Universal healthcare is the price for retaining no considerations for previous conditions

[Supposn]

Universal healthcare is the price for retaining no considerations for previous conditions.

The cost of medical insurance is the cost of medical products, (i.e. goods and services) including the costs of medical insurance. Obviously, medical insurance costs more if all other medical goods and services cost more. We in the USA have not found a method to reduce all medical costs, so naturally, our medical insurance is more expensive.

The least expensive per capita method to administrate medical insurance, is single payer government administrated basic medical insurance, augmented by commercial insurers for coverage of products or procedures beyond basic medical insurance.

Our nation's per capita medical costs would be less if every person would receive basic annual medical screening tests appropriate for their age and previous medical condition regardless of their ability to pay the costs. A stitch in time saves nine is a rhyme. I suppose late diagnoses and treatment cost our nation more than 900% of universal screening expenses.

[I''m on Medicare, and I think I've been told that there are certain medical screenings that require no co-pay. I believe similar clauses are within all medical insurance policies that qualify for Romneycare].

Commercial insurance was unobtainable for the majority of USA's elderly. Now Medicare and Medicaid serving most of them, but there's still the problem for those that are not so extremely impoverished as to qualify for Medicaid, but cannot afford the 20% coinsurance and the 100% annual deductibles required by Medicare.

USA citizens want affordable insurance that cannot be denied due to pre-existing conditions. That's inconceivable unless every, or almost every USA legal resident is medically insured. I don't suppose that's feasible unless medical insurance is an entitlement of every USA citizen.

Almost all catastrophically expensive medical expenses are effectively now paid by insurance plans and/or our federal and state governments. Millionaires cannot afford to be uninsured; uninsured millionaires are extremely rare.

USA now has child health insurance plans of the states, (i.e. CHIPS), Medicaid, veteran hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, commercial, non-profits, and charitable hospitals, clinics, and insurance plans. If we continue adding patches, or evolve to some other method for funding medical insurance, I suppose that basic medical screening and catastrophic medical expenses should be the entitlement of every USA citizen. What we have now is of greater cost to our federal budgets and is less healthy for our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[cnm]

Why do you hate profits made from suffering?

 

[fncceo]

Why do you hate profits made from suffering?

The problem is, there just isn't enough suffering.

 

[dblack]

Universal healthcare is the price for retaining no considerations for previous conditions.

The cost of medical insurance is the cost of medical products, (i.e. goods and services) including the costs of medical insurance. Obviously, medical insurance costs more if all other medical goods and services cost more. We in the USA have not found a method to reduce all medical costs, so naturally, our medical insurance is more expensive.

The primary cause of health care inflation is insurance.

Our nation's per capita medical costs would be less if ...

Per capita medical spending is high in the US because people are willing to spend a lot of money on health care. And in the US, we have it to spend. What you're proposing is nationalizing health care so these people aren't allowed to spend so much on health care. While that might bring down per capita spending on health care, it won't bring down prices of health care. It won't make health care cheaper for poor people. It will just prevent rich people from spending so much on health care.

USA citizens want affordable insurance that cannot be denied due to pre-existing conditions.

Yep. Its exactly this delusional "want" that makes it impossible for us to fix the mess in the health care market. We need a leader with the balls to tell these people that they are being idiots.

 

[Supposn]

Universal healthcare is the price for retaining no considerations for previous conditions.

The cost of medical insurance is the cost of medical products, (i.e. goods and services) including the costs of medical insurance. Obviously, medical insurance costs more if all other medical goods and services cost more. We in the USA have not found a method to reduce all medical costs, so naturally, our medical insurance is more expensive.

The primary cause of health care inflation is insurance.

Our nation's per capita medical costs would be less if ...

Per capita medical spending is high in the US because people are willing to spend a lot of money on health care. And in the US, we have it to spend. What you're proposing is nationalizing health care so these people aren't allowed to spend so much on health care. While that might bring down per capita spending on health care, it won't bring down prices of health care. It won't make health care cheaper for poor people. It will just prevent rich people from spending so much on health care.

USA citizens want affordable insurance that cannot be denied due to pre-existing conditions.

Yep. Its exactly this delusional "want" that makes it impossible for us to fix the mess in the health care market. We need a leader with the balls to tell these people that they are being idiots.

using the phrase “universal health-care”, we're assuming referring to government administrated medical insurance system. The word “universal” implies every USA citizen, (and I'm among those that consider it to imply every USA legal resident) is covered by an adequate basic medical insurance plan.

DBlack, your contention that the extraordinary rate of USA medical costs should be attributed to almost all medical costs being paid by third parties, (i.e. medical costs insurers), has merit. I don't disagree.

I'm among the many that believe medical insurance fees that do not financially penalize those with previous detrimental medical conditions, requires almost everyone, (if not everyone) be within the “insured pool”, (i.e. “universal medical insurance”).

USA voters won't be satisfied unless they have universal medical insurance. Unless we find a method to reduce the costs of medical insurance, the voters well remain dissatisfied even if we obtain universal medical insurance.
Other nations are handling this issue in superior manners and their voters are in principle satisfied with their government's' medical insurance plan.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Oddball]

VA incompetence and indifference for everyone!

