Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Healthcare In The USA
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 61 of 72 (520316)
08-20-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by dronestar
08-20-2009 9:18 AM


Re: Healthcare Reform is Dead
Dronester writes:
Err Straggler, I think you may still be missing my main point: the public's interest/needs came last, AFTER all/some/ANY big business.
Err Dronester I think you'll find that I have already agreed to that far more than you are giving me credit for. See below:
Straggler writes:
Now I cynically predict that the industry with the most cash will ulimately "win". Most likely in the form of a bill so watered down that it will have little effect on reduced dirty energy use in terms of green tax incentives or meaningful carbon reduction targets.
Media manipulation? Certainly.
Big Business lobbying for it's own financial gain? Certainly
Eventual outcome decided largely on the basis of the above? Very probably.
But the fact that there are these dispirate interests, the fact that the competing industries are having to spend vast sums of money on PR, the fact that the opinions of the masses matter enough to require such money to be spent on PR, the fact that the government is attempting to get this through and may even yet do so in some form that has some negative effect on even the powerful and wealthy energy industry.......
All of this suggests to me that an elite few representatives of "big business" cannot be deciding elections, governments and key policies from behind the scenes because there is no such thing as "big business" in terms of united common interests on such things.
Essentially it is all much too dispirate and competetive to be anything other than largely reactive and unplanned. Which, thankfully, means that the voting public do still get to have some small say in matters. Even if it is on the basis of largely biased infomation and even if it is only once every few years.
Message 148
We are all card carrying members of the aluminium hat brigade here!! The only question is how big are our respective hats?
Anyway see my next post to Oni for complete ass open surrender. Feel free to join the queue to take your pleasure once Oni has finished with me.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by dronestar, posted 08-20-2009 9:18 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 62 of 72 (520319)
08-20-2009 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by onifre
08-19-2009 6:29 PM


Take Me Big Boy
Wotcha Oni
I am going to concede, surrender even, this one without a fight. I did start writing about dispirate interests blah blah blah....... But ultimately I have nothing with which to dispute the references you have presented.
I remain of the opinion that some of you more extreme suggestions (that the civil rights movement was orchestrated by big business, that PR presidents are identified, groomed and maneuvred years in advance of elections etc. etc.) are worthy of at least a thin covering of baking foil around the ears. Even if not the full on aluminium saucepan headgear that I previously asserted.
Can I defend these opinions? Well a small part of me is tempted to take on the intellectual challenge of pitting myself against your obviously superior knowledge in these areas. I have enough humility to have little doubt you will ravage such arguments. But equally I have enough arrogance that I reckon I could at least make you fight hard for your victory.
However a larger part of me is intent on some respite from heavy debate and conflict. I would much rather currently spend some time blathering pointlessly about beer, cricket (which started again today - I am sure you will be excited to hear) and other things which nobody here gives a monkeys testicle about. Or even reads (some of my more inebriated posts I certainly hope not anyway).
So if you want to go for the kill I am standing here bent over with my pants around my ankles........
All I ask is that you be gentle with me.
[ABE] Btw, take your time responding. I just noticed the complaint thread, which I actually didn't know there was one, and you seem to be public enemy number one.
All part of the fun. Apparently
When you gets over the bitching from those with thin skin, I'll see you here for some old school fist-to-cuffs... no gloves!
If you can't get anyone else to take you on with regard to this stuff and are determined to have a full on victory over somebody give me a week or two and I'll reconsider. Like I say I am arrogant enough to think I could make you work for it. Just more interested in following the cricket and less time consuming EvC stuff at the mo.
Where is Keresu these days BTW? I miss his shaggy blonde locks.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 08-19-2009 6:29 PM onifre has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 63 of 72 (520344)
08-21-2009 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2009 6:10 PM


Re: Explanation
Hyroglyphx writes:
The Aussie system seems to take the positive elements I like about both systems while doing its best to avoid the worst elements.
the good thing about our system is that both parties get what they want/need
Of course this doesnt mean that our health system is perfect...it does have its problems, waiting lists being one of them and there is a shortage of doctors and nurses in public hospitals because the government is working to a budget.
this isnt a problem for private patients... but for public patients, something is better then nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2009 6:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1046 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 64 of 72 (520347)
08-21-2009 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Legend
08-19-2009 4:44 PM


Relative tax burdens
I tried to read around a bit on the comparative levels of tax paid in the UK, Australia and the US, and it's well difficult to come up with any meaningful figures because tax varies so much from person to person. The tax database of the OECD seems to offer the most useful figures, but it's still hard to make like for like comparisons.
This table (it's an excel file) compares the average percentage paid in income tax, including social security contributions, for someone earning an average wage (I think 'average' means 'mean', but it's not clear).
Based on this, British taxes seem to be the highest. The ranges are:
Australia: 19.1% - 22.6%
UK: 24% - 25.6%
USA: 11.3% - 24.7%
with the differences depending on differing tax rules for married couples and people with and without children. If we deduct the money paid to people with chldren by the state from the tax bill of parents, then Brits with children do better, paying just 19.1%, but Australia's child support must be well generous, as it lowers parents' overall tax burdens to just 9.8% of income.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Legend, posted 08-19-2009 4:44 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Peg, posted 08-21-2009 6:31 AM caffeine has replied
 Message 66 by Legend, posted 08-21-2009 7:34 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 65 of 72 (520350)
08-21-2009 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by caffeine
08-21-2009 4:17 AM


