CDZ Why I Want a Two Tier Single Payer Health Care System

[Carla_Danger]

Our health care system, prior to Obamacare, was a tangled mess of corporate inspired laws and regulations. For example, in VA if you have Uninsured Motorist coverage, your Body Injury coverage does not 'stack' like you Medical Expenses coverage does, with each additional vehicle on your policy. No, it only stacks with each other vehicle you have on DIFFERENT polices. And since your health care insurance company can put a lien on your benefits, there is little way to have cash left over in a very expensive operation and you still get left with a hefty tag even with a fairly low catastrophic cap to your obligations. Now with Obamacare, it is worse, almost designed to fail with an explosion of new regulations and government oversight bodies that don't necessarily help at all. It amounts to using the efficiency of the Veterans Administration on all private polices by force of law.

The whole system today is adversarial and complex by design with the chief aim of the design to be to confuse people and discourage them from continuing in the process. And if you don't have a lawyer, you are going to get screwed in all likelihood if you find yourself in any 'gray areas', so its good business for the legal theft class also.

We need a better system, that much is obvious, and so I think these should be the priorities in any new system:
1. EVERYONE should have medical coverage. And I mean everyone from the richest billionaire all the way down to the poorest street person.
2. Any system must remain profitable to the businesses involved. There is, however, a reasonable amount of profit and when those in need of care are often bankrupted by medical costs the profits are too high.
3. While the government uses tax money to assist the purchase of medical insurance for the poorer folks, those who wish to participate in a private system should not be penalized as long as they continue to contribute to the public system also.
4. While the government is best for providing services to remote or poor areas that do not attract private services as much, the innovation and aggressive market development of the private sector must not be extinguished. When private business confronts a market shortage they see that as a business opportunity to make up that shortage, while the government always resorts to rationing and regulatory restriction. Which do you want the life of your loved ones to depend on? I would want the private system if I could afford it and the public one if I cannot. The private sector health care system would continue to spur innovation and expand and improve services while the public system would still be available for the poorer of our society.

Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it.

And so I would like to see a government fund voucher system where everyone gets a voucher for X to buy insurance from a pool of providers. If one voluntarily wants to supplement their voucher and purchase more expensive insurance then they could do so from a menu of insurance providers similar to what federal employees have today.

Why not?

Good posting.

With just a couple of extra details missing, you just described the 120 year old German health care system, which is single payer and 2-tiered.

Who knew that JimBob was a secret socialist? LOL!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Our health care system, prior to Obamacare, was a tangled mess of corporate inspired laws and regulations. For example, in VA if you have Uninsured Motorist coverage, your Body Injury coverage does not 'stack' like you Medical Expenses coverage does, with each additional vehicle on your policy. No, it only stacks with each other vehicle you have on DIFFERENT polices. And since your health care insurance company can put a lien on your benefits, there is little way to have cash left over in a very expensive operation and you still get left with a hefty tag even with a fairly low catastrophic cap to your obligations. Now with Obamacare, it is worse, almost designed to fail with an explosion of new regulations and government oversight bodies that don't necessarily help at all. It amounts to using the efficiency of the Veterans Administration on all private polices by force of law.

The whole system today is adversarial and complex by design with the chief aim of the design to be to confuse people and discourage them from continuing in the process. And if you don't have a lawyer, you are going to get screwed in all likelihood if you find yourself in any 'gray areas', so its good business for the legal theft class also.

We need a better system, that much is obvious, and so I think these should be the priorities in any new system:
1. EVERYONE should have medical coverage. And I mean everyone from the richest billionaire all the way down to the poorest street person.
2. Any system must remain profitable to the businesses involved. There is, however, a reasonable amount of profit and when those in need of care are often bankrupted by medical costs the profits are too high.
3. While the government uses tax money to assist the purchase of medical insurance for the poorer folks, those who wish to participate in a private system should not be penalized as long as they continue to contribute to the public system also.
4. While the government is best for providing services to remote or poor areas that do not attract private services as much, the innovation and aggressive market development of the private sector must not be extinguished. When private business confronts a market shortage they see that as a business opportunity to make up that shortage, while the government always resorts to rationing and regulatory restriction. Which do you want the life of your loved ones to depend on? I would want the private system if I could afford it and the public one if I cannot. The private sector health care system would continue to spur innovation and expand and improve services while the public system would still be available for the poorer of our society.

Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it.

And so I would like to see a government fund voucher system where everyone gets a voucher for X to buy insurance from a pool of providers. If one voluntarily wants to supplement their voucher and purchase more expensive insurance then they could do so from a menu of insurance providers similar to what federal employees have today.

Why not?

Good posting.

With just a couple of extra details missing, you just described the 120 year old German health care system, which is single payer and 2-tiered.

Who knew that JimBob was a secret socialist commie? LOL!

