Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[sangha]

And please don't lie. I never said the french spend less of their income on health care. I merely asked you to prove your dishonest claim.

For the last time. I am willing to objectively discuss alternative numbers when some objective evidence shows they are significnalty incorrect. I can only tell you what I found. And article after article claims essentially that a percentage of this demographic or that demographic pays more than 10% of their income on health care. Now I ask you, if that is all the information we have what do you believe it is reasonable to estimate the avg. americans percent of income spent on health care is?

What I don't get about about a lot of discussions on this board is why people like you are incapable of an objective conversation. That's all I'm waiting for. If I'm just way off base on my estimate I am more than happy to objectively discuss alternatives. Again all you seem interested in is this immature game of gotcha.

P.S. You have yet to refute the argument that the French system is unsustainable.

"For the last time. I am willing to objectively discuss alternative numbers when some objective evidence shows they are significnalty incorrect"

I am willing to let you worship me as a God until you post objective evidence that I am not God.

And article after article claims essentially that a percentage of this demographic or that demographic pays more than 10% of their income on health care.

Translation - after Bern accuses me of obsessing over this issue, Bern hypocritically and obsessively tries to get me to talk about his "guestimates"

If I'm just way off base on my estimate I am more than happy to objectively discuss alternatives

If I am way off base about my being God, I am more than happy to objectively discuss any objective evidence you have to the contrary.

But until you can provide evidence that I am not God, we should assume that I am God.

 

[Bern80]

And please don't lie. I never said the french spend less of their income on health care. I merely asked you to prove your dishonest claim.

For the last time. I am willing to objectively discuss alternative numbers when some objective evidence shows they are significnalty incorrect. I can only tell you what I found. And article after article claims essentially that a percentage of this demographic or that demographic pays more than 10% of their income on health care. Now I ask you, if that is all the information we have what do you believe it is reasonable to estimate the avg. americans percent of income spent on health care is?

What I don't get about about a lot of discussions on this board is why people like you are incapable of an objective conversation. That's all I'm waiting for. If I'm just way off base on my estimate I am more than happy to objectively discuss alternatives. Again all you seem interested in is this immature game of gotcha.

P.S. You have yet to refute the argument that the French system is unsustainable.

"For the last time. I am willing to objectively discuss alternative numbers when some objective evidence shows they are significnalty incorrect"

I am willing to let you worship me as a God until you post objective evidence that I am not God.

And article after article claims essentially that a percentage of this demographic or that demographic pays more than 10% of their income on health care.

Translation - after Bern accuses me of obsessing over this issue, Bern hypocritically and obsessively tries to get me to talk about his "guestimates"

If I'm just way off base on my estimate I am more than happy to objectively discuss alternatives

If I am way off base about my being God, I am more than happy to objectively discuss any objective evidence you have to the contrary.

But until you can provide evidence that I am not God, we should assume that I am God.

Was gonna write a longer post, but there is no point in repeating myself. You remain a hypocrite and someone who isn't really interested in whether socialized medicine is beneficial or not. The last few pages of this thread will clearly show all you are interested is some juvenile game.

I'll make it easy for you. YOU make up the numbers. For the sake of argument I'll assume they're right. Maybe then we can have a constructive discussion as to percent of income spent on health care actually means in terms of the benefits of socialized medicine. Or maybe you can show some integrity and answer MY questions.

 

[jeffrockit]

very true, but he preached conservationism and then he skewed the lines and philosophy of being a conservative. in some ways he redefined what it meant. but do you see my point? we put a conservative in the white house and it caused more problems than it solved.

Agreed but we put a liberal in the WH and even more problems have come up. This is not a partisan thing, it is a country thing and we need to continue to get rid of the dogs in each election until they get the message. If we keep going back and forth with these losers, we will never move forward. I wish i had a solution but it seems like the system is rigged.

 

[Bern80]

Thank you to Greenbeard for the finding this very interesting info.

