Discussions
Taxes How much are you willing to pay?
Posted by csiunatc • 7/25/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
I keep wondering when i hear discussions about govt funded health care. How much are you willing to pay for this system?
I come from a country (Sweden) where the average tax is 32% for low income earners and 50% for middle and high income. Add to that a 12.5% sales tax on food and 25% sales tax on everything else. Gas selling for $8-10 a gallon etc.
I for one prefer the privately funded health care system having seen the other side of the coin.
User Comments
-
I live in Canada where we pay very reasonable sliding scale premiums based on taxable income for access to universal health care services. Those with incomes at or below the poverty line pay no premiums at all.
When a people are healthy because they have access to medical services when they need them they do work and they do pay taxes. Private health care simply means that poor and lower class people cannot afford the medical services they need. As they become even sicker it also means that they are no longer making as much income as they did before and therefore, they are paying less taxes into the system. Meanwhile the private corporate care providers are raking in a profit and paying low ball taxes.
Medicaid is administered differently in every state. In some states, it doesn't cover children over the age of 14. In some states, it's available to everyone, but only after a "spenddown" is met, and the spenddown based on even a minimum-wage income can be several thousand dollars--with no way to pay those first several thousand dollars, that patient never reaches the point of coverage. More importantly, very often he's never able to get the diagnostic visits and tests that might identify the illness that Medicaid would treat.
Couple that with the fact that hospitals and even many doctors charge individual patients without health coverage much higher rates than they charge insurance companies, and you have a very large pool of people who don't qualify for the current programs and have no chance in the world of being able to pay for their own medical care.
At any given time, there are approximately 44 million Americans with no health coverage at all. Moreover, America has vets coming home from Iraq that are not having their health care needs met. All of this is going down at a time when record high military budgets and been reached simultaneously with record high in poverty rates. Hence, it would seem that not instituting a shared federal/state universal access to health care plan in America is likely to prove to be false economy.-
I lived in Canada for almost 20 years & if you include ALL the taxes paid--including gas taxes, GST/PST, income, etc., etc.--(& you're single with no dependents,) you're looking at slightly over 50% of your income.
That's not to say that now that I'm back in the US I wouldn't give my right arm for the Canadian healthcare system (in which case, they could reattach it at no cost to me. *LOL*)
-
-
You make a good point actually. All you hear is how unfair it is that we don't get free health care like other places and when it comes down to it I too wonder how much people are willing to pay? I know that with every thing becoming more and more expensive I'm actually kind of against it and understand more why we have done nothing about it. I hope more people read this!-
I can't really think of much that's more important than making sure that everyone has the medical care that he/she needs. I have health insurance coverage under two policies and rarely pay a dime for health care, while many people who earn a quarter of what I do and really CAN'T pay have no coverage or coverage they can't afford to use. I'd much rather pay more and have everybody have access.
-
-
i'd much rather pay the taxes and get the health care.
i racked up $60,000 in medical bills because i had no health insurance and made perhaps $18,000 a year. that $60,000 was reduced from over $100,000 and only included the cancer treatments I needed, not the treatment i needed for asthma and i refused to go to the doctor because i had enough bills.
and that's a mild case, really.
this time around i've racked up over $28,000 in medical bills just from a broken leg - and i don't have a job at all this time.
gov't funded health care sounds excellent to me. better to learn to live on less from the get-go and be able to get health care when i need it. -
The second problem for swedes is that the system works fine for emergency, but since everything gets more and more expensive. Including health care.
They can't tax any more than they already are. Instead, they are cutting services. So for those who are not in immediate need, the waiting lists are horrible.. 3-5 years for a hip replacement for Eldrely etc.
Ender, I understand your predicament, I really do. But having seen what the population would have to pay to cover cases like yours. Still makes no sense. -
I'm not a big fan of govt. run anything - US govt that is. That being said, with escalating costs, more and more folks are being alienated from "affordable" health care. It's darn near crisis level and if it's not already it will be soon. We've got to do something - and I'm willing to give it a try if it means more folks can get the care they need. -
Well, considering I am uninsurable by private companies - or I can pay $1600 per month for basic medical care, with a $1000 deductible, a 20/80 co-pay and not have anything else covered at all (plus all of the waivers and riders fro preexisting conditions)....let's see....That's about $20k per year for doctor's check ups, and emergencies, provided that the emergencies aren't from the exempt medical waivers and riders clauses....
OR I can pay, $12,480 per year in taxes (roundabout) and have everything covered medically speaking.
Let's see.....I can wait a few years for a hip or knee replacement, or I can wait forever because I have no insurance....
I can wait a few hours in the ER for medical care, or I can die in the ER waiting room, because I have no insurance, like this woman:
www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/hospital.death.ap/
Tough choice.-
Easy choice. For now. But wait till they stop covering that hip replacement as a part of comprehensive coverage.
It's too bad no one ever thinks of attacking the problem from the other side.
Ask yourself a question.
Why does the cost of technology go down every year while quality goes up?
then ask yourself,
Why does the cost of medical care, education, and public services go up every year while the quality continues to fall?
