The current state of healthcare in the US is a joke. [Archive] - IMPORTATLANTA.COM - Automotive, Lifestyle, Offtopic, Forum, Blog, & Online Community

BanginJimmy

03-04-2013, 05:45 PM

We are a third world nation when it comes to healthcare.

I'm paying $75 a month so some company can negotiate a 50 cent pill from $200 to $100, bill me for $30, and tell me how much money I saved.

It's fucking absurd.

/pissedoffrant.

I beg to differ on the third world health care. We have the best health care in the world, it just costs way too damn much. If you want to get into why it costs so much we can talk. If you just want cheaper coverage, you will have to go somewhere else. I will say that you pay a hefty price for that cheaper coverage though.

Tort reform would fix the majority of problems. Ambulance chasers and an ignorant public with an overzealous, undeserved self-entitlement mentality that tries "To get all the money they deserve" (to quote any number of commercials played during Jerry Springer or Maury) has driven the many prices beyond reason because of frivolous lawsuits..

This is just one small piece of it. You also have to add in doctor's malpractice insurance, the govt shorting docs with medicare/medicaid, and the list goes on. Addressing 1 piece of the puzzle wont make any noticable difference, the entire system needs an overhaul.

Before anyone says Obamacare, Obamacare will take everything that is wrong with the current system and make it worse. It will fix none of the reasons for the unsustainable rise in costs. Fraud will rise dramaticly. The cost to docs for taking govt patients will rise dramaticly. Insurance company red tape will rise dramaticly.

.blank cd

03-04-2013, 05:46 PM

But yea, 20 sounds a tad on the high side. But when it comes to your wife and child what choice do you have... Do you really want to use a doctor that takes 50% off coupons?I want a doctor that charges $1000 for a $1000 procedure, not $15,000, THEN we can discuss 50% off coupons. Lol.

BanginJimmy

03-04-2013, 05:49 PM

While I agree that tort reform needs to happen, and that Obamacare wasn't a magic solution, it was a giant step forward. As of right now, as far as i know, pregnancy is a pre-existing condition.

Why is my child a "condition"? I don't understand. Lol.

Thankfully, because of Obamacare, all of that will be changed come 2014.

Kind of addressed this, but to be more specific to your situation, why is a pregnancy any different than a broken leg? I have more sympathy for the guy that cannot get insurance to cover his broken leg than a family that cant get it because of a pregnancy.

.blank cd

03-04-2013, 05:51 PM

Kind of addressed this, but to be more specific to your situation, why is a pregnancy any different than a broken leg?Do I really need to answer this?

Aeroscout977

03-04-2013, 05:52 PM

Ask anyone in the military what they think about the quality of their healthcare. That may change your mind of Obamacare. Ask the Canadians why they come across our borders for our healthcare.

.blank cd

03-04-2013, 05:55 PM

Ask anyone in the military what they think about the quality of their healthcare. That may change your mind of Obamacare. Ask the Canadians why they come across our borders for our healthcare.Ive actually talked to quite a few foriegners, most of which were also puzzled as to why the American system is so backwards.

BanginJimmy

03-04-2013, 06:12 PM

Do I really need to answer this?

Yes you do. Remember though, I am talking about it in terms of insurance, not emotion.

Ive actually talked to quite a few foriegners, most of which were also puzzled as to why the American system is so backwards.

Our backwards system still results in the best care in the world, especially for advanced diseases or complicated procedures.

91LudeSiT

03-04-2013, 06:17 PM

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/print/

.blank cd

03-04-2013, 06:20 PM

Yes you do. Remember though, I am talking about it in terms of insurance, not emotion.A broken leg is not a pre-existing condition?

Our backwards system still results in the best care in the world, especially for advanced diseases or complicated procedures.Sometimes the best...but does that justify being saddled with crippling debt?

.blank cd

03-04-2013, 06:21 PM

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/print/

An amazing article. I have the mag at home, but Brill did an excellent job on that one.

One that everyone in this thread should read.

Vteckidd

03-04-2013, 06:28 PM

I want a doctor that charges $1000 for a $1000 procedure, not $15,000, THEN we can discuss 50% off coupons. Lol.

The problem for that is
A) the insurance company itself
B) Government involvement which inflates prices (just like housing, just like any other industry govt gets involved in)
C) Frivolous lawsuits
D) Malpractice insurance because of C

Obamacare will solve none of those actually. You are correct that the way they price things is by charging 10 times what it REALLY costs in hopes of negotiating a REAL price they want. AGain, Obamacare doesnt address this problem, and in many forms will make it much much worse.

Competition brings down prices, not Govt involvement.

BanginJimmy

03-04-2013, 06:31 PM

A broken leg is not a pre-existing condition?

I guess I should ahve broken it down some more. Do you think a broken leg is a pre-existing condition? If so, how is it any different than a pregnancy?

Does that justify being saddled with crippling debt?

Not at all. I have yet to hear either party even spell out what they believe are the causes of the rising prices though. Maybe once they take the time to actually figure out what is causing it, they can start to work on something to fix it. Instead, they massively expanded one of the main drivers of rising costs. And to top it off, they drive up the costs to insurers, while at the same time mandating their profit margin. You talked about how that $200 pill was negotiated to $30, now they will simply negotiate the pill to $100, raise your premiums $50, so they can spend 80% on healthcare. They will be forced to do it also, because of the part of the bill that says a private insurer HAS to accept you, no matter what your conditions are, and they cannot charge you more for those conditions.

Vteckidd

03-04-2013, 06:32 PM

By covering people with pre-existing conditions, you are strong arming the insurance company to pay for things normally not covered unless you have insurance. That will drive prices UP, not down. Imagine if Auto Insurance companies had to cover some aspect that drove their costs up, do you think they would lower prices?

Pre-existing conditions sounds great, but it will result in much higher health costs, not lower. Thats just simple economics.

The real fight is going to come when people start realizing they have to have mandatory health care and if they dont they will be fined by the IRS. I dont think people realize that yet. Its coming though

BanginJimmy

03-04-2013, 06:51 PM

An amazing article. I have the mag at home, but Brill did an excellent job on that one.

One that everyone in this thread should read.

Brill's bias obvious pretty early on in the article. When you compare individual, uninsured rates which are extremely high, to medicare rates, which are extremely low, you will ALWAYS find a way to complain.

Also, when he mentions the profit, he forgot to mention what MD Anderson's R&D budget was on a yearly basis. In the year ending Aug, 2011, they spent about 135mil on research. They also spent another 106mil on academic support for the student docs.

He does make sure he points out that the head of the hospital makes 1.9mil and has ties to pharmaceutical companies though. He really wants to make a deal about 1.9mil salary? A doc of the quality to run that Cancer Center would EASILY make 5x that in his own practice.

Overall a pretty informative article, but the bias in it was obvious which takes away a lot of credibility.

David88vert

03-04-2013, 07:21 PM

Aeroscout977

03-05-2013, 08:25 AM

^ I can't "like" that on my mobile app but I do.

eraser4g63

03-05-2013, 09:06 AM

Half of the cost you are paying is because of tort issues. Do you have any clue what medical malpractice insurance cost? Do you have any idea how much it cost to run a facility? An ambulance? Instead of bitching about how much it cost why don't you look into it. And with your beloved Obamacare it's going to get a lot more expensive to run any of these, not to mention the bed tax, and some new proposed taxes on EMS providers and the cuts in Medicaid and Medicare.

Sinfix_15

03-05-2013, 09:24 AM

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 11:05 AM

During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term. But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.

Now that Obamacare has passed, BCBS of GA has gone from $253/month to cover a family of four to $650/month for the same coverage. That is what it costs with one of the largest employers in the world, who leverages some of the biggest clout when negotiating insurance rates for its employees. How do I know? Because I have the actually costs in front of me. I paid $253 before, now its $650 for the same coverage. I did not have any claims or costs to have caused my rates to more than double.

Forbes: Obamacare Guarantees Higher Health Insurance Premiums -- $3,000+ Higher - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/01/07/obamacare-guarantees-higher-health-insurance-premiums-3000-higher/)

Bottom line: Obama did not improve the situation by forcing Obamacare on us all. You can try to argue your way out of it, but that is a fact.Something strikes me as odd about that number that you're paying for, and you probably need to look into it. I say that because we have BCBS, my premiums didnt go up a dime, nor did the premiums for a family of 4. Anyways, article was great reading (/sarcasm). I love the part where she tried to skirt around the subsidies that affect the majority of the people who's premiums might increase. So I did her one better and got you the ACTUAL CBO analysis of the ACA, sans the demagoguery. When you read something, wouldnt you rather the writer be straight up with you?

CBO | An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41792)

Half of the cost you are paying is because of tort issues. Do you have any clue what medical malpractice insurance cost? Do you have any idea how much it cost to run a facility? An ambulance? Instead of bitching about how much it cost why don't you look into it. And with your beloved Obamacare it's going to get a lot more expensive to run any of these, not to mention the bed tax, and some new proposed taxes on EMS providers and the cuts in Medicaid and Medicare.Both of you put words in my mouth. Beloved Obamacare? Lol. And dont worry, I know what it costs. Ive looked into it. Doctors, hospitals, EMS providers, researchers all have done a great job in letting the public know exactly what we're paying for. How about this though, why dont you read the law before you bash it, and look at the meat of what it's actually trying to accomplish. I think I said before it wasn't a magic solution to healthcare

Sinfix_15

03-05-2013, 11:13 AM

My healthcare cost nearly doubled from 2012-2013, pretty sweet since i'm a healthy single male who hasnt been to the doctor in about 5 years.

Vteckidd

03-05-2013, 11:40 AM

Serious question Blank, facts are facts, Healthcare costs have risen since Obamacare was passed. I think we can all agree on that at face value, regardless of what you think caused it.

Heres the question:
WHEN WILL THE COSTS START TO GO DOWN? Give me a time frame. Estimate.

I feel like the "healthcare costs will go down" is part and parcel to the "economy is recovering but we arent there yet, it could have been much worse."

5 Years of the same argument gets old and stale. I want results, and we arent seeing good results yet

David88vert

03-05-2013, 11:59 AM

Something strikes me as odd about that number that you're paying for, and you probably need to look into it. I say that because we have BCBS, my premiums didnt go up a dime, nor did the premiums for a family of 4. Anyways, article was great reading (/sarcasm). I love the part where she tried to skirt around the subsidies that affect the majority of the people who's premiums might increase. So I did her one better and got you the ACTUAL CBO analysis of the ACA, sans the demagoguery. When you read something, wouldnt you rather the writer be straight up with you?

CBO | An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41792)

Both of you put words in my mouth. Beloved Obamacare? Lol. And dont worry, I know what it costs. Ive looked into it. Doctors, hospitals, EMS providers, researchers all have done a great job in letting the public know exactly what we're paying for. How about this though, why dont you read the law before you bash it, and look at the meat of what it's actually trying to accomplish. I think I said before it wasn't a magic solution to healthcare

Let me state it clearly - coverage did not change. Premiums went up dramatically. Not just for BCBS of GA, but every insurance provider that you are given a choice to select from (quite a few of them). Kaiser was up dramatically as well.
This is for one of the largest employers in the nation, and the world. I also checked with colleagues that work for another one of the largest employers in the nation (and world), and they reported similar increases for their account. Additionally, one of my relatives is on the BCBS account, and told me to expect them to continue to rise once people start moving to the Obamacare national pool (that's what it really is).

Like I said, you can deny it, but these are facts. I have personally seen the premiums for one of the largest and most aggressive negotiated insurance accounts more than double. I've already looked into it, perhaps it's time that you did some real research in on it.

91LudeSiT

03-05-2013, 01:32 PM

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 01:48 PM

Am I the only one who's rates didn't increase at all?

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 01:56 PM

My health insurance cost went up and they had a big note on the enrollment paperwork that said "Due to changes required by the affordable healthcare act rates will be increasing."

Affordable my ass, my rates doubled.

I hate that bullshit. They're seizing an opportunity to pass along a cost of doing business that should otherwise be absorbed by them, and then trying to make you feel bad about it.

They did that a few years back when I started at where. The self-proclaimed conservative HR manager used to think it was cool to come down here and pass along his idealogical BS and anti-Obama rhetoric whenever 401k meetings and insurance meetings came up, until I started fact checking him every time he spoke.

He doesn't come down here anymore.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 02:08 PM

Heres the question:
WHEN WILL THE COSTS START TO GO DOWN? Give me a time frame. Estimate.When Single payer/public option becomes an option. With all the socialism rhetoric behind the idea, and all the lobbying against it, probably never.

-Tort reform
-Price fixing
-marijuana legalization

Some steps that could be taken in the meantime

BanginJimmy

03-05-2013, 02:09 PM

Am I the only one who's rates didn't increase at all?

Yes. Mine went up 15% this year from last year. That is just my portion though. My employer pays 83% of the actual premium.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

Sammich

03-05-2013, 02:24 PM

mine............i dont even wanna talk about it...my company has horrible benefits period

Vteckidd

03-05-2013, 02:30 PM

When Single payer/public option becomes an option. With all the socialism rhetoric behind the idea, and all the lobbying against it, probably never.

-Tort reform
-Price fixing
-marijuana legalization

Some steps that could be taken in the meantime

Name one instance where price fixing actually worked.

Vteckidd

03-05-2013, 02:34 PM

Am I the only one who's rates didn't increase at all?

