National Health Care Calculator

Looks like there's a federal subsidy up to 400% of the federal poverty level. After that, the individual bears the whole cost. When I crunched some numbers, 398% of poverty level resulted in a premium of $602 and 401% a premium of $1500.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed it to a graduated subsidy, not only for that cutoff but to deal with the deficit.

Although the health insurance premiums have gone up only 4% each of the last two years, my daughter the doc (who is a ughhhhh.....Republican) says they will go up 40% each of the next two years.

I find that hard to believe, since all those of us with insurance have been actually paying for all the healthcare of the folks who don't have any.

With the new system those people should be healthier since they can get preventative medicine instead of going to the emergency room after they are very sick.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

There is no negative feedback loop in the healthcare system. Without that, costs have no containment so they will rise.

Same with college costs. And anything else with no negative feedback system. Essentially, this is why soviet communism failed. They thought they could eliminate the necessity of negative feedback by absolute control of the economy. Fail.

Precisely.

It occurred to me that this is a golden opportunity to predict the future.

The expense of health care will enter an exponential growth curve. The gov will eventually contain costs by limiting wages, essentially putting all health care workers on a GS- type pay schedule, scaled to current pay rates initially. This will be a de facto expansion of the gov to include all of health care. Like all gov wage and price controls, the beneficial aspect will be immediate but short-lived. The gov will respond by expanding its control of the health care system and by rationing -- this is the soviet model.

If that is true, why are health care costs so much higher under capitalized medicine than under socialized medicine?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

What evidence is there that the quantity and quality of healthcare delivered under those competing systems is comparable? In what ways would you compare watermellons and kumquats?

Lots of info on relative costs of health care. I'm not aware of anyone who argues that the US health care system delivers more most effective care. Are you?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Only if you have money coming out the wazoo


eTrade

There is tons of evidence, do some research. We are 17th in the world among westernized countries in quality of our health care, yet we spend over 20%+ of GDP on it. Countries like Canada, Germany, France, England, cover ALL people in the country, pay for it by taxation, and the average GDP spent is 14% or less. Oh, and they all rank well above us in the quality of that care too.

The simple fact remains that a system that is for the purpose of HEALTH care and SAVING LIVES should not be a FOR PROFIT industry. That in itself is wrong.

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

Depends on what the definition of "more most effective" is, no?

People who are willing to pay for healthcare argue it's the best available.

Crunched some numbers for my situation. If I ever had to use it, only one thing I can say -

AFFORDABLE MY A$$!!!!

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

Your claiming something to be, should not be confused with facts.

So healthcare should not be a for profit industry because you say so? How about the segment of the IT industry that supports the delivery of healthcare so that not be for profit? How about the segments of the construction industry, or the energy industry, or the paper industry, the transportation industry, or every other industry that supports the delivery of healthcare should they be not for profit?

Why should IT be a for profit industry modern society can't be organised or function without it, quality of life for everyone would be severely effected if it where to be denied anyone, why is it ok for you to profit but not a doctor, a nurse, a medical device company, a research company, a medical billing software company, and insurance company the aggregates risk.

You think you should be provided something you want at cost by others but you should be able to sell your services or products at a profit?

How about some applied logic. Since nine out of ten developed countries have some form of universal health care. Either nine out of ten countries are wrong. Or one out of ten countries are wrong. There is not much middle ground if any between the two.

If I wanted to have it the best for the top five percent in society an overall system like is present in the states would exist in that country. I also think it is easier to keep the vultures and unfairness out of a national health care type plan. Unless the government is totally corrupt.

My guess is also that unfortunatly so many games are being played under the private sector care banner it would be hard to impossible to track them all.

That said nothing is going to be perfect. So whatever is the lesser evil is going to be prefferable.

The system I thought might have the best sustainability years ago. You pay for the office calls. Anything else is covered by some form of national plan. The objection back then in Canada was that some people cannot afford the office calls.

If there had to have been some form of comprimise in the states something like this may have been better than paying through the nose each month. With deductables of all types and far too many other conditions.

As time moves forward it is really getting harder and harder to defend private health care as the best option. Nor do I undertand the hew and cry about obama care. Primarily it is still the private sector medacine with a little more protection for the policy holder while not addressing all the serious other issues with it.

This is a seriously watered down version of what was intended by Obama. My feeling is people are not really that stupid and perhaps it was kind of a subconcious reason the republicans are no longer trusted at all as they really worked against the public good was just too obvious. Insisting all people pay a premium or a penalty will not reduce costs to the others so it is just another form of taxation basically. With the bias in favour of private insurers profits.

Pretty well the whole world has been impacted from greed and stupidity. Personally I do not like to see the states slipping at a faster rate than the rest of the developed countries in the world because of it.

Still I suspect other than surveys that indicate it is. I am starting to see it really is. This does not make me happy. America used to have a better financial standing amoungst countries. The ensuing damage that may have changed this seems to have been engineered from internal sources and beliefs rather than external ones.

Putting a two party system on a pedistal in the citizens minds may have been a contributing factor. Time changes as history has taught us. This type of thinking has to change as well. The popular vote in this last election indicates that neither parties ideiology is all that popular. Or as the current expression goes voting for the lesser of two evils in voters minds may have been the truth..Both parties policies in general are not the best or especially responsible enough to be considered healthy or visionary.

I hope the talked about economic resurgence of the states happens by the way. What it can be really based on in a meaningful responsible way is what bothers me. I just hope things can hold together and the downward spiral in general can be at least stabilized worldwide. It is far too early to really call it stabilized at present. This running heavy continuious deficts year over year does not really hurt the government that much. It can do a real number on the average citizens small economic world of a very serious nature though. It is a lien against your assets and impacts your stability and security to an unknown and variable degree.