Gupta asked him a hypothetical at the end on where he would want to have a heart catheterization (spelling?), if he needed it and he dodged that question also

He dodges the question again, and changes the subject to what the French get in benefits.  The question was about how the French actually pay for this stuff, and Moore switches the conversation back to what they get.  Why?  Because he knows Americans will never embrace a system when the cost is so high a tax rate.

Sorry, but I’m french, and the answer he made is perfectly correct regarding the question. You can’t answer anything else.

Indeed to the question: Why do we pay this tax.

The answer is: To have a service in return, and this service is to be able to get treated without having to worry if we’ll have to afford the treatment or not.

And that’s exactly what Moore answered. And I don’t see any other way to answer to that, and you know, being a french, I certainly know better than you, Lee, what is the correct answer.

About medicare, if I would have answered to Dr Gupta on this I would have said:

If medicare go bankrupt, then it’s not weel organized. Just like the french system wasn’t before we reorganized it recently. Know the debt we had is reducing significantly (it has already reduced to the half of it in the last few years). So while Medicare may doesn’t work well, a universal system can work very well, if it’s well thought. And in all the countries there is a universal health care system it does work well, even if for some, like the french one, it has necesited some readjustements sometimes.

Know the debt we had is reducing significantly (it has already reduced to the half of it in the last few years).

Isn’t it true these are some of the steps your government has taken to reduce the debt (which is still climbing and NOT in recession)?

Encouraging self-medication, particularly through the use of generic medicines (Treat yourself rather than see a doctor).

Raising the monthly contributions paid by the unemployed, and in particular by pensioners (raising the taxes of those least likely to be able to pay them).

Improving the behavior and expectations of both patients and professionals by reimbursing only drugs and operations that had been proven to be effective (denying procedures that aren’t proven or cost-effective.  Hey, that sounds like an HMO saying “experimental procedure").

Reduction is professional pay (resulting in over 80% of new doctors choosing private practice).

Hospital closures (Nothing screams “working system” like closures).

And, if these measures have been so successful and have reduced the budget, as you claim such:

it has already reduced to the half of it in the last few years

Then why does your own government report on July 4th of this year:

The deficit in France’s national health and welfare system is forecast to hit 12 billion euros (16.3 billion dollars) this year, about 50 percent more than the previous estimate, an oversight body warned Wednesday.
The general administration deficit will expand again in 2007 to reach 12 billion euros and thus return to its heights of 2004 and 2005,” the Social Security accounting commission said in a report.
A draft law presented by former health minister Xavier Bertrand in September had assumed the deficit would amount to roughly eight billion euros.

And as a result:

On Tuesday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon confirmed that the new government appointed by President Nicolas Sarkozy had pushed back deadlines for balancing the federal budget and cutting national debt by two years to 2012.

Not looking quite as rosy in paradise....

Free healthcare costs money. Apparently, it costs a lot of money. From the CIA World Factbook:

The government in 2006 focused on introducing measures that attempt to boost employment through increased labor market flexibility; however, the population has remained opposed to labor reforms, hampering the government’s ability to revitalize the economy. The tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe (nearly 50% of GDP in 2005). The lingering economic slowdown and inflexible budget items probably pushed the budget deficit above the eurozone’s 3%-of-GDP limit in 2006; unemployment hovers near 9%.

Of course, the CIA could be lying about the French tax burden...but what would be the point of that?

Now, this is in a country that has roughly 63 million people. The U.S. has 300 million. How on earth are we going to pay for the kind of massive bureaucratic machinery it would take to implement a French-like healthcare system?

Not if we keep—not if we keep spending $100 billion a year on a war, no. We won’t have money for our own people.

This is also classic misdirection.  The war has been going on for about 5 years.  The government has been using Social Security funds to offset General Funds deficits since the Johnson administration.  Fiscal mismanagement in Congress is NOT caused by footing the bill for this war.  It is a symptom, not the disease.

Sorry, but I’m french, and the answer he made is perfectly correct regarding the question. You can’t answer anything else.

Indeed to the question: Why do we pay this tax.

The answer is: To have a service in return, and this service is to be able to get treated without having to worry if we’ll have to afford the treatment or not.