What fascinates is that Jim Bowie has not asked even one question about the German health care system, in spite of the fact that that is exactly what he described.

Oh, well, maybe debate was not really the point here, I guess.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Our health care system, prior to Obamacare, was a tangled mess of corporate inspired laws and regulations. For example, in VA if you have Uninsured Motorist coverage, your Body Injury coverage does not 'stack' like you Medical Expenses coverage does, with each additional vehicle on your policy. No, it only stacks with each other vehicle you have on DIFFERENT polices. And since your health care insurance company can put a lien on your benefits, there is little way to have cash left over in a very expensive operation and you still get left with a hefty tag even with a fairly low catastrophic cap to your obligations. Now with Obamacare, it is worse, almost designed to fail with an explosion of new regulations and government oversight bodies that don't necessarily help at all. It amounts to using the efficiency of the Veterans Administration on all private polices by force of law.

The whole system today is adversarial and complex by design with the chief aim of the design to be to confuse people and discourage them from continuing in the process. And if you don't have a lawyer, you are going to get screwed in all likelihood if you find yourself in any 'gray areas', so its good business for the legal theft class also.

We need a better system, that much is obvious, and so I think these should be the priorities in any new system:
1. EVERYONE should have medical coverage. And I mean everyone from the richest billionaire all the way down to the poorest street person.
2. Any system must remain profitable to the businesses involved. There is, however, a reasonable amount of profit and when those in need of care are often bankrupted by medical costs the profits are too high.
3. While the government uses tax money to assist the purchase of medical insurance for the poorer folks, those who wish to participate in a private system should not be penalized as long as they continue to contribute to the public system also.
4. While the government is best for providing services to remote or poor areas that do not attract private services as much, the innovation and aggressive market development of the private sector must not be extinguished. When private business confronts a market shortage they see that as a business opportunity to make up that shortage, while the government always resorts to rationing and regulatory restriction. Which do you want the life of your loved ones to depend on? I would want the private system if I could afford it and the public one if I cannot. The private sector health care system would continue to spur innovation and expand and improve services while the public system would still be available for the poorer of our society.

Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it.

And so I would like to see a government fund voucher system where everyone gets a voucher for X to buy insurance from a pool of providers. If one voluntarily wants to supplement their voucher and purchase more expensive insurance then they could do so from a menu of insurance providers similar to what federal employees have today.

Why not?

Good posting.

With just a couple of extra details missing, you just described the 120 year old German health care system, which is single payer and 2-tiered.

Who knew that JimBob was a secret socialist commie? LOL!

What fascinates is that Jim Bowie has not asked even one question about the German health care system, in spite of the fact that that is exactly what he described.

Oh, well, maybe debate was not really the point here, I guess.

I prefer single payer, and always have.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Our health care system, prior to Obamacare, was a tangled mess of corporate inspired laws and regulations. For example, in VA if you have Uninsured Motorist coverage, your Body Injury coverage does not 'stack' like you Medical Expenses coverage does, with each additional vehicle on your policy. No, it only stacks with each other vehicle you have on DIFFERENT polices. And since your health care insurance company can put a lien on your benefits, there is little way to have cash left over in a very expensive operation and you still get left with a hefty tag even with a fairly low catastrophic cap to your obligations. Now with Obamacare, it is worse, almost designed to fail with an explosion of new regulations and government oversight bodies that don't necessarily help at all. It amounts to using the efficiency of the Veterans Administration on all private polices by force of law.

The whole system today is adversarial and complex by design with the chief aim of the design to be to confuse people and discourage them from continuing in the process. And if you don't have a lawyer, you are going to get screwed in all likelihood if you find yourself in any 'gray areas', so its good business for the legal theft class also.

We need a better system, that much is obvious, and so I think these should be the priorities in any new system:
1. EVERYONE should have medical coverage. And I mean everyone from the richest billionaire all the way down to the poorest street person.
2. Any system must remain profitable to the businesses involved. There is, however, a reasonable amount of profit and when those in need of care are often bankrupted by medical costs the profits are too high.
3. While the government uses tax money to assist the purchase of medical insurance for the poorer folks, those who wish to participate in a private system should not be penalized as long as they continue to contribute to the public system also.
4. While the government is best for providing services to remote or poor areas that do not attract private services as much, the innovation and aggressive market development of the private sector must not be extinguished. When private business confronts a market shortage they see that as a business opportunity to make up that shortage, while the government always resorts to rationing and regulatory restriction. Which do you want the life of your loved ones to depend on? I would want the private system if I could afford it and the public one if I cannot. The private sector health care system would continue to spur innovation and expand and improve services while the public system would still be available for the poorer of our society.

Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it.