From BCBS Website itself

"We believe that premiums will increase as a result of provisions in the reform legislation that will guarantee richer levels of benefits than most consumers who obtain their own insurance purchase today. Insufficient discounts for the young and healthy will encourage many of them to forgo coverage. New fees and taxes mandated by the new law will also likely increase the cost of premiums as they are phased in."

Healthcare Reform Updates, Timelines, FAQs (http://www.bcbs.com/why-bcbs/health-reform/)

Single payer is not sustainable, cannot be paid for as healthcare costs 4 times the defense budget alone. Single payer STILL needs tax revenue to be paid for.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 03:02 PM

From BCBS Website itself

"We believe that premiums will increase as a result of provisions in the reform legislation that will guarantee richer levels of benefits than most consumers who obtain their own insurance purchase today. Insufficient discounts for the young and healthy will encourage many of them to forgo coverage. New fees and taxes mandated by the new law will also likely increase the cost of premiums as they are phased in."

Healthcare Reform Updates, Timelines, FAQs (http://www.bcbs.com/why-bcbs/health-reform/)"We believe"?

Single payer is not sustainable, cannot be paid for as healthcare costs 4 times the defense budget alone. Single payer STILL needs tax revenue to be paid for.Sure it is. You choose the government option, you get a tax increase. Cut out the middle man. You're gonna pay it one way or the other.

Competition. "Free markets." Options.

Pretty conservative option, IMO.

But most capitalists don't like competition, the very foundation of capitalism. Especially when they know they would lose big time. Lol.

I think someone said "People love capitalism until they're on the losing side of the competition, then it becomes socialism." Or something to that effect.

Vteckidd

03-05-2013, 03:20 PM

"We believe"?

Yes, i believe the business knows its cost aspects better than us. Im just saying your own insurance company is saying they see rates increasing, not decreasing, and they tell you why.

Sure it is. You choose the government option, you get a tax increase. Cut out the middle man. You're gonna pay it one way or the other.

Competition. "Free markets." Options.

Pretty conservative option, IMO.

But most capitalists don't like competition, the very foundation of capitalism. Especially when they know they would lose big time. Lol.

I think someone said "People love capitalism until they're on the losing side of the competition, then it becomes socialism." Or something to that effect.

Government doesnt have to operate on profit. they cannot offer a service and be competitive with normal market forces.

Single Payer will not work, because someone has to pay for the coverage. Its not just FREE, unless youre assuming doctors hospitals, equipment all of the sudden become FREE and Surgeons are ok making 10$/hr? Or substantially less money then they are really worth.

Single payer looks good on paper, but what happens when you run out of tax increases to pay for it? Everyone suffers, not just the 8% without insurance.

Again, you have not shown any factual numbers to back up your claims. How do you pay for 4 Trillion dollars in healthcare costs via single payer?

US govt took in 2.3 TRILLION last year alone. Theres no way to raise the extra 1.7 trillion without massive tax increases, which would bring down single payer anyway (people would flee the country)

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 04:25 PM

Government doesnt have to operate on profit. they cannot offer a service and be competitive with normal market forces.So you admit that it wouldn't be competition because the government is essentially a non profit? I guess I can't argue with paying less for overhead...

Single Payer will not work, because someone has to pay for the coverage. Its not just FREE, unless youre assuming doctors hospitals, equipment all of the sudden become FREE and Surgeons are ok making 10$/hr? Or substantially less money then they are really worth.By myself I'm paying $75 a month for insurance with a $2k deductible. So with a public option, I can either

a) Continue to give that money to BCBS, who is for profit, so they have a bunch of overhead, advertising costs, Ferraris, beach homes, etc. Your work pays the balance. This is what already happens.

Or

b) bump my taxes up at the end of the year $1000-$1500, rolled in with Medicaid/Medicare to a department of healthcare or something who has less overhead since they are essentially a non profit. Your work pays the balance, like they do already, set a copayment, deductible, make it all progressive like income taxes (a little more progressive than income tax). Withhold for it on your w2 so you never even see the money.

Or

c) Choose neither, pay for healthcare at the point of service.

Or make it universal, everyone (citizens, taxpayers) now pays for insurance b, no copays. This takes the guy at the hospital bumping up non-insured bills to cover non-payers out of the equation. These inflated costs obviously add to the current cost of healthcare, GONE. No more $100 bills for 50 cent Tylenol since everyone is now paid up It MAY BE an investment up front, but a healthier nation will use it less in the long run, and healthier people are more productive, especially if they (lower, middle class, the producers) aren't worried about a $20k bill for a broken arm

The public option gives insurance companies an actual incentive to compete in prices and reigns in windfall profits. There is currently no real market for health insurance. The end user of such a product has effectively zero input. No one wakes up one day and says "I think I'll take a bullet to the abdomen today! or how bout I get cancer next week! lets go hospital and insurance shopping"

US govt took in 2.3 TRILLION last year alone. Theres no way to raise the extra 1.7 trillion without massive tax increases, which would bring down single payer anyway (people would flee the country)Out of all the industrialized nations, those that have universal healthcare spend half as much as the US.

Would you flee the country if you had to spend the same amount, or most likely less than what you ALREADY pay, to a universal healthcare system rather than a private healthcare system like we already have?

If you did flee the country because you thought healthcare taxes were too much of a burden, where would you go? Everyone else already has universal healthcare. Lol.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 05:08 PM

On a related note, I was relieved to find out that I'm not gonna have to burn down insurance HQs one by one. Turns out, the HIPAA act of 1996 mandated that insurance companies can't place preexisting condition exclusions on pregnancies.

Phew.

David88vert

03-05-2013, 05:09 PM

So you admit that it wouldn't be competition because the government is essentially a non profit? I guess I can't argue with paying less for overhead...

By myself I'm paying $75 a month for insurance with a $2k deductible. So with a public option, I can either

a) Continue to give that money to BCBS, who is for profit, so they have a bunch of overhead, advertising costs, Ferraris, beach homes, etc. Your work pays the balance. This is what already happens.

Or

b) bump my taxes up at the end of the year $1000-$1500, rolled in with Medicaid/Medicare to a department of healthcare or something who has less overhead since they are essentially a non profit. Your work pays the balance, like they do already, set a copayment, deductible, make it all progressive like income taxes (a little more progressive than income tax). Withhold for it on your w2 so you never even see the money.

Or

c) Choose neither, pay for healthcare at the point of service.

Or make it universal, everyone (citizens, taxpayers) now pays for insurance b, no copays. This takes the guy at the hospital bumping up non-insured bills to cover non-payers out of the equation. These inflated costs obviously add to the current cost of healthcare, GONE. No more $100 bills for 50 cent Tylenol since everyone is now paid up It MAY BE an investment up front, but a healthier nation will use it less in the long run, and healthier people are more productive, especially if they (lower, middle class, the producers) aren't worried about a $20k bill for a broken arm

The public option gives insurance companies an actual incentive to compete in prices and reigns in windfall profits. There is currently no real market for health insurance. The end user of such a product has effectively zero input. No one wakes up one day and says "I think I'll take a bullet to the abdomen today! or how bout I get cancer next week! lets go hospital and insurance shopping"

Out of all the industrialized nations, those that have universal healthcare spend half as much as the US.

Would you flee the country if you had to spend the same amount, or most likely less than what you ALREADY pay, to a universal healthcare system rather than a private healthcare system like we already have?

If you did flee the country because you thought healthcare taxes were too much of a burden, where would you go? Everyone else already has universal healthcare. Lol.

The government isn't "non-profit". It just doesn't make a profit for its shareholders - the taxpayers. It is supposed to be a management entity, not a for-profit business.

Senators, Congressmen, the President, his Cabinet, and every Dept all cost money - they have a "bunch of overhead, advertising costs, Ferraris, beach homes, etc. This is what already happens.". Currently, it takes $2.45 trillion in tax revenue, plus they still have to borrow. Somehow, you expect them to provide more services without massively increasing tax revenue - plus unemployment for all of the people put out of work if we implemented a single payer system for healthcare?

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 05:47 PM

The government isn't "non-profit". It just doesn't make a profit for its shareholders - the taxpayers. It is supposed to be a management entity, not a for-profit business.Or, to put it very briefly and eloquently, I'll quote the political thinker BlankCD -" 'Essentially' a non-profit"

I can give you a source for that quote if you need one.

Senators, Congressmen, the President, his Cabinet, and every Dept all cost money - they have a "bunch of overhead, advertising costs, Ferraris, beach homes, etc. This is what already happens.". Currently, it takes $2.45 trillion in tax revenue, plus they still have to borrow. Somehow, you expect them to provide more services without massively increasing tax revenue - plus unemployment for all of the people put out of work if we implemented a single payer system for healthcare?

Holy shitballs, you didn't read what I wrote at all. Not a single word.

Vteckidd

03-05-2013, 05:55 PM

Currently, it takes $2.45 trillion in tax revenue, plus they still have to borrow. Somehow, you expect them to provide more services without massively increasing tax revenue - plus unemployment for all of the people put out of work if we implemented a single payer system for healthcare?
Exactly.

BLank, how does $1000-1500 in extra taxes get you to the 1.7 trillion extra in revenue you will need to BREAK EVEN if we had universal healthcare. Sounds like you are just making numbers up without adding it up. SImple math here

$1000 x the TOTAL number of people in the work force (146,743,000 circa 2007, i suspect there are FAR less now)=146,743,000,000 BILLION

Congrats, you are 1/17th of the way there.

This is my point, you guys dont understand what it ACTUALLY costs to give everyone healthcare coverage, its NOT PRACTICAL, IT CANNOT HAPPEN. YOu cannot TAX enough people to get the money you would need to pay for it. You would need to tax 4 times the average tax payer what it costs for our DEFENSE budget TO BREAK EVEN. Its NOT possible. It cannot work. You really want to go to poor and struggling families and tell them they get to pay for $10000-15000 in extra TAXES per year so they can have free single payer healthcare? OR do we just set a ceiling and say, everyone over $100k gets to pay for it?

YOu guys have zero rational way to pay for it. Healthcare is a FOR PROFIT business because it HAS to be FOR PROFIT. THat is how you get the best doctors, the newest equipment, the best surgeons, the best R&D, etc.

I wont even address the "ferrari and boats" comments because that is completely 100% unfounded. Rich people buy rich things, and hold jobs that pay them a lot of money. you cant dictate they make less. Their job pays what the market says their job is worth.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 06:46 PM

Exactly.

BLank, how does $1000-1500 in extra taxes get you to the 1.7 trillion extra in revenue you will need to BREAK EVEN if we had universal healthcare. Sounds like you are just making numbers up without adding it up. SImple math here

$1000 x the TOTAL number of people in the work force (146,743,000 circa 2007, i suspect there are FAR less now)=146,743,000,000 BILLION

Congrats, you are 1/17th of the way there.

This is my point, you guys dont understand what it ACTUALLY costs to give everyone healthcare coverage, its NOT PRACTICAL, IT CANNOT HAPPEN. YOu cannot TAX enough people to get the money you would need to pay for it. You would need to tax 4 times the average tax payer what it costs for our DEFENSE budget TO BREAK EVEN. Its NOT possible. It cannot work. You really want to go to poor and struggling families and tell them they get to pay for $10000-15000 in extra TAXES per year so they can have free single payer healthcare? OR do we just set a ceiling and say, everyone over $100k gets to pay for it?I don't think we're on the same page here. You're looking at it as if healthcare prices would remain constant. They would not. Here's what happens:

Guy A, B, and C both drive the same car. A has State Farm, B has Collisioncare, a government car insurance program, C has nothing. They both hit a pole and need to replace a fender. There is a government mandate that if I bring my car to the shop, you have to fix it. In real life, prices for fenders, paint and labor are pretty close to fixed whether you have insurance or you don't. Fender is $100, paint is $100, labor is $200. This pays for R&D and for someone to manufacture the paint and the fender, and it pays for the time it takes for the shop to do it and all associated costs, like facilities and health insurance for the other employees, and even nets the shop some profit. What we're seeing as it relates to healthcare insurance, the shop is charging guy A and B $500 for the fender, $500 for the paint, $1000 for labor to cover guy C, and guys like him for costs. A's insurance says we'll pay $1200, B's insurance says they'll pay $1000, C is stuck with a $2000 bill. A and B both pay a $50 deductible, and ride out. Couple days later, A gets a statement in the mail saying "This is what we paid and what you're responsible for, Look how much you saved!" C pays the $2000, but Guy G also cant afford insurance and doesn't pay the shop at all.

The shop still got paid $4200 for what was $1600 worth of parts and labor across the 4 cars.

If EVERYONE who came in had means to pay, be it private or government insurance, doctors wouldn't get stiffed.

There is your drastic cost reduction.

Healthcare is a FOR PROFIT business because it HAS to be FOR PROFIT. THat is how you get the best doctors, the newest equipment, the best surgeons, the best R&D, etc.How in the hell does everyone else in the industrialized world get by? Spending less than we do? Lol

you cant dictate they make less. Their job pays what the market says their job is worth.Who dictates what they make? They're running in what is essentially a closed system. There's no end user input to healthcare. There is not a real market to healthcare. It's not the same as any other market.

I can buy a car whenever the mood strikes me and go to 20 different dealerships and get 20 different prices and pick the lowest price.

