical is not bad at 38.50 per month
per person. The problem with the medical is they will not cover any
'pre-existing conditions' for the first 3 years of employment and require a
physical I will not pass being 50% disabled (partly war injury related in
the gulf).
BTW, do you normally get shot at in your line of work? I've had that happen
several times. 2 speed boat attacks, a diver who tried to plant a bomb on
the sides, stuff like that.
I'm not so worried that your tax dollars pay for my health plan as it was
part of the reason why my pay was so low. What I do think is an
embrassament is that the pay is so low, a young E5 (this is middle rank,
takes years to get normally) will qualify for food stamps if he has a wife
and 2 kids and she can't get a good job because he's moving every 2-3
years. It used to be an E6 with only 2 dependants qualified and I was one
of them that served during that era.
dpb
...
> Time honored tradition. I can, with little problem, trace cronies
Well, don't stop there; it's clearly documented thru the Civil War years
and before...in fact, one could likely make a case that actual
corruption was far worse then than now.
--
BobR
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:28:37 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Smitty Two wrote:
> >> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> In the United States, we don't want to die early from heart failure
> >>> or cancer
>
> >> Really? Then why do we live on McDonalds and Cheetohs? A woman I know,
> >> lifelong smoker, got lung cancer three years ago. Vowed to fight it
> >> and win. Did the whole chemo thing, and was in remission for 16
> >> months. Now it's back.
>
> >> Through the whole thing, she never stopped smoking. Americans want to
> >> die early, that's for damn sure.
>
> >Well, not wanting to die doesn't preclude wanting other things...
>
> >Fact is, once cancer or heart disease IS diagnosed, Americans live longer
> >than Canadians.
>
> That is a *disputed* fact, and way to general to be of any use in
> comparing the overall desirability of one system over the other.
>
> for lack of time or desire to find my own source- here's a Wikipedia
>
>
>
> >As an aside, we're living longer and we're getting fatter. I wonder if
> >there's a connection...
>
> I doubt it-- but I see a connection between living longer through
> better medicine and higher costs for consumers. It ain't cheap to
> keep fixing clunkers, whether they be human or automobile.
>
> Jim
There would have been a time not too many years back when I would have
said "No way in hell!" but not any more.
BobR
> "terry" <tsanf...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
Back in the early 90's I was also self-employed and having difficulty
getting insurance on my wife and I because of pre-existing conditions
with my wife. I was paying over $1600 per month for $2500 deductable
major medical only. When Clinton started the healthcare overhaul push
I was elated and hoping it would finally give me some relief. Then I
read the details of the plan they were proposing, realized that it was
opening a door for government control and promptly contacted all of my
Senate and Congressional representatives and demanded they vote it
down. Now that damn snake has reared its ugly head again and this
time we should cut its damn head off.
dpb
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> In article <2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad>,
>> Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
>>> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken
>>> care of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health
>>> care.
>>> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
>>> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
>>> business.
>>
> Hmmm,
> Our tax rate is lowest in Canada and no sales tax here as well.
Well, when I was traveling to Sask servicing coal analyzers during last
trip since plant was in an outage there was significant OT; the plant
chemist who had oversight of the analyzers as part of his job
description and had gotten quite familiar over the years. Invited to
supper one evening; pay packet had arrived that day. W/ the OT, total
withheld was >50% of gross--that's pretty daggone expensive. Then afaik
all are responsible for GMT which while I no longer know what rate is,
ain't just a percent or two...
And, since this was pretty close to the US border, it was common that
when kids had anything routine such as vaccinations, earache, etc., they
simply took them to Minot or Williston as it would be so long before
there was any opportunity to have them seen in Estevan or Weyburn and
there were no services in Coronach/East Poplar where the plant was
actually located. All in all, the system didn't seem particularly
anything to wish for even then.
> Why then your tax does not cover those who don't/can't have coverage?
Something about roughly half to two-thirds of the uncovered are either
undocumented or the well young that choose to spend their dollars
elsewhere. Any critical need patient will get treated simply by showing
up at the emergency room. A major reason for the high per capita cost
is that there is a large fraction of the above groups that simply use
emergency room services as their family doctor; the most expensive way
possible to get services but they mostly choose to not use conventional
services of their own volition.
It's complicated but single-payer gov't controlled isn't going to help
in any way I can see.
--
nor...@earthlink.net
Living longer than what? US is way down the list for life expenctancy
for indust. countries.
dpb
> There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
> US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
> NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>
> We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
> Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
> employer?
> Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
> And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
>
> Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
> $12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
>
> But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
Self-employed; 64/62, $870/mo w/ a so-so dental.
Of course, that doesn't count the Medicare premiums, 2.9% (total) of
earned wages w/ no cap.
