-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Sushi it's not just the economy that's in trouble
- Thread starter daedong
- Start date
daedong
New member
At the risk of being mowed down here is some thoughts and suggestions.
I'm not as left winged as you all think.
Trying to understand another country's health system is complex to say the least. From all I have read every current politician including your own president acknowledges that there is a problem. Please accept that being from a different country on the other side of the world I see things from a very different angle ( well fukc off I hear, ) Well I won't, only because I know those that are open minded will appreciate my views and additionally if I didn't like you all I wouldn't be bothering.
As an individual you should have the right to separate health insurance and employment with no penalty. One should never be penalised in any shape or form because he or she chooses, or is forced, to change employment or for that matter decides to simply leave employment for any reason.
Your government pours billions of tax payers money into health care now, and this will never cease. All that will happen under the status quo will be a decrease in those that have private health cover due to the high cost of insurance, thus a smaller number will be paying for private cover and this group will increasingly subsidise those that don't. And then the Government will need to pour even more money in. Guess who pays that, the top earners paying the most taxes, the ones that probably already pay for private cover.
Reduce tax on income.
Add a levy,
Every person that earns a taxable income pays a health care levy, this levy increases % wise with age for those that choose not to take private health cover. Obviously this should be applicable only above a certain income.
Mandate the maximum insurance premium price that can be charged by private health insurers.
Mandate that every person has the right to join private health cover with no penalty for those that have preexisting disease.
Just the ramblings of an aussie.
I'm not as left winged as you all think.
Trying to understand another country's health system is complex to say the least. From all I have read every current politician including your own president acknowledges that there is a problem. Please accept that being from a different country on the other side of the world I see things from a very different angle ( well fukc off I hear, ) Well I won't, only because I know those that are open minded will appreciate my views and additionally if I didn't like you all I wouldn't be bothering.
As an individual you should have the right to separate health insurance and employment with no penalty. One should never be penalised in any shape or form because he or she chooses, or is forced, to change employment or for that matter decides to simply leave employment for any reason.
Your government pours billions of tax payers money into health care now, and this will never cease. All that will happen under the status quo will be a decrease in those that have private health cover due to the high cost of insurance, thus a smaller number will be paying for private cover and this group will increasingly subsidise those that don't. And then the Government will need to pour even more money in. Guess who pays that, the top earners paying the most taxes, the ones that probably already pay for private cover.
Reduce tax on income.
Add a levy,
Every person that earns a taxable income pays a health care levy, this levy increases % wise with age for those that choose not to take private health cover. Obviously this should be applicable only above a certain income.
Mandate the maximum insurance premium price that can be charged by private health insurers.
Mandate that every person has the right to join private health cover with no penalty for those that have preexisting disease.
Just the ramblings of an aussie.
mtntopper
Back On Track
I am going to speak from personal experiences with what transpired in the last 10 years of my fathers life. He lived until last year and passed away at the age of 93. He spent considerable time in the last 6 years in the hospital and also was admitted twice to convalescent and assisted living care. We were involved in his health care and paying the bills for all the medical being provided by the hospitals and doctors along with the assisted care that was required twice for him. Fortunately he was covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and a supplemental insurance policy that he paid for for many years. He also had savings, owned his home and lived very modest to save money for his own care.
The start of problems was when he broke his hip at the age of 89 and spent 8 weeks in convalescent care to learn how to walk again, take care of himself at home and learn to function as he was not going to be able to do all that he had been able to do for himself prior. He successfully left the home and lived in his own home alone until the last 3 months of his life. We watched the bills come in over the years and it would just knock your socks off at the cost of medical care being paid by Medicare, Medicaid and his supplemental insurance for his health care needs. One hour of therapy would cost in excess of $350.00+ billed to Medicare and paid for by the government or his insurance. For private pay this might cost $120.00 or less. Why the difference? Because they can bill it and the government will pay it and the supplemental insurance will pick up the balance. He was one of the fortunate ones to have the supplemental policy in place or his savings and home would of been gone the first time at 89 years of age when he needed the long term care. As it happened anyway most of the savings were used to take care of him in the end as their are many inequities in the current system.
