Solutions for Universal Healthcare in the US

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

It’s not irrational but it is a pipe dream. Everything run by the Govt is at best inefficient and at worst a corrupt mess. See the VA.

 

[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.

It’s not irrational but it is a pipe dream. Everything run by the Govt is at best inefficient and at worst a corrupt mess. See the VA.

While often neglected, the VA really is not that bad.
It has low quality care and long waits, but that is because of the irregular surges in the military as we ramp up for wars and then have long periods of inactivity.
First of all, the VA cost far less than current private health care through insurance.

{... For example, spending is nearly $30,000 per patient in San Francisco, and less than $7,000 per patient in Lubbock, Texas. Nationally, the average is just under $10,000. In places where more veterans are enrolled in VA health benefit plans, spending per veteran did tend to be higher. There are lots of explanations for these disparities.
...}


In comparison, private health insurance cost over $7,000 per person, even though less than 1% of the population is a patient at any one time. That means insurance based health care costs over 100 times as much.

{... The First Step is Quality. In 2019, health insurance for a single person in the US private sector cost over $7,000 on average. ...}

Nor is low quality health care through the VA worse than no health care at all, which is the case for a lot of people. At least 20% of the population, and due to high deductibles, likely far more are unwilling to incur the personal costs.

Think of whatever public health care we come up with as a safety net, which does not have to be the best. It just has to allow things to be caught early when treatment or referral is much easier.
Nor does it have to be central and federal.
There is no reason why states and municipalities can't run public health care.
If there are lots of incidents of people crossing state lines for better care, that can be made equitable through federal financing, but still managed by states or municipalities.
The goal would be to eliminate all the paperwork overhead and layers of profit skimming, minimize administration costs, and only have to pay the low level providers.
The VA and Medicare have extremely low administrative costs.
{...
Executive Summary One of the most common, and least challenged, assertions in the debate over U.S. health care policy is that Medicare administrative costs are about 2 percent of claims costs, while private insurance companies’ administrative costs are in the 20 to 25 percent range.
...}
(I have not read much of this link, so I hope it is not counter to my claim?)

https://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf#:~:text=Executive%20Summary%20One%20of%20the%20most%20common%2C%20and,are%20in%20the%2020%20to%2025%20percent%20range.

 

[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 ******* 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.

I'm sure I am. About lots of things. But not regarding what you're talking about here.

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.

Despite the socialist's refrain, profit isn't the bugbear here. It's not what's twisted the health care market into an unsustainable mess.

Insurance is always awful and not the best way to do anything.

Insurance isn't a way to "do" anything. Your phrasing here reveals the problem.

Insurance is a financial tool to mitigate risk for people who are relatively well off. It gives people who have money, and don't want to lose it all, a way to mitigate that risk. It's literally a hedge, a side bet to soften the blow if one faces catastrophic loss.

Insurance is NOT a means of having "access" to something you can't otherwise afford. It's not a way to take care of the poor. People who can't afford the necessities of life don't need insurance, they need money. The silliness of that view - that the key to getting everyone health care is to get them all signed up for insurance - becomes clear in you apply it to any of the other things we need to make it through life.

If you can't afford your rent, would you go looking for insurance to pay for it? Or would you look for a cheaper place to live (or a better job)?
If you can't afford groceries, would you look for an insurance policy that would (somehow) provide you with free food? Does that make ANY sense?
If you can't afford a car, would expect to have "access" to an insurance policy that provides you with one?

As I was saying earlier, we have irrational expectations when it comes to health insurance. Trying to use legal mandates to force the insurance model to adhere to those expectations is what's created most of the problems we're fighting with.

Public health care has ZERO insurance companies.

It's possible to set it up that way. We can take it over entirely with government. But, again, there's no consensus on that. If that's what you want, we'll need to build that consensus first. Trying to force it via majority rule won't work.

And it would be easy to get a consensus to support public health care.

Maybe. But we haven't achieved that yet.

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.

I think we agree on that point. I don't really think we need to make it illegal, but removing all the rules and regulations pushing employers into serving as our health care providers should be the first step in any reform effort.

And once everyone is on the same level playing field of no employer insurance, everyone will want public health care.

That remains to be seen whether than would turn us all into socialists, or merely bring the health care market back into balance. But I think it would make things better in any case.

 

[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 ******* 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.

I'm sure I am. About lots of things. But not regarding what you're talking about here.

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.

Despite the socialist's refrain, profit isn't the bugbear here. It's not what's twisted the health care market into an unsustainable mess.

Insurance is always awful and not the best way to do anything.

Insurance isn't a way to "do" anything. Your phrasing here reveals the problem.

