Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
K9Buck

Single-payer healthcare opinion

432 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Gromdor
4 hours ago, aztek said:

wow 4 degrees later and still no clue that company owned by employees is actually opposite of socialism. it is  collectively owned, employees are shareholders. socialism doesn't allow private ownership of businesses,   

and usps is horribly ran, and loosing money.  it's infected with cancer, aka union

Communism doesn't allow for private ownership.  Socialism allows for collective ownership.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
9 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

No, all socialist things really are bad. State healthcare must and should remain in private sector ownership. The low amount of socialism in the US is exactly why it has a GDP of $20 trillion instead of a mere $8 trillion.

Socialism creates poverty, it doesnt cure it.

Sure those receiving benefits and state healthcare think its great. But by taxing wealth that tax burden drives up the operating costs of businesses. That in turn stops them competing in price sensitive markets. Your love of socialism is why in the UK all the manufacturing has drifted to China and the US must not make the same mistake.

Its why the only decent jobs remaining here are in the financial and banking sector. Socialism has driven us out of all price sensitive markets. The US must never go down that route, and Obama was the worst US President in history thanks to Obamacare. He started the rot that will ultimately end the US`s reign as the leading economic superpower.

The Americans need to dismantle socialism, they need a new Reagan and they have one in Trump! Its one of the reasons why they hate him so much, and one of the reasons why I think the guy is great.

Americans pay more on average for health insurance than we do for National Insurance. 

They could save money and have better healthcare. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
17 hours ago, aztek said:

of course they could, and do,  really good doctors who have a month wait as a rule do not accept medicaid, or medicare

The irony here is the Left want to create a uniform approach to providing health care and all they're going to accomplish is to worsen care for the masses while fostering a system where the wealthy get the best care by far.  That's Socialism for ya.  The only thing they manage to do is make everyone except themselves uniformly miserable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Communism doesn't allow for private ownership.  Socialism allows for collective ownership.

 

you mean like kolkhoz  in ussr, lol.   sure tell me more

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

It is just that under Medicare-for-All, the govt does the paying.

You should understand by now that when a government tries to seize wealth, the wealthy take it offshore so it cannot be seized.  The effect of that leaves the "middle class" to bear the burden.  The government doesn't create anything, it just sucks life from those who DO produce.  In short: 

'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' Margaret Thatcher 

Those who want health care paid for by someone else other than themselves, will just get a "card" that says they're entitled to care for "free".  In reality, the market will always be in effect and the wealthy and government drones will be the only ones to received good care.  Let politicians and bureaucrats have the power to make treatment decisions and they will become FEARED because they can exclude their opposition.  Anyone who thinks it won't happen have been closing their eyes to what a government is willing to do to take down an opponent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
16 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Trump complains that he wasn't asked for permission to bring infected patients from a cruise ship to the US.  There is nothing in the law that requires presidential permission. 

Another example how morally depraved this megalomaniac freak is. Infected citizen are not good Americans any more, so they should *iss off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 minute ago, toast said:

Another example how morally depraved this megalomaniac freak is. Infected citizen are not good Americans any more, so they should *iss off.

a german tells americans they are not good americans?  lmao. ^iss off german. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 minute ago, aztek said:

a german tells americans they are not good americans?  lmao. ^iss off german. 

You missed the context of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
30 minutes ago, and then said:

You should understand by now that when a government tries to seize wealth, the wealthy take it offshore so it cannot be seized.  The effect of that leaves the "middle class" to bear the burden. 

That will be the problem with the "Wealth Tax" also. And why most European nations tried it and abandoned it.

Once a "Service" is in place, it will never be recalled. So of the top 0.1% are to pay for it... who pays then when the 0.1% figure out how not to? You and me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
11 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

It was affiliated with a hospital.  $23,000 was half of what they originally billed me for.  The balance ($23,000) was mostly disallowed by my insurance company.  They paid about $7800 and left me with $1000.  So are you saying I had good insurance?

Depends on what your Premium is, your deductable, and your maximum out of pocket. 

If you paid 2000 dollars, but had fully reached your out of pocket maximum, that could be considered good insurance. If you paid 1000 dollars, but your yearly out of pocket was 12000 dollars, then that's not as good. 

I judge "good" insurance by what your maximum for the year will be. So that's usually premium plus maximum out of pocket.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I wonder who's going to own firing those half million people who work in the medical insurance industry?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/194229/number-of-health-insurance-employees-in-the-us-since-1960/

Is Sen Sanders going to pay those people's unemployment checks, or severance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I wonder who's going to own firing those half million people who work in the medical insurance industry?

