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 objectively true that universal healthcare saves money and covers more people.
Let's try it this way.
Right now, on average and across the nation, we consume north of $11,000 per person per year in medical care goods and services. Therefore, as surely as night follows day, insurance to cover $11,000 per person per year of medical care MUST BE PRICED at $11,000 per person per year PLUS administrative costs and profit (profit, of course, is regulated & capped under Obamacare.)
Switching to Single Payer Universal Healthcare, under most suggestions, means the Federal Government will be the single payer. We still consume north of $11,000 per person per year, on average, in medical care goods and services, so it will cost the Federal government (all of us) $11,000 per person per year on average plus Federal administrative costs, but no profit.
All of the administrative work still exists. It doesn't vanish. Instead of Liberty Mutual and Cigna and UNH and Blue Cross incurring administrative costs, the Federal Government will. Indeed, the easiest way for the Federal Government to get into Single Payer business is to hire all the the back-office administrative staffs of Liberty Mutual and Cigna, UNH, and Blue Cross. So there really isn't a savings there. In fact, because it is now the Federal Government, everyone agrees administrative costs go up - the Federal Government will need to hire even more administrators, and of course the total compensation-per-administrator goes up compared to the private sector, as each will now receive Federal benefits such as overly generous pensions (compared to the private sector) & their own expensive medical care (compared to the private sector).
No, I do not consider it to be a right. But, I do see that our situation is costing our society and costing us dearly as individuals in both money and health outcomes, so something must be done, purely for financial reasons. If the President is not willing to make good on his promise to provide a plan that will "cover everyone," then he is about to lose my vote.
Then he is going to lose your vote. He'll do the same thing he promised in 2016.......nothing.
Right now, on average and across the nation, we consume north of $11,000 per person per year in medical care goods and services. Therefore, as surely as night follows day, insurance to cover $11,000 per person per year of medical care MUST BE PRICED at $11,000 per person per year PLUS administrative costs and profit (profit, of course, is regulated & capped under Obamacare.)
Switching to Single Payer Universal Healthcare, under most suggestions, means the Federal Government will be the single payer. We still consume north of $11,000 per person per year, on average, in medical care goods and services, so it will cost the Federal government (all of us) $11,000 per person per year on average plus Federal administrative costs, but no profit.
All of the administrative work still exists. It doesn't vanish. Instead of Liberty Mutual and Cigna and UNH and Blue Cross incurring administrative costs, the Federal Government will. Indeed, the easiest way for the Federal Government to get into Single Payer business is to hire all the the back-office administrative staffs of Liberty Mutual and Cigna, UNH, and Blue Cross. So there really isn't a savings there. In fact, because it is now the Federal Government, everyone agrees administrative costs go up - the Federal Government will need to hire even more administrators, and of course the total compensation-per-administrator goes up compared to the private sector, as each will now receive Federal benefits such as overly generous pensions (compared to the private sector) & their own expensive medical care (compared to the private sector).
No savings here. Time to move along.
Yet administrative costs in the insurance industry runs about 30% whereas in Medicare it's a tenth of that.
That isn't savings?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,445,862 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yes. It's also part of the Slippery Slope, because as soon as that becomes a "right" then food, water, housing, jobs, cars, iPhones, 112" TVs, "wealth" and everything else becomes "right."
Once healthcare becomes a "right" then to what end is spending?
How much should we spend on one person?
And to what end?
Should we spend until that person feels as though they are 100% perfect?
One thing you people don't understand about European healthcare is how it is meted out.
Healthcare regulatory bodies approve medical procedures, treatments and pharmaceuticals.
You get Treatment A, and if it works, fine, but if it doesn't, then treatment ends.
If there's a Treatment B, you get that, but if it fails, treatment ends.
That's not how it works in the US, and that's one reason why healthcare is so expensive, because if Treatment A fails, then you go to Treatment B, and if that fails, then to Treatment C, if it exists, and if not then it's back to Treatment A, then to Treatment B, then back to Treatment A and then to Treatment B, until the person ultimately dies.
In Pittsburgh, a small child got 5 liver transplants -- count them... 5 -- and all failed and he died.
Do you have any idea how much liver transplants cost?
Is that how you're going to run your healthcare system?
Because, if you run it like that, you'll be bankrupt in 6 months.
The primary reason your healthcare system is so expensive, is because you allow monopolies, and Euro-States bar monopolies.
Monopolies result in duplication, which creates inefficiency and increases costs.
Where I live, because of monopolies, 9 of 14 hospitals offer open-heart surgery. You'll never find anything remotely comparable in Europe, because that's gross inefficiency, which increases costs tremendously.
