| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » UK Geniuses and RW Loons Are United On Health Care... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| tg... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Person A works for company C. Person B works for company D.
1) Company C gives person A a check for 5,500 dollars in return for a
month of work. A buys health insurance that costs 500 dollars a month.
2) Company D gives person B a check for 5,000 dollars for a month of
work, and gives the same insurance company a check for 500 dollars,
which pays for B's insurance.
UK Geniuses and RW Loons believe that company D and company C are
doing something different. They think that company D is 'paying for
B's insurance', and B is 'not paying for his insurance', but company C
is 'not paying for A's insurance', and A 'is paying for his
insurance'.
Conclusion: UK Geniuses are as loony as US RW Loons.
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 4 Nov, 18:44, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]Person A works for company C. Person B works for company D.
1) Company C gives person A a check for 5,500 dollars in return for a
month of work. A buys health insurance that costs 500 dollars a month.
2) Company D gives person B a check for 5,000 dollars for a month of
work, and gives the same insurance company a check for 500 dollars,
which pays for B's insurance.
UK Geniuses and RW Loons believe that company D and company C are
doing something different. They think that company D is 'paying for
B's insurance', and B is 'not paying for his insurance', but company C
is 'not paying for A's insurance', and A 'is paying for his
insurance'.
Conclusion: UK Geniuses are as loony as US RW Loons.
-tg
[/quote]
Somebody made the claim that insurance is cheap for individuals
in the US. I pointed out that *if* it is cheap for individuals, *then*
someone else, presumably the company, is taking up the slack.
The initial claim may be false. I didn't make it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:29 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z... at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:44:22 -0800, tg wrote:
1) Company C gives person A a check for 5,500 dollars in return for a
month of work. A buys health insurance that costs 500 dollars a month.
2) Company D gives person B a check for 5,000 dollars for a month of
work, and gives the same insurance company a check for 500 dollars,
which pays for B's insurance.
The rub:
A, being an individual, really must pay 1500 a month for the same
insurance B gets. So 'A' must either charge more for work or go without.
[/quote]
And pay taxes on the 500 as well. But that doesn't change the
underlying lunacy of how those people perceive the situation.
[quote]The unrub:
Companies C and D, workers A and B and doctor E and nurse F get together
and figure out a way to cut the insurance companies out of the loop
altogether and prune all the high paid dead weight from health
administration.
[/quote]
That's called Medicare. But neither D nor the doctors and nurses
would be in favor of it.
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:44:22 -0800, tg wrote:
[quote]1) Company C gives person A a check for 5,500 dollars in return for a
month of work. A buys health insurance that costs 500 dollars a month.
2) Company D gives person B a check for 5,000 dollars for a month of
work, and gives the same insurance company a check for 500 dollars,
which pays for B's insurance.
[/quote]
The rub:
A, being an individual, really must pay 1500 a month for the same
insurance B gets. So 'A' must either charge more for work or go without.
The unrub:
Companies C and D, workers A and B and doctor E and nurse F get together
and figure out a way to cut the insurance companies out of the loop
altogether and prune all the high paid dead weight from health
administration. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 9:07 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 8:29 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z... at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:44:22 -0800, tg wrote:
1) Company C gives person A a check for 5,500 dollars in return for a
month of work. A buys health insurance that costs 500 dollars a month..
2) Company D gives person B a check for 5,000 dollars for a month of
work, and gives the same insurance company a check for 500 dollars,
which pays for B's insurance.
The rub:
A, being an individual, really must pay 1500 a month for the same
insurance B gets. So 'A' must either charge more for work or go without..
And pay taxes on the 500 as well. But that doesn't change the
underlying lunacy of how those people perceive the situation.
The unrub:
Companies C and D, workers A and B and doctor E and nurse F get together
and figure out a way to cut the insurance companies out of the loop
altogether and prune all the high paid dead weight from health
administration.
That's called Medicare. But neither D nor the doctors and nurses
would be in favor of it.
-tg
[/quote]
You're a VERY "poor" teacher in my opinion. Perhaps the Brits do have
something.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:14 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 9:07 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:29 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z... at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:44:22 -0800, tg wrote:
1) Company C gives person A a check for 5,500 dollars in return for a
month of work. A buys health insurance that costs 500 dollars a month.
2) Company D gives person B a check for 5,000 dollars for a month of
work, and gives the same insurance company a check for 500 dollars,
which pays for B's insurance.
The rub:
A, being an individual, really must pay 1500 a month for the same
insurance B gets. So 'A' must either charge more for work or go without.
And pay taxes on the 500 as well. But that doesn't change the
underlying lunacy of how those people perceive the situation.
The unrub:
Companies C and D, workers A and B and doctor E and nurse F get together
and figure out a way to cut the insurance companies out of the loop
altogether and prune all the high paid dead weight from health
administration.
That's called Medicare. But neither D nor the doctors and nurses
would be in favor of it.
-tg
You're a VERY "poor" teacher in my opinion. Perhaps the Brits do have
something..
[/quote]
Just go spend that extra disposable income you have as a result of
your company 'Paying For' your health insurance. Maybe buy a book on
basic economics.
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 8:15 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:14 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:29 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z... at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:44:22 -0800, tg wrote:
1) Company C gives person A a check for 5,500 dollars in return for a
month of work. A buys health insurance that costs 500 dollars a month.
2) Company D gives person B a check for 5,000 dollars for a month of
work, and gives the same insurance company a check for 500 dollars,
which pays for B's insurance.
The rub:
A, being an individual, really must pay 1500 a month for the same
insurance B gets. So 'A' must either charge more for work or go without.
And pay taxes on the 500 as well. But that doesn't change the
underlying lunacy of how those people perceive the situation.