Except that is not the question.  The question is: why do you tell people that it’s free, when it’s not free, but in fact there will be a tax on the citizens to (pretend to) cover the cost.  Gupta is not asking what is the reason for the tax, he is asking how such a tax can exist if the system is “free”.  Obviously, it’s not, and all he wanted was clarity and fairness in Moore’s presentation.

That Moore would fight so hard to avoid being either clear or fair should be quite telling to people.

Also, I’m not 100% clear on this because Gupta’s point was fractured, but about 10% of my current gross goes to health insurance.  And that is a pre-tax deduction, so I don’t pay income tax on that ten per cent.  If I were to assume that France’s numbers would apply here, Moore wants to save me money by taking a 10% deduction, changing it to a 13.5% payroll tax and a 5% income tax, and on top of that, the 10% I was paying before is now taxable income.

If universal health care is supposed to make it affordable for everyone, why am I looking at these numbers and wondering if I would be able to keep my apartment?

That’s the rub of it w0rf, we would all be paying more for our healthcare under a “free” system than we are now.

I would like to see some actual figures that say that we would actually pay more.

RIGHT now, we pay more than France, per person. Everyone in France is covered, most (<90%) of the people here are covered.
All else being equal: With more people receiving medical care, the “per capita” cost will rise, no doubt about it.
All else being equal: With more people paying in (but the same amount receiving service) the “per capita” cost will be the same, but the average of all paying parties will be lower, no doubt about it.
All else being equal: Without the “for-profit middle man” the cost will go down (no matter how you measure it).
How will it balance out? Tough to say. Will it definitely be higher? Definitely lower? If you know, tell us how.

Take a look at the tax rates in France.

Take a look at the tax rates in France.

Do they have a “health care tax”?
If that is the case, how much is it?

Don’t be obtuse. Obviously the money for the “free” healthcare comes from taxes. People in France pay about 50% of their income in taxes.

All else being equal: With more people paying in (but the same amount receiving service) the “per capita” cost will be the same, but the average of all paying parties will be lower, no doubt about it.

Actually, there is doubt about that.

- children are not employed, and so would pay no tax
- a certain percentage of the population is unemployed, and so would pay no tax
- people making below a certain amount of money do not pay income tax at all.  Some of them even get a tax CREDIT from the government!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t these also a lot of the same people who can’t afford insurance in the first place?

How do you intend to get blood from this stone?

All else being equal: Without the “for-profit middle man” the cost will go down (no matter how you measure it).

The government is the “for-profit middle man”.  So based on how I measure that, I don’t see the cost going down.

And we pay about 30%
Should I then assume that the 20% disparity is the “health tax”?
But I’m sure there’s more differences between what French taxes buy and what American taxes buy.

I’m looking for help here. If you’ve got the actual number, please share!

The problem is people don’t have “actual” numbers. You can’t compare disparate systems. But you can look at the relative tax rates for a clue.

I would like to see some actual figures that say that we would actually pay more.

Try this on size . . . France will be running a 66 billion healtcare deficit over the next decade if they don’t

1. Cut services or privatize more services.
2. Raise Taxes.

The U.S. government cannot fix Social Security.

The U.S. government cannot fix Medicare which is problem 7 times larger than social security.

Yet we continue our deficit spending as if none of this matters.

We pay $480 billion dollars a year in interest on the national debt. Part of that debt payment goes into the Social Security Trust Fund as Treasury Notes because we don’t have the real money to make real payments. (Divide $480 billion by 301 million Americans, then multiply it by 3.2 people to see how this relates to the average American family.)

Millions of baby boomers will soon be hitting the roles of SS and Medicare, neither system being presently funded for this crisis.  Meanwhile, we are considering adding to this already unmanagable system—a system that clearly feeds on itself.

It is irresponsible to keep adding to this debt we cannot reduce. Sooner or later, somebody has got to pay. Now is not the time to discuss healthcare. That time will come when we PROVE we are responsible enough to handle debt. And if you waiting for Congress to do that . . . good luck.

It is my opinion, given the present situation, if we take on a single-payer system like Michael Moore thinks we should, health care in this country will become a nightmare for everyone. Compared to how the NHS in the UK rations health care, you ain’t seen nothing until you see the impending disaster awaiting us.