So you say a change in the system would make any kind of administration superfluous? Thats nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
13 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Less headaches, fewer personnel required to process claims, etc.

This simply isn't accurate.  In fact, it's contrary to the reality.  Docs who see Medicare patients have an increasingly large amount of paperwork and a minefield of Federal regs that they usually have to hire extra personnel to handle.  At least, that's the case down here.  My father-in-law's GP was often complaining about the costs and potential pitfalls if Medicare was billed.  Add to that the lowballing of reimbursements that were allowed and it often pays Practices to bail out on Medicare and go totally private funding.

Bottom line is that Physicians/MDs are becoming fewer and fewer.  The trend since Obama's abomination has been to transition from Practices with multiple Drs to having a single MD oversee and prescribe for Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants.  In a primary care Practice this can work but there is a much higher likelihood that something gets miss called or missed altogether on the Differential Diagnosis.

As the patient load increases, such errors will increase.  Add to this the fact that any such system will almost certainly include Tort reform such that no lawsuits are allowed or if they are, the mistake would need to cause death or severe, catastrophic disfunction.

The aspect of this scenario that is the most galling is the fact that the Tort reform that will be put in place would, by itself, drastically reduce costs.  Docs these days have to meet a "standard of care" to keep from being sued for the slightest mistake.  IOW, they have to work with lawyers looking over their shoulders.  That means a patient that presents to the ER with a severe headache or shortness of breath must automatically get a seriously expensive, multi-disciplinary lab and imaging workup.  If the doc doesn't take those steps, he/she can expect a lawyer to go through every detail of the patient's chart/history and to sue for skipping an imaging or lab test that MIGHT have determined different care decisions.  Tort reform that insulates a physician from gratuitous, baseless lawsuits would drastically reduce overall costs.

This hasn't happened yet because of the Legal Lobbying done in DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I dont know why people are pointing at current Medicare and claiming Medicare for all (MFA) will have similar costs.

I was just reading a bit, and Part A is basically for severe issues. Part B is for outpatient and preventative healthcare. But Part B isnt free, depending on if you have retirement income or not.

Sen Sanders says EVERYTHING will be free. There will be no limits, and no copays and no premiums. And the rich will pay for it. Just like Mexico paid for the Wall. Except the Wall was going to be 10 billion, and MFA is going to be 100s of Trillions. 

Make no mistake someone's going to pay for it, and the happy-happy numbers given by proponents always seem to be off by a factor of two or three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 minutes ago, toast said:

So you say a change in the system would make any kind of administration superfluous? Thats nonsense.

Those half million people are what...? Going to all be hired by the FedGov to run Medicare For All?

Sanders said private insurance is GONE. Not going to exist anymore. Thus, even people on Medicare Advantage will loose their insurance and go to general Medicare.

Is the FedGov going to buy all those insurance corporation skyscrapers? Buy all the various debt? Buy all the insurance company property?

I very much doubt there will be a 1 to 1 transfer of people from private insurance companies to Federal workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
15 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Like I said you are not talking about the same thing the rest of us are. 

Regardless... Someone said doctors cant bill a Medicare patient, and I showed, in some cases, that's not true.

Patients on Medicare should be sure if the doctor they are using, and potentially everyone working with him (Labs, specialists, referred coworkers), are fully participating. Or they're going to end up getting bills in the mail.

EDIT: AND.... That's if it is Part A. Part B probably will require a premium. Which is a bill. 

Even Part A will only cover part of many inpatient long term services, depending on various factors. I'm assuming the ret will be billed.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Those half million people are what...? Going to all be hired by the FedGov to run Medicare For All?

Sanders said private insurance is GONE. Not going to exist anymore. Thus, even people on Medicare Advantage will loose their insurance and go to general Medicare.

Is the FedGov going to buy all those insurance corporation skyscrapers? Buy all the various debt? Buy all the insurance company property?

I very much doubt there will be a 1 to 1 transfer of people from private insurance companies to Federal workers.

Do you think to avoid a possible loss of jobs, if there is any which I doubt, is a stronger argument than to have good medical care for all and to avoid people going bankrupt or dont go for treatment at all because there is an individual money issue? How much purchasing power get lost in the US because people have to pay for treatment? I repeat myself, but a lot of countries do have very good medical care systems (Germany, UK, Denmark and others) which are designed well and work very effective, why the hell the US isnt able to have the same or a similar system still running? What is the ****ing problem over there? Lobbyism? Freedom of whatever? I dont know ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I wonder who's going to own firing those half million people who work in the medical insurance industry?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/194229/number-of-health-insurance-employees-in-the-us-since-1960/

Is Sen Sanders going to pay those people's unemployment checks, or severance?