--
BobR
wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Smitty Two wrote:
You do realize that life expectancy is not just based on those who die
of natural causes don't you? We kill ourselves off faster than any
country in the world in our cars, with our guns, and just sheer
stupidity.
Oren
<re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
>You do realize that life expectancy is not just based on those who die
>of natural causes don't you? We kill ourselves off faster than any
>country in the world in our cars, with our guns, and just sheer
>stupidity.
Maybe my "gun" has a malfunction. It has never killed anybody.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Smitty Two
"cshenk" <csh...@cox.net> wrote:
> BTW, do you normally get shot at in your line of work?
Not unless I piss off the boss, who keeps a fully loaded pump action 12
gauge behind the "modesty panel" of his desk.
But don't get me started on the whole "hero" thing, with the servicemen,
cops, and firemen. They chose their jobs. As far as I'm concerned
they're no more of a hero than the guy who empties their wastebaskets
and cleans their toilets for minimum wage.
Tony Hwang
Here true emergency is always taken care of. Too many people swarm
emergency rooms. I saw an old lady came to emergency ward for med.
refill. Here there is private clinics as well for rich folks who ca
afford quick service. It's not all public service. Actually origin of
Canadian health care service is Saskatchewan.
Tony Hwang
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>> terry wrote:
>>> There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
>>> US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
>>> NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>>>
>>> We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
>>> Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
>>> employer?
>>> Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
>>> And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
>>>
>>> Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
>>> $12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
>>>
>>> But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
>> Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
>> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
>> of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
>> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
>> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
>> business.
>
> ignorant Americans don't realize is that granny and gramps, when they go
> to the nursing home, get great care - well, sort of - until Medicare or
> their own money runs out. Then they go to the "hopeless" list,
> entertained with Bingo games, unidentifiable food, and not much prospect
> of rehabilitation. Rehab meaning to increase their function to the max.
> possible for their medical condition - like walking to the dining room,
> not back to running marathons. The PR is fantastic - granny gets hosed
> down at least twice a week in a multi-stall shower room, gets her face
> washed and lipstick slathered on daily, and kept in diapers if she isn't
> up to running to the toilet without assistance. This is quite fine with
> those Americans who favor corporate profit and began voting like
> corporate board members when they bought their first share of stock.
> Granny is out of the f------ way and her estate might turn a few bucks
> when she is gone.
>
>
> Most dumb bastards don't know that if GOOD CARE was rendered, granny
> might be able to walk around living quarters, use a toilet, not suffer
> from untreated conditions that might require "risky" treatment or
> surgery. Load her with pills every time a new side effect comes along,
> give her some magical antidepressants and cholesterol drugs so she will
> think she is "happy" and actually receiving treatment that is best for
> her. There are hours and hours and hours of paperwork done by nurses,
> physicians, pharmacists, dieticians, activity directors, physical
> therapists, all making treatment plans that are garbage, and then
> writing volumes about how the "plan" ain't working.
>
> When I last worked in a nursing home, I remember a plate of food being
> served - cold - that had three unidentifiable items on it. It looked
> like samples of stool for some poor human with a rare disease of the GI
> system. Family Values? Christian Coalition? Compassionate
> Conservatives? What insufferable, hypocritical b.s.
Hi,
The saying goes, live fast die young!
Doug Miller
One less person than Ted Kennedy's car...
Don Klipstein
>There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
>US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
>NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
A family plan with lower deductibe costs employer and employee combined
about $10K annually maybe a year or two ago, inflating about 10% annually.
>We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
>Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
>employer?
When there is a subscriber, one or the other of these is true (unless
the employer picks up the full tab, as is often the case for most members
of the more politically powerful unions).
>Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
>And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
Medicaid is available to the "truly poor", and not to most who merely
cannot afford private health insurance.
>Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
>$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
"A few hundred" is probably typical or highish-typical among employees
with employer-sponsored health insurance that the employee has to chip
into. Some employees pay nothing (usually if members of motre politically
powerful unions), some pay 100% (several hundred to close to $1K per
month), most pay in-between.
$12K sounds to me about average or very slightly high-side for employer
and employee combined to pay for health insurance for an employee and the
employee's family.
>But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>In <prestwhich-DFD98...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>,
Smitty Two <prest...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.
>>
>>http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
>>
>>"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
>>to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."
>>
>>--x--x--x--x--
>>
>>Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
>>have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
>>funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
>>dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.
>>
>>if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
>>entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.
>
>The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
>employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
>health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
>wages.
>
>It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
>premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
>deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.
What the employer pays for FICA or health insurance premiums is
non-taxable employee compensation/benefit. The gubmint effectively
subsidizes health insurance by allowing employers to pay premiums with the
money spent there deducted from the company's income tax and not
contributing to the employee's taxable income.
