Healthcare Projected To Cost Near $50 Trillion Over Next Ten Years

[Cecilie1200]

The one good thing that "Socialized Medicine" could do in the U.S. is to establish a BUDGET for healthcare costs in each region of the country, every year. This is done in some Canadian provinces.

Once the BUDGET is in place, then Doctors (or whoever) will have to make the hard decisions on extending the life of an incoherent Old Bastard or spending that money on a younger person to improve their lives. Just as important, does it make sense to spend MILLIONS on some premature infant whose BEST PROSPECTS are for a short, painful, sickly life, burning through thousands of dollars a month just to keep her alive?

The financial problem with healthcare as it exists now in the U.S., is that for most of the population there is no limit to what will be spent to keep them alive, regardless of whether it makes any sense.

First of all, our government doesn't stick to budgets on anything else, so why do you think they'll suddenly learn to with healthcare?

Second of all, how does the government stick to a budget on healthcare? That would be rationing, right? The biggest complaint people have about socialized medicine, the biggest reason people don't want it? And hey, look! Here you are, suggesting that babies should be put aside and left to die because they aren't worth spending money on. Who ELSE would you like the government to decide isn't worth saving?

 

[dblack]

They already make low priced vehicles. If they can't make a profit, they will shut down, not keep selling as your buddy claimed.

Or they'll lobby congress for a government program to use tax dollars to buy everyone an overpriced car.

 

[dblack]

How is that possible? Medicare for all would theoretically mean millions more people would be going to the doctor so overall costs would dramatically go up. What is going to balance that out?

Our current system is one of the most expensive in the world.

Agreed, my question is how Medicare for all fixes that and brings costs down.

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

One size fits all, eh?

Insurance is the problem, not the solution. It doesn't matter who owns the insurance company or who pays the premiums. It's the way we're using health insurance that's flawed. Insurance only works as a hedge against risk for people who are already well off. If you have no savings, if you can't afford to pay for basic health care out of pocket, you are poor. You need money, not an insurance policy.

We've come to think of insurance as a way to finance regular health care expenses. And when examined, that notion proves utterly irrational. Would we try to finance any of life's other expenses so idiotically? If you couldn't afford your rent, would you take out an insurance policy to pay your rent? If you couldn't afford groceries, would food insurance make sense? And if we did try insurance to pay for rent and food, what do you think would happen to the price of rent and food?

We're chasing our tails. We've driven health care prices through the roof by abusing insurance, and the insurance industry has convinced us that the only way to afford the higher prices is more insurance. We've been hoodwinked, or maybe we've just deluded ourselves. Either way we need to get over it.

I do not disagree, but the truth and reality is, Pandora's box has been opened and there is no way at this point, to put it back in the box, that I can see.... without killing off a bunch of people in the middle class and lower class, when transitioning back to where there is no insurance, except for catastrophic/Hospital care insurance.


Do you have any ideas on how that could be done?

Yes. Get rid of the tax deductions propping up group insurance, particularly employer-provided group insurance. Also get rid of all laws forcing employers to provide such policies.

 

[Andylusion]

That's all interesting.....

The one thing you seem to be missing is that Medicare and Medicaid suck.

Medicare and Medicaid reduce costs by flat out not paying the full cost of care. This is why, the Mayo Clinic (ironic since you are the one who cited the Mayo Clinic), has in the past simply refused medicare and medicaid patients.....

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

And even now that they resumed taking them.....

Mayo Clinic will prioritize private insurance patients over Medicare, Medicaid

Citing tighter profit margins, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic recently told his employees that the prestigious health system will prioritize the care of privately insured patients over those on Medicare and Medicaid.

That bold pronouncement by Dr. John Noseworthy — made in a speech to employees late last year — reflects the growing unease among hospital executives who are watching profits shrink due to steady increases in the number of government-insured patients. Medicaid, whose enrollment has increased dramatically under the Affordable Care Act, traditionally pays hospitals significantly less than commercial insurers.
​

All this talk about how having Medicare for all is so great, and private insurance is so bad.... and yet hospitals and clinic refuse medicare and medicaid, not private insurance.

When you make this bogus claim that medicare for all will be cheaper, all of that is based on the fact that Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full cost of care.

Well if you eliminate private care, Medicare will have to drastically increase how much it pays out, because hospitals and Clinics without private patients making up the loss of money on Medicare patients will end up going all cash, or going out of business.

You system would never work. This is one of the reasons why you keep pushing for medicare for all over the past 2 decades, and the people you elect to office, when confronted with the facts, end up backing away from it.

I'm not pushing for it... I was simply answering the question of why things would be less expensive...

on your post...
-If we all have Medicare, then the Mayo clinic will have no choice, but to accept Medicare patients.

-Prices should come down for hospitals and the Mayo Clinic, with not needing all the billing clerks and negotiators... so the caps on medical procedures won't be as impactful on their bottom line...

is my guess...

I can't think of anything where costs go down once government takes over.
Just look at the cost of higher education once the government took over the student loan industry.
No, I don't see prices coming down....just the opposite

medicare is one of them though that has saved money... mainly because they cap doctors and hospitals, on what they can charge...

Which isn't always a good thing, because it could stifle entrepreneurship in medical devices... and maybe new medicines and who knows what else....?

But that's my point. You praise medicare as saving money.... but it won't. That's my point.

The only reason medicare is saving money.... NOW.... is because doctors and hospitals can cost-shift to private patients.

What you seem to be implying, is that without private patients, that this cost-saving would still happen. No it wouldn't. Without being able to cost-shift to private payers, to cover the cost of gov-patients, hospitals and doctors will go on strike, like we've seen numerous times in France.

Again.... if someone told you they were going to cut your wages dramatically.... would you keep working? No. None of us would. If my company told me "Oh we have a government contract now, so we can only paying X amount"... I would quit and work elsewhere.

Doctors and hospitals are not slaves. They can simply go cash only, and skip government patients completely.

The Rise of Cash-Only Doctors Who Don't Take Insurance - Pros & Cons

Cash-only doctors, also called direct-pay doctors or direct primary care doctors, are medical professionals who have decided to accept only cash for their services. They don’t accept any insurance, including Medicare or Medicaid.
​

There's a growing movement of surgery centers and specialists that list their prices and don't take insurance

Surgery centers and specialists, that are cash only. No Medicare or Medicaid.

Now, the irony is that the one point that we agree on, is that insurance companies have too much negotiating power. I don't have a solution to that.

However, what I do know, is that Medicare is not the solution. Thousands of clinics, doctors, and other health care providers refuse Medicare and especially Medicaid on a routine basis, because it's a terrible program that under-pays for care.

You move to that system, and we will either have national doctor strikes, or we will have cash-only hospitals before long. Medicare only saves money, as long as private patients like you and me, foot the bill through higher insurance premiums and costs.

When I was in Massachusetts, I had so called insurance with Fallon....

It was a very large group of Doctors of every specialty who joined together, to form their own health care system... Fallon Health Care, outside of the Health Insurance Industry, because they were sick and tired of dealing with Insurance companies and their patients not getting the care that they felt they needed, without a major brawl with Insurance companies and insurance companies, taking their cut.

It was the best health care, I ever had, in all my decades of health insurance... My Doctor, was English speaking as her natural tongue, and was the best doctor I had ever had and still have ever had....

Massachusetts is one of the worst examples you could pick. Massachusetts has the worst health insurance in the country, because it has the most regulated health insurance in the country.

Even before ObamaCare, MA was widely known to be the most expensive in the country, for crappy insurance.

One of the big lies about Obama care, is that people point to average increases of premiums across the country.... but that includes states like MA, which were already insanely high cost due to regulations.

Imposing bad regulations on the rest of the country, isn't going to affect MA as much as other states, because MA's insurance was already screwed up by bad regulations.

 

[Rustic]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

No, the $35 trillion is the total cost. Medicare For All would replace all current costs.

How is that possible? Medicare for all would theoretically mean millions more people would be going to the doctor so overall costs would dramatically go up. What is going to balance that out?

Lower administrative costs. Every doctor's office has to employ several people to work out the bazillions of billing codes for each insurer for each procedure.

"Single payer" makes things more streamlined.

Lol

You can't refute his points so you resort to simple minded middle school pics. Good for you. The Orange Anus has taught you well.

Lol
Says a control freak

 

[Andylusion]

Every single payer system I have seen is much lower cost than ours.

So I just gave you the math, and clearly the math... not your opinion.... but math suggests that it will be expensive.

There is no evidence of a single country anywhere on this planet, that had a reduction in health care costs, from moving to a socialized system.

There is plenty of evidence that they reduce the quality of care, to reduce cost. If you are ok with having a lower chance of survival, there are plenty of free-clinics in the US, to choose from. Or you can disappear from a VA waiting list, if you like. That always saves costs.

18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List

But hey... the VA is cheaper care, yes? That's the goal.

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

 

[Dragonlady]

So I just gave you the math, and clearly the math... not your opinion.... but math suggests that it will be expensive.

There is no evidence of a single country anywhere on this planet, that had a reduction in health care costs, from moving to a socialized system.

There is plenty of evidence that they reduce the quality of care, to reduce cost. If you are ok with having a lower chance of survival, there are plenty of free-clinics in the US, to choose from. Or you can disappear from a VA waiting list, if you like. That always saves costs.

18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List

But hey... the VA is cheaper care, yes? That's the goal.

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

You did ALL of that, in the 1950;s and within a decade, the elderly and the poor were priced right out of healthcare market. MediCare and MedicAid were the response to THAT crisis.

What fools like you fail to realize is that there are SOME things that should NEVER be left to the free market, which is driven by profit, not service. Poor people are not good business. And there are far more of them then there are people wealthy enough to pay the going rate.

Yes, it costs $100 for your to go to the doctor. And if you need ongoing treatment? Hospitals costs, on average, nearly $4000 per day. Cancer treatment can easily hit $100,000.

How Much Does a Night in the Hospital Cost?

15,000,000 people end up in the hospital every year with the average costs being over $10,000 each. Half the people in American can't afford a $500 emergency, and don't give me that bullshit of giving up Starbucks. Poor people don't go to Starbucks. Old people don't go to Starbucks.

Cell phones don't cost $100 a month. A plan that doesn't include data costs $30 a month and if you don't have a phone, you can't find or keep a job, since your employer needs a means to contact you. If you cancel your phone for a month, you have to pay a new account fee, and an upfront fee to get it back.

Once again, you Russian idiots show you have no idea of how things work in America.

People don't go to hospital and get cancer treatment for free. The only reason they aren't turned away is because the government HAD to pass a law to keep hospitals from refusing treatment. That's

Those cancer treatments are billed via inflated billings to people with insurance. That's why you pay $50 for an asprin in hospital. There is no such thing as "free". Somebody somewhere pays for it. It would be better and cheaper to adopt single payer.

 

[g5000]

So I just gave you the math, and clearly the math... not your opinion.... but math suggests that it will be expensive.

There is no evidence of a single country anywhere on this planet, that had a reduction in health care costs, from moving to a socialized system.

There is plenty of evidence that they reduce the quality of care, to reduce cost. If you are ok with having a lower chance of survival, there are plenty of free-clinics in the US, to choose from. Or you can disappear from a VA waiting list, if you like. That always saves costs.

18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List

But hey... the VA is cheaper care, yes? That's the goal.

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

That anecdote is a cool story bro, but the fact remains the Republicans and Trump are doing NOTHING. They have NO plan. It's all been one massive HOAX.