Insurance is a financial tool to mitigate risk for people who are relatively well off. It gives people who have money, and don't want to lose it all, a way to mitigate that risk. It's literally a hedge, a side bet to soften the blow if one faces catastrophic loss.

Insurance is NOT a means of having "access" to something you can't otherwise afford. It's not a way to take care of the poor. People who can't afford the necessities of life don't need insurance, they need money. The silliness of that view - that the key to getting everyone health care is to get them all signed up for insurance - becomes clear in you apply it to any of the other things we need to make it through life.

If you can't afford your rent, would you go looking for insurance to pay for it? Or would you look for a cheaper place to live (or a better job)?
If you can't afford groceries, would you look for an insurance policy? Does that make ANY sense?
If you can't afford a car, would expect to have "access" to an insurance policy that provides you with one?

As I was saying earlier, we have irrational expectations when it comes to health insurance. Trying to use legal mandates to force the insurance model to adhere to those expectations is what's created most of the problems we're fighting with.

Public health care has ZERO insurance companies.

It's possible to set it up that way. We can take it over entirely with government. But, again, there's no consensus on that. If that's what you want, we'll need to build that consensus first. Trying to force it via majority rule won't work.

And it would be easy to get a consensus to support public health care.

Maybe. But we haven't achieved that yet.

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.

I think we agree on that point. I don't really think we need to make it illegal, but removing all the rules and regulations pushing employers into being our health care providers should be the first step in any reform effort.

And once everyone is on the same level playing field of no employer insurance, everyone will want public health care.

That remains to be seen whether than would turn us all into socialists, or merely bring the health care market back into balance. But I think it would make things better in any case.

The point is insurance makes no sense for risk pooling.
Insurance cost $5 for every $1 of health care it provides.

Public health care does not turn government into an insurance company because it is not making any one prepay, is not trying to make a profit, and is not trying to deny claims with obscure and complicated paper work rules.

The whole concept of employer benefits to employees, like health care, being tax exempt is inherently illegal.
All benefits should be taxed, and it is very unfair to poor people to not tax benefits only to the wealthy.

 

[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 ******* 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.

I'm sure I am. About lots of things. But not regarding what you're talking about here.

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.

Despite the socialist's refrain, profit isn't the bugbear here. It's not what's twisted the health care market into an unsustainable mess.

Insurance is always awful and not the best way to do anything.

Insurance isn't a way to "do" anything. Your phrasing here reveals the problem.

Insurance is a financial tool to mitigate risk for people who are relatively well off. It gives people who have money, and don't want to lose it all, a way to mitigate that risk. It's literally a hedge, a side bet to soften the blow if one faces catastrophic loss.

Insurance is NOT a means of having "access" to something you can't otherwise afford. It's not a way to take care of the poor. People who can't afford the necessities of life don't need insurance, they need money. The silliness of that view - that the key to getting everyone health care is to get them all signed up for insurance - becomes clear in you apply it to any of the other things we need to make it through life.

If you can't afford your rent, would you go looking for insurance to pay for it? Or would you look for a cheaper place to live (or a better job)?
If you can't afford groceries, would you look for an insurance policy? Does that make ANY sense?
If you can't afford a car, would expect to have "access" to an insurance policy that provides you with one?

As I was saying earlier, we have irrational expectations when it comes to health insurance. Trying to use legal mandates to force the insurance model to adhere to those expectations is what's created most of the problems we're fighting with.

Public health care has ZERO insurance companies.

It's possible to set it up that way. We can take it over entirely with government. But, again, there's no consensus on that. If that's what you want, we'll need to build that consensus first. Trying to force it via majority rule won't work.

And it would be easy to get a consensus to support public health care.

Maybe. But we haven't achieved that yet.

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.

I think we agree on that point. I don't really think we need to make it illegal, but removing all the rules and regulations pushing employers into being our health care providers should be the first step in any reform effort.

And once everyone is on the same level playing field of no employer insurance, everyone will want public health care.

That remains to be seen whether than would turn us all into socialists, or merely bring the health care market back into balance. But I think it would make things better in any case.

The point is insurance makes no sense for risk pooling.
Insurance cost $5 for every $1 of health care it provides.

Agreed. The concept of "risk pooling" has been taken out of context. It's a way for the insurance company manage its own risk. It's not shorthand for "social safety net".

Public health care does not turn government into an insurance company because it is not making any one prepay, is not trying to make a profit, and is not trying to deny claims with obscure and complicated paper work rules.

If you're talking about setting up something like Medicare, very little changes. It's still "group insurance". Still operated by the same for-profit companies. The only difference is that the government pays for it rather than your employer. And there's only one "employer".

