Affordable medical insurance for all?

[Jake Winker Frogen]

America health care funding system is by far the worst in the democratic, civilised world. It is the most expensive with the worst macro outcomes.

Any insurance actuary, in a rare moment of honesty when not trying to sell their own companies policy, will tell you insurance, delivery and cost effectiveness is all about spreading the risk.

The more people in your funding pool you spread the risk too the more effective the policy.

Universal health insurance spreads the risk to everyone in the society, it is proven to be far more cost effective and delivers better macro outcomes than the fragmented and chaotic model of American funding.

It is less expensive for everyone involved and delivers for everyone.

 

[westwall]

Healthcare is achieved in a much more equitable fashion in many other countries at less cost per person.

And worse outcomes too. Your Canadian healthcare system is so great we have a wing of Renown Hospital down in Reno we call the Canada wing because of all the Canadians coming here for treatment.

If they wait for treatment in Canada...they will die.

 

[westwall]

America health care funding system is by far the worst in the democratic, civilised world. It is the most expensive with the worst macro outcomes.

Any insurance actuary, in a rare moment of honesty when not trying to sell their own companies policy, will tell you insurance, delivery and cost effectiveness is all about spreading the risk.

The more people in your funding pool you spread the risk too the more effective the policy.

Universal health insurance spreads the risk to everyone in the society, it is proven to be far more cost effective and delivers better macro outcomes than the fragmented and chaotic model of American funding.

It is less expensive for everyone involved and delivers for everyone.

Provably untrue. Feel free to look up the 96 hour wait times for ambulances brought to you by the wonderful folks at the UK's NHS.

 

[there4eyeM]

Healthcare is achieved in a much more equitable fashion in many other countries at less cost per person.

And worse outcomes too. Your Canadian healthcare system is so great we have a wing of Renown Hospital down in Reno we call the Canada wing because of all the Canadians coming here for treatment.

If they wait for treatment in Canada...they will die.

"Your"? You show a vast knowledge of nothing, and in particular nothing about me. People such as you shilling for big business are traitors to humanity.

 

[westwall]

Healthcare is achieved in a much more equitable fashion in many other countries at less cost per person.

And worse outcomes too. Your Canadian healthcare system is so great we have a wing of Renown Hospital down in Reno we call the Canada wing because of all the Canadians coming here for treatment.

If they wait for treatment in Canada...they will die.

"Your"? You show a vast knowledge of nothing, and in particular nothing about me. People such as you shilling for big business are traitors to humanity.

No, I just want people to live. Politicians from Canada come to the States for their heart procedures, and cancer treatments as well.
Maybe you should actually read something other than your echo chamber of bullshit.

You might actually learn something.

Though I doubt it....

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

The NHS has better macro outcomes than America and at lower cost than America per captia, but I would concede her model of government controlling the entire system, hospitals, nurses and doctors is not as effective as France or Australia, where the government simply acts as universal insurer.

Australia gets better outcome in every category, (except number of people screened for breast cancer) than the USA at lower cost.

I have used both systems and Australia is superior in every way.

I can see a GP on the same day, ambulance response times are some of the best in the world, we have a higher ratio of doctors to the population that the USA, more doctor visits than the USA because the poor do not have to hold on until it is an emergency, lower proscription costs than the USA, and on and on we bet better outcomes and much lower cost than the USA.

 

[westwall]

The NHS has better macro outcomes than America and at lower cost than America per captia, but I would concede her model of government controlling the entire system, hospitals, nurses and doctors is not as effective as France or Australia, where the government simply acts as universal insurer.

Australia gets better outcome in every category, (except number of people screened for breast cancer) than the USA at lower cost.

I have used both systems and Australia is superior in every way.

I can see a GP on the same day, ambulance response times are some of the best in the world, we have a higher ratio of doctors to the population that the USA, more doctor visits than the USA because the poor do not have to hold on until it is an emergency, lower proscription costs than the USA, and on and on we bet better outcomes and much lower cost than the USA.

Like I said. That statement is provably untrue. Even the NHS admits it. You should look up the actual outcomes. Cancer survival rates are at least 10% higher for all cancers, 15% for breast cancer here in the US.

But I deal in facts and you seem to just deal in lalalala's

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

the USA has the most expensive health care system in the world, both in individual cost and collective insurance costs and gets some of the worst macro outcomes in the developed, democratic world.

