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.
It's never been cheap! But the current costs are exponentially off the scale and only partially due to new and highly technical HC.
As far as "more central money creation", the way it used to work is now no longer politically correct, as shown by the existence of this thread. It used to be that drug companies and medical providers had R&D funded principally by wall street investors. Promising companies had their stock prices go up, as it should be, the money was used to develop new products, as it should be, those products and services were then introduced to the public at reasonable prices.
But today's liberals, including the OP, has big problems with investors making any money at all.
Add to that all the corruption that has creeped in through lawmakers, drug companies, insurance companies, wall street, lobbyists, media, and well, you have insurance policies that are 50% of a person's income and rising.
I agree that is whacked and needs fixing, but ANYTIME I have seen the government step in to handle something like this it has ALWAYS turned into a quagmire, because turning it over to the government doesn't address the main underlying problem: Corruption.
It's true that I don't think investors in insurance companies need to be taking profit from our healthcare system. The reason for this is that they add no value to the patient's care. It's pure administrative overhead and profit taking with no value added.
Should Toshiba make money for developing cutting edge MRI machines? Yes. Should surgeons and doctors and nurses make excellent compensation? Yes. Should drug companies be rewarded in a reasonable way without screwing the US for everyone else's benefit? Yes.
Wall Street does not belong in healthcare. Let them do real estate, technology, retail, textiles, entertainment, life and car insurance, plastic surgery, cosmetics, etc. etc.
Just a reminder: Medicare is the most efficient insurance out there and has the lowest overhead. If people were allowed to just pay their premiums into that system instead of to Wall Street an immediate savings of 30% would be realized.
It's true that I don't think investors in insurance companies need to be taking profit from our healthcare system. The reason for this is that they add no value to the patient's care. It's pure administrative overhead and profit taking with no value added.
Okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
Just a reminder: Medicare is the most efficient insurance out there and has the lowest overhead.
No, that's not true at all. It does not include the costs of the Treasury Department which manages the Trust Fund. Nor does it include the costs of the IRS who monitor and enforce tax collection. Nor does it include the costs of GAO or Inspector General who audit the Center for Medicare & Medicaid.
Then there's the issue of administrative costs that Medicare shifts to the providers of care, dumping responsibilities upon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
If people were allowed to just pay their premiums into that system instead of to Wall Street an immediate savings of 30% would be realized.
That's not necessarily true.
In order to cover solely the cost of medical care, would require a 25.6% HI (Medicare) Payroll Tax, which would be 12.8% for employers and employees.
If your household income is $50,000/annually, then your cost would be $6,400/annually, which may be more or less than you're currently paying.
Someone earning $100,000 would pay $12,800/per year, which again may be more or less than they are currently spending.
Single payer might cost less per patient encounter. But we will see many more encounters.
Supply will remain constant, since the number of doctors in any given population is finite.
Government may attempt to lower qualifications, to increase the number of doctors, but that would result in higher death and injury rates, increasing the costs of medical care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
Most of the people in DC including lobbyists are financial terrorists
That's because you knowingly let them.
You can enact a Constitutional Amendment that states:
Only those persons eligible to vote for a candidate or ballot issue may contribute money to a candidate or ballot issue.
That doesn't mean George Soros cannot contribute money, but it does mean that he is limited to contributing money to presidential candidates, the Senators in the State in which he resides, and to no others, the Congressional Representative in his State and no others, the governor of his State and no others, his State senators and representatives and no others, his local mayor and city council and no others, and only to those ballot issues in his city, county or State in which he resides.
Since corporations, businesses, unions, think-tanks and PACs cannot vote, they cannot contribute any money to any candidates or ballot initiatives.
That's it. It's just that easy. You only have to want to do it.
That doesn't answer why the public option was shot down, and self-funded plans are still administrated by an insurance company. So you can " thread fail" me all day long, but you did not answer the question.
i read your question several times and it didn't make any sense to me.
As part of my compensation when I work, I receive employer sponsored health insurance. My employer pays part of the premium that would otherwise come to me in the form of wages or other benefits, or kept by him to invest as he saw fit, to a for profit insurance company that is publicly traded on Wall Street.
I also pay part of the insurance premium, using my wages that I would otherwise spend, donate or invest elsewhere. My employer must offer this benefit in order to remain competitive in terms of attracting competent employees. It is even mandated to a certain degree, depending on your state and the size of your company.