If you can honestly see the reason, you'll know why Government health care will fail. -
Here's what I think the reason is--I suspect it's different from the one you mean to suggest. The electronics industry is selling to the ultimate consumer, and quality is of major concern to that consumer. The "consumer" for the health care industry is not the patient, but the insurance company. The insurance company is not concerned with quality of care, but with reduction of cost to itself. Thus, it is more profitable (in that it's more pleasing to the consumer) to provide cheap and substandard care than it is to do a good job.
-
Uhm, Don, the quality of medical care in the US has nothing to do with universal health care, as we do not have universal health care.
We have a privatized industry, that uses it's power to pay as little as possible to hospitals while maintaining large profits in the industry.
Every time your provider delays a payment, kicks back a payment, or declines a payment, they are using the premium you pay in as an investment to make them more money. It profits the insurance company to delay or decline payments to medical facilities - but it COSTS the medical facility time and money when they do that - hence, raised cost.
Not to mention all of the exclusion and prohibitively high premiums insurance companies are now asking for - that excludes a lot of people from medical care which costs the medical industry MORE money, because the only time a person will go in for care, it will be for major care.
Insurance needs to be regulated, and heavily so. It needs to be provided as a basic necessity for everyone, and paying into a 300 million person group rate will save EVERYONE money.
Regulating the industry to force providers to pay up when they are supposed to will help reduce costs of medical care, as well as increase efficiency, and quality.
Edited to add:
As it stands now private insurers have no legal bind to cover things like hip replacement or anything the provider doesn't want to cover. SO saying that a universal system "might" exclude these things is a bogus argument. They are excluded regularly by private providers, and furthermore, if a policy holder becomes "too expensive" or has long term medical conditions, a provider can terminate their policy, at will. -
But the technology folks are also concerned about the bottom line. And doing a fine job of it. Yet they manage to improve quality at the same time. All as a result of free market competition for those dollars and relatively little governmental interference.
Prices in the medical world are indeed controlled in large part by the insurance companies; in partnership with the government. Insurance Companies love Government.
Medical expenses used to be much smaller portions of the take home pay of families. The prices haven't risen due to better technology, technology costs in real dollars are down. They haven't risen due to Medical payroll, most Doctors are making less in real dollars than they did 20 years ago.
In any real model, insurance companies would be competing with each other, just like any other industry. But they don't. It's because they are protected and their monopolies are maintained by their friends at the State house.
Edit: Opps should have said Madame X
But a lot of this applies to your comments too Anok.
Viva the State! We certainly need more of it. -
We do with certain industries, Don. And if we are to live with a government, which we do, and we must live with industries that control our well being, which we do, then regulation of said industries must take place.
Don't even get me started on third party compensation - the new "cure all" for insurance costs that nail the people who have already paid into their premium policy.
And the reason the insurance loves the state right now, is because the state is doing nothing to curb them.
it's been two years since my husbands accident, and our attorney is powerless at the moment with regards to making the provider pay on the policy. Why? Because the regulators of insurance companies do nothing to enforce the laws in place to prevent such delays from happening.
I worked and was licensed to work in this industry - and I left when I realized just how corrupt it is.
By the way...electronics industries and other such industries are not necessities for consumers. No one "needs" a TV or electronic device.
We all need medical care and the industry as it stands is preventing millions of people from having reasonable access to medical care. If we lessened regulations, and privatized it all, you would put a third of the country out in the cold, with no access to medical care at all. -
"In any real model, insurance companies would be competing with each other, just like any other industry. But they don't. It's because they are protected and their monopolies are maintained by their friends at the State house.
"
I think there's some truth to that, Don, but it's still not strictly comparable to electronics because there's still another layer involved; individuals aren't the insurance companies' "consumers"--employers are. And again, there is a lower concern for and interest in actual quality of service than there would be if the ultimate consumer were making the choice, and (particularly in view of the scale), an extreme interest in cutting costs even at the expense of value.
-
-
i don't think any system is perfect, csi. but i would rather take my chances with a slow system and know that people would get some care - than deal with the effects of so many people using the emergency room as a physician's office (and then not being able to pay the bill, so the hospital eventually has to close services down) or not getting the help they need at all.
-
You also have to remember Ender, that places like Sweden, and Iceland, and Denmark have everything federally funded, or darn near everything.
From medical care to college to social groups and clubs - most, if not all social anything is provided free of charge or at low cost for what they pay in taxes.
So while there are complaints about the cost of taxes - they are getting the absolute best bang for anyone's buck - and simply fail to take advantage of the MANY services offered to them free of charge. -
yep. like i said, i'd rather pay the taxes myself.
-
The difference, of course, is all in how much money you make. If you make $40,000/year and you pay half of that in taxes but have all of your essential services provided, you're in good shape. If you make a million dollars a year and pay $500,000/year in taxes, you'd probably be better off footing your own bills.