Lowest life expectancy, most suicides, highest rate of avoidable deaths, highest rate of hospitalisations for preventable causes due to lack of preventive access to health care, lowest rates of GP visits and doctor to patient ratios.

The most expensive drug and insurance costs.

The most over proscribed medication numbers, doctors throwing drugs out like candy at Halloween.



Which brings us to the pandemic, the US has the highest rate of infections, highest death rates and her response has been chaotic and damaged US credibility through out the world, where as Australia is second only to Taiwan in success containing the virus.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Even your own media knows you are not even in the top ten in macro outcomes if not a lot of your naval gazing populace or politicians.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/countries-with-the-most-well-developed-public-health-care-system?slide=12

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

No matter who reviews it or the methodology America, the most expensive by far, never comes out number one, or usually not in the top ten.

Which countries have the best healthcare systems? | APRIL International

How do you know the quality of your future country of expatriation? With this article, you will find out which countries have the best health systems.

fr.april-international.com

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Ever, you just can't make the top ten.


Add to that America is the only country in the democratic world where the main cause of bankruptcy is health care costs and one weeps for you lot.

Weeps I say.

TOP 10: Countries with the best healthcare system

Why do some healthcare systems stand out from the rest? Take a look at this list to find out.

www.cignaglobal.com

 

[gipper]

Ever, you just can't make the top ten.


Add to that America is the only country in the democratic world where the main cause of bankruptcy is health care costs and one weeps for you lot.

Weeps I say.

TOP 10: Countries with the best healthcare system

Why do some healthcare systems stand out from the rest? Take a look at this list to find out.

www.cignaglobal.com

A majority of Americans want M4A but since our government is controlled by big corporations and billionaires who don’t want it, it doesn’t happen.

 

[Supposn]

No, [I prefer USA's federal healthcare policy because ?] I just want people to live. Politicians from Canada come to the States for their heart procedures, and cancer treatments as well.
Maybe you should actually read something other than your echo chamber of bullshit. You might actually learn something. Though I doubt it. ...

Westwall, I suppose many wealthier Canadians that can afford a Reno, Nevada vacation and would be more appreciative of winter in Nevada rather than in Canada, enjoy gambling, would not be averse to an additional reason for gambling in Nevada rather than in Canada.

I’m confident there are no credible opinion polls indicating a majority of USA’s population or any substantial general portion of that population prefer USA’s rather than Canada’s medical insurance policies.

I’m certain that all credible opinion polls indicate that Canada’s general population is not unsatisfied with their government’s medical insurance policies, and furthermore they're not admirers of USA’s medical insurance policies. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[gipper]

No, [I prefer USA's federal healthcare policy because ?] I just want people to live. Politicians from Canada come to the States for their heart procedures, and cancer treatments as well.
Maybe you should actually read something other than your echo chamber of bullshit. You might actually learn something. Though I doubt it. ...

Westwall, I suppose many wealthier Canadians that can afford a Reno, Nevada vacation and would be more appreciative of winter in Nevada rather than in Canada, enjoy gambling, would not be averse to an additional reason for gambling in Nevada rather than in Canada.

I’m confident there are no credible opinion polls indicating a majority of USA’s population or any substantial general portion of that population prefer USA’s rather than Canada’s medical insurance policies.

I’m certain that all credible opinion polls indicate that Canada’s general population is not unsatisfied with their government’s medical insurance policies, and furthermore they're not admirers of USA’s medical insurance policies. Respectfully, Supposn

And the MSM in the US likes to misinform Americans about socialized medicine, because the billionaires who control the MSM disapprove of socialized medicine.

The enormous profits earned by the 1% from the shitty for profit system, are just too good.

 

[Politicalmaverick]

Without being overtly political, it is clear that "Obama-Care" was intended to fail, with that failure leading to a public outcry and demand for socialized medicine in one form or another.

The "elephant in the room" for Leftists who want socialized medicine is that the current practice of employer-subsidized insurance for "most Americans" works pretty well, so the majority of Americans are not motivated to try something dramatically different.

Therefore, any "solution" must be directed to the minority of the population (but still tens of millions) who do NOT have access to employees-subsidized insurance, without fucking things up for the majority who are doing fine, health-insurance-wise.

