Health care....Down Under

Will it stay that way when China takes over your country?

 

Why is Trump going to sell us out?

 

Trump does not own your country. China will just take it over.

 

I'd call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Always looking for somebody else to pay the bills. ALL the bills, apparently.
No matter how you cut it, the number of people that need to be provided for is the same as the number who can potentially provide the means to do it. The fairest possible way is that each person takes care of just one person- themselves- and amazingly, everyone is taken care of. Too easy? Or is it that some people think the obligation of caring for themselves is an unfair burden. Of course they do- it's the easy way.

When politician, socialists and liberals start telling you that someone else will pay, they are lying to you. IF that is viable, then we could all quit working and just let they somebody else pay all the bills. THERE IS NOBODY ELSE, there is only transfer of resources from those who earned it to those who didn't. Making the portion of society that does the most pay for those who do the least.

We need to cull the people who think that is fair, and it could be easy. We just remove the warning labels from all products, and let nature take it's course.

 

So would I.

 

Your reply is not answering my questions (statements) that you quoted. The answer is that someone else did pay for the training of doctors and nurses employed by private health care and someone else is paying for the 24/7 auxiliary services that you will rely on in an emergency. None of these costs are paid using your subscription to private health care. So why do you want "free stuff"?

 

Insurance doesn't pay for those things directly, but it does indirectly. When a doctor learns his skill, that rather huge cost is recovered in the charges to patients, which are covered by your insurance, which draws it's money from your premiums. So- while "medical school" is not a listed charge on your bill, you and your insurance are indeed paying for it.

And, unlike the majority of people I never take free stuff. Never- I do not take what I haven't earned. I've had cancer with no insurance and was dirt poor- and negotiated deals with both doctor, surgeon and hospital, then paid all my own bills as agreed. I've lived in a storage shed for a winter because I couldn't afford the smallest apartment. I've not take so much as an unemployment check in my life- but I've had years when my income tax was six figures. I'm old now and less active, but my taxes would still support the average family.

I'm old school, where people took pride in being self-sufficient and didn't impose the burden of their life on others. You have to sacrifice your self respect to justify that, and of course if you have never really had it, that is easy. People who truly have genuine self-respect value it so highly that they would, as one old saying goes- "pick sh*t with the chickens first". rather than give it away.

You are trying to justify making others participate in the responsibility for your life. That is a fundamental flaw in life skills. Any plan of any kind that requires forcing others to participate in a plan they don't want- is an unjust, self-serving and self-destructive notion. There are some occasions where we have to do that because there is not alternative- but this isn't one of them.

 

Oh well, you seem to be a nice enough fellow.. I wish you well.

 

Private insurance does not pay those costs directly or indirectly unless you are going to apply that logic to every company/person who pays tax. None of the insurance premium goes towards the costs of training doctors or nurses. The profit that the private healthcare make is taxed and those taxes go to a central pot. The tax income from private health care is nowhere near enough to cover the costs of training and the huge cost of other public "welfare" services used by the private health care.

Private healthcare cannot survive without "welfare" for subsidizing auxiliary services and training of doctors and nurses. What would you do if you feel yourself having a hear attack - ignore, call a cab or call an ambulance?. And where would you go, local 24/7 A & E, or your private A & E?

You are hence not paying in full for own needs, you are using someone else's money

 

What you do not “get” is that you are already paying for other peoples health care bills, if not in direct taxation for Medicare then in higher premiums or higher cost of living due to companies passing on the cost of employee health care

Someone gets shot in America - and others pay for the health care, directly or indirectly

 

Do you not get the Australian Government is spending $5,800 per person on health care?

It's an old article. $5,800 per person works out to $483 per month per person. Do you think this cost isn't passed on to you in higher cost and 10% soon to be 15% VAT tax? When you factor in the Goods and Services tax at 10% to 15% for everything you buy, it's easy to see why we pay the same or less for health care. Our sale tax only applies to goods, not services and there is no VAT tax.

 

You're imposing the burden on other people if you choose not to have healthcare insurance, then get sick or injured. After all, are other people suppose to trust that in this event you (and countless others) who want the freedom to choose will have the money to pay?

