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.
The Republican alternative that Trump/the GOP promised is (crickets.)
That's a Logical Fallacy.
As your Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, healthcare is intra-State commerce, not Interstate Commerce, and so is insurance.
It's shocking you don't understand that.
If you have issues, you should address them with your governor and State legislature, since it is they who in part created the nightmare you hate.
Why don't you lobby your State legislature to repeal the laws granting monopoly status to hospitals?
Or, do you believe monopolies are good?
Please, do tell.
After your State bans monopolies, then guess what? You'll be sort of like Switzerland.
Then your State can limit hospital owners to one per market. The Swiss limit one per canton, and that would be more or less a county in the US, and that really wouldn't work, but limiting one per Metropolitan Statistical Area or Micro-Statistical Area would work.
The your system would be like the Swiss, who enjoy cost-savings because they don't have hospital monopolies and they encourage competition.
Then your State can ban hospitals. Well, that would be illegal actually, but there is a way around that. For any medical facility that provides three or fewer services, no annual licensing fee.
For any medical facility that offers three or more services, charge an annual licensing fee equal to 50% of the their previous year's gross revenues.
That will eliminate hospitals.
Then, you'll be just like Switzerland, Germany, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland and others.
Wait...I thought you wanted to be like them. You do want to be like them, don't you?
That's the problem with you people: None of you understand how or why their systems work. Their systems work, because they don't have monopolies, and because they abandoned the Hospital Model in favor of the Clinic-Polyclinic Model.
Unless you do the same, you won't save any money at all.
The US relies exclusively on the antiquated costly ineffective Hospital Model; Europe abandoned it in favor of the inexpensive highly effective and efficient Clinic and Polyclinic Model.
Which part of that do you not understand?
The Swiss have no monopolies in their cantons, and no owner, group or entity can operate more than one medical facility in a canton, and they don't use hospitals, they use clinics and polyclinics.
That's why the Swiss pay less than Americans.
When the States muster up the courage to ban hospital monopolies and cartels, and enact legislation to stimulate the creation of clinics and polyclinics and get rid of hospitals, you'll be paying the same or less as the Swiss.
The States have to do that, since the federal government cannot interfere in that.
Your system is broken, and your State and federal governments broke it, and they did so largely at the behest of the American Hospital Association.
Overlaying a universal healthcare system on top of a broken system is not going to fix the problem, although obviously it will make you feel better, right to up the time you have actually use it.
As your Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, healthcare is intra-State commerce, not Interstate Commerce, and so is insurance.
It's shocking you don't understand that.
If you have issues, you should address them with your governor and State legislature, since it is they who in part created the nightmare you hate.
Why don't you lobby your State legislature to repeal the laws granting monopoly status to hospitals?
Or, do you believe monopolies are good?
Please, do tell.
After your State bans monopolies, then guess what? You'll be sort of like Switzerland.
Then your State can limit hospital owners to one per market. The Swiss limit one per canton, and that would be more or less a county in the US, and that really wouldn't work, but limiting one per Metropolitan Statistical Area or Micro-Statistical Area would work.
The your system would be like the Swiss, who enjoy cost-savings because they don't have hospital monopolies and they encourage competition.
Then your State can ban hospitals. Well, that would be illegal actually, but there is a way around that. For any medical facility that provides three or fewer services, no annual licensing fee.
For any medical facility that offers three or more services, charge an annual licensing fee equal to 50% of the their previous year's gross revenues.
That will eliminate hospitals.
Then, you'll be just like Switzerland, Germany, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland and others.
Wait...I thought you wanted to be like them. You do want to be like them, don't you?
That's the problem with you people: None of you understand how or why their systems work. Their systems work, because they don't have monopolies, and because they abandoned the Hospital Model in favor of the Clinic-Polyclinic Model.
Unless you do the same, you won't save any money at all.
The US is closing hospitals in a rapid pace! Capitalism and healthcare don't mix.
What does one call a big polyclinic? A General Hospital.
Been getting worked on by the system the last few months. Using the local general hospital mostly. You know what it is mostly? A polyclinic doing outpatient. And the equivalent sized building next door is purportedly a medical office building. You know what is really? A polyclinic.
Yeah.. I dont think millions of religious quacks would hack it in the MODERN medical world.
Luckily socialism (tax funded research) has invented 99%* of medicine we enjoy today.. better then prayers.
* Most medicine research are funded by the government, then bought by corporations.
Fortunately, facts don't match with your opinions.
FYI : religious renunciants like Nuns / Sisters were not quacks, and in England, they still call nurses "sisters". And priests who studied medicine, had physicians' licenses, again, were not quacks.
As to paying for 'research' perhaps you are confusing NASA and the defense industry, and not the private sector, and the "hunt for grant money." Which is also another aberration due to socialism.
FWIW - I would prefer being cared for by people who wanted to do so, more than those who were merely paid to do so. . . especially since I would get stuck with the bottom of the barrel.
That's because someone else was paying, the US taxpayers!
Before that, we were paying for the uninsured in the form of increased medical bills. Why don't we get on board with universal and shed those high health insurance premiums?
Fortunately, facts don't match with your opinions.
FYI : religious renunciants like Nuns / Sisters were not quacks, and in England, they still call nurses "sisters". And priests who studied medicine, had physicians' licenses, again, were not quacks.
As to paying for 'research' perhaps you are confusing NASA and the defense industry, and not the private sector, and the "hunt for grant money." Which is also another aberration due to socialism.
FWIW - I would prefer being cared for by people who wanted to do so, more than those who were merely paid to do so. . . especially since I would get stuck with the bottom of the barrel.
Most new drugs invented today, are tax payer funded.. As drug companies grew larger and larger, they took over much of inventions, but still today buys of publicly funded research and renames it.
But, all right.. I´ll have Surgeon operate on my heart, while you have some quack that "wants to help" operate on your... Lets report back in a week..
In an era where Medicare-for-All is now overwhelmingly popular amongst the general populace, a new study shows that the US would see significant savings from implementing such a system, in addition to improving the economy and well-being/mental health.
I do not believe that Medicare for all will be lowering overall HC costs. It may well lower the cost of many if not most medical/surgical encounters. But in the end we will have many more such encounters. More patients will eventually gain access. And many patients will have more encounters if convenient enough with a Medicare for all program.
For several reasons. First being that much of medicine is always left undone in any one medical community. And this is very important, something I rarely see discussed. But after 45 years in medical practice, I can assure you this is significant. Especially if rural or in other areas of low or inconvenient access. Many patients simply do not follow through on all that their medical providers recommend. Again inconvenience, but also cost. And if we have enough future providers, and that of course is key, then the encounter costs will be much less an issue for patients and families. In many ways this is a good thing, if more patients follow their doctor's advice. For instance with routine preventatives, assuming that's good advice.
The way I see it, this will improve economies, local and general. Medicine is a service industry needing many local employees. And in the end will give us a healthier population.
IMO even with central cost controls as per Medicare, the overall costs will only rise moving forward.
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.
