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.
The only proven successful way to provide more benefits to more people is to implement a regressive tax system like Scandinavian and European countries have.
Like I said, creating more money dilutes the value of a dollar, which makes the poor even more poor than they already are.
These are very simple concepts. I have no idea why you're unable to comprehend them.
Again IMO we will find an American, not European solution. Much of our HC related business and the bulk of our docs will provide too many road blocks to such a thing.
How much less is your dollar worth since the Fed created $3-4T over the past few years?
And is that worse than allowing much more universal HC access to our people, poor and all?
Again IMO we will find an American, not European solution. Much of our HC related business and the bulk of our docs will provide too many road blocks to such a thing.
How much less is your dollar worth since the Fed created $3-4T over the past few years?
And is that worse than allowing much more universal HC access to our people, poor and all?
People want cost reduction... Put an emp pulse over tge us, after 3 days when all the drugs people take... Nah, that's too harsh.
So people will theorize and offer poor models for a variety of reasons, blame and blend profits on 'dirty hmos', and ultimately ask the government for more options because their inroads into healthcare has so completely lead to administrative efficiency, access to care, and reduced cost. Yes very tongue in cheek but I'm tired of tge pregame and wish kickoff would start already.! Lol
OK, I read posts 1-40 and 241-280. If I'm being repetitious, I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I am talking about giving young people the chance of choosing medicare versus private health insurance.
99% of old people choose medicare when they turn 65 and dop private health insurance like a hot potato.
I think young folks would likely choose medicare over private health insurance. Why not? The docs, nurses, and hospitals are the same. Old and young people go to the same docs and hospitals.
Choose medicare at 65? No, you essentially must go on Medicare A (hospitalization) at 65. If you're still working, you can stay on private ins. instead of doing Part B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u
Actually,no you did not,especially if you factor in inflation.
Your 1966 dollars paid into Medicare do not compute to today's health care costs.
However, that money was invested and has probably made a lot more than you paid in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Healthcare is rationed everywhere including in the US. How it's rationed is the difference.
Germany's healthcare outcomes are generally better than the US. Then again, Germany experiences less violence than the US. The German population is not as fat as the US population which means fewer diagnosis of Diabetes, Hear Disease, stroke and some Cancers.
As you know, Germany approaches healthcare differently than the US. Most babies are delivered by midwives in birthing centers, not hospitals. The number of beds per hospital room is larger in Germany. Things like linens, TV and WIFI are extras billed directly to patients. No valet parking. No lattes in the lobby. No ads for prescription meds. No ads for hospitals or healthcare providers. Despite the different approach, their outcomes are better than the US.
Germany is a mixed bag of options. About 80% of the population chooses the public option.
Oh, not this again! Here's another reason health care costs less in Germany: 15 Highest Paying Countries for Nurses - Insider Monkey
From link: "Somehow, we expected Germany to be placed higher on the list, considering high esteem their health care sector enjoys." But in reality, German nurses are more like "doctor's handmaidens" than in the US. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing_in_Germany"Job satisfaction is very low in Germany because of the heavy work-load, low salaries and a low appreciation of the nurse profession in the public. Even some politicians in the past claimed that everybody is able to nurse. The nurse associations are working hard to achieve the acceptance for the installation of nursing chairs in universities but they are often undermined by politicians who are looking for the cheapest work force but not skilled and professional workers."
Nurses are the largest number of HCPs. If you pay them less, you're saving a lot of money. Note that the average pay for nurses in Germany is in PPP USD $47,000, while in the US #2, it's $70K. This despite a higher COL in Germany: Germany vs United States Cost of living Stats Compared
Many Europeans countries have better eating habits and the rate of obesity is lower than in the states. Hence much less diabetes, stroke, hypertension, etc. They walk more and are less in love with driving. Many people in America are still in love with cars (and guns too). All these things drastically reduce the cost of health care.
Simple medical issues like delivering a baby in a normal pregnancy do not involve an obstetrician. In some areas of the US well trained family doctors cannot do deliveries because of the fear of lawsuits and malpractice insurance which is astronomically high.
Most hospitals are owned by Corporate America and the goal is to maximize profit.
Again, untrue about better health, except for the guns part.
Most hospitals in the US are either private non-profit or government.
Did You Know: For-Profit Versus Nonprofit Hospitals | Health Net Broker Pulse "According to the AHA, about 18 percent of U.S. hospitals are private, for-profit hospitals, while 23 percent are owned by state and local governments. The rest are private, nonprofit facilities. This means they’re exempt from federal income tax—and often other taxes as well. It also means tax-exempt bonds may be issued on their behalf." Plus much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Australia, Canada, Uruguay, Germany, France
Only Canada comes close to us in demographics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
The major difference between the a non-for profit and a for profit hospital is that you cannot buy stock in the former and you can buy stock in the latter. Otherwise, both are highly motivated to make a profit.
Why do the struggling underemployed blue collar republicans defend the elite so much?
Again IMO we will find an American, not European solution.
Won't work. A progressive tax system simply does not generate enough revenue to pay for more government services/benefits for more people. Period. If it did, don't you think the European/Scandinavian democratic socialist countries would have already implemented such?
Quote:
How much less is your dollar worth since the Fed created $3-4T over the past few years?
And is that worse than allowing much more universal HC access to our people, poor and all?