Sangha, it appears the 'guestimate' I made earlier may have been a touch on the high side.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/

May we move on now?

 

[sangha]

I'll make it easy for you. YOU make up the numbers. For the sake of argument I'll assume they're right. Maybe then we can have a constructive discussion as to percent of income spent on health care actually means in terms of the benefits of socialized medicine. Or maybe you can show some integrity and answer MY questions.

Making up #s is what wingnuts like you do. If you want someone to make up #'s, ask one of your wingnuts.

 

[sangha]

Thank you to Greenbeard for the finding this very interesting info.

Sangha, it appears the 'guestimate' I made earlier may have been a touch on the high side.

How The Average U.S. Consumer Spends Their Paycheck - VisualEconomics.com

May we move on now?

Nope. Those #'s don't make sense


The average consumer spends $2,853 on healthcare each year

Health insurance alone cost more than that. It looks like they're only counting out of pocket expenses.

 

[Bern80]

Thank you to Greenbeard for the finding this very interesting info.

Sangha, it appears the 'guestimate' I made earlier may have been a touch on the high side.

How The Average U.S. Consumer Spends Their Paycheck - VisualEconomics.com

May we move on now?

Nope. Those #'s don't make sense


The average consumer spends $2,853 on healthcare each year

Health insurance alone cost more than that. It looks like they're only counting out of pocket expenses.

The figure does include health insurance actually.

The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Health Expenditures

If you click on the PDF for 136 you will see the $2,853 broken down further. One of the components being health insurance at $1545

You are correct about what premiums cost being more than $2,853. For the same year (2007) the avg cost of plans was $4,479 for a single and $12,108 for family. The thing you are forgetting is that most people aren't paying for all of their plan. Some people aren't paying any of it and others are having a good chunk of it paid for by someone else like their employer. When that is factored in dept. of labor is saying of the 4,479 that a plan costs the consumer is only paying 1,545.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

 

[sangha]

Thank you to Greenbeard for the finding this very interesting info.

Sangha, it appears the 'guestimate' I made earlier may have been a touch on the high side.

How The Average U.S. Consumer Spends Their Paycheck - VisualEconomics.com

May we move on now?

Nope. Those #'s don't make sense


The average consumer spends $2,853 on healthcare each year

Health insurance alone cost more than that. It looks like they're only counting out of pocket expenses.

The figure does include health insurance actually.

The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Health Expenditures

If you click on the PDF for 136 you will see the $2,853 broken down further. One of the components being health insurance at $1545

You are correct about what premiums cost being more than $2,853. For the same year (2007) the avg cost of plans was $4,479 for a single and $12,108 for family. The thing you are forgetting is that most people aren't paying for all of their plan. Some people aren't paying any of it and others are having a good chunk of it paid for by someone else like their employer. When that is factored in dept. of labor is saying of the 4,479 that a plan costs the consumer is only paying 1,545.

Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com

I do not know what "the PDF for 136" means. And I didn't say the # wasn't broken down. I'm saying I don't believe it. Even if I accepted your explanation about the employer paying the premium (which I don't. Most people pay more than $125/mo) I suspect the # is low because so many people have no insurance, so they pay nothing, whereas in France, everyone has insurance, bringing the average up.

I do not believe you will be able to find #'s to support any credible % of income. It seems that those # are not tracked. If you would like to compare the US with France, how about we compare the # of "medical bankruptcies" (personal bankruptcies caused by excessive medical costs) between the two? Or the # of uninsured? Infant mortality? Pre-natal care?

 

[Bern80]

I do not know what "the PDF for 136" means. And I didn't say the # wasn't broken down. I'm saying I don't believe it. Even if I accepted your explanation about the employer paying the premium (which I don't. Most people pay more than $125/mo) I suspect the # is low because so many people have no insurance, so they pay nothing, whereas in France, everyone has insurance, bringing the average up.