Furthermore, USA now has special tax-reducing savings accounts for money
restricted to spending on the specific industries of healthcare and
education. How have the prices of products/services of these industries
compared to the Consumer Price Index? How have industries outside these
two fared in comparison to these two in USA?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
benick
"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:h78v4m$s0q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article
> <prestwhich-6CAA9...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>,
> Smitty Two <prest...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>In article <h78qr6$4ok$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>Governments have to pay high salaries and provide luxury-class benefits
>>in order to attract qualified workers away from private industry.
>
> Well, they have to do *something*.
>
>>In
>>truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
>>for comparable skill sets.
>
> Maybe in your state; not in mine, and, I suspect, not in most.
>
> And that's not even remotely close to true in the Federal civil service,
> *especially* in management positions. The salary of a cabinet secretary is
> something like $160K -- try finding a CEO who will work for that.
>
> For scientists and engineers, Federal salaries are significantly lower
> than
> corresponding private-sector salaries. The principal attractions of
> Federal
> employment are stability, benefits, and the fact that the Federal civil
> service in general, and Defense in particular, hand much more
> responsibility
> to capable people at a much younger age than they'd ever see in the
> private
> sector -- it's good for your career.
>
>>The city, county, and state here are all
>>going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.
>
> That's because you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. Don't make
> the
> mistake of supposing that the rest of the nation has the same insane
> public
> policies. Most state legislatures are wiser than yours.
Not in Maine.. We like to follow California's lead...Here the State is the
largest employer and the pay and benifits are unbelievable...6 digit pay for
governor appointees for do nothing jobs like Nuclear advisor...We have no
nuke power plants , ect..Agencies like DHHS missplacing a hundred MILLION
dollars and nothing is done about it...The Dems have run this state into the
ground for over 35 years..A true hackarama.....No time limits or fraud
investigation for welfare either.....The State is in the hole BIG time....We
also have publicly funded health care (Dirigo) that is hemorraging money
like a stuck pig....We owe the hospitals , nursing homes and doctors , ect.
over 800 MILLION dollars.....A true Liberal Utopia....
Don Klipstein
Though I would like to bitch about salaries of municipal and state
department heads and members of various legislatures and governmental and
quasi-governmental boards, it appears to me that the top few executives
and most VPs (not just CEO) of most of the Fortune 1000 companies and a
majority of specialist MDs make much more still.
I doubt that Fortune 500 companies have to compensate their CEOs tens of
megabucks annually and their VPs and other top executives megabucks
annually for skill sets that run the companies into the ground and/or
require multigigabuck taxpayer bailouts. Most foreign large companies,
unlike most USA ones, pay much less than this for executives whose
companies succeed, and less still for executives of companies who don't.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
dpb
...
> ... Actually origin of
Well, it didn't seem to be working very well since they mostly went to
the States...
--
benick
"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad...
> terry wrote:
>> There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
>> US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
>> NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>>
>> Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
>> employer?
>> And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
>>
>> $12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
>>
> Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care of.
> I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
> business.
Yea it's pretty easy to cut defense spending to the point you Canucks can
only put 3 navy ships to sea and the military is so small it is irrelevant
for your socialists programs when you live next to the police station (US of
A) and rely TOTALLY on it for protection...Pathatic if you ask me....What
was the last major medical breakthrough in a socialist healthcare country ,
besides the abortion pill ??? How many in the USA ??? Like the military you
rely on US to do it for you..then copy the procedure , pills ect. and ration
it out...Like the Pig Flue , it will be the USA that beats it... Not Cuba or
Canada..... Nuff said...
Don Klipstein
Ullman wrote:
>In article <2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad>,
> Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
>> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
>> of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
>> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
>> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
>> business.
> You pay. It is just that your premium is hidden in the taxes.
And what Canada pays from taxes to cover everyone there is no higher
percentage of GDP that USA pays from taxes (and government borrowing, to
be paid plus intrerest by taxpayers in the future) to cover only:
Medicare and Medicaid, sCHIPs, military and veterans, the few poor
and low income workers actually benefiting from county programs, and
employer contributions to health insurance premiums of gubmint workers in
healthcare-related agencies.
Canada gubmint spends no higher percentage of GDP than USA does to cover
what USA gubmint does not: The vast majority of private sector workers,
a significant chunk of the unemployed, as well as gubmint employees
outside healthcare-related agencies such as police officers and public
school teachers and court employees.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>About 1/4 as much as if the government handled it all.
Then why does USA gubmint spend as high a percentage of GDP on health
coverage as is spent by gubmints of other western nations who do handle it
all?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>Tony Hwang wrote:
>> terry wrote:
>>> There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
>>> US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
>>> NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>>>
>>> We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
>>> Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
>>> employer?
>>> Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
>>> And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
>>>
>>> Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
>>> $12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
>>>
>>> But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
>> Hi,
>> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
>> of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
>> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
>> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
>> business.