If you want to omit "profit" from the equation (a mistake in my view), you'd need to have government running everything: hospitals, doctor's offices, the pharmaceutical supply chain, etc, etc.... This highlights the problem with trying to socialize a single segment of the economy. You can't do it. It's all connected. There will always be privately-owned companies profiting at the intersections. And their profit will depend on their ability to manipulate government, ensuring corruption.

The whole concept of employer benefits to employees, like health care, being tax exempt is inherently illegal.
All benefits should be taxed, and it is very unfair to poor people to not tax benefits only to the wealthy.

Agreed.

 

[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 ******* 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.

I'm sure I am. About lots of things. But not regarding what you're talking about here.

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.

Despite the socialist's refrain, profit isn't the bugbear here. It's not what's twisted the health care market into an unsustainable mess.

Insurance is always awful and not the best way to do anything.

Insurance isn't a way to "do" anything. Your phrasing here reveals the problem.

Insurance is a financial tool to mitigate risk for people who are relatively well off. It gives people who have money, and don't want to lose it all, a way to mitigate that risk. It's literally a hedge, a side bet to soften the blow if one faces catastrophic loss.

Insurance is NOT a means of having "access" to something you can't otherwise afford. It's not a way to take care of the poor. People who can't afford the necessities of life don't need insurance, they need money. The silliness of that view - that the key to getting everyone health care is to get them all signed up for insurance - becomes clear in you apply it to any of the other things we need to make it through life.

If you can't afford your rent, would you go looking for insurance to pay for it? Or would you look for a cheaper place to live (or a better job)?
If you can't afford groceries, would you look for an insurance policy? Does that make ANY sense?
If you can't afford a car, would expect to have "access" to an insurance policy that provides you with one?

As I was saying earlier, we have irrational expectations when it comes to health insurance. Trying to use legal mandates to force the insurance model to adhere to those expectations is what's created most of the problems we're fighting with.

Public health care has ZERO insurance companies.

It's possible to set it up that way. We can take it over entirely with government. But, again, there's no consensus on that. If that's what you want, we'll need to build that consensus first. Trying to force it via majority rule won't work.

And it would be easy to get a consensus to support public health care.

Maybe. But we haven't achieved that yet.

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.

I think we agree on that point. I don't really think we need to make it illegal, but removing all the rules and regulations pushing employers into being our health care providers should be the first step in any reform effort.

And once everyone is on the same level playing field of no employer insurance, everyone will want public health care.

That remains to be seen whether than would turn us all into socialists, or merely bring the health care market back into balance. But I think it would make things better in any case.

The point is insurance makes no sense for risk pooling.
Insurance cost $5 for every $1 of health care it provides.

Agreed. The concept of "risk pooling" has been taken out of context. It's a way for the insurance company manage its own risk. It's not shorthand for "social safety net".

Public health care does not turn government into an insurance company because it is not making any one prepay, is not trying to make a profit, and is not trying to deny claims with obscure and complicated paper work rules.

If you're talking about setting up something like Medicare, very little changes. It's still "group insurance". Still operated by the same for-profit companies. The only difference is that the government pays for it rather than your employer. And there's only one "employer".

If you want to omit "profit" from the equation (a mistake in my view), you'd need to have government running everything: hospitals, doctor's offices, the pharmaceutical supply chain, etc, etc.... This highlights the problem with trying to socialize a single segment of the economy. You can't do it. It's all connected. There will always be privately-owned companies profiting at the intersections. And their profit will depend on their ability to manipulate government, ensuring corruption.

The whole concept of employer benefits to employees, like health care, being tax exempt is inherently illegal.
All benefits should be taxed, and it is very unfair to poor people to not tax benefits only to the wealthy.

Agreed.

There are 2 ways to get the wasteful layers of insurance company skimming out of health care.
If you do it by expanding Medicare for all, then you not only save all the profit the insurance companies skim, but you greatly reduce paperwork over head, Not only by the simplified government forms replacing the complex private insurance forms that attempt to deny payments, but also by the doctors not having to hire insurance form specialists. Medicare for all would not be attempting to deny any claim as much, since it is not profit based. If costs go up, they just request more funding.
The other way would do it by expanding VA for all, and that would be hiring the doctors and building the clinics directly as well. I think that would be cheapest, but give less choice.

 

[dblack]

There are 2 ways to get the wasteful layers of insurance company skimming out of health care.
If you do it by expanding Medicare for all, then you not only save all the profit the insurance companies skim, but you greatly reduce paperwork over head

I don't believe insurance company skimming is the core problem - but if want them out of the picture, you'll have to completely rework the Medicare model, not just expand it.

