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.
You must have pretty crappy insurance. I have never had insurance in my 35 working years where I ever had to wait.
Yep, I can see a doctor today in more than 40 locations in my region. If needed, specialists are available almost immediately, often at the same location as my primary doctor. For the even rarer issues I can go out of network at have the costs covered.
1. medicare is NOT singlepayer....singlepayer means just that ONLY one payer...medicare is a (approx.) 80/20 insurance with the elderly getting hit with not only co-pays, but having to buy a supplemental insurance
2. Medicaid is ''closer'' to a singlepayer...its actually a dualpayer...paid by the federal government AND the state governments
to cover 320 million people would cost between 3 trillion to 6 trillion per year...why the vast difference....that would be determined by the level of coverage... a true single payer 100% coverage (minus cosmetic) would be the more expensive 6 trillion... something more like medicare (80/20 plus copays) would be closer to the 3 trillion
we already spend about a trillion on medicare/medicad...so the NEW cost would be 2-5 trillion
since it would all fall on the taxpayers back...and there are only about 75 million taxpayers (IRS stats say nearly 150 million filers with 47% having a zero or negative tax liability)
so the cost to the taxpayers would be...26k to 66k per taxpayer (averaged)
now you want a way to pay for it.....
eliminate the tax system we currently have (income, corporate, estate, excises ) and replace it with a consumption tax
since a good portion of income is never reported, and we spend a lot in general, the government would collect a lot more in revenue based on a spending tax compared to the current faulty income tax
estimates are that we could collect about 5 trillion in revenue compared to the under 3 trillion (currently at 2.7 trillion) if done with the fairtax(consumption tax)
Medicare tax for everyone. Get rid of everything else: Mediciad, Tricare, VA, PRIVATE HEALTH
INSURANCE. Oh, and get rid of the co-pay too. It's stupid, and no it does not deter over usage of
healthcare. A hypochondriac/abuser will use the system regardless, and most of them are Medicaid
patients anyways. We already pay for them.
There really isn't a sane argument against having a single payer system.
"Single-payer health program would cover all 42 million uninsured, upgrade everyone’s benefits and save $400 billion annually on bureaucracy, physicians say"
"Proponents say a Medicare-for-all system, also known as a single-payer system, would vastly simplify how the nation pays for care, improve patient health, restore free choice of physician, ELIMINATE COPAYS and DEDUCTIBLES, and yield substantial savings for individuals, families and the national economy.
I was just going to say the same thing in reply to wbh. Deduct the amount you are paying for your health ins, and you can afford the "Medicare for all" tax. My spouse once worked for a very small (5 employee) company. Health insurance was always a mess. Just about every year a different insurance with different providers. (This was back in the mid-80s; I believe even prior to the ACA things had gotten better for small businesses in later years.) Coverage sucked, mostly just what the state of CO told them to cover. Lots of out-of-pocket expenses, even after paying high premiums. Terrible service from the insurance companies. DH's boss spent a lot of time on insurance-related issues as well. I once asked DH if he thought his boss would prefer to simply pay a tax, and DH agreed that probably would be the case.
In 2011 (per .gov website), Medicare cost $549.1B for 48.7 million people, roughly $11500 per person.
You could knock me over with a feather if the average recipient put enough money into the Medicare fund to receive what is basically a lifetime annuity of close to $12k/yr at age 65. I'll bet that it's mostly subsidized by other sources.
In 1965, almost 20 million became eligible for Medicare despite they had not contributed a dime.
Medicare has been subsidized by General Revenue/ deficit spending all along.
Instead of addressing the long term viability of Medicare, Congress approved Medicare Part D in 2003 which was implemented in 2006. In the same timeframe, Congress denied Medicare the ability to negotiate the price of prescription medications.
40 million seniors who had not paid a dime towards it became eligible for this benefit. It certainly helped get Bush reelected to a second term. It also rewarded the Big Pharma lobby.
And here we are today, with Republican proposals to eliminate Medicare in favor of vouchers that could be used to buy private healthcare insurance. Nevermind that insurers declined to insure elderly healthcare risks which is how the federal government got into the senior healthcare business to begin with.
With a single payer system, you will have the rich people paying into the system but using private doctors outside of the system, so they could really care less since there would be an insignificant impact to them.