I don't get cancer, or a bullet wound treated whenever I feel like it

BanginJimmy

03-05-2013, 06:47 PM

why dont you read the law before you bash it, and look at the meat of what it's actually trying to accomplish.

So educate me. Other than massively increasing costs to consumers, what is it trying to accomplish?

I hate that bullshit. They're seizing an opportunity to pass along a cost of doing business that should otherwise be absorbed by them, and then trying to make you feel bad about it.

So a business should not pass their costs to their customers? Where the hell did you come up with this? How is a company supposed to stay in business if they should give away their products for free? That has got to be one of the absolute dumbest things I have ever seen posted here.

When Single payer/public option becomes an option. With all the socialism rhetoric behind the idea, and all the lobbying against it, probably never.

-Tort reform
-Price fixing
-marijuana legalization

Some steps that could be taken in the meantime

Single payer would be FAR more expensive than the current overpriced healthcare we get. Please tell me how legalizing marijuana would bring down health care costs. I need a good laugh.

Sure it is. You choose the government option, you get a tax increase. Cut out the middle man. You're gonna pay it one way or the other.

What about the 50+% of American households that dont pay any taxes now? Are you going to expect them to start paying their fair share?

I think someone said "People love capitalism until they're on the losing side of the competition, then it becomes socialism." Or something to that effect.

People also like liberalism until they realize they are expected to pay for it.

So you admit that it wouldn't be competition because the government is essentially a non profit? I guess I can't argue with paying less for overhead...

Paying less overhead for govt. HAHAHAHA, you are on a roll today. You pay more for govt overhead than you do for private sector overhead.

David88vert

03-05-2013, 06:56 PM

Or, to put it very briefly and eloquently, I'll quote the political thinker BlankCD -" 'Essentially' a non-profit"

I can give you a source for that quote if you need one.

You either don't understand the differences or you are choosing to ignore the differences between a managerial organization, a non-profit, and business. Customers, financial cash flow, etc, are different between a non-profit entity, and a managerial entity, such as government.

Holy shitballs, you didn't read what I wrote at all. Not a single word.

I pulled a "blank" and simply ignored it.

David88vert

03-05-2013, 07:04 PM

I don't think we're on the same page here. You're looking at it as if healthcare prices would remain constant. They would not. Here's what happens:

Guy A and B both drive the same car. A has insurance, B does not. They both hit a pole and need to replace a fender. There is a government mandate that if I bring my car to the shop, you have to fix it. In real life, prices for fenders, paint and labor are pretty close to fixed whether you have insurance or you don't. Fender is 100, paint is 100, labor is 200. In this scenario, there are some people who have State Farm, some who have Collisionaide or Collisioncare, and some who have nothing.

You've never estimated for a body shop, or worked in one, obviously.
There are multiple estimation tools for each task, and each estimate is figured differently in real life. A fender might be estimated to be repaired at one shop, but replaced at another. Different paint qualities get different pricing. Cheap paint might cost 100, but quality chemicals cost money, and could be much higher. Employees are pushed to get as many cars out as possible, and often cut corners to do so. Now you want to do the same to your own personal body?
Body shops often waive deductibles as a kick-back to the customer, and that's technically corruption. How do you expect there not to be the same issues when its an actual person on the line?

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 07:27 PM

You've never estimated for a body shop, or worked in one, obviously.
There are multiple estimation tools for each task, and each estimate is figured differently in real life. A fender might be estimated to be repaired at one shop, but replaced at another. Different paint qualities get different pricing. Cheap paint might cost 100, but quality chemicals cost money, and could be much higher. Employees are pushed to get as many cars out as possible, and often cut corners to do so. Now you want to do the same to your own personal body?Actually I know all about body shop estimation. And here you go proving me right again. Not only are the prices youve given still fixed, but you're partly illustrating something that I didn't reference for a reason that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Stay on topic.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 07:31 PM

You either don't understand the differences or you are choosing to ignore the differences between a managerial organization, a non-profit, and business. Customers, financial cash flow, etc, are different between a non-profit entity, and a managerial entity, such as government.
AGAIN, like I said..

'Essentially' a non profit....

'Essentially'

Maybe you don't fully understand what that means but I can continue to break it down even further if you need me to. Unless your first language isn't English, in which case I apologize for being insensitive.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 07:35 PM

So educate me. Other than massively increasing costs to consumers, what is it trying to accomplish?Did you read it?

So a business should not pass their costs to their customers? Where the hell did you come up with this? How is a company supposed to stay in business if they should give away their products for free? That has got to be one of the absolute dumbest things I have ever seen posted here.Businesses absorb costs all the time, everyday. What about that concept do you not understand?

BanginJimmy

03-05-2013, 07:36 PM

Actually I know all about body shop estimation. And here you go proving me right again. Not only are the prices youve given still fixed, but you're partly illustrating something that I didn't reference for a reason that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Stay on topic.

You are both highlighting one of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive. Americans think the newest and most expensive is the best and demand that. There are many low tech, and low costs tests and procedures out there, but patients want the newest and highest tech, which costs more. Docs also push for the newest and highest tech because of defensive medicine. They know that if they go the low tech route and miss something, related to the symptoms at the time of the procedure or not, they will be sued.

BanginJimmy

03-05-2013, 07:41 PM

Did you read it?

I read the congressional outline when it was passed. I tried reading the actual law but didnt get far.

Businesses absorb costs all the time, everyday. What about that concept do you not understand?

Businesses dont absorb any costs, they pass them on to the consumer. The only exceptions I can think of would be third party retailers (their actual name eludes me right now) such as the non Verizon owned Verizon retailers. In most of those cases they are very heavily price controlled, giving the retailers very little room to absorb costs.

You forgot to explain how legalizing marijuana will reduce healthcare costs.

Sinfix_15

03-05-2013, 08:37 PM

My health insurance cost went up and they had a big note on the enrollment paperwork that said "Due to changes required by the affordable healthcare act rates will be increasing."

Affordable my ass, my rates doubled.

Same thing happened to me. We had a company meeting where it was explained "due to the results of the election" and the affordable healthcare act that rates were going up. A lot of people were mad.... most of them were black.... almost all of them were outspoken Obama supporters.....

It was difficult not to say "shut the fuck up you voted for this shit"

but yeah....

My healthcare cost increased 73%

Sinfix_15

03-05-2013, 08:44 PM

I hate that bullshit. They're seizing an opportunity to pass along a cost of doing business that should otherwise be absorbed by them, and then trying to make you feel bad about it.

They did that a few years back when I started at where. The self-proclaimed conservative HR manager used to think it was cool to come down here and pass along his idealogical BS and anti-Obama rhetoric whenever 401k meetings and insurance meetings came up, until I started fact checking him every time he spoke.

He doesn't come down here anymore.

Yeah, all of these business' warning their employees that Obama will make their paychecks smaller..... just because theyre racists.....

probably has nothing to do with the constant complaints they get when people have smaller paychecks.

You're too far gone to reason with. Obama can do no wrong in your eyes. You want to like him too badly to see him for what he is.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 08:45 PM

You forgot to explain how legalizing marijuana will reduce healthcare costs.
Regulation and subsequent taxation.

Echonova

03-05-2013, 08:48 PM

Why is my child a "condition"? I don't understand. Lol. Because it's not a child. It is a malignant tissue mass, that your wife can choose to abort if she so desires, even against your wishes... Because it's not a life yet. And as an oppressive man you forced this pregnancy upon her. Right?

Thankfully, because of Obamacare, all of that will be changed come 2014.LOL

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 09:07 PM

Because it's not a child. It is a malignant tissue mass, that your wife can choose to abort if she so desires, even against your wishes... Because it's not a life yet. And as an oppressive man you forced this pregnancy upon her. Right?We're not quite through the first trimester yet, so doctors say there's still a chance things could go sour. Since religious zealotry hasn't completely taken over yet, should the worst happen and the fetus dies, a doctor can perform a partial-birth abortion. Wouldn't want a dead fetus stuck up there forever, ya know?

Echonova

03-05-2013, 09:12 PM

We're not quite through the first trimester yet, so doctors say there's still a chance things could go sour. Since religious zealotry hasn't completely taken over yet, should the worst happen and the fetus dies, a doctor can perform a partial-birth abortion. Wouldn't want a dead fetus stuck up there forever, ya know?Why wait for the baby to die? What if you just didn't want it? Good enough reason.

Either way I wouldn't want it stuck up in there either. Even a religious man hates a stanky vag. Can't imagine what death would smell like all up in there.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 09:22 PM

Why wait for the baby to die? What if you just didn't want it? Good enough reason.Eh. Kinda want mine, but to each his own.

Sinfix_15

03-05-2013, 09:22 PM

We're not quite through the first trimester yet, so doctors say there's still a chance things could go sour. Since religious zealotry hasn't completely taken over yet, should the worst happen and the fetus dies, a doctor can perform a partial-birth abortion. Wouldn't want a dead fetus stuck up there forever, ya know?

One claimed to turn water in to wine, the other claimed to turn tax increases into jobs

both have a legion of blind followers who defy all logic to maintain their belief system.

Echonova

03-05-2013, 09:24 PM

However, you neglected to address the issue if your wife wanted to terminate without your consent. Would that bother you? After all according to Andrea Dworkin "All sex is rape." so her decision to do so would be well founded.

Later in life that fat heifer tried to "clarify" her statement... But we all know she meant it.

Echonova

03-05-2013, 09:28 PM

Eh. Kinda want mine, but to each his own.Why? Babies are a burden and incredibly expensive (if this is your first... HAhahahahahahAHHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahAHHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAH. You have no idea). Not to mention is only increasing your family's carbon footprint upon Mother Gaia.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 09:50 PM

However, you neglected to address the issue if your wife wanted to terminate without your consent. Would that bother you?I would suppose in any case, ultimately, the decision isn't up to me, no matter what I thought about it.

After all according to Andrea Dworkin "All sex is rape." so her decision to do so would be well founded.

Later in life that fat heifer tried to "clarify" her statement... But we all know she meant it.
I don't know who said all sex was rape, never heard that before ever.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 09:51 PM

Why? Babies are a burden and incredibly expensive (if this is your first... HAhahahahahahAHHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahAHHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAH. You have no idea). Not to mention is only increasing your family's carbon footprint upon Mother Gaia.

I guess there's always Medicaid and SNAP

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 09:54 PM

One claimed to turn water in to wine, the other claimed to turn tax increases into jobs

both have a legion of blind followers who defy all logic to maintain their belief system.
What? Didnt know what a partial birth abortion was? Or just because Obama said something about it, it's inherently evil. Lol. But I understand. Gotta go against everything Obama stands for though, no matter how right or real it is. Lol.

David88vert

03-05-2013, 10:57 PM

Actually I know all about body shop estimation. And here you go proving me right again. Not only are the prices youve given still fixed, but you're partly illustrating something that I didn't reference for a reason that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Stay on topic.

Fixed? Anything but fixed.
There are multiple systems that different shops use. There are multiple paint qualities and variable pricing for them. There are different labor rates at different shops.
You won't typically get two identical quotes out of 100 shops for the same collision.

David88vert

03-05-2013, 10:59 PM

Businesses absorb costs all the time, everyday. What about that concept do you not understand?

Spoken like a person who has never actually owned a profitable business.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 11:14 PM

Fixed? Anything but fixed.
There are multiple systems that different shops use. There are multiple paint qualities and variable pricing for them. There are different labor rates at different shops.
You won't typically get two identical quotes out of 100 shops for the same collision.You still don't understand.

What about price fixing are you having trouble understanding?

Here. Let me help you

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 11:15 PM

Spoken like a person who has never actually owned a profitable business.

So when I tell you I own a very profitable business, guess that means you probably have something wrong with your understanding of economics, no?

Echonova

03-05-2013, 11:44 PM

So when I tell you I own a very profitable business, guess that means you probably have something wrong with your understanding of economics, no?Tells me nothing.

Tells Obama you're not doing "your fair share".

Very profitable = Evil rich.

.blank cd

03-05-2013, 11:55 PM

Tells me nothing.

Tells Obama you're not doing "your fair share".

Very profitable = Evil rich.

I drive a civic. I'm definitely not evil rich. Lol

Echonova

03-06-2013, 12:01 AM

I drive a civic. I'm definitely not evil rich. LolWarren Buffet drives a Caddilac DTS, if we equate net worth to car value...

You are still the evil rich.

.blank cd

03-06-2013, 12:21 AM

Warren Buffet drives a Caddilac DTS, if we equate net worth to car value...

You are still the evil rich.

I guess me and Mr. Buffet have more in common than I thought then.

Echonova

03-06-2013, 12:23 AM

I like your style.

Vteckidd

03-06-2013, 12:58 AM

Back on topic.

Your comment about the price of healthcare going down is completely unfounded. You have to spend money to cover people FIRST before, THEORETICALLY, the costs would go down. You cant just blanket cover people in a single payer and then say "hey people are covered costs will come down now!"

The MONEY has to come from SOMEWHERE FIRST, which is the revenue side of things, which , as i just showed you, is not even CLOSE to being able to be done. Doctors pay wont just magically fall, costs wont magically go down because you invent a system to cover people.

With the govt fitting the bill, costs will GO UP, what dont you understand about this. It happens in EVERY OTHER SECTION OF INDUSTRY the government is involved in

HOUSING
STUDENT LOANS
HEALTHCARE
CLEAN ENERGY

BanginJimmy

03-06-2013, 07:20 AM

Regulation and subsequent taxation.

