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.
Public payer (Medicare) is WHY medical practices have gone concierge (annual membership-fee based). Medicare's reimbursements are inadequate, and medical practices are making up for that with an annual concierge (membership) fee for access to appointments with the doctors in their practice.
It could be one reason. If the primary care docs can do less work, see and be responsible for fewer patients, and make more money with Concierge, then it will happen. Big cities, big demand and not enough primary docs, and Concierge happens.
But if the doc in the small town understands the system, and can control overheads, he or she can make money on Medicare.
Not really. Debt-to-GDP declines when the deficit is lower than nominal GDP growth so deficit spending does not necessarily mean more unsustainable debt.
Are you nuts? Do you know how much more we could help US citizens in need if $433 billion/year of tax revenue wasn't diverted to service the national debt?
Like I said, let's implement a 25% VAT tax, like many European and Scandinavian countries have. That will take the pressure off the national debt and its carrying costs. At the current annual US consumer spending level of $11.7 trillion, that will raise $2.95 trillion in tax revenue. Enough, currently, to pay for 'Medicare for All.'
It could be one reason. If the primary care docs can do less work, see and be responsible for fewer patients, and make more money with Concierge, then it will happen. Big cities, big demand and not enough primary docs, and Concierge happens.
But if the doc in the small town understands the system, and can control overheads, he or she can make money on Medicare.
Oh, good grief, no. My Mom and Step-Dad retired to Hilton Head. Popular retirement destination. Small town. The medical practices are overwhelmingly going membership (annual concierge fee) only, for Medicare patients.
Not really. We already have single payer in America. Its called Medicare. Same with public schools and public roads, benefiting people who work and those who are disabled and despised.
Those who are incapable of work I have no problem helping.
The fact is 90% of those who have pre-existing conditions can get insurance the same way I do, through a job.
Are you nuts? Do you know how much more we could help US citizens in need if $433 billion/year of tax revenue wasn't diverted to service the national debt?
I merely point out that its not correct that deficit spending is unsustainable and the debt-to-GDP ratio increases as a result. Deficit spending is common for all countries. As long as the nominal GDP growth is higher than the deficit, the debt-to-GDP does not increase and the debt does not become more unsustainable.
No country has no national debt to service. This obsession with the national debt is meaningless and a red herring in this discussion anyway.
$750 billion in extra taxes are likely needed under a Medicare-for-all system to fund 80% of a $2.8 trillion health care system (Germany publicly funds 77% and the UK 83%) and thats a conservative estimate as it assumes 15.5% of GDP in total health care spending, far higher than the 11% in Germany and 9% in UK.
If a 5% national VAT generates half of the needed funds, a 3% employer payroll tax and 1% employee payroll tax should be enough to fund Medicare-for-all. Of course, we can also do some cutting to lower this, like the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex as someone here pointed out.
Those who are incapable of work I have no problem helping.
The fact is 90% of those who have pre-existing conditions can get insurance the same way I do, through a job.
Or perhaps if we simply insured 100% of the pop, and your employer just paid in for you, we might find a lot more jobs appear as the local plumber can now offer a part time assistant position, or that store could afford to open longer. Or your employer might get you a bigger team.
You might find fewer families go into bankruptcy when mom or dad gets cancer, thus the neighborhood does better , the kids don't have to change schools, the family remains intact, secure.
And secure kids are more likely to stay in school, get real jobs and buy homes.
Healthcare insurance is really about healthcare security and shifting the burden from employer to state results people being covered from conception to grave. That allows a lot more freedom to take jobs , start businesses and change jobs too.
Ask yourself, are you really so sure that you will ALWAYS have a job, that your kids, your sister her husband and his dad will always have jobs?
Are you really that sure? So sure you would rather risk your home or see your relations in the street because you object to a fraction of a 1% of our federal dollars going to "lazy" people.
(keep in mind ACA federal cost is about 1% and the percentage of those recieving who are "lazy" is clearly only a fraction of that number...)
I merely point out that its not correct that deficit spending is unsustainable and the debt-to-GDP ratio increases as a result. Deficit spending is common for all countries. As long as the nominal GDP growth is higher than the deficit, the debt-to-GDP does not increase and the debt does not become more unsustainable.
No country has no national debt to service. This obsession with the national debt is meaningless and a red herring in this discussion anyway.
$750 billion in extra taxes are likely needed under a Medicare-for-all system to fund 80% of a $2.8 trillion health care system (Germany publicly funds 77% and the UK 83%) and thats a conservative estimate as it assumes 15.5% of GDP in total health care spending, far higher than the 11% in Germany and 9% in UK.
If a 5% national VAT generates half of the needed funds, a 3% employer payroll tax and 1% employee payroll tax should be enough to fund Medicare-for-all. Of course, we can also do some cutting to lower this, like the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex as someone here pointed out.
Blah, blah, blah... just implement a 25% VAT tax like European and Scandinavian countries have, and the subsequent tax revenue will fund the 'Medicare for All' you want.
The simple answer is- because too many people in high places, who make too much money, simply don't want it to happen, so it won't. In America especially, those with the gold make the rules, then they distract the voting public by focusing on moral , emotional issues, hoping you'll all forget about health care
The simple answer is- because too many people in high places, who make too much money, simply don't want it to happen, so it won't. In America especially, those with the gold make the rules, then they distract the voting public by focusing on moral , emotional issues, hoping you'll all forget about health care
You know the truth of it......... don't look here at health care, look over there........ Russia, Syria, Korea. Distraction, and fear mongering.
Ya know they have death panels in England. We don't need us no socialized medicine..........
My old dad used to say something that remains in my memory. 'The funny thing about doing stuff that helps people is, there's never any money. But, boy, start a war, and there's plenty of money.'
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.