If you follow the link you will see a list of tables. One of them is numbered 136. Click on it. You will see three categories comprise the $2,853. One of them is labeled health insurance which comprises $1,545 of the $2,853, which the DoL says is the avg. percent of income spent on health care. So if you think the nunber us low, what did they leave out? According to the table the $2,853 comprises 3 categories; Health Insurance, Medical Services, and Drugs & Medical Supplies. Do you have a legitimate reason to believe the DoL's numbers are off?

What I think happened here Sangha is you didn't understand who percent of income spent on health care represents. It included EVERYONE, including those that didn't spend a dime on healthcare for one reason or another. Think about what is comprised in that number and what you have to figure out to get to it. First, you need to know what the avg. U.S. income is, which I believe the DoL pegged at about $64k for 2007. Then we have to figure out what everyone spent on health care in a year and divide it by the entire population. You divide that number by the avg. income and you have the avg. percent of income spent on health care in the U.S. You're right, counting the people that paid nothing for health care is going to bring that number down. But then our stastitc isnt' really the avg. percent of income spent on health care in a year, is it?

In short there is nothing 'low' or off about the DoL numbers unless you can point out what was left out of their numbers.

I do not believe you will be able to find #'s to support any credible % of income. It seems that those # are not tracked. If you would like to compare the US with France, how about we compare the # of "medical bankruptcies" (personal bankruptcies caused by excessive medical costs) between the two? Or the # of uninsured? Infant mortality? Pre-natal care?

Again there is nothing non-credible about the numbers. $2,853 was the avg. amount of money spent on health care in 2007 per family. As a percent of income it was roughly 5.7% given an avg. income of about $64,000. The problem is you didn't fully grasp what that number was going to represent. It represents EVERYONE and it represents people who didn't pay anything and it doesn't discriminate between whether those are people that didn't pay because they couldn't or because they chose not to. This is why I said so many pages ago how amsued I was about how bent out of shape about this specific statistic you are. It does NOTHING for your argument. Given all of the variables it's an almost meaningless figure in the context of the benefits of socialized medicine. The only thing we can draw from it is what YOU drew from it. That invariably the percent of income spent on health care is going to go UP for a country that chooses to pay for health care through taxation.

Moving on to other statistics. No. Since we finished this one I think it only fair you finally address the sustainabiltiy argument.

 

[shintao]

Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8

Lot wrong with your advertisement. Canada has a smaller taxing population than California. Comparing Canada to America is like comparing the Jolly Green Giant to a pesky nat....quite laughable!!! Canada pays a smaller percentage of taxes for health care, (See chart below), and yet has Americans lined up to the 80% cheaper pharmacy drugs outlets. Not to mention, ALL Canadians are covered, and America has millions uninsured!! LOL!

American waiting times for treatments vary just like other countries do. Try and get a transplant in America, and compare it to China. American hospitals throw live birth patients out the doors within hours of the birth, and that is the partial reason for so many baby deaths. Hey we can do it faster and see you sooner Mr. Jones, just as long as you die sooner and have less grand children survive the natural birthing process.

 

[shintao]

That invariably the percent of income spent on health care is going to go UP for a country that chooses to pay for health care through taxation.

Your hypothese is incorrect as the chart shows. Most countries taxed for medical care pay a smaller percentage of their countries GDP, than America does where you allow corporations to gouge you.

 

[Bern80]

That invariably the percent of income spent on health care is going to go UP for a country that chooses to pay for health care through taxation.

Your hypothese is incorrect as the chart shows. Most countries taxed for medical care pay a smaller percentage of their countries GDP, than America does where you allow corporations to gouge you.

Iis the percent of income the same thing as percent of GDP? My hypotheses isn't wrong. I'm not comparing one country to another I am comparing what happens to the percent of income spent on health care for A country if it were to switch from a private system like ours to a more socilized one funded by tax dollars. In which case that number almost certainly must go up.

 

[sangha]

I do not know what "the PDF for 136" means. And I didn't say the # wasn't broken down. I'm saying I don't believe it. Even if I accepted your explanation about the employer paying the premium (which I don't. Most people pay more than $125/mo) I suspect the # is low because so many people have no insurance, so they pay nothing, whereas in France, everyone has insurance, bringing the average up.