How does taxation and regulation of marijuana lower healthcare costs.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

David88vert

03-06-2013, 07:38 AM

You still don't understand.

What about price fixing are you having trouble understanding?

Here. Let me help you

Price controls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls)

I understand pricing fixing just fine. What you do not seem to understand is that there are always around fixed prices, and that people will quickly take advantage of them.

You haven't even addressed how (and no one else has either) hospitals that receive a set allotment from a single payer system are going to handle situations when their financial resources run out, due to the needs being greater than the allotment. This has already happened quite a bit in California.

Back to the body shop comparison. Here's the big questions. How do you handle a massive trauma? Do you "total" a person out when you estimate that they aren't worth the cost (like a car)? Does a person have a lower value and worth to society as they get older (like a car), and the cost to repair them becomes "not worth it"?

In Russia, they had a state-produced car, and it's costs were low. It was also a piece of crap that no one on IA would ever want.

Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that single payer cannot work, nor am I claiming that it is a bad idea. In an ideal world that always follows the happy path, it appears to be a great solution. The problem is that this is not an ideal world, and it is much more complex to create and practice than people realize. I am not saying that it should not be explored as an option. I agree with you that our current healthcare system is more expensive than it should be. I just don't think that the current proposals are looking at the reality of how people behave.

David88vert

03-06-2013, 07:45 AM

So when I tell you I own a very profitable business, guess that means you probably have something wrong with your understanding of economics, no?

Your main income is from working for others. We already know that.

If you think that a business doesn't pass on the the costs of overhead to their customers, you don't have a place managing a business. Businesses exist for profit. Can they exist on a smaller margin of profit? That depends on the type of business, and the amount of difference in the profit margins.

My understanding of econimics seems to be working pretty well for me. Anyone that has met me can tell you that.

.blank cd

03-06-2013, 11:23 AM

I understand pricing fixing just fine. What you do not seem to understand is that there are always around fixed prices, and that people will quickly take advantage of them.

You haven't even addressed how (and no one else has either) hospitals that receive a set allotment from a single payer system are going to handle situations when their financial resources run out, due to the needs being greater than the allotment. This has already happened quite a bit in California.If I give you $100 allotment everyday, and one day you use 70, one day you use 80, 90, 80, 110, 90, etc, and we've been doing this for decades, now that your using your money somewhere else thats cheaper and Im still giving you the same allotment of $100, now you use $10, 20, 5, 30, 10, etc.

Im talking about shifting what youre already paying from one entity, to another entity that can operate with less costs and overhead.

Back to the body shop comparison. Here's the big questions. How do you handle a massive trauma? Do you "total" a person out when you estimate that they aren't worth the cost (like a car)? Does a person have a lower value and worth to society as they get older (like a car), and the cost to repair them becomes "not worth it"?Youve taken my body shop analogy on a whole different tangent. The costs associated with a paper cut and multiple gunshots to the face are already in place. We're just eliminating the markup hospitals use to cover people who dont pay, by giving everyone the ability to pay.

In Russia, they had a state-produced car, and it's costs were low. It was also a piece of crap that no one on IA would ever want.Im not talking about a car. That is an ENTIRELY different product, in an ENTIRELY different market that operates on ENTIRELY different priciples. Apples and oranges.

How does taxation and regulation of marijuana lower healthcare costs.

Back on topic.

Your comment about the price of healthcare going down is completely unfounded. You have to spend money to cover people FIRST before, THEORETICALLY, the costs would go down. You cant just blanket cover people in a single payer and then say "hey people are covered costs will come down now!"

The MONEY has to come from SOMEWHERE FIRST, which is the revenue side of things, which , as i just showed you, is not even CLOSE to being able to be done. Doctors pay wont just magically fall, costs wont magically go down because you invent a system to cover people.Its already being funded, and if you pay taxes, youre already funding it.

With the govt fitting the bill, costs will GO UP, what dont you understand about this. It happens in EVERY OTHER SECTION OF INDUSTRY the government is involved in

HOUSING
STUDENT LOANS
CLEAN ENERGYAll of these are entirely different markets.

David88vert

03-06-2013, 02:27 PM

If I give you $100 allotment everyday, and one day you use 70, one day you use 80, 90, 80, 110, 90, etc, and we've been doing this for decades, now that your using your money somewhere else thats cheaper and Im still giving you the same allotment of $100, now you use $10, 20, 5, 30, 10, etc.

Im talking about shifting what youre already paying from one entity, to another entity that can operate with less costs and overhead.

Youve taken my body shop analogy on a whole different tangent. The costs associated with a paper cut and multiple gunshots to the face are already in place. We're just eliminating the markup hospitals use to cover people who dont pay, by giving everyone the ability to pay.

Im not talking about a car. That is an ENTIRELY different product, in an ENTIRELY different market that operates on ENTIRELY different priciples. Apples and oranges.

Its already being funded, and if you pay taxes, youre already funding it.

All of these are entirely different markets.

Since it's already funded, care to take a look as to why hospitals are going bankrupt in California? They apparently don't have enough funding to keep up with the needs. How were you planning on reducing costs again?
In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens. A staggering 84 hospitals in California alone, have been forced to close their doors because of the growing crisis. Hospitals which manage to remain open, pass the unpaid costs onto the rest of us, which translates into more out-of-pocket expenses and higher insurance premiums for Americans.

.blank cd

03-06-2013, 03:50 PM

Since it's already funded, care to take a look as to why hospitals are going bankrupt in California? They apparently don't have enough funding to keep up with the needs. How were you planning on reducing costs again?
In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens. A staggering 84 hospitals in California alone, have been forced to close their doors because of the growing crisis. Hospitals which manage to remain open, pass the unpaid costs onto the rest of us, which translates into more out-of-pocket expenses and higher insurance premiums for Americans.

You answered your own question and at the crux of what I've been saying the whooooolllle thread

Make it so that EVERYONE is payed up BEFORE they even walk in the door

David88vert

03-06-2013, 04:27 PM

You answered your own question and at the crux of what I've been saying the whooooolllle thread

Make it so that EVERYONE is payed up BEFORE they even walk in the door

So, are you saying that if a person is here illegally, or is here on a visa or passport, that they should be denied healthcare? Atourist has a stroke - let him die? A Hispanic person breaks their leg, don't set it until you check to see if he is legal or not?
If someone is here working off the books, how are you going to know if they are paid up before giving them CPR?

Also, what about malpractice insurance? Since doctors will be making less (by your statements), how exactly are they supposed to pay for their insurance premiums? Are those to be backed by the single payer system also, or are you thinking to block all claims of malpractice prior to court filings?

Our current system does not have enough hospital emergency room funding for the needs that they currently have. You think you can reduce those costs without looking at all of the parameters?

Vteckidd

03-06-2013, 04:46 PM

Its already being funded, and if you pay taxes, youre already funding it.

All of these are entirely different markets.
youre dodging the question, or you just dont understand my point. our taxes currently DONT pay for medical care, our PREMIUMS do (which are elective, you dont HAVE to have medical insurance). Premiums rise because of several factors which have been discussed at length.

In order to have a single payer, you would have to raise taxes more than $17000 PER PERSON (NOT FAMILY), including YOU, to BREAK EVEN on CURRENT Medical costs. How else do you pay for it? Medical care costs "X" right now, and "Y" is the revenue used to pay for it.

Covering everyone HAS to be paid for by SOMEONE, then, you can HOPE costs come down because there are more people in the system, but that DOESNT happen, EVER.

HOUSING- Man, lets make houses AFFORDABLE for EVERYONE! Loans go out to anyone with a pulse, housing prices skyrocket, profit, collapse
COllege- Man, education should be AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE! loans go out to anyone with a pulse, tuition skyrockets (DESPITE MORE PEOPLE GOING TO COLLEGE THAN EVER), profit, imminent collapse
Green Energy- Man, clean energy should be AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE! Loans go out to companies (usually political backers), oil prices skyrocket, green energy gets more expensive, profit, collapse.

SENSE A PATTERN HERE?

Vteckidd

03-06-2013, 04:49 PM

So, are you saying that if a person is here illegally, or is here on a visa or passport, that they should be denied healthcare? Atourist has a stroke - let him die? A Hispanic person breaks their leg, don't set it until you check to see if he is legal or not?
If someone is here working off the books, how are you going to know if they are paid up before giving them CPR?

Also, what about malpractice insurance? Since doctors will be making less (by your statements), how exactly are they supposed to pay for their insurance premiums? Are those to be backed by the single payer system also, or are you thinking to block all claims of malpractice prior to court filings?

Our current system does not have enough hospital emergency room funding for the needs that they currently have. You think you can reduce those costs without looking at all of the parameters?

Its the problem with comprehension of the scope of the problem. Single Payer has some positives, but when you look at it from all angles and actually see the scope of making it work, you realize pretty quickly, it just isnt feasible. And every country who has single payer is bankrupt or has worse care than the USA.

His beef is with the insurance agencies in general and how asinine the system is, which, obamacare will do nothing to improve, and in most cases make it worse.

BanginJimmy

03-06-2013, 04:53 PM

.blank cd

03-06-2013, 05:43 PM

It's like I'm talking to myself in here cause people keep repeating what I've already addressed.

So, are you saying that if a person is here illegally, or is here on a visa or passport, that they should be denied healthcare? A tourist has a stroke - let him die? A Hispanic person breaks their leg, don't set it until you check to see if he is legal or not?
If someone is here working off the books, how are you going to know if they are paid up before giving them CPR?Emergency care. Burden of the tax payers. Since up front cost has come down, no one comes out really behind.

Also, what about malpractice insurance? Since doctors will be making less (by your statements), how exactly are they supposed to pay for their insurance premiums? Are those to be backed by the single payer system also, or are you thinking to block all claims of malpractice prior to court filings?First, I haven't stated a single time doctors will be making less. I did say that as the system operates right now, (just an example)if its $5000 for all the associated costs for a doctor to remove a bullet from your shoulder, hospitals are charging $15k or more to cover the people that don't pay. If everyone is paying, you can now charge $5000. Right now we are charging patients more to cover the ones that don't pay. If everyone has paid, you've already covered them. I don't think I can simplify that further.

Second, Tort reform.

Vteckidd

03-06-2013, 05:59 PM

First, I haven't stated a single time doctors will be making less. I did say that as the system operates right now, (just an example)if its $5000 for all the associated costs for a doctor to remove a bullet from your shoulder, hospitals are charging $15k or more to cover the people that don't pay. If everyone is paying, you can now charge $5000. Right now we are charging patients more to cover the ones that don't pay. If everyone has paid, you've already covered them. I don't think I can simplify that further.

How do you get everyone to "pay". Again, my numbers prove you cannot tax people enough to pay for healthcare. Explain how that first hurdle gets solved

.blank cd

03-06-2013, 06:17 PM

our taxes currently DONT pay for medical care, our PREMIUMS do (which are elective, you dont HAVE to have medical insurance). Premiums rise because of several factors which have been discussed at length.Our taxes are paying for poor people who don't have insurance to get treatment. This tax won't go away and instead will get rolled in with the new one.

In order to have a single payer, you would have to raise taxes more than $17000 PER PERSON (NOT FAMILY), including YOU, to BREAK EVEN on CURRENT Medical costs. How else do you pay for it? Medical care costs "X" right now, and "Y" is the revenue used to pay for it.No one pays any more than what they're paying already, except that more people are now paying into it. The average person pays a premium to the company they work for, the company pays the rest. Instead of that money going to BCBS, it goes to UHS instead, and you see it on your check stub at the end of the week. You make it progressive just like income tax, poor people pay a little less, rich people pay a little more.

Those without a job are still on "Medicare", this system doesn't change and instead gets rolled into UHS. You, the worker are still taxed the same for this as well.

Those wanting elective treatments (your "better care") pay the difference. Those that want cosmetic plastic surgery (implants, botox, etc.)pay 100%. Out of pocket.

Tourists and illegal immigrants either pay with the insurance they already have, bill their resident country, bill the patient, or eat it. But now since most citizens are insured, hospitals are eating a lot less.

HOUSING- Man, lets make houses AFFORDABLE for EVERYONE! Loans go out to anyone with a pulse, housing prices skyrocket, profit, collapse
COllege- Man, education should be AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE! loans go out to anyone with a pulse, tuition skyrockets (DESPITE MORE PEOPLE GOING TO COLLEGE THAN EVER), profit, imminent collapse
Green Energy- Man, clean energy should be AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE! Loans go out to companies (usually political backers), oil prices skyrocket, green energy gets more expensive, profit, collapse.

SENSE A PATTERN HERE?Housing and college are completely different kinds of markets that Healthcare is not the same and usually stops with the insurance company. There's no transparency in healthcare, and no one does comparison shopping for healthcare

You can decide when you want to buy a house, or a car, or go to school. You DON'T decide when you get shot, or get cancer.

BanginJimmy

03-06-2013, 06:51 PM

Our taxes are paying for poor people who don't have insurance to get treatment. This tax won't go away and instead will get rolled in with the new one.

No one pays any more than what they're paying already, except that more people are now paying into it. The average person pays a premium to the company they work for, the company pays the rest. Instead of that money going to BCBS, it goes to UHS instead, and you see it on your check stub at the end of the week. You make it progressive just like income tax, poor people pay a little less, rich people pay a little more.

