Solutions for Universal Healthcare in the US

[AzogtheDefiler]

That is if you take it as a whole. Middle Class, Gov't workers and wealthy people generally have very good insurance and healthcare but the rest suffer and it brings down the overall rating.

True, but the insurance companies still cause health care to cost over twice what it should, and you still have no means of complaining, controlling, or suing over cost or quality.
You have already prepaid with insurance, and can't afford to be dropped and lose your health care access.
It seems clear to me that insurance companies have to be taken out of health care.
They add nothing and not only greatly increase the costs, but the paperwork.

The process is 100% broken

But did anyone ever try to sell you "prepaid legal service"?
It essentially is about the same problems with health insurance.
Once you prepay, you lose any control over costs or quality.
So I think the only way to fix health care is to get private insurance companies out of it.

Or make it work like auto insurance?

Not sure?
With auto insurance, you can reduce cost by getting a less expensive vehicle and going with minimum liability.
You can ditch the optional "comprehensive".
But can you do that with health insurance?
You can increase the deductible, and go with catastrophic only, but a heart valve has got to still costs hundreds of thousands.
But I pay about $500/year for auto insurance, and health insurance was more like $500/month.

Yeah it would be more complex but maybe you go to your point with a higher deductible? At work someone with three kids pays as much as someone with 7 kids. Weird.

You can't go by what employees pay because not only does the employer foot the majority of the bill since it is tax exempt, but employers can group bargain much better than single purchasers can. And that is the problem. The poor who are not given employer insurance end up paying far more for the same or worse coverage than the wealthy who get it through their employer.

We agree that is the problem. Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

 

[Rigby5]

9 things Americans need to learn from the rest of the world’s health care systems

"Universal health care is hard, but it should be possible — and eight more things I discovered from visiting other countries."

www.vox.com

So I have historically been against Universal Healthcare. To me you can have two of the three when it comes to healthcare:

#1) Quality
#2) Cost Effectiveness
#3) Universality


In Canada, Europe, Australia...they have universality and we an argue if they have quality or cost effectiveness but I would argue the latter as the best quality remains in the US. Here of course we have quality and cost effectiveness to a point but not universality. The issue for me now is that many with poor or no insurance wait until their maladies are critical and then seek care, which is way more expensive than if they saw their doctor immediately so I am wavering on universality. The problem is the cost and the cost it takes for persons to become MDs in America. Tuition is not free, it is super expensive. So my solution would be:

#1) Universal Healthcare by 2027 - Gives the Gov't time to put the program together
#2) MDs pay no federal taxes for their first five years post medical school, and pay 10% federal for the next 15 years. This will help them pay off student loans and incentivize more people to become doctors.
#3) Invest in robotics and such to rely less heavily on humans
#4) Increase tax rates, unfortunately therein lies the beast. But we pay pretty heavily through our employers now so we would have to figure that part out but I would provide incentives for those who are healthy and don't use their UH as much, like auto companies do. Maybe a tax break? People who take care of themselves and are healthy should not have to pay the same as those who eat chips all day and are fat and unhealthy. Slippery slope, I know.
#5) Work with Big Pharma for more affordable drugs, especially critical ones for those with debilitating conditions.
#6) Allow persons to purchase additional insurance to be used if necessary. Yes, that favors the wealthy but such is life in capitalism. Tom Brady will receive better treatment than some insurance salesman named Tom Smith.
#7) Legalize all drugs and tax them heavily, use those monies to help cover the costs of UH. Would reduce the war on drugs cost as well if we privatize it.
#8) Create a scholarship fund to attract more persons to the medical profession - Nurses, doctors, etc.
#9) Allow doctors to also take private monies - like they do for LASIK.
#10) Elective surgeries like cosmetic and gender changing would not be covered and would have to come from private monies.


Those are my thoughts and again, I am not sold on this but seeing how our insurance industry is now I believe we need drastic changes. I know those on the left believe we can just magically do it but those who are moderates like myself and those on the right, what are your thoughts? Am I completely crazy to suggest this?

Thank you

PS - Moonglow, you're a troll and you suck, your opinion here is unwelcome. Get lost, loser troll.