For the middle class, like myself, after the taxes I'll be paying for me and others to be in a single payer system, I won't be able to afford to pay for private healthcare outside of such a system. I'll be stuck with what the government decides to give me. No thank you.
We need to change a lot of the rules regarding medical care and medical insurance and then have a private system for those who choose to go that route and a welfare medical system that utilizes an armed forces style system.
Allow the government to operate another military style branch where you have medical centers similar to military bases, clinics similar to recruiting stations and it would be staffed by government personnel just like the army.
A person can graduate high school, enlist in the medical branch and then be trained and "deployed" for their tour wherever they are sent for X years. You must complete your service, just like the military, or face similar consequences. Once you finish your tour, you can go into the private sector if you choose.
If you choose to go to the government medical system for treatment and you are below a certain income level, you essentially don't pay. If you are above it, you'll be billed according to your income.
I work in health care, currently in a doctor's office. For all the ranting and raving about docs planning (take note of that word) to leave the system if this, if that, if the other, most have loans to repay, families to support, etc. and have no real plans to do so. Few people are going to see even a specialist if they don't take their insurance, and that includes the wealthy as well as the poor.
The majority of other nations do it because they are for a government controlled economy. I personally would rather not have to wait months for treatment in a line with everyone else.
The one thing that is guaranteed is the government runs things poorly. I would prefer our healthcare system not turn into the VA.
You don't. Since, as a staunch rightie, you no doubt work harder than everyone else, save more money and have superior morals that means God rewards you with affluence, you simply pay for premium care and forget the line AND the government health care you fear.
See? Everyone wins. Poor people get basic care, and you rich folks do what you've always done with your money to get the best of everything. The class system, just the way the right likes it.
Where do you folks get the idea that doctors and other medical providers for the rich and famous will simply disappear if we had single payer health care? It's quite the puzzlement.
I work in health care, currently in a doctor's office. For all the ranting and raving about docs planning (take note of that word) to leave the system if this, if that, if the other, most have loans to repay, families to support, etc. and have no real plans to do so. Few people are going to see even a specialist if they don't take their insurance, and that includes the wealthy as well as the poor.
Most doctors are not burdened by schools loans, probably only the under 40 crowd. Not to mention the foreign doctors without loans that we are also dependent on. They can take their travel medicine someplace else if they don't want to practice here.
In the end you have a decreased level of service providers and an increase in service users. What happens next is easy to predict. It is just simple economics.
Really? The states going to give me a free PS4? OMG how awesome! AND pay for me to go out to the movies?
Lets be real. The vast majority of developed countries do single payer because it makes sense, and removes the middleman of insurance companies. They're getting similar results for half the cost.
How can we not afford to might be the better question.
Single- payer describes the majority source of funding, public or private. Most countries with single- payer use a mix of public and private funding. Public funding covers the majority of expenses. People are encouraged to buy supplimental private insurance to cover the differences. Co- pays are also increasingly common in Single- payer systems.
The rest of the developed world has some form of universial healthcare ( which may or may not be single payer) and individual insurance mandates. All provide subsidies to low income earners.
You don't. Since, as a staunch rightie, you no doubt work harder than everyone else, save more money and have superior morals that means God rewards you with affluence, you simply pay for premium care and forget the line AND the government health care you fear.
See? Everyone wins. Poor people get basic care, and you rich folks do what you've always done with your money to get the best of everything. The class system, just the way the right likes it.
Where do you folks get the idea that doctors and other medical providers for the rich and famous will simply disappear if we had single payer health care? It's quite the puzzlement.
so many assumptions. You must not pay much attention to my elaborate posting history on this section on the forum.
Paying twice for health care coverage is not in my best interest. I am content with paying once for my current level of care.
I never understood the inclination to take from one to give to another.
I encourage you to donate your time working at a free clinic to help those yourself instead of taking even more money from me to help them. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.
Most doctors are not burdened by schools loans, probably only the under 40 crowd. Not to mention the foreign doctors without loans that we are also dependent on. They can take their travel medicine someplace else if they don't want to practice here.
In the end you have a decreased level of service providers and an increase in service users. What happens next is easy to predict. It is just simple economics.
As a long time participant in the health care "industry" (what an odd word for a business that doesn't make anything!) I do not see doctors dropping out of traditional health care as something that is going to happen.
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.
It's quite the puzzlement.