Those without a job are still on "Medicare", this system doesn't change and instead gets rolled into UHS. You, the worker are still taxed the same for this as well.

Those wanting elective treatments (your "better care") pay the difference. Those that want cosmetic plastic surgery (implants, botox, etc.)pay 100%. Out of pocket.

Tourists and illegal immigrants either pay with the insurance they already have, bill their resident country, bill the patient, or eat it. But now since most citizens are insured, hospitals are eating a lot less.

Housing and college are completely different kinds of markets that Healthcare is not the same and usually stops with the insurance company. There's no transparency in healthcare, and no one does comparison shopping for healthcare

You can decide when you want to buy a house, or a car, or go to school. You DON'T decide when you get shot, or get cancer.

So like I said, you want to add 260mil more people to medicare.

Think of it this way. Using 2011 numbers and approximating total rolls to be 6x the current medicare rolls, UHS would cost 3.17T a year.

Of course, you know medicare reimbursement rates will be forced to rise to actually cover the cost of the care. We will call it 10%, which equals another 55B a year using 2011 medicare spending and enrollment, so around 317B more when you add in 260mil more people to the rolls.

Fraud will also rise ~6x, call that another 240B a year in additional spending.

You can also expect 2-300B more a year for the massive bureaucracy that would be created. That bureaucracy would likely also cause docs to raise their rates even more to compensate.

These are all low estimates, especially reimbursement rates, and I would expect the price tag to be FAR higher because anything involved with the govt costs more than it does in the private sector.

BTW, total US spending on health care in 2011 was around 2.9T.

.blank cd

03-06-2013, 07:04 PM

I still dont have a clue how the govt getting money from marijuana sales is going to lower health care costs. If you are talking about how the govt is going to pay for it, thats a completely different discussion. You said legalized and regulated marijuana would actually lower costs.Allocate the tax revenue from newly legalized drugs, and existing legal drugs to healthcare. I don't know why I have to explain this to you, you're smart enough.

Oh and I am still laughing at the fact that you think the govt would have lower overhead than a private sector company. The govt already has a model for what would happen with a single payer. It is called medicare/medicaid. In 2011, Kaiser Permanente collected 47.9B in total revenue. Medicare paid about that much just in fraud.You will be the only one laughing. All costs being exactly the same, the government doesn't work for shareholders, and the government doesn't have to advertise. I'm sure you can do simple subtraction from here.

Why would I NOT think that medicare's fraud totals wont go up by 10x when 10x the people are added to the scheme? It would probably go up by more than 10x because it would be even easier to commit the fraud because the govt wont be able to hire enough investigators to keep up.

1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_fraud

The total cost of healthcare fraud in the US. This includes everyone on any healthcare system right now. You may see a slight bump, but not much.

2. Why wouldn't you be able to hire investigators? You have freed up plenty of workers from current private healthcare administration who already know the system.

BanginJimmy

03-06-2013, 07:16 PM

Allocate the tax revenue from newly legalized drugs, and existing legal drugs to healthcare. I don't know why I have to explain this to you, you're smart enough.

Thats just more taxes. A knee repalcement will still cost the same as it did with illegal weed.

You will be the only one laughing. All costs being exactly the same, the government doesn't work for shareholders, and the government doesn't have to advertise. I'm sure you can do simple subtraction from here.

They have a far larger and more cumbersome bureaucracy though.

1. Health care fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_fraud)

The total cost of healthcare fraud in the US. This includes everyone on any healthcare system right now. You may see a slight bump, but not much.

Your link has issues. I would have to find the info again, but I found an article a few years ago while I was in econ class arguing against a single payer that covered this. It estimated medicare fraud 3-5x higher per capita than private sector insurers.

2. Why wouldn't you be able to hire investigators? You have freed up plenty of workers from current private healthcare administration who already know the system.

For the same reason they dont do it now. I have no clue what that reason is, but there is very little accountability with medicare spending.

HHS could hire 50k new investigators whose only job is to find and prosecute medicare fraud, pay them 150k a year. If they stopped just 30% of fraud, medicare would be saving money.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 06:07 AM

Thats just more taxes. A knee repalcement will still cost the same as it did with illegal weed.Maybe, maybe not. You won't get legal pot though without it being taxed. That is out of the question. If you don't want to pay taxes on weed, don't think about buying weed. Its that simple. Lol.

You can buy it right now and risk jail time, or you can pay the same or most likely less when it's legalized and have the tax revenue go to healthcare and not get a year in prison. I don't know about you, but the choice is pretty clear here. Lol

They have a far larger and more cumbersome bureaucracy though....a bureaucracy that is already in place and already paid for.

Your link has issues. I would have to find the info again, but I found an article a few years ago while I was in econ class arguing against a single payer that covered this. It estimated medicare fraud 3-5x higher per capita than private sector insurers.Lets assume this is true, and that there is 3-5x more fraud on Medicare than private. What would you think is the cause? Some of these report say that the average american thinks its ok to defraud a health insurance in order to offset a premium/deductible. If you end up lowering costs for the end user, do you think that will increase or decrease the number of fraudulent claims? Both pages say that health care providers are the most common offenders, so still assuming that there's 3x more fraud claims on Medicare, its most likely the hospital doing it. Ramp up fines and eventually shut down offending hospitals.

What you are being billed right now on your private insurance policy offsets fraud and pays for investigation and recovery. I am still shifting dollar for dollar what you pay and what your employer pay from a private insurer to UHS. All of the money that's currently paid into insurance fraud recovery is also shifted

HHS could hire 50k new investigators whose only job is to find and prosecute medicare fraud, pay them 150k a year. If they stopped just 30% of fraud, medicare would be saving money.There are already investigators in place in the private sector that you are paying for right now with your private insurance premium. If you're shifting all your expenses dollar for dollar, all these investigators are still doing their jobs at the same rate they were getting paid before.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 10:57 AM

It's like I'm talking to myself in here cause people keep repeating what I've already addressed.

Emergency care. Burden of the tax payers. Since up front cost has come down, no one comes out really behind.

First, I haven't stated a single time doctors will be making less. I did say that as the system operates right now, (just an example)if its $5000 for all the associated costs for a doctor to remove a bullet from your shoulder, hospitals are charging $15k or more to cover the people that don't pay. If everyone is paying, you can now charge $5000. Right now we are charging patients more to cover the ones that don't pay. If everyone has paid, you've already covered them. I don't think I can simplify that further.

Second, Tort reform.

California already has issues with this approach. Research San Bernadino County and its issues with healthcare and hospitals. The approach that you are presenting so far will not lower costs, it would simply take and established business from private corporations and place it in the bureaucracy of the government. The current single payer model needs to account for all of the impacts that it would have, and it doesn't have that yet.
Again, I'm not saying that a single payer system cannot be done, just that I have not seen anyone present a complete model that addresses all of the issues, and other developed countries have not presented a system that would work in the US yet.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 11:01 AM

You will be the only one laughing. All costs being exactly the same, the government doesn't work for shareholders, and the government doesn't have to advertise. I'm sure you can do simple subtraction from here.

Even the Obamacare bill included a massive amount of pork barrel spending. Government is not as efficient as the private sector; however, it usually takes government to tackle massive projects such as national infrastructure, and that places a national healthcare plan as a discussion topic at minimum.

We, the people, are the shareholders. I agree that the government is not working for its shareholders - but it should be.

The government constantly advertises. Turn on the TV, and hear Obama's commercials promoting his agendas.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 11:09 AM

The government constantly advertises. Turn on the TV, and hear Obama's commercials promoting his agendas.Campaign advertisements, not government advertisements.

When was the last time you saw a commercial for WIC, Medicare, or Social security? For a public school, or for a post office? What about a commercial for I-75?

David88vert

03-07-2013, 11:11 AM

Maybe, maybe not. You won't get legal pot though without it being taxed. That is out of the question. If you don't want to pay taxes on weed, don't think about buying weed. Its that simple. Lol.

You can buy it right now and risk jail time, or you can pay the same or most likely less when it's legalized and have the tax revenue go to healthcare and not get a year in prison. I don't know about you, but the choice is pretty clear here. Lol

...a bureaucracy that is already in place and already paid for.

Lets assume this is true, and that there is 3-5x more fraud on Medicare than private. What would you think is the cause? Some of these report say that the average american thinks its ok to defraud a health insurance in order to offset a premium/deductible. If you end up lowering costs for the end user, do you think that will increase or decrease the number of fraudulent claims? Both pages say that health care providers are the most common offenders, so still assuming that there's 3x more fraud claims on Medicare, its most likely the hospital doing it. Ramp up fines and eventually shut down offending hospitals.

What you are being billed right now on your private insurance policy offsets fraud and pays for investigation and recovery. I am still shifting dollar for dollar what you pay and what your employer pay from a private insurer to UHS. All of the money that's currently paid into insurance fraud recovery is also shifted

There are already investigators in place in the private sector that you are paying for right now with your private insurance premium. If you're shifting all your expenses dollar for dollar, all these investigators are still doing their jobs at the same rate they were getting paid before.

While I don't agree completely with these statements, I think this is an excellent presentation for the angle that you view the issue from.

I don't think that the government can/would lower healthcare costs even if they legalized currently illegal drugs; however, I also don't think that the private sector will lower them either. Cost will continue to rise as they always have. You do not see the government lowering your overall tax burden, only increasing it.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 11:27 AM

Campaign advertisements, not government advertisements.

When was the last time you saw a commercial for WIC, Medicare, or Social security? For a public school, or for a post office? What about a commercial for I-75?

Actually, there was one for the Post Office this morning; however, they have their own budget and run more like a private business, so I don't think the same terms apply with that part of the government.

Since you bring up Medicare, let's look at its real cost, as that's what we are really looking at - Medicare for all.

What about the claim that Medicare’s administrative costs are only 2 percent, compared to 10 percent to 15 percent for private insurers? The problem with this comparison is that it includes the cost of marketing and selling insurance as well as the costs of collecting premiums on the private side, but ignores the cost of collecting taxes on the public side. It also ignores the substantial administrative cost that Medicare shifts to the providers of care.

Studies by Milliman and others show that when all costs are included, Medicare costs more, not less, to administer. Further, raw numbers show that, using Medicare’s own accounting, its administrative expenses per enrollee are higher than private insurance. They are lower only when expressed as a percentage – but that may be because the average medical expense for a senior is so much higher than the expense for non-seniors. Also, an unpublished ongoing study by Milliman finds that seniors on Medicare use twice the health resource as seniors who are still on private insurance, everything equal.

Ironically, many observers think Medicare spends too little on administration, which is one reason for an estimated Medicare fraud loss of one out of every ten dollars of Medicare benefits paid. Private insurers devote more resources to fraud prevention and find it profitable to do so.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 11:39 AM

While I don't agree completely with these statements, I think this is an excellent presentation for the angle that you view the issue from.

I don't think that the government can/would lower healthcare costs even if they legalized currently illegal drugs; however, I also don't think that the private sector will lower them either. Cost will continue to rise as they always have. You do not see the government lowering your overall tax burden, only increasing it.
The weed thing is a small side note. And I cant find anything on San Bernardino. What I understand from what I have seen is that they're trying to apply it locally, using the same market model that causes the mess that we're in already. There are still people coming in, not paying, and not enough participants to find the ones that aren't.

If costs are going to continue to rise, then they will rise with or without socialized medicine, if that's the case we still have a responsibility to do something about ruining people's lives, medically and financially, over hospital bills that are unnecessarily, and prohibitively expensive. Especially since its us thats carrying the burden of that.

It's an increase on some people's tax burdens, but a decrease in out of pocket costs. Worst case scenario, my proposal is a wash for everyone involved. Same money goes in as it comes out.

If instead of paying $200 to BCBS, would you rather pay that same $200 to Uncle Sam if it meant that everyone around you had a better chance of not getting your family sick?

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 12:02 PM

What about the claim that Medicare’s administrative costs are only 2 percent, compared to 10 percent to 15 percent for private insurers? The problem with this comparison is that it includes the cost of marketing and selling insurance as well as the costs of collecting premiums on the private side, but ignores the cost of collecting taxes on the public side. It also ignores the substantial administrative cost that Medicare shifts to the providers of care.The IRS is already in place and you already pay for it in your taxes. This tax you already pay for doesn't come down. It may rise slightly, but if you're still shifting costs dollar for dollar, this increase is covered.

Further, raw numbers show that, using Medicare’s own accounting, its administrative expenses per enrollee are higher than private insurance. They are lower only when expressed as a percentage – but that may be because the average medical expense for a senior is so much higher than the expense for non-seniors. Also, an unpublished ongoing study by Milliman finds that seniors on Medicare use twice the health resource as seniors who are still on private insurance, everything equal.I can accept that seniors on Medicare are higher than non seniors with Medicare. You're already paying for them right now. The tax you already pay for medicare doesnt decrease. The additional seniors you're adding are the higher income ones who are already paying high premiums on their private insurance. If you're making the system progressive taxed like income is, they might get an additional tax burden.

