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.
Why would you "test" it in a state... when there are 30+ other 1st world nations to use as examples, with 600+ million people living in them all with a different kind of programs. These are small highly populated countries and large sparsely populated countries. Everybody does a Medicare for All type system, covering everybody with mandatory taxation either through company or privately.
They ALL save 40-50% compared to what the US system spends.. and they have comparable or better results in most things!!
We are talking about:
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Germany
Japan
Scandinavia
Benelux
and on and on and on...
Its not rocket science... and the American healthcare system is currently ranked 27th in the world...
With 35-45.000 Americans dying each year because of costs and 500.000 American families going bankrupt each year!!!
That is UNHEARD of in ANY of the other 30+ industrialized countries!!
Politicians would loose their jobs left and right if anything like that happened!!!
.
I have not really heard any proponent suggesting to model after any country but Canada. And in that debate I remember people say in Canada if you want to do certain procedures you have to wait a year. Unless this can be disproved, it would seem the Canadian system has its flaws too...?
If you want to pay lower insurance rates, that will never happen until you lower the cost of medical care.
This is typical of the problem: Wills v Foster 229 Ill. 2d 393 (2008)
The plaintiff owed $80,163 in medical bills but the hospital accepted an insurance company negotiated settlement of $19,005 in full satisfaction.
Let's be clear on the concept here.
The hospital billed $80,163, not the insurance company.
The insurance company is the hero here, because they did a tremendous favor to everyone by negotiating a settlement of $19,005.
That happens 24/7 in America. Hospital bills $110,000; insurance company settles for $26,000. Hospital bills $33,000; insurance company settles for $9,000. Hospital bills $214,000; insurance company settles for $72,000.
Why in the hell would you ever allow a system like that to perpetuate?
I would agree that hospital billing is a gouging fiction (as is university billing).
No other business could routinely accept less than a third of what they billed and remain in business because their billing is a more realistic reflection of their actual costs.
Insurance is a problem because it is mandatory and heavily regulated.
It's why prices for LASIK and plastic surgery have fallen with improved techniques to boot. Customers are encouraged to shop around and compare. Well, they are forced to by not being forced to buy insurance for these electives.
Those that produce and provide those services were in competition with each other to do better/more for less ergo the price went down with increased quality.
Health insurance has only been mandated since 2014.
The cost of health care was a critical problem long before then.
The expectation of the ACA was that competition would help control costs. One of the problems with the ACA is the fact that the possibility of competition had already virtually disappeared in most areas.
The possibility of competition had disappeared in rural areas because medical providers had already fled those non-lucrative areas. The possibility of competition had largely disappeared in metropolitan areas because of the corporate conglomeration of providers.
So the learned reality is that the "competition" argument is a dog that won't hunt.
Why would you "test" it in a state... when there are 30+ other 1st world nations to use as examples, with 600+ million people living in them all with a different kind of programs. These are small highly populated countries and large sparsely populated countries. Everybody does a Medicare for All type system, covering everybody with mandatory taxation either through company or privately.
They ALL save 40-50% compared to what the US system spends.. and they have comparable or better results in most things!!
We are talking about:
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Germany
Japan
Scandinavia
Benelux
and on and on and on...
Its not rocket science... and the American healthcare system is currently ranked 27th in the world...
With 35-45.000 Americans dying each year because of costs and 500.000 American families going bankrupt each year!!!
That is UNHEARD of in ANY of the other 30+ industrialized countries!!
Politicians would loose their jobs left and right if anything like that happened!!!
.
None of those countries exist under our federal government.
Health insurance has only been mandated since 2014.
The cost of health care was a critical problem long before then.
The expectation of the ACA was that competition would help control costs. One of the problems with the ACA is the fact that the possibility of competition had already virtually disappeared in most areas.
The possibility of competition had disappeared in rural areas because medical providers had already fled those non-lucrative areas. The possibility of competition had largely disappeared in metropolitan areas because of the corporate conglomeration of providers.
So the learned reality is that the "competition" argument is a dog that won't hunt.
Eliminate licensing requirements for healthcare professionals and then you get real competition.
I have not really heard any proponent suggesting to model after any country but Canada. And in that debate I remember people say in Canada if you want to do certain procedures you have to wait a year. Unless this can be disproved, it would seem the Canadian system has its flaws too...?
And I have a friend who died from cancer in Illinois because his insurance company would not approve his treatment.
I'm arguing with my insurance company right now because they have suddenly decided they don't want to pay for a medication I've been taking for five years.
Most doctors modify their care according to what they know insurance companies will pay for without even telling their patients. You don't even know what you didn't get.
It's too scary to do such big change in one go, that's why Warren is having her poll problem.
Why can't we do that in one state that favors it like CA, or one region that favors it like CA OR & WA, or an isolated place like Hawaii, and see how that works out first?
If in fact this can be done without middle class tax, it would not matter to the people, right?
And I don't think too many people will move just for the sake of healthcare... we already have bigger differential between states. CA has 13.3% top personal income tax while 7 other states have none, and CA is still chugging along.
I have not really heard any proponent suggesting to model after any country but Canada. And in that debate I remember people say in Canada if you want to do certain procedures you have to wait a year. Unless this can be disproved, it would seem the Canadian system has its flaws too...?
Every country has its flaws...
But they are a tiny tiny inconvenience compared to whats going on in the US.
You could also find people in the US also who experience waiting periods... its called lack of money i.e insurance..
Thats why millions of regular Americans are leaving to 3rd world countries to get cheap surgeries done.
I would agree that hospital billing is a gouging fiction (as is university billing).
No other business could routinely accept less than a third of what they billed and remain in business because their billing is a more realistic reflection of their actual costs.
If you know that, then you are a good part way there!
Health insurance has only been mandated since 2014.
The cost of health care was a critical problem long before then.
The expectation of the ACA was that competition would help control costs. One of the problems with the ACA is the fact that the possibility of competition had already virtually disappeared in most areas.
The possibility of competition had disappeared in rural areas because medical providers had already fled those non-lucrative areas. The possibility of competition had largely disappeared in metropolitan areas because of the corporate conglomeration of providers.
So the learned reality is that the "competition" argument is a dog that won't hunt.
Relatively close hospital competition is paramount for local cost control. Our rural hospital makes great money. Would not be so lucrative if we were allowed to build our community hospital back in the aughts.
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.
