US Government sponsored healthcare... who's footing the bill?


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't really like football all that much and I f%$~ing hate the military.
But you do like socialism.
I do, I love socialism, and that [points up], that ain't socialism.

It's not pure socialism, but it's still using elements of it. The NFL takes 80% of all profits and divides them evenly between all the teams. It isn't socialist in terms of how it makes decisions or manages itself, but it is using socialist ideas for how it distributes and manages money.


Collective bargaining
Salary caps
Profit sharing
Minimum wage

UPS has all these things.

I dearly hope that isn't what socialism looks like.


Could someone clear something up for me?

The US government spends twice as much money per person on healthcare than the Canadian government does.

Now, for that cost, the government covers most of our bills.

Yet the US government covers nothing unless you qualify for medicare or medicade.

So where is the money being spent?

How can the US spend twice as much per person and not actually be providing anything when Canada provides almost full coverage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fleshgrinder wrote:

Could someone clear something up for me?

Apparently not.


Fleshgrinder wrote:

Could someone clear something up for me?

The US government spends twice as much money per person on healthcare than the Canadian government does.

Now, for that cost, the government covers most of our bills.

Yet the US government covers nothing unless you qualify for medicare or medicade.

So where is the money being spent?

How can the US spend twice as much per person and not actually be providing anything when Canada provides almost full coverage?

Well, people on Medicare and Medicaid do eat up a lot of the money, because they're largely either old or very sick. In either case, that's when a huge chunk of medical expense comes.

The Feds also pick up the tab for the military, both active service and veterans. Many of them have expensive health costs too.

And the insurance for government employees. No more expensive than average, but does cover a lot of people.

So it's a larger chunk of the population than it seems at first glance and a more expensive one.


The U.S. government is in a big hurry to funnel tax dollars to their corporate sponsors. That's what happens when the system allows corporations use their money to elect their own candidates to office.


!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Teams share in the profits. So while the Cowboys are hugely successful and make a lot of money, they have to share it with the Vikings, who haven't had as much success and don't make as much money. This has helped keep more teams competitive.

So, supporting teams that need help makes the whole organization MORE competitive? Surely that lesson couldn't be applied to uninsured, unemployed people?

Gendo wrote:
entitlement

Pet peeve--entitlement means you actually are entitled. Thank the republicans for continued success in controlling language--a problem I refer to as America's "vocabulary problem."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Fleshgrinder wrote:

Could someone clear something up for me?

The US government spends twice as much money per person on healthcare than the Canadian government does.

Now, for that cost, the government covers most of our bills.

Yet the US government covers nothing unless you qualify for medicare or medicade.

So where is the money being spent?

How can the US spend twice as much per person and not actually be providing anything when Canada provides almost full coverage?

Well, people on Medicare and Medicaid do eat up a lot of the money, because they're largely either old or very sick. In either case, that's when a huge chunk of medical expense comes.

The Feds also pick up the tab for the military, both active service and veterans. Many of them have expensive health costs too.

And the insurance for government employees. No more expensive than average, but does cover a lot of people.

So it's a larger chunk of the population than it seems at first glance and a more expensive one.

The Canadian system does the same thing, as does every other universal health care system. So I think Fleshgrinder's question still stands.


No, thejeff gave a good answer.

The Canadian system grants health care to every person in the country.

Medicare and Medicaid provide health care to:

the poor
the disabled
the elderly

There are fewer healthy people to balance out the average. Its like comparing the cost of 10 random people versus 10 random sick people.

Now, we do have higher costs in general in this country, but I don't think it's double per person. That is for multiple reasons, for one we have higher administration costs. Even private insurance companies have higher administration costs than Medicare. Second, we don't have any price controls. In a country like Germany, there are pretty strict price control limits. There was even a strike a few years ago if memory serves, they didn't feel they were being adequately compensated for their time.

Pharmaceuticals charge an arm and a leg here. Mostly because they can't charge it other places, so they push the price as far as they can. When there was some resistance in the early 2000's, they pushed through a Medicare drug plan that netted them a lot of money. Medicare isn't allowed to negotiate drug prices, so the pharmaceuticals can essentially use them to dictate the market price since they're the single biggest purchaser.

Our system is well and truly f!+~ed. There are some shining examples of how good things can be, like the Mayo Clinic, and the general level of care (when you get access to it) is pretty high, but it is not set up to be cost effective or be inclusive to all people.


Well, if Canada (or whoever) has universal health care then that means that everybody is on it.

In the United States, you're pretty much old and/or poor.

Obviously, if you limit who you're covering to the elderly and poor children, you're going to spend more per person than if you also cover the young and healthy.

I'm not saying that's all there is to it, but the reasoning makes sense to me.

EDIT: Grumble grumble, I still don't like football!


I understand. Here's a Daily Show segment on it.


Also American football has a big dose of American Crony Corporatism too, as far as its the taxpayer who pays for the stadium....and then has to spend $120+ to go watch his team. The NFL p**ses me right off. But Go Steelers


Agreed, public money for stadiums pisses me off as well. The money should be used for things that actually need help, not an already thriving business. I don't hold up the NFL of all that is good, but it does make for some interesting examples.

Go Vikes.

The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:

Agreed, public money for stadiums pisses me off as well. The money should be used for things that actually need help, not an already thriving business. I don't hold up the NFL of all that is good, but it does make for some interesting examples.

Go Vikes.