Ironically, many observers think Medicare spends too little on administration, which is one reason for an estimated Medicare fraud loss of one out of every ten dollars of Medicare benefits paid. Private insurers devote more resources to fraud prevention and find it profitable to do so.You already pay for private investigators and all the costs to recover insurance fraud in your premium already. If you're shifting, dollar for dollar, you're still gonna pay for it.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 01:17 PM

The IRS is already in place and you already pay for it in your taxes. This tax you already pay for doesn't come down. It may rise slightly, but if you're still shifting costs dollar for dollar, this increase is covered.

I can accept that seniors on Medicare are higher than non seniors with Medicare. You're already paying for them right now. The tax you already pay for medicare doesnt decrease. The additional seniors you're adding are the higher income ones who are already paying high premiums on their private insurance. If you're making the system progressive taxed like income is, they might get an additional tax burden.

You already pay for private investigators and all the costs to recover insurance fraud in your premium already. If you're shifting, dollar for dollar, you're still gonna pay for it.

Two things:

Shifting costs, however, is not the same thing as controlling costs. Providers are just as much a part of society as patients. Shifting cost from one group to the other makes the latter group better off and the former worse off. It does not lower the cost of health care for society as a whole, however. In fact, it introduces a cost to society as the supply of providers falls.

Your goal is to provide fair, universal health coverage for all; however, you method of collecting revenue to support this is anything but fair and universal. You are effectively saying that the few are to support the needs of the many, by removing the gains achieved by work effort and giving it to those who do not have the same documented work effort.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 02:52 PM

Two things:

Shifting costs, however, is not the same thing as controlling costs. Providers are just as much a part of society as patients. Shifting cost from one group to the other makes the latter group better off and the former worse off. It does not lower the cost of health care for society as a whole, however. In fact, it introduces a cost to society as the supply of providers falls.Shifting costs doesn't lower costs on its own. If everyone were on BCBS, then we decided to shift everyone to Humana, nothing would change. It's another private insurer, same overhead, same business model. Instead, we're expanding an already existing government agency and shifting the costs to it. Only this government agency doesn't have the same overhead costs as the private one, and there is only One CEO. Youre getting rid of the operating costs you don't need by shifting to the agency that doesn't use them.

You control costs because now doctors don't have to triple charge to cover people that can't pay. You introduce legislation to fix prices and make them transparent, and now, a 50 cent Tylenol 3 costs 50 cents, an hour of the nurses time to give you the pill costs 30 bucks, hour of room costs 5-10 bucks, etc. etc. Now, your normal hr long hospital stay for your kid costs $50 instead of $1000. There's no need to do any negotiating from there.

If you've got a worse situation like setting a broken bone, take the best case/worst case scenario, average the two together, or, itemize it out: charge for invasive to go in and cut chunks of bone out if you crushed one, then charge to set it. A broken leg goes from $20k to $4k, whatever. The goal here is to eliminate overcharging.

Your goal is to provide fair, universal health coverage for all; however, you method of collecting revenue to support this is anything but fair and universal. You are effectively saying that the few are to support the needs of the many, by removing the gains achieved by work effort and giving it to those who do not have the same documented work effort.This works the same way as the current tax setup is now. It works the same for roads, schools, libraries. Progressive taxation. Effectively no one would come out of pocket anymore than what they're already paying. Your wealthy are paying the base rate + the difference for Cadillac care (what theyre already paying now) your poor people still use Medicaid but its now rolled into one big agency. The tax for Medicaid still exists and is rolled into UHS. If you're paying the same rate as what you're paying now, and you lower your overhead, the difference makes up for those on the other end.

If you're paying $200 a month to BCBS right now, and that $200 is paying for healthcare costs for you and your wife, investigating fraud, advertising, profits, you'll still be paying $200 to UHS, except now that you've cut out advertising, profits, etc, stuff that a government system doesn't use to actually give you healthcare, now it only costs $100, your extra $100 fills the gap, goes towards low income care, comes off your premium, whatever.

The work effort argument is entirely subjective and purely idealogical. I personally know people who are paid substantially more for doing less effort than the people who put in MORE effort to get paid less. Our machinist makes $50k a year and puts in 80hr work weeks regularly, handling very heavy objects all day long. Our president married into the company, puts in 7hr days max, makes very few executive decisions, none of which couldn't be made by anyone else here. The most physical effort he does is carry the product we make in a truck from our building to the building that uses it, and even then, someone here does it half the time The president gets a paid truck spec'd out 2012 F150, gas card, expensed business trips(to which no money has been made for us, and sometimes essentially lost), and $250k/year.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 03:48 PM

Vteckidd

03-07-2013, 04:36 PM

If instead of paying $200 to BCBS, would you rather pay that same $200 to Uncle Sam if it meant that everyone around you had a better chance of not getting your family sick?

Show me the math that makes this work.

I have yet to see anything come close to working out this way. Its nice to SAY that , but we both know its more like $20,000 vs $200

Vteckidd

03-07-2013, 04:37 PM

If you're paying $200 a month to BCBS right now, and that $200 is paying for healthcare costs for you and your wife, investigating fraud, advertising, profits, you'll still be paying $200 to UHS, except now that you've cut out advertising, profits, etc, stuff that a government system doesn't use to actually give you healthcare, now it only costs $100, your extra $100 fills the gap, goes towards low income care, comes off your premium, whatever.

Problem with that is you now eliminate the talent from the pool. That "advertising and profits" is what makes a doctor better than the next.

You assume all doctors will be paid the same, newsflash, they dont want to be.

Vteckidd

03-07-2013, 04:40 PM

So, your personal belief is that those that make a little more should received a reduction in the benefits that they receive (the loss of their "Cadillac" health plans), and an increase in cost for this reduction. So much for fairness.....

Person #1:
A guy who chooses to spend his life selling dope, smoking weed all day, never choosing to look for a steady job to hold, who gets cancer after 40 years of not being a contributor to society

Person #2:
A guy who works 90 hrs a week managing his own business, growing it from the ground up, employing a workforce of 75 people, paying his taxes faithfully, living healthy.

You believe that Person #2 should support the healthcare costs of Person #1?

That is the whole point of single payer. Take down the people who can afford the BEST healthcare, and make it mediocre, and give people with NO healthcare access to mediocre care.

its about leveling the playing field. Its about "fairness".

Its about taking a great doctor and only allowing him to make averages wages, and letting shitty doctors make average wages.

Its not feasible. They completely ignore the private sector side of business.

bu villain

03-07-2013, 04:40 PM

The work effort argument is entirely subjective and purely idealogical. I personally know people who are paid substantially more for doing less effort than the people who put in MORE effort to get paid less. Our machinist makes $50k a year and puts in 80hr work weeks regularly, handling very heavy objects all day long. Our president married into the company, puts in 7hr days max, makes very few executive decisions, none of which couldn't be made by anyone else here. The most physical effort he does is carry the product we make in a truck from our building to the building that uses it, and even then, someone here does it half the time The president gets a paid truck spec'd out 2012 F150, gas card, expensed business trips(to which no money has been made for us, and sometimes essentially lost), and $250k/year.

So, your personal belief is that those that make a little more should received a reduction in the benefits that they receive (the loss of their "Cadillac" health plans), and an increase in cost for this reduction. So much for fairness.....

Person #1:
A guy who chooses to spend his life selling dope, smoking weed all day, never choosing to look for a steady job to hold, who gets cancer after 40 years of not being a contributor to society

Person #2:
A guy who works 90 hrs a week managing his own business, growing it from the ground up, employing a workforce of 75 people, paying his taxes faithfully, living healthy.

You believe that Person #2 should support the healthcare costs of Person #1?

You are both engaging in anecdotal arguments that represent the opposite extremes of the same issue. There will always be people who receive more or less benefits than they "deserve", whatever your definition of deserve is. Our policies should be more utilitarian (the greatest good for the largest number of people) with the caveat that no individual bears too extreme a disproportionate level of the burden. A loser getting healthcare is not a good reason to prevent many good people from getting healthcare and a loser getting lots of money is not a good reason to raise taxes on every wealthy person.

bu villain

03-07-2013, 04:43 PM

Problem with that is you now eliminate the talent from the pool. That "advertising and profits" is what makes a doctor better than the next.

You assume all doctors will be paid the same, newsflash, they dont want to be.

Personally, I would choose the doctor who wants to be a doctor even if it won't make him wealthy over a doctor whose primary concern is profit and advertising.

Vteckidd

03-07-2013, 04:51 PM

Personally, I would choose the doctor who wants to be a doctor even if it won't make him wealthy over a doctor whose primary concern is profit and advertising.

Most doctors want to be doctors because its helping people, but , most want to be compensated because their costs are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Advertising is bad now? Profit is bad now? Are you fucking kidding me?

the BEST doctors ADVERTISE and count on making a PROFIT. do you know what it takes to be a WORLD CLASS DOCTOR? SURGEON? ARE YOU AN EXPERT ON IT?

save me the people of the world unite bit, its old

Vteckidd

03-07-2013, 04:52 PM

What do you do for a living?

David88vert

03-07-2013, 05:00 PM

You are both engaging in anecdotal arguments that represent the opposite extremes of the same issue. There will always be people who receive more or less benefits than they "deserve", whatever your definition of deserve is. Our policies should be more utilitarian (the greatest good for the largest number of people) with the caveat that no individual bears too extreme a disproportionate level of the burden. A loser getting healthcare is not a good reason to prevent many good people from getting healthcare and a loser getting lots of money is not a good reason to raise taxes on every wealthy person.

Actually, I can introduce you to a lot of people that fit both of those 2 types that I described.

Sounds like you think that utopia can exist if we simply steal from the rich and give to the poor - even if the poor stay poor because they do not want to put out the effort to better their own lives.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 05:36 PM

Couple posts ago I said that everyone gets base care. That means if you were getting and paying for Cadillac care before, your paying less now for base then paying the difference for anything more. I've went over this

Nowhere have I said we're taking any money from the doctors. Private insurers advertise for their own profits, not the doctors.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 05:38 PM

You are both engaging in anecdotal arguments that represent the opposite extremes of the same issue.I offered the anecdote after saying the same thing. This worker to earner argument is purely subjective and has nothing to do with the course of discussion.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 06:11 PM

Person #1:
A guy who chooses to spend his life selling dope, smoking weed all day, never choosing to look for a steady job to hold, who gets cancer after 40 years of not being a contributor to society

Person #2:
A guy who works 90 hrs a week managing his own business, growing it from the ground up, employing a workforce of 75 people, paying his taxes faithfully, living healthy.

You believe that Person #2 should support the healthcare costs of Person #1?This happens right now on the system we're already on. How do you suppose we remedy that?

If both people take a nasty spill and bleed out, which one do you let die?

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 06:18 PM

save me the people of the world unite bit, its oldSorry. You can't ignore the people of the world unite bit, that's the whole crux of the discussion. Lol. Getting people healthcare who can't otherwise get it.

Something something something more perfect union something something something promote general welfare something.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 06:49 PM

This happens right now on the system we're already on. How do you suppose we remedy that?

If both people take a nasty spill and bleed out, which one do you let die?

Your solution doesn't solve anything then. It doesn't really improve anything, it just takes localized healthcare and puts it under a national regulation - and that is the established receipe for worse results at higher cost. In order for a single payer system to ever have a chance to be introduced, there needs to be a clear improvement over the existing system.

Again, I'm not against it - if it can deliver a better system. The current plans just don't offer that yet.

As for who to let die - both would die under the current system or your utopian one. Everyone dies eventually. However, both would receive the same emergency care. We aren't talking about emergency care though - we are talking about healthcare in regards to standarizing the normalized care that individuals receive. The difference is how much should one person pay towards another's care. Again, why should Person #2 be responsible for the needs of Person #1?

Sinfix_15

03-07-2013, 06:50 PM

David88vert

03-07-2013, 06:52 PM

Sorry. You can't ignore the people of the world unite bit, that's the whole crux of the discussion. Lol. Getting people healthcare who can't otherwise get it.

Something something something more perfect union something something something promote general welfare something.

Actually, they can get it. If you watched the news, you would have seen that plenty of people were down at Greenbriar Mall getting free dental care just last week. There are lots of "free clinics" available to those that need it, and hospitals do not turn away people in need currently, regardless of their ability to pay.
Line forms for free dental clinic at Greenbriar Mall Friday | Video | 11alive.com (http://www.11alive.com/video/1538837570001/1/Line-forms-for-free-dental-clinic-at-Greenbriar-Mall-Friday)
Atlanta dentist offers free dental care at Friday event - CBS Atlanta 46 (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/17293967/atlanta-dentist-offers-free-dental-care-at-friday-event)

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 07:29 PM

So fucking tired of bleeding hearts.

I don't see you putting up much of a fight against public education? Is this what you're implying? I guess you'll be sticking your kids in private school? Lol

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 07:42 PM

Your solution doesn't solve anything then. It doesn't really improve anything, it just takes localized healthcare and puts it under a national regulation - and that is the established receipe for worse results at higher cost. In order for a single payer system to ever have a chance to be introduced, there needs to be a clear improvement over the existing system.Ive offered that improvement. I'm still not sure where you're lost? It seems that you have an idealogical aversion to it, but its based on the same as the tax system we have in place that everyone's already agreed to. We're just taking the money we're already paying insurance companies for healthcare and giving it to the government. I don't think I could make it any simpler than that. Lol.

