Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 05-25-2017, 11:33 AM
 
882 posts, read 688,244 times
Reputation: 905

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
It's better to look at real world examples than right wing spin on a study. Yes, taxes will go up but are offset by a decline or elimination of private insurance premiums. I'd rather pay $500 (or pick your own $x) in taxes for guaranteed coverage than pay $500 for insurance that has limitations, denials, co-pays, annual deductibles, and life-time ceilings.

In Ontario, Canada, residents pay about 30% income tax (federal and provincial) including social security and healthcare taxes. This is about the same % that Americans pay on income taxes plus premiums. (not even accounting for the additional annual deductibles and co-pays in the US).
CA is the real world (and the world that I live in). When any of you can refute the findings of the report, do let me know. Hockey, feel free to direct your questions to the authors of the report.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:37 AM
 
152 posts, read 185,998 times
Reputation: 160
Health care is expensive. Those younger, healthier folks who want cheap health insurance premiums are simply postponing the astronomic costs they will incur as they age and/or contract chronic illnesses. 70% of people in the US die from chronic illnesses and everyone, except the few who die from accidents or homicides, gets old. Yeah, you may not get a lot of use out of health insurance when you're young, but you will get a ton of use out of it later in life when you need it most and can least afford it.

Under the Trump care plan, when you reach age 60, an individual private healthcare plan with a $7000 a year deductible will likely cost you well over $2,000 or more a month in premiums. So, premiums and deductible combined will cost you $19,000 a year or more.

What the Republicans are offering you may leave you more beer money when you're young and healthy, but later in life, you and/or your spouse will most likely not be able to afford healthcare insurance (nor healthcare).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:39 AM
 
Location: London
12,275 posts, read 7,132,426 times
Reputation: 13661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
At some point, perhaps they'll be honest and finally admit that its not equitable and simply a pipe dream. Even the Liberals in California can't make it work using math. It will simply bankrupt the middle class. There's no reason to even debate it anymore.

California proves single-payer health care is too expensive
I guess the USA is the most incompetent country in the developed world then, because all the other countries have managed to get it working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:42 AM
 
46,943 posts, read 25,960,211 times
Reputation: 29434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptical View Post
Health care is expensive. Those younger, healthier folks who want cheap health insurance premiums are simply postponing the astronomic costs they will incur as they age and/or contract chronic illnesses.
What has future Republican me done for current Republican me? Nothing!

Quote:
What the Republicans are offering you may leave you more beer money when you're young and healthy, but later in life, you and/or your spouse will most likely not be able to afford healthcare insurance (nor healthcare).
Unless you're independently wealthy, and as the Republicans have convinced a good chunk of their electorate that they're merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires, well... It's a pretty impressive con.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:43 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,733 posts, read 4,685,750 times
Reputation: 12791
Single Payer only works if taxes are cranked up to ridiculous levels to pay for it. How'd you like to pay a 70% tax rate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:44 AM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,904,610 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
CA is the real world (and the world that I live in). When any of you can refute the findings of the report, do let me know. Hockey, feel free to direct your questions to the authors of the report.
My questions were addressed to you because you are the one that chose this thread title (and used the words "the answer").


As I mentioned, nothing will work unless the cost side is addressed. The cost of healthcare is simply too expensive in this country, and that is going to affect any solution that is chosen (whether it is UHC, the ACA, the AHCA, or the system we used to have).

One reason UHC "works" in other places is because they aggressively address those costs. I'm not saying we "should" move to a UHC - but I don't think this study is fairly addressing the question because we can't assess any of this without controlling costs (which are not being controlled in the US' HC system).


I work at a Biotech company, and am cheering against my own best interests in this respect...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,457,152 times
Reputation: 8599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
CA is the real world (and the world that I live in). When any of you can refute the findings of the report, do let me know. Hockey, feel free to direct your questions to the authors of the report.
Read the report not the right wing spin. The report says that universal heath care would cost about $200 billion per year. Yes, taxes would go up but are offset by no longer paying private insurance premiums.

$200 billion / 40 million population is $5,000/year or $400/month per person. With employers paying a large part of that, as they do today, the monthly cost to workers is even lower. This compares favorably to private insurance premiums, plus co-pays, plus annual deductibles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:45 AM
 
12,905 posts, read 15,648,952 times
Reputation: 9394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
I guess the USA is the most incompetent country in the developed world then, because all the other countries have managed to get it working.
Not incompetent; mercenary. We put our corporations and their profits ahead of our citizens.

A poster upthread stated that no system is going to work because our costs are so out of control--costs that other countries have regulated. Until we do that, yes, it won't work.

But it won't be done because our President and members of Congress side with the industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:45 AM
 
4,491 posts, read 2,224,014 times
Reputation: 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
CA is the real world (and the world that I live in). When any of you can refute the findings of the report, do let me know. Hockey, feel free to direct your questions to the authors of the report.
California is not the only example though. I think that's more the point you're missing. It's like seeing on typo and assuming every word is spelled wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 11:46 AM
 
345 posts, read 249,939 times
Reputation: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post

A last point I'll mention is that regardless of the solution chosen, nothing will work unless the cost side of healthcare in the US is addressed. Our healthcare is too expensive, especially when juxtaposed against the costs in other countries for the same treatments/medicines/procedures.
And there you have it, although you can argue the only way to force down health costs is by providing a monopsony.

For various reasons, I just can't see a proper free market ever opening up in healthcare.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top