EYE-OPENER..Universal HealthCare In America Would Be Surprisingly Inexpensive.!

a reply to: carewemust

Three points:
First, government run anything ALWAYS costs more than the private sector version.
Second, It's not the place of the government to pay for my (or anyone else) healthcare
Third, the 600B cost of insurance companies is laughable and there's no real explanation of how they came to that conclusion. Without that 600B savings the numbers fall apart.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Those nations all have less diversity in, race, religion and culture. See how well that standard holds up as the influx of middle- eastern and African immigrants begins to multiply. An influx of uneducated people from low trust societies is not conducive to sustaining that standard of living.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: carewemust

Three points:
First, government run anything ALWAYS costs more than the private sector version.
Second, It's not the place of the government to pay for my (or anyone else) healthcare
Third, the 600B cost of insurance companies is laughable and there's no real explanation of how they came to that conclusion. Without that 600B savings the numbers fall apart.

1. Not when it comes to the cost of medical care. Hospitals, Doctors, Pharmacies RAPE private health insurance companies. They get (on average) 25% less money for Medicare patients.
Ref: www.texmed.org... (Texas study, but USA ratios are similar)

2. A little over half of America receives GOVERNMENT healthcare.
Ref: www.cnsnews.com...

3. For 2016, the Health Insurance industry had $804 Billion in revenue.
www.ibisworld.com...

Take the $804 Billion, plus the $1 Trillion in taxes that are already built in to ObamaCare...redirect those funds to a Universal Healthcare system, and taxes will not need to go up by much at all, in my opinion.

a reply to: carewemust

1. medicare has a lot of problems with dr's accepting it as they don't make anything (and often times lose money) by taking medicare patients. That's not really a great argument. But equally as important, medicare is going bust. The average person pays in 1/3 of what the government pays out for them. That model works great for an ever increasing population, but with population growth slowing it's going to go belly up really fast. That's why they are cutting the allowed charges for things and the reason it's becoming more and more difficult to use.

2. And? That doesn't make it the proper, principled thing to do.

3. But I thought the point was that it would be cheaper? So we're going to take all the money we currently spend on insurance and give that to the government plus what we pay in taxes already, plus more in taxes? That sounds like it's more expensive to me.

a reply to: carewemust

* The 2015 Medicare Trustees Report projects the future finances of the Medicare program based upon high, low, and intermediate-cost assumptions.[196] Per the intermediate assumptions, the Medicare program faces a $27.6 trillion ($27,600,000,000,000) actuarial deficit over the next 75 years (in 2015 dollars). The report states that the resources needed to cover this deficit “would be in addition to the payroll taxes, benefit taxes, and premium payments.”[197]

This amounts to $28.5 trillion or an additional $110,555 from every U.S. resident aged 15 or older.

JustFacts


Yup, government we can count on.

The fact that we're charged basically 10X on private side and you say government is great because it only pays 7.5X is just plain illogical.

Either way it's still financial rape but you'd be okay getting raped 75%

Just shaking my head on that one.

a reply to: Phoenix

And that highlights the issue. The only reason we're getting charged only 7.5x on the government side, instead of 10x, is because the government isn't fully funding what they should be. They're running it poorly and directly into the ground.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: carewemust

1. medicare has a lot of problems with dr's accepting it as they don't make anything (and often times lose money) by taking medicare patients. That's not really a great argument. But equally as important, medicare is going bust. The average person pays in 1/3 of what the government pays out for them. That model works great for an ever increasing population, but with population growth slowing it's going to go belly up really fast. That's why they are cutting the allowed charges for things and the reason it's becoming more and more difficult to use.

2. And? That doesn't make it the proper, principled thing to do.

3. But I thought the point was that it would be cheaper? So we're going to take all the money we currently spend on insurance and give that to the government plus what we pay in taxes already, plus more in taxes? That sounds like it's more expensive to me.

1. Medicare and Private Insurance spending are projected to DOUBLE over the next 9 years.
Source: kff.org...
Choose your poison.

