Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #61

    Nov 23, 2009, 08:50 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Everyone who has universal health care is aware that it comes as part of our taxes. To tell people that it's "free" health care is intellectually dishonest.
    Are you saying that about the Obama administration?

    In the US, a 20 or 30 or 40 something is paying medicare tax - 1.45% and their employer is kicking in another 2.9%, for healthcare of the medicare recipient. So they are being taxed for someone else's healthcare.

    FICA & SECA Tax Rates

    In the US unfortunantly only the unisured get stuck with the full 100% of the bill. The 85% or more that have some insurance coverage pay a co-pay or something toward a deductible, but hardly 100% of the actual bill. Most who have employer provided insurance get the additional pre-tax benefit.

    So healthcare is NOT free, but the means of payment are clearly not 100% out of pocket for the vast majority.


    G&P
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #62

    Nov 23, 2009, 09:00 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by asking View Post
    Airbags save more people than they kill.
    Mammograms also have a risk, namely radiation.

    In fact, treatment for breast cancer has a risk. My sister was treated for breast cancer with radiation 20 years ago. She received 5000 rads, enough to trigger another case of cancer in 20 years. It looks like that may in fact have happened. But she got another 20 years. I hope she gets another 20, but the fact remains that radiation exposure has a CUMULATIVE effect on cancer risk. So it's totally reasonable to weight that risk against the benefits of all kinds of screenings, not just mammograms. I just turned down an MRI for that reason.

    Lets' be sensible.
    Sure airbags save lives, but they were not predicted to kill them either when the became mandated. Was it sensible to make these mandates without testing beforehand the effects on smaller people?

    In retrospect would she still have got treatment that you acknowledge as giving her 20 years?

    I'm questioning the data, how they came to their conclusions and recommendations, that is the sensible thing to do.


    G&P

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Record destruction [ 20 Answers ]

A year ago I was arrested and fingerprinted for theft under 5000 and possession of stolen property. When I went to court, my charge was not in the system and I got a letter saying I attended court. Now I am 18 and I'm planning to get a job that requires a records check. Would I be able to...

Healthcare versus non healthcare business planss [ 1 Answers ]

What is important in a healthcare business plan that is not ordinarily included in a non-healthcare plan?

Destruction of cattails [ 1 Answers ]

How can cattails be destroyed without harming pond life?

Tenant destruction [ 2 Answers ]

I currently have a tenant who has given her notice she will be terminating her lease at the end of the month. When I did the interior inspection I was devastated... everything is damaged, she pulled up the carpets and linoleum, the floors are now bare, her 4 dogs chewed the bottoms of the kitchen...


View more questions Search