Healthcare for self employed engineer in the U.S - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: aiq25
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 04:47:29 pm
content: I always wondered what people do about health insurance in the U.S. who are self employed. I tried to buy healthcare insurance for my mom and man there wasn't any comparable plan to what she had before getting laid off (she was a machine operator).I figure it can't be any better for those who have their own business. Anyone have any experience? I think someday I would like to work on a contract basis (my current employer allows this once you have enough experience) just to get a bit more flexibility and try to work on different types of products/projects. Not anytime soon though. Things will probably change quite a bit when I get to this stage.Note: I am not trying to start up a political debate. Just curious.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 05:27:01 pm
content: Subscribed. This is one of the biggest concerns in starting a small business.

author: rfeecs
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 06:04:32 pm
content: At one time I worked at a small business with only 4 employees and for a while they didn't have a group policy set up. Everyone had to get their own insurance. So you buy individual health insurance. It's expensive, but available. Now I would just first look at healthcare.gov to get an idea. I just checked there. It looks like for something equivalent to my current plan I would pay about $900 a month. Not cheap, but a "gold" HMO plan with no deductible. I'm sure it depends on your state, Obamacare and all that.Don't forget that if you are self-employed you also have to pay self employment tax. You have to pay double for social security and medicare.

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 06:39:57 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 17, 2017, 05:27:01 pmYup, I am being forced in to early retirement. Two days after Trump was elected, GE told us they are closing our plant in this one horse town. I would like to do what I do now, but on my own. I have two pensions that will be coming in, but I am only 57 and need more money than that and I need insurance for myself and my family. So far the cheapest plan is like $960/month which is more than the mortgage.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 06:41:41 pm
content: Quote from: rfeecs on May 17, 2017, 06:04:32 pmDouble for social security and Medicare tax? Really? In other words "F-me!"?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 07:04:55 pm
content: You're already "paying" both halves of it now, just you only see one half of it (your employer pays the other half).When you become your own employer, you pay the employee half and the employer half, but now you see both sides of it.

author: aiq25
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 08:06:22 pm
content: Quote from: rfeecs on May 17, 2017, 06:04:32 pmI checked on there for my mom but it didn't show any "good" plans for as low as $900/month. I will check again. When I say good I mean one with reasonable deductible and out of pocket cost. And by reasonable I meant under $1500/year. LolI guess it makes sense. I think including my contribution and my employers, it's more than $800/month for my current plan. I should check that again. Man that's steep. I'm guessing larger employers will get more discount.I wonder what the small business owners end up paying (less than 5 employees or so).Man there are so many things when starting your own business that you don't really think about.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 08:27:32 pm
content: Quote from: aiq25 on May 17, 2017, 08:06:22 pmIf you don't have $10,800/yr available in budget then find a higher deductible and stuff the remainder into an HSA.Though I suspect they price their options so that, if you're exceeding the deductible every year, the total cost to you remains nearly the same.Tim

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 08:30:04 pm
content: Here in Indiana, self employed, absolute cheapest plan via any provider, $1300/month, $13k max out of pocket per family, max $6k out of pocket per person.Under Obamacare my premiums went up 297% (so far, next year will again be another hike), granted I get more coverage due to the mandates, but it's coverage I don't want or utilize.

author: eugenenine
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 08:32:55 pm
content: Also some hospitals started getting political within the last couple years. If you don't have the .gov insurance they send you home. So something to keep in mind even if you have insurance it might not be accepted.

author: aiq25
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 08:47:07 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on May 17, 2017, 08:30:04 pmWow... that is crazy! So is the Obamacare hike.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 08:48:58 pm
content: Healthcare insurance in US is broken.- Obama care is pretty bad especially in some states. Some people are getting completely drowned by it.The problem however is there are two schools of thought:- Democrats: Insure everyone (single payer) lower the premiums by increasing the pool and bargaining power.- Republicans: Add premiums to the sick, healthy get a cheaper insurance. Result is cheaper insurance for the healthy and millions without health insurance back to how it was before Obama Care.Problem is people forget premiums were going up like crazy before Obama care. Maybe because it wasn't mandatory so some never even had health insurance.http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/I don't see the situation getting better any time soon. As someone mentioned above, healthcare is the single biggest barrier to starting a business in the US. And it's probably why the powers to be aren't interested in getting it fixed. Much better to have your health and wellbeing depend on being a good corporate drone.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 09:12:25 pm
content: Neither party actually wants to fix it, because it puts so much money into their pockets (and their friends').The reason health care, and higher education, and a couple of other things, have exploded (2-3 times faster than inflation, over the last two decades), is because of abstraction. By hiding the cost to the end user, there can be no "free market" operation. Instead, rates are negotiated, between the insurance companies and healthcare providers, en masse, then insurance rates are set separately, and insurance tiers / options / packages are created for the customers to actually buy.As Scott Adams likes to put it, it's a:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConfusopolyMost U.S. billing schemes do the same acrobatics: cable and phone companies sell "package deals", travel companies do packages and specials and so on; etc. The pricing of any individual component or service in the package is completely and utterly irrelevant; assigning numbers to them is only intended to confuse the end user.The simplest starting point I've seen suggested to fix this, is:Require hospitals to post a fixed rate, or estimate at least, for standard operations, in a suitable location (lobby, office, handouts, whatever).Then the customers will see their options, hospitals will necessarily have to charge what they say they're going to charge (no more completely imaginary bills), and insurance companies will have to pay out less.The funny thing about that last part, though: profit is usually designed as a fraction of operating cost. Insurance companieswant to see higher costs, because it means they get more profit from it. They might even lower their overhead (reduce the fraction, as an economy of scale, perhaps), while still profiting more from a larger customer base!That's the only reason the bill was able to pass in the first place, and it's a shame that we can't sue our politicians for making bald faced lies to us that could never possibly be true ("you get to keep your plan" and "your rates won't go up" will go down in history as Obama's "read my lips" moment).Tim

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 09:20:12 pm
content: I guess now with the changes that ryan and trump are making, if you have a pre-existing condition and have to change jobs, you screwed.Obama care had its merits.One of out field guys was on a job in England and broke a leg. He was in the hospital there for a week and when he left, he did not have a bill; they covered him, or so I was told. Wow. Germany has health care for their citizens and free university. Yes, they may have a high federal tax, but I bet it's cheaper than us paying federal tax, state tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, local tax, etc and then paying insurance health insurance premiums on top of that. Plus when they loose a job, they still have health coverage. England is similar from what I am told along with Canada. Sure you may have a long wait for elective surgeries, but that is acceptable in most cases. Our health care payment and coverage system is becoming the joke of the world.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 09:35:26 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on May 17, 2017, 08:48:58 pmDon't forget the follow-on to that...sick people still need health care. If they can't afford insurance, they either die, or they rack up more medical debt than they can pay off, and are forced to declare bankruptcy. When they do that, the debt gets wiped, and the hospitals that did the work don't get paid. As a result, hospitals have to charge more for each procedure to cover the cost of the people who can't pay.So under the Republican school of thought, the people who have insurance pay lower premiums, but have to pay more for their procedures than they would otherwise. They still have to cover the cost of those who can't afford it, they just do so through more expensive procedures instead of more expensive premiums.That is assuming hospitals actually do lower the cost of procedures when the percentage of insured patients increases, I have my doubts they actually would...chances are they'd just pocket the extra money instead. For-profit hospitals, for-profit insurance companies...every "for-profit" link in the chain has to actually make aprofitto keep shareholders happy, which means the costs to the patient are necessarily higher than they otherwise could be.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 10:53:02 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 17, 2017, 05:27:01 pmI'm always stunned by this.It's not even a consideration at all in Australia.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 10:54:15 pm
content: Quote from: rfeecsSeriously?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 11:01:03 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on May 17, 2017, 08:48:58 pmI won't chime in on the US problem, but I'm actually a fan of getting a discount for being healthy. After all we get no-claim bonuses for our car and other insurance, but no such thing exists for medical.I'm happy to pay my 2% medicare levy for universal health care of course, and we do get a discount on that if we have basic private hospital cover. But I do get kind of annoyed that I have to pay the same as someone who makes bad lifestyle choices that causes them to become chronically ill and use the system weekly when I've used it a handful of times in my entire life.But still, you can't complain in Australia, our system is world class, works, is cheap, and no one ever has to worry about going bankrupt over medical expenses.

author: Gary.M
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 11:02:51 pm
content: USA /Healthcare / Underdeveloped country.Sent from my x600 using Tapatalk