And so I would like to see a government fund voucher system where everyone gets a voucher for X to buy insurance from a pool of providers. If one voluntarily wants to supplement their voucher and purchase more expensive insurance then they could do so from a menu of insurance providers similar to what federal employees have today.

Why not?

Good posting.

With just a couple of extra details missing, you just described the 120 year old German health care system, which is single payer and 2-tiered.

Who knew that JimBob was a secret socialist commie? LOL!

What fascinates is that Jim Bowie has not asked even one question about the German health care system, in spite of the fact that that is exactly what he described.

Oh, well, maybe debate was not really the point here, I guess.

Well, that's because I read this article on Wikipedia and it is described a bit differently than you describe it.
Healthcare in Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It maybe semantics, but that article describes the system as a two tier system, and that is not what I am *trying* to describe.

The Germans have only the government paying the health care providers. I am suggesting a system where the government gives a voucher as a standard benefit, and people can supplement that voucher as they see fit. It would be costly and would have to either replace Medicaid and Medicare or be extensions of one or both of them. The health care providers would get their pay from the insurance companies, not the government. The government would have regulatory power and oversight, as well as providing the 'floor' for insurance coverage.


Maybe those are subtle differences but I think it would be a regulated free market approach that is also 'single payer' in that the bulk of the costs for the insured would come from the government.

I would like to see a similar system for providing educational needs and a healthy private school system in more competition with the public sector school system.

 

[paddymurphy]

Our health care system, prior to Obamacare, was a tangled mess of corporate inspired laws and regulations. For example, in VA if you have Uninsured Motorist coverage, your Body Injury coverage does not 'stack' like you Medical Expenses coverage does, with each additional vehicle on your policy. No, it only stacks with each other vehicle you have on DIFFERENT polices. And since your health care insurance company can put a lien on your benefits, there is little way to have cash left over in a very expensive operation and you still get left with a hefty tag even with a fairly low catastrophic cap to your obligations. Now with Obamacare, it is worse, almost designed to fail with an explosion of new regulations and government oversight bodies that don't necessarily help at all. It amounts to using the efficiency of the Veterans Administration on all private polices by force of law.

The whole system today is adversarial and complex by design with the chief aim of the design to be to confuse people and discourage them from continuing in the process. And if you don't have a lawyer, you are going to get screwed in all likelihood if you find yourself in any 'gray areas', so its good business for the legal theft class also.

We need a better system, that much is obvious, and so I think these should be the priorities in any new system:
1. EVERYONE should have medical coverage. And I mean everyone from the richest billionaire all the way down to the poorest street person.
2. Any system must remain profitable to the businesses involved. There is, however, a reasonable amount of profit and when those in need of care are often bankrupted by medical costs the profits are too high.
3. While the government uses tax money to assist the purchase of medical insurance for the poorer folks, those who wish to participate in a private system should not be penalized as long as they continue to contribute to the public system also.
4. While the government is best for providing services to remote or poor areas that do not attract private services as much, the innovation and aggressive market development of the private sector must not be extinguished. When private business confronts a market shortage they see that as a business opportunity to make up that shortage, while the government always resorts to rationing and regulatory restriction. Which do you want the life of your loved ones to depend on? I would want the private system if I could afford it and the public one if I cannot. The private sector health care system would continue to spur innovation and expand and improve services while the public system would still be available for the poorer of our society.

Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it.

And so I would like to see a government fund voucher system where everyone gets a voucher for X to buy insurance from a pool of providers. If one voluntarily wants to supplement their voucher and purchase more expensive insurance then they could do so from a menu of insurance providers similar to what federal employees have today.

Why not?

Good posting.

With just a couple of extra details missing, you just described the 120 year old German health care system, which is single payer and 2-tiered.

Who knew that JimBob was a secret socialist commie? LOL!

What fascinates is that Jim Bowie has not asked even one question about the German health care system, in spite of the fact that that is exactly what he described.

Oh, well, maybe debate was not really the point here, I guess.

Well, that's because I read this article on Wikipedia and it is described a bit differently than you describe it.
Healthcare in Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It maybe semantics, but that article describes the system as a two tier system, and that is not what I am *trying* to describe.

The Germans have only the government paying the health care providers. I am suggesting a system where the government gives a voucher as a standard benefit, and people can supplement that voucher as they see fit. It would be costly and would have to either replace Medicaid and Medicare or be extensions of one or both of them. The health care providers would get their pay from the insurance companies, not the government. The government would have regulatory power and oversight, as well as providing the 'floor' for insurance coverage.


Maybe those are subtle differences but I think it would be a regulated free market approach that is also 'single payer' in that the bulk of the costs for the insured would come from the government.

Thanks to the President, we have a regulated, free market approach. Care to explain the difference between a voucher and a subsidy?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Care to explain the difference between a voucher and a subsidy?

