Why Can't the Fifth Largest Economy on Earth provide Universal Single Payer Health Care? (statistics, suspect)
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 answer to this question is quite simple - and is relevant in MA and VT and other states which desire (and/or are close) to Universal Health Care.
States are STILL part of the USA and subject to the high costs (Pharma, medical devices, norms of salaries, building and capital costs) that our entire system is based upon.
Putting it another way - our current cost per person in the USA is 10.5K per person per year.
If the cost in CA or the USA was, as it is in the TOP health care countries in the world, 30-40% lower - then it would be quite easy to provide universal health care.
So - in summary - what California and other states are saying is "we can't afford that Wall Street Driven Predatory Capitalism 2X the price health care".
Nothing wrong with that! We obviously need to shave down the costs so states CAN. Also, as others may have mentioned, the US Government picks up 2/3 of the nation's costs - so CA would have to make sure they get al their tax money back (and even debt and deficit spending money) before attempting this.
Complaining about CA not being able to afford this is like saying "Yeah, at Whole Foods Prices we can't afford to feed the poor". Of course we can't. We need wholesale pricing, not the ripoff we current all face.
What you are arguing is that the feds already take in enough dollars to fund 100% of healthcare costs.
Well, I tell ya what tell someone to give the details and heck I would even vote for that.
Of course i remember premiums were going down 2500 bucks so ya need to convince me.
The pharma companies have been charging thousands of pounds/dollars for drugs that cost pennies to make, and the UK is now outlaw some of theses practice, fining drug companies and even involving the Serious Fraud Office and Courts.
I suggest Trump follows the UK's example especially in relation to price fixing.
We kinda already do though. Medicare is a single payer plan. As is Medicaid. I don't know anyone who isn't overall satisfied with Medicare. (Medicare is single payer, where you can essentially see any doctor, because 99% of doctors accept it. Compare to the VA, which is government run healthcare where you go to a government owned hospital, like they have in England).
So basically the poor and the old have "free" universal healthcare already.
Honestly a Medicare-for-all option would be good for the economy. Right now economic mobility is often dictated by the "need" to work at a certain place to keep health benefits. It stifles entrepreneurship as well. Private health plans still have a place (such as in Medicare supplement), but I see no reason why we can't expand it to cover all US CITIZENS and LEGAL residents. We already pay a Medicare tax. And employers lay out hundreds per month for employee contributions to private health plans.
Private health reimbursement rates are already not that far out of line with Medicare reimbursement rates, so doctors won't lose out. And, if Americans invested in prevention (saw the doctor more frequently for check-ups, when early warning signs show up, etc.) then there would be less spent on curing after an issue arises, which is more expensive).
We kinda already do though. Medicare is a single payer plan. As is Medicaid. I don't know anyone who isn't overall satisfied with Medicare. (Medicare is single payer, where you can essentially see any doctor, because 99% of doctors accept it. Compare to the VA, which is government run healthcare where you go to a government owned hospital, like they have in England).
So basically the poor and the old have "free" universal healthcare already.
Honestly a Medicare-for-all option would be good for the economy. Right now economic mobility is often dictated by the "need" to work at a certain place to keep health benefits. It stifles entrepreneurship as well. Private health plans still have a place (such as in Medicare supplement), but I see no reason why we can't expand it to cover all US CITIZENS and LEGAL residents. We already pay a Medicare tax. And employers lay out hundreds per month for employee contributions to private health plans.
Private health reimbursement rates are already not that far out of line with Medicare reimbursement rates, so doctors won't lose out. And, if Americans invested in prevention (saw the doctor more frequently for check-ups, when early warning signs show up, etc.) then there would be less spent on curing after an issue arises, which is more expensive).
I like the smell of common sense in the morning!
Now all you have to do is rationally persuade the government=bad, free market for-profit unfettered capitalism=good followers.
Those people who refuse to accept a nanny and insist they can make their own choices are a bit stubborn.
While having no problem accepting Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, agencies like the TSA, Universal Education, and any number of other "Nanny" oversights upon their daily lives. Methinks their priorities vis-a-vis this "phony expressed individualism" are completely fubarred.
While having no problem accepting Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, agencies like the TSA, Universal Education, and any number of other "Nanny" oversights upon their daily lives. Methinks their priorities vis-a-vis this "phony expressed individualism" are completely fubarred.
Please stop making sense!
They also seem to have no problem whatsoever accepting their Big Business Brother in the WH Kremlin either.
Yes, a good part of it. As Milton Friedman stated, "You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You cannot have both."
That's a nonsense statement. We don't have open borders, never have had. Implementing a single payer health care system does not mean we have a "welfare state". It FEELS good though.
That's a nonsense statement. We don't have open borders, never have had. Implementing a single payer health care system does not mean we have a "welfare state". It FEELS good though.
That's a ridiculously ignorant statement.
Single payer is welfare. Do you actually believe all of the people are actually paying for coverage? rhetorical
43 Million on food stamps. Yea that's not an indication.
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.