-
but if you take into account the effects that having a lot of people with poor or no health care have on the entire system, i would bet it evens out a bit more.
besides, on a very personal level, i would rather help foot the bill so that fewer people suffered. that is were i making something insane like $500,000 a year. -
Well, I would too, Ender...but that may well be why you and I don't have $500,000. It seems that most of the people who do really want to keep it tucked away somewhere.
-
Best bang for the buck? You are saying that government is the most efficient spending mechanism out there?
Oh there i would have to disagree..... -
Best bang for your buck means that you pay the least amount of money for the maximum amount of service.
That is exactly what you get with a system like Sweden, or Denmark or Iceland etc..
No, you don't get super extra special celebrity treatment, but you do get everything for free. -
@Anok
Not exactly.
www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html
And there's no such thing as getting anything for free. -
Free at the time of service - and the taxes you pay in in places like Sweden cover a lot more than health care, Don.
-
Well...there is the cost savings from those who don't make it to surgery I suppose.
But note the trends Anok. They tell the whole story. It's a failing system and the money to repair it isn't there. And you can't socialize it any further. There is no cost control, because the individual incentives to produce are gone. Look around at the news reports. Sweden is getting desperate. -
ITs not free at the time of service. You still pay a fee everytime you see a doctor.. there is a Co-Pay in place.
-
No, WE are getting desperate.
WE, people like me, and 120 million others, plus some, are desperate trying to figure out...do we pay rent, or pay the doctor? Do we buy food, or do we buy medicine?
Did you actually read the article TT provided? Did you read Obama's ideas?
They are solid.
-
-
Have you been to a hospital where there is universal health care? Enjoy your 12 hour wait...it's a joke.-
Have you ever been to a hospital with privatized health care, and no insurance?
Enjoy your 12 hour wait, your ten minute misdiagnoses, and a bill higher than they would have ever charged the insurance company, coming right at you. -
Oh, that's the one that makes me insane, Anok! Your insurance company "negotiates" to pay $147 for a procedure that a person with no insurance gets billed $850 for. If they can afford to only charge the insurance company $147, then they can give everyone else the same discount.
-
Yup! Although the medical communities would bill the insurance company for the same amount, only they know that the bill will be kicked back until they lower the price.
It's just another form of discrimination against people who already can't afford the basics. *sigh* -
my partner's insurance paid less for her hysterectomy and 2.5 day stay in the hospital than the hospital wants to charge me for my broken leg and a 24 hour stay.
-
It's ridiculous.
I know I've told this story before, but I'll tell it again, because people don't realize how bad it is.
My husband was hit by a car, brought into the ER by ambulance, on a backboard...and waited two hours before anyone ever saw him at all, got ten minutes of the physician's time, a misdiagnoses, and an acetaminophen pill, waited two more hours before he was released....and we were charged not only by the ER - for something like $500 but also by the attending physician for An ADDITIONAL $500 AND the ambulance ride, for another $450.
Would you pay that much for ten minutes of bad service?
As it turns out, he had serious injuries that were actually easy to spot - that could have resulted in parallelization had it gone unnoticed for too long.
yeah, this system is GREAT
-
-
Although I will give Anok one point. The Pre-existing condition is not a problem for govt funded health care.
-
@csiunatc
completely off topic: check your shoutbox please -
Right now, in the US there are now 47 million people without any health care insurance, and 80 million on some sort of state aid medical care.
That is one third of the population of the US, who have shown a need for universal health care of some sort, because they have little to no coverage or can't afford private coverage, or can't be covered by private industries - such as myself.
That's a lot of people.
-
-
No more than 1-2%
All they do is waste our money, spending it on stupid _hit.
If your younger, you will not need health care unless you have a medical problem.
Most pay and never use it, a waste of your money. -
So... in other words, the rest of the population . The ones that are now spending X amount for their health care. Would have to spend 133$ of that to cover those that are lacking coverage.
-
Yes and no - as the people who cannot afford outrageous medical insurance premiums (now) would be paying their own way, through taxes. - but that $133 would be far cheaper than the average insurance rate they pay now.
So the people previously insured would be getting a discount.
My husbands last job that offered insurance, cost us about $400 per week.
$133 per week is a LOT cheaper. -
Hey I certainly didn't ask them to do anything for me.
I want them to mind their business. lmao
They can try to find my money. -
That was supposed to be 133%.. not $
If you are paying 200.. your new bill is 266.. For a family who normally spend 300... its not 400...
Add to that the general ineefective spending of govt. And its going to turn out to be more like 50% than 33... -
Anok, I don't think that's representative at all. My health insurance costs about $400/month, and that's because my company uses a kind of sliding scale system and I'm near the top of it. Insurance at my previous job and at my husband's company runs about $200-250/month, which is comparable to what my parents paid before my father retired last year.
-
Wait, CSI, are you saying that by increasing my expenditure by 33%, we can provide health care for everyone who isn't covered? I'm in...tell me where to send the check.
-
That would be $400 in TOTAL taxes, not $400 in health care alone.
I already estimated what I would be paying in total taxes - by Sweden's tax percentage base VS what I would have to pay for private insurance, alone.
