Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
I read your post but I missed your suggestion for a solution to the problem.
|
The Free Market is always the correct solution.
You haven't had Free Market health care since 1933. Once you return to Free Market health care, you see how surprisingly simple and affordable health care really is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
Further on my last post: Thats why the GOP has next to no credibility on this issue. Romney and Ryan just bantered around about premium support but that does nothing to address rates.
|
I wouldn't know. I'm an ultra-conservative, but not a Republican. In fact, I'm a registered Democrat, but rarely vote Democrat, although I did vote for Gary Johnson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
You can't just throw some cash at people and expect everything to fix itself.
|
Okay, we're in agreement on that, but that also stems back to something I've been saying for months now: If you want to fix any problem; if you want to find a solution for a problem, you must first gain a complete understanding of the origin(s) of the problem and how it came to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
The tax structure that we have now distorts healthcare economics to the point that premium support wouldn't work to address rising costs which is the primary problem.
|
Okay, we're in agreement on that as well. Because of tax subsidies, Americans have never borne the true cost of health care.
Still, why do those subsidies and the tax policies exist? Who created them?
That goes back to having a complete understanding of the origin(s) of the problem and how it came to be.
I'll cut to the chase....as surprising as it might seem, so-called "health insurance" companies were not responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
Further...the population argument doesn't make a lot of sense because the healthcare would likely be handled at the state level, just as the Canadian system is handled at the provincial level.
|
That is speculative. You cannot say that with any certainty, unless someone actually proposes an health care plan. Like I said, the first way to explain those numbers is how they statistically relate to population size.
The US, outnumbering Canada 10:1 in population would have a statistically high(er) rate of renal disease, and following from that, all other diseases and conditions as well. That means that the US cannot significantly reduce the cost of health care, which defeats the whole purpose of having single-payer.
The 2nd way to explain those numbers is that Americans are paying for the true cost of health care, and because they are, more people can receive dialysis treatment. That would also mean that the reason Canada and Britain have fewer patients, is because they ration health care. In other words you could do what other countries do.....spend less....but then spending less means denying care, or as the article says, delaying, denying and diluting care.
Why are you ignoring this....
Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.
June E. O'Neill,
Dave M. O'Neill
NBER Working Paper No. 13429
Issued in September 2007
NBER Program(s): HC HE
Does Canada's publicly funded, single payer health care system deliver better health outcomes and distribute health resources more equitably than the multi-payer heavily private U.S. system? We show that the efficacy of health care systems cannot be usefully evaluated by comparisons of infant mortality and life expectancy. We analyze several alternative measures of health status using JCUSH (The Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health) and other surveys. We find a somewhat higher incidence of chronic health conditions in the U.S. than in Canada but somewhat greater U.S. access to treatment for these conditions. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of U.S. women and men are screened for major forms of cancer. Although health status, measured in various ways is similar in both countries, mortality/incidence ratios for various cancers tend to be higher in Canada. The need to ration resources in Canada, where care is delivered "free", ultimately leads to long waits. In the U.S., costs are more often a source of unmet needs. We also find that Canada has no more abolished the tendency for health status to improve with income than have other countries. Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S.
Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.
University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
PSC Working Paper Series Population Studies Center
7-1-2009
That also relates back to this....
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent. -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
....which people seem to have such a difficult time with.
You also ignored this....
...why?
You think you can adopt a system like Canada, and then continue to get the same outstanding superior results that the US does presently?
Not gonna happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
And yes our population is higher but that doesn't mean we have a finite revenue source...
|
Uh, sorry, you do have a finite revenue source, just like every foreign country....
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent. -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
....and worse still, your revenue source will decline.
You do understand that it is a Global Economy, and you cannot hide from it, run away from it or ignore it; and that your wages have been flat/declining for 15 years now; and that you're short 13.8 Million jobs -- meaning if your economy "recovered" the way everyone falsely believes it should that 13.8 Million more people would be working.
Do you understand that without those 13.8 Million working, you cannot fund Social Security or Medicare?