The rational solution was (1) to make low-cost, minimal coverage available to healthy young people (who for the most part don't need health insurance), (2) allow interstate competition for health insurance companies, and (3) to have a government backstop protecting insurance companies from the "black hole" of people with expensive "pre-existing conditions." And a little malpractice-abuse protection wouldn't hurt, but since tort law is controlled by the STATES, that would be constitutionally problematic.

Insurance #1 above would have deductibles and co-pays, and would primarily protect young people in case of a catastrophic disease or illness. It CERTAINLY would not cover things like birth control, abortion, or routine office visits. It WOULD contain a provision for an annual physical, at which the screening mentioned above would take place.

This is one of those cases where the solutions that everyone knows are needed are not implemented because the Democrats want to have this issue available for their own political exploitation, and solving it would take that away. Just like abortion, the death penalty, the minimum wage, and so on. Democrats are evil.

Employer-based health insurance is so obviously too unreliable in our rampant pandemic ravaged world.

I’d like U.S.-C.O.V.I.D. recovery stimulus spending be done on universal health care insurance and universal basic income; this being paid with a national ten percent value-added tax as well as with a higher corporate income tax of twenty-nine percent. I’d like tax reform and universal health insurance with universal basic income be implemented as follows:

1. Universal health insurance ( U…H.I.) affordably be done with insured cost sharing, ( Universal Medicare with a combined $4,000 Part A and B deductible, a 20 percent Part A and B co-insurance and a 50 percent prescription drug co-insurance ) costing taxpayers ca. $1.9 trillion in the fiscal year 2023.
2. U.H.I being funded in large part with a 10 percent value-added-tax ( 10%V.A.T.) less VAT tax monthly rebates of $165 for each American citizen age 18 or over, this would net approximately 600 billion dollars of revenue in the year 2023; U…H.I. also being funded in part with an increase in the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 29 percent resulting in corporations paying U.S. corporate income taxes of ca. $500 billion, the imposition of financial transaction taxes ( remittance taxes and stock/bond trade taxes) generating ca. $200 billion, the implementation of tariffs resulting in ca. $135 billion of revenue in 2023 and federal estate taxes generating an additional ca. $35 billion in revenue., alcohol, cannabis and tobacco excise taxes generating ca. $80 billion of funding for U.H.I, and the remainder of funding for U. H.I. coming from Medicare payroll taxes of ca. $350 billion.
3. Social security being fully funded by a doubling of the cap on social security taxes, so that all workers and employers would contribute 6.2 percent of social security taxes on every dollar of their earnings up to $320,000 of each individual wage earner’s income .In 2023, this would mean Americans would pay ca. $1.3 trillion in social security payroll taxes.
4. U.S. military spending along with all other governmental agencies, save for U.H.I. social security the Department of Transportation and Homeland Security,being funded with a simplified income tax system, just a few income tax brackets beginning in year 2026, zero percent on the initial $12,000 of personal individual annual income, 12 percent on $12,001 to $51,000 of personal individual annual income, 32 percent on individual personal annual earnings in excess of $51,000. Capital gains taxed at same rate as ordinary income. No tax credits, save for a refundable $2,000 child tax credit as well as a $4,000 subsistence living allowance tax credit for each adult American citizen. In 2023, this would result in total personal federal income taxes amounting to an estimated $1.2 trillion.
5. The implementation of excise taxes on railways, fuel, airports and aviation collectively adding up to $160 billion, which would fund the Department of Transportation and Homeland Security.
6. Approved federal spending in 2023 at ca. $1.9 trillion for universal health care ( U.H.I. ) $1.3 trillion for Social Security, ( no change from status-quo on S.S. retirement benefits ), ca. 900 billion dollars towards the military and veteran services or veteran benefits, $494 billion on debt interest payments, an estimated $100 billion towards Medicaid, $62 billion spending on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ( ca. $10 billion ) for the Department of Commerce, ( ca. $13 billion ) for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ( ca. $32 billion) for the Department of Energy, ( ca. $9 billion ) for the Environmental Protection Agency, ( $4 billion ). for the Food and Drug Administration, ( ca. $40 billion ) for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, ( ca. $23 billion) for the Department of Interior annual spending, ( ca. $50 billion) for the Department of Homeland Security, (ca. $30 billion) for the Department of Justice, ( ca. $10 billion ) for the Department of Labor, ( ca. $25 billion ) for N.A.S.A., ( ca. $45 billion ) for the State Department, ( ca. $110 billion) for the Department of Transportation, ( ca. $23 billion ) for the Department of Treasury; the above proposed federal spending resulting in total federal annual spending to be ca. $5.18 trillion…
7. The above approved fiscal year 2023 federal spending being ca. $5.18 trillion and ca. $4.56 trillion of tax revenue would result in a federal deficit of ca. $620 billion for FY 2023; all new government spending would be balanced with incoming revenue; the only deficit spending should just be interest on our national debt.