Health Care would be affordable to most IF medical establishments charged patients paying cash the same amount that they actually charge insurance companies for the same procedures. If a Hospital bills you $100,000 for a procedure, if you have insurance---the bill is ADJUSTED to about $10,000.

My impression is that is the fault of the insurance companies, who want it that way?

 

[Rigby5]

That is if you take it as a whole. Middle Class, Gov't workers and wealthy people generally have very good insurance and healthcare but the rest suffer and it brings down the overall rating.

True, but the insurance companies still cause health care to cost over twice what it should, and you still have no means of complaining, controlling, or suing over cost or quality.
You have already prepaid with insurance, and can't afford to be dropped and lose your health care access.
It seems clear to me that insurance companies have to be taken out of health care.
They add nothing and not only greatly increase the costs, but the paperwork.

The process is 100% broken

But did anyone ever try to sell you "prepaid legal service"?
It essentially is about the same problems with health insurance.
Once you prepay, you lose any control over costs or quality.
So I think the only way to fix health care is to get private insurance companies out of it.

Or make it work like auto insurance?

Not sure?
With auto insurance, you can reduce cost by getting a less expensive vehicle and going with minimum liability.
You can ditch the optional "comprehensive".
But can you do that with health insurance?
You can increase the deductible, and go with catastrophic only, but a heart valve has got to still costs hundreds of thousands.
But I pay about $500/year for auto insurance, and health insurance was more like $500/month.

Yeah it would be more complex but maybe you go to your point with a higher deductible? At work someone with three kids pays as much as someone with 7 kids. Weird.

You can't go by what employees pay because not only does the employer foot the majority of the bill since it is tax exempt, but employers can group bargain much better than single purchasers can. And that is the problem. The poor who are not given employer insurance end up paying far more for the same or worse coverage than the wealthy who get it through their employer.

We agree that is the problem. Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

And ending the IRS tax exemption for employer benefits, like health insurance, would end that problem.
Because if there was no tax break for employee health insurance, then employers would get out of it.
Then everyone would be equal in having to deal with insurance companies individually, so then the wealthy would be more open to an alternative to insurance.

 

[dblack]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

9 things Americans need to learn from the rest of the world’s health care systems

"Universal health care is hard, but it should be possible — and eight more things I discovered from visiting other countries."

www.vox.com

So I have historically been against Universal Healthcare. To me you can have two of the three when it comes to healthcare:

#1) Quality
#2) Cost Effectiveness
#3) Universality


In Canada, Europe, Australia...they have universality and we an argue if they have quality or cost effectiveness but I would argue the latter as the best quality remains in the US. Here of course we have quality and cost effectiveness to a point but not universality. The issue for me now is that many with poor or no insurance wait until their maladies are critical and then seek care, which is way more expensive than if they saw their doctor immediately so I am wavering on universality. The problem is the cost and the cost it takes for persons to become MDs in America. Tuition is not free, it is super expensive. So my solution would be:

#1) Universal Healthcare by 2027 - Gives the Gov't time to put the program together
#2) MDs pay no federal taxes for their first five years post medical school, and pay 10% federal for the next 15 years. This will help them pay off student loans and incentivize more people to become doctors.
#3) Invest in robotics and such to rely less heavily on humans
#4) Increase tax rates, unfortunately therein lies the beast. But we pay pretty heavily through our employers now so we would have to figure that part out but I would provide incentives for those who are healthy and don't use their UH as much, like auto companies do. Maybe a tax break? People who take care of themselves and are healthy should not have to pay the same as those who eat chips all day and are fat and unhealthy. Slippery slope, I know.
#5) Work with Big Pharma for more affordable drugs, especially critical ones for those with debilitating conditions.
#6) Allow persons to purchase additional insurance to be used if necessary. Yes, that favors the wealthy but such is life in capitalism. Tom Brady will receive better treatment than some insurance salesman named Tom Smith.
#7) Legalize all drugs and tax them heavily, use those monies to help cover the costs of UH. Would reduce the war on drugs cost as well if we privatize it.
#8) Create a scholarship fund to attract more persons to the medical profession - Nurses, doctors, etc.
#9) Allow doctors to also take private monies - like they do for LASIK.
#10) Elective surgeries like cosmetic and gender changing would not be covered and would have to come from private monies.


