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.
and this is the huge problem that should be fixed, that "single payer" alone won't solve.
i looked at the most successful country in one of the posted charts -- Chile. They have a 7% tax on wages that covers their care for 50% of total care. (i.e. a 14% wage tax would make their care 'totally free')
The fact that we need to pay about a 26% wage tax to afford ours is totally insane, and suggests that there are deeply rooted problems in our pricing. The U.S. has serious and self-inflicted problems with the cost of medicine and medical equipment that have to be dealt with somehow.
Single payer means Federal administration and reimbursement. The Feds operate via taxes and deficit spending. We will never have a shortage of money. But if we do not properly plan, we may have a shortage of docs and/or future medical facilities to service the required HC needs of our people. Our limits have always been in production, not money.
I agree but, MANY want a "single payer" which IS gov't run.
Gov't run IMO can be OK. But also IMO we want to keep the delivery of that HC in private hands. For the most part docs and hospitals should not be gov't owned or gov't employees. There are bound to be some gov't owned public facilities and then gov't employees like the current VA and county hospitals.
Single payer means Federal administration and reimbursement. The Feds operate via taxes and deficit spending. We will never have a shortage of money. But if we do not properly plan, we may have a shortage of docs and/or future medical facilities to service the required HC needs of our people. Our limits have always been in production, not money.
"Medicare for all" would bankrupt many practices, as medicare pays very little compared to commercial insurance in most states.
1. If my practice had 100% medicare patients, I would be broke in two months
2. states that have the lowest costs and are the most efficient are reimbursed the worst through medicare
3. in rural settings, non physician practitioners in some fields are paid more than physicians via medicare
4. if students cannot repay educational loans, they will not go into medicine
Australia and the UK have both very high obesity rates and have among the lowest health care costs among developed countries. Obesity is not as important as you think it is for costs.
Obesity itself is not. What is, is the future portion of our people who will end up with diabetes as a result. And that could involve up to 30% of all our future HC costs.
Look you've clearly been proven wrong on this multiple times. Let's take a look at the TOTAL local, state, and federal tax rates paid by a $10,000 and a $75,000 earner in the US compared to Sweden's income tax only.
US total tax rate local, state, and federal:
$10,000 earner: 13%
$75,000: 27%
Sweden income tax:
$10,000: 31%
$75,000: 51%
(PLUS a 25% VAT on top of that which everyone pays.)
Note that in Sweden, the top tax bracket starts at about $88,000, but in the US, the top tax bracket isn't reached until $400,000. That's what is known as "a much flatter income tax bracket structure."
So I'll ask you again, will Americans pay the equivalent of Sweden's taxes to get UHC?
(Info on US taxes...
Two liberal think tanks analyzed that and came up with the following, to their surprise...
Here's the average effective TOTAL (local, state, and federal) tax rate, by income group. The $10,000 would be in the lowest quintile and the $75,000 earner would be in the Middle Quintile to the lower Fourth Quintile.
Data sources for chart: Tax Policy Center and Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
If you DON'T think the gov't runs medicare, I have a bridge to sell, Interested?
Just like Obama Care is NOT govt run. Ha-ha.
Obamacare was organized by gov't, many ground rules set by gov't, but on the delivery side gov't has next to no involvement. My wife just got home yesterday after our highway head on near death crash 1/1. We never heard one word from Obama!
"Medicare for all" would bankrupt many practices, as medicare pays very little compared to commercial insurance in most states.
1. If my practice had 100% medicare patients, I would be broke in two months
2. states that have the lowest costs and are the most efficient are reimbursed the worst through medicare
3. in rural settings, non physician practitioners in some fields are paid more than physicians via medicare
4. if students cannot repay educational loans, they will not go into medicine
Could I ask a simple question.
How much does:
A medicaid person give you for a generic visit, say ear infection? (copay + reimbursement)
Medicare person? (copay + reimbursement)
Blue Cross person? (copay + reimbursement)
Hidden in the demands for “the right to healthcare,” and “universal health insurance” is a deliberate obfuscation of the truth.
The truth is that government abolished the “right” to healthcare when it criminalized the unlicensed practice of medicine, and restricted the trade in medicine to those it licensed and controlled. All healthcare is a government controlled privilege.
Insurance, private or public funded, is a windfall to the investors who skim vast fortunes from the patient (or whomever is stuck with the bill), and is just another government sanctioned parasite.
As for the socialist cry for government provided healthcare / insurance, that’s based on imposing involuntary servitude upon those who must labor for the benefit of another.
In short, socialists want slavery, under the guise of compulsory charity, magnanimously distributed, with a hefty cut taken by “the management.”
Could I ask a simple question.
How much does:
A medicaid person give you for a generic visit, say ear infection? (copay + reimbursement)
Medicare person? (copay + reimbursement)
Blue Cross person? (copay + reimbursement)
"Medicare for all" would bankrupt many practices, as medicare pays very little compared to commercial insurance in most states.
1. If my practice had 100% medicare patients, I would be broke in two months
2. states that have the lowest costs and are the most efficient are reimbursed the worst through medicare
3. in rural settings, non physician practitioners in some fields are paid more than physicians via medicare
4. if students cannot repay educational loans, they will not go into medicine
Single payer will not fly if the docs aren't satisfied. Most everyone forgets about us during these discussions. And the necessary changes are very much divided primary care/specialist.
For instance Medicare has been padding our primary care reimbursements these last few years, mainly through the EMR and treating based on quality/completeness vs volume. Specialists have been allowed to lag. Surgeons will necessarily need more of a Medicare or Single Payer reimbursement bump if this is to fly.
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.
