Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Options
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
10 -
Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:4 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?
You're right. That $9500 I pay in taxes doesn't JUST cover healthcare, but that is ALL I pay in taxes. I have no other taxes or expenses. If I want I can get health insurance to cover expenses the universal healthcare doesn't cover (eye exams, dental work, prescription medicine) but I don't. Despite this, I have never had a health bill that led to me being in debt, or me being in desperate financial trouble.
As I age I realize I'll probably need health insurance on the side but that costs $70 a month. For me.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?
As I wrote above, my fiancé already spends about 10% of his gross income in taxes. If we moved to Universal Health Care, his taxes could be increased 10% and he wouldn't notice the difference in take-home pay (maybe $10 less per paycheck). If everyone's taxes increased by 10%, but no one was paying out of pocket premiums, the top 10% would end up paying comparatively more, and the bottom 90% comparatively less, because a lot of people are facing premiums that are more than 10% of their gross income.1 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?
As I wrote above, my fiancé already spends about 10% of his gross income in taxes. If we moved to Universal Health Care, his taxes could be increased 10% and he wouldn't notice the difference in take-home pay (maybe $10 less per paycheck). If everyone's taxes increased by 10%, but no one was paying out of pocket premiums, the top 10% would end up paying comparatively more, and the bottom 90% comparatively less, because a lot of people are facing premiums that are more than 10% of their gross income.
If your fiance makes 2000 a month he's most likely not paying any Federal income tax or a very minimal amount.
Healthcare is the US is over $10k a year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
Just having "the rich" pay more doesn't fix the issues
The US cost per person is about twice what it is for other developed countries. This is the issue1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?
As I wrote above, my fiancé already spends about 10% of his gross income in taxes. If we moved to Universal Health Care, his taxes could be increased 10% and he wouldn't notice the difference in take-home pay (maybe $10 less per paycheck). If everyone's taxes increased by 10%, but no one was paying out of pocket premiums, the top 10% would end up paying comparatively more, and the bottom 90% comparatively less, because a lot of people are facing premiums that are more than 10% of their gross income.
If your fiance makes 2000 a month he's most likely not paying any Federal income tax or a very minimal amount.
Healthcare is the US is over $10k a year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
Just having "the rich" pay more doesn't fix the issues
The US cost per person is about twice what it is for other developed countries. This is the issue
I agree, the US needs to stop subsidizing other countries by not passing along R&D costs. US companies need to make the hard decision to refuse to do business in and with developed countries that refuse to pay their fair share of the cost to develop these treatment regimens and protocols and chemicals.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?
As I wrote above, my fiancé already spends about 10% of his gross income in taxes. If we moved to Universal Health Care, his taxes could be increased 10% and he wouldn't notice the difference in take-home pay (maybe $10 less per paycheck). If everyone's taxes increased by 10%, but no one was paying out of pocket premiums, the top 10% would end up paying comparatively more, and the bottom 90% comparatively less, because a lot of people are facing premiums that are more than 10% of their gross income.
If your fiance makes 2000 a month he's most likely not paying any Federal income tax or a very minimal amount.
Healthcare is the US is over $10k a year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
Just having "the rich" pay more doesn't fix the issues
The US cost per person is about twice what it is for other developed countries. This is the issue
He gets some taxes back, but not all, and he lives off of the <2k he gets per month, not the tax refund he gets once a year (that goes into a retirement account). The cost per person would go down if the middle men (i.e. insurance companies) were eliminated. It's why the U.S. has the highest cost of health care.
And I'm not having "the rich" pay more, I am having them pay the same: 10% (or whatever % makes sense). It ends up being more money, but it is a fair, flat tax increase across the board. And if none of that 10% can be included in tax returns, that's fine too.3 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.3 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.4 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.
Please define "fair share".
5 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.
Income doesn't always match to taxes paid (after all, people can make money from non-income sources like investments) and party affiliation doesn't always track to "liberal/conservative" (people can identify as liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats), but some polling, at least, suggests that the more you make the more likely you are to identify as a Democrat.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-tables-hispanic/
I would also want to see the statistics showing that conservatives pay more into taxes than other Americans do (and we'd need to clarify what "more" means -- does that mean that most of the money is coming from conservatives as a collective group because they outnumber other Americans, does it mean that conservatives pay a larger portion of their incomes in taxes, etc).5 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.
Please define "fair share".
Based on this graphic, they're already paying somewhere in the neighborhood of twice their "Fair share"5 -
It's going to be an interesting political issue.going forward. Union workers, who traditionally have identified with the Democratic party also traditionally have the best employer paid insurance plans.
While this group may get the liberal label due to being a Democrat, their thoughts on healthcare would tend.to be pretty conservative since they feel like they would lose if things change
Sample discussion.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/364019-cadillac-tax-is-sticking-point-for-congress3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.