Re: Relative tax burdens
the australia figures are a little out
average income in aust is about 50,000 pa
34,000 - 80,000 pays 30% tax
80,001 - 180k pays 40%
Over 180K pays 45%
but on top of income tax is the 10% GST (thanks to Howard to who's election promise was to "never ever bring in a gst")
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by caffeine, posted 08-21-2009 4:17 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by caffeine, posted 08-24-2009 4:45 AM Peg has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 66 of 72 (520364)
08-21-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by caffeine
08-21-2009 4:17 AM


Re: Relative tax burdens
that's interesting, rumour has it that we're one of the most taxed people in the world but it's useful to see some figures for other countries.
The trouble here is that if you're on a low-to-medium salary (20-35K) and you want to get private insurance you can't afford it, as you're already paying about 10% of it for your National Insurance contributions.
You don't get NI relief for having private health cover, so it kind of limits your choice.
That's why it seems to me that the Aussie system is fairer, as it acknowledges the fact that you're placing less burden on the public system by giving you a tax reduction.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by caffeine, posted 08-21-2009 4:17 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2009 12:24 PM Legend has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 67 of 72 (520416)
08-21-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Legend
08-21-2009 7:34 AM


Proportion of GDP - Health Specifically
Overall tax burden does not necessarily reflect spending on healthcare specifically.
that's interesting, rumour has it that we're one of the most taxed people in the world but it's useful to see some figures for other countries.
I did a search on google for - healthcare costs US NHS GDP. And got the following as the first entry. I am not claiming it is as independent source but are the figures accurate?
It was my understanding (which is of course why I did that search) that US healthcare cost more than ours in one sense or another.
The cost of healthcare systems varies dramatically between countries. In America it is by far the highest - 16% of US GDP, totalling over $2 trillion a year. In the EU the relative cost as a proportion of GDP is half that. In France and Germany it is 9%, and in the UK rather less at 8%. These variations matter hugely since in the UK each extra 1% of GDP wpuld add 15bn to the health budget. The first point therefore is that on any count the NHS scores highly on value for money. The US healthcare system is relative to GDP twice as expensive as the NHS, yet nobody could claim that it was twice as good - indeed in a number of respects it is clearly worse.
Account Suspended
So are these figures accurate and if they are what do they tell us about the relative costs of the two systems?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Legend, posted 08-21-2009 7:34 AM Legend has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 68 of 72 (520670)
08-23-2009 12:20 AM


I just love how Barney Frank responded to the ignorant masses.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 08-23-2009 1:37 PM Taz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9143
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 69 of 72 (520714)
08-23-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
08-23-2009 12:20 AM


Gotta love Barney. He is very good at handling morons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 08-23-2009 12:20 AM Taz has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1046 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 70 of 72 (520813)
08-24-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Peg
08-21-2009 6:31 AM


Re: Relative tax burdens
34,000 - 80,000 pays 30% tax
80,001 - 180k pays 40%
Over 180K pays 45%
You're not quite right here. These are the tax rates on income earned over the threshold for each band, so someone earning $50,000 is only paying a 30% income tax rate on $16,000 dollars of that income. The tax on someone earning $50,000 comes out to 19.5%. If we're counting the percentage the government takes from the employer's total expenditure, so including all their compulsory contributions to social security, the amount paid is about 26.1%.
None of these figures take into account tax offsets, which is why they're higher than the estimate calculated in the OECD Database - they don't count Medicare either, though. These numbers come from the Australian Tax Office and the Britz in Oz wage and tax comparisons site.
And sales tax is Britain is 17.5%, so it could be worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Peg, posted 08-21-2009 6:31 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 08-24-2009 5:33 AM caffeine has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 71 of 72 (520816)
08-24-2009 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by caffeine
08-24-2009 4:45 AM


Re: Relative tax burdens
we'll im not sure about your figures
if you look on the ATO website, the tax free threshold is $6,000
from 6,001 - 34,000 the rate of tax is 0.15c for every dollar or 15%
from 34001 - 80,000 we pay a minimum of $4,200 plus 30c for each $1 over $34,000
but anyway, our GST is not as high as the UK's thats for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by caffeine, posted 08-24-2009 4:45 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by caffeine, posted 08-24-2009 9:54 AM Peg has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1046 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 72 of 72 (520831)
08-24-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
08-24-2009 5:33 AM


Re: Relative tax burdens
from 34001 - 80,000 we pay a minimum of $4,200 plus 30c for each $1 over $34,000
So, 30c multiplied by 16,000 gives us $4,800. Add this to the $4,200 and we get $9,000, which is actually 18% of $50,000. I took the 19.5% rate direct from the Britz in Oz website, so I'm guessing the discrepancy is explained by them including the 1.5% Medicare levy.
Edit: Sorry for dragging out this sidetrack on Australian tax!
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 08-24-2009 5:33 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024