Well a voucher is a guaranteed amount of money that can be used for a specific set of purposes. In this case I think a voucher that would enable the vast majority of Americans to qualify for a 'bronze plan' would be the standard for how much they are. A subsidy adds to what you are or will spend.

So instead of signing up for expensive insurance not knowing how much of a subsidy you might get from the government, instead you would get a voucher for say $6,000 that you could spend on any insurance costs that your household might require and you can add to it, but not spend any of it on anything other than health insurance..

I would replace Medicaid and Medicare with this program and it would cost 120 million households times $6k = $720 Billion. Any money spent over that would be deductible up to $14k.
But this is just a hypothetical set of numbers.
Medicare costs $600 billion and Medicaid costs over $200 billion, for a total of over $800 billion. The cost of the ACA is around $500billion, I think., for a total of $1.3 Trillion

So vouchers would save money, I would think.

 

[paddymurphy]

Care to explain the difference between a voucher and a subsidy?

Well a voucher is a guaranteed amount of money that can be used for a specific set of purposes. In this case I think a voucher that would enable the vast majority of Americans to qualify for a 'bronze plan' would be the standard for how much they are. A subsidy adds to what you are or will spend.

So instead of signing up for expensive insurance not knowing how much of a subsidy you might get from the government, instead you would get a voucher for say $6,000 that you could spend on any insurance costs that your household might require and you can add to it, but not spend any of it on anything other than health insurance..

I would replace Medicaid and Medicare with this program and it would cost 120 million households times $6k = $720 Billion. Any money spent over that would be deductible up to $14k.
But this is just a hypothetical set of numbers.
Medicare costs $600 billion and Medicaid costs over $200 billion, for a total of over $800 billion. The cost of the ACA is around $500billion, I think., for a total of $1.3 Trillion

So vouchers would save money, I would think.

You would think wrong. Insurance for a family cost 20k. Where does the other 14 k come from for a poor family? Subsidies are based on need. Your vouchers would go to anyone

 

[JimBowie1958]

You would think wrong. Insurance for a family cost 20k. Where does the other 14 k come from for a poor family? Subsidies are based on need. Your vouchers would go to anyone

The $14k was from an Obama regime response to press inquiry, so yeah, it probably is wrong, but I am not giving numbers that are set in stone, but merely given as examples.

And yes, that is the point of a voucher. No one has to prove that they 'need' a subsidy and so things move faster and more efficiently. That is what would happen under a single payer system, the government would provide public health care service to ANYONE regardless of their income.

Since what I am suggesting is essentially the privatization of Medicaid and Medicare rolled into a revision of the ACA program it would have to be a funding that would go to EVERYONE as well hence the use of a voucher instead of a subsidy. EVERYONE would be able to have insurance but if they want to have better coverage they could opt to spend out of their own pocket to get better rated insurance coverage.

Its that choice-in--free-market thing that really sticks in your throat, isn't it?

 

[paddymurphy]

You would think wrong. Insurance for a family cost 20k. Where does the other 14 k come from for a poor family? Subsidies are based on need. Your vouchers would go to anyone

The $14k was from an Obama regime response to press inquiry, so yeah, it probably is wrong, but I am not giving numbers that are set in stone, but merely given as examples.

And yes, that is the point of a voucher. No one has to prove that they 'need' a subsidy and so things move faster and more efficiently. That is what would happen under a single payer system, the government would provide public health care service to ANYONE regardless of their income.

Since what I am suggesting is essentially the privatization of Medicaid and Medicare rolled into a revision of the ACA program it would have to be a funding that would go to EVERYONE as well hence the use of a voucher instead of a subsidy. EVERYONE would be able to have insurance but if they want to have better coverage they could opt to spend out of their own pocket to get better rated insurance coverage.

Its that choice-in--free-market thing that really sticks in your throat, isn't it?

Mod edit xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

paddymurphy Do not insult other members in the CDZ. Thanks

The 14 k is what surveys of commercial insurance have established as the average cost of health insurance coverage. You do realize that there are entities, not government related, that study matters like this; that collect data? Ever hear of the Kaiser Family Foundation? Google them.

As for the rest, you have described a doomed to fail version of the ACA. Is coverage mandatory? If not, the system fails. Are there minimum coverage requirements? Again, if not, your plan will fail as people will go back to buying the cheapest plan they can; plans that provide little or no payment. How is this paid for? Taxes? And what about the family of four that lives at the poverty level and cannot afford the cost of the private insurance over and above the arbitrary voucher amount you selected? You would have millionaires getting a voucher they do not need and million of poor once again without coverage because the voucher does not cover the cost of health insurance. The ACA was the result of decades of debate and study. It is not perfect; nothing that is the product of compromise usually is. But it is far better than what we had before and it will get better as soon as the idiots in the Republican party get over their obsession to kill it and work with democrats to improve it.

