by Diogenesister 100 Replies latest social current
HI Diogenesister, what could've been a sad story (and, would've been for most families in this screwed up world) became a happier story, I feel very happy too, for you and Paul.
Thank you so much☺️ reason first. I really do feel very grateful, as does Paul & we are both aware that not everyone in this world is so fortunate.
"Plus, for the 40+ years I worked, I paid all or part of my health
insurance cost of premiums, plus still had to pay a deductible and
co-pay (usually 10%). Now that I'm over 65 yo, I qualify for the
federally provided Medicare health insurance (which covers elderly &
disabled). But I still am required to pay some costs out-of-pocket.
Last year that amount was $4000. Plus, often we must appeal to get
procedures that the insurance company originally denies."
Damn. That sounds absolutely terrible. It's a shame we don't have two posters in this very thread giving examples of living in a country that doesn't have that nonsense and how pleased they are with it...
Here's a suggest re healthcare in America: let each state decide want it wants to do.
So, conservative-leaning Texas would likely vote against NHS-style healthcare, and that's ok.
But left-leaning California might vote in favour. So, let the Californian authorities pay for it by raising the taxes of Californian citizens.
^^^ Makes sense, no?
Here's a suggest re healthcare in America: let each state decide want it wants to do.
That wouldn't work because everyone would move to the state that has healthcare free at the point of access.
I think Americans should think about the fact that noone from other countries that have free healthcare says they don't want it.
I've also never heard those that pay their taxes (that's most people) in countries with an NHS, beef about having to "pay for other people"🤨the way Americans constantly bang on about. Why is that?
Remember almost everything is cheaper in America - your fuel costs, your food costs (well until recently anyway) and in most places your housing costs, too. That is to say for example most young people - if they are willing to move - could afford to buy their own place. In the UK (& I imagine Europe) even the cheapest homes are beyond the income of most single young people.
I believe few people's position in life is purely & only down to their own hard work. For example perhaps they married someone who already owned a home. Maybe they took over their fathers business, or learned their trade at his knee? Perhaps in their era a down payment on a home was possible for a young person. Even if you believe you had no advantages in life, think about the country you were born in? Or any natural abilities you have, that others don't? Perhaps you're good at maths and became an accountant because of that talent - one you didn't strive for but were born with.
Very few people don't want to strive to improve their lives, & the lives of others, if given the chance. Many of us were denied opportunities due to our parents religion - so we know it's not always as simple as claiming people who don't succeed in life are just 'lazy'.
everyone would move to the state that has healthcare free at the point of access - yeah, there may very well be an increase of people moving to, say, Cali.
But why would that mean that my suggestion wouldn't work?
I think Americans should think about the fact that noone from other countries that have free healthcare says they don't want it - yeah, this may be true. But I also think Americans, if they want free healthcare, should look at the NHS and learn from its mistakes.
I still think letting each state decide for itself has some merit in it.
"I still think letting each state decide for itself has some merit in it."
Yes it does, apart from perhaps very small population States, but the people there could be given the opportunity to pay in to a nearby states system the same as if they were resident, and still take advantage, even if a bit of travel was involved ? maybe ? dunno. (maybe not , Social Care has to be considered kin the equation).
Obviously the ideal is for the whole Country to implement a proper system, then the well known money grabbers like Big Pharma would have to deal with a National buying Agency, with huge clout, an Agency who could buy from anywhere in the World.
But baby-steps could work.
Diogenesister: That wouldn't work because everyone would move to the state that has healthcare free at the point of access.
Well... kinda. Lots of big cities here offer a number of subsidized services for the poor, and that does indeed draw in more poor families, and sometimes pushes away the wealthy. While the budgets of many of these states are stretched thin by the demand, this hasn't really led to a mass exodus or a raft of bankrupt states (though the quality of life does suffer).
On the other hand, I do think we're seeing the effects of years of slow and steady migration of wealthy individuals and businesses towards states that cater to them. I think we're in the midst of a big experiment. The USA is so large and prosperous that we effectively have many different regions, with their own economies and rules and options. Who/what wins out is anyone's guess, and I think it will be decades before we understand the results.
Phizzy: Big Pharma would have to deal with a National buying Agency
This is where we run into a big problem with how things are done here: big Pharma --like any other large business/industry-- has an army of lobbyists who will use targeted pressure (and lots of money) to influence how things are done. I think they have an unhealthy level of influence and input into laws and regulations. The attempts to use social awareness to counter them has, IMO, been highjacked by the more extreme political elements, who have discovered that political power is even more intoxicating than money.
Whatever 'uniiversal' healthcare provides must not be adequate in Canada -- Canadians keep the high rated doctors in this state over-booked. I think US is quite the social country and if one can't afford medical insurance they go to the county hospitals which have some of the country's renown medical practitioners/educators on staff plus the latest, most expensive, medical technology/equipment - the taxpayers pay.
Those who work in this country pay for those who can't or won't.
"beef about having to "pay for other people"🤨the way Americans constantly bang on about. Why is that?"
Ronald Reagan. At least partially:
"As Ronald Reagan and other politicians ginned up anti-government
and anti-poor resentment in the 1970s and ’80s, the welfare queen stood
in for the idea that black people were too lazy to work, instead relying
on public benefits to get by, paid for by the rest of us upstanding
citizens. She was promiscuous, having as many children as possible in
order to beef up her benefit take. It was always a myth—white people
have always made up the majority of those receiving government checks,
and if anything, benefits are too miserly, not too lavish. But it was a
potent stereotype, which helped fuel a crackdown on the poor and a huge
reduction in their benefits, and it remains powerful today."
I'm not claiming that no one abuses the system, but a variation of the 'welfare queen' always seems to get trotted out by the right. Giving people some 'other' group to look down on is an old tactic. You'll still hear a variation of "those people on food stamps get to sit at home and eat steak and lobster while i'm at work".
Or you'll always hear, "40 something percent of working Americans don't pay taxes". It's true that 40 something percent dont pay income tax. (you can't pay an income tax on an income that's barely there). But they they still pay payroll taxes to help fund medicare and social security. They pay sales tax on every purchase, including food. They pay property and registration taxes if they own a car which helps fund the roads we collectively use.
No one wants to pay for a freeloader. I get that. I don't either. But a complicated issue has been simplified via half-truths into an 'us vs them' thing.
"American politics, where, thanks to TV,
you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or
a conservative.
Which one are you in this country? It’s practically a law of life
that you have to be one or the other. If you aren’t one or the other,
you might as well be a doughnut.
If some of you still haven’t decided, I’ll make it easy for you.
If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal.
If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative.
What could be simpler?" - Kurt Vonnegut
Yes, we all know the percentages of those paying the taxes and should pay the most. The 'right' contributes more charity/donation wise than the left -- and I'm not a right-r! I don't know anyone on the right (or left) who gripes about contributing to the disadvantaged/sick and those who can't afford food/housing/education, medical, whatever, but the distribution to those in need seems to be radically wrong. When children are living in cars, tents, leaving school hungry clinging to teachers/staff to stay at school, something is radically wrong in this 'rich' country. Of course, it was beyond pathetic during the 8 yr. Great Recession -- I'm not referring/pointing fingers to anyone's beloved political gods/affiliations as the mess didn't occur overnight and nothing is fair in life.