>
>
>In the United States, we don't want to die early from heart failure or
USA gubmint won't pay for an abortion at any time, 11 months or sooner.
Meanwhile, I know quire a few people in Canada, and none of them
consider it advantageous in terms of healthcare, even for heart disease or
cancer, to move south of their border. I even heard them telling me so.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the United States, we don't want to die early from heart failure
>>> or cancer
>>
>> lifelong smoker, got lung cancer three years ago. Vowed to fight it
>> and win. Did the whole chemo thing, and was in remission for 16
>> months. Now it's back.
>>
>> Through the whole thing, she never stopped smoking. Americans want to
>> die early, that's for damn sure.
>
>Well, not wanting to die doesn't preclude wanting other things...
>
>Fact is, once cancer or heart disease IS diagnosed, Americans live longer
>than Canadians.
By how much? Got a cite?
>As an aside, we're living longer and we're getting fatter. I wonder if
>there's a connection...
At whose expense? Living longer while getting fatter and more sedentary
means big ticket costs for surgeries, tests and for that matter
prescription drugs (which in USA have so much protectionism that an
illegal re-import of USA-made FDA-approved drugs costs less after 2 border
crossings than the same drugs cost legally after no border crossings).
I think that what USA has needs to be rebuilt up and down, left/right
and from its fringes inward and from its core outward, preferably copying
whichever other Western nation is doing it best, with maximum giving-in to
lobbyists of those whose oxen stand to be gored by this being negative.
(Though I would prefer to have a mechanism where those with less healthy
lifestyles as indicated by lifestyle-improvable indicators of health
such as body fat content, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure,
resting pulse rate and alcohol-related liver enzyme level pay more than
those with healthier lifestyles.)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Make that 33 ships as of 2008. Not too bad for a country with 1/10 of
USA's population.
>What was the last major medical breakthrough in a socialist healthcare
>country, besides the abortion pill ??? How many in the USA ???
Like in USA prescription drugs having so much protectionism as to cost
more legally than illegal re-imports of USA-made FDA-approved drugs that
made two border crossings?
> Like the military you rely on US to do it for you..then copy the
>procedure , pills ect. and ration it out...
Not as badly as happens to all to many USA residents!
>Like the Pig Flue , it will be the USA that beats it... Not Cuba or
>Canada..... Nuff said...
I expect USA to not fare better than other industrialized democracies
this coming flu season!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
HeyBub
> In article <h79q0o$nmi$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Stormin Mormon
> wrote:
>
>> About 1/4 as much as if the government handled it all.
>
> Then why does USA gubmint spend as high a percentage of GDP on health
> coverage as is spent by gubmints of other western nations who do
> handle it all?
>
It's not the U.S. government that's paying, it's the individual.
We pay more a higher percentage of GDP because we CAN.
Once diagnosed with a chronic disease like cancer or heart failure, the five
year survival rate in the U.S. is greater, sometimes far greater, than
elsewhere. For example, the five year survival rate for men diagnosed with
prostate cancer is better than 95%. In the UK, it is 56% (and in the high
80s in Canada).
But it comes at a cost - a cost we as individuals are willing to pay but
which some governments are not.
Tony Hwang
>
> nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
> magically appear at no cost to anyone?
>
>> No premium payment.
>
> "No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.
>
> You figure out how.
Huh?
When I needed Eprex 3 times(1 cc shots by myself) a week it did not
cost me a dime. Still taking anti rejection pills(may be rest of my
life), Immuran and Rapamune every day. Nothing comes out of my pocket.
I just phone in and go pick up the refill.
HeyBub
Living longer than we used to.
Washington Post, Aug 19, 2009
"U.S. life expectancy has risen to a new high, standing at nearly 78 years,
the government reported Wednesday. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081904131.html
According to the article, the U.S. is 30th in the world in life expectancy.
The best is Japan at 83 years. Of course Japan doesn't have fatal gang wars,
justifiable homicides like self-defense, executions, and many of the causes
of death we have (they do have an astonishing number of traffic fatalities).
benick
"terry" <tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:78b60f47-69c4-4bb4...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
> US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
> NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>
> We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
> Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
> employer?
> Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
> And we understand there is something called Medicaid?
>
> Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
> $12,000, per year have been mentioned?.
>
> But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
I don't know the avg. but we pay 1,000 bucks a year (33.00 bi-weekly) for
the wife and myself..Blue Cross/Blue Shield , 1,000.00 deductable , 500.00
heathcare credit for tests and preventive care BEFORE deductable , 10,000
total out of pocket expense , includes eye , dental , perscriptions and 4
dollar perscriptions and OTC drugs...Insurance provided by Walmart where
SWMBO is employed full time....I am self employed....
HeyBub
benick
<nor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4qGdnQXZZISlawrX...@earthlink.com...
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> In article <2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad>,
>> Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
>>> of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
>>> And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
>>> To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
>>> business.