"Eliminate the wage cap." Fine, you've eliminated the wage cap. Congratulations, you can now fund Social Security for an extra-week for now.....and in a few years it will fund an whole entire week and then after that, you're right back where you started -- and eliminating the cap will cost you jobs (but I haven't explored that yet).You have to raise the FICA tax rate, and that will cost you ~8.9 Million jobs, and then because you've lost those jobs, you won't have enough people working, earning high enough wages, and paying an high enough tax rate to fund Social Security (or Medicare) and so you'll have to raise the FICA tax rate again, and lose more jobs, and you'll keep repeating this cycle until you reach an equilibrium.
But at that point, life in the US will be unbearable for many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
...more people means tax dollars which means more physicians and resources for investment into healthcare technology.
|
That is bizarre, especially in light of this that you ignored....
UNIT Euro per inhabitant
ICHA_HC Research and development in health
GEO/TIME 2009
Denmark 2.38
Germany 41.18
Spain 10.33
France 116.86
Luxembourg 34.49
Romania 0.07
Slovakia 0.15
Sweden 27.45
Canada 95.92
United States 105.55
New Zealand 26.55
With the obvious exception of France, the US spends more money per person on Research & Development than any other State.
Technology is one of the driving costs of health care.
Consider that in 1940, the cost of pre-paid hospitalization plans was a mere 0.40% of an household's disposable income.
By 1945, that had increased to 0.47%. That might not seem like much, but it is a 17.5% increase.
Why?
Two reasons: Penicillin and the American Hospital Association.
You cannot blame "health insurance" companies because none existed.....too bad, so sad.
That's what happens when you allow a Soviet-style Command Group to inject itself into public and economic policies and the dictate and set the prices of goods and services, while engaging in activities to restrict the Free Market and competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
1. I agree that we all have "access" to healthcare but thats like saying that we all have access to become millionaires if we work hard. Yes, you can crack an emergency room with no insurance and not be turned away but that exacerbate the problem of higher premiums.
|
Nope. Fail.
I can't even believe you said something as moronic as that. I had to read it twice.
I'm guessing some moron espoused that based on a poor understand of how the health care system works. I can see where this might confuse some.
Let's take the case of the uninsured motorist.
Do uninsured motorists drive up the costs of auto insurance? Yes. Why? Look at the parties involved:
1] uninsured motorist
2] insured motorist
3] insurance company for the insured motorist
Since the uninsured motorist is unable to recompense for damages, the burden falls on the insurance company of the insured motorist to pay the claims for damages.
Now, let's look at the parties involved in hospitals:
1] uninsured person
2] hospital
3] insurance company....which neither represents the uninsured nor the hospital.
See why your statement fails?
In the case of the uninsured motorist, the insurance company is acting as an agent for the insured motorist.
In the case of the uninsured person, who does the insurance company represent? No one, and the insurance company has no interest here, not in the person and certainly not in the hospital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
2. Single payer puts the burden on all tax payers. The issue with healthcare is that we don't exist in a vacuum...you being healthy is great but some uninsured kid walking into ER's for a chest cold jacks up the rates for everyone...you already pay for these people whether you want to admit it or not.
|
All tax payers? 47% pay no federal taxes. In fact, 47% pay no taxes of any kind: not State income tax, not county and local income tax, not sales taxes and not gasoline taxes (which I have repeatedly demonstrated mathematically and for which no one has been able to refute in the last 2 years).
This....some kid walking into the ER's for a chest cold.... is a gross Straw Man Fallacy. You have distorted and misrepresented the EMTALA just like a Liberal, so I'd have to question whether you're really a Republican.
EMTALA definition of ‘emergency medical condition’*
The term “emergency medical condition” means—
(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—
(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or
(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions–
(i) That there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
EMTALA definition of ‘stabilized’
To provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B) [a pregnant woman who is having contractions], to deliver (including the placenta).
Always shoot for the facts
. With laws, regulations and statutes, a plain language reading of the law, statute or regulation is sufficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
3. Costs continue to rise because the economics of healthcare are distorted beyond repair. A single payer system allows for a central negotiating body to assist in regulating the cost of care over a broad spectrum...on top of that it essentailly knocks out "overhead/admin" costs which eat up almost 15% of premium.
|
But they are not "
distorted beyond repair."
