Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 04-22-2015, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,902,028 times
Reputation: 4512

Advertisements

We currently have a single-payer system for the elderly: I believe all people aged 65 and older are eligible. I believe Medicare/Medicaid spends around $900 billion a year, if I am not mistaken, for 45 million people (elderly and disabled). Curious how much the number balloons when 300 million people are thrown on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2015, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,519,997 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
We currently have a single-payer system for the elderly: I believe all people aged 65 and older are eligible. I believe Medicare/Medicaid spends around $900 billion a year, if I am not mistaken, for 45 million people (elderly and disabled). Curious how much the number balloons when 300 million people are thrown on it.
Don't confuse medicare with medicaid.

One pays into medicare their entire working life.

The other is government welfare.

You want single payer then be ready to be taxed another 8% on top of the 6% you pay now.
And you still have to pay taxes for medicaid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 12:55 PM
 
428 posts, read 344,537 times
Reputation: 256
People certainly cost more at age 65 and up.

We obviously can afford, in the aggregate, a higher per person cost than anywhere else, although the stats are probably a bit looser than people let on.

I don't think that single payer helps by itself anyhow. All you are doing is having a single back office for claims rather than multiple ones.

If you made me redesign the system, I'd go to the largest country with the best system and simply copy what they do. These things are complicated after all. Having said that, it would probably be a mistake to copy somebody like say, the Swiss, since the average Swiss citizen is probably better behaved and healthier than the average US one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 12:57 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,827,388 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Don't confuse medicare with medicaid.

One pays into medicare their entire working life.

The other is government welfare.

You want single payer then be ready to be taxed another 8% on top of the 6% you pay now.
And you still have to pay taxes for medicaid.
When we get everything for free from the government why should we even work?

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone. - Frederic Bastiat
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 12:58 PM
mm4
 
5,711 posts, read 3,981,123 times
Reputation: 1941
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
We currently have a single-payer system for the elderly: I believe all people aged 65 and older are eligible.
You mean VT has Medicare again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
I believe Medicare/Medicaid spends around $900 billion a year, if I am not mistaken, for 45 million people (elderly and disabled). Curious how much the number balloons when 300 million people are thrown on it.
After VT's governor conceded single-payer is abjectly unworkable even for Vermont's comparatively modest demands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 01:00 PM
 
428 posts, read 344,537 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Don't confuse medicare with medicaid.

One pays into medicare their entire working life.

The other is government welfare.

....
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 01:01 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,384,355 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
When we get everything for free from the government why should we even work?

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone. - Frederic Bastiat
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,902,028 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Don't confuse medicare with medicaid.

One pays into medicare their entire working life.

The other is government welfare.

You want single payer then be ready to be taxed another 8% on top of the 6% you pay now.
And you still have to pay taxes for medicaid.
I'm not confusing them, I was taking a look at the combined total of both. Combined they spend around $900 million. Combined it's about 45 million people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,902,028 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4 View Post
You mean VT has Medicare again.


After VT's governor conceded single-payer is abjectly unworkable even for Vermont's comparatively modest demands.
VT = Virginia Tech, not Vermont.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 01:04 PM
 
428 posts, read 344,537 times
Reputation: 256
As a side note about a single payer system, which probably implies a single health system...

If you average out the amount of care people receive, you'll likely run into the issue of decreasing benefits for those at the top of the food chain. People with excellent corporate coverage and/or government employees are going to throw a fit. The only way to keep them at all happy, and to have the same coverage for everyone, is to give everyone in the US the best coverage currently available.

That's a thing that I doubt is affordable, no matter how you slice it up.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top