Agreed, and tax money should not go to fund school sports especially at universities. Sad that they are more about sport teams than learning these days.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

TheWhiteknife wrote:
The NFL p**ses me right off. But Go Steelers

Why US politics are f~%!ed: a one-act play.


A Man In Black wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
The NFL p**ses me right off. But Go Steelers
Why US politics are f~@$ed: a one-act play.

"Wintergreen For President!"


A Man In Black wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
The NFL p**ses me right off. But Go Steelers
Why US politics are f!++ed: a one-act play.

Exactly my point


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:


There are fewer healthy people to balance out the average. Its like comparing the cost of 10 random people versus 10 random sick people.

On the figures I have seen the US spend more money per person (not just the people who are covered but all people).

So the idea is comparing 10 people with 10 people , just the one which is more expensive covers only some of the 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Andrew R wrote:
Agreed, and tax money should not go to fund school sports especially at universities. Sad that they are more about sport teams than learning these days.

For universities yes, but for primary school getting children active is good from a health view.


Catprog wrote:

On the figures I have seen the US spend more money per person (not just the people who are covered but all people).

We do that, too.

But the original question was why the US government spends more per person on health care than socialized medicine countries.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Catprog wrote:

On the figures I have seen the US spend more money per person (not just the people who are covered but all people).

We do that, too.

But the original question was why the US government spends more per person on health care than socialized medicine countries.

All those extra charges add up...


Catprog wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


There are fewer healthy people to balance out the average. Its like comparing the cost of 10 random people versus 10 random sick people.

On the figures I have seen the US spend more money per person (not just the people who are covered but all people).

So the idea is comparing 10 people with 10 people , just the one which is more expensive covers only some of the 10.

I do agree, the cost of health care in the US is higher than other countries with socialized medicine. In fact, I even talked about some of those causes in the rest of the post you quoted that one line from.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Also American football has a big dose of American Crony Corporatism too, as far as its the taxpayer who pays for the stadium....and then has to spend $120+ to go watch his team. The NFL p**ses me right off. But Go Steelers

Well, the team from the town of my birth the Green Bay Packers financed renovations to Lambeau Field by instituting a .5% sales tax in Brown County. As a way of returning that to the financiers (taxpayers) if you live in Brown County you get entered into a lottery where you can win tickets to a game at Lambeau.

The top two rows around the entire stadium are such seats. My dad (and his wife) have had their lot pulled twice now.

Also, while they're not publicly traded, they do occasionally offer stock, also typically as a way to finance renovations etc.

Trivia: My grandfather had had season tickets to the Packers since before the NFL was formed, and back in the old days season tickets included post-season games. So he was at the first several NFL championship games.

Grand Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The U.S. government is in a big hurry to funnel tax dollars to their corporate sponsors. That's what happens when the system allows corporations use their money to elect their own candidates to office.

+ 1

Couldn't agree more. Taking the money out of politics is the best thing that could happen to US politics... its also the thing LEAST likely to happen.

Grand Lodge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Catprog wrote:

On the figures I have seen the US spend more money per person (not just the people who are covered but all people).

We do that, too.

But the original question was why the US government spends more per person on health care than socialized medicine countries.

Big Pharma is a start.

Patent on Drug A is running out but we'll just change the formula to include red food dye and look! Its under patent for another 10 years.

The way hospitals administer costs are another. Your doc wants to use the operating theatre? He's gonna pay a lot for that - cost thats passed to you as part of his bill.

Also medicine is largely privatized. The doc's really aren't in competition with each other to offer lower costs however, apart from possibly comes to cosmetic proceedures. Doc says Mega High $$$ for this proceedure? You can shop around but good luck. Blood tests need doing? Path lab (TM) is the preferred handler of your doc's test samples so that comes in as another hit and so on.

Finally the health insurance carriers negotiate directly with the hospitals - and if you think thats in the consumers best interest? Mwhahahahaha.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew R wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Agreed, public money for stadiums pisses me off as well. The money should be used for things that actually need help, not an already thriving business. I don't hold up the NFL of all that is good, but it does make for some interesting examples.

Go Vikes.

Agreed, and tax money should not go to fund school sports especially at universities. Sad that they are more about sport teams than learning these days.

Sports teams however are what bring in the big returns in Alumni donations unfortunately. Thats why the big universities spend the big bucks, and ignore the corruption that's rampant in the system.


College football should really be it's own thread.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Agreed, public money for stadiums pisses me off as well. The money should be used for things that actually need help, not an already thriving business. I don't hold up the NFL of all that is good, but it does make for some interesting examples.

Go Vikes.

Agreed, and tax money should not go to fund school sports especially at universities. Sad that they are more about sport teams than learning these days.
Sports teams however are what bring in the big returns in Alumni donations unfortunately. Thats why the big universities spend the big bucks, and ignore the corruption that's rampant in the system.

Then spend it all you want without tax money


Most sports costs in universities are covered by the revenue created by the sports teams and by boosters. For example, indiana University uses zero tax dollars for their football and basketball programs (the two programs that cost the most). Not sure about the other sports at Indiana, but I wouldn't be surprised if that also wasn't covered by boosters and proceeds from the athletic department. Don't forget, the schools make a buttload of money from selling tshirts, jerseys, etc...

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / US Government sponsored healthcare... who's footing the bill? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
Deep 6 FaWtL
Weird News Stories
Good New Stories
Did you know...?
Ramblin' Man