U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2019, 02:58 PM
 
8,803 posts, read 4,720,187 times
Reputation: 2030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
neither!


Medicare is 80% coverage!!!


You have no clue, why are you typing?
Yes that is true

This would be a Government run insurance plan

Or

Universal Healthcare with no direct out of pocket cost (Out of pocket cost with taxes)

So with Opition A it is a public buy in type plan

You pay .5% to 2% of your yearly income or tax return when you sign up for the plan

Then the rest is what I mentioned on this page or the previous page.

A three tier buy in opition where your monthly premium is determined via a percentage of your income.

The Hope's of this type plan would spur private insurance companies to be more competitive with pricing and offer more opitions regarding coverage.

Also maybe make HSA & health sharing plans more popular.

Only half the battle.

The other half is reforming the expiration of medical/pharmaceutical patents.

Increasing funds to private medical research facilities.

Tax reform on healthcare facilities.

Malpractice reform.

Increasing financial reimbursement for services to health facilities and organizations.

Cleaning up red tape and lessening FDA regulations on pharmaceuticals.

Making pharmaceuticals less expensive.

Also universal healthcare for those 75 and older.

Anyone under $15,000 for single tax filers would receive 90% coverage of cost of care for 4 year's. $30,000 for families for 4 year's as well.

100% coverage for those on permanent disability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2019, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,910 posts, read 14,232,069 times
Reputation: 16088
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
You pay .5% to 2% of your yearly income or tax return when you sign up for the plan
Then no one would get medical care.

Assuming every single worker pays the maximum 2%, it would only provide $139 Billion per year.

That leaves you with a $3.4 TRILLION short-fall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
The Hope's of this type plan would spur private insurance companies to be more competitive with pricing and offer more opitions regarding coverage.
Your plan fails because you're incapable of understanding the problem.

Repeat after me: It is the cost of medical care that determines the cost of health plan coverage.

It is impossible to reduce the cost of health plan coverage without first reducing the cost of medical care.

When you reduce the cost of medical care, then that reduces the cost of health insurance.

The cost of health insurance is a reflection of the cost of medical care.

Health insurance does not dictate the price of medical care.

The cost of medical care dictates the price of insurance.

I can state it another dozen different ways if it will help your understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
The other half is reforming the expiration of medical/pharmaceutical patents.
Then you reduce the incentive to create new drugs.

Pharmaceutical drugs represent about 11% of the total cost of healthcare spending.

That's nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Increasing funds to private medical research facilities.
Using your paltry 2% tax that will only generate $139 Billion per year?

That's even less money for medical services.

You really know how to screw people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Tax reform on healthcare facilities.
Um, they're non-profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Malpractice reform.
Malpractice does not need to be reformed, and the impact is less than 0.1% on the cost of healthcare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Increasing financial reimbursement for services to health facilities and organizations.
With your paltry 2% tax that only generates $139 Billion per year?

Good luck with that. You need to be breaking up the monopolistic hospital cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices high above market rates and not reward them with even more money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Cleaning up red tape and lessening FDA regulations on pharmaceuticals.
Regulations need to be strengthened, not lessened.

Pharmaceutical companies need to be compelled to publish every study conducted on a drug, and not allowed to cherry-pick which studies they like to introduce as evidence.

Keep hallucinating. It makes for good fun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 04:58 PM
 
8,803 posts, read 4,720,187 times
Reputation: 2030
[quote=Mircea;55522631]Then no one would get medical care.

Assuming every single worker pays the maximum 2%, it would only provide $139 Billion per year.

That leaves you with a $3.4 TRILLION short-fall.



Your plan fails because you're incapable of understanding the problem.

To jump start the program U.S. would probably have to incur some debt. With the tax and premiums eventually pay for the program for itself. Also Medicaid funding would also contribute to this program as well.

Repeat after me: It is the cost of medical care that determines the cost of health plan coverage.

It is impossible to reduce the cost of health plan coverage without first reducing the cost of medical care.

When you reduce the cost of medical care, then that reduces the cost of health insurance.

The cost of health insurance is a reflection of the cost of medical care.

Health insurance does not dictate the price of medical care.

The cost of medical care dictates the price of insurance.

I can state it another dozen different ways if it will help your understanding.


That is not 100% true depending on insurance will determine how much is covered. This plan would take the total cost of care pay whichever tier the individual has. So say they have the 80%...80% of that visit will be covered.



Then you reduce the incentive to create new drugs.

Pharmaceutical drugs represent about 11% of the total cost of healthcare spending.

That's nothing.

Not 100% true. Pharmaceutical drugs are a monopoly and a huge barrier for individuals to receive treatment. We need to bust up large pharmaceutical companies and focus on the little guys. Also need to bust up monopolies by shortening the life span of patents. State buy in of medications to deliver low cost to no cost medications. Need to reduce FDA pharmaceutical regulations to allow growth of pharmaceuticals in the U.S.