>>
> dollars. Wonder what would happen to small business if Workers Comp
> suddenly disappeared, and just plain one-for-all universal coverage
> replaced it? Is it possible highly profitable businesses, small or large,
> would pay more than those less profitable? No more ambulance chasers or
> insurance adjustors....ohmygosh, watch out for the horrible "bureaucrats"
> from the gov.; they might shoot you rather than video-tape you, with your
> bad back, up on the roof throwing bundles of shingles around :o)
Workers Comp. would be FINE if they would eliminate the fraud and fake
lawsuites...Strange how many that get kicked off welfare due to time limits
, marriage , kids over 18 , ect. end up on Workers Comp then SSI
Disability..It is a scam run right out in the open here in the Liberal State
of Maine.....The Republicans TRIED to ammend the healthcare bill with Tort
Reform....The Dems wouldn't allow it...We will STILL have the ambulance
chasers like John Edwards running around and suing for fake injuries....You
mean "bureaucrats" like the ones who CAN'T even run the Cash for Clunkers
Program or any other Government Program for that matter...See the SS adm. or
the VA...God help us....
benick
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh9h5i...@manx.misty.com...
Theyt may "have" 33 ships BUT they could only afford to put 3 ships to sea
to help NATO with the piracy of Somilia....
If a cure can be found for the Pig Flue it will originate in the USA not
Cuba or Canada.I should have been clearer for you Canadiens....How much has
Defense Spending been cut to pay for your Socialized rationed medical care
?? By 2/3? IIRC....
BobR
Maybe if you learn to read with just a little comprehension you would
be able to understand that I said "WITH OUR GUNS". That doesn't say
or even imply that the GUN had anything to do with cause.
nor...@earthlink.net
> Don Klipstein wrote:
>> In article <h79q0o$nmi$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Stormin Mormon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> About 1/4 as much as if the government handled it all.
>> Then why does USA gubmint spend as high a percentage of GDP on health
>> coverage as is spent by gubmints of other western nations who do
>> handle it all?
>>
>
> It's not the U.S. government that's paying, it's the individual.
>
> We pay more a higher percentage of GDP because we CAN.
>
> Once diagnosed with a chronic disease like cancer or heart failure, the five
> year survival rate in the U.S. is greater, sometimes far greater, than
Because in the US we are fatter and sicker younger.
> elsewhere. For example, the five year survival rate for men diagnosed with
> prostate cancer is better than 95%. In the UK, it is 56% (and in the high
> 80s in Canada).
That's ridiculous. 56% in UK? Where did you get that number?
BobR
>
> >> Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything.
>
> > Absolute nonsense. Did you think health care was free, that the doctors and
> > nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
> > magically appear at no cost to anyone?
>
> >> No premium payment.
>
> > "No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.
>
> > You figure out how.
>
> Huh?
> When I needed Eprex 3 times(1 cc shots by myself) a week it did not
> cost me a dime. Still taking anti rejection pills(may be rest of my
> life), Immuran and Rapamune every day. Nothing comes out of my pocket.
> I just phone in and go pick up the refill.
How great for you but don't be so ignorant as to believe that someone
is not paying for it somewhere.
Tony Hwang
Defend from what? Aliens? Canada does not have many enemies like U.S.
Can you travel all over the world proudly showing stars and stripes on
you? I CAN and do with my maple leaf all the time. We're welcome every
where. Your defense dollar is all gobbled up by private military
industrial complex like Black water making a few crooks mega rich in
the name of your country.
Eisenhower warned about it when he was leaving White House and it became
a reality since the days when Cheney was SOD. Got whole lot worse with
Dubya in White House. I feel sorry for an American like you. Know the truth.
stan
health costs.
Some of the info was 'interesting'. Apparently there are many versions
of what for want of a better term we will temporarily call "Government
funded" health care. Ranging from where government owns and runs all
the hospitals right across to privately funded where by the governemnt
makes sure that service is provided. One instance mentioned was the UK
where 60% of the doctors are private being paid standard fees by the
government and 40% are salaried, working directly for the
government.
So will immediately point out that DOES NOT automatically mean the
government funding means that it RUNS the medical system. What it does
do in various models, in many 'western' countries is; a) Fund health
care b) Make sure it covers EVERYONE c) Imposes rules and conditions
by means of legislation on private providers, hospitals and the
insurance companies, who in some countries provide some medical
services or 'extras' such as additional payment for a private hospital
room.
During the PBS item it was mentioned that the starting point was 'How
do we cover everyone'; then go on from there with 'How much will cost'
and 'How do we make sure it's working successfully'. The result being
a healthier and more productive population. At a lower cost than
private insurance with bottom line profit incentive, plans.
.
Of one ranking of some 50 industrialized nations, the USA ranks 23rd
and also it's medical system does not cover all.