Those are my thoughts and again, I am not sold on this but seeing how our insurance industry is now I believe we need drastic changes. I know those on the left believe we can just magically do it but those who are moderates like myself and those on the right, what are your thoughts? Am I completely crazy to suggest this?

Thank you

PS - Moonglow, you're a troll and you suck, your opinion here is unwelcome. Get lost, loser troll.

Health Care would be affordable to most IF medical establishments charged patients paying cash the same amount that they actually charge insurance companies for the same procedures. If a Hospital bills you $100,000 for a procedure, if you have insurance---the bill is ADJUSTED to about $10,000.

My impression is that is the fault of the insurance companies, who want it that way?

That is 100% correct but not entirely their fault

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

You would howl if it lessened your and your family’s healthcare or made it significantly pricier. I would For sure

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That is if you take it as a whole. Middle Class, Gov't workers and wealthy people generally have very good insurance and healthcare but the rest suffer and it brings down the overall rating.

True, but the insurance companies still cause health care to cost over twice what it should, and you still have no means of complaining, controlling, or suing over cost or quality.
You have already prepaid with insurance, and can't afford to be dropped and lose your health care access.
It seems clear to me that insurance companies have to be taken out of health care.
They add nothing and not only greatly increase the costs, but the paperwork.

The process is 100% broken

But did anyone ever try to sell you "prepaid legal service"?
It essentially is about the same problems with health insurance.
Once you prepay, you lose any control over costs or quality.
So I think the only way to fix health care is to get private insurance companies out of it.

Or make it work like auto insurance?

Not sure?
With auto insurance, you can reduce cost by getting a less expensive vehicle and going with minimum liability.
You can ditch the optional "comprehensive".
But can you do that with health insurance?
You can increase the deductible, and go with catastrophic only, but a heart valve has got to still costs hundreds of thousands.
But I pay about $500/year for auto insurance, and health insurance was more like $500/month.

Yeah it would be more complex but maybe you go to your point with a higher deductible? At work someone with three kids pays as much as someone with 7 kids. Weird.

You can't go by what employees pay because not only does the employer foot the majority of the bill since it is tax exempt, but employers can group bargain much better than single purchasers can. And that is the problem. The poor who are not given employer insurance end up paying far more for the same or worse coverage than the wealthy who get it through their employer.

We agree that is the problem. Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

And ending the IRS tax exemption for employer benefits, like health insurance, would end that problem.
Because if there was no tax break for employee health insurance, then employers would get out of it.
Then everyone would be equal in having to deal with insurance companies individually, so then the wealthy would be more open to an alternative to insurance.

Wealthy would still get the best doctors. Poor would as well as they would be subsidized. Middle class would suffer per usual.

 

[dblack]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

You would howl if it lessened your and your family’s healthcare or made it significantly pricier. I would For sure

Health care prices are already inflated beyond all reason because of ill-conceived government meddling. So yeah, I'd complain about that. But if they just raised taxes and gave that money directly to the poor - and otherwise leave health care alone - it would be a far better outcome than government controlled, "universal" health care.

 

[Rigby5]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

But the problem is not just the need to expand coverage to those who can't afford it.
We are still also paying over twice for health care than what we should, and by going through employers, we make goods we produce too expensive to export, while also making it impossible for some people with pre-existing conditions, to be able to change employers.

Some sort of public heath care is not handing anything over to congress.
You can run something like Medicare for all, through the states.
And things like Medicare and VA already are federally run, and yet they do not become inefficient or wasteful, as private health insurance surely has become.

 

[Rigby5]

That is if you take it as a whole. Middle Class, Gov't workers and wealthy people generally have very good insurance and healthcare but the rest suffer and it brings down the overall rating.

True, but the insurance companies still cause health care to cost over twice what it should, and you still have no means of complaining, controlling, or suing over cost or quality.
You have already prepaid with insurance, and can't afford to be dropped and lose your health care access.
It seems clear to me that insurance companies have to be taken out of health care.
They add nothing and not only greatly increase the costs, but the paperwork.