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 11:24:32 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 17, 2017, 11:01:03 pmI totally get the people who feel that way. Same for the drivers. Sometimes I feel like I pay way too much for my car insurance when I am an super defensive driver who's driven for over 20 years without a single accident or a claim.But as you hint in your post. I do think health insurance for all is a good thing. And really in a developed world should be a human right. Not everyone is fortunate to be born with good genes, or be a male (in terms of cost of health insurance women are much more costly). I guess what I am saying is I don't mind paying for it if it makes the society better, we all do get sick eventually or at one point or another.As far as people who take "advantage of the system" go.. by being carelessly unhealthy when it's in their control to improve it.. you'll always have dead weight. If their own health isn't an incentive enough to get healthier.. money or anything else isn't going to make a difference either.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 11:29:15 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on May 17, 2017, 07:04:55 pmIt is even more complicated than that. If you are near retirement age, you need to consider Medicare costs. When I was self employed, I high-deductible insurance from Anthem and what I felt were relatively low premiums. When I reached 65 (Medicare age then), my out of pocket premiums for Medicare actually went UP, coverage was less, and I had been paying into Medicare since its inception. In other words, if you have any decent retirement income, you will be paying IRMA based on your MAGI.If you don't know what those acronyms mean, you will. Medicare is not free.John

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 11:49:37 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 17, 2017, 10:54:15 pmYes. The employee and the employer both pay into FICA (social security) and Medicare. When those are different entities (you're a W-2 employee working for someone else) and then you switch so that you are both the employer and employee, "you" end up paying both shares, because "you" are both the employee and the employer.IMO, it makes sense, at least in the sense that it's logically self-consistent.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 11:52:34 pm
content: Or, you could work for a public agency with retirement health care for immediate family as a negotiated benefit, you retire, and then the agency files for bankruptcy and they pay you a couple of hundred bucks and cancel your benefit. Now you are out in the cold!No coverage, no group plan, just an individual purchaser at whatever the market will bear.

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 11:58:24 pm
content: I won't chime in on the US problem, but I'm actually a fan of getting a discount for being healthy.That works unless you came up through the old system and are now in your mid-fifties and falling apart with arthritis. I can not healthy living the arthritis away; other than weight loss. Back in my day, you left the doctor keep you healthy ( as bad as that sounds ).At GE, Health Ahead is a huge inititiative. About 2009, our insurance change for the worse, much worse with the initiative that if you stay healthy and don't need health care that is the cheapest and best way. That's great if you are starting off young but forcing it on us old farts that are already worn out with pre-existing conditions was hard and nasty.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 12:01:07 am
content: Health insurance in the US is a complete nightmare, it traps people in their jobs because most of us rely on our employers to provide it via group negotiated policies, and it can be hard to transition directly to a fulltime position at another company, many hire contractors which may later convert to FTE, and contractors typically don't get health benefits. The ACA helped in some ways and hurt in others. It has the serious flaw of no cost controls, something that is shared by proposed successors. IMHO health insurance should not be a private for-profit industry, and all citizens should have some sort of basic healthcare, at least for catastrophic illness and some forms of preventative care. Nobody should ever have to choose between dying and bankruptcy, we are a wealthy enough society that there is no excuse for allowing people to die of treatable illnesses.

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 12:04:36 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 18, 2017, 12:01:07 amAgreed thank you. I've worked for the same company for 36 years. Two days after Trump was elected, they announced we are being closed and moved overseas. In about 3or 4 months, I'll be 57 with no healthcare for my family and my wife has severe heart problems. We have no idea how we will keep getting her 18 pills a day; no idea.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: basinstreetdesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 12:18:34 am
content: Quote from: daveyk on May 17, 2017, 09:20:12 pmWhenever I hear someone talk about how the health system works in the USA I'm dumbfounded. And then flabbergasted by the talk of people who insist that they dont want Government meddling with their doctorin'.. Thank God I live in Canada!.How much do you think the following health history would have cost you in the states?2 heart attacks,triple bypass surgery,gall bladder surgery,HUNDREDS of doctor visits,4 angiogram procedures,2 ambulance rides,So far the total bill for all of that has been $10 for a couple of phone calls. The only thing I regret is that I never got lights and sirens with the ambulance rides! All of this was laid on by the Ontario health plan, OHIP. I never paid a cent in premiums, payroll deductions or anyway else. All of it is covered through payroll contributions from the employers. They make the payments starting when they hire someone.Despite all of the BS spewed by politicos who have an axe to grind or are being paid under the table by the big health care companies, I cant say enough about the system here.And another thing, for someone with a cardiac history, how do you think I would have fared if I had to worry about the cost of all this?My best advice is to go talk to someone (lawmaker) who legitimately WANTS to change things for the better not just ensure their perpetuation in office.

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 12:23:01 am
content: Quote from: basinstreetdesign on May 18, 2017, 12:18:34 amMy wife has severe heart issues that have to made worse by her worrying about how we are going to pay for it all. This year I had 1000$ in an HRA and $2550 in an FSA and we spent every cent so far. My wife's echo-cardiogram cost us about $2100 after it was run through our insurance!!Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 12:31:23 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on May 17, 2017, 09:12:25 pmThat is how it works over here. The government has set a fixed price for every procedure. Healthcare doesn't work otherwise because people tend to get scared they don't get the best.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 12:46:49 am
content: I've heard lots of horror stories about the Canadian healthcare system, but I haven't had much success finding these mythical Canadians who have had such horrible experiences. I'm sure some of them exist, but almost universally the Canadians (and those from other developed nations) I've encountered are appalled by the state of things down here in the US and the fact that such vast numbers of people in such a wealthy nation have no health coverage at all. As much as I love my country, we certainly have flaws and our healthcare is a glaring one. I mean the care is great, arguably the best in the world, if you can afford it. The problem is that's a very big "if"!

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 12:49:09 am
content: How long after emigrating to Canada from the US would it take to be eligible for their health care?

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 01:25:57 am
content: Quote from: basinstreetdesign on May 18, 2017, 12:18:34 amWith insurance, I'd estimate in the several tens of thousands of dollars, depending of course on the insurance plan you had and over how many years all of this occurred (most plans have yearly out-of-pocket maximums).Without insurance, I'd guess several hundred thousand dollars. Enough to put most people into bankruptcy at least once.Our healthcare system is a joke.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 01:49:19 am
content: Its very expensive unless you can get it through a professional organization and thats getting harder. The cost varies a great deal depending on where you are both by state and locality with the most expensive health care being in places like New York City. If I told you how expensive you would likely think I was lying so see the screenshot below. This is from 2009.The prices have fallen from then because of "Obamacare" a sort of insurance of last resort for self employed working people, which is certainly better than nothing although it does have extremely high deductibles in most of their plans as far as I know. Whats likely to happen is because a great many people did manage to get insurance which lessened the write-offs when people got really sick and basically there was zero chance they would be able to pay because they had no assets which could be taken, so what will happen is because that will no longer be the case the prices for self employed people as well as employer plans are going to soar back up again because they have to get that money somewhere. Also, we will be back to the situation pre 1998 (WTO rules explicitly say and a declaration the US participated in at the Shanghai G20 meeting implies we are supposed to roll back our "protectionist" regulation to the state before Feb 1998) Anyway, back then it was truly hellish for sick people and there were a lot fewer people working without insurance, many people don't remember but we were in a horrible situation back in the 1990s- for example, when if somebody at a small company got some serious illness their company would see huge price hikes - invariably resulting in their getting laid off "in order to save the rest of the employees insurance". People who had some illness in their families were basically blacklisted from getting employment.This is not a good time for the US, and they are not getting better. if you were thinking of moving here I would think long and hard about whether you can afford it..