Using your paltry 2% tax that will only generate $139 Billion per year?

That's even less money for medical services.

You really know how to screw people.



Um, they're non-profits. This is more a State thing. States do tax hospitals and not use Medicaid/Medicare grants to reimburse hospitals which causes cost of care to rise.



Malpractice does not need to be reformed, and the impact is less than 0.1% on the cost of healthcare.

Malpractice is another huge issue for cost of care increases in healthcare. Mainly for insurance cost for malpractice. That's why tort reform is one solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 05:35 PM
 
359 posts, read 163,647 times
Reputation: 312
Drug patents are interesting. Their length can be deceiving. The drug is patented at discovery. The clock is ticking while they go through testing. The actual patent is 20 years in length. On average, half is used up during testing. They can get extensions if they do testing for pediatrics and some other things per law. They get multiple patents in the hope it will extend exclusivity. This leads to lawsuits and eventually one patent is chosen to be the patent. There is a movement that all approved drugs will have at least 10 years of exclusivity, in the hope that will clean up all the lawsuits and issues regarding patent expiration.



If you want to focus on decreasing health care costs, than you need to focus on keeping people out of the hospital.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 05:39 PM
 
6,329 posts, read 3,406,374 times
Reputation: 3493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post

The risk corridor slush fund was supposed to be paid for by the "winning" insurance companies to offset the losses to the "losing" ones, but nobody was winning,s o Obama wanted to use taxpayer funding to pay for the risk corridor funding, and Rubio said nope, follow the law as written. No can do, and that was in mid-late 2015, prior to Trump being elected.
How interesting you mention that no one was winning. Sounds like the signature legislation of BO didn't turn out as we were told.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 05:52 PM
 
6,329 posts, read 3,406,374 times
Reputation: 3493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
President Trump did no such thing. Sen Rubio (R-FL) did in 2015, and all he had to do was follow the law of ObamaCare as written.

.
I believe President Trump refused to fund the subsidies, quite possibly continuing Sen Rubio's work. I guess we can blame the Senator for BO's stealing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,927 posts, read 6,865,187 times
Reputation: 5856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird View Post
How interesting you mention that no one was winning. Sounds like the signature legislation of BO didn't turn out as we were told.
The 40 million newly insured won, that was the point
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 10:18 AM
 
6,329 posts, read 3,406,374 times
Reputation: 3493
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
The 40 million newly insured won, that was the point
Will you be assisting in paying the bills for this victory?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:05 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,326 posts, read 14,041,763 times
Reputation: 6505
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post


That is not 100% true depending on insurance will determine how much is covered. This plan would take the total cost of care pay whichever tier the individual has. So say they have the 80%...80% of that visit will be covered.


.
the problem is not the cost of insurance...but the cost of care




wow, you really are bought and paid for , aren't you

number of americans in full pledged nursing homes: 2.5 million...... the average cost Adult Day Health Care,.20,000 per year......assisted living facility 45,000 per year....nursing home (semi-private room),.85,000 per year.......nursing home (private room),.96,000
number of americans in all levels of nursing homes and assisted living....12 million (Annually 11,995,100 people receive support from the 5 main long-term care service; home health agencies (5,742,500), nursing homes (2,383,700), hospices (1,544,500), residential care communities (913,300) and adult day service centers (373,200)...............total cost of long term care 590 billion annually...and going up every year https://www.genworth.com/corporate/a...t-of-care.html

will nursing homes be covered under a singlepayer...or would that massive expense be classified as ''not covered''?? or is that nearly trillion dollar bill right back on the peoples back??


----------------------------
More than 26 million Americans have significant vision loss.((a total of 85 million Americans have potentially blinding eye diseases. )) (((hmmm more than 26 million americans are blind or going blind.....that's more than Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria COMBINED TOTAL population....)))......The cost of vision loss, including direct costs and lost productivity, is estimated to exceed $141 billion in 2017


----------------------------

number of americans with heart disease: 29.2 million and of those..((Number of visits with heart disease as primary diagnosis: 17 million ))((Number of discharges with heart disease as first-listed diagnosis: 4.9 million)).....900,000 people in the USA die from heart disease annually....the cost 690 billion annually
will cardiac care be covered under a singlepayer...or would that massive expense be classified as ''not covered'' or "sorry you smoke, or eat too much" not covered?? that is the cost of CARE... again has nothing to do with insurance


---------------------------------

number of americans with diabetes below the age of 60: 31 million....total cost 395 billion per year, and rising.....
will the ''government single-payer'' say.... nope, you got diabetes, because you are FAT, sorry not covered??


