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.
healthcare should be decoupled from the government
and BTW...your could afford a singlepayer system as a taxpayer
single payer (meaning paid for by the WORKING taxpayer) will kill most americans
look at medicaid...(our CURRENT singlepayer system).....it covers about 32 million people (its currently up to 40 million people during this recession)...the ANNUAL cost....over 340 billion in 2008..projected to be 400 billion for this year alone....that's just to cover 30-40 million people.........what would it cost to cover our full population of 310 million..........somewhere in the range of 2.5-5 TRILLION....now divide that by the 120 million WORKERS (1040 filers) and you get 25k to 50k PER WORKING HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR.......single payer is unsustainable.,..........our government spends over 750 billion a year just on medicare/medicaid, and medicare is not 100% coverage (it has a co-pay) and requiring you to BUY a supplemental insurance
Can YOU afford a 25,000 to 50,000 dollar EXTRA TAX BILL EVERY YEAR on top of the ALREADY high taxes we pay?????????????????????????
single payer will never work,,,even france's single payer system is going broke
France health care system is indeed very expensive. Second most expensive in the world. It costs 11 % of Frances GDP, which makes it more than half as expensive as the US system, which is currently clocking in at 18 % of GDP. 2,3 trillion.
The difference between 11% and 18%, in spending, is almost twice the US military budget.
So we can conclude that single payer works at the very least twice as well as the current system.
As for the calculation on how much a single payer would cost, the last time you presented a calculation like that, it was pointed out to you that medicare is for the over-65s, the most expensive patient group. You seem to simply have removed medicare from the calculation and work on medicaid now. There is a problem with that. You simply can't scale up the cost of the programs like that, because there is a selection bias in the patient groups.
Also, when you are doing these calculations, remember that without covering everyone, medical bankruptcies, competitive disadvantage for employers, people not able to set up their own businesses, and pre-existing condition denial of service -the US systems 2010 costs is estimated at above 2,3 trillion.
It is a fact that the cost to the citizen of a UHC does not bankrupt them or put them under financial stress as can be seen by the other iundustrialised Countries that now have a UHC. Even Countries like Australia who's Doctors and insurance companies fought tooth and nail to stop a UHC now love it.
A UHC would mean that you no longer have to search for a job using health care as a reason for getting that job. You could actually go for the job you really want to do. The Employer no lonnger has to budget in the cost of healthcare in your wage packet. Imagine the amount of Employment a new UHC in the USA would generate..... every type of job would be needed from............ builders, electricions,cleaners,cooks,drivers,admin staff,security,doctors,nurses.technicions etc etc etc etc etc. USA could have the biggest thing it has lost return.......... Industry. The amount of goods that could be produced and manufactured for the UHC would open factories everywhere.
Nah............ let's just sit here being exploited by the insurance companies and drug companies and the get rich quick doctors..... sounds like a plan.
It is a fact that the cost to the citizen of a UHC does not bankrupt them or put them under financial stress as can be seen by the other iundustrialised Countries that now have a UHC. Even Countries like Australia who's Doctors and insurance companies fought tooth and nail to stop a UHC now love it.
A UHC would mean that you no longer have to search for a job using health care as a reason for getting that job. You could actually go for the job you really want to do. The Employer no lonnger has to budget in the cost of healthcare in your wage packet. Imagine the amount of Employment a new UHC in the USA would generate..... every type of job would be needed from............ builders, electricions,cleaners,cooks,drivers,admin staff,security,doctors,nurses.technicions etc etc etc etc etc. USA could have the biggest thing it has lost return.......... Industry. The amount of goods that could be produced and manufactured for the UHC would open factories everywhere.
Nah............ let's just sit here being exploited by the insurance companies and drug companies and the get rich quick doctors..... sounds like a plan.
It has been specualted that the reason why American businesses don't fight harder for the decoupling of healthcare and employement is that it locks down skilled employees who would otherwise be liable to start up a business of their own, and compete with the parent company.
By limiting the ability to do a startup to mostly males in their 20s, they can cut down significantly on that pesky thing called "competition". And get away with a lot of stuff that would otherwise lead to lean young companies taking over profitable niches.
Healthcare should be decoupled from employment. Everyone should receive Medicare and then our businesses wouldn't have the added costs of providing healthcare for their employees. It would allow businesses to increase wages.
Healthcare should be decoupled from employment. Everyone should receive Medicare and then our businesses wouldn't have the added costs of providing healthcare for their employees. It would allow businesses to increase wages.
It probably would but any extra cash would more likely just go into lining executives and the CEO's pockets.
The current system of coupling health care benefits to employment, IMHO, is stupid. Few if any developed countries do this. In most other countries where you work has nothing to do with what health care coverage you have available to you. But here in the U.S., it has almost everything to do with your health care coverage you can get and plays a huge part in what jobs you will take (or which jobs you can afford to quit due to loss of health coverage). That is just absurd!
I agree, and once again our Huge Omnipotent Federal Government is to blame. The government provides a huge incentive for companies to provide health care by making it a non taxable part of our compensation.
If you examine every problem in America today you will find that almost all of them are due in whole or in part to government mandates, regulations and incentives. This includes education, commerce, food prices, insurance and many many others.
Healthcare costs make American businesses less competitive. Just look at the auto companies.
If I were a CEO I'd definitely look into moving to countries that have universal healthcare for its employees.
Anyone who thinks the status quo of healthcare access via for-profit insurance companies in this country for the past twenty years "worked well" is seriously living in a world of delusion. Typical corporate apologists. It's an embarrassment.
It probably would but any extra cash would more likely just go into lining executives and the CEO's pockets.
There's a chance of that. That's why we need more reform of corporations. There's too much of a good ole boys system with the board and the executives. We need more money going to investors and employees, not the people at the top who are already rolling in the cash.
Healthcare costs make American businesses less competitive. Just look at the auto companies.
Anyone who thinks the status quo of healthcare access via for-profit insurance companies in this country for the past twenty years "worked well" is seriously living in a world of delusion. Typical corporate apologists. It's an embarrassment.
Yes, the status quo is not defend-able. But the problem with the status quo is the government and it's mandates, regulations and incentives. We don't have a free market health care environment.
And if you think a government solution will lower costs without severely reducing health care, you are delusional.
I agree with the OP. Health insurance should be decoupled from employment. But I believe health insurance to be a basic necessity of a civilized people rather than a benefit that varies depending on who you work for.
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.