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 01:58:51 am
content: Quote from: daveyk on May 18, 2017, 12:04:36 amDepending on your education (you need a BSc in an engerineering subject), but if you can get a job in Canada, welcome to canada under the existing free trade agreement.https://www.tnvisabulletin.com/tn-visa-scientist-occupationsOnce you have your job offer and your transcripts, it's not much more difficult than showing up at the border.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 02:04:36 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 18, 2017, 12:31:23 amA system like that will degenerate to mediocrity. What's the point in becoming the 'best' in your field if you get paid the same as the donkeys?Most of the cardiologists around here are independent contractors (they aren't employees of a hospital) and bill separately for their services. The hospital bills separately for everything they provide. It's a nightmare!I agree that our system is hosed and, personally, it will get worse when my wife retires (again). We still don't know how medical is going to work out.

author: basinstreetdesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 02:06:03 am
content: Quote from: rdl on May 18, 2017, 12:49:09 amJust made a cursory perusal of the Canadian Government website re immigration:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/residents/new_immigrants.aspIf you click on "Start your New Life In Canada", then "Health Insurance" it tells you that it can take up to 3 months AFTER you get a Permanent Resident card (but then keep in mind that we ARE talking about the federal government here). I cant find where it says how long it takes to get a PR card...Then again, if you have no insurance where you are and are willing to spend a few months landing a job somewhere in Canada, what's 3 mo.?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 02:10:48 am
content: If you are in Canada and suffer an emergency or if you are legally resident in Canada its my understanding that means you can go to the doctor. As far as I know they are not equipped to take your money. That doesnt apply to prescriptions there many people have insurance through work. The prices of drugs in Canada are much lower than in the US though and they are identical drugs . More than a decade I lived for ten years next to a household that was mixed Canadian and French, so have had lots of exposure to opinions about the Canadian healthcare system. This was in SF and my Canadian next door neighbors (we shared our back porches and our doors were always open) used to fly home whenever they needed medical care. That tells you something.The two least complicated ways the WTO rules work you either take money and are completely commercial (like the US)or you are completely noncommercial and money is never taken like Canada. There is no such thing as a "public option" if you didnt already have something in 1995. (Date the WTO came into force) Whatever you had then however you can keep. As long as you dont change it.Canada has wisely taken the second path and avoided the express route to privatization that the UK is now onbecause of the WTO GATSagreement. Australia has a hybrid system which is more difficult and potentially dangerous- unless theyexplicitly carve out all their public services from trade agreements.Quote from: rdl onTodayat 18:49:09

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 02:18:47 am
content: I have two American friends who lived in Holland for quite some time and came back to the US a few years ago. They still are on their Dutch health insurance because they have not been able to find health insurance in the US they could afford. One of them is an engineer, I dont know his current state of employment. He may be working but it sounds like his job doesn't seem to offer insurance. they are in the Bay Area. Their rent is also astronomical now. They live in a warehouse mixed live work space.I should add this link.This is a brilliant paperon the causes of our health care mess written by a 27 year old law student who was pushing for single payer in 2009, he was a third year law student at Northwestern University in Chicago. he died not long after it was published from unknown causes.here is a video that was taken of him around five weeks earlier.This PDF is also very informativeon the current US healthcare situation.Quote from: nctnico onTodayat 18:31:23>Quote from: T3sl4co1l onTodayat 15:12:25That is how it works over here. The government has set a fixed price for every procedure. Healthcare doesn't work otherwise because people tend to get scared they don't get the best.

author: Dielectric
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 02:39:32 am
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on May 18, 2017, 01:25:57 amHa, guess how I learned to make sure we get pregnant in the first quarter of the year? Health care deductibles reset on Jan 1, no matter if you're in the "middle" of something or not.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 02:40:59 am
content: If your business has a professional organization I would look there first. If you are legitimately employed in your profession in the past (less so now because its become so hard to find) there usually was some kind of organization of people who do what you do whatever it is that offered/offers group insurance.IMHO health insurance should not be connected to jobs.Quote from: aiq25 onTodayat 10:47:29

author: aiq25
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 02:55:16 am
content: Quote from: cdev on May 18, 2017, 02:40:59 amCurrently I have very good insurance, compared to what I have to pay and the benefits. My previous company (which was a much larger organization), I was so surprised at how good the insurance was. I had zero out of pocket costs, except for co-pays (not even deductible). I have to go see a eye specialist at least twice a year (I am extremely nearsighted). Under my old employer these were considered office visits (even the tests they run). My new employer and my first job I have to pay the deductible for the test and the office visit.Based on these posts I don't think I will go the contract route or even my own business, it doesn't seem worth it unless I can pay like $30k-$40k a year on health insurance for my family (I mean including the premiums, deductibles, co-pay, etc...).

author: aiq25
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 03:03:43 am
content: I didn't want to bring up Obamacare but since many have brought it up, I agree there are tons of disadvantages but I have two family members who benefited from it (or will/can), after it helps someone close to you I think you realize the advantages.My Aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer back in 2006/07 and her insurance (through her employer) dropped her coverage after finding out. Yup, they dropped her coverage. She was lucky because she was able to get private insurance, at a whopping $400/month. I know it sounds cheap compared to now a days but she was making around $18,000/year but at least she had coverage. One of my other family member was able to get insurance through Obamacare.Yeah the situation in the U.S. is horrible. I'm just glad my employer offers it and I have decent enough income to be able to afford the extra costs.I just don't understand why this topic becomes so political (at least to the general public). Me and my friend were talking about it today... We really think insurance in general should not be profit. Same with the education system.If you guys (who are outside the U.S.) think the healthcare insurance is bad, our auto insurance is not as good either. I live around the Detroit area and used to pay about $300/month for coverage (now it has dropped to $155/month since I moved a bit further north).

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 03:11:54 am
content: There are a number of supplements that can dramatically cut risk of heart problems. One is high DHA fish oil, omega 3s, another is resveratrol (which helps dozens of things, all sorts of things, its also good for the eyes, for the back, its good for your brain)Resveratrol works best if you let it soak into the membranes in your mouth, rather than swallowing it. PubMed will be helpful in looking up medical conditions.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 03:16:39 am
content: Car insurance is a complete racket too. They're more than happy to take your money for years and act like they're there to help you. Then when something happens and you need them they have teams of adjusters who's sole purpose is to reduce payouts through whatever means possible. Then they jack up your premiums to recover all that they paid out and then some. Things like the "accident free discount" are scams, it's not a discount, it's the regular price which they then jack up if you ever file a claim. Then if you end up suing them an winning they can blacklist you which means they drop you and the other insurance companies raise your rates way up. It's like dealing with the mafia.Insurance absolutely should not be a for-profit business. It should be a collective, everybody pays in as needed and it pays out when a legitimate claim is filed.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 03:31:28 am
content: See attached image for an example of how much costs can vary with pregnancies. This shows why caps on allowed charges are potentially very valuable and are bad to lose. Nothing is worse for health than so called balance billing.There are so many changes and Americans are so math challenged I think the AHCA is going to be a much worse disaster than anybody realizes. They dont get how out of control the system is or how costs wont go away they will just get shifted.Balance billing can mean that somebody who does everything right can get hit with a totally unexpected bill out of the blue for huge amounts. One person I know had a spine operation had good insurance, went to an in network hospital, bla bla, and it turned out they had to use a different anesthesiologist- cost $70,000 He disputed the bill and eventually got it whittled down - to $18,000This is why increasingly only very rich people in America can go to the doctor without fear now. Everybody else has to really stay on top of it because if you don't, they will sock you.BTW, I think I know what the GOP healthcare plan may be. India. Dem plan was likely to be too. I'm not kidding.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 03:39:45 am
content: Alq25, they won't tell the country this but they actually signed away the right to do that (have real non-profit health care) 22 years ago in a binding trade agreement. And never told the country a damn thing about it. I am not kidding. However because there still are no foreign insurers in the US there still is a sliver of "hope" but its vanishing rapidly. There is no hope if the entire country has been successfully deceived.Now there is a cover up of this and you would never know. Politicians have run on a platform of single payer and never told the country that this old "pre-existing" FTA and a new one almost done in Geneva are on the verge of making it truly impossible for good.Its a global agreement. So the US isn't the only country that is getting lied to. Read my other post, especially the PDFs I link to. Thats the real story.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 03:41:39 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 17, 2017, 10:54:15 pmNo joke. The country of innovation puts up huge barriers to self-employment. Most engineers grotesquely underestimate what their hourly rate must be when going on their own in order to have a comparable wage and benefits to what they were when employed by The Man.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 04:41:29 am
content: Quote from: basinstreetdesign on May 18, 2017, 02:06:03 amIt is after 3 months in the province of Quebec.But this service is not cheap. 50% of my income go into taxes of various forms, and then 45% of all the taxes I paid go to the provincial health care system.The bottom line is that I pay22.5% of my incometo cover the health care system. Also, the health care system does not cover everything when you are not inside a hospital. Among other things, medications are not covered.

author: basinstreetdesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 05:13:37 am
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on May 18, 2017, 04:41:29 amQuebec's rules are ALWAYS different than the rest of Canada on just about everything, mostly because they want it that way...The Ontario gov has been covering about 2/3 of my drugs since 2007 when I left work and now when I turn 65 it costs me $6.11 per script at the drug store no matter what the drug is and at the rate I use drugs the coverage amounts to even more than 2/3 but cant estimate it on short notice. I pay about $150/year.Yeah, the taxes may seem high here. It has been estimated that the average Canadian pays about 52% of gross income in taxes of all sorts (income, sales, land transfer, etc) but at my time of life it gets better since the less you make the less tax you pay. I haven't paid income tax in a decade.Oh and did I say that the health care benefit stops when you lose your job? Well, guess what!It doesn't! EVERYBODY gets it no matter what their situation! And don't believe the lies the GOP will tell you about outrageous waits times. The 2nd to last time I had an angiogram it was arranged in less than 24 hours - surprised me but there you are.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 05:30:17 am
content: I am not really sure how they work this stuff out but this picture certainly makes a point.it's fromhttp://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129547594