That's why US military personnel who had spouses or children with heart conditions were always based in the Kasierslautern area, because that's the only place in Germany where you had both a military hospital, namely Landstuhl Army Medical Center, and a German medical facility that could treat heart conditions.
If you based those troops in Bremerhaven or Garlstedt, you risk death or injury, because the nearest hospital that could treat heart conditions was 4 hours away in Hamburg.
I'm not saying Americans should drive four hours for any kind of medical treatment, I'm just saying you don't need 9 hospitals doing the same thing, and there wouldn't be 9 hospitals doing the same thing if you had a Free Market, instead of monopolies.
Switzerland bars monopolies and encourages competition between their clinics and polyclinics, and note Switzerland doesn't use the outdated antiquated Hospital Model, they use the more efficient cost-saving Clinic and Polyclinic Model, just like Germany and everyone else.
If you banned monopolies, medical costs would drop 30% to 60%, and then health insurance would drop 30% to 60% and if you switched to the Clinic and Polyclinic Model, you get another 20% in cost-savings on medical costs, and the health insurance would drop another 20%.
Overlaying a universal healthcare system on a broken system doesn't fix the broken system.
When you demonstrate a willingness to fix your broken system, and then actually take the actions to fix it, I'll consider your proposals for universal care, until then, you're just barking at the Moon.
Funny, your slippery slope fallacy has NOT been the case in the other countries that do have single payer. Your argument fails
But you do end up paying for it. When uninsured people get a minor illness such as an ear infection or strep throat and need antibiotics, they can't go to a doctor, so they go to the emergency room because the ER can't turn them away. Now the cost of that treatment goes from $60 to $400 that everyone knows will not be paid for. The hospital writes off their cost and makes it up elsewhere by charging more to those who can pay . . . insurance companies. Since the insurance companies exist to make a profit, they increase premiums to all insureds, thereby making us pay for the ER bills for the uninsured. I would rather have my insurance premiums increase by my portion of $60 than $400.
One problem with that; I don’t have health insurance. So I am not paying for them.
I see it as a human rights issue separate from any political dogma. The United States, one of the richest countries in the world, is one of the few developed countries in the world that doesn't have universal health care. Having a healthy citizenry who are able to work and thrive is as important as the billions of dollars that this country spends on our military to guard us against foreign enemies.
Yep, my wife and I are retired living on a fixed income and we have Medicare so why shouldn't someone under 65?
In case you are wondering Medicare is not free. No, it's not.
You should have Medicare if you pay the exact same premium as my wife and I do that that comes to a total of $649.54 for both of us or $324.70 each.
No, if I can not get it for free what should the druggie living on the streets of San Francisco shooting up drugs get it for free?
Oh, and you got to "buy in" too. What is "buy in"?
My wife and I paid Medicare taxes for over 50 years and I figure at 2.9%+employers portion of which I was self employed for much of my life, we roughly paid in at least $45,000 over just the past 20 years. If you go back in time it wouldn't surprise me to learn my wife and I paid between $70,000 and $100,000 for that free medicare over the past 50 years.
So the way I figure it is if a 40 something wants to buy into Medicare they can pay $324.70 PLUS $150.00 monthly to make up for the tax I paid and they didn't.
Ok, everyone can buy into free Medicare by paying $450.00/month. $900 for a family of two. Sound fair to you?
And doctors take a big hit in being the culprits of the high cost of health care and it isn't fair.
The total amount Americans pay their physicians, as Reinhardt reminds us, represents only about 20 percent of total national health spending. Of this total, close to half (editor’s note: higher now), is absorbed by physician practice expenses, including “malpractice premiums, but excluding the amortization of college and medical school debt.
So, if we Sovietized doctors and made them work for free, we could provide bread, water and a tent to sleep in, we could lower our total healthcare bill by 10%.
If we went full Marxist we could make doctor staff and nurses work for free too and if we made the landlords who rented the doctors office to give it away free would could save another 10%.
I see it as a human rights issue separate from any political dogma. The United States, one of the richest countries in the world, is one of the few developed countries in the world that doesn't have universal health care. Having a healthy citizenry who are able to work and thrive is as important as the billions of dollars that this country spends on our military to guard us against foreign enemies.
I see it as a moral issue than a political one.
How do we walk around knowing that we have millions of our fellow Americans that are either under-insured or without any healthcare coverage at all?
We can find billions for the military but we can't fund Universal healthcare? I refuse to believe that.
Where there is a will there is a way.
One problem with that; I don’t have health insurance. So I am not paying for them.
Healthcare prices in general are high partly because of the people who can't or won't pay. So unless you never need the services of a doctor or hospital; you're paying for all those who don't.
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.
