Ok, but I take it no one on here as any real life experience themselves? Where or what part of Europe was it?
I am also interested in how you determine that HC like that is good or bad? Not what you have read or been told by one or two people.
32.6 Trillion Dollars for Ten Years....
- Thread starter JimmyBob
- Start date
Ok, but I take it no one on here as any real life experience themselves? Where or what part of Europe was it?
I am also interested in how you determine that HC like that is good or bad? Not what you have read or been told by one or two people.
Nope, all I have is anecdotal evidence and data. My opinion does not follow an ideology. It follows people experiences that I have talked to, and the few times I have actually looked into the numbers like Pilt showed I find it compelling. And the very arguments used to defeat it (single payer too expensive while never a similar calculation for status quo, death panels, etc.) damn the proposition. UK.
gues....?
Well you didn't debunk anything, except a paper on infant mortality and you tried to project that against all health care numbers. Thank you for that great perspective: "Don't believe anybody's numbers. I obstruct."
Unusually good thread. Very few attacks.
Please continue....I’ve learned a couple of things.
Please continue....I’ve learned a couple of things.
Sounds like a helluva good deal to me:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/study-medicare-for-all-would-cost-32-6-trillion-over-ten-years/
Amazing. As it turns out, they DO provide the other side of the ledger!
Why didn't you include that it would save us $2,000,000,000,000?
It's gonna happen. You guys that have your insurance paid by someone else are in lala land. The current system is unsustainable.
@poke2001 where'd you go? Are you paying the health insurance premiums for you and your fam?
1)Underreporting and unreliability of infant-mortality data from other countries undermine any comparisons with the United States.
This is probably true, the US probably does have better infant mortality reporting than Sierra Leone. However the US doesn't have different reporting standards than the OECD, and we still bring up the rear. First World Countries > USA > Third World Countries.
2)Gross differences in the fundamental definition of “live birth” invalidate comparisons of early neonatal death rates.
Even if you count stillbirths in your statistics the US still lags the developed world.
3) An additional major reason for the high infant-mortality rate of the United States is its high percentage of preterm births, relative to the other developed countries.
So the US has high infant mortality because prenatal care sucks? Congratulations.
4)Throughout the developed world, and regardless of the health-care system, infant-mortality rates are far worse among minority populations, and the U.S. has much more diversity of race and ethnicity than any other developed nation.
So the US has high infant mortality because minorities get worse care? Congratulations.
So African American's have the highest rate of birth failures (per your stats) and we have a significantly higher proportion of African Americans vs. other 1st World countries (for example, US has 16% population that is black where UK has only 3%). Could that impact the statistics any? Or are you selectively choosing to ignore clear statistical correlations? Seems to me that the real question here, is why do AAs have a higher birth failure rate than other groups within the US? If its due to genetic or cultural differences, then your entire message is debunked and changing to single-payer would have minimal impact to improving these metrics. If its due to lack of access (aka racism or poorism), then you've got a strong argument to change the system.
Actually the pay less in taxes for healthcare than we do. In fact their total healthcare spend per capita is less than our government spends on healthcare per capita.
I'd say the proof is in the pudding.
Why would the artificial hip maker quit taking a 75% margin on their hips if insurance pays no matter what?
Why would an insurance provider play hardball with medical device providers when they know that is a small portion of their costs and could substantially affect their enrollment?
Why would an insurance provider that does play hardball pass that windfall along to the consumer instead of pocketing as profit?
Maybe a shuffling of funds? Kind of like dipping into Social Security for other things? From the Australians I've talked to they pay about 6% more in income tax and one couple paid $25,000 in "stamps" or property tax on a $380,000 appraisal. I could be missing something, though.
The fact is, you can’t really compare health outcomes across countries bc there are wayyy to many variables. Reporting variables, ethnicity variables, lifestyle variables, etc. It really is near impossible. As someone who works in healthcare and pays full premium (both employee/employer) for my family’s insurance, I agree the system isn’t sustainable. I don’t agree that single payer (government run) is the answer. We already pay over 2% for Medicare, while Australia only pays 2%. The system is wildly inefficient and if you think our government is going to clean that up, you are kidding yourself. It’s only going to get more expensive. I also don’t see insurance companies letting a true open, free market system happen. I don’t know the answer. Obamacare was obviously implemented to fail and push us towards a single payer, but now we are stuck in the middle which is a disaster. In the end, though, the biggest problem is Americans don’t want to take care of themselves, and nothing we do healthcare wise will really help anything until that changes.
I have company insurance. It is part of my compensation package. I work for what I get, so yes, I pay for my insurance for my family, except my wife has her own, through her own work, that she works for as well.
Brilliant. Our healthcare system is fine, because most of the bad outcomes are for black people, and we have lots of them.
Brilliant, spending 32 trillion dollars and having government pay the bills will make everyone healthy.
Eh...to be honest, any of these figures thrown out are bullshit. To think government paying the bills would be less is foolish.
Well on one hand we have data from a libertarian think tank, and on the other hand we have your country smarts. Hard to say who is right.
It says right there in your think tank piece that they made assumptions.
