U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 11:33 AM
EA
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,533 posts, read 4,707,798 times
Reputation: 5974

Advertisements

Single payer is less expensive than our government involved system, at least money wise. But the real costs of single payer are much higher. Wait times are insane. The government decides what you can and can not get. Every single week the NHS of Britain dominates the news with another crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...al-association

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-western-world

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/o...in-crisis.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-42572110






If the government removed itself from our healthcare system entirely, we'd have the same costs as Canada and better care.
If we got insurance out of healthcare entirely, we'd have one of the cheapest and most effective healthcare systems in the world.

For example lasik surgery isn't really covered by insurance. It's paid for by the customers. Average cost is 2,088 dollars.

Cataract surgery is covered by insurance and costs about 4,500 dollars.







Also, what socialists won't tell you is anyone that can afford it, in single payer countries, has private insurance on their own to cover all the crap single payer doesn't.


I totally get the appeal of single payer. I was on the universal train for a while until I started to actually look into it.
I even caucused for Sanders. My thinking behind that was if the government is going to take my money, it might as well get spent on me. It makes sense. But then you realize they wouldn't just reconfigure what they spend money on. They'd just steal more money from us to pay for healthcare as well as everything else they're paying for.


In the more successful universal countries, what you find is much higher taxes to pay for the universal program. What you don't find is military expenditure because America is defending them. So we're footing the bill for these countries to have healthcare instead of letting Americans keep their damn money.

Israel, for example, they're getting billions of dollars every year from us. They have universal healthcare.
So people like us, that work hard, are being robbed of 30% of our income, to pay for other countries to have nice things.
Business owners are being bent over the coals for even more than that.
And people here are shouting "Raise taxes"
It's ridiculous and it's all because no one bothers to pay attention to what's really going on. Idiotic politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez champion these bad ideas and make them sound good, and the dumb Americans eat it up.

Our government is already taking in 3 trillion dollars a year. They're spending over 4 trillion a year. Our extremely over-bloated military budget is half a trillion. I will confidently say that our government is wasting 3.5 trillion a year on things it has no business messing with.
If Americans were allowed to keep that 3.5 trillion to do with as they please, we'd all be a whole lot better off especially since the government would no longer be driving up our costs with their incompetent meddling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 12:01 PM
 
10,999 posts, read 3,842,134 times
Reputation: 4770
Quote:
Originally Posted by EA View Post
Single payer is less expensive than our government involved system, at least money wise. But the real costs of single payer are much higher. Wait times are insane. The government decides what you can and can not get. Every single week the NHS of Britain dominates the news with another crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...al-association

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-western-world

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/o...in-crisis.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-42572110






If the government removed itself from our healthcare system entirely, we'd have the same costs as Canada and better care.
If we got insurance out of healthcare entirely, we'd have one of the cheapest and most effective healthcare systems in the world.

For example lasik surgery isn't really covered by insurance. It's paid for by the customers. Average cost is 2,088 dollars.

Cataract surgery is covered by insurance and costs about 4,500 dollars.







Also, what socialists won't tell you is anyone that can afford it, in single payer countries, has private insurance on their own to cover all the crap single payer doesn't.


I totally get the appeal of single payer. I was on the universal train for a while until I started to actually look into it.
I even caucused for Sanders. My thinking behind that was if the government is going to take my money, it might as well get spent on me. It makes sense. But then you realize they wouldn't just reconfigure what they spend money on. They'd just steal more money from us to pay for healthcare as well as everything else they're paying for.


In the more successful universal countries, what you find is much higher taxes to pay for the universal program. What you don't find is military expenditure because America is defending them. So we're footing the bill for these countries to have healthcare instead of letting Americans keep their damn money.

Israel, for example, they're getting billions of dollars every year from us. They have universal healthcare.
So people like us, that work hard, are being robbed of 30% of our income, to pay for other countries to have nice things.
Business owners are being bent over the coals for even more than that.
And people here are shouting "Raise taxes"
It's ridiculous and it's all because no one bothers to pay attention to what's really going on. Idiotic politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez champion these bad ideas and make them sound good, and the dumb Americans eat it up.

