Interviews with Palin

[Guest American Woman]

It isn't that 49 million people can't get healthcare, 49 million people don't have health insurance. There is Medicaid and Medicare in the States for the poor and elderly and the States actually spends more per person on health care than Canada does.

What good does Medicaid and/or Medicare do for those 40+ million who don't qualify? And what good does the "more per person" do the person who's getting nothing? It just means those people are paying taxes for health care for other people while they are getting nothing for it.

It has a system of private health care insurance as well and some choose not to buy it or are too rich to bother needing it.

I noticed that you omitted the people who can't afford it, which is why most who "choose not to by it" make that choice. And too rich to bother? Can you give me a source for that?? Why would anyone who is so rich that health insurance would be a drop in the bucket choose not to buy it?

50% of your income goes to taxes in Canada. 40% of those taxes goes to health care. If you earn an average wage in Canada you are paying roughly the same amount an American pays in health care from a private insurance company.

Again, a source please. One that supports your claim that 50% of your income goes to taxes, another that supports your claim that 40% of that 50% is spent on health care, a source citing what the "average wage" is in Canada, and last but not least, a source that shows how much it costs an American family to have similar coverage.

Edited September 15, 2008 by American Woman

[stevoh]

That's OK by me...I think it is very important for their collective psyche and Tommy Douglas tendencies. It works out pretty well, with the USA's system just across the border when the pucker factor goes up.

Number of uninsured in the United States, 2007: 45.7 million

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

[bush_cheney2004]

What good does Medicaid and/or Medicare do for those 40+ million who don't qualify? And what good does the "more per person" do the person who's getting nothing? It just means those people are paying taxes for health care for other people while they are getting nothing for it.

In some cases it does nothing, by choice, particularly young adults who would prefer not to pay for insurance for the limited amount of services used. Others take advantage of state programs authorized by Medicare waivers.

Fact is, the American federal and state programs dwarf anything in Canada, and coexist with private insurance.

I noticed that you omitted the people who can't afford it, which is why most who "choose not to by it" make that choice. And too rich to bother? Can you give me a source for that?? Why would anyone who is so rich that health insurance would be a drop in the bucket choose not to buy it?

Because it can be cheaper to only pay for a catastrophic plan. Rich people didn't get that way by being stupid, and they don't have to slum in a group insurance plan.

...and last but not least, a source that shows how much it costs an American family to have similar coverage.

What is an average American family? Hell, the average American family is insured.

Edited September 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

As most know I follow politics avidly. I had never heard of the "Bush Doctrine" before the Palin interview myself.

And if you were running for VP, that might mean something.

You have heard of the Bush Doctrine, though (emphasis mine):

In this case (the 1967 War) war was CLEARLY coming at any second. There was, therefore, an "instant, overwhelming" threat. This is different than the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense where the threat is not imminent. For an article on the difference between anticaptory and pre-emptive force see "International Law and Preemptive Force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida and Iraq" San Diego International Law Journal (San Diego, 2003) by Christopher Greenwood.

In all fairness to Bush, the US has greater responsibilities as the world's sole superpower to police disorderly areas. Saddam needed to be gone.

I'm guessing as someone who follows politics "avidly" you've heard other references to it too, and it's just a matter of your memory failing you. But like I said, you aren't running for VP, so what you are or aren't aware of is completely insignificant while what Palin is or isn't aware of is extremely significant.

[GostHacked]

JBG

As most know I follow politics avidly. I had never heard of the "Bush Doctrine" before the Palin interview myself.

One cannot possibly follow everything and know everything. But not to be aware of what the Bush Doctrine is blind and ignorance. Since the doctrine (foreign policy) has greatly affected several parts of the world (including homeland USA), it is hard not to be aware of it (anyone with common sense that is).

Sulaco

Yes yes... 49 mil is a number pulled out of a hat. It exists to make canucks feel better about themselves. Amazingly the same number has been used for years.