 

[Bill Angel]

Let me give a quick example. If you look at the statement provided by the carrier when you see a doctor you will note the cost of the care presented by the provider is considerably higher than what the carrier actually pays. This is due to contractually negotiated pricing between the provider and the carrier. Now, the provider obviously knows what those prices are, yet what the provider charges is much higher. Further, if the provider negotiates a price, that price must be considered appropriate by the provider. Yet, again, the actual charges are much higher. So why submit charges the provider knows are going to be reduced? There is a reason. The carrier has a subsidiary with the job of reviewing charges. That subsidiary charges a fee for doing this, back to the parent company. That is not a flat fee but a percentage of the amount of the reduction. The more the provider charges for services, the greater the reduction and the higher the fee. The carrier then calls that part of its overhead costs and this goes into the price of the premium. So while the carrier may pay $100 to the provider, it actually books it as $130 to the policy holder. Even though that extra $30 it paid to itself.

This is just one of a myriad of ways the insurance carriers maximize profit from health care without actually providing any objective product. The insurance carrier has become a parasite on the system.

So I agree that we need a single payer system that covers everyone. But I don't think keeping the insurance companies as the interface between the provider and the patient works. It just adds costs without adding benefits.

I wonder how the situation you describe applies to prescription medications. For example, I take Humira every month to control the symptoms of Psoriatic Arthritis.
The list price for a month's supply of the drug is $3,407.47. The cost (co-pay) for me is only $8.00. But I don't actually know what the negotiated price is between the drug's manufacturer and my health care provider.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The 14 k is what surveys of commercial insurance have established as the average cost of health insurance coverage. You do realize that there are entities, not government related, that study matters like this; that collect data? Ever hear of the Kaiser Family Foundation? Google them.

Yes, I have heard of them and again, I was not trying to post firm numbers, only examples to use for the idea.

Why do you have this inability to not act like you desperately want a partisan fight?

As for the rest, you have described a doomed to fail version of the ACA. Is coverage mandatory? If not, the system fails.

Yes, a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM would have mandatory coverage.

Are there minimum coverage requirements? Again, if not, your plan will fail as people will go back to buying the cheapest plan they can; plans that provide little or no payment.

Yes, I SAID THEY WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TO BUY BRONZE COVERAGE, and they would have to use the voucher money to BUY INSURANCE.

How is this paid for? Taxes?

Good God. No comment.

And what about the family of four that lives at the poverty level and cannot afford the cost of the private insurance over and above the arbitrary voucher amount you selected?

I already said what could be done. Maybe you should actually read the post.

You would have millionaires getting a voucher they do not need and million of poor once again without coverage because the voucher does not cover the cost of health insurance.

That is, once again, HOW UNIVERSAL, SINGLE PAYER health coverage works. Millionaires also get Social Security, because it is not a needs based program but an entitlement. So you have no point other than acting rude and being a troll in what is supposed to be a no troll zone,....for everyone else.

The ACA was the result of decades of debate and study.

roflmao

It is not perfect; nothing that is the product of compromise usually is.

Compromise? They didn't even have the slightest clue how the actual bill was written as it was passed in a hurry without even most staffers having read most of it.

Or were you being ironic?

But it is far better than what we had before and it will get better as soon as the idiots in the Republican party get over their obsession to kill it and work with democrats to improve it.

Do you have the slightest concept of what 'clean debate' is supposed to mean?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think that moves in the right direction, but I think it still leaves significant problems that ultimately costs both the patients and the tax payer. Public health is a public concern and thus a valid issue for the government. But an insurance company is in the business to maximize profits and that is one of the major reasons for the fact that the cost of health care in this country is at the top of all first world countries and at the bottom in terms of overall quality.

Let me give a quick example. If you look at the statement provided by the carrier when you see a doctor you will note the cost of the care presented by the provider is considerably higher than what the carrier actually pays. This is due to contractually negotiated pricing between the provider and the carrier. Now, the provider obviously knows what those prices are, yet what the provider charges is much higher. Further, if the provider negotiates a price, that price must be considered appropriate by the provider. Yet, again, the actual charges are much higher. So why submit charges the provider knows are going to be reduced? There is a reason. The carrier has a subsidiary with the job of reviewing charges. That subsidiary charges a fee for doing this, back to the parent company. That is not a flat fee but a percentage of the amount of the reduction. The more the provider charges for services, the greater the reduction and the higher the fee. The carrier then calls that part of its overhead costs and this goes into the price of the premium. So while the carrier may pay $100 to the provider, it actually books it as $130 to the policy holder. Even though that extra $30 it paid to itself.

This is just one of a myriad of ways the insurance carriers maximize profit from health care without actually providing any objective product. The insurance carrier has become a parasite on the system.

