Health care

[wdmso]

So the Republicans couldn't pass it , no they didn't have the spine to put it up for vote ...

Trump blames Democrats for GOP health care bill failure

“The good news is they now own health care. They now own Obamacare.”

“The best thing that can happen is that we let the Democrats, that we let Obamacare continue, they’ll have increases from 50 to 100 percent,” he said. “And when it explodes, they’ll come to me to make a deal. And I’m open to that.”

Spoken like a sore loser

What would peoples response be , if the fire dept saying they wont respond to your burning house because they didn't build it

or the Police wont respond to your 911 call because you didn't give them a donation

or the coastguard wont rescue you at see until your swimming

The GOP needs to grow up .. sometimes you need to fix the car you have ... not just buy a new one FIX the Car and the reality is none of our elected officials ever have to drive in that car. And now the are crying it has no brakes and were going to let it crash ..... thats leadership ???

Making America great one Car wreck after another

[Nebe]

sounds like th clown car isn't running on all cylinders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

For someone who views themselves as a great negotiator it was a bad day and week. His first major push on a big legislative piece and he failed biggly. And on top of it they say he wanted to make people vote so he can see who would vote against it and then get revenge against them. He constantly insult the Democrats and then complained that they didn't help him. Is this the winning so often that people would get sick of winning that he so often talked about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Between Comey's testimony and this non-vote, I think Trump wishes he was back on the apprentice. I'm disappointed to learn, the plan is to just move on and tackle taxes, like that will go more smoothly. Suck it up buddy talk to your own party and step across the party line and talk to the other side, you want to succeed it takes compromise.

[detbuch]

It is not really possible to negotiate to make a federally run health insurance better. It is by its very federal nature an unsustainable boondoggle. The only sustainable health insurance is a free market one.

Trying to make federally run health insurance sustainable would be like trying to make social security or Medicare sustainable. The Democrats are not going to negotiate away Social Security, or Medicare, or Obamacare. So, if the Republicans can't manage to get rid of Obamacare, it will remain, like all other federal social programs, until the country is so bankrupt that we will have to revert to a communistic system or have a revolution.

[wdmso]

The only sustainable health insurance is a free market one.

You mean the same ones that brought on the ACA

and the insurers who love it when at 65 you go on medicare

And Due to their profit driven model of Health care they Pricing people right out the market ,

ask yourself what was the price of healthcare in the 1980's and the cost today as well as college is now a for profit model and they claim to be non profit

real medical costs grew by a stunning 241%.
the growth of college tuition and fees, up 596% since 1980.

http://www.businessinsider.com/colle...-income-2011-3

Healthcare should be a right not a choice

[detbuch]

QUOTE=wdmso;1119460]The only sustainable health insurance is a free market one.

You mean the same ones that brought on the ACA

and the insurers who love it when at 65 you go on medicare

And Due to their profit driven model of Health care they Pricing people right out the market ,

You're confusing health care with health insurance. And you're not pointing out the full reason that the cost of health care has gone up. Both health care and health insurance have become increasingly less free market and increasingly more government regulated over time. And the rise in costs have consistently accompanied the rise in government regulation. Now, the constantly greater involvement of government was fueled not only by wonkish desire to "solve" problems as well as by central planners ideological belief in the virtue of government control, but as well, by those in the health care industry realizing that government regulation could be used to their advantage. The nexus between big government and greater profits for large centrally administered corporations (including health care centers) is the expensive, and ever more expensive, model to which you are referring here. That is not a free market model.

ask yourself what was the price of healthcare in the 1980's and the cost today as well as college is now a for profit model and they claim to be non profit

I've already talked about the cost of healthcare in the past in relation to the present in various other threads on this forum. And I've gone back much further than the 1980's which is too small a sample of time to make a useful comparison. By the 1980's the consolidation of big business and big government was well on ts way to being established. If anything, the 1980's was a brief time when government regulations and taxation were, to some small extent under the Reagan administration, rolled back. After that, especially from the Clinton years to now, the progressive connection between big business and big government has greatly expanded. Again, that is anything but free market.

real medical costs grew by a stunning 241%.
the growth of college tuition and fees, up 596% since 1980.