Your hat number is not far off the pace

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Compared to now

http://www.cbpp.org/8-26-08pov.htm

The percentage of Americans without health coverage fell from 15.8 percent in 2006 to 15.3 percent in 2007, and the number of uninsured declined by 1.3 million to 45.7 million. The improvement occurred because the increased enrollment in public programs — notably Medicare and Medicaid — more than offset a decline in the portion of the population with employer-sponsored coverage. The number and percentage of Americans without insurance remained, however, well above the figures for 2001. In that year, 39.8 million Americans, or 14.1 percent of the population, were uninsured.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/15/gvl10915.htm

Washington -- The number of uninsured people in the U.S. declined by 1.3 million in 2007, the first such statistically significant drop since 1999. But that does not lessen the need for health system reform, policy experts said.

Increased enrollment in government-sponsored health plans was largely responsible for the reduction in the number of uninsured to 45.7 million, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Aug. 26. Last year, the uninsured made up 15.3% of the population, down a half percentage point from the year before.

Numbers out of a hat indeed.

[Shady]

The problem with the uninsured numbers, is that they count illegal immigrants, as well as people who move from one job to another. For instance, if one gets hired for a new job, and there's a small period of time between the old one, and when the new one begins, they get counted in those yearly uninsured numbers.

[Riverwind]

For instance, if one gets hired for a new job, and there's a small period of time between the old one, and when the new one begins, they get counted in those yearly uninsured numbers.

So? They are still uninsured and the fact that people must depend on their employers for health coverage is the greatest flaw in the system.

[Shady]

So? They are still uninsured and the fact that people must depend on their employers for health coverage is the greatest flaw in the system.

No, people don't have to depend on their employers for health coverage. Although, most do.

[guyser]

The problem with the uninsured numbers, is that they count illegal immigrants,

Cite?

Most numbers are phrased "uninsured Americans"......that would exclude illegals.

as well as people who move from one job to another. For instance, if one gets hired for a new job, and there's a small period of time between the old one, and when the new one begins, they get counted in those yearly uninsured numbers.

Not that I am aware of since I understand most plans are staggered going in, thus staggered going out. This means you are covered for (IIRC) 3 months after leaving the job, or whenever picked up by a new insurco.

[bush_cheney2004]

So? They are still uninsured and the fact that people must depend on their employers for health coverage is the greatest flaw in the system.

But they don't have to depend on employers....most do because they can take advantage of group rates. There are numerous health insurance product available to the American consumer.

It is not a flaw at all, unless you are insisting on a broader social agenda.

[stevoh]

Yes, one of the flaws with American health care is that it is dependent on private insurance, which means that those who either don't or can't pay won't have insurance when they need it.

Why is this a flaw? Most hospitals won't deny life saving care to any patient, they will just bill them for it after. And when the patient can't afford those bills? The taxpayer ends up covering it as the hospitals can't afford to swallow these costs. So really, its a backdoor public system where taxes will end up paying for everyone who doesn't have insurance and gets injured anyway, and meanwhile another uninsured American goes bankrupt (50% of american bankrupcies cite health bills as a major reason for the bankrupcy).

Yes, thats a major flaw.

The second flaw is that private insurance is not comprehensive, complete, and current.

Not comprehensive means your specific condition might not be covered.

Not complete means that you might be have to pay for part of the final bill (this is how dentistry operates in Canada).

Not current means your doctor might have knowledge of the latest and most effective treatement, but might not be able to use that treatment because insurance doesn't cover it. In short, the insurance company, not your doctor, is determining your treatment based on cost, not medical considerations. This problem is shared by public systems however, as funding shortfalls may mean equipment and technology are not current either.

Yes, there are flaws with various public systems as well. But the fact that everyone is covered, and that there are mechanisms in place to ensure health care is paid for, makes it far superior to a private only system.

The best system is a hybrid. Private insurance for those who can pay for it. Public insurance for those who can't, and to cover costs private insurance won't.

[Carinthia]

Stevoh...this is most sensible explanation of the flaws in the American system that I have read to date. Even better than Michael Moore could explain it. I don't think he had the true knowledge of how our system works to make a comprehensive comparison.

[Shady]

The best system is a hybrid. Private insurance for those who can pay for it. Public insurance for those who can't, and to cover costs private insurance won't.

I agree. A hybrid system would be best. It's unfortunate that in Canada we aren't allowed access to any private insurance. Which is, why there's been a recent trend in which Canadians are purchasing private insurance in America in case of immediate medical emergencies. The whole 6 month+ waiting lists aren't so cool.