 

[Rigby5]

There are 2 ways to get the wasteful layers of insurance company skimming out of health care.
If you do it by expanding Medicare for all, then you not only save all the profit the insurance companies skim, but you greatly reduce paperwork over head

I don't believe insurance company skimming is the core problem - but if want them out of the picture, you'll have to completely rework the Medicare model, not just expand it.

I suppose, but I really do not see how insurance has anything to do with Medicare?
You have medical providers, and they have to fill out the claim forms.
They fill out one set for each insurance company, and a different form for Medicare.
Why or how could insurance companies ever get into the picture?
If you are saying that for Medicare to process these forms, that they hire insurance companies, that would be awful and they should immediately stop doing that.
There would be no reason for the adversarial waste as long as one used preferred providers, like state or local run clinics.
Insurance companies are trying to deny and deliberately add complexity, but Medicare should not be doing that, and should greatly simplify.

 

[dblack]

There are 2 ways to get the wasteful layers of insurance company skimming out of health care.
If you do it by expanding Medicare for all, then you not only save all the profit the insurance companies skim, but you greatly reduce paperwork over head

I don't believe insurance company skimming is the core problem - but if want them out of the picture, you'll have to completely rework the Medicare model, not just expand it.

I suppose, but I really do not see how insurance has anything to do with Medicare?

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership - Center for Medicare Advocacy

Most people think Medicare is a government program. That’s only partly true. While Congress created Medicare, and continues to develop Medicare coverage and appeal rules, decisions to pay claims are actually made by private companies. The government does not make those decisions. This was one of...

www.medicareadvocacy.org

You have medical providers, and they have to fill out the claim forms.
They fill out one set for each insurance company, and a different form for Medicare.
Why or how could insurance companies ever get into the picture?
If you are saying that for Medicare to process these forms, that they hire insurance companies, that would be awful and they should immediately stop doing that.

Well, that's exactly what's happening. See above link.

 

[dblack]

Here's another good article on the issue:

Want to expand Medicare? You’ll need to hire the insurance companies, not fire them

The depth and scope of Medicare’s reliance on for-profit companies is hard to understand from the outside.

thehill.com

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

Quite frankly this topic is one I am not a fan of tackling, mainly because it is complicated and and no solution is good. Neither side on the issue would not be satisfied, no matter how hard you try.
1. You pointed out Western Socialized healthcare. How good it is, depends upon which western nation you go to. I've met with British people that moved to France and like France's socialized healthcare more than Britain's healthcare system. In short, each is different.
2. Under socialized healthcare, you can quickly obtain emergency care for injuries and other immediate life threatening situations, BUT....for other medical issues, the wait times for appointments can be enormous and if it is something like cancer spreading inside of you, your survival rate is diminished. Also, if you have ongoing pain issues, you just have to deal with it until you can eventually be seen by a physician.
3. As you said, "taxes are the beast." Frankly, I'm retired and live in an old rundown mobile home on a very small patch of land and am on a fixed income. Between federal taxes and local property taxes, I am in the red for the first few months of the year and as the property taxes continue to rise substantially each year due to continued demands for more taxes to pay for more schools, my being in the red will expand into more months. If you add in even more federal taxes to pay for socialized medicine, that will further push me down the rabbit hole of government debt and I'll be out in a tent along with the many other people already in tents in this nation.
4. No tax breaks for doctors or wannabe doctors. Period. If I have to pay more in taxes, I want them paying their fair share. I don't care what occupation people go into.
5. Illegal migrants should not be provided with "routine health care." We can't pay for the world. There isn't enough money in our coffers to do this. An illegal migrant should be allowed an emergency treatment, then shipped off to his or her own nation for follow up care, with the warning that they will be imprisoned if they return.
6. Frankly, I don't care if taxing illegal drugs would bring in more money (I'm not talking about marijuana). They're illegal for a reason. Even if they were mad legal, the money collected would only have to go back into programs to address their addiction and the victims caused by those using those very drugs. There are just some drugs that should never be allowed on the streets. Heroin and PCP are just two examples.
7. The left will never agree to not include gender change or some cosmetic surgeries. Any cosmetic surgery that would improve one's "quality of life" should be covered by insurance.
8. The bottom line is that we are not some small nation with only a few million people, we are a massive nation with over 364,000,000 people and millions of illegal additional people tossed in the works illegally. We simply can't afford to pay for everyone.
9. You also have to remember that many of the people complaining about health care costs, are doing so after having gone to an actual hospital "emergency room" with no actual emergency. They are found to be having colds, mild flus, muscle strains, headaches, splinters, et cetera, et cetera. Things they could have handled themselves, but no actual emergency. It's far less costly to go to your neighborhood "doc-in-a-box" than going to an actual hospital emergency room. Those were created for actual emergency situations. If it isn't life or death, you shouldn't be there. If the overall public did that, they would find the costs of their healthcare more manageable.
10. Now, on hospital stays that is a whole different ballgame. No hospital stay should "break the bank." That may be where some socialized medicine issue may come into play. If you actually require a hospital stay, even for a few days, you could end up losing your entire savings, having to sell your home and still owe a vast sum of money. Perhaps a "means test" taken from a person's last federal tax return should be how much is charged to the patient, to ensure they don't wipe you out or tell you that just because you don't have much, you can't get that transplant.