"Forced" is purely subjective. People in countries with universal health care value a lifetime's freedom from medical costs and concerns, over the freedom to opt out of healthcare insurance. Nor do they consider that they are paying for someone else at some sort of loss to themselves. Everyone pays, thus everyone is paying for each other, making everyone - themselves included - the beneficiary.

In short, try telling them that your freedom is worth more than their freedom and you'll be laughed out of court.

They might also point out, quite rightly, that your "freedom" is at the expense of others, should you be uninsured and unable to pay for care. A risk that they are not prepared to take. Even if you could pay, the fact that you choose to opt out shrinks the risk pool, making other people's healthcare insurance more expensive.

 

Sounds like a Jerry Springer / Trump Kool Aid Drinker

 

And how about the costs of the 24/7 public auxiliary services that you will use and are not included in the costs of your private premium? Why do many people like you think that the premium that you pay for your private health care covers the full service cost used by going private? Perhaps the private health care insurance premium should be increased to include the real cost of providing the 24/7 emergency care with proceeds going straight to the government as a separate tax on healthcare insurance premiums? After all people like you are always quoting the full cost per person of public health care

 

Nope. It wasn't then and it isn't now. You need to inform yourself better.

GST is 10%, not 15%. The health budget is actually lower in 2018 than the figure you quoted for 2010 (see if you can work out why).

You shouldn't comment on things you clearly don't understand at even a pretty basic level. That should seriously limit your participation in internet forums.

 

If I call an ambulance, they WILL bill me, and my insurance WILL pay for it. They will pay for the ER or hospital they take me too as well. I pay, through my insurance, 100% of my own bills. And as I have never taken so much as an unemployment check from government in my life, let alone allowed them to pay my health care costs, and that my taxes usually are more than the typical family income, sometimes reaching 6 figures- I would like to know who's money I'm "using".

Such arguments are just fodder for the argument that someone else is supposed to pay your way- every liberal, most progressives and democrats seem to think there is a magic person out there that pays the bills. THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON- THERE IS ONLY US. I pay all of my bills, and if each person does that- nobody is left out. Anytime you don't, you are screwing somebody else.

Is that your solution? Just screw somebody else?

 

You are also paying for shop lifting, embezzlement, vandalism, and dozens of crimes. Why don't we just institutionalize that load and not concern ourselves with the people creating it? Is it less honorable to steal someone else's money by legal diversion than it is to siphon it out of their bank account, pick their pocket or sell them phony lottery tickets?

The fact we already have well-intentioned laws that wind up allowing people to take what they don't earn from you without your consent is hardly a reason to applaud them and expand them.

You are pointing out what is wrong with our system, not what is right.

 

A 2% income tax provides full health coverage? If democrats here proposed that and crunched the numbers for me I'd be all for it. Not holding my breath though.

 

You miss a major point. When someone uninsured gets free medical care, it is provided not because the person is entitled, but because our sense of guilt says we have to. In doing that, we tell the person (and all the others watching) that healthcare is free- all you have to do is say you are unable to pay. This is like giving the man who says he is hungry a fish for the day... who expects then that the fish are free, and sees no need to go fishing himself. In other words- we tell people who lack the pride to be self-sufficient that society owes them a good life anyway.

This creates a major moral dilemma. Do we subsidize the person who has chosen to be dependent and make him even morso, or do we hold him responsible for his irresponsibility and let him figure out how to deal with his situation?

If there is an answer- it is charity, meaning medical care that is supported by the voluntary donations of people who think they must do so. Government should never be a charity, never take "donations" by way of taxation that are used to subsidize those who are not doing their best to take care of themselves. When they do- it punishes all those who are, the ones contributing to society.

About 30 years ago a construction company I owned was building a new custom house for a man I knew well. Over a few days, he developed a condition of swelling and reddening in his legs that I saw was rapidly deteriorating, and advised him to get to a doctor or hospital right away. He did, was there about a week, needing a number of transfusions and blood treatments. $35,000 dollar bill. Told them he was uninsured and poor- and paid nothing. When he came back, we were still building his house of course, and drawing payments from his new home loan just as we were before. That means my taxes and yours paid his medical bill, and we didn't even get a thank you. A great many of the people who complain that those with money are crooks, would do the same thing without hesitation, and feel right about it.

 

No, I'm not missing the point at all. You complain about people not having insurance, while wanting the choice not to have it yourself. Or in other words, the option to be that very same person - a person who may need health care while uninsured. As I said, to impose the risk that you can't pay on everyone else.