Income doesn't always match to taxes paid (after all, people can make money from non-income sources like investments) and party affiliation doesn't always track to "liberal/conservative" (people can identify as liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats), but some polling, at least, suggests that the more you make the more likely you are to identify as a Democrat.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-tables-hispanic/
I would also want to see the statistics showing that conservatives pay more into taxes than other Americans do (and we'd need to clarify what "more" means -- does that mean that most of the money is coming from conservatives as a collective group because they outnumber other Americans, does it mean that conservatives pay a larger portion of their incomes in taxes, etc).
Actually most investment income is taxed annually unless it is in a tax deferred vehicle such as an IRA or 401k. In that case it is also taxed, just deferred until retirement.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.
Income doesn't always match to taxes paid (after all, people can make money from non-income sources like investments) and party affiliation doesn't always track to "liberal/conservative" (people can identify as liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats), but some polling, at least, suggests that the more you make the more likely you are to identify as a Democrat.
To some degree, but obviously there are huge variations, including geographical, and the states that tend to be reddest also get more money from the federal gov't.
I live surrounded by people who identify as Dems (as do I, although I have views across the spectrum depending on the issue), but who also make well more than the average and are in the groups that pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes (basically upper middle class -- depending on how that's defined -- income earners, vs. people who get the tax breaks on investment income (not that they don't have some, but it's not the majority). (We are also probably among those most likely to get hosed with the recent tax changes, as are many well-off people in the burbs.)
It's funny since in some areas of the country this is certainly a real thing, whereas many who probably make low enough incomes that they don't really pay federal income tax (other than for SS/Medicare, which is not counted in the stats about what percentage pays federal income tax) are among those more likely to vote Republican. Probably this is why we get the really weird idea that Republicans are "anti elite" when the income of the average Republican voter is higher.
This is verging into politics, which is a problem with this topic, but I'm trying to be even-handed and not make an argument for a political position.
Anyway, I read a book a while back that argued (convincingly) that especially in the poorer (and often redder) states the actual trend was still for people to be more likely to vote Republican with more income, but that that trend was much less pronounced in richer/bluer states (i.e., MA).
Some of this is obscured by the fact that there are other strong correlations when it comes to voting, such as race, sex, age, and marital status, as well as where you live.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »It's going to be an interesting political issue.going forward. Union workers, who traditionally have identified with the Democratic party also traditionally have the best employer paid insurance plans.
While this group may get the liberal label due to being a Democrat, their thoughts on healthcare would tend.to be pretty conservative since they feel like they would lose if things change
Sample discussion.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/364019-cadillac-tax-is-sticking-point-for-congress
Initially -- and it's not surprising -- it was the Republicans/conservatives more willing to touch employer based health care, at least as a theoretical thing. McCain had a plan when he was running that had been created basically by the Heritage Foundation that would have moved toward replacing all employer-based health care with tax credits. Many employers HATE employer based health care (I'm a partner and go to meetings discussing it, and it's really an annoying way these days for employers to have to compensate, but you CANNOT not do it in various fields and expect to compete for employees who rely on it).
Many private non union professional jobs have really good health care too (I've always been lucky in that, but it's de rigueur in my subsection of my field), and that would likely include lots of Republican voters. I think attacking employment based health care is impossible for anyone not actually replacing it with full Medicare for all type insurance (which would be expensive), and those with good health care rightly worry they'd come out the worse.
What they DON'T realize is that the current system they benefit from is probably unsustainable so they can't count on it continuing forever, that the costs are higher than they see (thus already no free market type competition), and that typing health insurance to employment is probably not economically sensible (it certainly is a drag on people leaving to start their own businesses and keeps people in jobs they otherwise hate because the insurance is good/they need certain aspects of it due to family pre existing conditions).1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.
Income doesn't always match to taxes paid (after all, people can make money from non-income sources like investments) and party affiliation doesn't always track to "liberal/conservative" (people can identify as liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats), but some polling, at least, suggests that the more you make the more likely you are to identify as a Democrat.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-tables-hispanic/
I would also want to see the statistics showing that conservatives pay more into taxes than other Americans do (and we'd need to clarify what "more" means -- does that mean that most of the money is coming from conservatives as a collective group because they outnumber other Americans, does it mean that conservatives pay a larger portion of their incomes in taxes, etc).
Actually most investment income is taxed annually unless it is in a tax deferred vehicle such as an IRA or 401k. In that case it is also taxed, just deferred until retirement.
I didn't mean that investment income wasn't taxed, I was attempting to express my impression that investment income wasn't necessarily included in the poll that I posted. In any event, investment income is (I believe) taxed differently than salaries are.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 940 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions