Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm saying that if Medicare becomes a single-payer system, it won't be the same Medicare we have now. It will eventually have to start deciding which services will be paid for and which ones won't be paid for. At what point will the people decide that someone in their late 60s will be too old to receive quality cancer treatment?
FYI, Medicare is single payer, although some choose supplemental coverages.
What makes you think that private insurers don't or won't ration care? It is done financially now, mostly. You can't afford the deductible or the copay, so you avoid the treatment, skip your meds, etc. The vast majority of Americans can only see docs that are in their insurers plan without paying exorbitant costs. Insurers simply are in the way and in our pockets. As a matter of efficiency, I think the delivery side could, should and would be more or less private. About the last thing I would argue for is making doctors and nurses government employees like in the UK.
I'm saying that if Medicare becomes a single-payer system, it won't be the same Medicare we have now. It will eventually have to start deciding which services will be paid for and which ones won't be paid for. At what point will the people decide that someone in their late 60s will be too old to receive quality cancer treatment?
I'm also concerned about the same thing.
And about that 6.2% payroll tax. Is anyone naive enough to *really* believe that employers will absorb that? Of course they won't. Employees will. They'll simply roll that tax into total employee compensation. We'll see lower wages as a result. So take your personal 2.2% and add another 6.2% and now you're at an 8.4% tax for lower quality single payer care shared with 300 million people. This is a terrible idea.
Politifact has run the numbers. Note: They used a payroll tax of 6.7% in this report which is higher than Sanders' proposal released last night of 6.2%. The premise however remains the same.
"Employers "pay nothing for insurance in reality," as health care is a fringe benefit of a total compensation package, said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. So when employers stop providing insurance and are required to pay into single-payer, less money will be available for paychecks".
You are right. It is inefficient. The government should get their sticky fingers out of it, and let insurance cross State lines and be portable. The market always reduces prices whether we're talking tomatoes or flat screen TVs.
Quite simple, but you don't like that solution because it eliminates your Big Government free sh#t philosophy. You need to be honest.
You've not followed my posts---NOTHING IS FREE. The fact is insurance companies do cross state lines now and always have, didn't know that did you? Insurance companies decide whether they want to participate or not. Every single state has their own insurance commission, who set their own set of regulations. Insurance companies jockey between the states to get the better deal for themselves and their shareholders. Same thing applies to tort-reform, many people say this will control costs. What many don't realize several states have passed tort-reform and the results are........zilch. Why, because the name of the insurance game is to generate cash (maintain the highest premium), not pay out if at all possible.
Well said. Also try getting medical insurance with a prior condition if you lost your job or ran your own business.
I don't believe that you should get anything for free but I also don't think you should have to choose between going bankrupt or dying should you have a medical condition like cancer.
You think we don't see your methods here. What you want is to avoid paying into the system until you need medical care.
Then your meager contribution is payment enough for whatever care you need. I get it.
You think we don't see your methods here. What you want is to avoid paying into the system until you need medical care.
Then your meager contribution is payment enough for whatever care you need. I get it.
Where in my post did I state that? I think you should be paying into the insurance pool all along but you shouldn't be kick out when you get a medical condition that is costly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