So...single payer is inevitable because you tards won't hold their feet to the fire. You DESERVE to be hoaxed and you deserve single payer.

 

[g5000]

It's amazing to me that the Rube Herd has STILL not caught on they have been massively hoaxed by Trump and the Republican party.

After ten years, you'd think even the dumbest dildo on the planet would have figured it out by now. You'd think they'd be going after the fuckers who have been lying to them with torches and pitchforks.

 

[g5000]

So I just gave you the math, and clearly the math... not your opinion.... but math suggests that it will be expensive.

There is no evidence of a single country anywhere on this planet, that had a reduction in health care costs, from moving to a socialized system.

There is plenty of evidence that they reduce the quality of care, to reduce cost. If you are ok with having a lower chance of survival, there are plenty of free-clinics in the US, to choose from. Or you can disappear from a VA waiting list, if you like. That always saves costs.

18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List

But hey... the VA is cheaper care, yes? That's the goal.

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

No wonder Trump is so easily able to hoax you fools. You believed the stupidest bullshit long before he came along. In fact, your credulity is exactly why he came along. Trump exploits the stupidity of rubes and human weaknesses. That's how he has made his fortune.

You can tell yourself horseshit stories about how cancer treatments can be paid for with $100, retard, but here is the reality right now:


Medical Bills: The Leading Cause of Bankruptcy in the United States


.

 

[bendog]

njd

Our current system is one of the most expensive in the world.

Agreed, my question is how Medicare for all fixes that and brings costs down.

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

One size fits all, eh?

Insurance is the problem, not the solution. It doesn't matter who owns the insurance company or who pays the premiums. It's the way we're using health insurance that's flawed. Insurance only works as a hedge against risk for people who are already well off. If you have no savings, if you can't afford to pay for basic health care out of pocket, you are poor. You need money, not an insurance policy.

We've come to think of insurance as a way to finance regular health care expenses. And when examined, that notion proves utterly irrational. Would we try to finance any of life's other expenses so idiotically? If you couldn't afford your rent, would you take out an insurance policy to pay your rent? If you couldn't afford groceries, would food insurance make sense? And if we did try insurance to pay for rent and food, what do you think would happen to the price of rent and food?

We're chasing our tails. We've driven health care prices through the roof by abusing insurance, and the insurance industry has convinced us that the only way to afford the higher prices is more insurance. We've been hoodwinked, or maybe we've just deluded ourselves. Either way we need to get over it.

I do not disagree, but the truth and reality is, Pandora's box has been opened and there is no way at this point, to put it back in the box, that I can see.... without killing off a bunch of people in the middle class and lower class, when transitioning back to where there is no insurance, except for catastrophic/Hospital care insurance.


Do you have any ideas on how that could be done?

Yes. Get rid of the tax deductions propping up group insurance, particularly employer-provided group insurance. Also get rid of all laws forcing employers to provide such policies.

And let workers buy it after giving capital a tax cut in the form of benefits no longer payed? That's the rub. It's not like a card game where every deal starts a new game.

 

[g5000]

njd

Agreed, my question is how Medicare for all fixes that and brings costs down.

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

One size fits all, eh?

Insurance is the problem, not the solution. It doesn't matter who owns the insurance company or who pays the premiums. It's the way we're using health insurance that's flawed. Insurance only works as a hedge against risk for people who are already well off. If you have no savings, if you can't afford to pay for basic health care out of pocket, you are poor. You need money, not an insurance policy.

We've come to think of insurance as a way to finance regular health care expenses. And when examined, that notion proves utterly irrational. Would we try to finance any of life's other expenses so idiotically? If you couldn't afford your rent, would you take out an insurance policy to pay your rent? If you couldn't afford groceries, would food insurance make sense? And if we did try insurance to pay for rent and food, what do you think would happen to the price of rent and food?