Now, why should we be forced to buy this product from a for-profit corporation that in turn does business with huge for-profit hospital corporations, and restricts my use of practitioners to their contracted panels?
Can anyone please explain to me why the public option in Obamacare, where my employer could have paid premiums into a Medicare for everyone type system instead of subsidizing some other CEOs multi million dollar salary, was shot down?
The root or underlying reason is that the rights of Corporations have been greatly expanded in the relatively short 'lifetime' of the United States of America.
The earliest designers of our Country had a healthy scepticism, & even a healthy mistrust, when it came to the rights of corporations because of their history of screwing the people & running roughshod over them when given leeway.
Corporations are, after all, a legal fiction designed to avoid personal liability. The earliest designers granted them the right to exist however with strings attached.
Stating the obvious, much has changed since then. In time, a legal fictive entity designed to avoid liability had to be held accountable or held responsible for its actions that caused harm to live people. & so on.
The entire World, including all of the individual Countries has become more & more interrelated. This is only natural with increased technology, modes of transportation, etc.
Granting corporations rights equivalent to individual live people is a train wreck waiting to happen. imho, it has created more problems (for the live people) than it has solved. Fr'instance, a for-profit corporation that can deny live people medical treatments based on 'its' right to express 'its' freedom of religion, & yet ... have the right to invest in companies that produce drugs to implement the medical treatments they oppose.
It's true that I don't think investors in insurance companies need to be taking profit from our healthcare system. The reason for this is that they add no value to the patient's care. It's pure administrative overhead and profit taking with no value added.
Should Toshiba make money for developing cutting edge MRI machines? Yes. Should surgeons and doctors and nurses make excellent compensation? Yes. Should drug companies be rewarded in a reasonable way without screwing the US for everyone else's benefit? Yes.
Wall Street does not belong in healthcare. Let them do real estate, technology, retail, textiles, entertainment, life and car insurance, plastic surgery, cosmetics, etc. etc.
Just a reminder: Medicare is the most efficient insurance out there and has the lowest overhead. If people were allowed to just pay their premiums into that system instead of to Wall Street an immediate savings of 30% would be realized.
Wall Street will continue to do what Wall Street does, they are comprised of Corporations without responsibility or accountability to a peoples or a Country. They exist to benefit 'itselves' & no other.
In order to cover solely the cost of medical care, would require a 25.6% HI (Medicare) Payroll Tax, which would be 12.8% for employers and employees.
If your household income is $50,000/annually, then your cost would be $6,400/annually, which may be more or less than you're currently paying.
Someone earning $100,000 would pay $12,800/per year, which again may be more or less than they are currently spending.
We don't concern ourselves about paying for the wars so why should we health care? Have you figured the cost for every tax payer and are they paying it?
i read your question several times and it didn't make any sense to me.
I agree with NLVgal in general and even repped her here but her question is off a bit. The public option has never actually been presented to have been shot down.
No, that's not true at all. It does not include the costs of the Treasury Department which manages the Trust Fund. Nor does it include the costs of the IRS who monitor and enforce tax collection. Nor does it include the costs of GAO or Inspector General who audit the Center for Medicare & Medicaid.
Then there's the issue of administrative costs that Medicare shifts to the providers of care, dumping responsibilities upon them.
That's not necessarily true.
In order to cover solely the cost of medical care, would require a 25.6% HI (Medicare) Payroll Tax, which would be 12.8% for employers and employees.
If your household income is $50,000/annually, then your cost would be $6,400/annually, which may be more or less than you're currently paying.
Someone earning $100,000 would pay $12,800/per year, which again may be more or less than they are currently spending.
Medicare has the LOWEST administrative costs for providers of care. How many times must I say this? The private insurance companies require us to hire an army of people just to deal with referrals and prior authorizations, neither of which are necessary with Medicare. That doesn't even include the verification and benefits people or the denial specialists.
The IRS is going to continue to collect FIT, social security and Medicare tax regardless if I can pay premiums to buy into Medicare or not. There simply isn't that much new overhead there.
Premiums with such a huge risk pool, based on current actuarial tables should place my premium at under $1000 per month. Perhaps $800. That would actually benefit Medicare, as I am not a big user of healthcare services.
These insurance companies are not doing this to lose money. Why people keep screaming that it's going to cost MORE to pay those existing dollars into a proven more efficient non-profit system defies logic.
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.
