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.
It is NOT logically flawed, otherwise NO other country would have single payer, yet over 20 countries DO. So give it up
Even your above statement employs fatally flawed logic. What happens in other countries is irrelevant. In the USA, unlike all those other countries, businesses began offering un-taxed health insuranced as a fringe benefit to attract employees at the tail end of WWII and beyond, thereby inexorably tying health insurance to employment for the past 3.5 generations. Other countries did not start in the same place. So other country solutions are irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
And yes I was serious about no bill at the point of use. That's how it works in Canada, the UK, France etc. No deductibles and no co pays!
I realize you never studied economics, so I suggest a few free online courses in microeconomics might help you. Did you take calculus I & II? how about III?
The fundamental concept in microeconomics is we have unlimited wants & desires in a world of finite resources, and The Pricing System is the most efficient and effective way to allocate scarce resources while signaling demand to producers.
Medical care is a scarce resource. Everyone agrees about that.
Medical care, being scarce, WILL BE rationed. Everyone agrees about that too.
The only question is HOW scarce medical care WILL BE rationed. Here you have some choices:
1) based on prices, where people make rational decisions that "yeah, I have the sniffles, but I'm not going to the doctor because it isn't worth the price."
2) based on time, where if you want the otherwise "free" medical care, you you get in line with all the other people who want it, and the rationing mechanism is waiting in line. Here, you might say to yourself, "yeah, I have the sniffles, but I'm not going to the doctor because it isn't worth standing in line."
3) based on gatekeepers who evaluate you and tell you, "you have the sniffles. Go home, drink plenty of fluids, get rest, and if it doesn't clear up by itself in a week, come back." Note these gatekeepers can be medical professionals of some sort with some clinical expertise, or they could be faceless, nameless government bureaucrats who sit behind desks.
4) there are a few minor ways to improve the above, but that's it.
At the end of the day, note that ALL of the above entail you, FirebirdCamaro1220 (along with all of the rest of us), paying $11,000-ish per year to the Federal government so it can pay your medical bills. Do you have a spouse? That's $22,000-ish per year for the two of you.
Just showing up to consume medical care with no bill at the point of service delivery DOES NOT drive down your annual required contribution of $11,000-ish for yourself and another $11,000-ish for your spouse (if you have one).
You've already been debunked on that. I posted 2 different sources which specifically stated that the UK's NHS trusts were the problem behind UK's inadequate access to health care to the point that those with treatable eye disease were just simply left to go blind.
And I have responded to your claim 3 times with this and you continue to ignore it
Quote:
...1.2 million Americans experience unnecessary vision impairment from cataracts, including approximately 157,000 cases of blindness. To calculate the preventable burden, the committee assumed that 95 percent of all untreated cataracts cases were immediately treatable, at a one-time cost of $2,640 (persons ages 40 to 64) and $3,730 (persons over age 65). If all these individuals (prevalent cases) and all new (incident) cases were treated, about 300,000 QALYs would be saved, at an average net economic savings of more than $20 billion, including direct and indirect costs, over the next 10 years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK402366/#
We have far more untreated eye conditions yet you continue to yammer on about the UK
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
Even your above statement employs fatally flawed logic. What happens in other countries is irrelevant. In the USA, unlike all those other countries, businesses began offering un-taxed health insuranced as a fringe benefit to attract employees at the tail end of WWII and beyond, thereby inexorably tying health insurance to employment for the past 3.5 generations. Other countries did not start in the same place. So other country solutions are irrelevant.
I realize you never studied economics, so I suggest a few free online courses in microeconomics might help you. Did you take calculus I & II? how about III?
The fundamental concept in microeconomics is we have unlimited wants & desires in a world of finite resources, and The Pricing System is the most efficient and effective way to allocate scarce resources while signaling demand to producers.
Medical care is a scarce resource. Everyone agrees about that.
Medical care, being scarce, WILL BE rationed. Everyone agrees about that too.
The only question is HOW scarce medical care WILL BE rationed. Here you have some choices:
1) based on prices, where people make rational decisions that "yeah, I have the sniffles, but I'm not going to the doctor because it isn't worth the price."
2) based on time, where if you want the otherwise "free" medical care, you you get in line with all the other people who want it, and the rationing mechanism is waiting in line. Here, you might say to yourself, "yeah, I have the sniffles, but I'm not going to the doctor because it isn't worth standing in line."