Anyways, back to the topic of this thread,

Palin 47%, Biden 44% in Make-believe Presidential Match-up

Link

I guess the interview wasn't too bad.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, one of the flaws with American health care is that it is dependent on private insurance, which means that those who either don't or can't pay won't have insurance when they need it.

Why is this a flaw? Most hospitals won't deny life saving care to any patient, they will just bill them for it after. And when the patient can't afford those bills? The taxpayer ends up covering it as the hospitals can't afford to swallow these costs.

Don't know where you're getting the idea that the government pays for bills that hospitals are stuck with.

So really, its a backdoor public system where taxes will end up paying for everyone who doesn't have insurance and gets injured anyway, and meanwhile another uninsured American goes bankrupt (50% of american bankrupcies cite health bills as a major reason for the bankrupcy).

No, taxes don't end up paying for everyone who doesn't have insurance and gets injured anyway. First of all, many who don't have insurance do end up paying their bills, out of their own pocket, even if it takes them a while to do it. Secondly, since so many have to declare bankruptcy, your "backdoor public system" isn't a system that helps them, so it's really no kind of public system. Third, only emergency care can't be denied. So a lot of people without health insurance who can't afford to pay for care are going without necessary care. Doctors aren't required to take them on. Doctors are refusing 'new patients' all the time, and no one can force them to take someone on. So being able to get "emergency care" in no way helps those who need "necessary care." They are two different things. And last but not least, the government isn't responsible for unpaid medical bills.

The second flaw is that private insurance is not comprehensive, complete, and current.

Not comprehensive means your specific condition might not be covered.

Not complete means that you might be have to pay for part of the final bill (this is how dentistry operates in Canada).

Not current means your doctor might have knowledge of the latest and most effective treatement, but might not be able to use that treatment because insurance doesn't cover it. In short, the insurance company, not your doctor, is determining your treatment based on cost, not medical considerations. This problem is shared by public systems however, as funding shortfalls may mean equipment and technology are not current either.

You're right. A lot of insured Americans are "under insured" and don't get needed care because they can't afford what their portion of the bill would be. Furthermore, if treatment is deemed 'experimental' by the insurance company, that treatment will not be covered, as you pointed out. And yes, there are certain conditions that aren't covered. So those are all definite drawbacks even for many of those who do have insurance.

The best system is a hybrid. Private insurance for those who can pay for it. Public insurance for those who can't, and to cover costs private insurance won't.

Why private insurance for those who can pay it? Why would they need different insurance from what the government is providing if the government is providing everyone with all they care they need? Would they get better care? Would they get better doctors? ie: would those doctors make more money than the ones treating the "public insurance" patients? If so, seems to me all the best doctors would go with the private insurance patients and the public insurance patients would be stuck with the bottom end doctors. I'm not sure if that would make for a very good public health care system.

Stevoh...this is most sensible explanation of the flaws in the American system that I have read to date. Even better than Michael Moore could explain it. I don't think he had the true knowledge of how our system works to make a comprehensive comparison.

I have no doubt Michael Moore understands exactly how your system works. If not, he certainly could find someone who would be willing to 'teach' him all about it. But like I said, I have no doubt he knows. I like MM a lot, but when he makes a documentary, he clearly has an agenda, and he will do what he sees fit to get that message home.

[stevoh]

Don't know where you're getting the idea that the government pays for bills that hospitals are stuck with.

A hospital is never allowed to "go broke", like a normal business. Depending on the hospital and state, they are instead supported by taxes from the local, state, or federal government.

Want an example? Fremont Nebraska (pop 25000) pays between 300,000 and 500,000 a year for unpaid medical bills on the municipal level.

No, taxes don't end up paying for everyone who doesn't have insurance and gets injured anyway. First of all, many who don't have insurance do end up paying their bills, out of their own pocket, even if it takes them a while to do it.

I was referring to those uninsured who don't pay their bills.

Secondly, since so many have to declare bankruptcy, your "backdoor public system" isn't a system that helps them, so it's really no kind of public system.

Exactly, not the right approach at all.

Third, only emergency care can't be denied. So a lot of people without health insurance who can't afford to pay for care are going without necessary care. Doctors aren't required to take them on. Doctors are refusing 'new patients' all the time, and no one can force them to take someone on. So being able to get "emergency care" in no way helps those who need "necessary care." They are two different things.