 

[danielpalos]

Universal healthcare is the price for retaining no considerations for previous conditions.

The cost of medical insurance is the cost of medical products, (i.e. goods and services) including the costs of medical insurance. Obviously, medical insurance costs more if all other medical goods and services cost more. We in the USA have not found a method to reduce all medical costs, so naturally, our medical insurance is more expensive.

The least expensive per capita method to administrate medical insurance, is single payer government administrated basic medical insurance, augmented by commercial insurers for coverage of products or procedures beyond basic medical insurance.

Our nation's per capita medical costs would be less if every person would receive basic annual medical screening tests appropriate for their age and previous medical condition regardless of their ability to pay the costs. A stitch in time saves nine is a rhyme. I suppose late diagnoses and treatment cost our nation more than 900% of universal screening expenses.

[I''m on Medicare, and I think I've been told that there are certain medical screenings that require no co-pay. I believe similar clauses are within all medical insurance policies that qualify for Romneycare].

Commercial insurance was unobtainable for the majority of USA's elderly. Now Medicare and Medicaid serving most of them, but there's still the problem for those that are not so extremely impoverished as to qualify for Medicaid, but cannot afford the 20% coinsurance and the 100% annual deductibles required by Medicare.

USA citizens want affordable insurance that cannot be denied due to pre-existing conditions. That's inconceivable unless every, or almost every USA legal resident is medically insured. I don't suppose that's feasible unless medical insurance is an entitlement of every USA citizen.

Almost all catastrophically expensive medical expenses are effectively now paid by insurance plans and/or our federal and state governments. Millionaires cannot afford to be uninsured; uninsured millionaires are extremely rare.

USA now has child health insurance plans of the states, (i.e. CHIPS), Medicaid, veteran hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, commercial, non-profits, and charitable hospitals, clinics, and insurance plans. If we continue adding patches, or evolve to some other method for funding medical insurance, I suppose that basic medical screening and catastrophic medical expenses should be the entitlement of every USA citizen. What we have now is of greater cost to our federal budgets and is less healthy for our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Solving simple poverty should improve the efficiency of our markets. We really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

 

[Supposn]

Solving simple poverty should improve the efficiency of our markets. We really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

DanielPalos, poverty is not a simple problem. Due to mathematics, any reduction of the federal minimum wage rate's purchasing powers also reduces that of our nation's median wage rate, and thus the reduction of USA's aggregate wages' purchasing powers.

Economic benefits of the minimum rate are reduced to the extent the ratre's permitted to lose purchasing power. I'm a proponent of pegging the minimum rate to a cost-price index. It should be monitored and annually updated for cost-of-living adjustments.

Furthermore, the minimum rate should be increased 12% every Labor Day until it achieves no less than 120% of its February 1968 purchasing power.

Refer to www.usmessageboard.com/threads/minimum-wage-is-a-character-issue.689714/

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty should improve the efficiency of our markets. We really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

DanielPalos, poverty is not a simple problem. Due to mathematics, any reduction of the federal minimum wage rate's purchasing powers also reduces that of our nation's median wage rate, and thus the reduction of USA's aggregate wages' purchasing powers.

We really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, along with industrial automation to help with social costs.

How does your view, apply to that statement?

 

[dblack]

We really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, along with industrial automation to help with social costs.

Tell about the rabbits, George!

 

[danielpalos]

We really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, along with industrial automation to help with social costs.

Tell about the rabbits, George!

ask supposin. I have an argument, not right wing fantasy.

 

[deanrd]

With universal healthcare a lot of pre-existing conditions won’t exist. Why? Because they have healthcare and are able to treat those conditions early.

This is completely contradictory to the Republicans plan of let them die quickly cause it’s cheaper.

 

[Supposn]

We really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, along with industrial automation to help with social costs.

Tell about the rabbits, George!

ask supposin. I have an argument, not right wing fantasy.

DanielPalos, Dblack and I don't usually concur, but we apparently agree it's very naive to believe that any single or a few remedies would themselves eliminate poverty in the USA.

I suppose most of us do agree the social and economic detriment due to high medical costs are more severe due to our lesser median wage. But poverty is not the cause of the extraordinary increasing costs of medical goods and service products.

I'm a proponent of gradually increasing the minimum wage rate to at least exceed 120% of its February 1968 purchasing power and thereafter monitoring and retaining that purchasing power.
I'm also among the proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[dblack]

DanielPalos, Dblack and I don't usually concur, but we apparently agree it's very naive to believe that any single or a few remedies would themselves eliminate poverty in the USA.

You're reading too much into it. Daniel is typing stoned again. That is all.

 

[danielpalos]

We really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, along with industrial automation to help with social costs.

Tell about the rabbits, George!

ask supposin. I have an argument, not right wing fantasy.

DanielPalos, Dblack and I don't usually concur, but we apparently agree it's very naive to believe that any single or a few remedies would themselves eliminate poverty in the USA.