The process is 100% broken

But did anyone ever try to sell you "prepaid legal service"?
It essentially is about the same problems with health insurance.
Once you prepay, you lose any control over costs or quality.
So I think the only way to fix health care is to get private insurance companies out of it.

Or make it work like auto insurance?

Not sure?
With auto insurance, you can reduce cost by getting a less expensive vehicle and going with minimum liability.
You can ditch the optional "comprehensive".
But can you do that with health insurance?
You can increase the deductible, and go with catastrophic only, but a heart valve has got to still costs hundreds of thousands.
But I pay about $500/year for auto insurance, and health insurance was more like $500/month.

Yeah it would be more complex but maybe you go to your point with a higher deductible? At work someone with three kids pays as much as someone with 7 kids. Weird.

You can't go by what employees pay because not only does the employer foot the majority of the bill since it is tax exempt, but employers can group bargain much better than single purchasers can. And that is the problem. The poor who are not given employer insurance end up paying far more for the same or worse coverage than the wealthy who get it through their employer.

We agree that is the problem. Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

And ending the IRS tax exemption for employer benefits, like health insurance, would end that problem.
Because if there was no tax break for employee health insurance, then employers would get out of it.
Then everyone would be equal in having to deal with insurance companies individually, so then the wealthy would be more open to an alternative to insurance.

Wealthy would still get the best doctors. Poor would as well as they would be subsidized. Middle class would suffer per usual.

That is the whole point of public health care.
If the doctors are on salary and do not bill patients for procedures, then the poor and wealthy get the same health care.
And the wealthy save money because right now they are paying the profits to the insurance companies, the medical corporations, the hospitals, as well as the doctors income.
With public health care, you only pay for the hospitals and doctors.
The 2 extra layers skimming at the top are eliminated.

 

[Rigby5]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

You would howl if it lessened your and your family’s healthcare or made it significantly pricier. I would For sure

Health care prices are already inflated beyond all reason because of ill-conceived government meddling. So yeah, I'd complain about that. But if they just raised taxes and gave that money directly to the poor - and otherwise leave health care alone - it would be a far better outcome than government controlled, "universal" health care.

What are you talking about?
The problem is there is no government meddling in health care except the mandatory treatment in the ER, which the feds pay for.
If what you suggest was done, raise taxes and give the money directly to the poor, then they would still have to individually negotiate with insurance companies, pay more than the wealthy people, and we would all go broke trying to increase profits to insurance companies.
The whole problem is the insurance companies, who add nothing to health care except extra expense.

 

[dblack]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

But the problem is not just the need to expand coverage to those who can't afford it.
We are still also paying over twice for health care than what we should, and by going through employers, we make goods we produce too expensive to export, while also making it impossible for some people with pre-existing conditions, to be able to change employers.

Right. To truly improve things we'd have to get rid of all the ill-conceived regulation that created the problems in the first place.

Some sort of public heath care is not handing anything over to congress.
You can run something like Medicare for all, through the states.
And things like Medicare and VA already are federally run, and yet they do not become inefficient or wasteful, as private health insurance surely has become.

Medicare and, for the most part, the VA are safety net programs. Taking over the entire system is another matter entirely. Change that broad requires real consensus, and we simply don't have that. If we try to force universal health care through it will be a political football from hell. The parties will thrash back and forth over it and, when the dust settles, it'll be a corporatist feeding trough supervised by Congress. That's exactly what happened with ACA, and it will be ten times worse if we try for "universal" health care.

 

[dblack]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

You would howl if it lessened your and your family’s healthcare or made it significantly pricier. I would For sure

Health care prices are already inflated beyond all reason because of ill-conceived government meddling. So yeah, I'd complain about that. But if they just raised taxes and gave that money directly to the poor - and otherwise leave health care alone - it would be a far better outcome than government controlled, "universal" health care.

What are you talking about?
The problem is there is no government meddling in health care except the mandatory treatment in the ER, which the feds pay for.
If what you suggest was done, raise taxes and give the money directly to the poor, then they would still have to individually negotiate with insurance companies, pay more than the wealthy people, and we would all go broke trying to increase profits to insurance companies.
The whole problem is the insurance companies, who add nothing to health care except extra expense.