Yes, only emergency care can't be denied. But there is nothing to stop someone getting non-emergency care and then simply not paying their bill. Or finding out later that their insurance didn't cover that cost.

And last but not least, the government isn't responsible for unpaid medical bills.

Exactly, they aren't responsible for it, no defined set of rules exists, but they do routinely support hospitals with budget shortfalls, as the other alternative (closing the hospital) isn't really an option in many cases.

You're right. A lot of insured Americans are "under insured" and don't get needed care because they can't afford what their portion of the bill would be. Furthermore, if treatment is deemed 'experimental' by the insurance company, that treatment will not be covered, as you pointed out. And yes, there are certain conditions that aren't covered. So those are all definite drawbacks even for many of those who do have insurance.

Why private insurance for those who can pay it? Why would they need different insurance from what the government is providing if the government is providing everyone with all they care they need? Would they get better care? Would they get better doctors? ie: would those doctors make more money than the ones treating the "public insurance" patients? If so, seems to me all the best doctors would go with the private insurance patients and the public insurance patients would be stuck with the bottom end doctors. I'm not sure if that would make for a very good public health care system.

This is taking the thread too far off track, but in its simplest terms, soley public health care has certain specific problems (wait times, budget shortfalls) that can be effectively addressed with optional private insurance.

Start another thread and we can go into this in more detail, if you wish.

[Guest American Woman]

A hospital is never allowed to "go broke", like a normal business. Depending on the hospital and state, they are instead supported by taxes from the local, state, or federal government.

Want an example? Fremont Nebraska (pop 25000) pays between 300,000 and 500,000 a year for unpaid medical bills on the municipal level.

From "60 Minutes":

Hospitals get certain accounting and public-relations benefits even when they don't collect from the uninsured. For-profit hospitals get a tax write-off on uncollected debts. Non-profit hospitals (85 percent of U.S. hospitals are non-profit) cite their uncollected debts in fund-raising efforts and to the government in arguing for higher Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement payments.

That doesn't sound as if the government reimburses them.

The hospital industry made near-record $26.3 billion in profits in 2004 (the last year for which figures are available), according to the American Hospitals Association. As many as 25 percent of hospitals – particularly municipal hospitals which handle mostly the poor – lose money, the AHA claims. But other hospitals – both non-profit and for-profit hospitals – make handsome profits. According to the AHA, the average hospital's profit margin is 5.2 percent, the highest in six years.

That doesn't sound as if most hospitals are in danger of going broke, and it doesn't sound as if the government is stepping in and preventing the hospitals that handle mostly the poor from losing money.

[Liam]

Are you talking about the office of President or VP, or a blend of the two? Criticisms of Obama's experience are concerning the office of President, for which Palin is not running.

Correct, Palin is not running for the presidency, at least not directly. The problem for the GOP is that McCain is. And according to McCain's judgment, Palin has what it takes to be the President. Sadly, as she has shown in the Gibson interviews, McCain's assessment of Palin is entirely without basis. *That* is the line of attack Dems ought to be taking with Palin.

It's perfectly understandable that people can like Sarah Palin and I would never advocate a direct attack on her. She's ambitious, she's young, she's vibrant, she's pretty, she has a family and a devoted husband, she's charismatic. But she has not shown any qualities which put her in the realm of people who could be president. I don't say any of that to be critical of her -- she is who she is and she will undoubtedly be more qualified with more seasoning. But for McCain to insist that she is ready to not only steward the country, but that she is ready (right now) to be commander in chief material says to me that McCain utterly lacks judgment.

I have no doubt that being president is a job that requires quite a bit of on-the-job training. But a president (or a wannabe) has to have at least a minimal interest in the subject matter of the job and the body of knowledge required of the position *prior* to taking it on as his or her next challenge. Palin just has never shown this depth. And she still does not show it. She could in a few years' time, but knowing she's only regurgitating taglines and talking points from her briefing sessions makes her neither capable nor informed.

What is, though, possibly more troubling to me, is that Palin seems incapable of not knowing that it's okay to not know certain things. Her instinct seems to be to bluff, to fabricate, to substitute confidence for honesty or knowledge. (Hmm... what other national US leader does that sound like...??) If you were a philosophy hobbyist who never had much interest in gardening and you were suddenly asked to join a discussion on rose gardening, you'd be out of your league. That's who Sarah Palin is. She has never shown an interest in the subject she's now being asked to master and that we're being asked to believe she knows and can manage. I say this, again, not as a criticism of her, but of McCain's judgment that she's ready and fit to serve the highest office in the world. She is not. And it speaks volumes about his priorities (setting electoral interests above national interests).