 

[Dadoalex]

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?

Fair? Beats me. I don't want government to serve as our caretaker.

The "government" provides
Military protection
Police protection
Fire protection
Builds roads
Builds hospitals...

This is just one more thing that has gotten too big for the private markets to provide.

Just another brick in the wall.

Yes, the "wall" known as civilized society.

No, the wall is known as overbearing government. You're cheering for more. I'm not.

What limits, if any, would you like to see on the government's power over people?

Leave women alone. Their twats is their own.
Quit trying to regulate private behaviors. Drug use, sex, etc.
Get religion out of government

How're those for starters.

Those are great start!

Regarding regulating private behaviors - health care seems about as private as you can get, don't ya think?

I was more curious about how far you'd take the government-as-provider thing. Should government take over our food supply too? Housing? Why or why not?

Health care is not a behavior.
It is a human right.

AND

Let me ask you...
Massive multi year drought, like that happening now in the west, turns the corn/wheat/etc. belt into a desert.
Herds are slaughtered because there's no food for them so beef and dairy supplies gone
Available food supplies will be gone in six months without rationing.
The east coast from Florida to Virginia is still sufficiently temperate for agriculture but little available land.
Starvation and privation are on the horizon.
You're the president.
Canada and Mexico are in the same state.
So military options are nil.
GO!

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

No pay.
The tax is what makes it fair.

 

[Rigby5]

There are 2 ways to get the wasteful layers of insurance company skimming out of health care.
If you do it by expanding Medicare for all, then you not only save all the profit the insurance companies skim, but you greatly reduce paperwork over head

I don't believe insurance company skimming is the core problem - but if want them out of the picture, you'll have to completely rework the Medicare model, not just expand it.

I suppose, but I really do not see how insurance has anything to do with Medicare?

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership - Center for Medicare Advocacy

Most people think Medicare is a government program. That’s only partly true. While Congress created Medicare, and continues to develop Medicare coverage and appeal rules, decisions to pay claims are actually made by private companies. The government does not make those decisions. This was one of...

www.medicareadvocacy.org

You have medical providers, and they have to fill out the claim forms.
They fill out one set for each insurance company, and a different form for Medicare.
Why or how could insurance companies ever get into the picture?
If you are saying that for Medicare to process these forms, that they hire insurance companies, that would be awful and they should immediately stop doing that.

Well, that's exactly what's happening. See above link.

I did not know that Medicare was run by insurance companies. Does not seem like a good idea since they are sort of the competition.

 

[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.