You ask how much this will cost . . . more than you can imagine.

Actually, there is doubt about that. - children are not employed, and so would pay no tax - a certain percentage of the population is unemployed, and so would pay no tax - people making below a certain amount of money do not pay income tax at all. Some of them even get a tax CREDIT from the government! Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t these also a lot of the same people who can’t afford insurance in the first place? How do you intend to get blood from this stone?

I’ll make it simple.

Lets say the total cost is 100 units, and there is 100 people.
First statement (A): “With more people paying”
Last statement (B): “average of all paying parties will be lower”

Lets say, 90 people pay in the old system and 91 people pay in the new system. By the way, 91>90.
In the old system: 90 people are paying 100 units.
Each paying person is paying >1.11 units.
In the new system: 91 people are paying 100 units.
Each paying person is paying <1.10 units.
By the way, 1.10<1.11

Blood: 1.10<1.11
Stone: Statement A and statement B
QED

Average payments don’t matter. The same people are unlikely to be paying in the new system. Those of us that do pay taxes now, will end up paying a whole lot more in taxes to cover ourselves and others. No thanks.

People in France pay about 50% of their income in taxes.

At the highest income bracket (which isn’t that high) there is a ceiling placed on taxes . . . they cannot go higher than 60%.  If the ceiling wasn’t in place taxes for this group taxes would be over 70%.  They even have a wealth tax meaning every year you get to pay a tax on your total assets.

The French are returning full circle back to the world of feudalism . . . I suppose they don’t mind being serfs if it’s for the greater good.

Your “proof” does not demonstrate in any way that people who do not pay taxes will contribute to the system.

And even if I were to concede the point, all you did was prove a possibility.  There is a difference between something being possible and there being NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

I disagree, I believe nearly every working person will pay, something similar to social security.

I just realized, the “90% covered"* figure is kind of confusing. Some people pay for other people’s coverage (families/businesses). So, the number paying must be lower than 90%. I hate to venture a guess, but maybe the percentage paying is closer to… 65%?

*I actually don’t believe it’s this high, but I’m not trying to split hairs.

So UHC will be another Ponzi scheme like SS. Again no thanks. I’ll just keep paying for myself, like it should be for SS.

Your “proof” does not demonstrate in any way that people who do not pay taxes will contribute to the system.

Well good, because nothing in my proof made any such claim.

And even if I were to concede the point, all you did was prove a possibility.  There is a difference between something being possible and there being NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

I made a statement. You said that statement was inaccurate (you quoted it, then said “there is doubt about that"). I proved it was true. Nothing more.

I think that’s where we differ Mike B.. I will happily pay for others’ now for security in the future. In the future (I’d like to believe) I’ll happily pay for others’ because of the care I received in the past.

I’d rather pay a little ALL THE TIME than to pay a LOT ALL AT ONCE. Mainly because I don’t have a lot, but I’ve always had a little.

So I’m a commie and you’re… the opposite of a commie.
So everyone looks fine in someone’s head.

will happily pay for others’ now for security in the future.

How do you know you’ll even get that security in the future. Everyone know that SS is in serious danger of not being able to provide that security in the future. Wouldn’t you rather have your own money in the future than depend on some government program that may not be there?

I will happily pay for others’ now for security in the future. In the future (I’d like to believe) I’ll happily pay for others’ because of the care I received in the past.

I’d rather pay a little ALL THE TIME than to pay a LOT ALL AT ONCE. Mainly because I don’t have a lot, but I’ve always had a little.

And would you be willing to pay more, for reduced quality of that care?  The care you received in the past, will be just that, in the past.

Well good, because nothing in my proof made any such claim.

If you are not claiming that, then your proof is not a response AT ALL to my point.

I made a statement. You said that statement was inaccurate (you quoted it, then said “there is doubt about that"). I proved it was true. Nothing more.

You did not prove there is no doubt about it.  I directly negated one of the two premises on which your conclusion relies.

just realized, the “90% covered"* figure is kind of confusing. Some people pay for other people’s coverage (families/businesses).

Not at all. Especially in the case of business, since health care is something that can be offered as an enticement, thats just as significant to offer someone health care for working for you as it is to offer someone higher pay which they could themselves put to health care.