If you follow the link you will see a list of tables. One of them is numbered 136. Click on it. You will see three categories comprise the $2,853. One of them is labeled health insurance which comprises $1,545 of the $2,853, which the DoL says is the avg. percent of income spent on health care. So if you think the nunber us low, what did they leave out? According to the table the $2,853 comprises 3 categories; Health Insurance, Medical Services, and Drugs & Medical Supplies. Do you have a legitimate reason to believe the DoL's numbers are off?

What I think happened here Sangha is you didn't understand who percent of income spent on health care represents. It included EVERYONE, including those that didn't spend a dime on healthcare for one reason or another. Think about what is comprised in that number and what you have to figure out to get to it. First, you need to know what the avg. U.S. income is, which I believe the DoL pegged at about $64k for 2007. Then we have to figure out what everyone spent on health care in a year and divide it by the entire population. You divide that number by the avg. income and you have the avg. percent of income spent on health care in the U.S. You're right, counting the people that paid nothing for health care is going to bring that number down. But then our stastitc isnt' really the avg. percent of income spent on health care in a year, is it?

In short there is nothing 'low' or off about the DoL numbers unless you can point out what was left out of their numbers.

I do not believe you will be able to find #'s to support any credible % of income. It seems that those # are not tracked. If you would like to compare the US with France, how about we compare the # of "medical bankruptcies" (personal bankruptcies caused by excessive medical costs) between the two? Or the # of uninsured? Infant mortality? Pre-natal care?

Again there is nothing non-credible about the numbers. $2,853 was the avg. amount of money spent on health care in 2007 per family. As a percent of income it was roughly 5.7% given an avg. income of about $64,000. The problem is you didn't fully grasp what that number was going to represent. It represents EVERYONE and it represents people who didn't pay anything and it doesn't discriminate between whether those are people that didn't pay because they couldn't or because they chose not to. This is why I said so many pages ago how amsued I was about how bent out of shape about this specific statistic you are. It does NOTHING for your argument. Given all of the variables it's an almost meaningless figure in the context of the benefits of socialized medicine. The only thing we can draw from it is what YOU drew from it. That invariably the percent of income spent on health care is going to go UP for a country that chooses to pay for health care through taxation.

Moving on to other statistics. No. Since we finished this one I think it only fair you finally address the sustainabiltiy argument.

At least you're now posting credible information from a credible source. Took you long enough

However, what the study leaves out is the institutionalized and most servicemembers. I don't remember your link to the #'s for France, so I don't know if it did include those. If it did, it would not be a fair comparison

on edit: A link that you posted says that " The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300."

Your own link says the # is more than twice the $2,853 you are now citing. Do you sincerely believe some of the things the NPR article says, while disbelieving the facts which are incovenient to your position?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273

It also says "To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. "

If you're not going to count the employers contribution for the US workers (and the study you cited does not) then why are you including the employers contribution for the French?

Or do you not care about how the #'s were counted as long as you can use them to appear as if you won something?

 

[Old Rocks]

Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8

The problem with socialized medicine is that it costs half as much per citizen, covers everybody, and leads to far better results in longevity, health, and infant mortality. And fails to make billions for Health Insurance Companys. The latter consideration is far more important than the health of the American Citizen. Just ask any Conservative.

 

[Bern80]

At least you're now posting credible information from a credible source. Took you long enough

However, what the study leaves out is the institutionalized and most servicemembers. I don't remember your link to the #'s for France, so I don't know if it did include those. If it did, it would not be a fair comparison

The DoL data does not leave those people out. You keep forgetting what the number represents. It is not an avg. of how much money is spent ON a person. It is how much the a person spent themselevs. Do you understand the difference? Maybe that institutionalized person cost $50,000 to treat that year. But if we are coming up with an avg. out of a data set of what the individual actially spends in a year on health care and that institutionalized person didn't end up paying any of the $50,000 it cost to treat them, then in the data set compiled to get the avg. percent of income spent on health care, that person is going to be a ZERO.

on edit: A link that you posted says that " The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300."

