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.
We spend 18% of GDP on health care now, and you think it would be dystopia if we manage to spend 12% of GDP on health care, which is the most expensive single payer system in the world to date? All other single payer systems are around 9-11.5% of GDP.
The difference is here the medical industry and health insurance industry have our country in a vice grip. It's play the game their way no matter what the cost and shut up about it. If you don't like it, it's too bad. Just keep paying $500 for an aspirin when stuck in a hospital and 1/3 of your income on health insurance and be happy about it.
Other countries don't allow private businesses to run them like this when public health is the issue.
We spend 18% of GDP on health care now, and you think it would be dystopia if we manage to spend 12% of GDP on health care, which is the most expensive single payer system in the world to date? All other single payer systems are around 9-11.5% of GDP.
How would Healthcare costs decrease by 1/3 (per your post) by increasing the scope of persons covered by 6.6 times as many people?
I'm not opposed to the idea in theory if the numbers can be made to work and quality of care is not compromised, but you neither addressed by previous post directly nor provided a framework for resolving the question I led this post with. I'm genuinely curious how the idea could be made to work, and I'll happily lend my support to the cause upon being convinced.
How would Healthcare costs decrease by 1/3 (per your post) by increasing the scope of persons covered by 6.6 times as many people?
That's been covered in this thread in many posts.
Quote:
I'm not opposed to the idea in theory if the numbers can be made to work and quality of care is not compromised, but you neither addressed by previous post directly nor provided a framework for resolving the question I led this post with. I'm genuinely curious how the idea could be made to work, and I'll happily lend my support to the cause upon being convinced.
The first thing that needs done is to remove Wall Street from the equation.
How would Healthcare costs decrease by 1/3 (per your post) by increasing the scope of persons covered by 6.6 times as many people?
I'm not opposed to the idea in theory if the numbers can be made to work and quality of care is not compromised, but you neither addressed by previous post directly nor provided a framework for resolving the question I led this post with. I'm genuinely curious how the idea could be made to work, and I'll happily lend my support to the cause upon being convinced.
Because single payer systems have a tiny fraction of the bureaucracy of our current for-profit insurance system. They also dont allow hospitals, big pharma and other providers to price gouge the "consumer" (desperate sick people with no market power). Free market health care naturally MUST be extremely expensive, as providers have all the power, consumers are in a terribly weak position and providers can earn ridiculous profits simply by abusing the power given to them. Thats why single payer systems that cover everyone cost 9-11.5% of GDP. Ours cost 18% of GDP and rising fast. Once it hits 20%+, the economy will likely start to break down at some point and the business elites who set policy and fund the campaigns will start to get upset as non-health care businesses will suffer too much as a result of the insatiable greed of the health care industry. Thats when change is likely to take place. But they are not going down without a fight.
You have to have an incredible imagination to actually believe Wolff is talking about what you are talking about. Its not a story that a bank has deposits belonging to countless different people. Thats just stupidity. Thats why no paper is reporting what you are misunderstanding and every paper, right wing and left wing, financial newspapers and non-financial are all reporting what Wolff actually is talking about. Which is "control" as in "belong to".
I sincerely apologize for knowing the difference between the meanings of "own" and "control."
Quote:
Regarding pensions, obviously the oligarchy is not good for the stock market. Some monopolistic powers lose power, thats bad for them, and you are crying with them, but it also leads to a tremendous burden off the backs of thousands of businesses and thats good. No one has to "relinquish pensions" and other nonsense you are talking about.
So... if employee retirement systems, public OR private, can't invest in stocks that provide adequate growth via profits, dividends, increases in share values, etc., what's the plan for funding retirees' pensions, retirement benefits, and/or draws on IRAs/401Ks?
PLUS, that doesn't answer the question...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And if the CalPERS "peasants," as you call them, don't want to have that vested interest in bank/financial stocks or health care stocks, they can simply relinquish their pensions and retirement benefits. Do you think they will do so?
I sincerely apologize for knowing the difference between the meanings of "own" and "control."
You dont as control is used as "belong to". Its hilarious that you still misunderstand something so simple. You should call Wolff and all the media outlets and tell them that they have all misunderstood and it must be corrected ASAP.
Who's paying for it? Medicare is the most expensive government program on the books now, when it only covers a small percentage of people and it is going broke in the next 5-10 years. The top 1% only brings in 17% of the taxable income so you will need to DRASTICALLY raise taxes on the middle class who is already struggling. Also, you obviously can't have these programs with an open border. There are all sorts of issues. Where are all the doctors coming from? Everyone with any little ailment will just be going to the hospital people will be dying waiting for a doctor while they fix an ingrown finger nails and the common cold on other patients. Vermont tried this an it nearly bankrupted the state before they did away with it.
So the problem as you see it is that people might actually be able to get healthcare? SMFH
What, you mean spending the tax dollars that could be used for universal healthcare on supplying national defense and foreign aid to half the planet?
If they did that the way we do, how would they pay for their "healthcare for all"?
Foreign aid is 0.1-0.2% of US GDP.
Military is 3.3% of GDP
Other countries typically have foreign aid at 0.5%-1% of GDP and military at 1.5-2% of GDP.
Tax-to-GDP in those countries are typically 40% of GDP, with health care about 9-10% of GDP. The US health care system is a whooping 18% of GDP...almost 100 times the foreign aid budget.
Defense spending and foreign aid is a red herring. No country is mulling a move to an American system just because they increase their defense spending a fraction of 1 percent.
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.