Do you know where $2 trillion of that went? To bail out Main Street America homeowners.
Yep... the Federal Reserve created $2 trillion out of thin air to buy Fannie and Freddie MBS.
OK
Do you think the elderly need healthcare?
I am open to ideas! Euthanasia!
Ah, the arrogance of youth!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Exactly! Cut the middle MAN out. For example medical centers could offer health plans and the patient would buy the plan directly from the people that actually provide the care. IN Uruguay anyone can buy cheap health insurance directly from medical centers and group of doctors. In fact expats retirees love the plan and to top it off they will gladly accept Blue Cross if you are not a member. Why do you think Kayser is growing?
Yes! Let the market decide with no CRONY capitalism.
The docs can always be regulated through licensing. But, that is a moot point because corporate America has been buying the practice of doctors for a long time and many now work for a salary. My very own doctor simply gave up to the terrible red tape of health plans and denial of care. He rather work for a salary than battle the health plans.
You don't think doctors are regulated by licensing now? Actually, almost all HCWs are licensed. There has to be some administration to any plan. This idea (not stated by you) that admin costs will drop like a stone with some sort of UHC is batty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Sure, Tricare is only for retired military, but it works and it is administered by those folks for a reasonable fee rather than billions and billions in profit.
America is a nation in diapers where most have self-inflicted illness from lack of exercise, smoking, obesity, drinking, drugs, junk food, etc, etc. The well educated seem to be lean, exercise, and eat well whereas the poor have awful habits. IN the state of Maryland (a wealthy state) the greatest degree of coronary artery disease is in the poor areas in the northwest and Baltimore.
I heard that in Denmark CocalCola is so expensive that the poor have to buy bottled water which is much cheaper. And they do this on purpose to force the citizens to try a healthier approach. I don't blame the former mayor of New York for trying to bamn HUGE bottles of Soda Pop.
Average employee portion for a medical plan for the whole family in 2014 = $4518 (probably around 5000 in 2015. Then add deductibles and co-pays.
For family making 45k a year that is a lot of money:
4518/45000 = 10%
I would say that 10% of 45k is more than the 8% tax.
You have left out the employer's portion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
I've never experienced this and I've worked for several large corporations. Employee contribution was always flat rate based on the category (employee, employee plus spouse, employee plus child(ren), employee plus family, etc)
Ditto. The only difference was in what plan you selected and as you said, the category.
Won't work. A progressive tax system simply does not generate enough revenue to pay for more government services/benefits for more people. Period. If it did, don't you think the European/Scandinavian democratic socialist countries would have already implemented such?
Do you know where $2 trillion of that went? To bail out Main Street America homeowners.
Yep... the Federal Reserve created $2 trillion out of thin air to buy Fannie and Freddie MBS.
And behr, Morgan Stanley, chase, Goldman Sachs, etc, etc...
Yes, but look at the Federal Reserve's totals. BY FAR, most of the increase in money creation has been for Agency (Fannie and Freddie) MBS purchases, not for bailing out Wall Street (by buying Wall Street debt).
2008: $2.17 trillion
2016: $4.53 trillion
Difference: $2.36 trillion
Amount of Agency MBS the Federal Reserve currently owns when it had zero in 2008: $1.754 trillion
You don't think doctors are regulated by licensing now? Actually, almost all HCWs are licensed. There has to be some administration to any plan. This idea (not stated by you) that admin costs will drop like a stone with some sort of UHC is batty.
Ditto. The only difference was in what plan you selected and as you said, the category.
And emm, those categories are first based off a 'sic', service industry code... Then there are demographics, unfortunately some things which have to be taken in account like child bearing age of employees (NICU babies are expensive!).
It is easier for those with lil understanding of how it works to blame dirty hmo's, think profits come from 'denying claims', payors only do paperwork and make it difficult to submit claims and sent remits, that 'Medicare' and or cmms does anything but publish books/websites, and then contract private companies on the lowest bid submitted to do everything else. And ultimately look to Washington to solve it simplify that which they, and each states DOI have made into a regulatory and administrative minefield for practitioners and payors.
Won't work. A progressive tax system simply does not generate enough revenue to pay for more government services/benefits for more people. Period. If it did, don't you think the European/Scandinavian democratic socialist countries would have already implemented such?
Money is an illusion created by sovereign countries. Most of Europe is not sovereign and the countries there are monetarily like the US states. Our states cannot pay for their people's HC since they don't have enough money, and cannot create it.
You pay for HC with money. Whether it be earned, taxed or created. And yes there can be negative repercussions like inflation, or not in how you manage it. More tax, probably less inflation. But then more strain on the middle class.
In essence we can all have HC in the same vein that we can fight a war, by creating and spending whatever money it takes to produce all the materiel of war and win as in WW2.
It actually grinds down to first our priorities and then our ability to supply the necessary and timely HC services in the future, So though not really limited by money, we are always constrained by resources and output.
Theoretically we need not one new tax dollar. But I will bet that we will tax more...
Money is an illusion created by sovereign countries.
If it's an illusion, why are we using tax revenue to pay interest on the national debt? You know... the national debt being the money created to fund the deficit spending and the increase in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet...
And the amount we're paying in interest is taking an increasingly larger percentage of tax revenue as the national debt grows.
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.