Those costs have gone up even more if you go back further in time. And the one constant has not been the growth of freedom in the market. Quite the opposite. The constant has been the constant growth of central government regulation of the market. This required a response of larger and more centralized business entities which were able to handle massive regulations and which benefited from them at the expense of smaller businesses. Free market economy has been allowed less and less space to flourish over that space of time.

I noticed that you posted another article/video by Peter Schiff to add to the video I posted in the thread on the future of Trump's economy just before this thread. I assume that signaled some confidence on your part in Schiff. If so, did you watch the whole video that I posted in that thread? Schiff pointed out the massive rise in healthcare costs and college tuition. And he connected that directly to government distortion of the free market by its interference and regulations. He even hinted that it might be the goal of progressive government to use regulation in order to not only distort the market but to make it collapse so as to, for instance, bring about totally government controlled and funded national health care. In a relatively few amount of words, he pointed out, from an economic point of view, who the culprits are in creating the huge rise in costs of health care and college tuition. I would recommend to you to go back to the video I posted and watch it again, or for the first time if you haven't already.

Healthcare should be a right not a choice[/QUOTE]

Would that be an unalienable right? Or a government granted right?

Are rights, for you, only granted by government?

Under our founded constitutional system, you have an unalienable right to pursue (seek) healthcare. You don't have a right to demand it, nor get it without just compensation to those who provide it. You pay for it yourself (or by an insurance company with which you contracted, chose, to pay for it).

Under a government which grants all rights, you have as much "right" to healthcare which that government allows you to have. You, or others, will pay for your care with taxes.

It's your choice of which system you want, so long as you can get a majority to go along with you. Which is to say, in a nutshell, under government granted "rights," you not only don't have a choice, you don't have a right.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What would peoples response be , if the fire dept saying they wont respond to your burning house because they didn't build it

or the Police wont respond to your 911 call because you didn't give them a donation

or the coastguard wont rescue you at see until your swimming

Apparently, the Democrat response would be not to respond, not to rescue you:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp

The GOP needs to grow up .. sometimes you need to fix the car you have ... not just buy a new one FIX the Car and the reality is none of our elected officials ever have to drive in that car. And now the are crying it has no brakes and were going to let it crash ..... thats leadership ???

The Democrats refused to "fix the old car" when they bought the new Obamacare. And when it turned out to be more of a clunker than the old one, the cry is to fix the new and worse clunker. Uhh . . . most folks would buy a new car rather than investing more money into a broken down old one that was a lemon when it was new.

Making America great one Car wreck after another

That's been the Progressive model of government since time one. Constantly destroying the Constitutional system one wreck at a time. Then using the crises, wrecks, they create as an excuse to convince us that a new wreck is required. But they don't actually abandon the old wrecks. They keep the gas guzzlers chugging along with constant costly repairs, and just keep adding new wrecks to the pile of government bureaucracy. So now, instead of a well kept model, or even a new, shiny, well functioning one, we have a boondoggle of clunkers that are too expensive to maintain. So we have to constantly borrow more, and get deeper in debt to keep the clunkers going. And, in order to keep enticing the public, new clunkers are wrapped in glossy Christmas paper and parked in the garage.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The only sustainable health insurance is a free market one.

You mean the same ones that brought on the ACA

and the insurers who love it when at 65 you go on medicare

And Due to their profit driven model of Health care they Pricing people right out the market ,

ask yourself what was the price of healthcare in the 1980's and the cost today as well as college is now a for profit model and they claim to be non profit

real medical costs grew by a stunning 241%.
the growth of college tuition and fees, up 596% since 1980.

http://www.businessinsider.com/colle...-income-2011-3

Healthcare should be a right not a choice

"and the insurers who love it when at 65 you go on medicare "

The insurers aren't pushing people to Medicare at 65. It's that in this country, people buy insurance through work, and many people stop working at that age.