Your own link says the # is more than twice the $2,853 you are now citing. Do you sincerely believe some of the things the NPR article says, while disbelieving the facts which are incovenient to your position?

Again the $2853 is not an NPR number. That is the statistic according the U.S. Department of Labor. Secondly.....of course they're going to be different. Why do you seemingly not yet understand the difference betweeen money spent per capita and percent of income spent. The latter is ALWAYS going to be less than the former. $6,400 is the avg. spent per person on health care in the U.S. It is NOT the avg. of what A person spent on health care ($2,853).

Look at this way. Those two numbers are avgs. and what the $6400 is the avg. yearly health care cost per person. Think of it as one year long doctor's bill. Instead of paying as you go, at the end of the year you get a bill for all of your medical expenses for the year. That is what the $6400 is. NOW, are you personally going to be on the hook for the entire $6400? No. your insurance is going to cover most of it. What comes out of your pocket is only going to be a fraction of that. When you write the check you aren't going to be writing it for $6400, you're only going to be writing it for what the insurance company didn't cover. THAT is what the $2853 represents. Understand?

It also says "To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. "

If you're not going to count the employers contribution for the US workers (and the study you cited does not) then why are you including the employers contribution for the French?

Or do you not care about how the #'s were counted as long as you can use them to appear as if you won something?

It depends on how you read it. I take the statement to read that if someone has a gross income of $100,000 a year (for the sake of using easy numbers), $21,000 OF THEIR GROSS goes to taxes for health care. The employer kicks in another $10,500 on top of that.

If interpreted as you did the statement should read:

"To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 10.5% of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up another 10.5%."

 

[sangha]

At least you're now posting credible information from a credible source. Took you long enough

However, what the study leaves out is the institutionalized and most servicemembers. I don't remember your link to the #'s for France, so I don't know if it did include those. If it did, it would not be a fair comparison

The DoL data does not leave those people out.

Sure it does. It even says it doesn't include the institutionalized and most servicemembers. You're just lying again

You keep forgetting what the number represents. It is not an avg. of how much money is spent ON a person. It is how much the a person spent themselevs. Do you understand the difference? Maybe that institutionalized person cost $50,000 to treat that year. But if we are coming up with an avg. out of a data set of what the individual actially spends in a year on health care and that institutionalized person didn't end up paying any of the $50,000 it cost to treat them, then in the data set compiled to get the avg. percent of income spent on health care, that person is going to be a ZERO.

It leaves out all the money taxpayers pay to pay for the healthcare. All it shows it that the French govt pays a lesser share of health care directly, so the only way you can make the #'s seem favorable for the US is to leave out huge portions of the population

on edit: A link that you posted says that " The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300."

Your own link says the # is more than twice the $2,853 you are now citing. Do you sincerely believe some of the things the NPR article says, while disbelieving the facts which are incovenient to your position?

Again the $2853 is not an NPR number. That is the statistic according the U.S. Department of Labor. Secondly.....of course they're going to be different. Why do you seemingly not yet understand the difference betweeen money spent per capita and percent of income spent. The latter is ALWAYS going to be less than the former. $6,400 is the avg. spent per person on health care in the U.S. It is NOT the avg. of what A person spent on health care ($2,853). [/quote]

I understand that you are leaving out the facts which are inconvenient in order to focus on a # that is more convenient, even though the two #'s were calculated differently.

Look at this way. Those two numbers are avgs. and what the $6400 is the avg. yearly health care cost per person. Think of it as one year long doctor's bill. Instead of paying as you go, at the end of the year you get a bill for all of your medical expenses for the year. That is what the $6400 is. NOW, are you personally going to be on the hook for the entire $6400? No. your insurance is going to cover most of it. What comes out of your pocket is only going to be a fraction of that. When you write the check you aren't going to be writing it for $6400, you're only going to be writing it for what the insurance company didn't cover. THAT is what the $2853 represents. Understand?