The difference is staggering.
Sorry, Tiffany, that was $400 per month as well. Typos - I suck
-
That's a huge relief, anok...I was trying to figure out what state you were in to look up how that could be permitted.
-
That only covered my husband though. And it was severely restrictive.
One or two doctors visits per year ER visists up to a certain dollar amount - only to certain doctors, a $500 deductible, an 80/20 co pay, and no prescription, dental or eye coverage.
Anything outside of the PPP was not covered, period.
It was cheaper to not have any insurance at all.
-
-
You're forgetting that you're not paying insurance premiums -- that's a lot more expensive than you seem to realize. -
I would be willing to pay quite a bit. Insurance is covering less and less and premiums are getting higher and higsher. The mortality rate for African-Americans infants where I used to live in Columbus, Ohio was around 30%!-
Thats exactly the same development as it is in sweden. You pay more, but get less.
What has happened there is that anyone eith the means, is buying private health care insurance now. Which of course is only the rich. The rest since they are already paying for it, can't afford to pay twice. -
How on Earth are you "paying more"? And what do you consider to be "getting less"?
What percentage of your total taxes goes to health care? Because the taxes you pay go to a lot of other things too. Roads, schools (AND college!) Health care, police, fire, military, social programs, clubs, other federally subsidized programs....garbage collection etc, so on, and so forth.
I would like to compare prices and service, honestly. -
You are paying more because in sweden you have had a negative purchasing power development. Inflation is outweighing overall pay increase.
So although taxes are not "increasing" what is left is buying less.
You forget that there are other taxes in sweden that are also paying for these services.
Alcohol is current taxes with about USD 81 per Liter. Or for a standard bottle that comes out to about 30 in tax alone.
Gas currently runs at about 8.50 a gallon out of which about 70% is tax.
You pay a sales tax of 25% on top of the 50% income.
Thats how you pay more. -
Yes, but you don't have to buy alcohol, and you don't have to purchase items you don't want or need or that have higher prices. The only tax you *must* pay is income and property.
That said, how are you paying more for health care than you would for private health care?
Let's compare costs.
How many people in Sweden live at or below the poverty level?
How many people in Sweden are starving or homeless?
How many individuals attend college?
Just how cost prohibitive are the taxes, really? because in the US even with "low" taxes, we have unusually high numbers of people living in poverty, close to poverty, and abject poverty. We have unusually high numbers of homeless, uninsured, state insured, and welfare recipients ans state aid recipients because they cannot afford the cost of privatized industries.
We have unusually high numbers of people who cannot reasonably afford a college education, which is provided at no cost for residents of countries with these high taxes - such as Sweden.
When you add up the cost of living and educational expenses that would otherwise be provided at no cost with high tax percentages that you have - you actually save money.
-
-
I ain't paying _hit. I haven't paid a cent for years.
-
Today a BC blogger's post comparing the Obama and McCain proposals for medicare made it into the top 10 Goggle results. In case of you haven't read it here's the link opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=24
-
Read and commented. It's worth the few minutes of time to read it!
-
-
One of my best friends from high school lives in Sweden and she loves it. I get rather envious when she tells me about her country and what they get for the taxes that they pay - she is a teacher and her husband is an MD.
-
Attend college. Not sure, Not that many considering that although its free. ITs also harder than hell to get into one.. IT may be free. But its not unlimited seating....
So only the brightest get to even attempt it.
Homeless, Hmm.. I remember seeing more of them in stockholm than i do here in Florida.. But the numbers are probably skewed.
No.. You dont HAVE to pay anything. Why don't we just give the gov't 100% of our pay and they hand out living assignments and food coupons?
Oh.. wait. that didn't work in russia...-
you don't like the way the discussion's going so you just get snippy instead? nice. i thought anok was making some reasonable points.
-
I said you didn't have to purchase luxury type items with high price and tax tags.
I don't buy them now, why? Because I don't want to!
Your argument seems to be that you don't want to pay higher taxes - but you continue to neglect all of things you get for said taxes.
-
-
It's interesting to hear a different perspective. I haven't even been there so all I really know is what my friend tells me. She told me that her child care is even paid by taxes.
-
They are reasonable as long as you don't see the whole picture..
I've lived in a country that has this in place, and it doesn't work very well. All these things sound so great on paper. But it sucks to live there.
Especially for middle class. They are the ones taking the brunt of the punishment. They work hard, and have little to show for it. The upper class has enough left over to actually have a life.
The lower classes, are often better served not even to attempt to get a job because they will make as much or as little as the govt are already giving them. Which means that there is no solution. To many people just "ride along" on the system.
Saying that you don't HAVE to buy anything but room and board. Is to limit the situation to an unreasonable level. Since everything is taxed, no "enjoyment" is cheap in Sweden, wether it is alcohol, a good meal or a movie ticket. ALl of it taxed to pay for these "free" things.
And since they can't really raise taxes much more, and all these "Free" things are subject to inflation. They are getting more expensive with the same amount to take from it. Which ends up in meaning that the services are cut back. So you get less for the money you are spending.
