Comparing Italy

"Doug Freyburger" ha scritto nel messaggio


Show me one country in the world where they have a 50% tax to pay for health
care.

Italy's health insurance tax is 7.5%
 
In article ,
"graham" wrote:


There is no competition. Each state allows in who it wants. In Nevada,
we have *one* choice which is BCBS. I suppose you can buy BCBS from an
independent broker, but you end up with BCBS period.
On another note, I've watched med insurance skyrocket from $350 per
month for two of us to $770 per month for just me in twelve years.
Why would a person want competitive rates? They reduce insurance costs.
Why would a person want tort reform? Although tort settlements are small
compared to medical cost in general, tort threat to the medical industry
has skyrocketed the premiums that doctors and hospitals pay. Seriously.
Doctors pay more in insurance premiums than many of us made in our best
year. Deity knows what hospitals pay.
Where does it all go? We have been paying for people without insurance
for a long time in insurance premiums and income tax. The cost is hidden.
The current health plan is not the solution. But I'm not political ;)

leo
 
sf wrote:

The bulk of the people who choose to not get health insurance are the
young and healthy who made the decision to put those funds towards other
uses. This is well documented.
 
sf wrote:

And no different tax rates. I've long been a proponent of a flat rate
tax as the only fair and constitutional (equal under the law) tax
structure. There are a lot of people paying a lower percentage of their
income in taxes that I do, and a lot paying a higher percentage and that
simply isn't fair.
 
"Giusi" wrote in
news:[email protected]:


Everybody but the US has universal healthcare.

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.
 
"Pete C." wrote in
news:[email protected]:


Now that argument is fallacious because it implies that money
given by the US goes directly to support "socialized" health care
systems, whereas it doesn't. The US is notorious in agreeing
only to strictly tied aid and I'm going to go out on a limb here
(not very far mind you) and suggest that health care of any sort
is not even on the radar. Most aid given in the past was for
military upgrades or infrastructure programs such as roads for
the military to roll on. Of course, most countries with a viable
health care system can afford these, and conversely the US can no
longer afford much in the way of aid, so the point is moot.

Canada does not now receive, nor had it ever received any aid
from the US and yet has a perfectly viable healthcare system. So
do Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and France. So who exactly were
you talking about? Lower Slobbovia?

--

The Bible! Because all the works of science cannot equal the
wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every
animal species in the world lived within walking distance of
Noah's house.
 
Giusi wrote:

IF this means that living in Italy is better

If Italy were your home instead of The United States you would...
spend 60.84% less money on health care
Per capita public and private health expenditures combined in Italy are
$2,631 USD while The United States spends $6,719 USD


THEN living in Russia is even better than Italy

If Russia were your home instead of Italy you would...
spend 73.47% less money on health care
Per capita public and private health expenditures combined in Russia are
$698 USD while Italy spends $2,631 USD


BUT living in Burma is even better than Russia.

NO WONDER Burma is the immigration capitol of the world.

If Burma were your home instead of Russia you would...
spend 96.56% less money on health care
Per capita public and private health expenditures combined in Burma are $24
USD while Russia spends $698 USD


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
 
On Apr 9, 5:45?am, Boron Elgar wrote:

These percentages don't give you a sense of what it's like to live in
these places. Remember:

In Germany everything is forbidden unless it is specifically allowed.
In France, everything is allowed unless it is specifically forbidden.
In Italy, everything that is forbidden is allowed.
 
Giusi wrote:

Yes, it is. The only US states that are smaller in area than Scotland
are: West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, and of
course DC which isn't a state.
 
Giusi wrote:

And Ms. Wilder gave us an excellent example of the third world quality
health care you get for that. I pay approximately 1.2% of my income for
my excellent health insurance which doesn't send me to third world
quality "wards", nor require me to have my friends / relatives take care
of me in one of those sub standard "wards".

Chances are that 7.5% figure you quote doesn't tell the whole story
either if you dig into the details to see what that 7.5% really pays for
vs. what portions of the system are funded from other taxes.

Also realize that the small high population density countries in Europe
can better get away with socialized health care because of their small
size which allows a relatively small number of government health care
facilities can serve the bulk of the population, something that is not
possible in the vastly larger and lower population density US. This is
also why public transit is only useable in a very tiny percentage of the
US.
 
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:21:03 +0200, "Giusi"
wrote:


Doug was talking about our income tax. Our current top rate [federal-
not including state income taxes] is 35%. In reality, most of our
billionaires pay less than 20. But there is a faction who thinks the
rich are taxed too much. [And before someone says 'The top 5%
pay 60% of the federal income tax collected' - I'll point out that
they make 75% of the money.]

I'm one of those folks [along with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and
other billionaires] who thinks the wealthy pay too little in taxes. A
billionaire should not pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes
than his secretary does.