One that really troubles me and I can not understand is that he was transported (150 miles from home) via ambulance to a special care surgery hospital for evaluation of his heart conditions for possible surgery. The local hospital/doctors made the arrangements as they did not have the facility or specialist to do this operation. He was evaluated and it was determined by him and the doctors that he was not a candidate for the operation and it would not benefit or make him well again. He still needed an ambulance for the trip back to the local convalescent home but that was not paid for by any of his medical insurance or Medicare. So here we sat with a bill for $2,000.00 for ambulance service so he could return home to die. Medicare policy is if he is not operated on then they will not pay for the return trip back home. He was not in any condition to be transported by private vehicle as he needed medical support that we could not provide in a private vehicle. The hospital on the distant end was not going to be paid by Medicare or the insurance either as they are limited to how long and under what conditions they can collect for a patient in his condition under evaluation and with health improving slightly. He did almost die at this hospital but as many may know from past experience there is often a slight improvement in health prior to the end.
The system needs reform and some type of controls on how much is billed and paid for by the insurance companies and medical professionals as these costs just continue to spiral up at rate much higher than inflation. This is why insurance cost are out of reach or many say they can not afford insurance. Keep in mind as BC stated, we are already paying for a government system for the elderly, handicapped, and others that qualify and that is Medicare and Medicaid along with higher costs for the noncollectable medical bills of those that do not pay. This government program of Medicare and Medicaid was put into law to help those that needed assistance but I believe it has turned mostly in to a life support system of tax dollars wasted on the medical industry because they can bill higher than normal rates/fees and be paid for it. The medical lobbyists are able get what they want for their handlers by buying our corrupt politicians and in the end we pay the cost of this by paying too high of medical care costs at all levels.
Yes, the system is broke and needs repair. Honest politicians are needed in WA and at the state level to look deeply into what we currently have. Then make the changes to benefit all levels of citizens and make the playing field level. Change starts by having no lobbyists or special interest groups that are able to buy the votes of the politicians that are supposed to be representing the voters who elected them and stop the ablity for self interest gain and what is in it for them. This will probably not happen in my lifetime, but I can try to make the changes so my grand children's lives are better by voting for honest government Representatives and reform.
The start of problems was when he broke his hip at the age of 89 and spent 8 weeks in convalescent care to learn how to walk again, take care of himself at home and learn to function as he was not going to be able to do all that he had been able to do for himself prior. He successfully left the home and lived in his own home alone until the last 3 months of his life. We watched the bills come in over the years and it would just knock your socks off at the cost of medical care being paid by Medicare, Medicaid and his supplemental insurance for his health care needs. One hour of therapy would cost in excess of $350.00+ billed to Medicare and paid for by the government or his insurance. For private pay this might cost $120.00 or less. Why the difference? Because they can bill it and the government will pay it and the supplemental insurance will pick up the balance. He was one of the fortunate ones to have the supplemental policy in place or his savings and home would of been gone the first time at 89 years of age when he needed the long term care. As it happened anyway most of the savings were used to take care of him in the end as their are many inequities in the current system.
One that really troubles me and I can not understand is that he was transported (150 miles from home) via ambulance to a special care surgery hospital for evaluation of his heart conditions for possible surgery. The local hospital/doctors made the arrangements as they did not have the facility or specialist to do this operation. He was evaluated and it was determined by him and the doctors that he was not a candidate for the operation and it would not benefit or make him well again. He still needed an ambulance for the trip back to the local convalescent home but that was not paid for by any of his medical insurance or Medicare. So here we sat with a bill for $2,000.00 for ambulance service so he could return home to die. Medicare policy is if he is not operated on then they will not pay for the return trip back home. He was not in any condition to be transported by private vehicle as he needed medical support that we could not provide in a private vehicle. The hospital on the distant end was not going to be paid by Medicare or the insurance either as they are limited to how long and under what conditions they can collect for a patient in his condition under evaluation and with health improving slightly. He did almost die at this hospital but as many may know from past experience there is often a slight improvement in health prior to the end.