Its non functional in the long run.-
Hmm, in places like Denmark, which has a similar system, people are very happy with how it works. And how it has been working for decades.
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2008/01/are-you-happy.html
In fact they are so happy, it was rated the happiest place on Earth.
Iceland, which also has a similar system, was rated the fourth happiest place on Earth.
The US.....didn't even make the top 20.
Oh, Sweden ranked 7th.
Perhaps your Americanism has clouded your judgment
abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1
www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.200...
Edited to add - you pay taxes here on all of those things too. Only you don't get the things you need unless you're destitute. And even then... -
Interesting though that their suicide rates are significantly higher than the US according to WHO. Must not have been a factor in the study.
-
The suicide rate in Sweden is .07 percent higher than our own, in the early 90's.
With no casualty given to explain the marginal difference.
For all we know, it could be caused by mental disorders, not economic induced bouts of depression that caused it.
In fact, often times, mental illness, or personal trauma is the cause of suicide - not the situation or government style of the country you live in. Even countries with horrible humanitarian crises going on don't always reflect high suicide rates.
Nice try though.
-
-
Saying that you don't HAVE to buy anything but room and board. Is to limit the situation to an unreasonable level. Since everything is taxed, no "enjoyment" is cheap in Sweden, wether it is alcohol, a good meal or a movie ticket. ALl of it taxed to pay for these "free" things.
This depends on your basic needs. When I worked for the banks right after college, I paid $300 monthly for 4 years straight and never used the service as I am perfectly healthy.
Younger people don't necessarily need to use the health care service that they are paying for.
I quit paying and will wait until later in age to get good coverage.
Paying through the nose and not using the service ain't the answer, it's a waste of my money.
I could of put all that money in a CD or or an ING account or something useful.
The only time I did go to the hospital was for some minor thing
and I paid $40 for the stupid doctor to tell me he can't help me.
A complete waste of my $40.00, I could of bought a Whole Chicken with that and sit under a tree
and eat it. Many people are now in between jobs and unemployed, so they don't have time
for all that bull _hit, they are busy trying to put food on the table and a bucket of chicken
is looking better than paying through the nose for health care. -
You know who would like our current system of graduated income tax brackets? Karl Marx. It's one of his tenets. -
I really do see both sides to this debate. However, it does seem like there are many, many hard working Americans who would gladly give up most luxury items and be able to afford decent health care. What's that saying - if you have your health, you have everything. Anyone who has ever faced a devastating illness can probably see some truth in that.
-
-
Interesting factoids
The Swedish govt has always reported unemployment "wrong" a lot of these people are in govt funded programs. The programs are proven to be uneffective, but have always been around because it allows them to have a "low" unemployment. Actual unemployment is around 7-8%.
Also, most young people are having trouble getting "real" jobs in sweden, many are forced to get Project employments, which means that they are hired for a specified period of time, this is due to the laws on firing in sweden, its extremely hard to fire someone, so companies come up with these Half-jobs where they can replace people every 6 months or so.
Notice that Sweden with its "free" college has the lowest post secondary education of the three.
The Life expectancy and Mortality rates are also unimportant to a high degree. Two reasons. 1. cold climates have slightly higher life expectancy than warm climates because of less diseases that can survive. (Malaria is non existent in Sweden)
Also when you can't afford to grab McDonalds everyday, your health will improve dramatically. (unscientific but probably true)
Voter participation.. US votes on a Workday (tuesday), Sweden on a Sunday. I know several people who couldn't afford to take time off to vote. im sure that those numbers would be different if the vote was on a weekend or a national holiday.
A couple of other effects taxes has had.
NEw construction is extremely expensive since both labor and materials are taxed out the....
What this did to me personally.. When i returned from australia in 1997. I was told that the government controlled housing authority could offer me a studio apartment. IN THIRTY SEVEN YEARS... i don't even have to make this up.
So most young people can't get their own rental contracts, forcing them to either sublet at extremely inflated prices. Or to live at home.
Swedish youth in larger cities live with their parents until average 23 years of age because of this problem.
When a company i worked for closed, I took a job as a teacher, my colleagues went on unemployment, and made about 15-20% more than I did sitting on their asses.
Do you think i enjoyed paying their benefits while they were out partying? Not so much.. -
Have you ever been to Sweden? I have been to America and Sweden and I can tell you the living standard in Sweden is far higher than the states. People don't "Grab Mcdonalds" because they know it's shit in a floury bap, it has nothing to do with being able to afford it. -
Ah, I see. When you don't like the numbers, you complain more, and use anecdotal stories, and claim numbers cover-ups by the government.
*shakes head*
Also, most young people are having trouble getting "real" jobs in sweden, many are forced to get Project employments, which means that they are hired for a specified period of time, this is due to the laws on firing in sweden, its extremely hard to fire someone, so companies come up with these Half-jobs where they can replace people every 6 months or so.
