Sanders: ‘I'm Going to Introduce a Medicare-for-All, Single-Payer Program’

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's through my employer, it used to be absolutely free for us. Slowly we payed more and more over the years. For a little while they were talking about canceling it all together and making us go to Obamacare to due the tax on "Cadillac plans" and other reasons.

Well, good for you. I'm 1099 self-employed so I pay through the nose.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: brutus61

A single payer system always has high cost and low quality. A free market and competition is what drives down prices. When you spend your own money on ANYTHING your goal is to maximize quality and minimize costs right? This is what makes companies compete for your business, they seek ways to maximize efficiency and lower cost to deliver a superior product to you at a better price.

Governments on the other hand never worry about efficiency. Can you name one thing our government does that is efficient in all cost, quality, and time?

According to your figures a 6.2% increase in taxes would amount to $6,200.00 per year per $100,000.00 of income. Some of the deductibles under the current healthcare system are $5,000.00 and then you have to factor in the cost.

That is just ONE of the taxes. Right now my healthcare is $200 a month which covers my entire family (wife, 3 kids) and that amounts to about $2400 a year. There are no deductibles and there is a copay of 20 dollars for a doctor visit and 50 for ER. So you're saying I should pay $6,200 a year, almost triple what I do now? Keep in mind this doesn't include all of the other taxes this would require and it STILL wouldn't pay for itself! How often do taxes not go up? How long before that 6.2 percent turns into 10 percent or 15?

There needs to be some sort of regulation put in place to prevent abuse. Not all cases are equal and some people will need more visits for extenuating circumstances but overall most people don't need to go to the emergency room more than twice a year if that much.

Like I said before never has Government fixed anything. Everything they touch gets worse. More regulations, more taxes, more bureaucracy, less freedom.

Where do you live? We all need to move there!

I want to see single payer until the private companies become more efficient. You don't see any commercials on TV like you do for car insurance. That's because the cartels are pricing fixing premiums and it's a complete scam since the hospitals are owned by the insurance provider CEOs. So the CEOs, that is hospitals, scam us by overcharging.

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: brutus61

A single payer system always has high cost and low quality. A free market and competition is what drives down prices. When you spend your own money on ANYTHING your goal is to maximize quality and minimize costs right? This is what makes companies compete for your business, they seek ways to maximize efficiency and lower cost to deliver a superior product to you at a better price.

Governments on the other hand never worry about efficiency. Can you name one thing our government does that is efficient in all cost, quality, and time?

According to your figures a 6.2% increase in taxes would amount to $6,200.00 per year per $100,000.00 of income. Some of the deductibles under the current healthcare system are $5,000.00 and then you have to factor in the cost.

That is just ONE of the taxes. Right now my healthcare is $200 a month which covers my entire family (wife, 3 kids) and that amounts to about $2400 a year. There are no deductibles and there is a copay of 20 dollars for a doctor visit and 50 for ER. So you're saying I should pay $6,200 a year, almost triple what I do now? Keep in mind this doesn't include all of the other taxes this would require and it STILL wouldn't pay for itself! How often do taxes not go up? How long before that 6.2 percent turns into 10 percent or 15?

There needs to be some sort of regulation put in place to prevent abuse. Not all cases are equal and some people will need more visits for extenuating circumstances but overall most people don't need to go to the emergency room more than twice a year if that much.

Like I said before never has Government fixed anything. Everything they touch gets worse. More regulations, more taxes, more bureaucracy, less freedom.

Where do you live? We all need to move there!

My thoughts exactly!

originally posted by: FauxMulder
Like I said before never has Government fixed anything. Everything they touch gets worse. More regulations, more taxes, more bureaucracy, less freedom.

Here is one point that I used to agree with. But these days I don't. If the government didn't step in 40 years ago to fix our air pollution, water pollution and land pollution caused from the thousands of steel and iron mills dumping their byproducts directly into the very waterways we drink from, our country would look like Beijing, China. That coupled with the fact that most of them are shut down, are the reasons we have clean waterways and (mostly) clean air today.

So, we have to give them some credit. Its a necessary evil to have a gov't that tells mankind NOT to pollute their own water and air.

Without it, people will do whatever they please if it means more money for them. Disgusting, but the nature of business is not to help people thrive. Its to make money.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I could provide you with sources and "proof" but would you accept my sources? Probably not.

Sigle payer harms doctors and patients.
why a single payer system would ruin healthcare
single payer is inherently problematic

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: brutus61

A single payer system always has high cost and low quality. A free market and competition is what drives down prices. When you spend your own money on ANYTHING your goal is to maximize quality and minimize costs right? This is what makes companies compete for your business, they seek ways to maximize efficiency and lower cost to deliver a superior product to you at a better price.

Governments on the other hand never worry about efficiency. Can you name one thing our government does that is efficient in all cost, quality, and time?

According to your figures a 6.2% increase in taxes would amount to $6,200.00 per year per $100,000.00 of income. Some of the deductibles under the current healthcare system are $5,000.00 and then you have to factor in the cost.

That is just ONE of the taxes. Right now my healthcare is $200 a month which covers my entire family (wife, 3 kids) and that amounts to about $2400 a year. There are no deductibles and there is a copay of 20 dollars for a doctor visit and 50 for ER. So you're saying I should pay $6,200 a year, almost triple what I do now? Keep in mind this doesn't include all of the other taxes this would require and it STILL wouldn't pay for itself! How often do taxes not go up? How long before that 6.2 percent turns into 10 percent or 15?