The system needs reform and some type of controls on how much is billed and paid for by the insurance companies and medical professionals as these costs just continue to spiral up at rate much higher than inflation. This is why insurance cost are out of reach or many say they can not afford insurance. Keep in mind as BC stated, we are already paying for a government system for the elderly, handicapped, and others that qualify and that is Medicare and Medicaid along with higher costs for the noncollectable medical bills of those that do not pay. This government program of Medicare and Medicaid was put into law to help those that needed assistance but I believe it has turned mostly in to a life support system of tax dollars wasted on the medical industry because they can bill higher than normal rates/fees and be paid for it. The medical lobbyists are able get what they want for their handlers by buying our corrupt politicians and in the end we pay the cost of this by paying too high of medical care costs at all levels.
Yes, the system is broke and needs repair. Honest politicians are needed in WA and at the state level to look deeply into what we currently have. Then make the changes to benefit all levels of citizens and make the playing field level. Change starts by having no lobbyists or special interest groups that are able to buy the votes of the politicians that are supposed to be representing the voters who elected them and stop the ablity for self interest gain and what is in it for them. This will probably not happen in my lifetime, but I can try to make the changes so my grand children's lives are better by voting for honest government Representatives and reform.
fogtender
Now a Published Author
Sounds like the reason you like Kaiser is that they are from what I have gathered a private run health care provider. If they were run like the Federal Government runs it's programs, I think you would be very disapointed.
The free market isn't always the best system going, but even at it's worst level, it still beats the systems that the Government runs almost all of the time, there are exceptions, but not many.
fogtender
Now a Published Author
It is sad that your father had to suffer during his last years, but if you were in an National Health care, he would prob. suffered even more due to his age. When you have "bean counters" calling the shots, they have very little enthusiasm for spending money on someone whom they feel is at the end of the line and is a waste of money on the public dole.
Having dealt with those same type of insensitive people already in the Federal Medical system, with my work related injury, I can fully appreciate the since of frustration that he, you and his whole family endured at that mentality at the level that you did have to deal with it. Now imagine what it would be like if they told you he was too old to have the medical attention that he needed... that will be one of the governing rules that will be included into National Health Care.
What will make the system better is putting a leash on the Lawyers and the bogus attacks on the medical system and the illegals that have been overloading it, to the point of braking the back of the system.
"Free", that isn't a word that should be even used to describe some kind of reform to the system, but that is what the Democrats are implying to get the vote... and there is no such thing.
It is a neat thing that you were able to have your father in your life as long as you did, not all of us are that lucky.
California
Charter Member
I hope whoever wins the election can start fresh with a system that closely follows the Kaiser model. They now have 70?? years experience and have polished their system pretty well. They are non profit, and started as a field hospital that the Boulder/Hoover Dam contractors set up in that remote job site during the dam construction years. They are big enough to negotiate generic drug prices etc to control cost, something that the Federal system avoids due to drug industry lobbying.
My mother, now 97, has been through 15-20 years of the sort of crises that mtntopper described. I started to write a lot of detail, but lets just say several heart attacks, hip replacement, and many many trips in the fire department's ambulance to the ER. She has now refused open heart surgery that they offered and has decided to take her chances. She's mentally competent, and I'm sure it is the thought of outliving her older sister who is still on her feet at 99 that keeps her going.
Anyhow - with all this complexity, we never see a bill. I think it's once at age 65 that Kaiser asks you to sign over Medicare benefits to them. Then they provide whatever you need and the subject of who is paying what is never discussed. I suppose they have an internal Medicare billing department, but the customer never sees any paperwork.
The only bills I've ever seen were City FD ambulance bills that came to us when Kaiser was slow to pay them, but as soon as I asked them to call Kaiser, we never heard more. In the Kaiser policy it says any provider can provide first-response and will be reimbursed if Kaiser's doctor confirms the medical necessity. I think these FD bills were because Kaiser's internal approval was slow - but obviously they eventually got approved.
I spoke previously about my own medical care. I should add that I am impressed with the care Mom has received, and if she's made it this far, 98 this June, they must be doing something right.
To repeat: The government should copy Kaiser.
As long as we don't follow Canada!!!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...l_gam_mostview
Even huge tumour can't secure care in Ontario
Out-of-Country surgery required, system refuses payment due to paperwork snag
LISA PRIEST
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
March 11, 2008 at 6:36 AM EDT
Inside Sylvia de Vries lurked an enormous tumour and fluid totalling 18 kilograms. But not even that massive weight gain and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer could assure her timely treatment in Canada.
