Why having universal healthcare in America would be bad

Post Reply New Topic

Lol, don't you know!? Government's budgets aren't like personal household budgets - they're *magic* and money can come out of nowhere for as long as we want it to! Someone tell Greece to stop being so hard on themselves already...

but you have to share the profit.

It's something we don't need to be spending money on now.

I haven't read up too much on the Universal Healthcare law, so I can't say whether it's a good idea, or not. That being said, the main reason why our healthcare system (and pretty much everything else) is so screwed up and expensive, is that it's "for profit".

Yes we need to save money by sacrificing peoples lives.

1. You don't know what socialism means.
2. You don't understand the financial crisis.
3. Germany has mandatory health care for everyone, yet it is one of the economically most successful countries in the world.
4. The US isn't doing any better financially than Europe.
5. Health is a vital aspect for the well-being of people. If you're going to take responsibility for your people at all, then this is one of the first things to consider.
6. The term "obamacare" is just hateful and ridiculous as it doesn't add anything to the debate.

Given the government's inefficiency many of us aren't sure we want the government that close to us (not that it's totally non-invasive now) nor do we believe it falls within the role of government.


PPACA = Obamacare =PPACA: They both mean the same thing and I'm sure he enjoys having his name mated to it like that.
Throwing hateful and ridiculous at it isn't always going to score points here.

That's the wrongest thing I've read so far today (even more wrong than my grammar in that sentence).

Average annual employer sponsored health care premiums for a family in the US doubled from 1998 to the year 2009, to about $12,000 per year, before the health care reform act went into effect. At that point in time they were projected to increase to over $24,000 in the year 2020. The current average for premiums for a family plan is close to $14,000, so the country is still marching steadily toward that 24K+ average in 2020.

There is $695 excise tax per individual imposed that cannot be enforced by criminal penalty, levies, or liens, so it is possible to avoid it with an adjustment in with-holding taxes as the government will have the authority to take it out of tax refunds, if one attempts to avoid paying that penalty.

The maximum penalty is capped at $2250 for a family.

Just to be clear, it is not Universal Health care, that was upheld in the US recently, instead, an affordable health care act, with no public option for coverage.

To put things in perspective a family of 4 that pays an health insurance premium of close to $14,000, receives a reduction of pay of $14,000, and there is the potential of a reduction in pay of $24,000 in 2020, for those that pay the projected annual premium.

If one doesn't have a family, average employer sponsored single coverage is still in the average $4K to 5K range, but much cheaper on average than family coverage

It is obvious that the average family premium is reaching the level of wages for a full time minimum wage job and potentially approaching levels of two full time minimum wage jobs in the next decade.

Meanwhile when the healthcare reform act provision go into effect in 2014, a family of 4 making $31,100 has the potential of paying no premiums in medicaid expansion benefits as a result of states that accept 93% government reimbursed funds through 2020.


For a family of 4 making $47,000 a year, with a 40 year old parent covered, there is the projection of less than $3,000 per year annual premium outlays in a year as opposed to what will likely be close to a $15,000 average annual family insurance policy by the time it is available in 2014.

Much of current health care subsides to those in need are afforded by excise taxes from cigarettes, ranging from the mandatory $1.01 per pack collected by the federal government to up to $6.85 in New York city including state and local excise taxes.

For a person smoking two packs a day in New York City, they are already contributing close to $2500 to the insurance programs for those in need as well as other related social programs.

There are lots of places in the US that have the potential to raise cigarette excise taxes much more such as Missouri that currently has the lowest state excise taxes of 17 cents per pack, in case where you are wondering where the money for the current health insurance coverage comes from for those in need. Massachusetts raised the excise tax $1 a pack to help fund mandate coverage in that state, well before the national health care reform act became effective.

There are lots of ways to raise taxes for social welfare programs, that are invisible to many people through indirect taxes, such as those imposed on cigarettes. Some people receiving those benefits that smoke are in turn funding health insurance subsidies for their children, as well as pregnant immigrants and their children, through these indirect excise taxes that penalize one for smoking and at the same time fund health programs.

