Comments on: Free health care: "People do not realize how much they pay for it in taxes"

By: David

David — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:37:00 +0000

From a general perspective, I’m frequently frustrated when I see articles or papers that say XYZ will cost $50,000,000. Once you start getting above a person’s pay grade, the numbers become meaningless. The average person has no clue how much money flows into our out of the government, or how much their contribution is, relatively speaking.

In my opinion, everything like this needs to be reduced to some per capita number that people can relate to. “Oh, this program is only going to cost me $0.50? Well maybe that’s not so bad after all. But this one is going to cost me $10,000? No way!” With the millions and billions of dollars we hear about on a regular basis, you just can’t make these comparisons. They’re all just Really Big Numbers.

By: Evan

Evan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:27:00 +0000

Anon 11:19, I’ll try to clear up something you are clearly kind of ignorant about.

Veterans and active duty military members cannot sue the government for injuries they sustain in the line of duty while on active duty. This is called the Feres doctrine.

For more look here:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blferes.htm

But of course this would never apply to civilian care as civilians who are cared for by the DOD can already sue the government and do so with regularity. If you doubt this, go to your nearest military base, pick up the local military paper and peruse the ads in the back for lawyers eager to take on cases against the federal government for malpractice.

I hope that helps clear up some confusion on your part that I’m sure was at least partly genuine.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:19:00 +0000

“Anon 3:53, but of course you can sue the federal government, so that argument goes out the window”

Really Evan? Please do share all the cases of patient’s with alleged wrongs by the VA system and how they got there day in US judicial system.

By: Dan (anon 3:53)

Dan (anon 3:53) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:40:00 +0000

Anonymous 11:51,

In my previous post I was simply stating that people are so against taxes without realizing that they're already paying into a system with a similar concept.

Evan,

I think you were addressing Anon 11:51 in your post. Regardless, you can actually sue your insurer. ERISA makes it more difficult by requiring (with exceptions) you to sue them in federal court where your award can only cover cost of care and legal fees (as opposed to state court where you can be awarded punitive damages, etc.). I'd argue that it's not a very good "check".

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:45:00 +0000

Anon 3:53, but of course you can sue the federal government, so that argument goes out the window. What you can’t do is sue your employer for the decisions of your health plan and you also can’t sue the insurer due to the ERISA.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:51:00 +0000

Anonymous 3:53,
The difference is as follows: when you are turned down for a procedure by an insurance company, you have recourse to legal remedies. With the government as the health care provider, the bureaucrat who denies your access to a procedure speaks with the force of law, and you have no legal remedy. You cannot sue the federal government.

By: Redhawk

Redhawk — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:46:00 +0000

“Redhawk do you have a citation for the data? I’d love to be able to refer to it when this point comes up.”

Evan,

I can’t find a direct link to the source that states this explicitly, but it can be deducted from the fact that 64 percent of health care funding in the US is provided by the government:

Under:
“Won’t this raise my taxes?”

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php?page=all
or
http://tinyurl.com/yqyfrw

…and the fact that the US in 2004 spent $6,068 per capita on health care vs $3,038 in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
or
http://tinyurl.com/m7ubq

So that would be .65 x 6,068 or $3,944, $906 per capita more than Canada spends on both public and private health care.

Although this proves my point, it would be nice to have a direct statement rather than having to do the math to make that point, but I forgot where I got that info from. I believe it was from Michael Moore but I’ll post the cite if I stumble across it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:53:00 +0000

I don’t understand why taxes are such a dirty word when it comes to health care (or other things for that matter). There’s not much difference between that and paying into your health insurance plan. The idea is the same, you pay into a plan that spreads the risk between everyone paying into it. In other words, whether you pay into a health insurance plan or taxes you’re paying for other people’s health care.

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:10:00 +0000

Redhawk do you have a citation for the data? I’d love to be able to refer to it when this point comes up.

By: Redhawk

Redhawk — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:42:00 +0000

The US already spends more on Medicare and Medicaid per capita than the entire Canadian health system, public and private, spends per capita on its citizens. Sixty percent of all spending on healthcare in the US is from the government. The question to ask is why do they get so much for their money and we get so little. Healthcare in Canada is mediocre compared to other countries with national systems, but not compared to the US. Americans aren’t told that when their HMO denies them coverage they are experiencing rationing either, but they get the message nonetheless.