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 06:47:10 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on May 17, 2017, 11:24:32 pmNot hinted at, it's essential in a modern society.QuoteThat is why I said "through lifestyle choice". If you decide to smoke and get all the related problems, I think you should pay more.If you chose to eat too much and get obese and get all the related problems, you should pay more.QuoteIt's not about making a difference (although financial incentives can help make a difference), it's about fairness.If you use the system more through your own willful preventable actions, you should pay at least a small penalty for that.Note that I'm not suggesting that people who can't afford it must pay or go bankrupt or not get medical care, that's what universal health care is for. But for those working and paying taxes and who abuse themselves into needing the system should pay more some way.And our government does this in a round-about way anyway by for example taxing the crap out of cigarettes.There has also been the suggestion in recent times of a tax on sugar based junk food products.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 07:07:38 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on May 18, 2017, 02:04:36 amWe have a fixed "value" for procedures here, i.e. every operation/procedure has a declared value under medicare.If you want it for free then you wait and get it done in a public hospital. If you want it done by a surgeon of your choice then you pay whatever they charge (better ones charge more) and you can only claim back the declared amount.My knee operation for example would have been free in a public hospital (probably 6 months wait as it's not life threatening), or I could chose a private doctor either in a public hospital or a private hospital and have it done right away. I chose the later, did my research and got the best surgeon in the country if not a world leading one, and I payed the cost up front. About $4500 up front and then I claimed back about $2500 through medicare.Bargain.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 07:15:31 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on May 18, 2017, 03:41:39 amWow, that's just crazy. Here it's simply a matter of having a comparable wage, nothing else really factors into it much. Ok, maybe professional indemnity insurance (mine costs $800/year), but that's basically it unless you become a Pty Ltd company (greater tax accounting burden, I pay $4k+/year for accounting), but health insurance remains the same regardless, both (universal health care) public and private.I don't know anyone who gets private health insurance paid for by an employer in this country. Some companies offer some bonuses like income protection insurance and life insurance for example though.

author: Moshly
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 08:58:18 am
content: The insurance side of things is only part of the problem.Have a look at this -> (skip to 8:30)

author: sibeen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:18:54 am
content: I'm a 55 year old self employed engineer and the thought of worrying about health insurance never entered my mind. 18 months ago I had a heart attack. Full on cardiac arrest - no half measures. Was on the operating table about 40 minutes later and then spent 10 days in hospital getting fed, watered and annoyed by nurses at weird hours. Walked out and the bastards made me pay about $60 for a months worth of take home prescription drugs.Sucks to live in a first world country.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:27:06 am
content: Quote from: Moshly on May 18, 2017, 08:58:18 amThey abandoned THAT?

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:28:24 am
content: Quote from: sibeen on May 18, 2017, 09:18:54 am$60 is cheap. When I went to pick up my mother in laws pills after she had a heart attack, one month's supply was $800! I bought her a week's supply and got her signed up for the Pace program in PA. A both supply was then maybe $20, but she on has SS and a $93 a month pension so she qualified.My wife is disabled with her inherited heart decease , but since I make more than $12 an hour she can not collect. She worked for someone for $15 years who collected SS tax every week for her (it's on the paycheck stubs) but he never turned it in! As far as SS is concerned she never worked. That guys is now dead and his estate liquidated.I will have early retirement income which not enough to live on but it still puts me over the top so she can't collect or we would be fine.So without having health insurance and that long hospital stay, what kind of hospital bill did you get and what can you do about it?DaveSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:41:40 am
content: They awarded me a certificate with mine back in February and if I ever won the lottery at least I now know exactly what to do with it after the fantastic care and consideration they showed me recently in a public hospital, never needed it before but I needed it then, a life changing experience for me.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 11:20:37 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 18, 2017, 03:16:39 amThe adjusters that you are complaining about are serving the role of determining what claims (or portions of claims) are legitimate. I suspect that neither of us have any idea the depth of fraud in the auto insurance claims industry and "legitimate" is a pretty important word there. Every time I've had to go into an auto insurance discussion, I've sensed the grime oozing out of the entire process. IMO, most of it is not placed there by the insurance company, but rather by greedy or dishonest users. Even things as simple as "we'll pay your deductible!" ads from bodyshops are, IMO, blatant theft from the insurance company, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.It was a happy day when I could stop paying collision insurance and only carry (high limits of) liability on our cars.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 06:24:47 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on May 18, 2017, 11:20:37 amI'm perhaps a bit biased because I'm not a scammer, I've never once been at fault for an accident, hell I've never even been pulled over before or had so much as a parking ticket. I've been rear ended numerous times and the times I've had to deal with the insurance I've always been lowballed and had to fight tooth and nail just to get enough to pay for repairs or buy a comparable car and even then I'm usually out a significant amount. My brothers have both been rear ended and had cars totaled from it, my dad was recently rear ended and his car was totaled, they've all been a huge hassle and cost a lot of money even when it's perfectly clear they were not at fault. When someone is stopped and someone rear ends them there should be absolutely no question of who is at fault, there is zero excuse for rear ending a car unless you are hit from behind and pushed into them in which case there is zero excuse for the guy in the back. When I was a kid we were hit by a diabetic driver who let his blood sugar drop then got in his car to go buy food to raise it, he passed out behind the wheel and hit us nearly head on then hit two other cars too. Turns out he had the same insurance company as us so instead of helping us the insurance company tried to fight us, tried to say the accident was partially my dad's fault, then failing that they tried to say it was no fault, they lost in court of course but it was a huge hassle that dragged on for years. I have no issue with adjusters looking for fraud but the games I've seen them pull to try to weasel out of paying legitimate claims is appalling. A friend of mine worked as an adjuster for a couple years and left because he felt like he was forced to screw innocent people. You watch the commercials and they all talk as though they care about you and are there to help but that's a bunch of hot air. They don't give a shit about you, they care about making a profit and quarterly gains for their shareholders. If I believed in Hell and had any say in the matter I would reserve a special place in it for insurance adjusters and some reserve space for certain others in the industry.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 06:52:34 pm
content: There is an interesting story thats in part about Canadian province Ontario's (failed) effort to create a no-fault single-payer provincial auto-insurance co-op on Page 8of the PDF here under "A Cautionary Tale". Note, the PDF is about NAFTA which was the undoing of the project but its generally applicable and a good introduction to the subject of "indirect expropriation", a legal concept thats extremely important to health care issues. Highly recommended.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 07:18:58 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 18, 2017, 06:24:47 pmMy experience has been nothing like yours. When I was 17 I was driving down the road at about 45 when a car pulled out of a parking lot just a few feet in front of me. Totaled both cars, her fault, my family had a check in-hand for more than we had paid for the car literally 2 days later (accident happened on a Wednesday, got the check on Friday, had a new car on Saturday). She had State Farm, I was blown away by how easy and fast it was.A few years later I was driving my dad's car down a back road, hit a slick spot, and slid off of the road, hitting a fence. No structural damage, just paint. We took the car to 3 body shops, got repair estimates from each, and the insurance company sent us a check for the amount of the middle estimate. No argument, no fuss.A couple of years ago my car was parked outside during a hail storm, got lit up pretty bad. I filed an insurance claim, the adjuster came out to meet me at my office, and while I worked inside she tallied up the dents in the parking lot. An hour or so later she had the final count, about 3x more dents than I had counted. She was finding ones I couldn't even see...you had to get down on your hands and knees and catch the sun reflecting off of the paint at just the right angle, it was nuts. Anyway, a couple of days later I had a check for more than I expected, no fuss.Honestly, it just sounds like you have an incredibly shitty insurance company. Who is it, if you don't mind me asking? I'd like to make sure I never use them. The no-name companies that advertise on late night TV to suck in people without jobs are typically the ones that pull that kind of crap. It's the price you pay for scraping the bottom of the barrel to get the cheapest monthly rates you can.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 07:43:06 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on May 18, 2017, 07:18:58 pmI can give you one name: Arbella. (Wasn't my insurance, which is generally awesome , but was the insurance of the guy who hit me turning left across a travel lane I was in.)You can't always pick the insurance company you're going to use or interact with. In the Arbella case, they didn't want to pay for the dent on the door or scratches on the wheels. (I hit the guy front left, then my car turned right, hitting his bumper with both wheels, the door, and the front fender. They agreed the bumper and fender were "theirs", but the exactl same height and profile dent in the door and chips/scratches on the wheel were "unrelated parking lot damage". My ass. I went 'round and 'round with them for a few weeks and finally just called up my insurance and told them I was submitting through them. Had to pay the deductible, which they then later recovered via subrogation.)