There is a great deal more room to impose additional excise taxes on alcohol related products. New York state and the government together collect about $3 per bottle for a 750ML bottle of 80 proof whiskey. The government could raise their portion another $1 per bottle to fund health care coverage, nationwide, if need be in the future, if enough people avoid paying a penalty, or if some states avoid participating in medicaid expansion. The government could increase federal excise taxes on cigarettes another 50 cents for a pack of cigarettes, as well.

One person smoking two packs a day in New York city, could almost fund insurance coverage for a family of four under the health care reform act per the example above of less than $3000 for premium outlays. They are already covering adults and children across the country through the subsidies that currently exist, through their close to $2500 contribution through excise taxes collected from the cigarettes they smoke.

I had no idea of the scale of the money already collected for insurance subsidies until I found this information today.

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/cms/Responsibility/Government_Affairs/Legislative_Issues/Cigt_Excise_Tax/default.aspx

Per the link above state and federal excise taxes collected on cigarettes amounted to over 32 billion dollars in 2010 an increase from 14 Billion dollars in the year 2000. Almost mirroring the increases in health insurance premium coverage rates.

Close to a billion dollars was collected just in New York City, including local taxes on cigarettes.

Once the states agree to receiving money to expand medicaid coverage, one can look to those excise taxes on cigarettes likely increasing more to meet any state shortfalls that may occur in the coming decade. It is has been the initiative in many states to date.

While the excise taxes continue to rise, the percentage of smokers in the US has remained consistent at about 20% of Americans since 2008.

The rates of cigarette smoking are among the highest in the states with the lowest excise taxes, in the mid-west and south, predominantly red states, comprised of many of the states that are speaking in strong opposition to the medicaid expansion, however they have lots of smokers and plenty of room compared to other states to raise excise taxes per states like Kentucky and Missouri pushing close to 30% of the population whom smoke.

The Phillip Morris company has led lobbying efforts to defeat health care reform, as well as excise taxes in some states, including Kentucky. Some of these states grow tobacco, and have strong ties with the tobacco industry. It's not surprising that they are hurting in the area of subsidy dollars per other states who have successfully implemented legislation to raise these taxes. The medicaid expansion argument played a large role in the states determination to overturn health care reform. Will be interesting to see how this turns out now that they will have to turn down money to avoid covering their citizens. The Phillip Morris Company can't be too pleased at this point in time.

And, unfortunately the individuals in those states in lower economic brackets are more likely to be among the population of smokers, whom for the majority in the US have reported they would like to quit. They won't have the same benefit to health insurance covered cessation programs, if the states refuse funds to cover those individuals.

Interestingly, some have argued that the tobacco industry is the lobbying component that defeated health care reform in the 90's. The plan at that point time was to be funded by a $1 increase in federal excise tax. Close to 15 years later, in 2009, the Obama Administration was successful in achieving that goal, which resulted in the huge increase of excise taxes on cigarettes in the year 2010 as opposed to 2000 almost doubling the amount collected in the US.

That money is being used on health care program subsidies across the country to cover children, dental programs, mental health programs, and coverage for pregnant immigrants and their children. In effect it is part of health care reform passed earlier in the Obama administration than the actual health care reform act, that is already decreasing the amount of money that will need to be funded for the current health care act.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150779/Smoking-Rates-Remain-Highest-Kentucky-Lowest-Utah.aspx#1

Interestingly approximately 47 million people in the US live in poverty, 47 million smoke, and 47 million individuals receive assistance to purchase groceries for subsistence, and finally close to 50 million individuals live in poverty. The goal was to cover an additional 32 million individuals with insurance coverage. It would have been many more without that close to 15 billion dollars a year collected from federal excise taxes for smoking since 2010 for children, immigrants, and pregnant immigrants.

Imagine what the federal excise taxes the government could collect if they legalized marijuana, with 50% public approval in 2011 measured by the gallup organization, and the CDC reporting that more teens are smoking Marijuana than cigarettes for the first time in history, 23% as opposed to 18%.

The article below suggests it could be Obama's secret election weapon, but at this point that is probably a "pipe" dream. Eventually though, if cigarettes continue to go up in price, law enforcement is not going to be able to keep up with offenders. It's no wonder teens are smoking marijuana more, it is likely cheaper than cigarettes, in some cases, at least in New York City.