They only appear to be "
distorted beyond repair," because you refuse to take my advice and learn the history of health care, due to the fact that you are afraid of the Truth.
Unless you know and understand the history of health care in the US, you will never be able to solve the problem.
This...
A single payer system allows for a central negotiating body to assist in regulating the cost of care over a broad spectrum...
...is a freaking bizarre comment, that is totally at odds with reality.
The United States consists of 50 sovereign countries -- States -- each unique in their geology, geography, demographics, social structure, and other systems, and there are more than 1,000 fully functioning economies in the United States.
Effectively, each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is a Market/Economy unto itself.
In some areas of the US, fast-food workers are paid the federal minimum wage only.
In other areas of the US, like Cincinnati, fast-food workers have always started at more than minimum wage -- presently $8.50-$10.00/hour.
Can you explain why? You should be to...I just told you why. The cost of living is not uniform in the United States. If and when it becomes uniform, and that will be 2-3 centuries from now if ever at all, then you can consider a
"central negotiating body."
Of course that proves you're not Republican.
"...central negotiating body..." for a Republican to utter those words is heresy. "...
central negotiating body..." is contradictory and at odds with the whole idea of a republic and and of the ideas espoused in republicanism.
There are only three structural forms:
Federalism
Confederalism
Unitarism
The Framers of the Constitution rejected Unitarism in its entirety....because that what was the structure under King George. They chose Confederalism, but it failed -- although as I mentioned on another thread it might possibly work now --and then chose Federalism.
"...central negotiating body..." is something you'd find in a Unitary State...with a National Government...which is what Liberals want and any sane person would go to war to stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
An area that we agree is on the consumption tax. I've always been an advocate for the FairTax...let me tell you how I think we could pay for single payer healthcare for everyone.
-Institute the Fair Tax (increases jobs because of favorable tax legislation which expands the tax base (more revenue), the law itself is revenue neutral, and progressive because of the prebate up to the poverty)
|
I already debunked that. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
-Cut the military budget substantially (I'm sorry but I just don't believe that we need to spend more than the top 9 other countries combined).
|
Okay, so what I'm hearing is you want to destroy your standard of living and reduce the US to 3rd World Status.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just saying I don't you understand monetary policy.
The reason you spend more than the top 9 other countries combined is due to the fact that you must have your military spread out over the entire world. And the reason you must have your military spread out over the entire world, is so that you can push/force/threaten/intimidate your hegemony on the rest of the world. And the reason you need to push your hegemony, is because you have no choice but to maintain --- by any means possible -- the US Dollar as the
de facto international reserve currency and the
de facto international currency of trade. And the reason you need to do that, is so that demand for the US Dollar remains high. And the reason you need demand for the US Dollar to remain high, is so the value of the US Dollar does not decline against other currencies on the world market.
And the reason you don't want your currency to decline, is so your standard of living doesn't fall to somewhere below 2nd World and above 3rd World.
This chart....
...tells a story.
You can see the US abandon the Gold Standard, struggle, then Carter & the Democrats saturate the globe with US Dollars from reckless spending. Reagan & Volcker have to get rid of the excess US Dollars; the got rid of a little too much, and then, you know, since the US Dollar is now backed by oil -- the Petro-Dollar -- it gets a bumpy ride.
That little blip during Clinton, about 1994 -- that's the introduction of the Ruble to the World Market on a limited regional basis. Then in 1997, you see the bottom fall out as the Ruble goes Global. 9 Million barrels per day of Russian oil and billions of cubic meters of natural gas and none of it sold in US Dollars.
See where the Euro comes on-line in 2000? Bloop.
Bush kept you from free-falling with the tax cuts and wars. The scariest thing about your economy, is that Obama spent more than Bush did and look what it got you...nothing.
The issue with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear anything. It has to do with Iran exercising its self-determination and freedom of choice and choosing to trade commodities on the World Market in basket currencies, instead of exclusively in US Dollars.
