• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can the US afford socialized medicine?

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Allow me to shed some light on the situation from the point of view of someone who not only lives in one of the most socialist countries on the planet, but who has also been recently forced to test the services of our socialized healthcare system.

Just before Christmas holidays last year I contracted the swine-flu. Seeing as I am a teacher I sort of expected this to happen and with that in mind I took my precautions, called my doctor and followed his advice about staying at home for a week. And that would have been the end of it had it not been for the fact that after a few days at home I was having problems breathing.

So I called a friend of mine, got him to come get me in a cab and take me to the emergency room. When I got there I met with a nurse who set me up with a doctor. He immediately took some blood samples and x-rays of my lungs which were all sent to be processed immediately. They checked on me regularly and it seemed things had stabilised somewhat. However, when the tests came back it was clear that not only did I have the swine-flu, but I had also contracted a nasty infection in my lungs. So he ordered me an ambulance that took me to the hospital, more to make sure that I got to the right place than because we were in any hurry. At the hospital I was put on oxygen to try to raise my O2 levels. But after about a day it became clear that they just kept dropping and finally the doctor told me that they had to “put me under” in an artificial coma in order to try to contain the infection more efficiently.

I awoke about a week later with an oxygen tube in my throat and some very worried relatives and friends around me. I was to stay on 24 hour surveillance for more than a week while they were trying different types of antibiotics and finally after what seemed like forever they told me I was free of all infection. They then removed the tube in my throat and transferred me to a part of the hospital for those recuperating just to make sure. I stayed there for another week attended by a physiotherapist as I had been lying still for almost two weeks and they wanted to make sure everything was working as intended.

During my last week at the hospital I met a girl who was a former drug addict who was in to be treated for some heart condition which was probably due to long time drug use, and we got to talking, mostly because a hospital isn’t the most exciting place to be and we had nothing better to do.

It then struck me how lucky I was.

The treatment I had received over the past weeks would have cost several tens of thousands of dollars, money I did not have, and without insurance would surely have forced my mother to sell her apartment. Of course, I am a single person with a decent paying job so if I lived in, say, the US, I would probably have coverage. But what about the girl with the past of a drug addict? In Norway she received exactly the same care and treatment that I did, and no-one ever looked down on her. Not the doctors, not the nurses and certainly not me. She would never have been able to afford a decent insurance, and might have had to make do with second hand care, all the while feeling like she was a burden on someone. But we don’t think of people like that over here.

We believe that there are certain things that you, as a human being, are entitled to. One of them is proper health care, should you need it. And another is decency and respect.

My hospital bill and the girl’s hospital bill came out to exactly the same: nothing.
I just signed the release papers and went home.


And that might be one of the reasons that Norway is at the very top of the UN list of best countries to live in.

Just saying.


PS: If anyone is interested in knowing how universal healthcare works in a socialist state consider this an open invitation. I will happily answer any and all questions to the best of my ability.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
For once I agree with Rick. As people live longer it only makes sense that they should work longer.
We'll be paying alot more out in disabilities though. After 60 people don't really have much more time before the body starts to slow down. By 80 the body starts to wear down and tire. Even at 80 it's theoretically possible to live about another 40 years, but can you really demand or expect someone so old and frail have to work? Having older people around to help take care of the younger generation is one theory on why the human race has a pretty long life span when compared to many other animals. To me that is a sufficient enough contribution.
And of course not every old person is living on government support. I know one man who is 92 years old, he can't walk because he has really bad arthritis in his knees, but other than he is very healthy. Mentally he is even well enough that he makes a fortune still from Wall Street.
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
In Norway the retirement age is 67 years, with the option to either retire up to 5 years earlier or to work up to 3 years longer. However, this upper limit is very "negotiable" seeing as many people choose to work even longer than that if they are fit and have all their faculties in order. This is not out of necessity but rather because many people actually like their jobs and like to feel useful. :)

Here is the thing though. Someone mentioned earlier that one generation will have to work to support several, depending on how you do the math, but we got to keep in mind that I am actually paying for my retirement right now.
I pay taxes, some of which should be set aside by the government to pay for my care when I get so old that it is time for me to retire. And if the government fails to do this, well, then the government isn't doing it's job.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
The Japanese sytem does work and it works very well. The thing is, China is moving in on their markets.
Everyone's markets, actually. The Chinese now monopolize rare earth materials, and Japan is totally dependent on those for many of its most important manufacturing industries.

Please tell me about any product you have bought from China that has lasted even 5 years?
There are plenty of computers out there that were manufactured in China and have lasted far longer than 5 years. I'm typing on one now.
 