Wait. So you are saying that single payer will streamline our system and get rid of half a million people that are a needless cost on it? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
48 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Wait. So you are saying that single payer will streamline our system and get rid of half a million people that are a needless cost on it? 

that is what you reading into it,  half a mil private industry jobs are gone, and 3 mil gvmnt jobs to run medicare for all created,  since anything gvmt does is more expensive, and less efficient than private sector doing same thing, in reality the process will be much slower, and much more expensive.

back to kolkhozes,  it was a lie soviets told farmers when they took their land,  it really was not theirs, some farmers were arrested and send to gulags\ executed for "stealing crops" , supposably crops they owned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
5 hours ago, and then said:

You should understand by now that when a government tries to seize wealth, the wealthy take it offshore so it cannot be seized.  

That'll be why all of Europe's economy has collapsed since they implemented state healthcare. 

Oh, wait, no it hasn't. 

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Make no mistake someone's going to pay for it, and the happy-happy numbers given by proponents always seem to be off by a factor of two or three.

If course someone's going to pay for it - taxpayers. Each according to what they can afford. The rich will pay most, the poor will pay least. 

And for the vast majority of people, it will be cheaper than paying their current insurance premiums. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Just now, aztek said:

that is what you reading into it,  half a mil private industry jobs are gone, and 3 mil gvmnt jobs to run medicare for all created,  since anything gvmt does is more expensive, and less efficient than private sector doing same thing, in reality the process will be much slower, and much more expensive.

In actual reality, our National Insurance contributions are less than Americans pay for health insurance. 

And that also covers our state pensions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
15 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I dont know what you mean by navigational facilities but if you mean service stations then they are private here too.

Locks and dams.  The TVA and Columbia River Authority operate the rivers, generating electric power from their dams.

15 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Our fire, police, and justice system, are still state owned but I dont think they can really be privatised as it would create too many problems. It might be possible to do the fire and police, I think we should give it a try.

We have private fire companies in some areas.  My daughter lives in one of them.  Pay your annual subscription (which is more than you would pay for a govt-supported system) and you have no problems.  If you wait until your house is on fire, the paperwork might not get done in time for you to save your house.

15 hours ago, aztek said:

wow 4 degrees later and still no clue that company owned by employees is actually opposite of socialism. it is  collectively owned, employees are shareholders. socialism doesn't allow private ownership of businesses,   

and usps is horribly ran, and loosing money.  it's infected with cancer, aka union

 

15 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

And while we are at it why are we building windfarms? Nuclear is green and by far the cheapest per kilowatt hour. Businesses need the cheapest power, not expensive power to make tree huggers happy. Green energy sources need to be the cheapest on offer.

Nuclear runs about 10 cents per kwh.  Wind runs about 3.5 cents per kwh.  That's why.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
15 hours ago, aztek said:

wow 4 degrees later and still no clue that company owned by employees is actually opposite of socialism. it is  collectively owned, employees are shareholders. socialism doesn't allow private ownership of businesses,   

and usps is horribly ran, and loosing money.  it's infected with cancer, aka union

Socialism is worker ownership of capital.  That's what employee-owned businesses are.  The workers own the means of production, the capital.

Socialism allows private ownership of capital, especially the European model.  Even the Soviet Union allowed people to have four-acre garden patches and sell the produce for whatever they could get.  Most of the food was produced this way.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
15 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Here in the UK our Post Office is now nearly completely privatised. Electricity and water already are.

I'm trying to think how one would go about privatizing a hydro-electric dam, especially in western United States.  The govt did it by building irrigation systems into the reservoirs, keeping the farmers happy, using peer pressure to persuade the recalcitrant ones.  But water in a container is privately owned, even if that container is just a hole in the ground.  You need the owner's permission to use his water.  A river big enough to generate power has thousands of owners, each with veto power over your dam.  You have to buy them out or otherwise obtain permission.  Last I heard, water was going for about $4 per acre-foot.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I wonder who's going to own firing those half million people who work in the medical insurance industry?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/194229/number-of-health-insurance-employees-in-the-us-since-1960/

Is Sen Sanders going to pay those people's unemployment checks, or severance?

The insurance industry will quickly absorb them.  Instead of healthcare they will be working on auto insurance.

My own healthcare adjusters are high school grads who look over doctor's reports for code numbers.  They have no knowledge of medicine.  They might have to resort to flipping hamburgers.  But this hypothetical labor shortage the right wing says we have should make it easy for them to get jobs.

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.