I don't agree. Government meddling produced the situation with the insurance companies, it set them up and vested them with the power they now enjoy. If we removed the rules and regulations propping them up, their broken system will collapse. People being "forced" to deal with doctors and insurance companies directly, rather than piping it through an employer, will be a good thing. It will, in turn, force doctors and insurance companies to offer affordable services that deliver real value. Why? Because people don't put up with shitty, overpriced crap if they're spending their own money. If their employer is picking up the tab they don't give a shit.

There's nothing inherently wrong with insurance. But, with health care, we've tried to turn it into a social safety net, and it can't be that. It just doesn't work that way. Trying to force it to work that way, like pretty much every effort to placate irrational desires with the law, has created a mess.

 

[Rigby5]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

But the problem is not just the need to expand coverage to those who can't afford it.
We are still also paying over twice for health care than what we should, and by going through employers, we make goods we produce too expensive to export, while also making it impossible for some people with pre-existing conditions, to be able to change employers.

Right. To truly improve things we'd have to get rid of all the ill-conceived regulation that created the problems in the first place.

Some sort of public heath care is not handing anything over to congress.
You can run something like Medicare for all, through the states.
And things like Medicare and VA already are federally run, and yet they do not become inefficient or wasteful, as private health insurance surely has become.

Medicare and, for the most part, the VA are safety net programs. Taking over the entire system is another matter entirely. Change that broad requires real consensus, and we simply don't have that. If we try to force universal health care through it will be a political football from hell. The parties will thrash back and forth over it and, when the dust settles, it'll be a corporatist feeding trough supervised by Congress. That's exactly what happened with ACA, and it will be ten times worse if we try for "universal" health care.

Nah, almost every single country in the world easily did it, long ago.
The whole point of Medicare and VA is there is no private corporation.
It is just current providers billing the government instead of the insurance companies, and that saves huge amounts of time and money because insurance companies have very picky rules, methods, forms, etc.

Yes that is what happened with ACA, but that was because ACA not only was through private for profit insurance companies, but was mandated. If you get rid of the insurance companies, then universal health care is trivial and much cheaper.

 

[Rigby5]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

You would howl if it lessened your and your family’s healthcare or made it significantly pricier. I would For sure

Health care prices are already inflated beyond all reason because of ill-conceived government meddling. So yeah, I'd complain about that. But if they just raised taxes and gave that money directly to the poor - and otherwise leave health care alone - it would be a far better outcome than government controlled, "universal" health care.

What are you talking about?
The problem is there is no government meddling in health care except the mandatory treatment in the ER, which the feds pay for.
If what you suggest was done, raise taxes and give the money directly to the poor, then they would still have to individually negotiate with insurance companies, pay more than the wealthy people, and we would all go broke trying to increase profits to insurance companies.
The whole problem is the insurance companies, who add nothing to health care except extra expense.

I don't agree. Government meddling produced the situation with the insurance companies, it set them up and vested them with the power they now enjoy. If we removed the rules and regulations propping them up, their broken system will collapse. People being "forced" to deal with doctors and insurance companies directly, rather than piping it through an employer, will be a good thing. It will, in turn, force doctors and insurance companies to offer affordable services that deliver real value. Why? Because people don't put up with shitty, overpriced crap if they're spending their own money. If their employer is picking up the tab they don't give a shit.

There's nothing inherently wrong with insurance. But, with health care, we've tried to turn it into a social safety net, and it can't be that. It just doesn't work that way. Trying to force it to work that way, like pretty much every effort to placate irrational desires with the law, has created a mess.

You keep talking about insurance companies, so then you still don't get it.
When you have public health care like Medicare of VA, most people will no longer need, want, or have insurance any more.
Just look at Canada, England, Germany, France, Sweden, etc, and most people no longer need, want, or have medical insurance.
It is unnecessary, wasteful, and expensive.

There most certainly are many things inherently wrong with insurance.
One is that you are forced to prepay, so then lose any ability to withhold payment over costs of quality disputes.
Two is that insurance companies skim huge profits without adding any medical treatment.
Three is they tend to lock up providers so you can't even see a doctor without insurance.
Four is that they had huge overhead of paperwork, forms, etc., that differ for each company.
Insurance companies should have nothing to do with health care, as they are always going to discriminate against the poor.