What happens if other countries start doing the same? Well, look at the damn graph.
China and Japan are working on a unified currency for Southeast Asia akin to the Euro....what happened when the Euro came out? What do you think will happen if there's a unified currency in Asia?
Obviously you need to work on your international relations and foreign policy a bit, especially as it relates to your economy and your future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
-By expanding a "medicare for all" approach you could get rid of all admin cost for Medicaid
|
You cannot afford Medicare, which is going to exhaust the HI Trust Fund in about 6 years. And seriously, Medicaid?
Why Medicaid is a Humanitarian Catastrophe
Last July, I wrote about a landmark study conducted at the University of Virginia that found that surgical patients on Medicaid are 13 percent more likely to die than those without insurance of any kind. The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.
Why Medicaid is a Humanitarian Catastrophe - Forbes
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
-Start reforming SS...this is our biggest opportunity...It was never meant to serve as a primary retirement source for 20 plus years....something, either partial privatization or other reforms have to take place to remain solvent...the eligibility age should be raised to 72 at a minimum.
|
I already debunked that, but you ignored it.
I even gave you the table from the 2012 Social Security Trustees' Report:
Quote:
I'm going to use Table V.A3.—Period Life Expectancy on Page 90 of the 2012 Social Security Trustees' Report and give you the life-expectancy for people age 65 for male and female:
2011 Male 17.7 years; Female 20.0 years.
|
A couple of things.....
1] 30 States had social security at the time FDR did the Castro thing and "nationalized" them -- of course FDR is White and Whites are allowed to "nationalize" anything they want.
2] Those 30 States had retirement ages of 65 years, except for a few who set retirement at 70 years.
3] The age of 65 was not selected because there were 2 birds in a tree with an armadillo eating a cactus plant. It was selected because Actuarial Science showed that age 65 allowed the government to take maximum advantage and make adjustments if necessary.
4] Actuarial Science never based the age of 65 on life-expectancy
from birth, rather in the tradition of Actuarial Science, life-expectancy was based on the number of years the average person lived once attaining the age of 65.
5] Both the Ford Commission and the Volcker Commission (appointed by Reagan) studied the issues related to the solvency of Social Security --- which would have gone bankrupt June 1983 with an emergency appropriations bill passed by Congress and an increase in the FICA tax rate. The issue of age was revisited and it was slightly less than actuarial predictions.
Finally, since 1983 when the Social Security Act was amended, the life span of men has increased 3.4 years while the life span of women has increased 1.3 years.
Life-expectancy increased
more in the 30 year period 1950-1983 then it has in the 30 year period 1983-2013, so you're pretty much topped out.
Regardless, raising the retirement age will not save money, and in fact will will cost more money and seriously harm your economy.
As things stand now....well, let's just say that Millions of Americans are no longer on the Salary Curve.
You follow?
A person starts working and gains education, training and experience resulting in continually higher wages/salaries until they plateau....that's the Salary Curve.
Get it?
Okay, someone is graduated and starts work at 22 and by the time they reach age 50, they are earning $X amount each year. Economists at the CBO and BLS and elsewhere will extract that data to make future projections about future tax revenues, especially for programs like Social Security and Medicare.
So...putting it all together.....you look at a person and their occupation and you say over the course of their life-time based on the Salary Curve, they will earn $X amount of income and they will pay $X amount in federal, State, FICA, HI and other taxes....
...except that ain't happening.
You have Millions of people thrown off the Salary Curve, and Millions more not even on it....they will not have the normal earnings over the course of their life-time that they should/could have had, and that means they will not be paying the taxes they should/could have paid.
And you want to skew the Salary Curve even worse? That makes no sense.
Anyway, when you discover how your health care system came to be the botched coat-hangar abortion that it is, you'll easily see the answer.
Economically...
Mircea
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.
Next thing you'll be suggesting that charity can do a better job than the government at helping people! Have you no shame? 
But we just gotta do something because we care! 
If we don't do something, like stealing money from all those evil rich people, we will be as cold and heartless as they are. [sarcasm off]
