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.
We haven't even begun to try "everything else". For example, what about making insurance companies non-profits, instead of for-profit? That would bring down costs, wouldn't it? What about making hospitals and clinics non-profit? Some already are, but the number of for-profit ones has been mushrooming, even as the public and policy-makers have been hand-wringing about how to keep costs down, the last 20 years, or so. Doctors figured out long ago that insurance is a cash cow to be milked for their own profit, so there was plenty of motivation to create specialized clinics.
I'm sure with some creative thinking, other options can be mapped out and considered. We haven't really scratched the surface of possibilities, hardly.
It could but not necessarily. The thing is, if the "overhead" (salaries, etc.) is not controlled, it can be increased indefinitely. The easiest control is via single payer. But it is possible, even though kind of complicated compared to single payer to run the insurance model like in Switzerland - not for profit, but also with limits on the "totals".
Even if you make insurance companies non-profits, how would this be any more beneficial than having 1 insurance company who's non-profit as well. Wouldn't that provide more cost savings?
It makes no sense to take a half-a$$ed approach. Either you want the free market to do it's magic, or you go non-profit with 1 insurer and let the government do it. (Letting the government manage it, also provides a way of separation of powers versus say having a private non profit running it. That's for sure more dictator-like.
Well, now we're really getting down to it!
The advantage of maintaining separate insurance companies would be to keep government out of it. Again--what happens when there's a recession, and tax revenues are down? Unemployment is up, so fewer contributions are going into the system. Then what? By keeping the insurance companies, you avoid having staff lay-offs, cutbacks in scheduling perhaps, budget cuts to equipment supplies, and so forth.
As a hard right wing republican and Trump supporter I am 100% all in for Medicare for everyone.
But, of course you do know Medicare is not free, right?
I'm near 70, retired, on a fixed income and yet I have to pay for Medicare so why would anyone be so foolish to believe Medicare is a freebee?
Let's see if YOU are willing to pay your fair share, shall we?
Medicare Part A is free to me but I had to work 50 years and paying thousands in Medicare taxes to get it so somehow if you want Medicare we need to increase your taxes to equal what I paid over my life. You do understand this, right?
And besides paying Medicare taxes I pay $134.00 every month for Medicare Part B which covers doctors. You don't have any problem with paying that, do you? I didn't think you would.
But Medicare doesn't pay for everything which is exactly why I have a private Medigap plan that pays for things Medicare Part A and B don't.
My Medigap insurance a Plan G from Cigna and for this I pay $139.54 every month so so far we're at $273.54 for my free Medicare every month.
But Medicare doesn't cover any drugs so, being responsible for myself being retired on a fixed income and all, I have a Plan D which covers a portion of my drug costs. My Plan D doesn't cover my total drug costs mind you, just a portion. My Plan D costs me $27.40 every month so now my cost is $300.94 every month out of my pocket for my free Medicare.
Of course my wife and I both have coverage, we use the same plans so you can double that $300.94 every month to cover us as a couple to $601.88 which we pay every month as a retired couple on a fixed income.
Oh, and even with our Part D prescription drug coverage I would estimate me still spend $100.00 to $125.00 every month on our prescription drug costs.
And then there is the Medicare deductible but then you knew that, right? I mean how silly for anyone to believe this was free. Our Medicare deductible is $183.00 for each of us. That's another $366.00 out of pocket as a couple or we can spread that out over 12 months and we're at another $30.50 for a couple.
As a couple we still spend a minimum of $700.00 up to $800.00 every month on our free Medicare.
So I say open it for everyone BUT no free lunches. I work and pay for it and so can anyone else who is capable of working that wants it and if they don't they can be wheeled to the sidewalk and left to die for all I care.
How about $1,200/month for a family of four? That sound about right? You didn't expect it to be free, did you?
And I mean it when I say I do believe Medicare should be available to all, it would be the answer to our healthcare cost problems, but to many left wing antifa types believe we old geezers get it for free.. not true. I am all for you getting it but you need to pay your fair share just like I do.
Oh, dental insurance; that's another $100/month we spend. Dental does not come with Medicare. Just making sure you understood that.