---------------------------------------------------------------------


Obesity rates among ALL OECD nations increased in recent years, with the highest rate in the U.S. at 37.3% -- which means one in 3 Americans is by definition obese.----366 billion per year
year
New Data Shows Obesity Costs Will Grow to $444 Billion by 2020 | Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease



-----------------------------------------------------
number of americans getting cancer (new cases) per year 1.9 million for a total of 25 million people being treated (fighting) each year...each year at least 570,000 die from cancer....the cost is over 250 billion. and expected to be 290 billion by 2020


---------------------------------------------



number of americans with asthma: 27 million....Each day 11 Americans die from asthma.......annual costs 76 billion per yearand increasing


that's over 130 million people with serious health risks..while some may overlap..its still a good one third of the country


======================================
SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT...........................
=========================



so what YOU are saying is we should FORCE doctors and nurse to work for minimum wage. and have offices in huts


when you pay that doctor $100 ,, its not 100 dollars going into his pocket...there are lots of other COSTS


how
are you going to control the cost of medical equipment(mri or x-ray machines, etc)??????most xray machines are made in and imported from Denmark


how are you going to control the rising property tax/rent/mortgage that doctors face????? will the government LOWER property taxes for doctors offices.. the property taxes that fund our schools which say they dont have enough money????

think about that one for a second.... let it sink in....


how are you going to control the cost of supplies(gauze, plaster, silk, rubber, polystyrene( a oil product)?????......especially some supplies that aren't even American, because the globalist liberals have outsourced almost all manufacturing!!!


how are you going to control the cost of the people salaries???? these people with a specialty of medicine...... a maximum wage ??? yeah that's a perfect socialist idea a max wage... bet that will fly



how are you, going to control the employment costs for Doctors, nurses, technicians, hospital food operators, hospital linen cleaning service, custodial services, medical transcribers????.....
...are you going to 'nationalize' every profession that is even remotely connected to medicine????
yeah that's the idea...'nationalize' every profession connected to medicine, then install a max wage....



how are they going to control malpractice INSURANCE COSTS????? . well Shakespeare did say "kill all the lawyers"



how are you going to control the cost of the rising electric bills the doctors/hospitals are facing????
for example the average hospital uses a lot of electricity...about 450,000 a month...that's over 5 million dollars in electric costs yearly, and in most case to a town government as many utility companies are municipals to the town/city.....
..........you are not likely to cut that piece of overhead.....
... now had the so environmentally friendly liberals actually said back during the stimulus bill to ''give'' solar power to every household, you might have a chance of a trillion well spent... but liberals showed they dont really care about the environment or helping americans
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,910 posts, read 14,232,069 times
Reputation: 16088
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
To jump start the program U.S. would probably have to incur some debt. With the tax and premiums eventually pay for the program for itself. Also Medicaid funding would also contribute to this program as well.
$139 Billion per year will not pay for anything unless your goal is to amass $300 TRILLION in debt.

To be fair, I calculated the amount of revenues based on Social Security wages, but IRS Statistics of Income show the revenues would be $204 Billion per year.

That leaves you with a $3.3 TRILLION annual short-fall.

You cannot possibly sustain the claim that it will pay for itself, because no set of facts supports that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
That is not 100% true..
Wrong, it's 100% true.

Do you seriously believe your annual auto premium is the same for a $175,000 car as it is for an $18,000 car?

Someone with a $149,000 three-bedroom ranch pays the same home-owner's insurance as someone with a $1.5 Million mansion?

Wrong.

And someone with renter's insurance on a 1-bedroom apartment pays the same as them?

Wrong.

If all 50 States repealed the laws granting hospitals monopoly status, the cost of medical care would drop 30%-60% in a heartbeat.

In turn, the cost of health insurance would drop 30%-60%.

If you were like Europe, then you'd abandon the Hospital Model in favor of the Clinic Model or Polyclinic Model and medical costs would drop another 10%-30%.

That reduces health insurance another 10%-30%,

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Not 100% true. Pharmaceutical drugs are a monopoly...
False. They're not a monopoly and you can't prove it.

To the extent they might be, your entire premise is hypocritical, because you rail against pharmaceutical companies for being monopolies but are willing to tolerate hospital monopolies that bill $80,000 for services that really only cost $5,000 and then settle with insurance companies for $12,000 and still make a $7,000 profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
This is more a State thing. States do tax hospitals and not use Medicaid/Medicare grants to reimburse hospitals which causes cost of care to rise.
Wrong again. Non-profits are not taxed nor do they pay taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Malpractice is another huge issue...
No, it isn't and you can't prove it. You did buy into the propaganda like a sucker.

The only thing you'll do is kill and maim people.

Just to prove how wrong you really are, in 2001 there were a little over 16,000 malpractice claims.

By 2016, there were less than 8,500.

That's proof medical malpractice works. Almost 8,000 fewer Americans were killed or maimed, because medical malpractice works. It forces doctors to be vigilant and exercise due caution and provide an higher standard of care to patients.

Not only did claims decrease, but the amount paid dropped about 23%, so the mistakes are not as severe.

So, if a hospital mistakenly amputated one of your limbs, then you won't sue and you'll be happy with $0 in compensation, right?

And, don't say hospitals don't mistakenly amputate limbs, because it's documented they have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top