Why couldn't our required tax dollars pay for health insurance?

You know, we are all made to pay taxes yearly. Our paychecks are taxed, we take that money and go to the grocery and are taxed, we get gas and our already taxed money gets taxed again. Why can't our tax money pay for health insurance? If a percentage of our tax money went into a health insurance policy all people would have access to healthcare. As an incentive, people who do not use their fund for doctor's visits and hospital costs could receive a larger refund. Many people take advantage of the medicaid system...Not everyone, but many people do. If the policy was not free, but as a part of their taxed money...They might not take advantage of the system knowing that they would get THEIR money back at the end of the year. Any thoughts? No spam pleases...The governors are in South Carolina trying to figure healthcare out...Maybe we, the people, should be of the same mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Two problems I see with this part:
1.) Offering cash-back incentives, kind of defeats the whole concept of insurance. Those who don't use it are paying for those who do. That's how it survives.
2.) Many people would skip doctors visits (and neglect to take their kids) to get the incentive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you've described - sans the incentive part which Raven has explained well won't work - is just a socialistic system that's being used in many countries. Just ask our British friends (ones over 30) just how well such a thing works - they'll be quick to tell you it's horrible.

And it only stands to reason. Anytime you put the government in the middle of any process of any kind, there's going to be a huge amount of bureaucratic waste, graft and corruption. For a good example of the latter, just look at the abused Medicare system we already have. Hospitals and doctors charging for visits and treatments that never took place. And that's probably only the tip of the iceberg of what's actually happened.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

our current system is f'ed up that even run by the governemt healthcare would be improved the current system favor insurance companies and drug companies

 

'They' as in all? Quite an unscientific claim. Many will tell you how wonderful it is. In any case, any system, however it is funded, will only be as good as its constituent parts. That's why free market healthcare is often so dreadful.

 

Can anyone tell me (with evidence) what i saw in SICKO is utterly and fully wrong ? ... You know, just in case anyone thinks allowing a baby to die, just because her mom didn't have the right health insurance ?..."O i'm sorry, its the free market system" ....

Just checking...

 

Because you are American and your government requires a truely massive Military and black ops budget.

 

Thank (the guy upstairs) for me that Australia has a two party healthcare system.

 

I didn't mean to imply "all." Instead I should have said something like "many." And I hope you noted that I DID restrict it to those over 30 since they would have had more experience with the system than the younger set.

 

I'd do it differently were it in my power. But it's better than pay-per-view style healthcare.

 

In Britain the health care system works fairly well, (apart from having to wait months for operations) we are taxed for our health care and some people do not have to pay for medications, if you are on low income or on benefits or working tax credit then you are entitled to free medications, but some people have to pay,

 

It's primarily that long wait that I was thinking of. About a year ago, it was discovered that I needed one. It was scheduled and finished the same week.

 

Because it's already being used for other stuff, and the government is already incurring a ruinous debt as is. The last thing we need is to take on another social program. Adding drug benefits to the already over extended Medicare system was bad enough! No mas!!!!!

 

We could just cut into the military and war budget to finance it, along with tons of other things, like plastic surgery for everyone who needs it.

 

I don't get the stigma associated with spending tax money on social problems when we waste money in so many other ways.

 

Really? So you think that wasting money and resources in yet another way is fine?????? That seems like rather strange reasoning to me.

 

I don't think it IS a waste. What I was saying though is it is odd that people are so actively opposed to comparatively small spending for something useful when we waste money on such a grand scale.

This type of socialism seems to be the norm for the rest of the developed world.

 

Comparitively small? Are you insane? The health care industry equals 1/5 of the entire economy. We already spend more on "entitlements" than anything else in the budget, including the military.

 

Agreed. Socialized health care has been teetering around as our next step in the good ol' (and verrrryyyy old) FDR welfare program that brought us out of the Great Depression. To establish such a health care program would mean that capitalism in the health care industry is a complete failure, and it is necessary for the government to intervene. We DO NOT need to give up more freedom to an already huge political demigod of a government.

Some say Drs. bill excessively for their services. Most of the time, the complainants are the health insurers. On the flip side, Drs. argue that their bills are not paid entirely by the insurer, and they don't recover the customary remaining 20% even 50% of the time, which requires the Drs. to increase their hourly or service fee to reach a median income for their specialty.

Personally, I think the best system would be to completely remove health insurance for a period of 1-2 years (including Medicaid/Medicare), and then determine exactly what an honest working American can pay for a CT scan, or MRI, or other service. Charging $2500 for an MRI and read to me is astronomical. As is $300 for a wheelchair ride to the car after an outpatient procedure.

If we are truly a class-based economic society (working class, lower class, middle, and so on), statistics would indicate that Drs. would profit most by tailoring their services to the middle-class income rate. The government can then subsidize, as opposed to socialize, the lower and working classes to make up the difference, which could be funded by appropriations of present tax revenues. Alternatively, the battle between Dr. and Insurer could then balance itself out in the actual marketplace, as opposed to the present state of the two party "bargain."

Point is, if insurance was out of the picture, even for just a little while, the price of "gas" would come down.

 

Brilliant. Completely subdue the scientific care of the fragile human body to spurious market forces. After all, the invisible hand has worked so well for toys, tires, food, and pensions. That'll show them commies, eh?