Of the PBS item didn't make many notes but a few numbers stuck in
mind.
In the USA due to the multiplicity of plans etc. administration costs
20% or more.
In (I think it was Canada?) administration costs 4%.
In Switzerland legislation says that if an insurance company does not
pay (agreed fee) coverage within 5 days the insured customer receives
next months total coverage 'free'.
Generally customers (patients) are treated according to need and
medical staff make the decisions as to type and amount of care needed.
Reason for posing the original question was because many are amazed
why the US public is not asking 'WHY NOT universal coverage. At a
reasonable cost'.
Here in Canada on my income (now mainly pension) of around $59,000
per year my total 'income' taxes are approx. $11,000 per year (single
widower in mid 70s). Almost equally divided between province and
federal. Since I also pay sales taxes on some of the remaining income
(of say around 48,000) but not on food and certain other items; if and
when I spend, it that's probably another approx. $4000. So one can
argue that one spends about 25% to 27% (depending on income bracket)
of total income to allow my government to run the country. And that
includes universal health care for everyone.
Came back from one of those 14 hour fasting blood tests today
(Friday); no charge, very little waiting (less than five minutes I
only got part way through one magazine article) and the decision when/
where to go was entirely mine. Occasionally someone will mention that
if you go for blood test on certain day of the week you may run into
people who have had transplants and that happens to be the day of the
week when there is certain clinic.
I decided to go to one of the hospitals where parking and distance to
walk into the blood lab is most suitable. There are at moment at least
three locations within this small city where on can go for blood
collection. On Oct. 2nd a new blood collection location will open in a
brand new building several miles closer to home.
The samples will go the central lab run by the Health Care
Corporation; and early next week my family doctor (GP) will get the
info and will phone me whether to make any changes to my medication,
and if necessary she will send a revised prescription to the
pharmacist I deal with. I have a Blue Cross insurance scheme that
covers most of cost; although in some countries the drugs are funded
completely by the government plan.
During the last 18 years have had two prostrate ops. couple of bouts
with heart fibrillation and prior to that maybe one health threatening
condition (probably meningitis?) that was attended to promptly. Yes
there are delays, I did have to wait a long time for an EKG but that
was in part because it was a follow and I was visiting relatives in
middle east. While in the middle east btw I had, as a non resident
(visitor) a simple INR blood test. It cost about $30 for the test and
analysis which we then transmitted back to my doctor here at home. In
Canada the blood test cost is part of the system. Well I have to use
gasoline to get there!
Other members of the family; now all grown up with families of their
own have also need health care from time to time also therapy after
being rear-ended, a softball face injury, child birth etc. And my late
wife received excellent cancer care etc.
stan
India managed to run a very good and promptly announced election,
using computers.
Even though many of the population were not literate! And Indians
number, what is it, about half a billion souls? Understand they used
symbols; so one voted for the donkey or the elephant etc.!
Cheers.
h
"William Munny" <bi...@bigwhiskey.org> wrote in message
news:h79dgv$c7u$1...@news.albasani.net...
> "terry" <tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:78b60f47-69c4-4bb4...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
>> NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.
>>
red stuff is spilling out. In the past 10 years I've spent $2,300 on medical
and dental combined (I get my teeth cleaned twice a year). I'm in my late
50s and my "medical" expenses consist of a good diet and a $10/month gym
membership which I use at least 27 days a month. Oh, and I didn't have
children, so I'm not subject to most of the "female" issues which plague
other women my age.
h
"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message
news:h79kfq$b5e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>> In article <2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad>,
>Any critical need patient will get treated simply by showing up at the
>emergency room.
And then they will get a gigantic bill which THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY, at least
if they own anything. I've already decided that if anything even remotely
serious happens to me I will just die, since I can't afford to pay. What's
the point? Save myself so I can be homeless after they take my house? No
thanks.
The Daring Dufas
Like psychotic grandchildren?
TDD
Don Klipstein
They put 9% of their ships out to Somalia while having a navy of
reasonable size for their population. Who else put 9% of their navy
across an ocean to Somalia?
>If a cure can be found for the Pig Flue it will originate in the USA not
>Cuba or Canada.I should have been clearer for you Canadiens....How much has
>Defense Spending been cut to pay for your Socialized rationed medical care
>?? By 2/3? IIRC....
Canada's "Royal Canadian Navy" was fairly decent for a country of
Canada's population in 2008 (33 ships) and they sent 9% of them to
Somalia, which is not a major war theatre. Did any country with more than
33 naval warships send more than 9% of theirs to Somalia? If so, then
who?
And I still see healthcare being more rationed in USA than in Canada -
a minority of Americans can afford "all they can eat" in terms of
healthcare, while millions of Americans choose to not get health insurance
because choosing health insurance would certainly bankrupt them, while
those with a choice include those yet to get not-so-certainly inflicted by
a "pre-existing condition".