Our government is already taking in 3 trillion dollars a year. They're spending over 4 trillion a year. Our extremely over-bloated military budget is half a trillion. I will confidently say that our government is wasting 3.5 trillion a year on things it has no business messing with.
If Americans were allowed to keep that 3.5 trillion to do with as they please, we'd all be a whole lot better off especially since the government would no longer be driving up our costs with their incompetent meddling.
There are some metrics on which the US does better. But overall the performance is poor. Even on such things as same or next day appointments.

And we pay more than any comparable country.

Here is a source for the relevant statistics...

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start

We simply need to face the facts that there are places where free enterprise is not the best model. There may well be parts of health care well served by free enterprise but as an overall system it is a loser.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:19 PM
EA
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,533 posts, read 4,707,798 times
Reputation: 5974
I'm glad you took the time to read, and most importantly, comprehend what I wrote....

I'm being sarcastic because you didn't.

Number 1 I explained WHY our system is higher cost than others.
Number 2, as number 1 states, I freely admitted our current system is more expensive.
Number 3 We do not have free enterprise so dismissing free enterprise based on the cluster of government interference we have is ignorant of reality.

free en·ter·prise
/ˌfrē ˈen(t)ərˌprīz/
noun
noun: free enterprise
  1. an economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control.



    As I demonstrated, one area where our healthcare IS free enterprise, Lasik, it is cheaper than a similar government involved procedure.
    Medicaid and Medicare, government run programs, are massive players in the healthcare industry. In addition to that, the government is involved in controlling prices across the board. That means that we have the opposite of free enterprise.


    There's never going to be a perfect system. There's too many people with too many variables. But giving people an honest choice is the best way to approach anything. I do not want the government to tell me I can't seek treatment elsewhere even if I am paying for it like they do in Britain. I do not want some panel deciding that my prognosis is too dire to consider treatment. If I have 10 million dollars and want to take every treatment I can afford, I should be free to do so. It's my body. It's my money.




Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:04 PM
 
132 posts, read 31,757 times
Reputation: 74
He/she never does actually read anyone else's posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:08 PM
 
10,999 posts, read 3,842,134 times
Reputation: 4770
Quote:
Originally Posted by EA View Post
I'm glad you took the time to read, and most importantly, comprehend what I wrote....

I'm being sarcastic because you didn't.

Number 1 I explained WHY our system is higher cost than others.
Number 2, as number 1 states, I freely admitted our current system is more expensive.
Number 3 We do not have free enterprise so dismissing free enterprise based on the cluster of government interference we have is ignorant of reality.

free en·ter·prise
/ˌfrē ˈen(t)ərˌprīz/
noun
noun: free enterprise
  1. an economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control.



    As I demonstrated, one area where our healthcare IS free enterprise, Lasik, it is cheaper than a similar government involved procedure.
    Medicaid and Medicare, government run programs, are massive players in the healthcare industry. In addition to that, the government is involved in controlling prices across the board. That means that we have the opposite of free enterprise.


    There's never going to be a perfect system. There's too many people with too many variables. But giving people an honest choice is the best way to approach anything. I do not want the government to tell me I can't seek treatment elsewhere even if I am paying for it like they do in Britain. I do not want some panel deciding that my prognosis is too dire to consider treatment. If I have 10 million dollars and want to take every treatment I can afford, I should be free to do so. It's my body. It's my money.





Sorry but the base of our health care system is free enterprise. There of course is some government regulation ass there will always be in free enterprise systems.

I note that in your opinion it is not free enterprise but that is simply your opinion and has no basis in fact.

And actually the insurance companies control more of the health care system than the government.


Lasik is a procedure generally left outside of the insurance company reach as voluntary. And it is a marketplace that has proven to be quite competitive.