author: aiq25
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 07:43:47 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 18, 2017, 07:07:38 amHere in the great U.S.A. you can have the same procedure cost differ 100%-300% between hospitals within the same geographic area (there was a survey done in 2012-ish, if anyone is interested I can try to find it again). This is the stuff that makes no sense to me. I can understand little bit of difference but not when it costs three times as much.Just for a office visit, I looked online and the estimated price range from my insurance company was $110-$400, kid you not. Just for a office visit (I had the flu)! After the co-pay I would still have to pay $90+.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 07:44:12 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on May 18, 2017, 02:04:36 amIt doesn't work that way. Many surgeons over here are independant contractors. Over here the ratings of a hospital gets is made public so name & shame works to keep the good doctors in and kick the bad ones out.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 08:28:24 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on May 18, 2017, 07:18:58 pmI've always been with State Farm, as has most of my family. They've been ok as these things go but the problem is I can't choose what insurance the people who hit me have, it's almost never anything good. In one case the woman had no insurance at all, in the most recent case it was a self insured trucking company. In that case they have steadfastly refused to waive my deductible which is something an attorney I've worked with in the past is surprised by given it was not my fault. Other than that I have few complaints about them but generally it's been the other company. In my dad's most recent incident the at-fault driver has Geico insurance and they've been awful. I've already found their incessant advertisements to be such an annoyance that I would never in a million years go to them for insurance but this experience has really sealed the deal.The other issue I've had is that I've always driven somewhat unusual vintage cars that are a labor of love to restore and maintain, they are essentially irreplaceable, the appraised value may not be all that high but what does that matter if I can't just go out and buy another one? I've had reasonable luck convincing the adjusters of that but it's always a battle, they try to say it's worth peanuts and total it for minor damage. Then I have to make them search for a comparable car in my region and of course they fail.

author: medical-nerd
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 08:53:44 pm
content: HiyaThe rate for a private clinic appointment is usually about £100 in the UK.The only real personal cost for treatment (other than taxes!!) in our NHS for recognised/authorised treatments are the community prescription drug costs which at £8.60 is about $13 us per item. This is usually a months dose of a drug e.g. a hypertensive.These costs can rapidly build up if you are on multiple medications but you can buy a prepayment certificate for £29.10 about $37 us which will cover all prescription costs for3 months.If you have or develop a recognised long term disease e.g. diabetes, then prescription costs are free for life.The downsides are waiting months for elective surgery, including cardiac. Urgent or emergency treatment is relatively quick in hospitals.Unfortunately cut backs mean that too many people are attending hospital A/E units instead of seeing GPs in primary care. An urgent appointment to see a GP can take weeks. This is a consequence of a misguided contract change for GPs allowing them to stop providing out of hours care for a small drop in payments with no substitute in place. (GPs are usually self-employed with their services being contracted for by the NHS).Despite the problems we are very lucky to have the NHS in the UK, I read in horror the state of the healthcare system in the USA.Cheers

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:07:53 pm
content: As someone who works within the US healthcare system (I'm here now goofing off!), I can say with certainty that the system is completely, irreparably broken.The entire concept of healthcare "insurance" is fundamentally flawed. Everyone, except those who are healthy until killed immediately in an accident, will eventually have many, large, health care expenses. Insurance should be reserved for unlikely events - fires, floods, car accidents, early death, etc.Employer sponsored health care insurance in the US is a historical artifact that developed due to policies adopted during WWII.I am 100% in favor of free market economics for almost everything. But there are rare exceptions and health care is one of them. There is no way for a free market to function without true price discovery which does not and cannot truly happen with health care. "You want how much to remove my ruptured appendix? That's too much, I'm going to shop around", etc.The AHCA (aka "Obamacare") is a fatally flawed compromise with the health insurance, medical device and pharmaceutical industries that was never going to fix things. It did do some good things but it did not fix most things. Health care and health insurance costs where already on an unsustainable trajectory and it did nothing to remedy that. Now that trajectory is pinned on Obamacare (partly justified IMO).Unfortunately political ideologues, political tribalism, and market fundamentalism, has prevented any chance of implementing a rational "single payer" system such as exists in almost every other developed country.Eventually it will probably happen, but only after things get more broken - enough so that the majority of people are willing to elect a real leader who can overcome the petty politics (if any such leaders still exist!).

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:22:39 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 18, 2017, 06:47:10 amThis is way too simplistic. There is some evidence that smokers and the obese use less lifetime healthcare, because they die faster. In that case, should they pay lower premiums?What about women who give birth after age 40? Is that a poor lifestyle choice? It certainly increases healthcare costs.How about parents who let their kids go outside without sunscreen? Should they have to pay into a skin cancer fund?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 10:21:17 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on May 18, 2017, 09:22:39 pmMy own opinion is that we should all pay in the same for health insurance, and there should be other incentives to live a more healthy lifestyle. Not the least of which being you generally get to live longer. I would also suggest triage placing self inflicted illnesses lower in priority for treatment may be viable.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 10:32:57 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 18, 2017, 10:21:17 pmYou're kidding, right? Few people can think a year ahead, let alone the better part of a century.And there's the fraction of people whodon't wantto live long. Do we "help" them? Or do we force continued existence upon them?The question for society is, do we (as a whole) benefit from forcing those people to reconsider their life choices? (The answer seems to be a modest yes -- if they're productive in the process...)Tim

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 10:39:00 pm
content: No, thats not what's really blocking it. As I said before, the US signed a binding international agreement which when understood in the context of our "specific commitments" one of which is unusually health insurance,blocks many of the things that would save money systematically. It reaches down into not only our healthcare and health insurance policy, it regulates what our national state local and quasi-governmental bodies can do in almost every area of economic importance. "Everything you cannot drop on your foot".We can't just vote in new everybody and have it change. It subsumes elected leaders. Thats the main goal.To prevent democracy from changing the things that corporations depend on.This isa short course on its dispute resolution system, you can get a short overview from it.Quote from: mtdoc onTodayat 15:07:53

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 10:39:53 pm
content: No I'm not kidding, I see no fair way in a single payer system where everyone has health care to charge differently based on lifestyle. If someone doesn't want to live long then why force them? If they die sooner that actually results in considerably less expense. In the US we spend a huge proportion of our health care expenses in the last few years of life. People who live an unhealthy lifestyle typically die younger and more rapidly. It would be interesting to see the numbers but I suspect it evens out. I believe basic health care to be a fundamental human right in any developed nation. The US is the only place on earth I've ever been to where that is actually hotly contested.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 10:54:57 pm
content: Asinglepayer system has to be noncommercial (essentially free) to be legal under the WTO rules. Also, its the only payer. It combines everything we have into one.Think about it this way, single payer saves a lot of money by simplifying everything. But you cant have thet be "optional" that doesnt simplify anything. Nor does it save money because people have to pay more because there is duplication of expensive equipment unnecessarily, and all that figuring out what a doctor can propose to a patient based on their insurance and who can get what test and who cant is insanely complicated.So, suppose people did have to pay and somebody didn't. Under single payer? (Under single payer all the bills are covered by taxes) What then? In the for profit system, then you either have to deny them care or give them really crappy care. But, then you have to complicate everything by having different rules based on payment. Then you rapidly lose all the advantages of single payers simplicity and the fact that under single payer people can go to the doctor right away and you lose all the savings and then its what we have or on the road to it.So, under the WTO rules, if its public it has to be noncommercial..So essentially, single payer has to be free.Here is the text that that principle is based on. A full explanation is complicated but I am giving you some good links below, also you could Google that text and find quite a bit about it. Its controversial because lots of countries - countries where money is charged for a service like the US arent allowed under WTO law to fix things, it gives corporations more rights than people. And thats a big problem.The two legal experts that have written the most on this are Markus Krajewski and Rudolf Adlung.Article I:3 of the agreement states:"For the purposes of this Agreement...(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority;(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers."------------Here are some essays about how this has played out in the world now..No Watertight Compartments- Trade Agreements, International Health Care Reform, and the Legal Politics of Public Sector Exemptions-Interpretation of Article I, Section 3 (b) and (c) of GATSPublic Services and the GATSPutting Health First (Canada)And on medicine - this has nothing to do with GATS it explains why its cheaper in Canada to make it free..Myth of User Fees and Healthcare Utilization

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 11:18:46 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on May 18, 2017, 10:39:00 pmI don't disagree but I do think that very strong honest political leadership (if such a thing is still possible) can take on the corporations and lobbyists and make a difference. FDR is the classic example (but Eisenhower, JFK and even Nixon did the same to some extent.) The only way that happens if to be a strong enough leader to both engage strong public support and resist the pressures from the vested interests.Barring some "end of world as we know it" scenario, it will happen, eventually. The current system is unsustainable and no partial fix (a la the AHCA) is going to work.