Quite frankly this topic is one I am not a fan of tackling, mainly because it is complicated and and no solution is good. Neither side on the issue would not be satisfied, no matter how hard you try.
1. You pointed out Western Socialized healthcare. How good it is, depends upon which western nation you go to. I've met with British people that moved to France and like France's socialized healthcare more than Britain's healthcare system. In short, each is different.
2. Under socialized healthcare, you can quickly obtain emergency care for injuries and other immediate life threatening situations, BUT....for other medical issues, the wait times for appointments can be enormous and if it is something like cancer spreading inside of you, your survival rate is diminished. Also, if you have ongoing pain issues, you just have to deal with it until you can eventually be seen by a physician.
3. As you said, "taxes are the beast." Frankly, I'm retired and live in an old rundown mobile home on a very small patch of land and am on a fixed income. Between federal taxes and local property taxes, I am in the red for the first few months of the year and as the property taxes continue to rise substantially each year due to continued demands for more taxes to pay for more schools, my being in the red will expand into more months. If you add in even more federal taxes to pay for socialized medicine, that will further push me down the rabbit hole of government debt and I'll be out in a tent along with the many other people already in tents in this nation.
4. No tax breaks for doctors or wannabe doctors. Period. If I have to pay more in taxes, I want them paying their fair share. I don't care what occupation people go into.
5. Illegal migrants should not be provided with "routine health care." We can't pay for the world. There isn't enough money in our coffers to do this. An illegal migrant should be allowed an emergency treatment, then shipped off to his or her own nation for follow up care, with the warning that they will be imprisoned if they return.
6. Frankly, I don't care if taxing illegal drugs would bring in more money (I'm not talking about marijuana). They're illegal for a reason. Even if they were mad legal, the money collected would only have to go back into programs to address their addiction and the victims caused by those using those very drugs. There are just some drugs that should never be allowed on the streets. Heroin and PCP are just two examples.
7. The left will never agree to not include gender change or some cosmetic surgeries. Any cosmetic surgery that would improve one's "quality of life" should be covered by insurance.
8. The bottom line is that we are not some small nation with only a few million people, we are a massive nation with over 364,000,000 people and millions of illegal additional people tossed in the works illegally. We simply can't afford to pay for everyone.
9. You also have to remember that many of the people complaining about health care costs, are doing so after having gone to an actual hospital "emergency room" with no actual emergency. They are found to be having colds, mild flus, muscle strains, headaches, splinters, et cetera, et cetera. Things they could have handled themselves, but no actual emergency. It's far less costly to go to your neighborhood "doc-in-a-box" than going to an actual hospital emergency room. Those were created for actual emergency situations. If it isn't life or death, you shouldn't be there. If the overall public did that, they would find the costs of their healthcare more manageable.
10. Now, on hospital stays that is a whole different ballgame. No hospital stay should "break the bank." That may be where some socialized medicine issue may come into play. If you actually require a hospital stay, even for a few days, you could end up losing your entire savings, having to sell your home and still owe a vast sum of money. Perhaps a "means test" taken from a person's last federal tax return should be how much is charged to the patient, to ensure they don't wipe you out or tell you that just because you don't have much, you can't get that transplant.

1. Yes countries vary, but I look at public health care as a safety net, The wealthy are still going to buy better health care.
2. As I understand it, emergency issues like pain and cancer get quick attention with socialized medicine,
3. Since taxes are based on ability to pay, they should not have any effect on you? And you should make it up on health care savings?
8. Paying health care for everyone would cost us less than the high insurance rates we are paying now.
9. Poor people do not have to pay ER costs, and the feds suck it up. Those complaining about high health care costs are the ones with insurance.

 

[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.

Quite frankly this topic is one I am not a fan of tackling, mainly because it is complicated and and no solution is good. Neither side on the issue would not be satisfied, no matter how hard you try.
1. You pointed out Western Socialized healthcare. How good it is, depends upon which western nation you go to. I've met with British people that moved to France and like France's socialized healthcare more than Britain's healthcare system. In short, each is different.
2. Under socialized healthcare, you can quickly obtain emergency care for injuries and other immediate life threatening situations, BUT....for other medical issues, the wait times for appointments can be enormous and if it is something like cancer spreading inside of you, your survival rate is diminished. Also, if you have ongoing pain issues, you just have to deal with it until you can eventually be seen by a physician.
3. As you said, "taxes are the beast." Frankly, I'm retired and live in an old rundown mobile home on a very small patch of land and am on a fixed income. Between federal taxes and local property taxes, I am in the red for the first few months of the year and as the property taxes continue to rise substantially each year due to continued demands for more taxes to pay for more schools, my being in the red will expand into more months. If you add in even more federal taxes to pay for socialized medicine, that will further push me down the rabbit hole of government debt and I'll be out in a tent along with the many other people already in tents in this nation.
4. No tax breaks for doctors or wannabe doctors. Period. If I have to pay more in taxes, I want them paying their fair share. I don't care what occupation people go into.
5. Illegal migrants should not be provided with "routine health care." We can't pay for the world. There isn't enough money in our coffers to do this. An illegal migrant should be allowed an emergency treatment, then shipped off to his or her own nation for follow up care, with the warning that they will be imprisoned if they return.
6. Frankly, I don't care if taxing illegal drugs would bring in more money (I'm not talking about marijuana). They're illegal for a reason. Even if they were mad legal, the money collected would only have to go back into programs to address their addiction and the victims caused by those using those very drugs. There are just some drugs that should never be allowed on the streets. Heroin and PCP are just two examples.
7. The left will never agree to not include gender change or some cosmetic surgeries. Any cosmetic surgery that would improve one's "quality of life" should be covered by insurance.
8. The bottom line is that we are not some small nation with only a few million people, we are a massive nation with over 364,000,000 people and millions of illegal additional people tossed in the works illegally. We simply can't afford to pay for everyone.
9. You also have to remember that many of the people complaining about health care costs, are doing so after having gone to an actual hospital "emergency room" with no actual emergency. They are found to be having colds, mild flus, muscle strains, headaches, splinters, et cetera, et cetera. Things they could have handled themselves, but no actual emergency. It's far less costly to go to your neighborhood "doc-in-a-box" than going to an actual hospital emergency room. Those were created for actual emergency situations. If it isn't life or death, you shouldn't be there. If the overall public did that, they would find the costs of their healthcare more manageable.
10. Now, on hospital stays that is a whole different ballgame. No hospital stay should "break the bank." That may be where some socialized medicine issue may come into play. If you actually require a hospital stay, even for a few days, you could end up losing your entire savings, having to sell your home and still owe a vast sum of money. Perhaps a "means test" taken from a person's last federal tax return should be how much is charged to the patient, to ensure they don't wipe you out or tell you that just because you don't have much, you can't get that transplant.