Fighting for her life, the Windsor woman headed to the United States. In Pontiac, Mich., a surgeon excised the tumour - 35 centimetres at its longest - along with her ovaries, appendix, fallopian tubes, uterus and cervix. In addition, 13 litres of fluid were drained during that October, 2006, operation.
And there was little time to spare: Had she waited two weeks, she would have faced potential multiorgan failure, rendering her unstable for surgery, according to a letter from Michael L. Hicks, who performed the four-hour operation at St. Joseph Mercy Oakland.
But a devastating cancer diagnosis was only the beginning of Ms. de Vries's troubles.
The Ontario Health Insurance Plan says it won't pay for the $60,000 cancer treatment because Ms. de Vries did not fill out the correct form seeking preapproval for out-of-country care.
As well, it says no medical documentation was submitted that indicated a delay in obtaining the service in Ontario would result in death or medically significant, irreversible tissue damage.
That administrative misstep has left Ms. de Vries, a 51-year-old corporate communications manager, with a staggering cancer bill. She has drained her savings, maxed out her credit cards, taken out a line of credit and relied on friends to hold a spaghetti-dinner fundraiser, which earned $11,125.
"I feel abandoned; I was fighting for my life," Ms. de Vries said. "... I definitely would like to get some money back but more importantly, I would like to see the situation rectified so [other patients] don't go through this."
Ms. de Vries's case raises questions about OHIP's out-of-country health coverage program, which was put under a review more than a year ago after cancer patient Suzanne Aucoin of St. Catharines, Ont., was denied funding for treatment she received in the United States.
Only after ombudsman André Marin intervened was Ms. Aucoin reimbursed $76,018.23 in January, 2007, to cover costs associated with the colorectal cancer drug Erbitux, among other expenses and legal fees. (She has since died.)
At the time, Mr. Marin described the out-of-country approval process as "literally impossible for patients and physicians to understand."
Just two months before Mr. Marin made those comments, Ms. de Vries was trying to get access to that same program.
To have an out-of-country treatment approved, the procedure must not be performed in Ontario, cannot be experimental and should be deemed medically appropriate. However, patients can have out-of-country treatment funded even if it is available in Ontario so long as there is a delay that would cause irreversible tissue damage or death. Part of the form must be filled out by the patient's physician.
Patients denied preapproved, out-of-country treatment can appeal their cases to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board. And that is what OHIP has suggested to Ms. de Vries.
But her lawyer, Ms. Sellar, said such an appeal would be futile: Since Ms. de Vries did not fill out the out-of-country form before receiving treatment in the U.S., she cannot win the appeal.
Health Minister George Smitherman has the discretion to reimburse Ms. de Vries for treatment, if he chooses to do so. Ms. de Vries said she contacted her MPP, Sandra Pupatello, about it. In the end, she was told she had to go through the appeal process.
Bill Hryniuk, a past chairman of the board for the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada, said cases like Ms. de Vries are "happening quite a bit." The problem, Dr. Hryniuk said, is that "no one is in charge. No one is in charge of the case and the patient bounces around. ... It really is a bad system. Really, it's no system."
Even after Ms. de Vries obtained a CT scan in the U.S. that suggested she had ovarian cancer, she still couldn't get treatment in Ontario. She was referred to a gynecologist who would not take her as a patient because she had dismissed his practice partner some years earlier. Another gynecologist said he did not believe she had ovarian cancer. And a general surgeon said she needed a gynecological oncologist.
At that point, in October, 2006, her condition was worsening - so she tapped her savings and went to the U.S.
After the surgery, she tried to get into the cancer system in Windsor, this time for chemotherapy. In November, she was told there was a six-week wait for chemotherapy, and she ended up getting chemo in the U.S. as well.
Ron Foster, vice-president of public affairs and communications for Windsor Regional Hospital, which includes the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre, said such a wait even back in 2006 would have been unusual - that it may have been as long as three weeks. Today, chemotherapy begins within one week of being referred by a doctor, he said.