Conservatives are finally waking from their convention swoon. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8090202441.html

They are finally starting to ask questions about Palin's readiness (and McCain's readiness, indirectly). The media is finally roousing itself from its torpor of the past two weeks (and ask *real* questions about McCain and Palin). I may end up wrong, but I expect things will start going a bit south for McCain and Palin in the coming weeks and the decision to have her as a running mate and the seriousness of the two candidates at the top of the ticket and the dignity of the two campaigns will end up being a very stark study in contrasts.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Liam

[sharkman]

Correct, Palin is not running for the presidency, at least not directly. The problem for the GOP is that McCain is. And according to McCain's judgment, Palin has what it takes to be the President. Sadly, as she has shown in the Gibson interviews, McCain's assessment of Palin is entirely without basis. *That* is the line of attack Dems ought to be taking with Palin.

It's perfectly understandable that people can like Sarah Palin and I would never advocate a direct attack on her. She's ambitious, she's young, she's vibrant, she's pretty, she has a family and a devoted husband, she's charismatic. But she has not shown any qualities which put her in the realm of people who could be president. I don't say any of that to be critical of her -- she is who she is and she will undoubtedly be more qualified with more seasoning. But for McCain to insist that she is ready to not only steward the country, but that she is ready (right now) to be commander in chief material says to me that McCain utterly lacks judgment.

I have no doubt that being president is a job that requires quite a bit of on-the-job training. But a president (or a wannabe) has to have at least a minimal interest in the subject matter of the job and the body of knowledge required of the position *prior* to taking it on as his or her next challenge. Palin just has never shown this depth. And she still does not show it. She could in a few years' time, but knowing she's only regurgitating taglines and talking points from her briefing sessions makes her neither capable nor informed.

What is, though, possibly more troubling to me, is that Palin seems incapable of not knowing that it's okay to not know certain things. Her instinct seems to be to bluff, to fabricate, to substitute confidence for honesty or knowledge. (Hmm... what other national US leader does that sound like...??) If you were a philosophy hobbyist who never had much interest in gardening and you were suddenly asked to join a discussion on rose gardening, you'd be out of your league. That's who Sarah Palin is. She has never shown an interest in the subject she's now being asked to master and that we're being asked to believe she knows and can manage. I say this, again, not as a criticism of her, but of McCain's judgment that she's ready and fit to serve the highest office in the world. She is not. And it speaks volumes about his priorities (setting electoral interests above national interests).

Good thoughts, and thank you for not expressing confidence in McCain's certain death as some on the left have been doing. Her experience is light, but she seems like a quick study, one interview notwithstanding. There have been much worse choices for VP. She's been running an 18 billion budget in Alaska, Bill Clinton ran a 2 billion budget as governor.

Your initial description of Palin could very accurately describe Obama word for word. The only difference being one is running for president. She is not a perfect choice but kind of a maverick one, with risks and rewards possible. Time will tell, but as long as the MSM tries to simply smear her, little information of any value will come out.

[jbg]

You're right. A lot of insured Americans are "under insured" and don't get needed care because they can't afford what their portion of the bill would be. Furthermore, if treatment is deemed 'experimental' by the insurance company, that treatment will not be covered, as you pointed out. And yes, there are certain conditions that aren't covered. So those are all definite drawbacks even for many of those who do have insurance.

On a personal note, my mother is having a terrible time with the US health system, and another poster I am very friendly with from Ontario is having an equally terrible time. The health systems in both countries are staggering under the cost of technological advances.

[jbg]

Good thoughts, and thank you for not expressing confidence in McCain's certain death as some on the left have been doing. Her experience is light, but she seems like a quick study, one interview notwithstanding. There have been much worse choices for VP. She's been running an 18 billion budget in Alaska, Bill Clinton ran a 2 billion budget as governor.

Your initial description of Palin could very accurately describe Obama word for word. The only difference being one is running for president. She is not a perfect choice but kind of a maverick one, with risks and rewards possible. Time will tell, but as long as the MSM tries to simply smear her, little information of any value will come out.