The unrub:
Companies C and D, workers A and B and doctor E and nurse F get together
and figure out a way to cut the insurance companies out of the loop
altogether and prune all the high paid dead weight from health
administration.
That's called Medicare. But neither D nor the doctors and nurses
would be in favor of it.
-tg
You're a VERY "poor" teacher in my opinion. Perhaps the Brits do have
something..
Just go spend that extra disposable income you have as a result of
your company 'Paying For' your health insurance.
[/quote]
Indeed i will and get more for my buck when compared to other
countries.
[quote]Maybe buy a book on basic economics.
-tg
[/quote]
"Median household income for other countries is shown in the table
below. The data for each country has been converted to US dollars
using Purchasing Power Parity (obtained from the OECD)."
Switzerland (gross) 107,748 CHF, $99,482 2007 1.787236 $60,288
California, US 55,450 USD 2007 1.00 $55,450
United States 50,233 USD 2007 1.00 $50,233
Canada 53,634 CAD 2005 1.21 $44,000
Switzerland (after taxes and health insurance) 75,312 CHF, $69534 2007
1.723465 $43,698
New Zealand 62,556 NZD 2007 1.54 $41,000
United Kingdom 24,700 GBP 2004 0.632 $39,000
Australia 53,404 AUD 2006 1.41 $38,000
Israel] 107,820 ILS 2006 2.90 $37,000
Ireland 35,410 EUR 2005 1.02 $35,000
Scotland,
United Kingdom 21,892 GBP 2005 0.649 $34,000
West Virginia, US US state $33,000
Hong Kong 186,000 HKD 2005 5.96 $31,000
Singapore 45,960 SGD 2005 1.55 $30,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Nov, 18:24, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]Switzerland (gross) 107,748 CHF, $99,482 2007 1.787236 $60,288
California, US 55,450 USD 2007 1.00 $55,450
United States 50,233 USD 2007 1.00 $50,233
Canada 53,634 CAD 2005 1.21 $44,000
Switzerland (after taxes and health insurance) 75,312 CHF, $69534 2007
1.723465 $43,698
New Zealand 62,556 NZD 2007 1.54 $41,000
United Kingdom 24,700 GBP 2004 0.632 $39,000
Australia 53,404 AUD 2006 1.41 $38,000
Israel] 107,820 ILS 2006 2.90 $37,000
Ireland 35,410 EUR 2005 1.02 $35,000
Scotland,
United Kingdom 21,892 GBP 2005 0.649 $34,000
West Virginia, US US state $33,000
Hong Kong 186,000 HKD 2005 5.96 $31,000
Singapore 45,960 SGD 2005 1.55 $30,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States
[/quote]
I notice you've got two of the world's most
capitalistic nations at the bottom of
your list. What was your point, caller? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:41 pm, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 6 Nov, 18:24, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
Switzerland (gross) 107,748 CHF, $99,482 2007 1.787236 $60,288
California, US 55,450 USD 2007 1.00 $55,450
United States 50,233 USD 2007 1.00 $50,233
Canada 53,634 CAD 2005 1.21 $44,000
Switzerland (after taxes and health insurance) 75,312 CHF, $69534 2007
1.723465 $43,698
New Zealand 62,556 NZD 2007 1.54 $41,000
United Kingdom 24,700 GBP 2004 0.632 $39,000
Australia 53,404 AUD 2006 1.41 $38,000
Israel] 107,820 ILS 2006 2.90 $37,000
Ireland 35,410 EUR 2005 1.02 $35,000
Scotland,
United Kingdom 21,892 GBP 2005 0.649 $34,000
West Virginia, US US state $33,000
Hong Kong 186,000 HKD 2005 5.96 $31,000
Singapore 45,960 SGD 2005 1.55 $30,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States
I notice you've got two of the world's most
capitalistic nations at the bottom of
your list. What was your point, caller?
[/quote]
I think he doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about.
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:41 pm, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 6 Nov, 18:24, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
Switzerland (gross) 107,748 CHF, $99,482 2007 1.787236 $60,288
California, US 55,450 USD 2007 1.00 $55,450
United States 50,233 USD 2007 1.00 $50,233
Canada 53,634 CAD 2005 1.21 $44,000
Switzerland (after taxes and health insurance) 75,312 CHF, $69534 2007
1.723465 $43,698
New Zealand 62,556 NZD 2007 1.54 $41,000
United Kingdom 24,700 GBP 2004 0.632 $39,000
Australia 53,404 AUD 2006 1.41 $38,000
Israel] 107,820 ILS 2006 2.90 $37,000
Ireland 35,410 EUR 2005 1.02 $35,000
Scotland,
United Kingdom 21,892 GBP 2005 0.649 $34,000
West Virginia, US US state $33,000
Hong Kong 186,000 HKD 2005 5.96 $31,000
Singapore 45,960 SGD 2005 1.55 $30,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States
I notice you've got two of the world's most
capitalistic nations at the bottom of
your list. What was your point, caller?
[/quote]
To show that the USA has a high standard of living coupled with low
medical insurance costs as demonstrated by my $120 a month for an
individual regardless of the employer and government costs. The
overall market place is still better than in the UK even though as a
whole we might expend more than in the UK per capitia for healthcare;
everything is typically cheaper for the individual middleclass person
under our "capitalistic" nation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]I think he doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about.
-tg
[/quote]
You're thinking of the overall expenditure per capita. Which granted
has been shown to be more expensive but i'm arguing that for the
individual it actually isn't more expensive than say for the same
person in the UK. Then i'm going on to say that the extra burden
appears to not exert that much of an affect on the economy as
evidenced by the greater standard of living for the middle class in
the form of being paid more and having cheaper goods than other
countries. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:55 pm
|
|