I think that’s where we differ Mike B.. I will happily pay for others’ now for security in the future. In the future (I’d like to believe) I’ll happily pay for others’ because of the care I received in the past.

Bit of contrast there, given how inept things like social security are going, I’m 22 and I’m ALREADY putting money I’m earning into investments for retirement. Because I strongly suspect that when I need it, there won’t be anyone there to give me handouts. My future is my responsibility to secure, not others, and I intend to be prepared for it given how well the government is doing on that front already. Some money here, some money there, over time, it adds up when I invest it too. Except that money is just for my interests to take care of me when I retire, I’m not having others asking for their share as well.

How do you know you’ll even get that security in the future.

Unfortunately, I don’t.

Everyone know that SS is in serious danger of not being able to provide that security in the future. Wouldn’t you rather have your own money in the future than depend on some government program that may not be there?

That’s a tough call. If I were a betting man, I’d bet the government program would be more able to pay for a catastrophic emergency than I would at any point in time.

And would you be willing to pay more, for reduced quality of that care?

Well, no. I’m just not convinced that the quality of care would go down.

Well, no. I’m just not convinced that the quality of care would go down.

You HAVE to assume that, you put forth the premise of adding 47 million people to the pool at the same price.

You did not prove there is no doubt about it.  I directly negated one of the two premises on which your conclusion relies.

w0rf, come on. If you don’t believe in “math” and “numbers” then that’s fine, but you’re making yourself look like a fool.

You HAVE to assume that, you put forth the premise of adding 47 million people to the pool at the same price.

No, I don’t. As Buzz stated above, there’s 2 choices.
1. Cut services or privatize more services.
2. Raise Taxes.
I admit it, the 3rd choice (Magically make the services cheaper.) isn’t really an option. But I’m willing to live with option 2.

It’s my contention that option 2 will be offset by reduction of other costs, like the cost of private health care.

On a personal level, since I’m paying very little into “the pool” (whatever they’ve taken for Medicaid); I will surely be paying MORE (sorry, I’m talking about that confusing greater-than less-than stuff again). If I continue to receive the same benefits I am now (exactly “0") then I’ll be paying for nothing. I’m willing to live with that.

That’s a tough call. If I were a betting man, I’d bet the government program would be more able to pay for a catastrophic emergency than I would at any point in time.

You realise, though, that having private insurance is the exact same thing. You’re betting, for a certain amount each month or each year that you pay, that you’re going to get so sick that you’ll not be able to afford it.
But you get to decide how you place that bet. My family has always opted for cheaper plans but with higher deductibles. Which usually means if we’ve had a year where we’ve reached the deductibles fully, we make sure to take care of anything else that might need attention before the year is out rather than wait for the next year to begin and we have to work up the deductibles again. The only difference is, in this situation, we’re deciding how we place that bet. Not legislation.

And then there are the 260 million already in the pool.  Suddenly they’re no longer “paying” for their care, so they may start going to the doctor a lot more for little things that they may not have before.  That’s additional strain.

Well, no. I’m just not convinced that the quality of care would go down.

Then look at the oldest health care system around . . . the NHS in the UK.

Do you agree denying obese people hip and knee replacements is an improvement to their program?

w0rf, come on. If you don’t believe in “math” and “numbers” then that’s fine, but you’re making yourself look like a fool.

You said if more people pay into the system at the same cost, then the per capita price would be reduced.

That is not math or numbers, that is a logical construct.

There are many low-income people who DO NOT PAY TAXES.  Those people WILL NOT BE PAYING INTO THE SYSTEM.  There is a strong correlation between that income level and the number of uninsured.

That is math and numbers.

So how about you “come on”?

I’m also wondering about eliminating profit from the equation.

1. What happens to all the people who work in the industry? If they become unemployed, will they go on the welfare roles . . . if they become part of the new system they still get paid . . . how is this reducing administrative costs?

2. Who is going to pick up the tap for the billion of dollars the industry pays in income taxes every year? No profit = no income = zero income taxes.

(sorry, I’m talking about that confusing greater-than less-than stuff again)

Your sarcasm would be better noted if you would actually get the things I say correct.  Maybe you should focus your efforts more on that and less on coming up with (supposedly) witty ways of demonstrating that you’re not even trying to understand.