 

[dblack]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

But the problem is not just the need to expand coverage to those who can't afford it.
We are still also paying over twice for health care than what we should, and by going through employers, we make goods we produce too expensive to export, while also making it impossible for some people with pre-existing conditions, to be able to change employers.

Right. To truly improve things we'd have to get rid of all the ill-conceived regulation that created the problems in the first place.

Some sort of public heath care is not handing anything over to congress.
You can run something like Medicare for all, through the states.
And things like Medicare and VA already are federally run, and yet they do not become inefficient or wasteful, as private health insurance surely has become.

Medicare and, for the most part, the VA are safety net programs. Taking over the entire system is another matter entirely. Change that broad requires real consensus, and we simply don't have that. If we try to force universal health care through it will be a political football from hell. The parties will thrash back and forth over it and, when the dust settles, it'll be a corporatist feeding trough supervised by Congress. That's exactly what happened with ACA, and it will be ten times worse if we try for "universal" health care.

Nah, almost every single country in the world easily did it, long ago.

They did it with real consensus. Their programs weren't forced through on a party line vote and their nations weren't as sharply divided as ours. If we did, now, it would be a fucking mess.

Look up the Congressional vote totals for similar programs like Social Security and Medicare, that did manage to be become stable institutions. They enjoyed broad consensus. And they were supported by members of both parties. They weren't forced through on a party line vote, with one side skulking away swearing revenge. You KNOW that's how it would be if we tried it in the US under the current political climate.

The whole point of Medicare and VA is there is no private corporation. It is just current providers billing the
government instead of the insurance companies, and that saves huge amounts of time and money because insurance companies have very picky rules, methods, forms, etc.

Well, that's simply not true. But we've had that discussion before, and I've shown how Medicare is actually contracted out to the same insurance companies working with employers, and you refused to acknowledge it. Not eager to go over that again.

Yes that is what happened with ACA, but that was because ACA not only was through private for profit insurance companies, but was mandated. If you get rid of the insurance companies, then universal health care is trivial and much cheaper.

Universal health care would simply reduce a handful of dominant, overly powerful insurance companies to one, all-powerful insurance company, run by Congress. If we're lucky. More likely it would, like Medicare, keep the insurance companies riding the gravy train in the background. Either way, it's hard to see that as an improvement.

 

[dblack]

There most certainly are many things inherently wrong with insurance.
One is that you are forced to prepay, so then lose any ability to withhold payment over costs of quality disputes.
Two is that insurance companies skim huge profits without adding any medical treatment.
Three is they tend to lock up providers so you can't even see a doctor without insurance.
Four is that they had huge overhead of paperwork, forms, etc., that differ for each company.
Insurance companies should have nothing to do with health care, as they are always going to discriminate against the poor.

You're describing the corrupt, bloated form that health insurance has taken. The problems you cite aren't inherent to insurance itself - and you don't see them outside of health care. It's taken that form because of our misguided efforts to placate irrational desires via legal mandates.

And irrational desires are the core problem. The problem with health care starts and ends with desire to have all the health care you need and not have pay for it.

 

[Rigby5]

Another problem is that the rich and middle class don’t want to sacrifice their healthcare to help the poor. If we are being honest.

I'm sure many people look at it that way. But that has nothing to do with my opposition. If the plan were to simply expand the safety net to help out more people who can't afford health care, I wouldn't be on here howling about it. The problem is that it's a power grab. It's handing over control of twenty percent of the economy to Congress. Worse, it's making health care a political concern - another thing for partisans to fight over. Another thing to scare voters with every election. We just don't need that.

But the problem is not just the need to expand coverage to those who can't afford it.
We are still also paying over twice for health care than what we should, and by going through employers, we make goods we produce too expensive to export, while also making it impossible for some people with pre-existing conditions, to be able to change employers.

Right. To truly improve things we'd have to get rid of all the ill-conceived regulation that created the problems in the first place.

Some sort of public heath care is not handing anything over to congress.
You can run something like Medicare for all, through the states.
And things like Medicare and VA already are federally run, and yet they do not become inefficient or wasteful, as private health insurance surely has become.