author: chicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 11:29:38 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on May 18, 2017, 10:54:57 pmSince when does the US (or its ruling/lobbied class) care about WTO rules if they aren't to their own benefit?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 12:02:25 am
content: Whatever the case, I get reasonably good health insurance through my employer but it's still a nightmare. I'm constantly having to figure out what is covered and what isn't, make sure I use in-network providers, then there's inpatient vs outpatient, urgent care, emergency, lab tests, etc, everything is all separate, everything has a multitude of different rules. I consider myself a pretty intelligent guy and I still have difficulty deciphering it all, imagine the average Joe trying to figure it out. The single biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses. We spend absolutely massive amounts of money and a huge percentage of it goes to waste. People worry about the cost of providing it to everybody but we already spend enough money to do that. I'd gladly pay higher taxes on my income if it meant that healthcare was something that I could just use when I need it and not have to worry that I'll end up owing huge sums. Relying on employers to provide it is also effectively a HUGE tax on corporations and a huge barrier to hiring fulltime workers. It creates loopholes allowing exploitation of contract/temp workers because that passes the buck to the contract agencies.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 01:17:05 am
content: The current policy hurts everybody except the multinational corporations - because it drags the quality of everybody's health care down and the price up.We should walk away from the extremist ideology that does this to people. It's totally unconstitutional to take away peoples rights to fix things like this using what amounts to a cheap lawyers trick.This video is good at explaining, using the "tale of brave Ulysses" having himself tied to the mast so the "Sirens sweetly singing" could not make him stray from his course, as an analogy.Quote from: chicken onTodayat 17:29:38

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 01:26:36 am
content: Unless we get carve outs into those agreements soon, very soon, it wont matter. These deals are permanent and they are written to make national governments powerless to change them. They even survive revolutionslike in South Africa.Thecase of Slovakiais also informative. (start reading around page 13)What was the AHCA supposed to do?Preserve the current system at any cost?Trigger the GATS to make it impossible for us to extricate ourselves?India in a new proposal wants the WTO to force developed countries to make their insurances (health and pension) portable and allow corporations to move any of their employees around at will.Quote from: mtdoc onTodayat 17:18:46

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 01:43:33 am
content: QuoteYou have got to be kidding? NK which has been ruled by a single family absolute dictatorship for over 70 years and yet you expect some to believe that the U.S. is getting more and more like them?I like good arguments and interchange of ideas, but dude you really have to work on your game.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 03:25:08 am
content: Our healthcare has been held in limbo for 20 years now because of this WTO FTA I have spoken about. During that time amillionpoor Americans have died who wouldnot have diedhad they lived in, to pick one place, Australia.Innocent mistake? Or is our nation literally being held hostage so that the corporations get their biggest victory to date in what everybody, even Nobel Laureates says is a global coup.Its not a theory, its fact.Quote from: retrolefty onTodayat 19:43:33

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 03:40:21 am
content: Read the text in the images

author: mmagin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 04:14:07 am
content: I didn't know that aspect of the WTO until now.The way it (and similar trade organizations) has been structured as an end-run around democratic process is bad enough, but this shit is crazy, considering it's not really even an aspect of international trade.

author: TheAmmoniacal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 04:52:40 am
content: The Lancet just published their annual ranking of healthcare around the world, from the best (top, Andorra) and down. The US is on a sad 35th place. Australia ranked 6th just behind Norwayhttp://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30818-8/abstract

author: chicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 05:02:03 am
content: cdev, please pack up that straw man already. Things won't get fixed by blaming others for one's own failures.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 05:40:29 am
content: It likely will be soon and then there will be no way out for us. Right now in theory we could still get carve outs without "breaking the bank" speaking of which... see the graphic... from 1998, in 1999 they "reformed" the Glass-Steagall Act by repealing it. This one document, that one line on the last page, page 31 is the only indication of why they did it. Thats what more than anything else led to the 2008 mess.Quote from: mmagin onTodayat 22:14:07

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 05:44:53 am
content: Heres what I bet happened, they were a nonprofit who were forced into a race they couldnt win with for profits built that new building, bought all the expensive equipment and then couldnt raise enough money to pay for it. Whats going to happen when you prevent poor people from getting care is rich people (and people with any money at all) will pay much much more.In for profit healthcare, paradoxically, unlike everywhere else,increasing competition INCREASES PRICES.Thats one of the things they have been lying about a lot in the last eight to ten years. They have to because single payer has a lot of evidence backing it up and most people have at least some idea why, so they really had to make a lot of shameless misstatements to hide that.Quote from: EEVblog onTodayat 03:27:06>Quote from: Moshly onTodayat 02:58:18)

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 05:13:07 pm
content: QuoteWrong, when increase the price, there are less competition. Then the corporations make cartel for a determinate price.Quote from: cdev on May 19, 2017, 03:25:08 amOnly form for winning to the great corporations is to leave of having fear to die. Then the people leave to go to hospital and leave to contract health insurance When the corporations will lose among 20-30% , they will begin to low prices.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 05:59:02 pm
content: Quote from: vodka on May 19, 2017, 05:13:07 pmIt's not about cartels. There is no real competition, no mechanism for price discovery as I pointed out earlier. The patients (and usually the doctors as well) have no real idea of what the costs or the patient's charges will be when they seek care. In only rare instances is the patient able to shop around for the best prices. The nature of health and illness does not allow that to happen -which is why a fully free market approach to health care will never work.There are rare instances with elective or cosmetic medical procedures (Laser (refractive) eye surgery for example) where patient's can shop for the best price, etc. In these cases prices normalize. But those situations are few and health insurance generally is not involved - people pay completely out of pocket.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 06:19:07 pm
content: Elective procedures should always be out of pocket, unless private insurance wants to find a way to profit while covering those. Necessary medical care should be available to everyone, paid for by society as a whole, it's vital infrastructure that we can all benefit from. We as a nation are incredibly wealthy, we can easily afford to provide this perk to our fellow citizens.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 07:00:26 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 19, 2017, 05:59:02 pmThere are many form for increasing the test and care.1 The infinite commissions:The hospital management decided to buy a new Mammograph. Curiously, the hospital decide to buy to corporation who has a ex-political like counsellor. The machine has a cost 50,000€ but the hospital budget is 150,000€.The breakdown:50000 For the machine30000 For instalation and contract maintance with the corporation40000 For the help the ex-political30000 For the hospital council(Of course hiding on a different count)-----------150000€Who will eat the over cost? The patients and customers2 Bill of more.The hospital take advantage of when a patient submit to an operation , the hospital begin to charge the service provided or not provided to patient, so the bill increase hugely. And like the 99% of the patient are ignorants or they stay inconcius and they don't realize, better still. If the patient suspect of a wrong bill ,we are apologize and correct the bill .http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20160531/402177344046/facturacion-erronea-sanidad-privada.html

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 05:28:34 am
content: Quote from: basinstreetdesign on May 20, 2017, 04:49:29 amThe case most infamous is with the anti-hepatitis C drug "Sofosbuvir". Its production cost is less 100 € , but its sold price vary according of the country:USA 84000 $Spain 25000€Morrocco 1000€Egipt 900€I follow to think that determinate drugs have to expropriate by general interest, for avoiding possibles cases of usury.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 01:27:19 pm
content: The markup is criminal if people who need a drug can't get it but could without itif off patent, IMHO.The people who work behind the scenes to take generics out of the public domain are unspeakably evil.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 05:14:02 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on May 20, 2017, 01:27:19 pmYep. Just one recent example:I put a patient on long term erythromycin recently. This is a drug that has been available generically for decades and used to be dirt cheap. It surely costs pennies to manufacture. The oral form is rarely used as an antibiotic anymore but it dose have other uses (gastroparesis in this case). The prescription was going to cost this patient $600 a month!!! In the past it probably would have been less than $20. While she was waiting to get some health insurance coverage she found a veterinary source of the medication for less than $100. Eventually she was able to get on medicaid (the US insurance for low income individuals) which covered the medication 100% for her. So now the state is paying some obscene amount to a pharmaceutical company giving them obscene profit margins at taxpayer expense.There are countless examples like this. The system is broken for all but the pharmaceutical, insurance, and medical device companies.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 08:02:04 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 20, 2017, 05:14:02 pmFor more actors who they don't make their job: The politicals bought by the pharmaceutical mafia , the fiscals and judges missed and they are not expected and the mass lamb that are among the donkeys and elephants or left-hand and right-hand. Come on,like the Tale Moral of the rabbits , which the rabbits were arguing what kind of dogs were: "Podencos" or "Galgos", while they argued ,the dogs hunted them.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 03:21:52 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 19, 2017, 06:19:07 pmWho determines when surgery is elective? Knee replacement is considered elective surgery, it's not like having a bullet removed. You can put it off indefinitely as long as you don't think about quality of life.Cosmetic surgery seems like it is all elective - until you think about quality of life.In fact, I can't think of a surgery that is truly elective if quality of life is a factor.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 04:23:10 pm
content: That is a good point, although I was thinking along the lines of cosmetic surgery that is not to correct an obvious deformity. The public shouldn't have to pay for somebody's boob job or nose job, sex change or liposuction, etc unless they are necessary to correct for an injury.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 05:25:17 pm
content: On cosmetic surgery, my father had a rhinoplasty to fix his breathing problems, caused by injury decades before ( he left a plane without the benefit of a parachute, so a broken nose was not exactly a high priority for his Austrian doctors putting the kit back together by the Bodenzee), and the only way his provider would pay was if it was not cosmetic, so after the surgery his nose was still at the same angle, but the sinuses had been repaired and opened up by removal of the broken bone fragments so he could breath and have them drain properly. Doctor had to refer to the before photos to get the angle right on the nose, as otherwise he would simply have set it straight and correct by eye. But that would have been classed as cosmetic and thus not covered.He also freaked out every radiographer who gave him a chest X ray, with the load of small white spots all over his lungs. Not TB.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 05:29:29 pm
content: Elective vs non- elective surgery is not always straightforward. For example, knee or hip replacement surgery is often needed to prevent a decline in overall health due to immobility.