There needs to be some sort of regulation put in place to prevent abuse. Not all cases are equal and some people will need more visits for extenuating circumstances but overall most people don't need to go to the emergency room more than twice a year if that much.

Like I said before never has Government fixed anything. Everything they touch gets worse. More regulations, more taxes, more bureaucracy, less freedom.

Where do you live? We all need to move there!

HAHA! I work in DC of all places but you could work for my company in just about any state....

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: brutus61
If our country has the highest medical costs and lowest care, there is something wrong.

LINK

I would think that we have some of the very best care in the entire world. Can you provide something to back up your claim that we have "lowest care"? If you can I may reconsider. I did not see anything in the link you provided that supports that statement.

While I would agree that some of the best health care can be found here in America, I believe that for the average person overall it is not. Don't have time to look up sources butI have found them numerous times.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: brutus61

A single payer system always has high cost and low quality.

Proof? Or are you just pulling that out of your arse? Because if you study Medicare, it's pretty good with a low operating overhead.

You're right, his assertions are nothing more than smelly gas.

If I'm not mistaken, Medicare has an administrative cost that's at or near 3% which is astronomically low for the industry.

I don't believe there's a single for-profit, private healthcare insurance provider that can come anywhere close to those numbers.

While some people's alternative facts may disagree, the actual data regarding the various universal healthcare systems enjoyed throughout the industrialized world shows that they provide healthcare to their citizens at a lower per capita cost with better statistical outcomes.

Oh yeah, both public & private insurance providers are susceptible to fraud & abuse.

Don't let anyone make you believe that it doesn't happen in their house because that's a bunch of baloney as well.

a reply to: havok

Yes I would agree they helped with that. But then again our government is supposed to be made up by the people, for the people, so when people have a problem with pollution they can act. What we have is career politicians and government officials that will continue to regulate unnecessarily for political purposes or at the behest of their donors. We have a revolving door between corporations and government that will push for laws or regulations that help them, hurt their competition or cover up their crimes. As far as the environment just look at the lobying power of companies like Monsanto and the things they do

I just want this to sink in, those of you that want socialized medicine. . . . basically, you want the Trump administration in charge of your health care.

I'll just sit back and laugh for a while.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: dfnj2015

I could provide you with sources and "proof" but would you accept my sources? Probably not.

Sigle payer harms doctors and patients.
why a single payer system would ruin healthcare
single payer is inherently problematic

I might. If it's site that says "All Democrats Are Felons" I might not.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I just want this to sink in, those of you that want socialized medicine. . . . basically, you want the Trump administration in charge of your health care.

I'll just sit back and laugh for a while.

Blue Cross profit motive isn't working too well. Lot's of overhead and rationing. Bad service. Over priced.

a reply to: dfnj2015

ok.

Again, if we have socialized medicine, you won't have any say in your healthcare, or healthcare needs.

You'll get what you get.

Now please take a number and stay behind the yellow line. Your appendix will be removed as soon as the paperwork is correct.

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: brutus61
If our country has the highest medical costs and lowest care, there is something wrong.

LINK

I would think that we have some of the very best care in the entire world. Can you provide something to back up your claim that we have "lowest care"? If you can I may reconsider. I did not see anything in the link you provided that supports that statement.

While I would agree that some of the best health care can be found here in America, I believe that for the average person overall it is not. Don't have time to look up sources butI have found them numerous times.

Germany has the best healthcare system and it's free. It's free because the US pays for it with exorbitant military base rents. We really need to close ALL our military bases in Germany.

a reply to: Flatfish

The low overhead of medicare is a myth

Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don't have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare's administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost. In addition, Medicare's massive size leads to economies of scale that private insurers could also achieve, if not exceed, were they equally large.

Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second's will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient's insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient's more severe illness.

read more about why that is wrong here

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

ok.

Again, if we have socialized medicine, you won't have any say in your healthcare, or healthcare needs.

You'll get what you get.

Now please take a number and stay behind the yellow line. Your appendix will be removed as soon as the paperwork is correct.

As if Blue Cross listens to me now! That's load of dung what you are saying. The healthcare cartels are in cahoots with each other and the hospitals. It's a complete scam.

a reply to: brutus61
Didn't want him back in November don't want anything from him now!

Go home Sanders, you are irrelevant!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

ok.

Again, if we have socialized medicine, you won't have any say in your healthcare, or healthcare needs.

You'll get what you get.

Now please take a number and stay behind the yellow line. Your appendix will be removed as soon as the paperwork is correct.

Having a universal healthcare system does not prevent people having private healthcare. Most European countries have a mix of both.

In the UK if you don't like the service from the NHS you go private. As the private care has to compete against the NHS it is fraction of the cost of the US.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Flatfish

The low overhead of medicare is a myth

Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don't have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare's administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost. In addition, Medicare's massive size leads to economies of scale that private insurers could also achieve, if not exceed, were they equally large.

Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second's will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient's insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient's more severe illness.

read more about why that is wrong here

I'm not sure I trust the three INDIVIDUALS cited as sources. Maybe you are right. But according to everyone else, Medicare has a 2% operating overhead because they do not have 50% of the administration costs going to the executives. I'm okay for having a fair discussion. As long as the Retardicans disclose the complete executive compensation package in the discussion.