However, both would receive the same emergency care. We aren't talking about emergency care though - we are talking about healthcare in regards to standarizing the normalized care that individuals receive. The difference is how much should one person pay towards another's care. Again, why should Person #2 be responsible for the needs of Person #1?Person 2 is already responsible for person 1. You are paying for it on the front end right now. There will always be people who abuse the system. It's a fact of life we have to cope with. My system makes it so that YOU don't have to cope with it as much.

BanginJimmy

03-07-2013, 07:57 PM

We're just taking the money we're already paying insurance companies for healthcare and giving it to the government.

With the track record the govt has, how could anyone be against that? I mean, look how well they have managed the money they confiscated to pay for retirement.

Sinfix_15

03-07-2013, 07:58 PM

I don't see you putting up much of a fight against public education? Is this what you're implying? I guess you'll be sticking your kids in private school? Lol

Yeah, because its all or nothing. You either adopt the full on liberal utopia'n mindset or you reject all of society.... no other options. If you care so much about taking care of the world, set up a foundation, spend your weekends feeding the homeless, open up the extra rooms in your house to the needy..........

for a lack of better words.... why cant i not give a fuck? Where is the opt out option at? If liberal policies are all so wonderful, why must they be forced upon us? If i'm ever in danger of not being able to take care of myself.... it will most likely be because of me paying the government to take care of me. But there you go..... that's the system in a nutshell. Turn on the sprinklers and then sell rain coats.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 08:14 PM

With the track record the govt has, how could anyone be against that? I mean, look how well they have managed the money they confiscated to pay for retirement.Why do we keep comparing healthcare to a completely different government program like they're equal? Lol

Enron didnt do so well on the private market, but I still give walmart my money every week for groceries. Lol

BanginJimmy

03-07-2013, 08:16 PM

I don't see you putting up much of a fight against public education? Is this what you're implying? I guess you'll be sticking your kids in private school? Lol

You are speaking of the public education system that by any standard you would like to use is failing the students? It works great for the school administrators and teachers unions though.

BanginJimmy

03-07-2013, 08:18 PM

Why do we keep comparing healthcare to a completely different government program like they're equal? Loll

Because its the same people running them both. I have already compared your version of universal health care to medicare and shown just how much more expensive it will be. 1T more a year and that is a low estimate.

BanginJimmy

03-07-2013, 08:29 PM

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 08:34 PM

Yeah, because its all or nothing. You either adopt the full on liberal utopia'n mindset or you reject all of society.... no other options. If you care so much about taking care of the world, set up a foundation, spend your weekends feeding the homeless, open up the extra rooms in your house to the needy..........

for a lack of better words.... why cant i not give a fuck? Where is the opt out option at? If liberal policies are all so wonderful, why must they be forced upon us? If i'm ever in danger of not being able to take care of myself.... it will most likely be because of me paying the government to take care of me. But there you go..... that's the system in a nutshell. Turn on the sprinklers and then sell rain coats.

You have a horribly myopic view of government and life and what is liberal and what isn't.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 08:51 PM

Because its the same people running them both. I have already compared your version of universal health care to medicare and shown just how much more expensive it will be. 1T more a year and that is a low estimate.You're comparing the new system to a system thats already broken and poorly funded. Youre thinking that just because the government is running it, it's automatically gonna be poorly funded and poorly run.

Look at the US Military. It is painfully obvious they have zero problem with funding.

Look at it this way. All I'm saying is its essentially ALL private insurance, but instead of the check going to BCBS whoever, it goes to Uncle Sam, everyone is on it, it's progressively taxed like income. That's it. I'm not saying your taxes won't go up 1T. I've said it before that they will. But you're ALREADY PAYING this 1T. Instead of paying for it in the front end, you're paying in the back end.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 09:05 PM

Blank, do you happen to know who handles the management for Medicare? Do a little research and get back on here.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 09:09 PM

Why do we keep comparing healthcare to a completely different government program like they're equal? Lol

Enron didnt do so well on the private market, but I still give walmart my money every week for groceries. Lol

Social Security hasn't been around even 100 years and it has major issues.

Public schools are local - not national - not managed by the federal government. Local taxes provide the majority of funding for public schools.
Currently, our hospitals are locally managed. A federally controlled healthcare system would change that.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 09:15 PM

Ive offered that improvement. I'm still not sure where you're lost? It seems that you have an idealogical aversion to it, but its based on the same as the tax system we have in place that everyone's already agreed to. We're just taking the money we're already paying insurance companies for healthcare and giving it to the government. I don't think I could make it any simpler than that. Lol.

Person 2 is already responsible for person 1. You are paying for it on the front end right now. There will always be people who abuse the system. It's a fact of life we have to cope with. My system makes it so that YOU don't have to cope with it as much.

I'm not lost. I know that nationalizing healthcare will not lower costs or improve the quality of care for the individuals who are currently funding the system.

I would have to cope with a lower quality of care and higher cost under your "utopian" idealistic plan. It would hardly be " utopian for me to receive lower quality at an increased price.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 09:18 PM

I'm not lost. I know that nationalizing healthcare will not lower costs or improve the quality of care for the individuals who are currently funding the system.

I would have to cope with a lower quality of care and higher cost under your "utopian" idealistic plan. It would hardly be " utopian for me to receive lower quality at an increased price.you would have the same care at a lower cost, something I'm missing?

BanginJimmy

03-07-2013, 09:54 PM

You're comparing the new system to a system thats already broken and poorly funded. Youre thinking that just because the government is running it, it's automatically gonna be poorly funded and poorly run.

Look at the US Military. It is painfully obvious they have zero problem with funding.

Look at it this way. All I'm saying is its essentially ALL private insurance, but instead of the check going to BCBS whoever, it goes to Uncle Sam, everyone is on it, it's progressively taxed like income. That's it. I'm not saying your taxes won't go up 1T. I've said it before that they will. But you're ALREADY PAYING this 1T. Instead of paying for it in the front end, you're paying in the back end.

As of 2011 there were about 48 million people on medicare and it cost 525B. You call that poorly funded? You are correct in that it is poorly run. Now you should explain how adding 260mil more people to it will make the same people suddenly run it much better.

Look at the military. Hugely expensive and fiscally very poorly run. Giving them more money hasnt made it run better like you are suggesting would happen with medicare.

So you want to take ANOTHER 1T away from people that earned it. Sounds like a great way to collapse the economy. And no, we arent paying that extra 1T right now because the 2.9T in health care spending already covered all of the current copays and premiums currently paid. Your idea will cause at least 1T on top of that.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

BanginJimmy

03-07-2013, 09:55 PM

you would have the same care at a lower cost, something I'm missing?

No you won't. Nothing you are suggesting would do anything about costs. All it does is change who is paying.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 10:04 PM

you would have the same care at a lower cost, something I'm missing?

Yes, the federal government's inefficiency at managing national social programs, as well as fraud being more prevalent in programs that the federal government controls. The cost would not go down.

If you take the same or less money, but extend care to all, you cannot maintain the same benefits. It's not economically feasible in real life.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 10:07 PM

Now you should explain how adding 260mil more people to it will make the same people suddenly run it much better.

So you want to take ANOTHER 1T away from people that earned it. Sounds like a great way to collapse the economy. And no, we arent paying that extra 1T right now because the 2.9T in health care spending already covered all of the current copays and premiums currently paid. Your idea will cause at least 1T on top of that.

To further clarify, the additional 260 million people would have a large percentage that do not currently fund their own healthcare, which would push their health burdens on those who were already being responsible and funding the system.

David88vert

03-07-2013, 10:09 PM

Again;
Blank, do you happen to know who handles the management for Medicare? Do a little research and get back on here.

Also:
Since we want a utopian world, and those with more should give to the les fortunate - how about you give me a couple of Nikon lenses? I know that you have more gear than I do, so hook me up with some free camera gear! It's the same thing. Show me some charity! One of those lenses that you saved up for and made sacrifices to get will do. Just give it to me for free.

.blank cd

03-07-2013, 10:21 PM

No you won't. Nothing you are suggesting would do anything about costs. All it does is change who is paying.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

Exactly. On top of that, giving everyone coverage.

We've seen examples of why healthcare costs as much as it does. Doctors are triple charging for services to cover the costs of the people who can't pay. We know this, no one denies it. If you make it so that everyone can pay, they don't have to charge more to cover the ones that don't. Doctors can charge 2/3 less now.

Vteckidd

03-08-2013, 01:29 AM

. If you make it so that everyone can pay, they don't have to charge more to cover the ones that don't.

You never answered this when i asked a few pages back..............HOW do you get everyone to "pay"

Vteckidd

03-08-2013, 01:31 AM

Vteckidd

03-08-2013, 01:35 AM

We're just taking the money we're already paying insurance companies for healthcare and giving it to the government. I don't think I could make it any simpler than that. Lol.

How many doctors does the Govt employ? How many hospitals? If money goes to the GoVT there is no insurance company anymore. Which means, a $500,000 procedure, now costs $500,000..........CASH. No insurance, no safety net against large costs. insurance is there IN CASe shit happens.

If you transfer money from the insruance companie to a single payer like the Govt, you WILL END UP with rationed care and exploding costs. All you are advocating is the govt to tell the private sector what they can charge, what they can test for, and what they can pay themselves.

That in itself, will destroy quality of care.

Sinfix_15

03-08-2013, 07:17 AM

You have a horribly myopic view of government and life and what is liberal and what isn't.

The difference in me and you is this.....

i think you're a bleeding heart delusional moron searching for a utopia that doesnt and never will exist....... i dont want to change you, i just want to stay the hell away from you.

You think whatever you think of me...... and want me to conform to your beliefs.....

which is extremely ironic.... since you're openly anti-christian.

.blank cd

03-08-2013, 08:44 AM

You never answered this when i asked a few pages back..............HOW do you get everyone to "pay"Tax it. Sticking all the premiums on your income tax. You pay the premium you pay now, your company pays the rest, just like whats happening now.

People who cant afford it have access to free healthcare as it is.

you are trying to cover people who
A) are here illegally
B) Choose NOT to have healthcare because its not a priority for them
C) trying to make other people pay for those peoples CHOICE not to have healthcare.Yes, people who cant afford it have free healthcare. We pay for that already, they pay for that already, that wont change.

How many doctors does the Govt employ? How many hospitals? If money goes to the GoVT there is no insurance company anymore. Which means, a $500,000 procedure, now costs $500,000..........CASH. No insurance, no safety net against large costs. insurance is there IN CASe shit happens.

If you transfer money from the insruance companie to a single payer like the Govt, you WILL END UP with rationed care and exploding costs. All you are advocating is the govt to tell the private sector what they can charge, what they can test for, and what they can pay themselves.

That in itself, will destroy quality of care.We already know your $500,000 procedure only costs $200,000. What that 200,000 pays for is all the docs time to perform it, pays for all the equipment, the R&D for that equipment, pays for all the hospital staff to administer the paperwork, all of that. The other 300,000 covers the guy that comes into the hospital that needs the same surgery but has no job and no health insurance. Your premiums already reflect this cost. Even if you shift your costs dollar for dollar, you've now given the government a premium that covers that $500,000 procedure, but now that everyone is already paid up before they hit the door, the procedure only has to cost 200,000. The figures are just an example.

edit: I take that back, your premium SORT OF reflects this cost. Whether youre on medicare or private insurance, you're paying them to negotiate down from that $500,000. Private insurance says we'll pay 400, medicare says we'll pay 380.

The difference in me and you is this.....

i think you're a bleeding heart delusional moron searching for a utopia that doesnt and never will exist....... i dont want to change you, i just want to stay the hell away from you.

You think whatever you think of me...... and want me to conform to your beliefs.....

which is extremely ironic.... since you're openly anti-christian.I could care less if you conform to my beliefs or not. And you'll never win the anti-christian argument. Im pretty pro christianity, Im just also anti-being-a-bigot-and-thinly-veiled-racist-whilst-using-an-imaginary-entity-and-stortybook-to-justify-being-an-asshole

David88vert

03-08-2013, 09:12 AM

Ok, let's break down the numbers in the "utopian healthcare single payer system".

In 2010, there were 194,296,087 people between 18-65 (working age). Not all of these people actually worked, actually only about 64% of them, but for the sake of this situation, lets assume that every single one of them was employed full-time (no students, no stay at home moms, no unemployed - you know, utopia).

Health expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010. We will use a little smaller number for this discussion, just to be more than fair - 2,550,000,000,000.

Under your utopian plan, each person would need to be responsible for $13,124.29 per year for every year between 18-65 - and that cost would continue to grow in the future. That's $1100 per month per person - if everyone worked full time and everyone paid in.

Now, as to your 2/3's reduction in the cost of medical procedures - that is pure conjecture, based upon a lack of critical thinking. You make the assumption that all are paid on hourly wages, salary, etc, and do not consider commission based practices. An example would be a surgeon starting out and working under another surgeon's leadership and mentoring. If the new physician made 50% of his gross billables, then your proposal earlier of reducing a $1500 procedure to a $500 proceedure would massively impact what he would make. Instead of $750, he would receive $250; however, he still has only the same amount of time per week to see patients - that number would not go up. Assuming that he performed 20 percedures per week on average, he would go from making $750,000 to $250,000 per year. While you might think that he is still making good money, he would still have the same amount of college debt (that wouldn't be lowering), as well as the same costs for housing, supporting his family, insurance, etc - none of those costs would drop.
The bottom line is that to say that costs would be cut by 2/3's is only hopeful optimism, and has no basis in reality.