We're chasing our tails. We've driven health care prices through the roof by abusing insurance, and the insurance industry has convinced us that the only way to afford the higher prices is more insurance. We've been hoodwinked, or maybe we've just deluded ourselves. Either way we need to get over it.

I do not disagree, but the truth and reality is, Pandora's box has been opened and there is no way at this point, to put it back in the box, that I can see.... without killing off a bunch of people in the middle class and lower class, when transitioning back to where there is no insurance, except for catastrophic/Hospital care insurance.


Do you have any ideas on how that could be done?

Yes. Get rid of the tax deductions propping up group insurance, particularly employer-provided group insurance. Also get rid of all laws forcing employers to provide such policies.

And let workers buy it after giving capital a tax cut in the form of benefits no longer payed? That's the rub. It's not like a card game where every deal starts a new game.

You have that backwards. Taking away the exemption for Employer Sponsored Health Insurance (EHSI) is not a tax cut.

Taking away the tax exemption for ESHI will no longer incentivize ESHI. ESHI will then dwindle away.

This needs to be commensurate with the repeal of the McCarran–Ferguson Act so you can pick up a telephone and call any health insurance company in the country and choose your own policy which fits your needs and wants.

 

[g5000]

The cost of ESHI is already dragging down business. It is just a matter of time before corporations take their bottomless lobbying and campaign finance war chests and devote mass amounts of cash to supporting single payer healthcare politicians.

 

[bendog]

njd

About one third the cost of our healthcare is the health INSURANCE industry... they do not provide one ounce of actual medical care.... they push paper.

At hospitals and doctor's offices, they have the expense of negotiating the prices with hundreds of different health insurance policies, from work based group policies to individual plans...

a Hospital like a Mayo clinic could have well over 100 different health insurance plans, all with a hundred different prices negotiated for thousands of different medical procedures... It's almost an industry of itself, with the staff needed in Billing etc, which also adds to our health care costs, without a single dime, going to our actual medical care.

With a single payer plan, it is one Insurance company... Medicare, with one single set of prices for all the different medical procedures.

One size fits all, eh?

Insurance is the problem, not the solution. It doesn't matter who owns the insurance company or who pays the premiums. It's the way we're using health insurance that's flawed. Insurance only works as a hedge against risk for people who are already well off. If you have no savings, if you can't afford to pay for basic health care out of pocket, you are poor. You need money, not an insurance policy.

We've come to think of insurance as a way to finance regular health care expenses. And when examined, that notion proves utterly irrational. Would we try to finance any of life's other expenses so idiotically? If you couldn't afford your rent, would you take out an insurance policy to pay your rent? If you couldn't afford groceries, would food insurance make sense? And if we did try insurance to pay for rent and food, what do you think would happen to the price of rent and food?

We're chasing our tails. We've driven health care prices through the roof by abusing insurance, and the insurance industry has convinced us that the only way to afford the higher prices is more insurance. We've been hoodwinked, or maybe we've just deluded ourselves. Either way we need to get over it.

I do not disagree, but the truth and reality is, Pandora's box has been opened and there is no way at this point, to put it back in the box, that I can see.... without killing off a bunch of people in the middle class and lower class, when transitioning back to where there is no insurance, except for catastrophic/Hospital care insurance.


Do you have any ideas on how that could be done?

Yes. Get rid of the tax deductions propping up group insurance, particularly employer-provided group insurance. Also get rid of all laws forcing employers to provide such policies.

And let workers buy it after giving capital a tax cut in the form of benefits no longer payed? That's the rub. It's not like a card game where every deal starts a new game.

You have that backwards. Taking away the exemption for Employer Sponsored Health Insurance (EHSI) is not a tax cut.

Taking away the tax exemption for ESHI will no longer incentivize ESHI. ESHI will then dwindle away.

This needs to be commensurate with the repeal of the McCarran–Ferguson Act so you can pick up a telephone and call any health insurance company in the country and choose your own policy which fits your needs and wants.