author: yada
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 08:03:03 pm
content: Good luck. The ACA was your only option but they are getting rid of that. Just don't get sick or hurt. But supposedly Canada has a terrible health care system. How could you possibly NOT want insurance?

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 08:55:09 pm
content: Ok, so I have read all of the posts up to now and I see a theme that is typical. Healthcare is the ability of medical professionals to provide high quality care for humans who have accidents, illness, disease, etc. The US is a world leader in this, without a doubt, we have the very best hospitals, doctors and all the other medical professionals who provide this service. What everyone has been talking about is the ability to pay for it, which is not healthcare, but the price of healthcare. Let's not call the price and cost of healthcare, healthcare.Insurance and Obamacare are the price of healthcare for individuals and, yes, it is expensive either way you go. But, here is my take on singlepayer, Obamacare or any other US government ran system. The US government is by and large a system that is basically ran by lobbyists of large corporations. What are insurance companies? Large corporations, simply put. Another thought on the US government creating a bureau (full of bureaucrats) that will effectively and efficiently run a healthcare program that pays for healthcare is a non-starter. Every bureau that is run by the US government is a joke. This is true of all of them that I know of, like for instance FEMA, that has done more good than harm. The US government is simply incapable of running a bureau effectively and efficiently.With that said, where do we go from here? The US government is NOT going to give us a healthcare program that works, at least not in the near future. Obamacare costs individuals the same as if we went to the insurance companies ourselves and bought health insurance.I am glad that there are countries out there that provide the cost of healthcare to their citizens without a lot of hassle. Of course, those countries are charging the cost through higher taxes, but if the governments are doing this efficiently and effectively, then that is a great accomplishment. Do the math and if it all adds up to savings per individual, then it is efficient and effective. Also, if it does not cause the good healthcare professionals to go somewhere else to get paid what they are worth then more kudos are in order.

author: ehughes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 10:14:54 pm
content: In the USA you roll the the dice and hope you don't get seriously sick.A reasonable plan through the ACA is about 30k a year for a family of 4. By reasonable I mean one that doesn't require a mortgage to pay deductable if you get really sick.The other option is to bank that money in an HSA and pay cash. You can do some negotiating but you should have at least 100k in reserves for serious health issues.Make sure to mark up your services. Think about your salary now and double it at a minimum.This may seem like a lot but private insurance will do everything in their power to not cover you for anything. Your only option is to have a large savings or be part of some larger group with negotiating power.I work for a University research lab. We pay for 10% of the premiums and it is about $425 a month for a family of 4. The employer pays for the rest. At this level we have to pay the 1st 3k every year of health care costs (per family member) before The deductable is met.This is in line with most others I know who have an employer plan.So, in this country, you pretty much roll the dice or pay for insurance that you will have to fight with if anything serious happens.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:54:36 am
content: My mom is self employed and for a while the insurance plan she was on found a way to weasel out of covering *anything* for an entire year. They were more than happy to keep taking her premiums though, and acted surprised when she left them.People complain about the tax cost of single payer health insurance but we already pay much more than that, it's just not as visible since for a lot of us our employer pays for it as part of our compensation we never actually see.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 02:35:22 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 22, 2017, 01:54:36 amYes, and taxpayers are already subsidizing large amounts of uncompensated care and avoidable high cost care due to peoples reluctance to seek routine and preventative care due to high deductibles and co-pays.We spend far more on healthcare per capita than any other country and have poorer outcomes than most of them.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 02:41:53 am
content: I have a marketplace plan, but look out - our Dear Leader Trump said last week that he wants to stop the cost sharing subsidies that help insurance companies pay for some lower income people's costs. If he sticks to that asinine plan next week the whole shebang will blow up and many of us will be in the shithole.A quote from somewhere I can't remember -Quote

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 05:47:26 am
content: They could likely keep subsidies as long as they weren't discriminating against foreign service providers. So under the "patient mobility" scenario (code word for patient export/import) lots of tax money might end up getting sent overseas. Same issue likely applies to infrastructure. Do you build public infrastructure knowing that foreign firms are likely to be the winners of most of the contracts?India in their trade facilitation agreement for services proposal, (among many other things to correct what they see as persistently trade restrictive practices by the developing world) seems to be proposing that the WTO force countries healthcare plans (also Social Security, so their IT consultant teams, etc. could keep their social security contributions..) to be portable across borders. That might destroy the GATS protection currently enjoyed by SS.. which would be a disaster for Americans . I don't know..Here is the relevant document.----Stuff thats related but not healthcare specific, it definitely DOES apply to healthcare IT including accountancy and bookkeeping, this is the larger issue also which is a war thats being waged on the wage gradients that result in people in some countries being paid many times more than the global average wage for that kind of work. .India circulates concept paper on TFS initiativehttp://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2016/ti161006.htmSeveral South nations coalesce around Indian TFS proposalhttp://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2016/ti160706.htmThe field that is really being targeted the most is IT. Including healthcare IT which is waiting on a number of things that big corporations want, basically they want to bget rid of regulations of all kinds, especially ones that information be kept in a source country, or that some percentage of employees be from that country, also they want the freedom to pay whatever wages they want, assuming its agreed upon by both worker and employer, (could be very low) Also they are working on data-specific agreements which some would say shred privacy.This is a CRS report (Congressional Research Service on a related challenge by India of visa quotas)Certain U.S. Laws for Foreign Workers Draw Fire from India in the WTO(The natural numbersoffshored could become very highwithout the quotas, considering the current cost differential. Once we started rating everything by GNP, we lost the battle right there. Because a good "business case" can always be made for cutting wages and costs under that definition of growth.. (yes it sees cutting workers as growth if it leads to more profits) Considering that each L-1 visa lasts six yeas, imagining each back office offshoring firm IT worker could offshore maybe one job title a year, multiple people in the same company might share that title, though, taking an average of twenty people per offshoring consultant, thats 120 jobs lost per worker.. )......Its all very complicated and interrelated. We in the US, I feel have been making a big mistake by not seeing working conditions and wages in other countries as being tied to our own. And now our failure to care about the rights, dreams, and futures of others for so long is going to come back and bite us, I suspect. I don't know.I just have a bad feeling. Poor sick people are not in any position to defend their rights or interests while they are sick, in an international arena.https://www.thedollarbusiness.com/news/sitharaman-and-michael-froman-deliberate-visa-issues-and-totalisation-agreement/48322https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspxhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324078http://www.rosalux.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/2017/8_Beyond_the_Doha_round-web.pdfDon't know where that could go.Given the opportunity, I think its inevitable that yes, insurers would jump at the chance to send patients to hospitals in india or other low cost nations. I think that given the opportunity to do so they definitely will. And make it a requirement of coverage as much as they can.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 06:06:41 am
content: Quote from: cdev on May 22, 2017, 05:47:26 amSeems to me I read somewhere that US insurers were already sending patients to India. This was several years ago so I don't think this is a new idea.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 04:28:28 pm
content: Many employers self-insure. I think what you must be thinking of is likely on a very limited scale. Its my understanding from India's TFS submissions to the WTO that countries like the US do not have portability of health insurance benefits to other countries. Thats likely done for a bunch of reasons. the healthcare systems in other countries have a very wide range of quality. We should not make any assumptions as to quality, it varies quite a lot depending on where care is being rendered and at what price level. Elsewhere and here. Only the best countries have uniformly high standards.Sending poor patients overseas might not be the panacea that some people think. For one thing, people might lose any subsidies in that situation if they were deemed to be able to afford the lower overseas rates. Also, if it became the norm, millions of jobs would be lost and healthcare here would likely become more expensive, not less, due to the need to cover costs. Competition in for profit health care would not lower prices, it would raise them. Thats the way it works and there has been a lot of misrepresentation about that. The cost increase is due to lower utilization of expensive equipment on a per patient basis.Another issue comes up and that is the trade restrictiveness issue. WTO rules require that measures be"not more burdensome than is necessary to ensure the quality of the service".Burdensome meaning for corporations.. not people. That would likely lead to more and more patients being sent overseas as fewer and fewer people could afford it. I am sure that some people would love that, but it would not be a good thing, it sounds to me like apotential precursor to genocide, to tell the truth.History would back me up on that. I think that there is a clash with international law which may prohibit some kinds of exporting of patients, when framed as political especially. I don't know.I do know that there is a lot of concern about the job losses due to various pressures perceived by companies, and it looks like a potential vicious circle of job shedding and subsequent collapse in buying could spiral out of control driven by individual business actions to reduce their bottom lines - added together it seems like a policy road which would be easy to take but which would potentially undermine the stability of society in a way which would be virtually impossible to reverse. Sure, business could offshore their entire back office operations pretty easily soon. Should they? No, they shouldn't.Because there would be a large scale loss of trust. And people would expect the government to step in but deals like the GATS would prohibit that.Quote from: rstofer onTodayat 00:06:41