Several improvements have also been made to the out-of-country process. A bulletin describing the program was mailed to the province's physicians, hospitals and associations in October, 2007. The next month, a special website was created. Those who receive denial letters are now provided a special telephone number to call for clarification on why the request was rejected, said Health Ministry spokeswoman Joanne Woodward Fraser.
But all that was too late for Ms. de Vries.
"I feel disappointed that when you're going through something like I did, you had to think about financial issues. It put a tremendous amount of strain on us," she said.
Her husband, Adriaan de Vries, an IT systems engineer, said they had no choice but to go to the U.S. "Nobody was in charge," he said, "and nobody really cared."
Even huge tumour can't secure care in Ontario
Out-of-Country surgery required, system refuses payment due to paperwork snag
LISA PRIEST
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
March 11, 2008 at 6:36 AM EDT
Inside Sylvia de Vries lurked an enormous tumour and fluid totalling 18 kilograms. But not even that massive weight gain and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer could assure her timely treatment in Canada.
Fighting for her life, the Windsor woman headed to the United States. In Pontiac, Mich., a surgeon excised the tumour - 35 centimetres at its longest - along with her ovaries, appendix, fallopian tubes, uterus and cervix. In addition, 13 litres of fluid were drained during that October, 2006, operation.
And there was little time to spare: Had she waited two weeks, she would have faced potential multiorgan failure, rendering her unstable for surgery, according to a letter from Michael L. Hicks, who performed the four-hour operation at St. Joseph Mercy Oakland.
But a devastating cancer diagnosis was only the beginning of Ms. de Vries's troubles.
The Ontario Health Insurance Plan says it won't pay for the $60,000 cancer treatment because Ms. de Vries did not fill out the correct form seeking preapproval for out-of-country care.
As well, it says no medical documentation was submitted that indicated a delay in obtaining the service in Ontario would result in death or medically significant, irreversible tissue damage.
That administrative misstep has left Ms. de Vries, a 51-year-old corporate communications manager, with a staggering cancer bill. She has drained her savings, maxed out her credit cards, taken out a line of credit and relied on friends to hold a spaghetti-dinner fundraiser, which earned $11,125.
"I feel abandoned; I was fighting for my life," Ms. de Vries said. "... I definitely would like to get some money back but more importantly, I would like to see the situation rectified so [other patients] don't go through this."
Ms. de Vries's case raises questions about OHIP's out-of-country health coverage program, which was put under a review more than a year ago after cancer patient Suzanne Aucoin of St. Catharines, Ont., was denied funding for treatment she received in the United States.
Only after ombudsman André Marin intervened was Ms. Aucoin reimbursed $76,018.23 in January, 2007, to cover costs associated with the colorectal cancer drug Erbitux, among other expenses and legal fees. (She has since died.)
At the time, Mr. Marin described the out-of-country approval process as "literally impossible for patients and physicians to understand."
Just two months before Mr. Marin made those comments, Ms. de Vries was trying to get access to that same program.
To have an out-of-country treatment approved, the procedure must not be performed in Ontario, cannot be experimental and should be deemed medically appropriate. However, patients can have out-of-country treatment funded even if it is available in Ontario so long as there is a delay that would cause irreversible tissue damage or death. Part of the form must be filled out by the patient's physician.
Patients denied preapproved, out-of-country treatment can appeal their cases to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board. And that is what OHIP has suggested to Ms. de Vries.
But her lawyer, Ms. Sellar, said such an appeal would be futile: Since Ms. de Vries did not fill out the out-of-country form before receiving treatment in the U.S., she cannot win the appeal.
Health Minister George Smitherman has the discretion to reimburse Ms. de Vries for treatment, if he chooses to do so. Ms. de Vries said she contacted her MPP, Sandra Pupatello, about it. In the end, she was told she had to go through the appeal process.
Bill Hryniuk, a past chairman of the board for the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada, said cases like Ms. de Vries are "happening quite a bit." The problem, Dr. Hryniuk said, is that "no one is in charge. No one is in charge of the case and the patient bounces around. ... It really is a bad system. Really, it's no system."
Even after Ms. de Vries obtained a CT scan in the U.S. that suggested she had ovarian cancer, she still couldn't get treatment in Ontario. She was referred to a gynecologist who would not take her as a patient because she had dismissed his practice partner some years earlier. Another gynecologist said he did not believe she had ovarian cancer. And a general surgeon said she needed a gynecological oncologist.