I understand that you are desperate to make an argument, so you are willing to manipulate the #'s in any way possible. I also understand that the ENTIRE cost of health care eventually gets paid by the consumer. You obviously do not. You seem to think the non-out-of-pocket costs get paid for with magic money that just appears when needed to pay medical bills.

It also says "To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. "

If you're not going to count the employers contribution for the US workers (and the study you cited does not) then why are you including the employers contribution for the French?

Or do you not care about how the #'s were counted as long as you can use them to appear as if you won something?

It depends on how you read it. I take the statement to read that if someone has a gross income of $100,000 a year (for the sake of using easy numbers), $21,000 OF THEIR GROSS goes to taxes for health care. The employer kicks in another $10,500 on top of that.

If interpreted as you did the statement should read:

"To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 10.5% of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up another 10.5%."[/QUOTE]

Your english skills need some work too. The phrase "Employers pick up" means they pay for a portion of it. "pick up" means to cover a portion (or all) of a bill

 

[Bern80]

Sure it does. It even says it doesn't include the institutionalized and most servicemembers. You're just lying again

No I'm not. You're cleary just too stupid to understand basic statistics. If the above people don't pay anything out of their pocket for health care, they are still counted in the sample size. Their contribution to the sample size however would be zero.

It leaves out all the money taxpayers pay to pay for the healthcare. All it shows it that the French govt pays a lesser share of health care directly, so the only way you can make the #'s seem favorable for the US is to leave out huge portions of the population

The percent of income spent on health care doesn't leave anyone out. You are so fucking stupid it's not even funny anymore. PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON HEALTH CARE ONLY COUNTS WHAT YOU SPENT ON HEALTHCARE. It doesn't count how much of your doctors bills were covered by insurance or how much of those bills were indirectly covered by tax payers. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPPOSSED TO YOU IDIOT. if you include what you want to include the statistic ceases to be the percent of income an individual spends on health care when you start including money that isn't actually part of their income

I understand that you are leaving out the facts which are inconvenient in order to focus on a # that is more convenient, even though the two #'s were calculated differently.

What you need to understand is the two numbers represent different things.

I understand that you are desperate to make an argument, so you are willing to manipulate the #'s in any way possible. I also understand that the ENTIRE cost of health care eventually gets paid by the consumer. You obviously do not. You seem to think the non-out-of-pocket costs get paid for with magic money that just appears when needed to pay medical bills.

No I don't. What I do understand, that you are apparently too stupid to understand is that the statistic, percent of income spent on heatlh care is ONLY going to include out-of-pocket costs. Nothing else. Stop bitching to me just because you don't like what the statistic represents. If you dont' like the numbers, take it up with the DoL. if they give you something different we can talk about it.

Your english skills need some work too. The phrase "Employers pick up" means they pay for a portion of it. "pick up" means to cover a portion (or all) of a bill

If employers pay 10.5 percent and employess pick up 10.5 percent, why state employees pick up 21% if all they are really paying is half of that? I can read fine. It's your common sense that needs work.

 

[Douger]

That second vid shows the Brits tax dollars working for THEM.
Yours go to your masters buddies in banking, industry and to the land of the self chosen. IsNtReal.

STFU and fill out that 1040.

 

[sangha]

Sure it does. It even says it doesn't include the institutionalized and most servicemembers. You're just lying again

No I'm not. You're cleary just too stupid to understand basic statistics. If the above people don't pay anything out of their pocket for health care, they are still counted in the sample size. Their contribution to the sample size however would be zero.