author: yada
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2017, 04:17:51 am
content: Quote from: tpowell1830 on May 21, 2017, 08:55:09 pmHeres a US government program no one it would ever give up: Medicare. My wife is American and on it. The only hassle about it is the "part D" which is the RX drug part, no surprise that part of medicare (A, B and D) is run by for profit insurance.How can the richest country in the world not afford medicare for all? Worst part about repealing the ACA is pre-existing condition clauses are/will be back. I saw a story on he news where a girl was raped got HIV and that considered a preexisting condition. If she loses her insurance through the repeal of the ACA, she won't be able to get her very expensive anti viral drugs that keep her alive. That fucked up, a 25 year old girl is going die because of a greedy insurance company deems her unprofitable. That literally could happen to anyone.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2017, 05:23:15 am
content: And it is happening to all of us asyou can read here.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2017, 08:24:50 am
content: Contrast the Australian system where my son had an important but not urgent operation, a difficult and very involved operation done by an awesome Orthopedic surgical team, but with both a Vascular team and a plastics team on standby for 6 hours in case of a mistake.9 years later and it is almost time for the second and last operation. It will probably done with the same skill and care and all he will be left with is an impressive scar.The only cost to us in the 2.5% medicare levy on our wages. (edit: it's certainly more than that, indirectly but I don't have a figure)Anecdotal I know but I've never met anyone here who wants to get rid of our Medicare system.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2017, 01:49:52 pm
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on May 25, 2017, 08:24:50 amWhy they bother tacking on 2.5%, I don't get. Tax is tax...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Australia#National_health_policyThis says 150 billion. Which averages to about 7000 AUD per person.Tim

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2017, 04:42:19 pm
content: Quote from: yada on May 25, 2017, 04:17:51 amAll the insurance corporations do this,while they are winning on the game , they have to pay to you huge prices for the insurances when the game changes and the insurance corporation are seeing that they can lose, they begin to do unfair game : Re-interpret the contract condition, delay the Indemnities, induce or directly violating the laws, etcQuote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on May 25, 2017, 08:24:50 amSo , here we are paying to SS ten times more(25,41%) ,adding the general budges ,add the VAT, IRPF, and the rest taxes. Still there, we are on deficit

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2017, 10:29:20 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on May 25, 2017, 01:49:52 pmIt must be politically more palatable to tell people this percentage is going straight to health.It seems to work though as no-one is asking for this to be cut.There is a difference in the collection of standard income tax and the medicare levy. There are basically different thresholds and the medicare levy has less of them.It obviously would be better to simplify this but it would probably come at a large political cost to anyone who attempted it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2017, 11:12:46 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on May 25, 2017, 01:49:52 pmIt's all about visibility, and I think that's a good thing.You know exactly how much of your tax goes toward universal health care.Same thing with other levies, it's better to spell them out and list separately than just increase everyone's general tax rate and it gets lost in the noise. Same happens with one-off tax levies like the gun buy back scheme we had for example, they simply added an extra tax for a year and it got listed on your tax return as such (I think mine was $300 at the time)

author: W2NAP
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 12:25:10 am
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on May 17, 2017, 08:30:04 pmsweet another Indiana resident here.im lucky the last few years I just kept my income low low low. thus paying very little on the mandated cov. granted the low low low income hurt real bad but better then being forced having to chose between paying more then half of my income to something i don't want or paying the gov a penalty cause i do not have it.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 12:13:26 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 25, 2017, 11:12:46 pmExcept that it's not, it says 10% of GDP of the general fund goes to it also. That one tax would need to be ten times larger, if they wanted to keep it out of the general fund.It's all about invisibility, and that's a good thing for politicians?!?Tim

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 03:20:59 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on May 26, 2017, 12:13:26 pmNo, it says approximately 10% of Australia's GDP goes to healthcare spending which may very well equal 2.5% of income.BTW - the US spends about twice that percentage of our GDP and more than twice the amount per capita on healthcare yet ranks lower on almost all measures of care quality.In fact, overall the US healthcare system consistently ranks last overall among the wealthiest countries. SeeHERE

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 04:34:05 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 26, 2017, 03:20:59 pmThat doesn't make sense. GDP represents a lot more money than labor income. How could 10% of a larger quantity ever equal 2.5% of a smaller quantity?IIRC, typical stats for other countries (.au being a typical example, I just don't know the numbers for them all, .au included) are health care spending ~20% of gov't budget, give or take.In the case of the US, federal budget is ~21% of GDP, so 2.5% of that would be 0.5% of GDP.QuoteYes, and? I mean, that's what this whole thread is about. Why are you restating this? It sounds like you're deflecting from the above facts. They're just numbers, I don't see why that would be uncomfortable...Anyway, it would be foolish to think any country is exempt from political maneuvering. Calling it a "2.5% tax" is a convenient way to raise tax revenue while the true cost of the program it supports is actually 20% (or whatever it is) of the total budget.Tim

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 04:51:27 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on May 26, 2017, 04:34:05 pmIncome is not a subset of GDP!. It is also completely different than government revenues. You said "10% of GDPof the general fundgoes to italso" (italics mine) which is incorrect. I don't have time to look up the numbers right now but it is possible for tax revenues for 2.5% of income to be equal to 10% of a country's GDP .. I have no idea whether or not that is true in Australia - it may not be - but it could be. That was my point.You need to realize that the calculation of GDP is based on government spending, consumer spending and business investment - all of which are often funded by debt. The calculations also include net exports (which may be negative). Income is not part of the GDP calculation!Also, countries have many citizens and corporations who receive large amounts of taxable income from abroad.Quote?? WTFI'm not sure what you're in a tizzy about. Your "facts" are incorrect. I agree with your general point about politicians - just trying to clarify the facts and provide more information that was not previously provided in the thread.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 11:29:34 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 26, 2017, 03:20:59 pmNot in this case.GDP: $1 654 579 (millions AU) 2015-16Total tax revenue $464 724 (millions AU) 2015-16 (+ any government revenue outside tax ? )http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/5506.0Main%20Features82015-16?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=5506.0&issue=2015-16&num=&view=Anyway its a fair point but I would say very unlikely in a reasonably stable economy.So multiplying it out 10% GDP = $165 457 (millions AU) which is 35% of the level of our tax.it's more than I expected. But that also includes a lot of private health care going on as well.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 12:27:07 am
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on May 26, 2017, 11:29:34 pmThat's interesting. Thanks for the info. Personally, I'd be happy to pay 35% of my taxes towards a single payer health care system of the same quality as Australia's. And Australia has a large advantage over the US since it does not spend anywhere the near the same percentage of tax revenues on the military.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 03:01:43 am
content: They have different priorities there in Australia. Obviously since WE'RE NUMBER ONE, we don't need to invest in having healthy or smart people. /SARCASM.Actually, I really envy you Australians. There is still common sense in this world. *sigh*So, this is sort of relevant. Look what I found some time ago but had forgotten about. This is a capturefrom a Public Citizen PDF.This kind of explains a likely reason for the ACA repeal.Its easy to verify as true. Why won't the US media talk about it? Likely they don't want to admit that both parties in the US couldnt give a f*** about the people now, and the result is the US is using a WTO agreement and looking to foreign countries and workforces to solve our healthcare problem because we won't.