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.
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.
Question here - would employers be paying a large part of that? Since technically, health insurance at that point would no longer be reliant upon employment.
I don't mind paying more but $400 a month would be a lot more!
Unless you live in a world made up of perpetual high growth, incurring debt will just put off the inevitable.
Obviously,states are large enough to run their own system, but would need to seriously increase their cash flow (triple it maybe?). Of course, then you run into that pesky problem of borders.
It is NOT obvious that states can run their own HC. In fact I for one KNOW that they cannot afford it without central supports. Just consider the costs of any states Medicare patients. Multiply their patient numbers by $10K, and you will quickly see that their HC budget will be on the order of their entire state budget.
Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Abe Lincoln had some better ideas:
This is what I was getting at earlier. There is an inherent flaw in this analysis because it's not really addressing the right question of our ever-increasing HC premiums...the cost side of HC is just not being addressed in any meaningful way.
I'll also say that if we did go down the UHC route (which I'm not necesarilly saying we "should" do), that doesn't mean innovation necesarilly dies. One could envision a system being possible where basic/tried-and-true medicines/treatments/procedures are covered for all, but experimental/new treatments are left out and available for some extra fee.
I realize that opens up a huge can of worms in regards to what is included/what is not included...but it does at least keep that part of the market satisfied.
Same here. Once the cost-side is addressed, there's no reason we can't have universal healthcare that covers standard treatment, while also allowing the existence of private hospitals that can offer more experimental/prompt treatment.
This is what I was getting at earlier. There is an inherent flaw in this analysis because it's not really addressing the right question of our ever-increasing HC premiums...the cost side of HC is just not being addressed in any meaningful way.
I'll also say that if we did go down the UHC route (which I'm not necesarilly saying we "should" do), that doesn't mean innovation necesarilly dies. One could envision a system being possible where basic/tried-and-true medicines/treatments/procedures are covered for all, but experimental/new treatments are left out and available for some extra fee.
I realize that opens up a huge can of worms in regards to what is included/what is not included...but it does at least keep that part of the market satisfied.
Third parties already limit what is covered. New stuff gets covered when proven useful.
To consider a coverage option that includes all future potential medical options would be too expensive and risky for any carrier. Aside from quakery, one is usually only going to look for other options if conventional ones fail. And that means that the patient is already very sick or in great pain, i.e. large medical risk, and that optional treatment very expensive. How could one reasonably price this?
Question here - would employers be paying a large part of that? Since technically, health insurance at that point would no longer be reliant upon employment.
I don't mind paying more but $400 a month would be a lot more!
In Ontario, Canada, a $100,000 income would pay about 30% in taxes/paycheck deductions including income taxes, social security, and healthcare taxes. In addition employers pay a 1-2% payroll tax depending on their size. Healthcare is not dependent on employment, all are covered.
Single payer reduces costs by removing the for-profit private insurance middle men trying to make a profit off sick people. Doctors can also reduce their overhead, billing staff and billing costs.
Doctors have different overheads to comply with gov't. Like the EMR that few docs like. Docs also don't want to be forced into participation with any HC plan. So in that vein as a doc and as a rich patient, I support a public option vs single payer, and let the private carriers and the docs do as they please.
Single payer reduces costs by removing the for-profit private insurance middle men trying to make a profit off sick people.
if that's the only way you can save money with a new system, I'd say that you are doomed.
I hate to be on the side of insurance companies, but they cost something on the order of 11% in overhead (which I'd say it's likely that any administrative overhead would be) and really aren't all that profitable a business.
Doctors have different overheads to comply with gov't. Like the EMR that few docs like. Docs also don't want to be forced into participation with any HC plan. So in that vein as a doc and as a rich patient, I support a public option vs single payer, and let the private carriers and the docs do as they please.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, you'd prefer there be a medicaid system for all and then allow a public option that people with means can afford to enhance their coverage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
CA -- 40,000,000 people = $400,000,000,000
US -- 320,000,000 people = $3,200,000,000,000
if that's the only way you can save money with a new system, I'd say that you are doomed.
I hate to be on the side of insurance companies, but they cost something on the order of 11% in overhead (which I'd say it's likely that any administrative overhead would be) and really aren't all that profitable a business.
Actually estimates put it at 20%, vs single digits for medicare
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.