At that point, in October, 2006, her condition was worsening - so she tapped her savings and went to the U.S.
After the surgery, she tried to get into the cancer system in Windsor, this time for chemotherapy. In November, she was told there was a six-week wait for chemotherapy, and she ended up getting chemo in the U.S. as well.
Ron Foster, vice-president of public affairs and communications for Windsor Regional Hospital, which includes the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre, said such a wait even back in 2006 would have been unusual - that it may have been as long as three weeks. Today, chemotherapy begins within one week of being referred by a doctor, he said.
Several improvements have also been made to the out-of-country process. A bulletin describing the program was mailed to the province's physicians, hospitals and associations in October, 2007. The next month, a special website was created. Those who receive denial letters are now provided a special telephone number to call for clarification on why the request was rejected, said Health Ministry spokeswoman Joanne Woodward Fraser.
But all that was too late for Ms. de Vries.
"I feel disappointed that when you're going through something like I did, you had to think about financial issues. It put a tremendous amount of strain on us," she said.
Her husband, Adriaan de Vries, an IT systems engineer, said they had no choice but to go to the U.S. "Nobody was in charge," he said, "and nobody really cared."
If I recall correctly, Kaiser uses a "Capitated Health Plan"
Here's a very high-level view of how it works.
BTW - Many find it easiest to think of receiving a salary vs. an hourly wage.
Instead of a fee-for-service, the capitated plan is more of a salary.
A Provider (hospital, clinic, physician...) negotiate a contract with an Insurer (insurance company) to provide health care to a particular number of people. This contract is normally negotiated annually.
The Provider gets paid a fixed amount (probably monthly) from the Insurers, regardless of what the exact care that was done for the period. If the Provider makes a little extra (the payment exceeded the services done), they put that in a reserve fund. If the payment wasn't enough to cover the services, they dip into that reserve fund.
In a Capitated plan, it's common for the medical staff to be salaried as well. They don't charge for specific services back to the hospital.
Here's an example.
Let's say a Provider covers 20,000,000 people. They look at historical (and other information) to see what it costs to take care of those people.
They then negotiate contracts with Insurers to cover those 20,000,000 people.
For the sake of argument, let's say the contract(s) equate to $12,000,000,000 of annual payments to take care of those 20,000,000 people.
The Provider then gets paid 1/12 of that annual amount monthly ($1,000,000,000). The providers then pay their bills, medical staff... out of that. Any excess goes into a reserve fund. If that amount wasn't enough, they dip into their reserve.
This model is much simpler than fee-for-service as they don't need as elaborate of a patient accounting system since they're not billing for each patient, each service, each test...
fogtender
Now a Published Author
You are correct about "you don't get it", but it is you that have no concecpt of what our system is about. We are a free market system, you work for it, you get it. Those that are in need for real, are taken care of already and the 1/6th that don't have health care you tout about either are here illegally (again some upwards of 20,000,000+ which as you pointed out, about the size of your country's population) or mostly don't choose to buy it. That is a "choice" that you don't have and don't appear to understand. We may be sliding towards a Socialist government, but we aren't there yet and all the countries that have gone to the "Dark Side" have found that out and are gasping for air. You are still sliding to that goal, and the governments job it to protect you, not coddle...
You have no imigrations issues that are dragging your system apart. Your system is not being assailed by armies of Lawyers in an effect to enrich themselves not the "Care" of the masses.
As a "Victim" of the Federal System, I am fully aware of the services that are availble to regular people and what to expect from a totally controled Federal Operation.
The elite that you refer to are wanting to have the system controled by the government for a control issue, not a get it fixed issue nor do they really care about the masses. If they were concerned about the state of the Health system, they would go after the root causes of it's problems not create more.
fogtender
Now a Published Author
Well as soon as the government gets its fingers into the pie, they will ruin it. They have yet to take control of something in the private sector and make it run better. They have yet to address the cancer that is attacking the root causes of our Health care system and that is a good sign they have no clue.
You can have a really good looking house, but if termites are eating at it and you don't do something, it will be a worthless shell in short order. That sums up our National Health care now...