What would you propose be done for spending in order to economically recover from the corona virus pandemic. How would you propose this be paid for?

 

[Supposn]

Without being overtly political, it is clear that "Obama-Care" was intended to fail, with that failure leading to a public outcry and demand for socialized medicine in one form or another.

The "elephant in the room" for Leftists who want socialized medicine is that the current practice of employer-subsidized insurance for "most Americans" works pretty well, so the majority of Americans are not motivated to try something dramatically different.

Therefore, any "solution" must be directed to the minority of the population (but still tens of millions) who do NOT have access to employees-subsidized insurance, without fucking things up for the majority who are doing fine, health-insurance-wise. …

DGS49, I doubt if the majority of USA’s entire population, or of USA’s entire families participate within an employers’ medical insurance plans provided for employees or employees’ families.
I certainly doubt USA“s population’s majority believe employer subsidized medical insurance for “most Americans, works pretty well”. Your post’s stated assumptions are incorrect.
Therefore, unsurprisingly, some of your conclusions and proposed solutions are to some extent similarly incorrect.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

… The rational solution was (1) to make low-cost, minimal coverage available to healthy young people (who for the most part don't need health insurance), (2) allow interstate competition for health insurance companies, and (3) to have a government backstop protecting insurance companies from the "black hole" of people with expensive "pre-existing conditions." And a little malpractice-abuse protection wouldn't hurt, but since tort law is controlled by the STATES, that would be constitutionally problematic. …

DSG, although we may disagree as to what extent is “basic” insurance is “basic medical insurance”, I’m among those contending that no legal resident of the United states should lack some basic medical insurance. You and I apparently agree all legal USA residents should be medically insured to some extent.

[People who cannot afford adequate medical insurance, eventually use hospital emergency rooms as their primary medical caretakers. When they’re finally receiving medical care, those patients’ medical conditions have often much further deteriorated, and the cost of their treatment has been substantially increased. Those are the very patients from which the cost of their care are more or less unrecoverable. Those costs must be eaten by the hospitals and otherwise passed on to charity contributors or taxpayers, or higher service charges paid by hospital’s individual or medical insurance clients. Those costs are passed on to our entire society.] Respectfully, Supposn

… Regardless of USA's future medical insurance policies and practices, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance would reduce the costs to government and/or nongovernment medical insurers and be to our nation's best interests. State regulators of medical insurers practices and fees would expect medical insurance prices to reflect the burden of costs shifted to the federal government. ...

 

[Supposn]

… The rational solution was (1) to make low-cost, minimal coverage available to healthy young people (who for the most part don't need health insurance), (2) allow interstate competition for health insurance companies, and (3) to have a government backstop protecting insurance companies from the "black hole" of people with expensive "pre-existing conditions." And a little malpractice-abuse protection wouldn't hurt, but since tort law is controlled by the STATES, that would be constitutionally problematic. ...

DSG49, regarding #2, interstate medical insurance is not a real political issue; it’s a “red herring”. A state may not prohibit an enterprise from establishing a separate individual insurance enterprise doing business within their state. There are insurance brokers doing business only in NJ, or only in NY, or in both NJ and in NY. They are of course subject to each individual state’s laws, when they do business within those individual states. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

… This [medical insurance issue?] is one of those cases where the solutions that everyone knows are needed are not implemented because the Democrats want to have this issue available for their own political exploitation, and solving it would take that away. ...

DSG49, no, this is another Republican “red herring”.
When Republicans finally tired of losing on the Social Security retirement benefits issue, they finally agreed to permit the monthly benefits to be annually “cost-of-living” adjusted. When they inevitably tire of losing on the federal minimum wage rate issue, they’ll agree to something similar to our Social Security adjustments.
Respectfully, Supposn