Panda

42?
Premium Member
Wow,that's pretty harsh. I don't expect that kind of thing from you. Why would you expect people in their seventies to work to support themselves?

How is it harsh? I am aware I will more than likely be working until I am 70. It makes sense if you are living longer you should work longer to pay for your longer retirement. With an ageing population we need to start doing these sorts of things. In fact people were having to fight here to be allowed to work beyond the age of 65.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
How is it harsh? I am aware I will more than likely be working until I am 70. It makes sense if you are living longer you should work longer to pay for your longer retirement. With an ageing population we need to start doing these sorts of things. In fact people were having to fight here to be allowed to work beyond the age of 65.

OK, so you'll likely be working until you're 70, but not well into your seventies. Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to think everyone would get some time in their adult life when they get to just enjoy life without working. If you're working into your 70's, by the time you're finished working, you're too old to enjoy life very much. I'd much rather let people retire in their early 60's, and have everyone pay more into the system to make up for the fact that people are living longer.
 

Panda

42?
Premium Member
OK, so you'll likely be working until you're 70, but not well into your seventies.

Apologies I thought you were objecting to 70 as a retirement age.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to think everyone would get some time in their adult life when they get to just enjoy life without working.

I agree

If you're working into your 70's, by the time you're finished working, you're too old to enjoy life very much.

My 87 year old gran seems to have no problems enjoying her life and going on holiday for almost the entire summer

I'd much rather let people retire in their early 60's, and have everyone pay more into the system to make up for the fact that people are living longer.

5-10 years worth of tax can be an awful lot of extra money.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Apologies I thought you were objecting to 70 as a retirement age.



I agree



My 87 year old gran seems to have no problems enjoying her life and going on holiday for almost the entire summer

I bet, and I bet there are other people in her situation. However, that's the exception, not the rule. All four of my grandparents died by the age of 87. Only 2 of them were very healthy for any portion of their 80's.

5-10 years worth of tax can be an awful lot of extra money.

Yes, it can, but in America it wouldn't be hard. Right now our social security tax stops at something like $105,000. That means, you don't pay the SS tax on any money you make over that amount. If we just took out that restriction, that would gain a hell of a lot of money.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Meh. Most everybody in my field works until the day they die. 70s, 80s, and into their 90s - you'll see dancers and performance artists who have long "retired" from performance go on for decades and decades teaching or administering in companies.

Perhaps the reason is most of us are so poor, the idea of being able to afford insurance is weird. So, pensions and IRAs are well beyond being non-existent unless you're tenured staff in a theatre and dance department at a university. Most everybody is uninsured or underinsured who are living literally paycheck to paycheck and doing without many of things others have (most of the time a house, many times a car, and just about everybody in the biz never go on vacations).

So, working past the age of 65 or 67 is actually quite expected. We do it. AND we do work that is mostly physically and mentally demanding. But given that my field is unique and unorthodox, I can understand the differences in opinion where others find this to be a big deal, and I don't....."work 'til you drop." I have rarely - if EVER - come across a retired performance artist. It just doesn't happen. Is this a cultural phenomenon? :shrug:
 

Panda

42?
Premium Member
I bet, and I bet there are other people in her situation. However, that's the exception, not the rule. All four of my grandparents died by the age of 87. Only 2 of them were very healthy for any portion of their 80's.

And their grandparents probably went through a similar thing in their 60s or 70s


Yes, it can, but in America it wouldn't be hard. Right now our social security tax stops at something like $105,000. That means, you don't pay the SS tax on any money you make over that amount. If we just took out that restriction, that would gain a hell of a lot of money.

Do you mean once you have paid in $105,000 or any money you make over $105,000 each year doesn't count towards it?

To be fair I have very little knowledge of the American system and probably should have looked into before putting my uninformed opinion about it on you, shame on me.

Still with the same basic problem over there as we have here we either need to increase taxes or increase the amount of time people work or reduce state pensions.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Meh. Most everybody in my field works until the day they die. 70s, 80s, and into their 90s - you'll see dancers and performance artists who have long "retired" from performance go on for decades and decades teaching or administering in companies.

Perhaps the reason is most of us are so poor, the idea of being able to afford insurance is weird. So, pensions and IRAs are well beyond being non-existent unless you're tenured staff in a theatre and dance department at a university. Most everybody is uninsured or underinsured who are living literally paycheck to paycheck and doing without many of things others have (most of the time a house, many times a car, and just about everybody in the biz never go on vacations).