Furthermore, it's nonsensical to complain against people not paying, in order to have the choice not to pay yourself.

You may say there's no risk so far as you're concerned, but that's not good enough.

Nor are anecdotes sufficient to support your point of view, which is clearly informed by a degree of prejudice and bigotry.

Yes, there are dishonest or undeserving people - in any given situation. They're inevitable. But you overlook the fact that they're also a minority.

Hence, you disregard entirely the fact that for most, a lack of healthcare insurance is not a matter of choice. Like it not, they simply can't afford healthcare insurance. This is not choosing to be "dependent". It's an unfortunate fact of life, for any number of reasons. Even those who do have insurance, are often reluctant or unwilling to use it, because they can't afford the deductibles or co-pays.

Charities exist for the benefit of communities, but to suggest that they can support the entire healthcare costs of many millions of people is naive at best. People in countries with universal healthcare are themselves community-orientated, recognizing that when everyone pays, everyone gains, including themselves.

 

And so, who is the magical person with unlimited money that will pay all the bills we generate but can't pay?

Jesus, perhaps?

Ask yourself, if you were the only person in the world, who would pay your way?
If there were a billion people in the world but they didn't have ways to take others people's property, who would pay your way?
If each person just took responsibility for ONE person, who would be left uncared for?

There are a lot more people who think society owes them than you think. I was personally involved in a low-income subsidized housing project for example, where qualified people could move into a new 4 bedroom brick house with rent based on an income formula- which made the average rent less than $35. We had built 100 of these houses, in 6 months. In less than 6 months, 8 out of ten occupied homes needed serious renovation. I toured 10 houses at random with one of the people administrating the project, an architect and another contractor. One house had floor covering peeling up, which the project man said was bad flooring. But when we asked a neighbor, we found that the tenant was mad over being disqualified for giving false information to get in, so he threw a running garden hose in the window and drove away. Another house had a sink full of water with human feces floating in it. They had also urinated down the heating vents, and the house was so rank one person with us ran out and barfed. Another house had sheet rock destroyed with a baseball bat, hundreds of holes. Another house had a substantial amount of blood around, some used to mark graffiti on the walls- blood of a woman murdered there. There was only one out of the ten houses we toured that could have been rented again with the usual level of cleaning services. None of these houses were over 6 months old. When I mentioned in a meeting with project administrators that there was a relationship between the damage and the caliber of the tenants, they took offense, called me prejudiced and told me to leave. I was offended, that people would gain the power to waste money in this fashion, and at the same time- spit on the people providing it. Both the people promoting this kind of waste and the people who benefit from it do just that. This is not some rare exception or gross exaggeration- subsidized housing efforts all over the country have met with the same treatment from the people they thought they were helping. It's the norm.

 

You are wrong. You are only paying for the hour or so that you are using that PUBLIC ambulance provided by tax payers, you are not paying for the high costs while the ambulance is waiting 24/7 to rescue you which someone has to pay for and that someone is "every body else" through tax, not you, not your insurance, so no, you are not paying 100% of your own bills. Plus who do you think paid for the call operators waiting for you to call 911 and if necessary the cost of the police, again not you or your insurance provider, but tax payers.

Without the private health costs being heavily subsidized by tax payers, private health insurance premium would be higher per person than the much criticized cost of public health care systems per person favored in the UK and Australia.

 

And as long as you can force it onto others, it's OK because YOU think it's for their own good....

You are welcome to engage in any kind of stupidity you wish. You are NOT welcome to force it on anybody else. IF the idea is so grand, why is it necessary that everybody must play the game? If it would be great with 100% of the people, no reason it can't be great with 50%?
Perhaps because it always requires a way to take money that doesn't belong to you to fund the idea, as the people lining up for the benefits aren't going to support it. For that, they need to use the old favorite, OPM, or Other People's Money. Most of the time people who favor this kind of thing see themselves as the beneficiaries, not the person paying the bill. If it's free or cheaper at someone else's expense- they are all for it. Anything free or paid for mostly by someone else is instantly popular to among a certain segment of society- and that is true world wide.

 

I understand it just fine. They take 2% from your pay and get the rest in higher taxes and prices, you are being duped by your Government..