Also, she doesn't have a background of lengthy associations with vile haters. Notwithstanding that, her views, not her personally, make my skin crawl.

[Pliny]

Again, a source please. One that supports your claim that 50% of your income goes to taxes, another that supports your claim that 40% of that 50% is spent on health care, a source citing what the "average wage" is in Canada, and last but not least, a source that shows how much it costs an American family to have similar coverage.

Here is tax freedom day:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WE...008_English.pdf

From a retirement pension course site:

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Canada Pension Plan

You may be eligible for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pension. Your CPP retirement pension depends on how much and for how long you contributed to the plan*. If you contributed in most years between the ages of 18 and 65 and earned about the average Canadian wage (in 2007, $43,700)

Income tax rates for the average wage of $43,700 is about 26% in Canada or $11,362 X .4 (.4 being the portion of the federal budget that goes to health care) = $4544.80

This is what the average wage earner in Canada pays for health insurance plus provincial MSP premiums which are around $100/mo./per family in my province.

So if you and your spouse are both making the average Canadian wage you are paying roughly around $10,000 per year for public health care insurance.

Most people think it is free. You aren't one of those, are you?

How much does a family pay in America for private health care insurance?

Edited September 17, 2008 by Pliny

[bush_cheney2004]

How much does a family pay in America for private health care insurance?

American health insurance premiums vary widely depending on employer contribution, group size, pre-existing conditions, coverage levels, local market costs for services, etc. The current average is about $12,000, with employers paying about 70% of that. So families are paying almost $4,000 on average.

I pay only about $100 per month / $1200 per year for family coverage and that includes dental. Single coverage costs even less. Compared to many others, this is as close to "free" as it gets.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: Again, a source please. One that supports your claim that 50% of your income goes to taxes, another that supports your claim that 40% of that 50% is spent on health care, a source citing what the "average wage" is in Canada, and last but not least, a source that shows how much it costs an American family to have similar coverage.

Here is tax freedom day:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WE...008_English.pdf

From a retirement pension course site:

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Canada Pension Plan

You may be eligible for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pension. Your CPP retirement pension depends on how much and for how long you contributed to the plan*. If you contributed in most years between the ages of 18 and 65 and earned about the average Canadian wage (in 2007, $43,700)

Income tax rates for the average wage of $43,700 is about 26% in Canada or $11,362 X .4 (.4 being the portion of the federal budget that goes to health care) = $4544.80

This is what the average wage earner in Canada pays for health insurance plus provincial MSP premiums which are around $100/mo./per family in my province.

So if you and your spouse are both making the average Canadian wage you are paying roughly around $10,000 per year for public health care insurance.

Most people think it is free. You aren't one of those, are you?

How much does a family pay in America for private health care insurance?

Obviously I'm not "one of those people who think it's free" or I wouldn't have asked the questions I did.

I questioned the "50% of your income goes to taxes," and rightly so since your own source says that the average Canadian family's income tax rate is "about 26%." Furthermore, since Health care accounted for only 10% of Canada's GDP in 2006, I don't understand how 40% of your taxes can be going to health care. And compare that 10% of your GDP for health care to 15.3% of the United States' GDP going to health care, when we don't even have national coverage. Canada, per capita, spends US$3878 while the U.S. per capita is $6714. So besides having to pay a premium for insurance or for health care out of our pockets if not covered, we must pay more in taxes for health care than Canadians do.

And for those of you who think we have "better" coverage because the government spends more per capita, not true. As I already pointed out, some are paying taxes for health care and getting nothing. Furthermore, private health coverage, a for-profit health system, involves a lot of paper work and processing, etc., so a good chunk of the "health care money" goes towards that. Almost one third of our health care tax dollars, to be exact:

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

As for what it costs to insure a family:

Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage - not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance - the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage...

And Cobra is a group rate, generally the cheapest way to buy it, and obviously not everyone is eligible for it.

link

link

link

Edited September 17, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

When it comes to health care, Americans pay more because they get more. The excess capacity does not come cheap.

[Guest American Woman]

When it comes to health care, Americans pay more because they get more. The excess capacity does not come cheap.

No, they don't get more. Clearly that's been shown. Furthermore, there are millions who get nothing and you can repeat your false claims from now until eternity and it won't change the reality.