I suppose most of us do agree the social and economic detriment due to high medical costs are more severe due to our lesser median wage. But poverty is not the cause of the extraordinary increasing costs of medical goods and service products.

I'm a proponent of gradually increasing the minimum wage rate to at least exceed 120% of its February 1968 purchasing power and thereafter monitoring and retaining that purchasing power.
I'm also among the proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn

Who wouldn't be able to afford some sort of basic coverage, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum or unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed? Normal market forces make our economy more efficient.

 

[danielpalos]

DanielPalos, Dblack and I don't usually concur, but we apparently agree it's very naive to believe that any single or a few remedies would themselves eliminate poverty in the USA.

You're reading too much into it. Daniel is typing stoned again. That is all.

I resort to the fewest fallacies. That makes everyone else, "drugless wonders" who can't argue their way out of a paper bag.

 

[Supposn]

Who wouldn't be able to afford some sort of basic coverage, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum or unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed? Normal market forces make our economy more efficient.

DanielPalos, I don't conceive of an environment within which a minimum wage earner could afford the cost of adequate medical insurance without some direct or indirect government subsidy.
The cost of medical goods and service products has and will continue to proportionally increase at a greater rate than aggregate product prices. My hope is that we can somehow reduce its extraordinary rates of increase.

I'm among those who advocate our minimum rate's purchasing power be regularly increased until it achieves (at very least), 120% of its February 1968 value. Thereafter it should be annually updated to retain its purchasing power,

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Who wouldn't be able to afford some sort of basic coverage, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum or unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed? Normal market forces make our economy more efficient.

DanielPalos, I don't conceive of an environment within which a minimum wage earner could afford the cost of adequate medical insurance without some direct or indirect government subsidy.
The cost of medical goods and service products has and will continue to proportionally increase at a greater rate than aggregate product prices. My hope is that we can somehow reduce its extraordinary rates of increase.

I'm among those who advocate our minimum rate's purchasing power be regularly increased until it achieves (at very least), 120% of its February 1968 value. Thereafter it should be annually updated to retain its purchasing power,

Respectfully, Supposn

One line of reasoning suggests, we have the costs we do now, due to inefficiency in market forces as a result of social programs. By solving for simple poverty, most everyone can apply normal market forces; the law of large numbers is on our side.

 

[Supposn]

One line of reasoning suggests, we have the costs we do now, due to inefficiency in market forces as a result of social programs. By solving for simple poverty, most everyone can apply normal market forces; the law of large numbers is on our side.

DanielPalos, your post's a simple well-worded response.
But the “inefficiency and market forces” you're referring to are not limited to government social programs. The practice of third-party paying a substantial portion of the medical costs, but requiring the insured make co-payments for costs of items is common government and non-government insurance schemes.

Problems occur when the insured find the co-insurance payments unaffordable and refrain from using their entitled medical insurance. The purpose of co-insurance is to reduce a well-understood inefficiency and market forces that increase the aggregate costs of insurance plans. If we eliminate co-insurance payments, the insurance contracts become less affordable.

I can conceive progressive rates of co-insurance payments which require some type of direct or indirect government intervention, (i.e. a government social program), to be of some net benefit.

I believe that the Affordable Care Act makes some medical screening items and treatments to be free of patience co-payments? That then begins to address the expense of co-payment problem?

Are you suggesting we otherwise in effect eliminate all insurance for those with less than median incomes? What are you explicitly suggesting?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

One line of reasoning suggests, we have the costs we do now, due to inefficiency in market forces as a result of social programs. By solving for simple poverty, most everyone can apply normal market forces; the law of large numbers is on our side.

DanielPalos, your post's a simple well-worded response.
But the “inefficiency and market forces” you're referring to are not limited to government social programs. The practice of third-party paying a substantial portion of the medical costs, but requiring the insured make co-payments for costs of items is common government and non-government insurance schemes.

Problems occur when the insured find the co-insurance payments unaffordable and refrain from using their entitled medical insurance. The purpose of co-insurance is to reduce a well-understood inefficiency and market forces that increase the aggregate costs of insurance plans. If we eliminate co-insurance payments, the insurance contracts become less affordable.

I can conceive progressive rates of co-insurance payments which require some type of direct or indirect government intervention, (i.e. a government social program), to be of some net benefit.

I believe that the Affordable Care Act makes some medical screening items and treatments to be free of patience co-payments? That then begins to address the expense of co-payment problem?

Are you suggesting we otherwise in effect eliminate all insurance for those with less than median incomes? What are you explicitly suggesting?

Respectfully, Supposn

solving for simple poverty, through a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed, would mean, less people have less excuse to not be market friendly. Fifteen dollars an hour is around thirty thousand a year.

Who would not benefit in our market economy? Would doctors and hospitals have to "jump through more hoops" to treat patients or less? I believe we would have more market based choices, not less. By solving for that simple form of poverty, the private sector could come up with better products at lower cost.

However, to address your specific point; solving simple poverty directly benefits Individuals; families may still need means tested welfare.