Most of our young people can't get real jobs either. They work minimum wage jobs, until they either can't afford to any more (because it doesn't pay the bills) or they get fired, which happens often - since most employment in teh US is "at will".
Notice that Sweden with its "free" college has the lowest post secondary education of the three.
Yup, the post secondary number is lower, although the literacy rate is much much higher. From what I have read about Swedish education, vocational studies are not included in "post secondary" educations which are university and colleges. The US numbers include all of those, including "Jr. Colleges" which offer a worthless degree for a small tuition. How many millions of Americans attend these "colleges"?
1. cold climates have slightly higher life expectancy than warm climates because of less diseases that can survive. (Malaria is non existent in Sweden)
Also when you can't afford to grab McDonalds everyday, your health will improve dramatically. (unscientific but probably true)
Or, it could have something to do with a better overall education and educational system, a less stressful atmosphere (as indicated in my post above) and - wait for it....accessible health care for everyone!!! I think that's a biggie, right there.
NEw construction is extremely expensive since both labor and materials are taxed out the....
Ours is inexpensive, seeing as we hire illegal immigrants, and pay them slave wages. Instead of hiring Americans, who need jobs.
When i returned from australia in 1997. I was told that the government controlled housing authority could offer me a studio apartment. IN THIRTY SEVEN YEARS... i don't even have to make this up.
And in the US you have to be in abject poverty to qualify for state housing, with a 9 month to three year wait. And it isn't even subsidized, you just don't pay high rent, and it's a little harder to evict you.
And, most Americans up to age 24 in the last ten years have moved back in with mom and dad too. Because they can't afford housing. Not because it's not available.
When a company i worked for closed, I took a job as a teacher, my colleagues went on unemployment, and made about 15-20% more than I did sitting on their asses.
Whoops! Same thing happens here, depending on the job you had, of course. Sometimes there are no benefits available for the people who actually could use them and are desperate, because there are no jobs to be found after the companies started laying people off.
Do you think i enjoyed paying their benefits while they were out partying? Not so much..
I'll bet had you been without work, and were receiving the same benefits - you would have been perfectly comfortable with the idea that you wouldn't starve, while looking for work. -
Actually, at the time the option of teaching was available to pretty much all of the people from that company, 3 days before the start of school, sockholm was missing almost 1800 teachers that year.
The system allowed them to not work and take advantage of it. I chose to take a lower paying job because i can't stand the thought of being on welfare. It was a choice, not a necessity. And i'll be damned if im going to feel bad for looking down on those that chose to take advantage of the rest of us. Something that a strong social network always enables.
Gov't coverups... lol.. Go do a search for "Faktisk Arbetslöshet" translated to Actual Unemployment, you'll find more than one reference to it. Look for the ones with Universitet (university) in the description for peer reviewed academic articles on it. I'll be happy to translate one or two for you if you would like.. this is not a coverup, its just a fact of reporting that screws with the actual number.
I wish that the world was a place where all needs could be met without abuse, but until you can give me that, I'm not interested in a system where I end up getting less of what I've worked for so that others who chose to not even try can have more.
It's not the thought of neccesary care being available that bothers me, its the thought of Uneccesary needs created by lazy asses being catered to.
Do i think that someone who works hard should have more than someone that doesn't.. You bet your sweet ...
EDIT
BTW.. here is an article you can read that's in English that might show you that there isn't any "Coverup"
SWEDEN´S UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS 10.3%:
www.johannorberg.net/?month=11&year=2005&page=displayblog
Check out his CV if you want. the man is fairly unknown here in the US but has some credibility behind him. -
From that site, which, by the way is a blog...credibility or not I take little stock in the actual numbers he posted...however:
The official rate is 5.4 percent (242 000 people). Not too bad, and closer to economies like US, UK, Ireland and Australia than to continental Europe. But something is strange. Sweden has decided to measure unemployment differently from other countries. For example those who are looking for a job, but who are studying meanwhile, are not included in the workforce or the unemployment. Contrary to ILO´s recommendations, and unlike almost all other countries. That´s another 87 000 people.
Furthermore, there are more than 121 000 persons who are unemployed, and are therefore in special, tax-funded projects, which will - the theory is - increase their ability to get a job later on. They are not counted as unemployed in the statistics. Isn´t that a bit too convenient?
Oops! The same thing happens here! The official US unemployment rates are calculated by benefits received by individuals - not by who is actually unemployed.
For example, I am "unemployed" as a stay at home mother - but I do not receive unemployment benefits for this, ergo, I'm not counted in the official stats. Even though the reason for my unemployment is that I can't find a job that pays enough to cover the cost of daycare, while bringing in enough income to even bother.
And yes, there will always be people that game the system, it happens here in the US too, all the time.
But there are far more people who don't, and actually need the benefits provided.
My point here is that while I hear a lot of complaints I see that the alternative - what we have - is no where near as beneficial to everyone as a whole. -
How nice, Try to find a "stay home mom" by choice in anything but the wealthiest families in Sweden. It's about as rare as hen's teeth. You can't support two people on one salary there.