If I continue to receive the same benefits I am now (exactly “0") then I’ll be paying for nothing. I’m willing to live with that.

What you are and are not “willing to live with” is irrelevant if the government appropriates the money by force of law.  You can only talk about what you are “willing to live with” in a free market.

Blood, stone… OK

I’ll make it simple.

Lets say the total cost is 100 units, and there is 100 people.
First statement (A): “With more people paying”
Last statement (B): “average of all paying parties will be lower”

Lets say, 90 people pay in the old system and 91 people pay in the new system. By the way, 91>90.
In the old system: 90 people are paying 100 units.
Each paying person is paying >1.11 units.
In the new system: 91 people are paying 100 units.
Each paying person is paying <1.10 units.
By the way, 1.10<1.11

Blood: 1.10<1.11
Stone: Statement A and statement B
QED

Not to dredge up something old here… but I had a thought on this.... he misrepresented the situation, I think.
To be a bit more representative of what the pool represents....assuming each person pays in 1 unit, and there are 100 people, currently the pool is everyone that has insurance anyway. If you’re not paying in to health insurance companies, then you’re not getting paid out either. In other words, if 90 people have insurance, there are 90 units in the pool, but only 90 people benefiting from that same pool that is health insurance companies.
Now, if you suggest that the remaining 10 people don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it, and create a plan to cover everyone, you either have to start taking money they don’t have, or not have them pay into the system (which is exactly what the lower incomes do already).
This means that the pool still has 90 units from the people that were paying into the pool already, but now they give out care to everyone, not just the people that actually paid something in. That’s .9 units for everyone.

So, old system where everyone is paying in to health insurance companies, the people that are getting health insurance get 1 unit back, on average. The people that aren’t getting health insurance don’t get anything and are on their own (though there are seperate govt plans for low incomes when this is looked at practically)

In the new system where everyone gets a pay out when not everyone put a pay in, (a national health plan) then everyone gets .9 back. For everyone that was insured already, thats a loss of return and they get back less than they put in. For those that aren’t contributing its an increase from 0 to .9.

However, again, in our current system, those that can’t afford it get benefits via government plans, so the construct above doesn’t fit the real world scenario quite that well, as the poor will get coverage from somewhere, it just won’t be from the health insurance pool.

It’s my contention that option 2 will be offset by reduction of other costs, like the cost of private health care.

It’s my contention that government is woefully ill-equiped to compete with private enterprise in any meaningful way.  You’re not going to reduce the cost enough to matter.  Health care costs are going to continue to rise and that has nothing to do with profits.

Meanwhile, you cannot name one major single-payer program in the world that is not presently under-funded.

Lowbacca, your analysis is much better.

You said if more people pay into the system at the same cost, then the per capita price would be reduced.

No.
I said…

All else being equal: With more people paying in (but the same amount receiving service) the “per capita” cost will be the same, but the average of all paying parties will be lower, no doubt about it.

I’ll highlight the important parts… since it’s clear your reading comprehension isn’t very high either.

Your version: “if more people pay into the system at the same cost”
My version: “With more people paying in (but the same amount receiving services)”

So far we’re in agreement. Both versions have the same message.
But here’s where something went awry…

Your version: “then the per capita price would be reduced.”
My version: “the ‘per capita’ cost will be the same”

Here is where you’ve taken what I’ve said, and got the message exactly opposite. There’s actually one word that you seem to have messed up the worst…

Your version: ”reduced”
My version: ”same”

I do use a synonym of “reduce” though ("lower"), maybe that’s where… well, you know… You forgot what words mean.

Your version: “then the per capita price would be reduced.”
My version: “the average of all paying parties will be lower”

On the surface; these look similar. BUT if you delve into the subject of each sentence fragment.

Yours: “per capita”
Mine: “paying parties”

Then you might notice a stark difference. To be included in your group, you have to be a person, to be included in my group, you have to pay.

My god, you’re dragging me down into the very type of argument I tried to decry over here.
w0rf say what you will, I’m not dissecting any more posts because of your learning disability. Well not for at least a day, I do sorta enjoy it.