'
My private employer health insurance costs me $600 a month and my employer pays another 1,200 a month towards premium. So yep sign me up.
The advantage of maintaining separate insurance companies would be to keep government out of it. Again--what happens when there's a recession, and tax revenues are down? Unemployment is up, so fewer contributions are going into the system. Then what? By keeping the insurance companies, you avoid having government lay-offs of staff, cutbacks in scheduling perhaps, budget cuts to equipment supplies, and so forth.
When I said 1 insurance company, it implies the government managing it.
In times of economic downturn, the government (federal government) has not ever once laid off staff. Not because it can't, but because of the political backlash. If anything, during times of economic downturn, government increases deficits and spends money to stimulate the economy, like we saw with the ARRA.
This has been monetary/fiscal policy for our country since the days of the Great Depression/FDR and it won't change for the foreseeable future.
It could but not necessarily. The thing is, if the "overhead" (salaries, etc.) is not controlled, it can be increased indefinitely. The easiest control is via single payer. But it is possible, even though kind of complicated compared to single payer to run the insurance model like in Switzerland - not for profit, but also with limits on the "totals".
Right. I think other models like this need to be seriously examined, before diving head-first into a gov't single-payer system.
Most hospitals will operate at 1-2% profit... get rid of those inflated costs and you have zero hospitals left... then all I hear is the constant whining about a hospital with no supplies, the lack of costly intensive care departments, and the nearest hospital being 200 miles away with no beds available... of course, they don't have to charge you those disgusting prices and bill you the same amount based on how long you've been there if that makes you happy...
Walmart runs on 3% margin I don;t see why medical can't.
Bernie Sanders should be president. He would have won if the DNC and CNN didn't rig it in favor of Hillary and Trump. The only person showing any leadership in the useless congress and democratic party, and he isn't even a democrat.
He never would have won and, if by some bizarre miracle he had, he have gotten squat done. Because he is a radical, his "ideas" are pretty in theory but, thinking people know they don't have basis in reality.
He's a guy living in the wrong country. He doesn't understand this country. Long ago he bought into a drug-induced, utopian view of "sharing"....it's a Robin Hood, forced version of sharing.
Meanwhile, he's worked the system to his advantage pretty well and can still count on loads of dupes being blind to it and believing that he's some sort of Prophet because he promised everyone a free pony.
When I said 1 insurance company, it implies the government managing it.
In times of economic downturn, the government (federal government) has not ever once laid off staff. Not because it can't, but because of the political backlash. If anything, during times of economic downturn, government increases deficits and spends money to stimulate the economy, like we saw with the ARRA.
This has been monetary/fiscal policy for our country since the days of the Great Depression/FDR.
It hasn't? During recent downturns, the feds have cut funding to states, so state gov'ts had to furlough people, declare hiring freezes, and take other measures to cut back in staffing and staff schedules. The Vet hospitals experienced cutbacks, though I don't know the specifics, and the daily/weekly hours of the Indian Health Service were cut back. People had to wait longer (not even in-office, but a longer waiting list on the calendar) to be seen by docs.
. And increasing deficit spending to stimulate the economy is a Dem strategy, not one favored by Republicans. So we can't take it for granted; it's not a given.
I think that you are COMPLETELY missing the point.
The point is that if a FAIR system was set up with realistic costs and realistic profits, you would not hear so many of us complaining. If those people like myself who have insurance would not be so UNFAIRLY treated to make up for those who do NOT pay and who do NOT have insurance, you would not be hearing and reading about so many people furious at hospital and medical charges.
What so many people who defend the current system DON'T address is that there are many, many counties who do have some kind of single-payer or universal health system, and they do NOT have people dying by the thousands (or millions) due to lack of care.
Do you really think that those who aren't paying into the system will start paying into with single payer? Have you even SEEN the proposals by the democrats? It's goes something like this, they STILL don't pay and you are still n the hook for their expenses... now that their expenses are covered, do you think they will use less or more, especially when they have zero liability? The only other way is tiered care which ironically is what we had before and essentially the opposite of single payer..
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.