2. No it doesn't. Just pointing out that over 50% of Americans have government healthcare. It's almost as if we're at 50% taxpayer-funded Universal Healthcare already. It would be interesting to compare the satisfaction rates of Government Healthcare recipients against Private Healthcare recipients. There might have been a recent study. I'll see if there's been an unbiased one.

3. Too many variables for a good estimate. There's also the reduction of the deductible (out-of-pocket) costs to consider. Universal Health Care would not have the $7,100 per-person annual Deductible that ObamaCare plans have.

At any rate, there won't be Universal Health Care before all current ObamaCare plans expire on 12.31.2017. Some form of the AHCA is what we're looking at. My hopes are that the built-in Government Option for people with existing Medical conditions is structured and funded properly. And that the Private Health Insurance industry isn't weighed down with cost-increasing Mandates, like ObamaCare is/was.

a reply to: Phoenix


Like President Trump said about ObamaCare, the U.S. medical-care delivery system will "blow up" at some point over the next decade.

This reminds me of that extraordinary secretly-made recording of the General Motors board, debating ways to cause retirees to die sooner. The retiree medical costs were severely hurting the auto-maker's bottom line around 2008.

a reply to: carewemust

1. Kaiser is horrible with projections. They claimed obamacare would save people money while insuring more people.

3. The deductible would still need to be paid and who would pay it, the tax payer. In fact, without a deductible, it's reasonable to think that spending on HC would increase dramatically. So the government has two options in that case: limit services or raise taxes.

My point: The market is efficient where the government is not (as) efficient. To think that switching from private sector insurance to public sector insurance will result in any sort of savings is to exercise insanity. Our healthcare system needs a massive overhaul but it's a systemic issue, not an insurance issue.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

This was actually a nice choice of words that former President Obama delivered tonight...

""Former President Obama called on members of Congress on Sunday night to show political courage in the debate over the new health care law, which was passed in the House last week.

Obama, speaking at the John F. Kenney President Library and Museum in Boston, did not criticize Republicans nor did he attack President Trump in his 30-minute speech. He was receiving the Profile In Courage Award from members of the Kennedy family.

“I hope that current members of Congress recall that it actually doesn’t take a lot of courage to aid those who are already powerful … but it does require some courage to champion the vulnerable and the sick and the infirm and those who often have no access to the corridors of power,” Obama said.

“I hope they understand that courage means not simply doing what is politically expedient, but doing what they believe deep in their hearts is right,” he added.

According to The Hill, Obama asserted that the debate over health care in the U.S. “is not settled.”"

Source: www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: jefwane

Seems people have had media and politicians ingrain insurance / government as solution to point of pavlovian brain washing where when a true permanent solution is presented they immediately shut down or repeat same falsehoods over and over and over.

My reluctance is that our government has proven that it will take our money, misappropriate the funds, and then end up in bigger and bigger deficits. I don't trust our government to take our money and fund healthcare properly based on its track record.

The U.S. Government does a good job with Medicare. People in their early 60's count the months until they can kiss private insurance good-bye. Their older friends on Medicare often tease them (in fun of course) about how little they paid for their treatment, surgery, therapy, medication, etc..

Yeah its quite amazing how people change their mind about government services when they no longer have to pay for them.

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: carewemust

Yes it would be a huge shift.

A huge shift toward communism.

And I dont see why my tax dollars should be wasted on others peoples health.

So to answer your questions: 1 No and 2 At least 30$.

With that attitude there would be a complete breakdown in public services.

In the US the top 10% of earners pay in excess of 70% of the taxes raised, yet only earn approx 45% of the wages. The top 1% raise 37% of national tax revenue.

At the other end of the spectrum the bottom 50% of earners provide only 2% of all taxe revenue, yet earned around 12% of national income.

In other words people with money already contribute more per head than poorer people. If everyone paid the same then th bottom 50% would suffer disproportionately.

There is always a redistribution of tax money for public services. How would doing this for health care be any different?