Students who are looking for work because they have to LIVE.. should be considered unemployed.. But if we stick them in a govt program Like the "job hunt school" that everyone who gets unemployed in sweden pertty much HAS to take.. the govt can call them studentshas to take, we can keep them off the books for a bit longer..
The US Govt IS counting them becuse they are receiving benefits, the swedish govt DOESNT count them. Not the same as you say.. In fact, exactly the opposite.
-
-
What you all arguing about? If I break my leg I don't go 30 thousand dollars in debt like poor ender, I go to the hospital my taxes paid for and get it fixed. It's not a political thing it's called humanity.
It's bull shit to say you can spend trillions on bombs and can't afford to give people health care. Where are your priorities as a society?-
Well said Anin.
♥ -
Exactly
-
I'll be happy to pay for the stuff i Use, Sewers, Police, Fire, Roads, The protection of a strong Military. All sounds good to me. I thought i was...
Last time i checked, the lazy asses in sweden still had access to those things.. And the medical behefits that I and everyone else working provided for them.
And if You've "Already paid for it over years and years" then why is the baby boomer retirement going to cause such a problem. Because the money was used to pay for other things. There is no such thing as paying for your own future. Governments are lousy at keeping money saved. We are always borrowing from the future.
Adding to the spending bill by increasing gov't responsibilities is not the way out of that.. -
That is what your taxes pay for, in the US. And guess what - you pay for medical benefits too....it's that little deduction that says "medicaid" which is also available to you, should you ever need it.
Police fire, military etc et al don't take private payments. So good luck on that! -
NO keep the taxes on those things.
Some things are impractical or close to impossible to have private payments for. Roads police, courts and fire for instance. However, medical care past basic emergency isn't one of them in my oppinion. -
Ah yes, you are more than happy to pay for, and ask others to pay for services that you find beneficial to you.
But to return the favor would be catering to the lazy.
Is that about right?
I personally have little use for the police. I have heard people in my community ask for privatized fire departments, and totally privatized school systems. Others don't want want health care, and yet others still find government programs that they have no use for.
And yet, there are just as many people, if not more, that benefit a great deal from each and every thing those taxes go to. WHether they want to fund them all, or not.
You get what you give.
-
-
Great, but when you don't work and pay your taxes, why should anyone else pay for your broken leg.
-
That's why we pay taxes so when I break my leg someone helps me and when they break their leg I help them.
-
Because you have paid in for years and years before that.
Because if you don't get your leg fixed, it isn't likely you will become a contributing member of teh work force or the economy soon, if at all, which is bad for everyone if it happens enough.
Because you are a human, and sometimes a little help would be nice.
I'll say once, even though I've said it before - people who don't want to pay into taxes...fine. Don't.
But don't use the services it provides for everyone, either.
No public roads, public schools, sewer management, social security, police department, fire department etc and so forth. -
I always pay my taxes (Federal & State) also Property taxes,
I think I pay enough damn taxes, I just don't care to have stupid health care coverage
at this time, if I won't be using it.
You know everyone has different needs and we ain't all cookie cutter.
I think the Government should also realize that too.
Some of us have been through 4-8 layoffs and some of the stuff we thought was once important, just ain't that important or hold any real importance for us anymore.
-
-
Jeunelle,
But you HAVE That choice... That's called freedom.-
@csiunatc...THAT'S RIGHT....lmao
I know others aren't that lucky though, times are really tough.
And others aren't in good health and need coverage.
-
-
None! -
As little as possible. One thing the government does well is squander our hard-earned income and the more we give to them the more they have to give away.
Do you want to give your money that you spend 40-60 hours working hard for to a bunch of rich people who think they know what is best for everyone? They are so far removed from how the rest of us live our lives. -
I would be happy to pay 50% taxes if I lived in Sweeden, Canada or Finland. -
I'm not sure a Canadian has a clue about American health care. How come Canadians come to America to get some of their services--because they are not available in Canada. A real example is hearing aids. You get the old fashioned, less reliable analogue types. Canadians wishing digital hearing aids, readily available here, come to America. How long do you wait for elective surgery? Six months? More.
There certainly are ways to improve our health care system, but paying 50% or more in taxes for one more poorly run gov't system is not the way. Name one government system that runs efficiently and does what it is supposed to do. You can't.
By the way, which country develops more drugs and surgical procedures? What about the expenses that go into those developments? Many people come to America to take advantage of those procedures, and our drug companies send drugs throughout the world.
In England last fall while we were in Europe there was a terrible scandal. They were cost cutting by not changing sheets in a hospital! Yes, really. They flipped the sheets. Infections galore. There was also a problem in Scotland where there was "do it yourself" dentistry. People were pulling their own teeth by putting strings on doorknobs because even a toothache couldn't move you up in line to see a dentist. There aren't enough because the gov't pays so little. Ah, socialism! Stinks!!!!
Cataract surgery in Canada? One eye one year. Second eye second year. That's quite a delivery record.