It is a huge source of potential government revenue, and jobs. And a potential reality, that if teens are any indication, it is the popular choice of the future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/barack-obama-marijuana-legalisation-election

http://news.yahoo.com/cdc-more-us-teens-smoke-marijuana-cigarettes-220759702.html

A potential plan (B) to fund health care reform, if enough states opt out on medicaid expansion:




Extremely small chance of this happening in the next 4 years, and zero chance of it happening with Romney in office. But everyone needs a plan of last resort. A plan Z.

On the whole nationalising healthcare was one of the few reasonable things done in britain, The effect on gdp having sick and dying people in work isn't great.
But what you've got in america is absolutely ridiculous now, you either have full blown nationalisation, or you have PAYG not this weird thing.
Giving illegal immigrants amnesty just ensures more illegal immigration.

It's a myth that private ownership automatically leads to more efficiency and that it is impossible to structure things efficiently in the public sector.
You can have different opinions about the role of government, but I maintain that health is an important aspect of infrastructure for a country, so there are reasons to put it under government control.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say you don't want the government close to you - do you trust a privately held corporation more with your sensitive data? In my estimation, they're much more likely to use that information for profit.



OK, I don't really know enough about political culture in the US. To me this doesn't sound like an official term. Do people who support Obama use "Obamacare" also?
My suspicion was that only people who dislike Obama use that term, because they think everyone who dislikes Obama will then automatically dislike his health care plans. It seems like a manipulative term to me.

It was definitely used as a pejorative term at first, and still is, but many people don't use it like that now; it provides a common term that is less confusing for some that may have heard the various terms of socialist health care, universal health care, the ACA, health care reform, the affordable health care act, the health care mandate, etc.

The republicans started the Romneycare pejorative as Romney competed as a nominee in 2008 so that certainly evens the playing field per the two candidates respective health care plans they are responsible for. But, I can't imagine Obama calling the coverage in Massachusetts Romneycare in an official response to the American public, and it seemed a little inappropriate almost childish in an official capacity, that Romney referred to it as such, in a public response after the Supreme Court upheld most of the act as law.

Surprised no one has referred to it as Robertscare yet, since the Chief Justice was the final defining factor per what resulted as law. Or maybe even the "Supremescare" which per pun seemed to be the biggest surprise of all, when 75%, including myself were betting odds on a partisan based decision, at least in part, per upholding the mandate as tax.

Hillary Clinton's proposed health care plan was immediately dubbed "Hillarycare".

ruveyn

and that only tells us something about the mentality of the american politicians and to some extent people, nothing more.

I know too little about healthcare in the US to be able to debate meaningfuly about it. But I can provide some information, because... we have universal healthcare in Colombia. And some of you may find my knowledge on that matter useful.

Everybody, no matter how poor, can have access to it. My father has intervened a lot of people who are in the subsidized system, and some of them really need the treatments, as they are the difference between recovery and getting back to work, and have a more fulfilling life in general, or degenerating and losing their productivity and their will to live. People who can't afford to pay those treatments in normal circunstances benefit from it. And going away from the facts now, I believe a government should care about the well-being of it's citizen, and under that, I believe this is a positive consequence.

Another consequence was, EPS's, or insurance companies, got a lot of power. The big ones can control the flow of patients, and make contracts advantageous to them and disadvantageous to hospitals and doctors. If they don't like it, they take their patients somewhere else. The end result is, those insurqnce companies get rich at the expense of said hospitals and doctors. I also don't like that private companies profit from healtcare, at least if it was the government that money could be reinvested in something more worthwhile, but that's again my personal opinion. Interesting fact: 70% of healthcare receivers are subsidized by the other 30%.

That is exactly right. Money is created out of thin air by sovereign governments. Governments do not need the permission of Mr Moneybags to print the money for productive purposes. Factories and people do not have to be idled just because the rich gold-hoarders decide they should be. This idea that these rich people hold a veto is total nonsense. Naturally rich people are made to look like total ogres who insist that "their" money go to paying them subsidies and that popular programmes should get the chop. Clearly the Right hates rich people to depict them as such monsters.