Kaiser may be a great model, but if it works so well for you, why would you want to screw it up with someone that is not accountable to anyone controlling it. Kaiser has a profit motive and they do provide a service and the stockholders want them to control it in a way to provide those services in an efficient way which is why you are enjoying their services, it is called a "Free Market" system and if they don't do a good job, you can change companies and they will fail. The government doesn't fail, they just make it worse.
daedong
New member
Australians have exactly the same philosophy, In fact probably much freer market system, less subsidies than the USA. Just look at your primary producers, and a myriad of other industries.
Plenty of illegal immigrants are paying taxes, some argue that it is as many as 66%. Illegal immigrants are certainly part of your economy, the US government certainly don't make much of an effort to stop them. Why, because they are vital to do the menial tasks. So don't use them as a cop out.
The "Dark Side", yes Australia is a terrible place to live.
There is less "coddling" here in Australia because everyone that works pays something towards health care. Also refer to free market system above.
As stated above regarding immigrants.
Regarding lawyers the problem lies with the American psyche, suing everyones ass off.
Regarding elite my reference was to the people that were in the higher income bracket that have no problems paying private health.
I think you should visit OZ, I would be quite happy to show you around our beautiful country. Oh BTW, you will need travel insurance, as we only have reciprocal medical cover with the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Malta, Italy, Ireland and New Zealand.
Last edited:
fogtender
Now a Published Author
Outstanding!
They can't pay taxes unless they have stolen someone's Identity and SSN, which of course "again" is a crime. A "cop out" is blaming someone else that didn't do it... They did and do, again, you don't understand the issues.
The fact they may pay a "Sales Tax" is a very minor part of the National economy and only affects local areas of the country. But mostly they send the money they make to Mexico, which is Billions annually.
And the "Menial Tasks" you refer to, are done and have been done by Americans, it is the fact that the illegals are being abused by being paid a fraction of the wages that is why they are doing it and don't make noise about it because they would be deported if caught. But that it not the issue of the thread, but they do drag our health care system down because they are getting "Free" health care.
The "Dark Side", yes Australia is a terrible place to live.
I apologize for your not understanding our English... here this may help:
Sarcasm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sarcasm[A] is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] An example of sarcasm is using "that's fantastic" to mean "that's awful".
It is used mostly in a humorous manner, but can express annoyance or anger.[8]
Contents
[hide]
- <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Sarcasm <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Notes <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Citations
- 4 External links
[edit] Sarcasm
Sarcasm can be difficult to grasp in written form. To prevent this some people emphasize words with italics, bold, capitalization, and/or underlining (e.g. that’s just great); sarcastic comments on the Internet with an emoticon, such as ^o); or surround them with a made-up markup language tag, e.g. *sarcasm*, <sarcasm> or <snicker>.
There is less "coddling" here in Australia because everyone that works pays something towards health care. Also refer to free market system above.
As stated above regarding immigrants.
That is because everyone in your system "Belongs" there....something that you clearly don't grasp. We have more illegals in our country than you have a population, give or take a few dozen... (see sarcasm above)
You have a very good grasp of that one!
I think you should visit OZ, I would be quite happy to show you around our beautiful country. Oh BTW, you will need travel insurance, as we only have reciprocal medical cover with the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Malta, Italy, Ireland and New Zealand.
I always wanted to visit there, until I started watching the Crocodile Hunter and realized how many critters that you have there that can creep into your boots or sleeping bag and kill you... (maybe that is why you guys needed the National Health care) I will take my chances the the bears, moose and wolves here, at least I can see them coming...(again, see sarcasm above. I have always thought you guys have a great and beautiful Country, but your politicians are as loopy as ours)
Last edited:
daedong
New member
fogtender, I think you will find you are wrong again,
So I repeat "Illegal immigrants are certainly part of your economy, the US government certainly don't make much of an effort to stop them. Why, because they are vital to do the menial tasks. So don't use them as a cop out."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/...180632534.html
Rather ironic is it not, you manage to get taxes from them (Illegals) but can't deport them.
daedong
New member
Murph No one here (in this thread) has advocated free for all.