It amazes me how so many ignore the issue of cost. It's like they've changed got their ears covered when you talk about the gouging endemic in medical goods and services but pricing. It's rather easy to see what a real fair price for service would be. There are several clinics and hospitals in the US that pay actual cash prices that very are a tenth to a fifth if what is currently billed on a cash basis. You can also compare similar services cash costs in developed nations like Japan and Hong Kong. Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with the costs us either stupid it evil and in some way profiting from them.

No single payer, market,or two tier system has any chance of working unless costs are ruthlessly addressed. Otherwise your better off getting a passport and going to Japan, India, or even somewhere in the states operating like Oklahoma City Surgical Center, and praying you don't need emergency care.

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: Salander

Unfortunately military spending has to be the way it is because no other country is capable of defending theirself.

America is the only country in the world that tries to keep the world peaceful.

And that's expensive. ANd I'd say its more important than paying the healthcare for some unemployed layabout.

America tries to keep the world peaceful? You must have really drunk the Nobel Kool Aid deeply when Barack received its fraudulent Peace Prize.

The brutal reality is that America overthrows legitimately elected governments around the world for many long decades. South and Central America, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and more.

Our drones kill innocents all around the world. Our manned aircraft kill innocents all around the world. You seem quite naïve about what your government does with our tax dollars.

I know I don't have any control over how they spend my tax dollars, but I would much rather they all be spent on healthcare rather than on collateral murder and genocide.

I dont know about other people, but $358 a month ($4300 a year as you say) is not money I have.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Phoenix


Like President Trump said about ObamaCare, the U.S. medical-care delivery system will "blow up" at some point over the next decade.

Like I said, we have had laws on the books to deal with what's going on in healthcare for a long time.

If applying those laws means "blowing up" currently very corrupt form we have then so be it.

Trump does not need congress to fix this as laws already exist.

Couple things congress could do is institute loser pays on malpractice suits and reimportation of pharmaceuticals which would spread marketing and R&D costs fairly.

I think enough evidence has been presented that shows nothing else will work whether it be private, public or some hybrid unless and until costs are determined in a market free of monopolies, collusion and political graft.

Taking a position that continues these practices will result not only with collapse in medical industry but risks collapsing entire economy.

Under AHCA the math says soon as 4 years to collapse.

Under New proposed legislation it's approximately 6 years.

Just as in Banking, Housing, Consumer and Student Debt - the longer we push off truly fixing the problem the worse it gets and more painful to correct.

I am seeing, by folks wanting to perpetuate this fraud in one form or another due their self interests in continuing the fraud that we have,

TO BIG TO FAIL MED

Do you think there is chance that happened by design.

originally posted by: coop039
I dont know about other people, but $358 a month ($4300 a year as you say) is not money I have.

You probably wouldn't have to. The $4300 per year assumes that all tax payers contribute the same amount regardless of earnings. In reality it would be taken as a percentage of tax. The more you earn the more you pay in tax, as is already the case with public services.

a reply to: jefwane

As I said page or two up,

Soon as one mentions doing something about costs which is "nut" of the matter some (many) start to go la,la,la,la,la with ears covered, eyes closed and minds repeatedly running "you'll get back to Kansas by clicking heels and repeating, government pays, government pays, government pays" and magically "poof" it's all good now.

We'll folks sorry to say "that only happens in the movies"

Maybe I can try this from another tack,

I know for a fact certain practicioners are seeing up to 20 patients an hour and billing medicare in 15 minute allotments per patient. Ka Ching!

This been going on for 15 years that I'm aware of so one could say business as usual. Wink! wink!

You'd think some faceless beauracrat apparatchik would wake up one day and say wait a minute it's impossible to see more than 4 patients an hour with billing rules, nope!

This is not an isolated situation and is rampant ongoing fraud.

So question,

Why would one promulgate turning over all healthcare to a system obviously condoning long running fraudulent activety.

a reply to: Phoenix

It's interesting that an increasing number of physicians are now advocating "Universal Healthcare".

www.rawstory.com...

But of course, they never mention a need to lower costs...simply to redirect existing funds to the UHC system.