However try and get a good buy on a high end hearing aid...another slice not covered by insurance. And quite clearly highway robbery. So being outside the insurance system does not guarantee competitive pricing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:33 PM
EA
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,533 posts, read 4,707,798 times
Reputation: 5974
Over 1/3 of healthcare spending is by the government.

NO health insurer can deny people for pre existing conditions because, wait for it, dun dun dun, the government.
Prescriptions are regulated by the state AND federal government.
Licenses are issued by the government.

So the government has it's hand in 100% of healthcare offerings in America. It is, by definition, not free enterprise.
It's not even close to free enterprise.

And there are plenty of options for hearing aids.

This one is less than 200 bucks.

https://www.hearingdirect.com/us/hd-...iABEgKO7fD_BwE


Insurance is a big part of healthcare costs. When I had union insurance I got the wife glasses. BUT I did not use the insurance. I was going to but it would have cost me 3 times as much. I went to the eye doctor the insurance covered and they wanted 200 dollar co pay. Um, no.
While waiting we were looking at frames and they were stupid expensive. We would have paid minimum 100 bucks for a pair of glass from there with the insurance covering the lenses.
I went to Walmart. Got the same eye exam for 60 or 70 bucks. They gave us a paper with what glasses we needed. Found a site online selling them cheap. Ordered using the specs. And got the glasses for 30 bucks.

100 bucks vs 300 bucks. Who knows how much the insurance would have paid out on top.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain for good
343 posts, read 198,087 times
Reputation: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by EA
I do not want some panel deciding that my prognosis is too dire to consider treatment. If I have 10 million dollars and want to take every treatment I can afford, I should be free to do so. It's my body. It's my money.
It's way more than that. A single payer systems gives one entity control over every facet of your life....eventually. You smoke, no coverage for pulmonary disorders, you drink, no coverage for liver disorders, you eat red meat and bacon, no coverage for heart disease. Live in an urban area? Drive a fast car? Don't exercise the recommended amounts? Controlling your health care controls way more than your health.

You need competition for quality of care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:50 PM
 
1,690 posts, read 3,058,750 times
Reputation: 1793
I'd say it's quite the opposite. Insurance companies would LOVE to deny you coverage when you drink, smoke, etc. They'll love ANY reason to deny you coverage. Remember the whole pre-existing conditions thing? They don't even want to cover you once you've gotten a disease even if it was through no fault of your own.

The govt is already going to pay for any non-insured emergency room stays due to the Emergency Medical Treatment Act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickydim View Post
It's way more than that. A single payer systems gives one entity control over every facet of your life....eventually. You smoke, no coverage for pulmonary disorders, you drink, no coverage for liver disorders, you eat red meat and bacon, no coverage for heart disease. Live in an urban area? Drive a fast car? Don't exercise the recommended amounts? Controlling your health care controls way more than your health.

You need competition for quality of care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:03 PM
EA
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,533 posts, read 4,707,798 times
Reputation: 5974
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestieJeff View Post
I'd say it's quite the opposite. Insurance companies would LOVE to deny you coverage when you drink, smoke, etc. They'll love ANY reason to deny you coverage. Remember the whole pre-existing conditions thing? They don't even want to cover you once you've gotten a disease even if it was through no fault of your own.

The govt is already going to pay for any non-insured emergency room stays due to the Emergency Medical Treatment Act.



This is why insurance should be done with. You should be able to get any treatment you can afford no matter what.
Smoke 6 packs a day? Want a lung transplant? Got 200k? Sold here's your new lungs.


But more realistically, the amount of cost insurance adds is insane, and does far more harm than good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:13 AM
 
1,690 posts, read 3,058,750 times
Reputation: 1793
So you're ability to live or die should be based on your income?

Nice Mad Max world going on there! No thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by EA View Post
This is why insurance should be done with. You should be able to get any treatment you can afford no matter what.
Smoke 6 packs a day? Want a lung transplant? Got 200k? Sold here's your new lungs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top