So I agree that we need a single payer system that covers everyone. But I don't think keeping the insurance companies as the interface between the provider and the patient works. It just adds costs without adding benefits.

Using the insurance companies is simply a mechanism to allow a regulated free market to implement market efficiencies and gradually lowering costs. If you have or have heard of a better idea I would be happy to hear it and give it thought. I enjoy that kind of thing.

Also, with the government funding the lion's share of the health insurance, they would have better leverage to regulate and monitor the health care industry, or at least they would seem to. The profiteering you describe should be reduced over time as the market adjusts to a more competitive environment. With plenty of people able to get insurance there should be tighter competition for that money instead of the 'good ole boy' system we have now.

On the surface it just seems like win-win-win for everyone. Why cant we have more things like that?

 

[paddymurphy]

What stick in my throat is the sheer idiocy of your comments.

You are in the 'Clean Debate Zone', and while liberals like yourself gt a pass far more often than they should , you could at least try to not openly post gratuitous insults like that.
Not an insult. Simply an accurate description of your comment

The 14 k is what surveys of commercial insurance have established as the average cost of health insurance coverage. You do realize that there are entities, not government related, that study matters like this; that collect data? Ever hear of the Kaiser Family Foundation? Google them.

Yes, I have heard of them and again, I was not trying to post firm numbers, only examples to use for the idea.

You posted actual numbers. You used those numbers to determine the cost. If you don't know the actual numbers, you have no idea the cost of your ideas.

Why do you have this inability to not act like you desperately want a partisan fight?

You are partisan you argue your partisan view and I do the same. Difference is that I know what I am talking about.

As for the rest, you have described a doomed to fail version of the ACA. Is coverage mandatory? If not, the system fails.

Yes, a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM would have mandatory coverage.

You never said that. How do you enforce the mandate? How do you make the poor family come up with the rest of theoney to pay for their coverage?

Are there minimum coverage requirements? Again, if not, your plan will fail as people will go back to buying the cheapest plan they can; plans that provide little or no payment.

Yes, I SAID THEY WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TO BUY BRONZE COVERAGE, and they would have to use the voucher money to BUY INSURANCE.
They would not have enough to buy bronze coverage. 6000 is not enough.

How is this paid for? Taxes?

Good God. No comment.

So you don't know how it will be paid for?

And what about the family of four that lives at the poverty level and cannot afford the cost of the private insurance over and above the arbitrary voucher amount you selected?

I already said what could be done. Maybe you should actually read the post.
No, you did not.

You would have millionaires getting a voucher they do not need and million of poor once again without coverage because the voucher does not cover the cost of health insurance.

That is, once again, HOW UNIVERSAL, SINGLE PAYER health coverage works. Millionaires also get Social Security, because it is not a needs based program but an entitlement. So you have no point other than acting rude and being a troll in what is supposed to be a no troll zone,....for everyone else.

Asking you to explain your plan, given how truly silly it is, is being rude? It is not single payer. Do you understand what that term means? If insurance companies get the vouchers and payments from people and they pay the bills, that is not single payer.

The ACA was the result of decades of debate and study.

roflmao
If you do not understand how true that is, you really know nothing about this topic. Maybe you need a different topic.

It is not perfect; nothing that is the product of compromise usually is.

Compromise? They didn't even have the slightest clue how the actual bill was written as it was passed in a hurry without even most staffers having read most of it.

Or were you being ironic?

That you had no clue then or one now about the law is your problem. Those who proposed it and passed it certainly did.

But it is far better than what we had before and it will get better as soon as the idiots in the Republican party get over their obsession to kill it and work with democrats to improve it.

Do you have the slightest concept of what 'clean debate' is supposed to mean?

You seem to think it means no disagreement or tough questions and no challenge when you post things that reveal how little you know.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Our health care system, prior to Obamacare, was a tangled mess of corporate inspired laws and regulations. For example, in VA if you have Uninsured Motorist coverage, your Body Injury coverage does not 'stack' like you Medical Expenses coverage does, with each additional vehicle on your policy. No, it only stacks with each other vehicle you have on DIFFERENT polices. And since your health care insurance company can put a lien on your benefits, there is little way to have cash left over in a very expensive operation and you still get left with a hefty tag even with a fairly low catastrophic cap to your obligations. Now with Obamacare, it is worse, almost designed to fail with an explosion of new regulations and government oversight bodies that don't necessarily help at all. It amounts to using the efficiency of the Veterans Administration on all private polices by force of law.

The whole system today is adversarial and complex by design with the chief aim of the design to be to confuse people and discourage them from continuing in the process. And if you don't have a lawyer, you are going to get screwed in all likelihood if you find yourself in any 'gray areas', so its good business for the legal theft class also.