My view is that private health should be encouraged, those that can afford it should pay. but private cover needs to be easily accessible for all. Health and employment should not be mixed. ( I know this is a US cultural thing but as an outsider I see pitfalls) and one should never be denied cover because of preexisting conditions, where will this led, sorry no cover because you have an X gene.
We have problems here with some folks not wanting to join private cover but at least they have to pay a levy. I personally think the levy should be higher than it is for those that earn beyond a certain $.
Uh oh....
That doesn't sound good. It appears to be a true "redistribution of wealth" scenario.
Why do the "haves" need to give their money to the "have nots"?
thcri
Gone But Not Forgotten
Reading between the lines that is how I am taking a lot of this. FREE FREE FREE
Yep let's tax the rich some more and it won't be long and the rich will say why should I work when the person across from me is getting the same for less.
daedong
New member
Your system at present costs the government more per capita than any other industralised nation. Who's taxes are these? I can't explain it any clearer. And despite this you have amongst the highest rate of preventable deaths in the industralised world. If this is what you want do nothing.
fogtender
Now a Published Author
Nope, in order to be a "legal" taxpayer, you have to have a Social Secuity Number (SSN) and if you aren't, to be able to you have to have stolen it from someone which includes their identity. If you have some other source, would love to hear it... Most are paid cash under the table, that leaves a very hard money trail to follow.
No, they suck the life out of the economy, they don't add to it... They mail/wire almost $30,000,000,000.00 (that is thirty billion dollars) a year, back to Mexico alone! That money is one way, no return on the investements at all and no taxes paid.
You get rid of all 20,000,000+- and send them back home and we will have a surplus of money saved from all the social, educational and health costs they incurre, and our health care will be off to a good start to the road of recovery.
One Illegal family with one kid will suck up to $20,000.00 a year in tax money just in education and basic social programs, more kids, more costs. If they are cheap labor and "DID" pay taxes, on what... $10,000.00 a year, that would be almost zero taxes paid out. That is not a "Win" for anybody but the illegals.
Then we can go after the Lawyers....
If legal imigrants come here (which is a totally different story), they do in fact get a green card, a SSN issued to them and they do pay taxes, which is good for the economy.
Clicked on your link and got this....
________________________________
NSW govt to challenge Tillman's release
April 24, 2007 - 2:44PM
The NSW government has sought leave to appeal against a Supreme Court decision to release serial sex offender Kenneth Tillman from jail.
Attorney-General John Hatzistergos announced he also had launched a legal bid to keep two other sex offenders, Keith Jamieson and Peter Quinn, behind bars.
Tillman, who has a 30-year history of worsening sex offences, walked free from Sydney's Long Bay Jail last week after serving 10 years for sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl.
______________________________________
What in the world does Perverts in jail have to do with this thread?
daedong
New member
I must apologise for that, I don't know how I managed that.
You are wrong, many illegals pay tax.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml
http://www.kttc.com/News/index.php?ID=14420
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/b.../Subjects/U/United States Economy&oref=slogin
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040415/news_1n15taxes.html
You are wrong, many illegals pay tax.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml
http://www.kttc.com/News/index.php?ID=14420
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/b.../Subjects/U/United States Economy&oref=slogin
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040415/news_1n15taxes.html
fogtender
Now a Published Author
Sure you did....
Those are the common claims that the "Pro" illegal lobby claims, but the fact is that very few file because they are affraid of being caught.
But here is the counter for your stories...
The Costs of Illegal Immigration
WASHINGTON (August 25, 2004) — A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
Read the rest of the story at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html
daedong
New member
But you would pay twice as much for everyday produce. and have thousands of dirty toilets.
fogtender
Now a Published Author
But you would pay twice as much for everyday produce. and have thousands of dirty toilets.
See that is where you show that you don't know to what extent the invasion has progressed.
They work in Canneries (even here in Alaska) where college kids use to be able to work, they work Construction, Landscaping, Airports (but many were busted with the stolen/false ID because of security crackdowns after 9/11, but not enough), Shipyards (you can't find a job in the yards at Seattle because the Illegals have taken them and only hire "new" arrivals), and the list goes on.
The common stereotype is that they just pick fruit and clean toilets, they may still do that, but that is a small percentage of the jobs that they take. Not to mention that a lot of our produce is now imported from South America...