Your numbers are imaginary.
You just made them concrete yourself.
Your numbers are imaginary.
You just made them concrete yourself.
Truly we can never know the exact cost of healthcare in the future. Deep thoughts.
Those guys couldn't without making assumptions.
You being a prick now doesn't change that.
Pointing out the banality of "those ten year projections include assumptions" makes me a prick now?
There we go. What assumption do you think is wrong and how should we adjust their projections in your opinion?
They made two each that would sway it trillions to the bad.
Take your pick.
You're tried to run a bluff. You can fuk off now.
Take your pick.
You're tried to run a bluff. You can fuk off now.
Uh huh. So somebody else is paying it, like the majority of people (I think) with health insurance.
Pay those premiums yourself. Anybody with a sliver of entreprenurial spirit is sick of having to pay everyone else's health insurance. Let small businesses compete without having to match all the health insurance packages of big businesses. It's on business community's shoulders and it's just too much. You have the comfort of employers paying it, like government employees.
Hell the very OP in the thread is based on assumptions. So we can project the hell out of future single payer, but not the current system. Sounds objective.
And this is what we've been working on -- these little bitchfits of yours. Who are you now, Rambo or Mahatma?
Just for arguments’ sake, let’s say that the single payer gov’t insurance plan is cheaper on average and allows for better care on average, does that automatically mean that the US should adopt the plan? If so, shouldn’t we also adopt that argument for other industries?
If it turned out that the US gov’t could absorb the role of car manufacturer and reduce the number of passenger vehicles down to being just one or two very simple, safe and efficient models that were cheaper for the average consumer, would that mean that we should get rid of the private car industry?
If it turned out that the US gov’t could absorb the role of car manufacturer and reduce the number of passenger vehicles down to being just one or two very simple, safe and efficient models that were cheaper for the average consumer, would that mean that we should get rid of the private car industry?
What it means is the two cars the government makes would be pieces of shit, shoddily made and most definitely not reasonably priced (see military procurement). The rich would still get their cars from private manufacturers.
I don’t think you understand how corporate compensation structure works.
I get stock options, discounted stock, 401k with a great match, bonus, etc as well. Am I not earning those? Those are handouts, or just my health insurance?
Sure, I guess. Just like government employees "earn" theirs.. And like I "earn" mine, and like social security recipients "earned" their social security and senior citizens "earned" their medicare. We're all earning. Not all of us are paying the premiums, though. The people paying the premiums can't keep it up forever.
You don't know what it's like out there because you have a corporate job where they handle and pay it all for you. Start a business and pay your and your employees' health insurance out of your pocket instead of it being provided to you and tell me if it's different than having it spoon fed in an employee welfare package. Do you even know what it costs to insure a family of 4 without a corporate welfare plan?
Everyone that has it provided is just like you -- "What problem? I got mine. " Everyone else that is a small business owner or doesn't have it provided for them understands how expensive it is.
Ask @wyomingosualum he's a rock ribbed conservative and sees the health insurance issue as an impossible issue to navigate, he's had hell with it. Hell even Biff sees it, or at least pretends to.
Of course all of those people earn theirs as well.
People who are self employed chose to be self employed. Those of us working for soul crushing corporations do so because the pay is stable and benefits are great. There isn’t a whole he’ll of a lot of personal risk on a day-to-day perspective. Those that go on their own are risk takers and have a chance to do extremely well if they have a good idea, product, service. They also are choosing not to work for a soul crushing corporation.
Life is a bunch of choices (thought the left was pro choice???). If you don’t like paying premiums, go get yourself a corporate or government job.
Aaaand there it is. That's exactly what I thought your position is. Pure self interest, nothing more. The soulless corporate culture sure has rubbed off on you.
I think we're gonna make a titty for everybody. Then we can all "earn" health insurance AND have intact souls. God what a choice -- participate in your soulless milieu or constantly sweat health insurance. You just made the best argument for single payer I've seen.
An employer paying a certain percentage of health insurance premiums is a corporate welfare plan? Is an employer funded pension, 401K, car allowance, etc. corporate welfare too? Here I was thinking that was all part of a compensation package. My employer produces an annual compensation document that shows me my total annual compensation that includes my salary and how much money my employer contributed to various things like health insurance for me. They call those contributions "benefits." What deceiving assholes they are.
I'm going to cuss out the HR director for not calling it a welfare package. If I knew I'd get all of those "benefits" without coming to work I might have been doing things differently. Hell I'd likely be self employed for the income part and just let my employer pay the other stuff.
A "welfare benefit plan" is a term of art in context of employment-provided insurance plans. It has nothing to do with government welfare benefits. The vast majority of corporate health insurance is a federally-preempted, ERISA WBP which means the beneficiary (or insured) can't sue for anything more than the cost of denied services, if that. People that buy their health insurance on the open market outside of employment generally don't have WBP's and can light up a health insurer that gets cute denying claims. If you have a WBP you're comparatively helpless if the carrier denies claims.
WTF are you talking about? You can choose to work for a corporation or work on your own. There are pros and cons for both.