So, working past the age of 65 or 67 is actually quite expected. We do it. AND we do work that is mostly physically and mentally demanding. But given that my field is unique and unorthodox, I can understand the differences in opinion where others find this to be a big deal, and I don't....."work 'til you drop." I have rarely - if EVER - come across a retired performance artist. It just doesn't happen. Is this a cultural phenomenon? :shrug:

I think that's quite a bit different. I know there's a lot of work involved in your profession, but it's also something most people do because they love it. In that way, it's like writing or acting. Technically writing books is a profession, but I'd love to do it professionally well into my 80's, if possible (with the big assumption that I ever got published in the first place). Plus, there's the flexibility with that kind of job, where it's lacking with a regular 9-5 type of thing.

I don't want to be working full-time in computers when I'm 75.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think people should retire at any age they like, but the benefits should only last for 15 years max.
Interesting idea.

I'm sure that for a lot of people out there, they'd be much happier to draw 4 years of benefits while they're in school and then go out and get a job that's high-paying enough that they can pay for retirement with 401(k)s or what-have-you without drawing on social security during their actual retirement at all.

However, I think it'd be a bit of a crappy move to cut back social security now on people just retiring, who set up their plans decades ago with the assumption that it would be there and have no way now to find some other source of money to live on to make up the difference.

Think about it, if you have some families that have the next generation every 20 years:

Grandpa 102 years old drawing a check
His daughter 82 years old drawing a check
His grandson 62 drawing a check
His great granddaughter 42 working her butt off
His great great grandson 22 just getting his act together not paying taxes yet
His great great great granddaughter 2 years old dependent on his grandma.

Six people being supported by one wage earner. How is that going to work?
But it's not a matter of six people being supported by one wage earner. Not on average, anyhow. There are very few 102-year-old grandpas, and even 82 is (IIRC) older than the average life expectancy for an American.

In fact, according to Social Security data (and assuming a 50-50 male/female split at age 0, since the stats are all separated by gender), on average, there are approximately 153 42-year-olds for every 102-year-old and 2 42-year-olds for every 82-year-old.

And that's before we consider how much each person "costs". I would be very surprised if a 2-year-old creates as much demand on the public purse as a 42-year-old. And I don't know how things work in the US, but here in Canada, when a retired person draws on their Registered Retirement Savings Plan or company pension, they pay income taxes.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
And their grandparents probably went through a similar thing in their 60s or 70s

Maybe, but I don't think I see the point.

Do you mean once you have paid in $105,000 or any money you make over $105,000 each year doesn't count towards it?

There is the tax that employers and employees pay towards Social Security. Each party pays 6.2% of the employee's income for a total of 12.4%. But that only applies to the first $106,800 of the employees income. Anything over that number is not subject to the Social Security tax.

To be fair I have very little knowledge of the American system and probably should have looked into before putting my uninformed opinion about it on you, shame on me.

Oh, don't worry about that. You're right that it would take a lot of tax to make up for the longer life expectancy. I'm just saying it wouldn't be that hard to raise a lot more for it.

Still with the same basic problem over there as we have here we either need to increase taxes or increase the amount of time people work or reduce state pensions.

Yes, something needs to be done. I would just rather see increased taxes rather than expecting people to work longer.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I think that's quite a bit different. I know there's a lot of work involved in your profession, but it's also something most people do because they love it. In that way, it's like writing or acting. Technically writing books is a profession, but I'd love to do it professionally well into my 80's, if possible (with the big assumption that I ever got published in the first place). Plus, there's the flexibility with that kind of job, where it's lacking with a regular 9-5 type of thing.

I don't want to be working full-time in computers when I'm 75.

Ah, yet another misconception that my line of work is sort of a hobby. :p

We're professionals with years and years of training and peer review, with intense dedication to our fields, and who believe in offering in the greater benefit to society. And the assumption of flexibility is rather off, too. There might be the illusion of flexibility because a performer hasn't landed a role in a while.

But....I'd hate to derail the thread further into a "myth-versus-fact-about-performance-artists" section. If this is about the necessity for a retirement income and health insurance as entitlements - and if we can afford it - folks in my field have been doing without for a very long time. Perhaps there is a little bit of an insistence that we don't have "real jobs", and therefore don't deserve not just these entitlements but even a living wage. And that if we've survived for so long on so little, that other folks in other fields might have to face the possibility that they ought to as well in order to avoid bankrupting the country.

But what do I know, right? My story is different because I'm just a lowly dancer. ;)
 
Top