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.
so many assumptions. You must not pay much attention to my elaborate posting history on this section on the forum.
Paying twice for health care coverage is not in my best interest. I am content with paying once for my current level of care.
I never understood the inclination to take from one to give to another.
I encourage you to donate your time working at a free clinic to help those yourself instead of taking even more money from me to help them. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.
Oh, I'm quite familiar with your line of thought. For instance, you believe that helping those in need and supporting the society you live in is something that other people should do, not you.
to cover 320 million with an 80/20 government insurance (medicare for all) would have a yearly cost of about 3 trillion
to cover 320 million people with 100% coverage...would have a yearly cost of about 6 trillion
there are only 150 million tax filers, of which less than 80 million have a positive tax liability...(as per the IRS 47% if filers have a zero to negative tax liability)
3 trillion divided by 80 million is 26k
6 trillion divided by 80 million is 52k
the math is true
Math works, if you use correct numbers, but if you pull numbers out of your rear (like you did), then the results are nonsense. You doubled the total cost HC cost in US. You also pretend 80 million wage earners are the only source of tax revenue. Math works, but your math is designed to deceive. Our system is way overpriced already, and the cost needs to be brought down no matter what kind of system we will have in the future. The total cost can be brought down from $10K per person to about $6K.
Math works, if you use correct numbers, but if you pull numbers out of your rear (like you did), then the results are nonsense. You doubled the total cost HC cost in US. You also pretend 80 million wage earners are the only source of tax revenue. Math works, but your math is designed to deceive. Our system is way overpriced already, and the cost needs to be brought down no matter what kind of system we will have in the future. The total cost can be brought down from $10K per person to about $6K.
ok...lets run with that number
6k per person
6k times 320 million is 1,920,000,000,000( 1.9 trillion)
that also saying that the ONLY cost would be 6k per person... so you would be LIMITED to 6k of care
the MAIN source of us revenue is income tax
the fact is less than 80 million people pay taxes... and the COST of 1.9 trillion divide by 80 million still works out to about 24k per taxpayer
6k times 320 million is 1,920,000,000,000( 1.9 trillion)
that also saying that the ONLY cost would be 6k per person... so you would be LIMITED to 6k of care
the MAIN source of us revenue is income tax
the fact is less than 80 million people pay taxes... and the COST of 1.9 trillion divide by 80 million still works out to about 24k per taxpayer
ONTOP of all their other costs
Don't be silly. I don't think I've incurred $6k of medical expenses in a year in my whole life. The $6000 would be the cost spread out among the entire population. Get it? Most people would incur perhaps less than $500 of health care services a year (annual check up, plus a visit or 2 when sick) A few people get cancer, their bill might be a million.
The idea of UHC is to cut out the middlemen (insurance companies) and to eliminate for-profit hospitals, since it's a well-known fact they charge way, way more than what it actually costs to deliver medical care.
And all this talk of UHC systems going bankrupt around the world is bunk - it's just a matter of appropriating the proper level of funding to support these systems. People have to collectively decide how much tax they're willing to pay versus the quality of health care they'd like to receive. Sometimes this process is a bit messy, but I'd sure as heck would prefer that than the mess we have here in the US.
Don't be silly. I don't think I've incurred $6k of medical expenses in a year in my whole life. The $6000 would be the cost spread out among the entire population. Get it? Most people would incur perhaps less than $500 of health care services a year (annual check up, plus a visit or 2 when sick) A few people get cancer, their bill might be a million.
The idea of UHC is to cut out the middlemen (insurance companies) and to eliminate for-profit hospitals, since it's a well-known fact they charge way, way more than what it actually costs to deliver medical care.
And all this talk of UHC systems going bankrupt around the world is bunk - it's just a matter of appropriating the proper level of funding to support these systems. People have to collectively decide how much tax they're willing to pay versus the quality of health care they'd like to receive. Sometimes this process is a bit messy, but I'd sure as heck would prefer that than the mess we have here in the US.
most people????
I only go to the doctor once a year...but MILLIONs have serious illness
and lets look at the some other numbers
the ACTUAL cost just to help americans with Alzheimer's(forgive my spelling) is over 200 billion every year
and let's not forget: Obesity rates among OECD nations increased in recent years, with the highest rate in the U.S. at 34.3% -- which means one in 3 Americans is by definition obese.
number of americans getting cancer (new cases) per year 1.8 million for a total of 19 million people being treated (fighting) each year...each year at least 570,000 die from cancer
number of americans with heart disease: 26.2 million and of those..((Number of visits with heart disease as primary diagnosis: 16 million ))((Number of discharges with heart disease as first-listed diagnosis: 4.2 million))
number of americans in nursing homes: 2 million
More than 25 million Americans have significant vision loss.
(((hmmm more than 25 million americans are blind or going blind.....that's more than Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria COMBINED TOTAL population....)))
number of americans with diabetes: 26 million
number of americans with asthma: 20 million....Each day 11 Americans die from asthma.
while some of those may overlap...look at those numbers 19,26,25,26,20...that's 116 million with MAJOR health problem,,costly problems......we will ALWAYS be the largest spender in the world...we have the 3rd highest population in the world (next to china and India) and we have more people (total, not a percentage) with major problems than any other country in Europe.....I just showed you at least 116 million people with cancer, heart, blindness, diabetes, asthma.......that's more than France and great Britain COMBINED for their total populations.