Now, if you suggest that the remaining 10 people don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it, and create a plan to cover everyone, you either have to start taking money they don’t have, or not have them pay into the system (which is exactly what the lower incomes do already).
This means that the pool still has 90 units from the people that were paying into the pool already, but now they give out care to everyone, not just the people that actually paid something in. That’s .9 units for everyone.

You are more or less correct.  His premise relied on 90 or 91 people paying a total of 100 units, and thus the cost per would be lower.  The problem is that the output of 100 units would be reduced from 1.11 to a straight 1 due to redistribution.

But then he says that the same amount of people are receiving service.  So 91 people are paying to cover 90, and the other 10 are still left out in the cold.  That is antithetical to the entire premise of the socialized system (FREE FOR ALL!!!)

The bottom line is, it’s a shell game.  The same coverage for the same people is no change.  The same coverage for more people will cost more.  Covering more people at the same cost will reduce output.  You can’t rely on a significant offset from a segment of the population that already does not pay any taxes.  Nor can you rely on the government to reduce the cost TO YOU when providing services; at best, history shows they will reduce their own cost, and then re-purpose the funds.  Add in that universal systems are universally underfunded, our country already owes trillions of dollars, Medicare Part D is a perfect modern example of how our costs will far exceed our projections, and the ideal of health care for all will remain exactly that, a pie-in-the-sky ideal.

But what do I know, I apparently don’t believe in “math” or “numbers” if I don’t subscribe to oversimplified platitudes.

w0rf say what you will, I’m not dissecting any more posts because of your learning disability. Well not for at least a day, I do sorta enjoy it.

How surprised am I that you stooped to personal insults rather than make a rational argument.  Your inability to include all factors in an argument has nothing to do with the learning capacity of others.  You can’t simultaneously cover more people but have the “same amount receiving service”, you can’t simultaneously raise costs and have them be the same, and you can’t have more people paying into the system by adding more non-taxpayers.

You spend so much energy taking stupid jabs at people about “lol greater than less than” but you change the conditions of your formula with each new paragraph.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.  Pick one paradigm and stick with it.

If you’re not paying in to health insurance companies, then you’re not getting paid out either.

This is untrue.
I broke it down in another thread, lemme find it.

OK, it’s over here. Page 2, a good deal in. Search for the word “Deadbeat”.

Oh, good, another thread where you get my point totally wrong.  I was worried that you were limiting yourself.

My girlfriend, back in January, had to go through medical care in the U.S.(she’s an Australian resident though, and her family has a private health care plan). Whathere insurance company did with the bills for her emergency room visit was negotiate with the health care providers for how much the care was really worth. That process was actually something the insurance company TOLD her family that they do routinely. They have people whose job it is to negotiate with hospitals and doctors to get to how much the service was really worth. Its only people that pay directly out of pocket that don’t have that benefit because they aren’t in the power to negotiate like insurance companies can, as larger entities.

Though I’ll also add that I like that my refutation has gone uncriticised thus far.

I’ll volunteer for that, Low.

LOL READING COMPREHENSION MATH NUMBERS YOU NO DO KNOW WORDS GOOD

Feel better?

thanks w0rf, that means a lot.

Actually, wait, I’ve got no idea what all that means, actually.

w0rf, it’s unfortunate we are having this serious communication problem.

I’m willing to admit that it may be me.

I clearly think I’m making perfect sense, you clearly think you’re making perfect sense. But neither of us can agree, even on very basic statements.

I’ll see what I can do to refrain from mentioning or quoting anything you’ve written, for fear that either I am getting what you’ve said wrong, or you’ll get what I say wrong.

I hope we can both get along on this forum.

LOL READING COMPREHENSION MATH NUMBERS YOU NO DO KNOW WORDS GOOD

Excellent point . . . I didn’t think of that one.  Low . . . it’s back to the drawing board.

I’ll see what I can do to refrain from mentioning or quoting anything you’ve written, for fear that either I am getting what you’ve said wrong, or you’ll get what I say wrong.

Conversation is not served any more by avoiding each other than it is by hurling insults.  If it is your preference to just forget the whole thing, there’s nothing I can do to stop you.  But I’ve been providing posts with detailed explanations of my point, so a misunderstanding may or may not exist, but it isn’t because I haven’t been trying to make myself clear.  What you do from there is your choice.