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
BobR wrote:
My reading comprehension tells me that "WITH OUR GUNS" means that
USA-specific high rate of gun ownership contributes to USA-specific
high rate of big-ticket medical costs from bullet wounds.
It appears to me that Oren (I hope I got that right) maybe lives in a
part of USA where crime rate is lower or where gun control laws
discriminate less in favor of those who refuse to obey gun control laws,
so that gun owners have a lower rate of committing homicide (justifiable
or otherwise). Often, a gun owner or someone legally "packing heat" (by
permit in USA "states" where a permit is required to do so) deters
criminals without firing a shot. And the vast majority of crime committed
with use of guns is done by those "packing heat" in areas requiring a
permit to do so outside-the-home while being disqualified from doing so
on basis of prior criminal activity.
In case it sounds like I said my saying above with a "forked tongue",
I would clarify that gun control laws have to be nationwide to do much
good. It appears to me that provincial / "statewide within USA" gun
control laws have little to arguably slightly negative benefit, while such
laws on only municipal scale have generally negative benefit.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Doug Miller
You *really* think it's free, that it doesn't cost anything at all? The
doctors and nurses work gratis? The equipment and supplies and facilities
appear by magic?
Think about it.
Doug Miller
[...]
>USA-specific high rate of gun ownership contributes to USA-specific
>high rate of big-ticket medical costs from bullet wounds.
Interestingly enough, while the per capita rate of firearm violence in Canada
is significantly lower than in the U.S., the per capita rate of firearm
ownership in Canada vs. the U.S. is lower still -- thus the rate of firearm
violence per firearm, or per firearm owner, is actually higher in Canada!
Doug Miller
>Few years ago, about the time Florida was worrying about 'chads'
>India managed to run a very good and promptly announced election,
>using computers.
>Even though many of the population were not literate! And Indians
>number, what is it, about half a billion souls?
About one-point-one billion.
Kurt Ullman
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> What the employer pays for FICA or health insurance premiums is
> non-taxable employee compensation/benefit. The gubmint effectively
> subsidizes health insurance by allowing employers to pay premiums with the
> money spent there deducted from the company's income tax and not
> contributing to the employee's taxable income.
>
This write off (AKA "tax expenditures" in the lexicon of
Congresscritter) is the largest one by far. It is about 1/3 bigger than
the second... another market twister known as the mortgage deduction.
> Furthermore, USA now has special tax-reducing savings accounts for money
> restricted to spending on the specific industries of healthcare and
> education. How have the prices of products/services of these industries
> compared to the Consumer Price Index? How have industries outside these
> two fared in comparison to these two in USA?
You will note that the two major areas of life that refuse to stay
within the inflation of the CPI are the two areas where the government
plays the biggest role in helping to finance it. Coincidence? I think
not!
--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett
Kurt Ullman
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
> I doubt that Fortune 500 companies have to compensate their CEOs tens of
> megabucks annually and their VPs and other top executives megabucks
> annually for skill sets that run the companies into the ground and/or
> require multigigabuck taxpayer bailouts. Most foreign large companies,
> unlike most USA ones, pay much less than this for executives whose
> companies succeed, and less still for executives of companies who don't.
>
Interestingly, if you look at pure salaries, there is relatively
little difference between USA and EU (for example). The REAL differences
are largely in the payment of stock options and bonuses.
There was a change in the tax laws a few years ago. The Congress
wanted to "make the interests of the executives more in line with the
interests of the stockholders". They did this by limiting the
deductibility of salary to $1 million a year, effectively capping the
amount of money paid for just working for the company. The other thing
it did was give preferential tax treatment (in an effort to align
interests, doncha know) for stock options and bonuses.
What eventually (actually quite quickly since within two years of
enactment Enron broke) took place is the bonuses and stock options were
paying many more times the money than salary. (One of the Merrill
honchoes had a salary of $300,000 but bonuses and stock options of $300
million. that was the most egregious example I could find). They were
paid to manage the stock prices and not the company. So it really isn't
all the hard to notice that all of the incentives actually worked to the
detriment of the stockholders. Oopsie to Congress.
I think also the Congressional stamp of approval that this would,
indeed, align the interests of the stockholders with the honchos made it
easier for some who might not have crossed the line to do so by
rationalizing it was really for the stockholders, Congress said so.
dpb
> "dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message
> news:h79kfq$b5e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Tony Hwang wrote:
>>> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>>> In article <2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>> Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Any critical need patient will get treated simply by showing up at the
>> emergency room.
>
> And then they will get a gigantic bill which THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY, at least
And why shouldn't one pay for services rendered????
That's when ones' personal responsibility is _supposed_ to kick in...