1. Yes countries vary, but I look at public health care as a safety net, The wealthy are still going to buy better health care.
2. As I understand it, emergency issues like pain and cancer get quick attention with socialized medicine,
3. Since taxes are based on ability to pay, they should not have any effect on you? And you should make it up on health care savings?
8. Paying health care for everyone would cost us less than the high insurance rates we are paying now.
9. Poor people do not have to pay ER costs, and the feds suck it up. Those complaining about high health care costs are the ones with insurance.

Middle class suffers under UH not the rich or the poor IMO.

 

[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.

Quite frankly this topic is one I am not a fan of tackling, mainly because it is complicated and and no solution is good. Neither side on the issue would not be satisfied, no matter how hard you try.
1. You pointed out Western Socialized healthcare. How good it is, depends upon which western nation you go to. I've met with British people that moved to France and like France's socialized healthcare more than Britain's healthcare system. In short, each is different.
2. Under socialized healthcare, you can quickly obtain emergency care for injuries and other immediate life threatening situations, BUT....for other medical issues, the wait times for appointments can be enormous and if it is something like cancer spreading inside of you, your survival rate is diminished. Also, if you have ongoing pain issues, you just have to deal with it until you can eventually be seen by a physician.
3. As you said, "taxes are the beast." Frankly, I'm retired and live in an old rundown mobile home on a very small patch of land and am on a fixed income. Between federal taxes and local property taxes, I am in the red for the first few months of the year and as the property taxes continue to rise substantially each year due to continued demands for more taxes to pay for more schools, my being in the red will expand into more months. If you add in even more federal taxes to pay for socialized medicine, that will further push me down the rabbit hole of government debt and I'll be out in a tent along with the many other people already in tents in this nation.
4. No tax breaks for doctors or wannabe doctors. Period. If I have to pay more in taxes, I want them paying their fair share. I don't care what occupation people go into.
5. Illegal migrants should not be provided with "routine health care." We can't pay for the world. There isn't enough money in our coffers to do this. An illegal migrant should be allowed an emergency treatment, then shipped off to his or her own nation for follow up care, with the warning that they will be imprisoned if they return.
6. Frankly, I don't care if taxing illegal drugs would bring in more money (I'm not talking about marijuana). They're illegal for a reason. Even if they were mad legal, the money collected would only have to go back into programs to address their addiction and the victims caused by those using those very drugs. There are just some drugs that should never be allowed on the streets. Heroin and PCP are just two examples.
7. The left will never agree to not include gender change or some cosmetic surgeries. Any cosmetic surgery that would improve one's "quality of life" should be covered by insurance.
8. The bottom line is that we are not some small nation with only a few million people, we are a massive nation with over 364,000,000 people and millions of illegal additional people tossed in the works illegally. We simply can't afford to pay for everyone.
9. You also have to remember that many of the people complaining about health care costs, are doing so after having gone to an actual hospital "emergency room" with no actual emergency. They are found to be having colds, mild flus, muscle strains, headaches, splinters, et cetera, et cetera. Things they could have handled themselves, but no actual emergency. It's far less costly to go to your neighborhood "doc-in-a-box" than going to an actual hospital emergency room. Those were created for actual emergency situations. If it isn't life or death, you shouldn't be there. If the overall public did that, they would find the costs of their healthcare more manageable.
10. Now, on hospital stays that is a whole different ballgame. No hospital stay should "break the bank." That may be where some socialized medicine issue may come into play. If you actually require a hospital stay, even for a few days, you could end up losing your entire savings, having to sell your home and still owe a vast sum of money. Perhaps a "means test" taken from a person's last federal tax return should be how much is charged to the patient, to ensure they don't wipe you out or tell you that just because you don't have much, you can't get that transplant.

1. Yes countries vary, but I look at public health care as a safety net, The wealthy are still going to buy better health care.
2. As I understand it, emergency issues like pain and cancer get quick attention with socialized medicine,
3. Since taxes are based on ability to pay, they should not have any effect on you? And you should make it up on health care savings?
8. Paying health care for everyone would cost us less than the high insurance rates we are paying now.
9. Poor people do not have to pay ER costs, and the feds suck it up. Those complaining about high health care costs are the ones with insurance.