It's a tax cut for employers. They will not receive the tax deduction (expenditure) but they're certainly not going to give every worker a raise, and then deduct that expense from gross profit. Rather, they'll pay more taxes … and most likely have higher profits. It's faux libertarian scheme.

And yes, major corp's are on the single payer bandwagon

 

[Andylusion]

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

That anecdote is a cool story bro, but the fact remains the Republicans and Trump are doing NOTHING. They have NO plan. It's all been one massive HOAX.

So...single payer is inevitable because you tards won't hold their feet to the fire. You DESERVE to be hoaxed and you deserve single payer.

I don't want them to have a plan. You guys had a plan, and our system is worse now than it was before.

I hope they simply deregulate and get out of health care. But if I have to choose between do nothing, and do something that makes things worse... I'll take do nothing.

If only Obama had no plan back in 2009, we'd all be better off today.

 

[Dragonlady]

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

That anecdote is a cool story bro, but the fact remains the Republicans and Trump are doing NOTHING. They have NO plan. It's all been one massive HOAX.

So...single payer is inevitable because you tards won't hold their feet to the fire. You DESERVE to be hoaxed and you deserve single payer.

I don't want them to have a plan. You guys had a plan, and our system is worse now than it was before.

I hope they simply deregulate and get out of health care. But if I have to choose between do nothing, and do something that makes things worse... I'll take do nothing.

If only Obama had no plan back in 2009, we'd all be better off today.

There are regulations because without them, hospitals refused to treat people with no money. Insurance companies sold insurance that refused to pay any claims, and in general, people lied, cheated stole from and fleeced sick people.

The medical industrial complex will continue to sell treatments to wealth people from around the world, to the detriment of American citizens. $4000 a dose for life saving medications will be a drop in the bucket.

 

[Rustic]

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

You did ALL of that, in the 1950;s and within a decade, the elderly and the poor were priced right out of healthcare market. MediCare and MedicAid were the response to THAT crisis.

What fools like you fail to realize is that there are SOME things that should NEVER be left to the free market, which is driven by profit, not service. Poor people are not good business. And there are far more of them then there are people wealthy enough to pay the going rate.

Yes, it costs $100 for your to go to the doctor. And if you need ongoing treatment? Hospitals costs, on average, nearly $4000 per day. Cancer treatment can easily hit $100,000.

How Much Does a Night in the Hospital Cost?

15,000,000 people end up in the hospital every year with the average costs being over $10,000 each. Half the people in American can't afford a $500 emergency, and don't give me that bullshit of giving up Starbucks. Poor people don't go to Starbucks. Old people don't go to Starbucks.

Cell phones don't cost $100 a month. A plan that doesn't include data costs $30 a month and if you don't have a phone, you can't find or keep a job, since your employer needs a means to contact you. If you cancel your phone for a month, you have to pay a new account fee, and an upfront fee to get it back.

Once again, you Russian idiots show you have no idea of how things work in America.

People don't go to hospital and get cancer treatment for free. The only reason they aren't turned away is because the government HAD to pass a law to keep hospitals from refusing treatment. That's

Those cancer treatments are billed via inflated billings to people with insurance. That's why you pay $50 for an asprin in hospital. There is no such thing as "free". Somebody somewhere pays for it. It would be better and cheaper to adopt single payer.

LOL

Keep your socialism to yourself

 

[dblack]

I don't want them to have a plan.

I get what you're saying, and ultimately I agree. I don't want government "planning" my health care. But they've been planning (taxing, regulating, subsidizing, mandating) it for some time now, and they've really fucked it up. All that needs to be undone. But undoing it will be a major legislative undertaking.

 

[initforme]

Every last dollar spent on healthcare for Americans is simply worth it. Every citizen who even has an ache should have access to healthcare to treat that ache. This is the greatest nation on Earth so let's act like it.

 

[dblack]

Every last dollar spent on healthcare for Americans is simply worth it.

Let me guess. You work in the health care industry?