Jim
 
Janet wrote:

Australia has a very lopsided population density with the bulk of it's
population in relatively high density areas and a very small portion of
it's population in very low density areas. The US population
distribution is quite different.
 
In article , Kent wrote:




Right.

A common metric is percent of GDP devoted to healthcare, which when
combined with GDP per person can give you a per-person figure for the
amount spent on healthcare. But such a figure needs to adjusted for
imports and exports -- the U.S. consumes a lot of health-care imports
(including such stuff as latex gloves and syringes) that don't figure
into the U.S. GDP. Conversely the U.S. exports some healthcare products.
I suspect the U.S. is a net importer of healthcare products, just
like it's a net importer of most product sectors.

I'm not sure how big the health tourism component is. Seems to
me a lot of dental work and elective surgery is done in latin
America. This is magnified by the fact the most Americans do
not have full health coverage.

It would be a complicated calculation to do entirely correctly.


Steve
 
"Ed Pawlowski" ha scritto nel messaggio >
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/IT

What has that got to do with anything? Really. As it happens, the US
doesn?t actually make much anymore, does it? I could say that about Italy,
too, to some degree, but Italy is an indistrialized country, does make and
export products of all kinds, manufactures cars, trucks, planes,
helicopters, fashion, shoes, signage (almost all the arrival and departure
signs in the US are Italian) and myriad other things. Your example is
false. I can hardly find a thing to bring back here that is "made in the
USA."


BY LAW landlords must between October and April provide heat at 20?C. You
ran into a cheat.


Choosing smaller cars and public transport certainly affects these results.
Look at the other Euro countries, they all use less than the US, but you
will admit, perhaps that they must be manufacturing things, or the balance
of payments wouldn't be so out ofwhack? Italians own more cars per head
than any country in the world, last published count. I find that Italians
in general travel more than Americans in general. After all, they have 4-6
weeks of vacation a year to do it in.


But that is part of the national statistic, which means that some Italians
are having a lifestyle that is way better than yours. Maybe it's just
Berlusconi?

All that said, I'd not mind living in Italy. In general, it is a nicer >
lifestyle, more relaxed. Good food. I'd also want a domestic car like a
 
On Apr 15, 8:40?pm, Leonard Blaisdell
wrote:

Maybe we need single payer malpractice insurance.

The total cost of defensive medicine + indemnity payments to those
injured by their doctors + insurance company overhead is $55 billion a
year, or 2.4% of annual medical expenditures. Defensive medicine
accounts for 80% of this total, so 20 percent goes to malpractice
insurance.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-eve...inter-2011/the-true-cost-of-medical-liability
 
"Janet" ha scritto nel messaggio

Catch this ball Pete; you said

"Also realize that the small high population density countries in Europe
can better get away with socialized health care because of their small
size which allows a relatively small number of government health care
facilities can serve the bulk of the population, something that is not
possible in the vastly larger and lower population density US.

USA covers 3,794,083 sq miles. Population density 87 per square mile.

Australia covers 2,941,299 sq m, population density < 8 per square mile.

Australia has socialised health care, everywhere.

Janet

When nations all over the west were rebuilding after WWII, they decided that
everyone would have a roof and health care. The US didn't. Was it because
they didn't have to rebuild? I've never figured it out.

I remember that except for veterans there was little or no insurance ion my
parents' time. Need an operation? You paid for it, maybe over time and it
only cost $300 all inclusive. Of course a scientist probably made $5000 per
year in that area. But the great inflation in healthcare began and it has
never stopped.

Some lucky people have affordable insurance until they get a debilitating or
dangerous or chronic serious disease. Then they'll have just as much
problem as the contract worker with 4 kids making $60,000 a year.

It's a sad case and sad too that so many have been brain washed into
thinking it is some form of communism.
 
"Pete C." ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4da09f19$0$2673


I expect you to prove that's the basis of these figures.

In the US, the health care

1) not that many feel they have to buy private or go private, but it isn't
only wealthy who do it, either. I know many people who get plastic surgery
and that is out of their pockets.
2) the health care figure AFAIK includes all expenditure. While a city like
Rome does have some private hospitals, most of Italy has few if any at all.
Also, people on the national insurance are sent to private hospitals if they
need the care offered and the public hospital doesn't have it to offer.

My neighbors' child is suffering from a vary rare disease of the bones. She
has had extraordinary care for several years now. If she can get into
adulthood with all her limbs, she should be okay as it is a disease
primarily of childhood or adolescence. She has reached the point of needing
a radical new treatment invented in a famous Rome hospital and only
available as an experiment. As soon as school is out she is being moved to
Rome and the national health insurance will pay for the treatment and also
for hostel type accomodations for a parent at all times until she returns
home.

Father is a farmer and mom cooks in a nursery school. Can you imagine that
scenario in the US? Would she get that treatment? Would she get it only if
the parents lost their land and home and all savings first?
 
Back
Top