Middle class suffers under UH not the rich or the poor IMO.

Agreed.
Originally I started poor as a student, and everything was free.
Then once I had a job but was still poor, health care was impossible for over a decade. They would not even let me book an appointment once they discovered I had no insurance.
But then of course once I was making enough to afford insurance, then it was all "as if free" again.
Except that as a contractor, I always had to get it on my own, so it cost more than $1000/month.

 

[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.

Quite frankly this topic is one I am not a fan of tackling, mainly because it is complicated and and no solution is good. Neither side on the issue would not be satisfied, no matter how hard you try.
1. You pointed out Western Socialized healthcare. How good it is, depends upon which western nation you go to. I've met with British people that moved to France and like France's socialized healthcare more than Britain's healthcare system. In short, each is different.
2. Under socialized healthcare, you can quickly obtain emergency care for injuries and other immediate life threatening situations, BUT....for other medical issues, the wait times for appointments can be enormous and if it is something like cancer spreading inside of you, your survival rate is diminished. Also, if you have ongoing pain issues, you just have to deal with it until you can eventually be seen by a physician.
3. As you said, "taxes are the beast." Frankly, I'm retired and live in an old rundown mobile home on a very small patch of land and am on a fixed income. Between federal taxes and local property taxes, I am in the red for the first few months of the year and as the property taxes continue to rise substantially each year due to continued demands for more taxes to pay for more schools, my being in the red will expand into more months. If you add in even more federal taxes to pay for socialized medicine, that will further push me down the rabbit hole of government debt and I'll be out in a tent along with the many other people already in tents in this nation.
4. No tax breaks for doctors or wannabe doctors. Period. If I have to pay more in taxes, I want them paying their fair share. I don't care what occupation people go into.
5. Illegal migrants should not be provided with "routine health care." We can't pay for the world. There isn't enough money in our coffers to do this. An illegal migrant should be allowed an emergency treatment, then shipped off to his or her own nation for follow up care, with the warning that they will be imprisoned if they return.
6. Frankly, I don't care if taxing illegal drugs would bring in more money (I'm not talking about marijuana). They're illegal for a reason. Even if they were mad legal, the money collected would only have to go back into programs to address their addiction and the victims caused by those using those very drugs. There are just some drugs that should never be allowed on the streets. Heroin and PCP are just two examples.
7. The left will never agree to not include gender change or some cosmetic surgeries. Any cosmetic surgery that would improve one's "quality of life" should be covered by insurance.
8. The bottom line is that we are not some small nation with only a few million people, we are a massive nation with over 364,000,000 people and millions of illegal additional people tossed in the works illegally. We simply can't afford to pay for everyone.
9. You also have to remember that many of the people complaining about health care costs, are doing so after having gone to an actual hospital "emergency room" with no actual emergency. They are found to be having colds, mild flus, muscle strains, headaches, splinters, et cetera, et cetera. Things they could have handled themselves, but no actual emergency. It's far less costly to go to your neighborhood "doc-in-a-box" than going to an actual hospital emergency room. Those were created for actual emergency situations. If it isn't life or death, you shouldn't be there. If the overall public did that, they would find the costs of their healthcare more manageable.
10. Now, on hospital stays that is a whole different ballgame. No hospital stay should "break the bank." That may be where some socialized medicine issue may come into play. If you actually require a hospital stay, even for a few days, you could end up losing your entire savings, having to sell your home and still owe a vast sum of money. Perhaps a "means test" taken from a person's last federal tax return should be how much is charged to the patient, to ensure they don't wipe you out or tell you that just because you don't have much, you can't get that transplant.

1. Yes countries vary, but I look at public health care as a safety net, The wealthy are still going to buy better health care.
2. As I understand it, emergency issues like pain and cancer get quick attention with socialized medicine,
3. Since taxes are based on ability to pay, they should not have any effect on you? And you should make it up on health care savings?
8. Paying health care for everyone would cost us less than the high insurance rates we are paying now.
9. Poor people do not have to pay ER costs, and the feds suck it up. Those complaining about high health care costs are the ones with insurance.

Middle class suffers under UH not the rich or the poor IMO.

Agreed.
Originally I started poor as a student, and everything was free.
Then once I had a job but was still poor, health care was impossible for over a decade. They would not even let me book an appointment once they discovered I had no insurance.
But then of course once I was making enough to afford insurance, then it was all "as if free" again.
Except that as a contractor, I always had to get it on my own, so it cost more than $1000/month.

Right so the middle class always gets screwed and the Democrats never address that.