3) based on gatekeepers who evaluate you and tell you, "you have the sniffles. Go home, drink plenty of fluids, get rest, and if it doesn't clear up by itself in a week, come back." Note these gatekeepers can be medical professionals of some sort with some clinical expertise, or they could be faceless, nameless government bureaucrats who sit behind desks.
4) there are a few minor ways to improve the above, but that's it.
At the end of the day, note that ALL of the above entail you, FirebirdCamaro1220 (along with all of the rest of us), paying $11,000-ish per year to the Federal government so it can pay your medical bills. Do you have a spouse? That's $22,000-ish per year for the two of you.
Just showing up to consume medical care with no bill at the point of service delivery DOES NOT drive down your annual required contribution of $11,000-ish for yourself and another $11,000-ish for your spouse (if you have one).
Single payer does not solve the problem, does it?
They do not make everyone pay the same amount to fund it, the wealthy contribute much more, and the middle and working class contribute less. The average Canadians annual contribution to their healthcare system is less than $6,000 American dollars per year, and they have better outcomes and patient satisfaction.
And note, that's the average. Some contribute little, while others contribute hundreds of thousands. All based on income and consumption (since their system is funded by progressive federal income tax and a national sales tax).
Everyone only pays the same $ amount here in the US, where it is treated as like buying a car or TV. That's not how it works with taxpayer funding
Let's talk about this "health care rationing" 196 people died in Texas due to dental infections most of which were preventable:
Quote:
Hospital admissions charges because of nontraumatic dental infections cost Texas $1.7 billion over 10 years, according to a new analysis of inpatient hospital data. These infections also cost nearly 200 Texans their lives.
The data come from a new report by the nonprofit Texas Health Institute, which sought to quantify some of the economic costs associated with a lack of dental care. The institute published the findings, including the staggering dollar amount, during a webinar on April 10.
"That is a lot of money," said Josefine Ortiz Wolfe, RDH, PhD, director of oral health for Texas Health Institute, during the webinar. "But when we think about the lives lost ...," Ortiz Wolfe paused, "196 Texans lost their lives -- 196 Texans over 10 years lost their lives to a mostly preventable disease. And this does not account for individuals who did not make it to a hospital setting."
"It reflects a systemic problem," Dr. Sanghavi said. "Something that could have been prevented to begin with."
Now is the time for Texas to be proactive, rather than reactive, about addressing this situation, Dr. Sanghavi added. Texas has a population of more than 28 million people and is one of the largest and fastest-growing U.S. states. However, it also does not provide adult dental Medicaid benefits and has the highest uninsured rate in the country, with 17% of Texans being uninsured, according to the report. https://www.drbicuspid.com/index.asp...&ItemId=324426
They do not make everyone pay the same amount to fund it, the wealthy contribute much more, and the middle and working class contribute less.
Now you're going back to "someone else payer." You want someone else to subsidize your consumption, and that's wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
The average Canadians
We've already discussed why the way other countries do things is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
Everyone only pays the same $ amount here in the US, where it is treated as like buying a car or TV. That's not how it works with taxpayer funding
It is federal government purchase of medical care on behalf of each person.
Let's say you and i are the same age and health and live in the same area. Let's say you buy $100,000 of life insurance from, say, State Farm, and I do as well. Let's say they are the same policies providing the same benefits and terms and conditions. Our insurance premiums for life insurance will be essentially the same.
Let's say my AGI is double yours. We still pay the same. It is wrong for State Farm to charge me more than you simply because I earn more than you.
Let's say the Federal Government gets into the life insurance business. We buy our life insurance from the federal government. Once again, you and I should pay the same for the same coverage, regardless of our respective incomes.
You just want someone else to subsidize your purchase of medical care.
We have that now, it's very expensive and it doesn't work, because people will always do what they want to do, unless they're compelled or forced at gun-point not to.
There are things you can do in relation to regulating the food and drink industry, encouraging more physical exercise and even universal healthcare systems require you work towards losing weight before undergoing certain surgeries.
We have far more untreated eye conditions yet you continue to yammer on about the UK
Everyone is supposed to be treated in the UK. National health care, don't you know. It ISN'T happening. People are going blind from treatable diseases because they're not getting access to their national health care. That's the point.
Honestly, it sounds like the UK's NHS is a mirror image of the US's Veterans Admin health care. Inefficient. Ineffective. Inaccessible.
Let's talk about this "health care rationing" 196 people died in Texas due to dental infections most of which were preventable
Does Texas have national health care? No. The UK does, and they still let people go blind from treatable diseases, anyway. Why aren't Brits able to access medical treatment from UK's NHS?
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.