We need a better system, that much is obvious, and so I think these should be the priorities in any new system:
1. EVERYONE should have medical coverage. And I mean everyone from the richest billionaire all the way down to the poorest street person.
2. Any system must remain profitable to the businesses involved. There is, however, a reasonable amount of profit and when those in need of care are often bankrupted by medical costs the profits are too high.
3. While the government uses tax money to assist the purchase of medical insurance for the poorer folks, those who wish to participate in a private system should not be penalized as long as they continue to contribute to the public system also.
4. While the government is best for providing services to remote or poor areas that do not attract private services as much, the innovation and aggressive market development of the private sector must not be extinguished. When private business confronts a market shortage they see that as a business opportunity to make up that shortage, while the government always resorts to rationing and regulatory restriction. Which do you want the life of your loved ones to depend on? I would want the private system if I could afford it and the public one if I cannot. The private sector health care system would continue to spur innovation and expand and improve services while the public system would still be available for the poorer of our society.

Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it.

And so I would like to see a government fund voucher system where everyone gets a voucher for X to buy insurance from a pool of providers. If one voluntarily wants to supplement their voucher and purchase more expensive insurance then they could do so from a menu of insurance providers similar to what federal employees have today.

Why not?

Good posting.

With just a couple of extra details missing, you just described the 120 year old German health care system, which is single payer and 2-tiered.

Who knew that JimBob was a secret socialist commie? LOL!

What fascinates is that Jim Bowie has not asked even one question about the German health care system, in spite of the fact that that is exactly what he described.

Oh, well, maybe debate was not really the point here, I guess.

Well, that's because I read this article on Wikipedia and it is described a bit differently than you describe it.
Healthcare in Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It maybe semantics, but that article describes the system as a two tier system, and that is not what I am *trying* to describe.

The Germans have only the government paying the health care providers. I am suggesting a system where the government gives a voucher as a standard benefit, and people can supplement that voucher as they see fit. It would be costly and would have to either replace Medicaid and Medicare or be extensions of one or both of them. The health care providers would get their pay from the insurance companies, not the government. The government would have regulatory power and oversight, as well as providing the 'floor' for insurance coverage.


Maybe those are subtle differences but I think it would be a regulated free market approach that is also 'single payer' in that the bulk of the costs for the insured would come from the government.

I would like to see a similar system for providing educational needs and a healthy private school system in more competition with the public sector school system.

I'm too tired to give a good, long response, but by Thursday, I will have a boatload of information for you.

Actually, the system is almost three-tiered and it is indeed single-payer.

I will then explain why vouchers (elektronisches Fördergeld) are not needed.

Nice to hear from you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Our health care system, prior to Obamacare, was a tangled mess of corporate inspired laws and regulations. For example, in VA if you have Uninsured Motorist coverage, your Body Injury coverage does not 'stack' like you Medical Expenses coverage does, with each additional vehicle on your policy. No, it only stacks with each other vehicle you have on DIFFERENT polices. And since your health care insurance company can put a lien on your benefits, there is little way to have cash left over in a very expensive operation and you still get left with a hefty tag even with a fairly low catastrophic cap to your obligations. Now with Obamacare, it is worse, almost designed to fail with an explosion of new regulations and government oversight bodies that don't necessarily help at all. It amounts to using the efficiency of the Veterans Administration on all private polices by force of law.

The whole system today is adversarial and complex by design with the chief aim of the design to be to confuse people and discourage them from continuing in the process. And if you don't have a lawyer, you are going to get screwed in all likelihood if you find yourself in any 'gray areas', so its good business for the legal theft class also.

We need a better system, that much is obvious, and so I think these should be the priorities in any new system:
1. EVERYONE should have medical coverage. And I mean everyone from the richest billionaire all the way down to the poorest street person.
2. Any system must remain profitable to the businesses involved. There is, however, a reasonable amount of profit and when those in need of care are often bankrupted by medical costs the profits are too high.
3. While the government uses tax money to assist the purchase of medical insurance for the poorer folks, those who wish to participate in a private system should not be penalized as long as they continue to contribute to the public system also.
4. While the government is best for providing services to remote or poor areas that do not attract private services as much, the innovation and aggressive market development of the private sector must not be extinguished. When private business confronts a market shortage they see that as a business opportunity to make up that shortage, while the government always resorts to rationing and regulatory restriction. Which do you want the life of your loved ones to depend on? I would want the private system if I could afford it and the public one if I cannot. The private sector health care system would continue to spur innovation and expand and improve services while the public system would still be available for the poorer of our society.

Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it.

And so I would like to see a government fund voucher system where everyone gets a voucher for X to buy insurance from a pool of providers. If one voluntarily wants to supplement their voucher and purchase more expensive insurance then they could do so from a menu of insurance providers similar to what federal employees have today.

Why not?

Good posting.

With just a couple of extra details missing, you just described the 120 year old German health care system, which is single payer and 2-tiered.