6k times 320 million is 1,920,000,000,000( 1.9 trillion)
that also saying that the ONLY cost would be 6k per person... so you would be LIMITED to 6k of care
the MAIN source of us revenue is income tax
the fact is less than 80 million people pay taxes... and the COST of 1.9 trillion divide by 80 million still works out to about 24k per taxpayer
ONTOP of all their other costs
That sounds reasonable, although 6k is low.
Income and payroll taxes are 82% of government inflow, so you can argue that the number might be .82 * 24k,
or roughly 20k per taxpayer. It would be unevenly applied of course.
Since that sum is already being spent, what would happen (hopefully) is that the money will be saved from elsewhere. For instance, you'd *think* that companies would boost everyone's salary by the cost of supplied health insurance, which would then go to the taxman.
In terms of the psychology of the situation, what I've noticed is that most people on the single payer side seem to like the idea of 100% paid for medical care with no (or very low) visible cost to them. I can't blame them. That's not 100% fair, but it's an attitude I've run into quite frequently.
Forecasts for a registered nurse shortage range from 400,000 to more than 1 million.
There is a global shortage of RNs and physicians.
In the US , it's regional and varies by specialization.
Reportedly, the nursing shortage is primarily due to a lack of teaching faculty. Most RNs qualified to teach don't want to take a significant salary cut to enter academia. Hospitals have reacted by breaking down job functions by skill level and hiring Medical Techs to perform most of the common functions associated with nursing.
Slots in medical schools are limited to ensure that there is an imbalance. Primary Care Physicians are increasingly employing Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to handle routine care, the lion's share of their business. Oncologists increasingly rely on Physician Assistants to execute treatment plans that used to be performed by MDs.
Over time, it's likely that more educated albeit lower skilled workers will be used to perform more routine functions.
Interestingly, despite the shortage, a small percentage of MDs continue to pursue seemingly more lucrative pain management, Suboxone disbursement and diet programs. I am talking about MDs who operate multiple clinics or use motel rooms to prescribe drugs to cash patients. In some geographical areas, they use highly visible billboards to advertise their services.
When comparing fees across countries it's not clear to me if the fees reported for the US are what's billed to insurers or what insurers actually pay PPO providers. While a hospital might bill $15 for an asprin, insurers are not paying $15.
What I would like to see is studies showing exactly how the provider system differs. There's so much fascination with payment/back office systems that the pointy end of the spear seems to get ignored.
Health care, of course, could grow to 100% of GDP if allowed. How it's limited is an interesting issue.
90% of doctors and clinics are not charging that.....those 'type' of charges are usually isolated to hospitals
people ADVOCATING for singlepayer...NEVER take into the FACT that medicine and medical care COSTS MONEY...they think they can DIRECT the cost down..in an ever EXPANDING realm
things are expensive
for example the average hospital uses a lot of electricity...about 400,000 a month...thats 5 million dollars in electric costs yearly.....you are not going to cut that piece of overhead with singlepayer
hospials also have a very high overhead in laundry, sanitation, cleaning (too include keeping floors highly shined(sealed), food service, and personnel
when you go to the local doctor and pay him/her 100..its not 100 going into their pocket
they have lots of overhead costs:
rent/lease/mortgage
property taxes
electric costs
equipment costs(and many pieces of equipment are not even made here)
cleaning costs
supply costs
personnel costs
etc
Forecasts for a registered nurse shortage range from 400,000 to more than 1 million.
Sigh! All those costs are found in UHC countries as well. Re: $500 tylenol, I think that's an exaggeration (though maybe not) but you're right, that doesn't happen in offices. Heck, we keep tylenol and ibuprofen around to give patients who come in with fever if they want. (Many parents bring the kid in with fever to "prove" s/he really has a fever, although we do not doubt parents when they report it and the child is afebrile when they arrive.) We do not add a charge for that; it's part of our office supplies. Ditto Benadryl.
There is no nurse shortage; all that stuff is "projected" and it hasn't happened yet. For some reason, the media thought all us old bats were going to retire at oh, 60 or 62 when our hubbies who are often a few years older retired. Hasn't happened. The recession happened instead. Nurses actually came out of retirement when their husbands got laid off, or upped their hours if already employed. Here's an article from the trenches:
"In a surprising about-face, the HRSA recently revised its projections and now predicts a nursing surplus of 340,000 nurses in excess of demand by 2025, a radically different projection than those made in years past. It has the potential to change the landscape of healthcare staffing if it turns out to be true." - See more at: No more nurse shortage? Surplus projected for 2025
I don't know anything about an impending doctor shortage. I do know all this foolishness about doctors "planning" to retire, or otherwise leave the practice of medicine due to the ACA hasn't happened yet, 5 years into the ACA.
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.