Medicare and, for the most part, the VA are safety net programs. Taking over the entire system is another matter entirely. Change that broad requires real consensus, and we simply don't have that. If we try to force universal health care through it will be a political football from hell. The parties will thrash back and forth over it and, when the dust settles, it'll be a corporatist feeding trough supervised by Congress. That's exactly what happened with ACA, and it will be ten times worse if we try for "universal" health care.

Nah, almost every single country in the world easily did it, long ago.

They did it with real consensus. Their programs weren't forced through on a party line vote and their nations weren't as sharply divided as ours. If we did, now, it would be a fucking mess.

Look up the Congressional vote totals for similar programs like Social Security and Medicare, that did manage to be become stable institutions. They enjoyed broad consensus. And they were supported by members of both parties. They weren't forced through on a party line vote, with one side skulking away swearing revenge. You KNOW that's how it would be if we tried it in the US under the current political climate.

The whole point of Medicare and VA is there is no private corporation. It is just current providers billing the
government instead of the insurance companies, and that saves huge amounts of time and money because insurance companies have very picky rules, methods, forms, etc.

Well, that's simply not true. But we've had that discussion before, and I've shown how Medicare is actually contracted out to the same insurance companies working with employers, and you refused to acknowledge it. Not eager to go over that again.

Yes that is what happened with ACA, but that was because ACA not only was through private for profit insurance companies, but was mandated. If you get rid of the insurance companies, then universal health care is trivial and much cheaper.

Universal health care would simply reduce a handful of dominant, overly powerful insurance companies to one, all-powerful insurance company, run by Congress. If we're lucky. More likely it would, like Medicare, keep the insurance companies riding the gravy train in the background. Either way, it's hard to see that as an improvement.

Wrong.
With insurance you prepay and the company takes it as profits, hoping to later not pay out much.
With public health care, you don't prepay anything. If you need health care, the government pays it out of current taxes, and there is no one taking out profit.
You don't get it.
Insurance is always awful and not the best way to do anything.
Public health care has ZERO insurance companies.

And it would be easy to get a consensus to support public health care.
All you have to do is end the current IRS employer tax exemption for employee benefits like health insurance.
It should never have been legal in the first place, since all benefits should be taxable.
And once everyone is on the same level playing field of no employer insurance, everyone will want public health care.

 

[Rigby5]

There most certainly are many things inherently wrong with insurance.
One is that you are forced to prepay, so then lose any ability to withhold payment over costs of quality disputes.
Two is that insurance companies skim huge profits without adding any medical treatment.
Three is they tend to lock up providers so you can't even see a doctor without insurance.
Four is that they had huge overhead of paperwork, forms, etc., that differ for each company.
Insurance companies should have nothing to do with health care, as they are always going to discriminate against the poor.

You're describing the corrupt, bloated form that health insurance has taken. The problems you cite aren't inherent to insurance itself - and you don't see them outside of health care. It's taken that form because of our misguided efforts to placate irrational desires via legal mandates.

And irrational desires are the core problem. The problem with health care starts and ends with desire to have all the health care you need and not have pay for it.

There is nothing irrational about wanting all the health care you need and not having to pay for it.
That is what almost every country in the world has, and it was easy to do.
Health care is not something that is going to be abused, like free ice cream.
No one wants to go to a doctor, and will only do it when necessary.

 

[sealybobo]

We don't need government to provide us with health care. In a free society, government isn't our "provider". To the extent that it is, society is not free.

How about this. I want to retire when I'm 62 but that's going to be hard because medicare doesn't kick in till 65. How about you allow people who retire at 62 to jump on medicare then? Wouldn't that be fair?

Republicans complain that social security sucks because if you die at 66 you got ripped off. You paid in all your life but only got 1 year out of it. But then in the next breath they want to raise the retirement age?

Yes and no.
Yes because work should not be a requirement for healthcare but
No because lowering the age to 62 would introduce far more unhealthy people into an already overburdened system.
Medicare for all with appropriate tax levels and funding is the answer.

Medicare for all sounds good to me.
You have collective bargaining power for all, and can use "ability to pay" criteria to make it fair.

Bbbbutbbbutbbbut that’s socialism. Lol