One more set of numbers to consider. 16.3% of the population was not insured in 2010. 83.7% were insured and of those under 65, almost all were covered by private insurance. In 2010, there were approximately 48,000 deaths that may have been prevented by having a single payer system. That's it.

As for administrative costs, 7% of health care expenditures are estimated to go toward for the administrative costs of government health care programs and the net cost of private insurance (e.g. administrative costs, reserves, taxes, profits/losses).[

David88vert

03-08-2013, 09:15 AM

We already know your $500,000 procedure only costs $200,000. What that 200,000 pays for is all the docs time to perform it, pays for all the equipment, the R&D for that equipment, pays for all the hospital staff to administer the paperwork, all of that. The other 300,000 covers the guy that comes into the hospital that needs the same surgery but has no job and no health insurance. Your premiums already reflect this cost. Even if you shift your costs dollar for dollar, you've now given the government a premium that covers that $500,000 procedure, but now that everyone is already paid up before they hit the door, the procedure only has to cost 200,000. The figures are just an example.

edit: I take that back, your premium SORT OF reflects this cost. Whether youre on medicare or private insurance, you're paying them to negotiate down from that $500,000. Private insurance says we'll pay 400, medicare says we'll pay 380.

So, we know you aren't a doctor or work at a hospital or insurance company.....

.blank cd

03-08-2013, 09:19 AM

.blank cd

03-08-2013, 09:22 AM

So, we know you aren't a doctor or work at a hospital or insurance company.....Hospitals admit that they do this. This isnt news. Im not taking a single dollar away from what the doctor makes. Im taking away from the overcharging, thats all im taking away from.

David88vert

03-08-2013, 09:40 AM

Stop right here before you continue. Assume the hospitals are NO LONGER tripling charges to cover people that dont pay, and divide 2.6T by 3

Then remember that your average person pays 10-20% of their premium, the company they work for pays the rest. This is what already happens.

Now...go.

You are so wrong on this. You are assuming that they will cut their charges - but they won't. There is no evidence that they would, and I already showed you that they wouldn't You forget that the hospitals are not owned by the federal government, but by local goverments and private corporations. Are you just planning to seize all of these facilities? Are you going to conscript the doctors?

Again, you assume that the average person works for a company that pays that much, but the reality is that many people have their own private insurance - and that is why there is a market for that. I know quite a few families that pay out over a grand out of their pocket every month for their insurance coverage. I work with contractors on a daily basis, and most of them have private insurance, and all of them spend over a grand every month out of pocket to cover their family. And these are not Cadillac plans or rich people either.

Now, go back and read all of what I typed. Don't just stop if you don't like the sound of it. The numbers don't lie.

David88vert

03-08-2013, 09:42 AM

Hospitals admit that they do this. This isnt news. Im not taking a single dollar away from what the doctor makes. Im taking away from the overcharging, thats all im taking away from.

Wrong. Any doctor who is not on a set salary, or works for an hourly wage, would be negatively impacted in the amount that they would bring home each year.

.blank cd

03-08-2013, 09:57 AM

You are so wrong on this. You are assuming that they will cut their charges - but they won't. There is no evidence that they would, and I already showed you that they wouldn't.Then we'll have to agree to disagree here. This whole plan works on hospitals cutting the overcharging to cover people that can't pay by giving everyone a way to pay. There's no evidence they won't, but that's how this plan works and how it's funded.

Sinfix_15

03-08-2013, 10:52 AM

I could care less if you conform to my beliefs or not. And you'll never win the anti-christian argument. Im pretty pro christianity, Im just also anti-being-a-bigot-and-thinly-veiled-racist-whilst-using-an-imaginary-entity-and-stortybook-to-justify-being-an-asshole

Your belief system requires my forced participation. In your liberal utopia where everyone in need is cared for, im one of the people working to fund it against my will.

If you're against racist using imaginary things to justify their behavior..... then you need to take a real close look at the black community.

Vteckidd

03-08-2013, 11:18 AM

Tax it. Sticking all the premiums on your income tax. You pay the premium you pay now, your company pays the rest, just like whats happening now.

Again, you cannot tax people enough to cover a single payer system, i already demonstrated that. Without competition, there is no incentive to bring prices down, so this $500,000 procedure will not come down, it most likely will increase.

I see why you keep assuming it, but respectfully you are wrong

.blank cd

03-08-2013, 11:24 AM

Your belief system requires my forced participation. In your liberal utopia where everyone in need is cared for, im one of the people working to fund it against my will.You are already funding it against your will and you will be until you die. If that's a problem for you, move somewhere where they don't fund it against your will, or move to another industrialized country. You are fucked either way. It's the system the people decided on. If there was another vote today on it, the system would pass overwhelmingly again, and the people who feel they're being robbed, like you, that have some idealogical aversion to progressive taxation, because they believe theyre working to pay for some lazy moocher, will continue to be a blip on the radar.

Vteckidd

03-08-2013, 11:38 AM

what part about "government involvement always inflates prices" do you not understand? The other thing i find kinda funny is you assume the lowered cost of healthcare aka savings somehow translates to covering more people?

The simple answer is single payer is impossible to work, it cannot happen. Well , it can, but it will seriously lower standard of care, lower quality, and inflate prices beyond what we currently have.

The way to lower cost is to increase competition, have more options available. People need to purchase their own healthcare as it is a service, and services should be shopped and not free

Sinfix_15

03-08-2013, 11:41 AM

You are already funding it against your will and you will be until you die. If that's a problem for you, move somewhere where they don't fund it against your will, or move to another industrialized country. You are fucked either way. It's the system the people decided on. If there was another vote today on it, the system would pass overwhelmingly again, and the people who feel they're being robbed, like you, that have some idealogical aversion to progressive taxation, because they believe theyre working to pay for some lazy moocher, will continue to be a blip on the radar.

It's normal for 1 out of 7 people in the world's most advanced civilization to be on food stamps right?

I dont want to get rid of the system, i want the system tightened up.... a lot. Something "your side" has no interest in doing. I am working to pay for lazy moochers, but unfortunately..... those lazy moochers vote overwhelming left and your king will make sure not to do anything to ruffle their feathers and lose the voter base. We live in a society where a homeless crackhead's vote counts the same as a doctor's. The left has mastered the manipulation of bottom feeders. The policies being put in place by the left will only breed more of entitlement society and expand their legion of loyal voters.

David88vert

03-08-2013, 01:37 PM

Then we'll have to agree to disagree here. This whole plan works on hospitals cutting the overcharging to cover people that can't pay by giving everyone a way to pay. There's no evidence they won't, but that's how this plan works and how it's funded.

Yes, on this point, we have to disagree. You keep stating that we already pay it and that the costs will not rise - but Obama disagrees with you.
First in order to help pay for the cost of Obamacare businesses and families will pay an additional .9% tax on taxable income and 3.8% capital gains exceeding $200k / $250k. If you choose not to purchase insurance (and can afford it) there is a 1% tax in 2014, it raises to a 2.5% tax in 2016 and adjusts for inflation.
Even Obama admits that it seems some insurance companies are raising costs to capitalize now, "grandfather you into higher rates" before it becomes illegal to do so in 2014.
Also, for families that do not purchase insurance, the tax will be $2,085 or 2.5% percent of household income, whichever is greater.
ObamaCare increases taxes on unearned income by 3.8%. This also applies to home sales over a certain amount.
Starting in 2013, ObamaCare taxes individuals with earnings above $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000. This tax is an increase to the Medicare part A payroll tax. It's an increase of 2.35%, up from the current 1.45% ( a .9% Medicare payroll tax hike), on adjusted income over the threshold. This group will also pay a 3.8% unearned income tax on interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, and gains on the sale of investments over the threshold.

You want to see how much you will pay? Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform (http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator.aspx#incomeAgeTables)
Obama keeps saying that if your family makes 400% above the poverty level, then you wont see a change. What he doesn't say is what happens at 425%.
For a normal family of four, 400% of the poverty level is $92,200. If the head of the household is between 20-60 years old, the cost is $8,901, according to Obama. Subsidy amounts vary from $238-$15K, but we'll stay in the middle at 40 years old, so it would be $3,229 in subsidy.
Now, take the same situation, but for an IT professional making $100K, the cost dramatically change. A 20 year old pays $9,139, a 40 year old pays $12,130, and a 60 year old pays $24,042 - each year. There are no subsidys for any of them. This the is the math that Obama does not tell the whole truth on. You have to look and investigate to find the numbers.

We can both agree that the current system needs massive improvement, and we can agree that single payer should not be completely ruled out. I would like to have a society where everyone has health coverage, and it certainly is possible, but there are major obstacles that need to be addressed first.

bu villain

03-08-2013, 05:15 PM

Most doctors want to be doctors because its helping people, but , most want to be compensated because their costs are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Advertising is bad now? Profit is bad now? Are you fucking kidding me?

the BEST doctors ADVERTISE and count on making a PROFIT. do you know what it takes to be a WORLD CLASS DOCTOR? SURGEON? ARE YOU AN EXPERT ON IT?

I don't understand. I never said advertising is wrong nor did I say profit was bad. All I said was that I would prefer a doctor whose primary concern was helping people and making large amounts of money and advertising was secondary. I certainly didn't mean to imply advertising and making money makes you a bad doctor. I'm certainly not a world class doctor but I'm not sure what that had to do with anything. I never stated being a doctor was easy or that they shouldn't be compensated.

What do you do for a living?

Engineering but no need to get into personal lives.

Actually, I can introduce you to a lot of people that fit both of those 2 types that I described.

I'm sure you could and I'm not doubting the existence of the people you or blank described, just that policy shouldn't be based on anecdotes (even if you have a lot of them). Anecdotes are powerful persuasion devices that can evoke strong emotions which is why they often cloud people's judgement when it comes to the bigger picture.

Sounds like you think that utopia can exist if we simply steal from the rich and give to the poor - even if the poor stay poor because they do not want to put out the effort to better their own lives.

I guess I don't see why doing something that every other developed country in the world does is somehow an unrealistic utopia. I have lived in a country with socialized healthcare and I happen to prefer it. I'm not arguing that single payer would solve our healthcare cost problem but I don't think it would prevent us from solving it either. I'm not going to argue with your ideological view that taxes are stealing and poor people deserve to be poor lest we get too off topic.

David88vert

03-27-2013, 07:10 AM

Our local channel 5 news is reporting that insurance companies are seeing a 32 percent increase in costs due to Obamacare already. According to this mornings news report, it is expected thst these costs will be passed down to the consumers. The insurance companies are seeing a sharp increase in the amount of people being added who make sick claims.
In other words, a lot of the people buying insurance now are not the healthy ones, as Obama claimed would be added. Instead, it is more sick people buying policies. Thats the opposite of what Obama claimed would happen.
Turn on the news this morning and see for yourself.

BanginJimmy

03-27-2013, 05:28 PM

I cant exactly say I'm surprised since I, and many others, have been saying this was going to happen since 2009.

bu villain

03-29-2013, 03:26 PM

definitely expected that adding sick people to insurance rolls is going to increase premiums but the alternative is making it harder (ie., more expensive) for sick people to get health insurance. That is why our priority should be decreasing costs. I'm sure it won't be too hard to get everyone to agree on how to do that.

Sinfix_15

03-29-2013, 06:32 PM

.blank cd

03-29-2013, 06:37 PM

We should let the government keep controlling it. They have a knack for making things more efficient and cost effective.

:lmao:

So since your perception of how things are run by the government is negative, maybe we should privatize the postal service, public education, highways, fire, police, military?

Sinfix_15

03-29-2013, 06:43 PM

So since your perception of how things are run by the government is negative, maybe we should privatize the postal service, public education, highways, fire, police, military?

Ever heard the saying "jack of all trades, master or none" , the government needs to quit trying to be a jack of all trades and stick to what theyre good at.... which unfortunately... is very limited.

private entities currently do a lot of things better than the government..... walmart doesnt have an aircraft carrier section though, so that's one thing we can leave to the government.

.blank cd

03-29-2013, 07:03 PM

Ever heard the saying "jack of all trades, master or none" , the government needs to quit trying to be a jack of all trades and stick to what theyre good at.... which unfortunately... is very limited.

private entities currently do a lot of things better than the government..... walmart doesnt have an aircraft carrier section though, so that's one thing we can leave to the government.

So is the private market bound by the same axiom? Jack of all trades, master of none?

.blank cd

03-29-2013, 07:06 PM

David88vert

03-29-2013, 07:20 PM

Sinfix_15

03-30-2013, 09:27 AM

Would you be interested in a private fire insurance system, pay a monthly premium as a renter or an owner to make sure your house is covered in case of a fire? What happens if your house gets hit by lightning though, and you didn't pay your premium, or you were too cash strapped to get one? Do you get left out in the cold?

What are some of the factors that make you believe government services are poorly managed?

Fire service would fall under the list of things where the government is providing a useful service.

I'm happy taking the risk of "being left out in the cold" seeing as currently the only thing actually putting me at risk of being "left out in the cold" is the government's grip on my finances. The keywords are "what if you didnt pay your premium".... ok, so if i have home owners insurance and dont pay my premium... i might lose my house....

If i dont pay uncle sam's premium, i go to prison.

I'd prefer the cold.

I love how you lefties are always like "oh you dont want government forced crappy healthcare???? well you must not want the fire department either ".... as if there is any relation