The problem is and one of the prime reasons it is _SO_ expensive is that
a very high fraction of those folks who use emergency room facilities
injudiciously don't pay so the expenses have to be reimbursed from those
who can/do pay for not only their care but for a significant number of
others who didn't...
--
Ed Pawlowski
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> There was a change in the tax laws a few years ago. The Congress
> wanted to "make the interests of the executives more in line with the
> interests of the stockholders". They did this by limiting the
> deductibility of salary to $1 million a year, effectively capping the
> amount of money paid for just working for the company.
That really pisses me off. My boss refuses to pay me more than a million
bucks just because he won't get the deduction.
Kurt Ullman
spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
Which also shows the difference in relative risk from absolute risk.
dpb
...
> healthcare, while millions of Americans choose to not get health insurance
That's gross over-exaggeration--mostly in those who simply choose not to
are the young and healthy that simply choose to spend on other
self-indulgences rather than something as mundane as health
insurance...TheDoofus ex-SIL as the cardinal exhibit that dropped
(despite court order) coverage for his kids to buy a racing bike instead
leaving DIL w/ hospital bill for young g-daughter... :(
A major problem in the US is the rise of the entitlement mentality and
concomitant lack of personal responsibility for actions (and subsequent
expectation of somebody else picking up for consequences of lack of same).
There are issues to be addressed/resolved certainly, but surely nothing
proposed so far is going to be very successful and is certainly going to
drive expenditures thru the roof (which have already gotten a running
start on w/o even adding health care program increases). The
fundamental problem is there simply aren't enough printing presses in
existence to manufacture the kind of money they're talking...
--
Ed Pawlowski
>h wrote:
>> "dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message
>> news:h79kfq$b5e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Tony Hwang wrote:
>>>> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>>>> In article <2ORlm.40$jB1...@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>>> Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> Any critical need patient will get treated simply by showing up at the
>>> emergency room.
>>
>> And then they will get a gigantic bill which THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY, at
>> least if they own anything. ...
>
> And why shouldn't one pay for services rendered????
>
> That's when ones' personal responsibility is _supposed_ to kick in...
Yeah, but people with insurance get it for free. If they get it free,
everyone should get it free.
dpb
>> But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
>
> His monthly Blue Cross family plan for his wife, himself, and 3 children
> is $1,250 per month.
>
> For me, working for a large business the PPO plan for a family of 3 is
> $150 per month, but I have to spend close to $10k
> in annual family medical bills before it starts covering anything. Until
> I hit the magic number the cost of treatment is reduced if I use in
> network doctors. FWIW the dental plan has a $2k annual cap. You can run
> thru that in one sitting.
But, the point is that truly large expenditures are covered in
significant fraction -- that's where one needs insurance; w/ a
decent-paying job and some self-discipline there's no reason not to have
the "slush-fund" to handle routine medical costs. Essentially, as noted
elsewhere in the subthread, self-insure to a point and underwrite above
that.
IMO that switch to the mentality of insurance covering all the minor
dings and nicks of ordinary care that has had a major influence in
driving up demand/costs since it developed the mindset that "it's paid
for, why not?" for every little sniffle or hangnail.
If, otoh, one knows one is responsible up to a reasonable deductible
then one will tend to be more judicious in deciding whether it's really
necessary to take Johnny/Sally/self every other day.
--
Kurt Ullman
dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
>
> IMO that switch to the mentality of insurance covering all the minor
> dings and nicks of ordinary care that has had a major influence in
> driving up demand/costs since it developed the mindset that "it's paid
> for, why not?" for every little sniffle or hangnail.
Yepper. We essentially have gotten away from health insurance (with
insurance defined as taking a large but rare risk and spreading over a
number of people) when we got away from the old Major Medical and got
into paying for Dr. visits and first dollar RX.
dpb
>> But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
>
> A friend of mine is a building contractor.
> His monthly Blue Cross family plan for his wife, himself, and 3 children
> is $1,250 per month.
Mine is $850 w/o kids but age 64/62. Probably lower cost is somewhat
related also to location...
> For me, working for a large business the PPO plan ...
Additional thought along lines alluded to in other response--ime, when
former employer (also self-insured) looked at changing the
administrators/plans in local area, the PPO's that presented all were
focussed almost entirely on the individual doctor's office visit for
essentially well care. The ability of their plans to deal w/ real
illness was abysmal at best--they essentially didn't seem to recognize
the problem it appeared in their model.
This was some time ago when they were springing up like mushrooms all
over w/ the same false premise we're hearing now that "preventive"
medicine will reduce costs significantly. I don't believe there's a
single one of those that survived. (BTW, I never personally elected to
change own coverage from the base "traditional" insurance provider to a
PPO for the above reasons even though premiums were generally higher).
--
Ed Pawlowski
> related also to location...
>
Are you part of a group? If so, the age of the group affects the cost too.
The more younger people, the lower the overall rates.