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 can't work in states because of funding. It takes federal moneys to do full systemic HC. The cost of senior HC alone will rival a state's entire budget!
It'll eventually come since there are only a few insurance companies. They're buying up the formularies, physician practices, and hospitals, and eventually the drug companies. We have only three distinct insurance companies offering plans in our zip code in a major metropolitan area.
You either pay a tax to a private entity or to the government. If it's run by the government, everyone has to be covered. If it's in the private sector, there will still be holes in the system.
It'll eventually come since there are essentially only a few insurance companies. They're buying up the formularies, physician practices, and hospitals, and eventually the drug companies.
Only with massive state tax increases. And that would be enough to seriously alter the nature of that state.
Again, I am not for M4A.
But, how much is it going to cost to care for huge numbers of well young people?
It's not like they're 65 and already have a series of medical/surgical issues. And it's not like the risk level of a healthy 65 y/o like you might hope to be one day.
What makes you think the US population is only young people? Furthermore, since seniors are already covered under Medicare, and as you assert, health care costs for young people are so much lower, how is there even a problem with people not being able to afford health insurance?
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.
Because a 5th grader could see we can't afford it......
No. Rural areas already get obscene amounts of taxpayer money. 15% of West Virginia is on Disability. In Washington state, one county, King county, gives 3 Billion a year to 33 other counties that can’t pay for themselves. Rural counties getting free healthcare on the backs of urban taxpayers? Just no. IMO this whole tyranny of the minority is going to result in a heated flashback rural voters might be surprised by. Rural areas need to pay for themselves, farmers, all of them. The reason rural hospitals close is because there is not enough population to pay for them. Not a mystery there and it’s not the job of urban areas to pay for the rural AND their own.
Taking your position to its logical conclusion, it's not the job of anyone to pay for anyone else AND themselves.
There is no universal definition of condition, as in preexisting.
Pre ACA, most states allowed insurers to define. A few states granted insurers an unlimited look back period.
Given 75% of us are overweight/ obese we are substantially more vulnerable to heart disease, Diabetes, some Cancers, joint deterioration and more. The American Diabetes Association projects one- third of the US population is Diabetic or pre- Diabetic- an epidemic. It also claims it costs an average of nearly $10,000 a year to treat Diabetes and complications, thereof.
A prior House majority thought it swell to provide states with $8 billion over 5 years to fund state high risk health pools. If my math is correct, this is about $5.00 per person/ year. The states would be on the hook for the rest of funding- enactment of a state tax of or increase in state tax rates.
Instead of funding states for large numbers of unhealthy people, a different approach might have been rewarding states based on the number of people with healthy lifestyles.
It doesn't bother me that Pharma is spending a lot on marketing. Most marketing targets doctors and if doctors aren't informed about drugs they can't and won't prescribe them. So Pharma has to train the docs on new drugs and how they work.
If Pharma is forced to spend less on marketing and more on research, they will sell less of the drugs they create which means they will have less money to spend on research. It ends up having the opposite effect that people want. For good or bad, we live in a capitalistic economy and that is how it works - producers need consumers and it costs money to keep consumer demand up.
What does bother me about Pharma is the way they subsidize the cost of new drugs. They treat people who rely on existing drugs as a cash cow that they can keep milking for more money to spend on new drugs. Take Epi-Pen - this is a very old drug and should cost peanuts, but it costs a fortune because they use that money to fund trials of other drugs. The cost of a new drug should largely be paid for by those who benefit from it.
The other subsidization problem is that America subsidizes a lot of the rest of the world. Drugs that cost pennies in Canada but cost a fortune in America, Pharma is making Americans pay for all the R&D costs while foreigners are only paying manufacturing costs which typically are low. If drugs developed in the US are fairly priced in other countries, they will cost less in the US because R&D costs are spread wider.
Well, if the doctors are getting educated and trained by watching the severely expensive TV commercials, we have a big problem.
Plenty of other capitalistic economies. When a drug costs much less in Switzerland than in US, you know that something is very wrong.
It can't work in states because of funding. It takes federal moneys to do full systemic HC. The cost of senior HC alone will rival a state's entire budget!
All insurance, not just healthcare, mutualizes ( socializes) risks. Generally speaking, most insurance is based on claims made and types of claims in any given geographical area, sometimes down to the zip code.
Healthcare premiums are no exception and rely on geo rated areas. For example, Florida has 69 geo rated areas. The same insurer may sell the same plan to the same age cohort at different premiums within a state.
An insurer may opt out of insuring populations in some regions in some states.
Mutualizing healthcare risks on a national basis opposed to regions within states makes a huge difference and primarily benefits the populations in those states with more unhealthy people:
A different approach might be to reward states with healthier populations instead of expecting them to pay more to insure unhealthy populations in other states.
Plenty of other capitalistic economies. When a drug costs much less in Switzerland than in US, you know that something is very wrong.
That is my exact point - consumers in the US are paying manufacturing costs + R&D costs while in Switzerland they are only paying manufacturing costs for a drug that is licensed from an American company. Americans are subsidizing the Swiss by assuming most of the R&D costs.
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.