Who knew that JimBob was a secret socialist commie? LOL!

What fascinates is that Jim Bowie has not asked even one question about the German health care system, in spite of the fact that that is exactly what he described.

Oh, well, maybe debate was not really the point here, I guess.

Well, that's because I read this article on Wikipedia and it is described a bit differently than you describe it.
Healthcare in Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It maybe semantics, but that article describes the system as a two tier system, and that is not what I am *trying* to describe.

The Germans have only the government paying the health care providers. I am suggesting a system where the government gives a voucher as a standard benefit, and people can supplement that voucher as they see fit. It would be costly and would have to either replace Medicaid and Medicare or be extensions of one or both of them. The health care providers would get their pay from the insurance companies, not the government. The government would have regulatory power and oversight, as well as providing the 'floor' for insurance coverage.


Maybe those are subtle differences but I think it would be a regulated free market approach that is also 'single payer' in that the bulk of the costs for the insured would come from the government.

I would like to see a similar system for providing educational needs and a healthy private school system in more competition with the public sector school system.

I'm too tired to give a good, long response, but by Thursday, I will have a boatload of information for you.

Actually, the system is almost three-tiered and it is indeed single-payer.

I will then explain why vouchers (elektronisches Fördergeld) are not needed.

Nice to hear from you.

Well, when you post it I will try to research your information and make a reasonable response. I might find I agree with some of what you say.

Scary, isn't it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it."

Exactly.

This will allow private insurance companies to become true providers of actual health insurance again, allowing those who want and can afford health insurance to purchase the products they want; while those who can't afford health insurance will be able to access affordable healthcare.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Just expand the current Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to everyone

A growing number of doctors aren't even accepting Medicare anymore.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thanks to the President, we have a regulated, free market approach.

We have absolutely no such thing now nor have we in the past 50 years.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

paddymurphy JimBowie1958 The idiot comment was removed yesterday, hence there is no reason to continue discussing it. Thanks

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Our health care system, prior to Obamacare, was a tangled mess of corporate inspired laws and regulations. For example, in VA if you have Uninsured Motorist coverage, your Body Injury coverage does not 'stack' like you Medical Expenses coverage does, with each additional vehicle on your policy. No, it only stacks with each other vehicle you have on DIFFERENT polices. And since your health care insurance company can put a lien on your benefits, there is little way to have cash left over in a very expensive operation and you still get left with a hefty tag even with a fairly low catastrophic cap to your obligations. Now with Obamacare, it is worse, almost designed to fail with an explosion of new regulations and government oversight bodies that don't necessarily help at all. It amounts to using the efficiency of the Veterans Administration on all private polices by force of law.

The whole system today is adversarial and complex by design with the chief aim of the design to be to confuse people and discourage them from continuing in the process. And if you don't have a lawyer, you are going to get screwed in all likelihood if you find yourself in any 'gray areas', so its good business for the legal theft class also.

We need a better system, that much is obvious, and so I think these should be the priorities in any new system:
1. EVERYONE should have medical coverage. And I mean everyone from the richest billionaire all the way down to the poorest street person.
2. Any system must remain profitable to the businesses involved. There is, however, a reasonable amount of profit and when those in need of care are often bankrupted by medical costs the profits are too high.
3. While the government uses tax money to assist the purchase of medical insurance for the poorer folks, those who wish to participate in a private system should not be penalized as long as they continue to contribute to the public system also.
4. While the government is best for providing services to remote or poor areas that do not attract private services as much, the innovation and aggressive market development of the private sector must not be extinguished. When private business confronts a market shortage they see that as a business opportunity to make up that shortage, while the government always resorts to rationing and regulatory restriction. Which do you want the life of your loved ones to depend on? I would want the private system if I could afford it and the public one if I cannot. The private sector health care system would continue to spur innovation and expand and improve services while the public system would still be available for the poorer of our society.

Any single payer system has to include provisions for a second parallel private system to exist along side it.

And so I would like to see a government fund voucher system where everyone gets a voucher for X to buy insurance from a pool of providers. If one voluntarily wants to supplement their voucher and purchase more expensive insurance then they could do so from a menu of insurance providers similar to what federal employees have today.

Why not?

Here's an idea. Why don't you progressives just nationalize the whole health care system and place all it's employees on the government/military pay scale so you can really drive down the costs. While we're at it we'll open the floodgates to legal immigration and bring in some specialists from other countries who'll gladly work at a lower pay scale and allow you to grant amnesty to all the illegal immigrants as a rate of ten legals for every amnesty you want granted for every illegal immigrant. Just remember that half those legal immigrants must come from SE Asia.

This is a win-win situation for the progressive movement. Lower health care costs with everyone covered equally and the illegal immigration problem solved.

*****CHUCKLE******