It's interesting reading all the comments about Sweden, a tiny homogeneous country in comparison to the U.S. vast areas, climates, multi-cultural identies, etc. By the way, are people swarming into Sweden looking for a new and better way of life? That's what they are doing here. Looking to socialist leaning European countries is hardly the way to go--double digit unemployment, etc. No loyalty to a country that has supported and sustained and rebuilt them several times over. The grass may look greener, but remember it's always greener over the septic tank.
By the way, there is no such thing as a free lunch. No such thing as free health care. Don't forget that the money the government spends is really yours, but you won't have any say about it. That's not freedom.-
Your comments on the English NHS are very true but it has nothing to do with socialism, quite the opposite in fact, since the Thatcher government of the eighties the NHS has had a system of "free market reforms" foisted upon it.
This is what is killing the system, departments within each hospital have to pay exorbitant prices for basic supplies that must now be bought from private firms. Successive governments have kept these reforms as a way of slowly killing the NHS because for an English political party to criticise the NHS is electoral suicide, so they are doing it slowly like they have with all our other nationalised industries. -
They are not swarming in because places like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, and Iceland have very strict immigration laws.
*shakes head* I'm glad people complain about having to wait for elective medical care, and regular medical care. I'm glad people don't' appreciate the fact that if they need a hearing, they can get one, even if it's not the best one on the market.
I'm glad that people like t overlook the fact that that 50% tax rate covers a MULTITUDE of social services, and not just health care, and I'm glad that people forget that all of that research, development and so on are often funded by...government grants, government subsidies, and private grants already....and not private trade.
It makes me feel good to know that people are not addressing all of the issues at hand, and have failed to address the fact that if you have no insurance at all, a six month wait for elective surgery looks infinitely better than a life long wait, for needed surgery.
-
-
if healthcare and education were totally state-sponsored, I wouldn't mind buying a lot more taxes.... -
Kidicarus333, If Obama is elected, I'd like to see your comment about that in 4 years.
-
comment removed by the community.
-
Anok
You support all my points. Those countries cannot be compared to us. They keep themselves small and homogeneous. We offer social services--and we pay for them--to everyone here--people here legally and ILLEGALLY. In my county, almost all taxes go to social services now! Our gov't does fund research, but not all of it. You see research in our universities where foreigners come to learn and then to return to their own countries. That's our tax money too. We even give scholarships and incentives to bring those students here. These are all good things that Americans do because that is the kind of country we are.
I originally said that there needs to be improvement in our health care system, but socialism is not the answer. BTW, in the statistics of the uninsured are included all the illegals in our system that we support as well. Makes for a bumpier ride than in Sweden, etc. BTW, what is the population of superior Iceland? Let's compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges.-
Well, for one, US universities are not free, so foreigners coming over here and paying has nothing to do with out taxes. Scholarships are first and foremost offered by the schools, also not tax dollars, although the government may offer some federal scholarships for students coming here - just as other countries do for Americans studying abroad.
None of this, however, has anything to do with the universal health plans being offered by the US government, and the presidential hopefuls, at this time.
The size of the country has little to do with whether or not this system can work. It is an apples to apples comparison.
What is your actual basis for opposing a universal health care system?
-
-
scary tax details of you mister -
To aningeniousname (I love this name)
You make good points, but the truth is socialism inhibits the population from striving as it might. You have to admit that the switch in NHS was caused by an acute shortage of practitioners, etc. and the country needed to goose its population to go through the years of preparation necessary. Why you find it so unusual for people who devote their lives to helping others to also want to make a good living for themselves is hard for me to comprehend. We absolutely need changes here to meet more needs-- in the ability to sue doctors, etc., and we need insurance changes as well. Those would mightily reduce costs. But there are other changes we can make as well that would improve our health care delivery. What's happening in the UK has more to do with gov't deciding how healthcare should be delivered and to whom than a free market. -
Anok
Statistics indicate that the tuition paid to any college is on average 20-25% higher in order for the colleges to award scholarships. That's my money when my children attended college. My points have as much to do with my money in general as with my taxes in particular. I am already paying more than "my fair share." 1% of all Americans pay 46% of all the taxes. Additionally, there are gov't sponsored programs--grants, loans, etc. that help students get through college. There are state universities that make college affordable, and students can attend at night, get loans and grants etc. Once again, look at the number of illegal aliens given in-state tuition rates. That's tax supported education. In terms of Americans studying abroad--the numbers are not even close. No comparison.
I am not opposed to a universal health care system. I want to know how it's going to be funded and run. I don't think creating another governmental bureaucacy will help anyone, and I don't want to be taxed to death. In Scotland this past fall, we came home without any Scotch whiskey. It's cheaper here because of the taxes over there. They're taxed to death. Obama is promising a lot of stuff with NO SPECIFICS. He only promises tax increases. I don't buy things without checking out the particulars, and this is one thing I ain't buying!-
Statistics indicate that the tuition paid to any college is on average 20-25% higher in order for the colleges to award scholarships. That's my money when my children attended college.
Taxes do not fund school sponsored scholarships. Schools regularly apply for private gran
-