It leaves out all the money taxpayers pay to pay for the healthcare. All it shows it that the French govt pays a lesser share of health care directly, so the only way you can make the #'s seem favorable for the US is to leave out huge portions of the population

The percent of income spent on health care doesn't leave anyone out. You are so fucking stupid it's not even funny anymore. PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON HEALTH CARE ONLY COUNTS WHAT YOU SPENT ON HEALTHCARE. It doesn't count how much of your doctors bills were covered by insurance or how much of those bills were indirectly covered by tax payers. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPPOSSED TO YOU IDIOT. if you include what you want to include the statistic ceases to be the percent of income an individual spends on health care when you start including money that isn't actually part of their income



What you need to understand is the two numbers represent different things.

I understand that you are desperate to make an argument, so you are willing to manipulate the #'s in any way possible. I also understand that the ENTIRE cost of health care eventually gets paid by the consumer. You obviously do not. You seem to think the non-out-of-pocket costs get paid for with magic money that just appears when needed to pay medical bills.

No I don't. What I do understand, that you are apparently too stupid to understand is that the statistic, percent of income spent on heatlh care is ONLY going to include out-of-pocket costs. Nothing else. Stop bitching to me just because you don't like what the statistic represents. If you dont' like the numbers, take it up with the DoL. if they give you something different we can talk about it.

Your english skills need some work too. The phrase "Employers pick up" means they pay for a portion of it. "pick up" means to cover a portion (or all) of a bill

If employers pay 10.5 percent and employess pick up 10.5 percent, why state employees pick up 21% if all they are really paying is half of that? I can read fine. It's your common sense that needs work.

All that blather, and you are still wrong, wrong and wrong.

People who are in the military or who are institutionalized DO NOT have all of their medical costs covered by others. Only a wingnut like you would be dumb enough to think so.

The employer paid portion of an employee's premium comes out of the money an employer has available to pay it's employees. If the employer didn't provide the insurance benefit, then they would have to pay more money to the employee, so the money the employer spends on health care does indeed come out of the employees pay.

That is why your entire position is a farce. In the end, all health care has to be paid for somehow. Measuring % Of income is meaningless, but your obsession prevents you from seeing this

And even funnier is how you can't even find any credible #'s concerning the % of income.

 

[Bern80]

All that blather, and you are still wrong, wrong and wrong.

People who are in the military or who are institutionalized DO NOT have all of their medical costs covered by others. Only a wingnut like you would be dumb enough to think so.

The employer paid portion of an employee's premium comes out of the money an employer has available to pay it's employees. If the employer didn't provide the insurance benefit, then they would have to pay more money to the employee, so the money the employer spends on health care does indeed come out of the employees pay.

That is why your entire position is a farce. In the end, all health care has to be paid for somehow. Measuring % Of income is meaningless, but your obsession prevents you from seeing this

And even funnier is how you can't even find any credible #'s concerning the % of income.

I'm not sure how much more credible you can get than the department of labor. You're the one making shit up now. Mr. I'm just going to count the empoyers contribution against a person's income and come up with some imaginary figure of what someone might be paid if employers weren't covering part of the health care cost. You can dislike it all you want. But if we're going to talk about percent of income then the numbers in it actually have to be part of someone's realized income, not whatever you think it might be under different circumstances.

And no, I'm not hung up on that stat. If you don't like it, take it up with Greenbeard, or better yet the department of labor. As to who is left out you can't even keep your own bullshit straight. Are we talking about milatary personal AND the institutionalized now? Or just military people who have been institutonalized as you have written above? Either way you really think it's going to add that significantly to the number? OR.......if you just don't like what percent of income represents, which I suspect is the case, pick something else to talk about and we'll move on.

And for the love of God move the the fuck on if you don't care about percent of income spent on health care. You've been so fucking busy trying to show the number isn't accurate even though you have ZERO evidence for that, that we haven't even begun to discuss what it actually means in terms of the benefits of socialized medicine. Do I really want to talk about this? Fuck no. The stat in of itself is meaningless. There can be all kinds of reasons it could be higher in one country than another that has nothing to do with the type of health care system used. I would rather talk about what you keep avoiding; the sustainability of the such a system which explained earlier.