"And Due to their profit driven model of Health care they Pricing people right out the market "

Not remotely true, health insurers do not gouge in pricing. They can't, because it's a very, very highly regulated market. Insurer prices must always be approved by the state government. If you look at profit margins of different businesses in the US, health insurance margins are around 6%, which is below the average. You can google that. If a health insurance company starts making fat profits (as a % of revenue), the states force them to lower their rates.

"ask yourself what was the price of healthcare in the 1980's and the cost today "

Are you talking about the price of healthcare services, or the price of healthcare insurance? Two different things, but related of course. Health insurance is very expensive because the thing being insured (healthcare) is expensive. So if we want to lower the costs of health insurance, we need to find a way to lower the cost of the thing being insured - healthcare. As the price of healthcare goes up, so must the price of health insurance.

"the growth of college tuition and fees, up 596% since 1980. "

And let me guess, you blame Republicans for that.

[Nebe]

An apple a day keeps the healthcare issue away
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

when I started my Job 1988 my health insurance contribution was 25 cents a pay period
2017 its 400.00 a pay period

i must be missing where they are not making any money ??


I dont blame any party I blame health insurance and the healthcare system for profit model

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $15 millionAnthem
CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.5 millionCigna
CEO David Cordani: $14.5 milion
Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.1 million
UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Helmsley: $14.9 million

Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

In fact, UnitedHealth announced record-breaking profits in 2015, followed by an even better year this year. In July 2016, UnitedHealth celebrated revenues that quarter totalling $46.5 billion, an increase of $10 billion since the same time last year. And company filings show that UnitedHealth’s CEO Stephen J. Hemsley made over $20 million in 2015. To be fair, that is a pay cut. The previous year, in 2014, Hemsley took home $66 million in compensation.

Thanks to the insurance industry’s combination of record profits in recent years and increasing premiums, people on both sides of the political aisle have criticized the Affordable Care Act as being more beneficial to the insurance industry than consumers, though politicians remain deeply divided on what a good, viable alternative would entail.

but back to the topic of the thread is it ok for Trump let the ACA blow up rather than fix it seeing he cant replace it .. I thought he was on the little guys side ?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by wdmso

i must be missing where they are not making any money ??

They are making money but they are huge corporations and are just making a fair % profit.

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $15 millionAnthem
CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.5 millionCigna
CEO David Cordani: $14.5 milion
Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.1 million
UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Helmsley: $14.9 million

Huge corporations and the CEO of all yuge corp. make big bucks. Ins. is no different than any other corp.

but back to the topic of the thread is it ok for Trump let the ACA blow up rather than fix it seeing he cant replace it .. I thought he was on the little guys side ?

The last part is valid. He ran on helping the little guy out and the CBO said 24M would eventually lose coverage and the older folks would have to pay like 5X what they pay now. I guess they can forgo that Iphone for 1 of the months premium but I don't know what they would do the 2nd month.

[Raven]

when you go see a doctor......
doesn't matter what or whose health care it is.....

first thing they say after a "brief analysis"
"i'm going to put you on __________ medication."

i don't trust the ramifications of the many negative side effects anymore
and i will forever say.... i no longer take medications. no thank you

good bye without a see ya in 2 or 3 weeks.... return visit

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

but back to the topic of the thread is it ok for Trump let the ACA blow up rather than fix it seeing he cant replace it .. I thought he was on the little guys side ?

It can't be fixed. It was made to fail. It will either be replaced by Republicans with some market based insurance system when it blows up, or it will be replaced by Democrats with single payer national health care.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

when I started my Job 1988 my health insurance contribution was 25 cents a pay period
2017 its 400.00 a pay period

i must be missing where they are not making any money ??


I dont blame any party I blame health insurance and the healthcare system for profit model

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $15 millionAnthem
CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.5 millionCigna
CEO David Cordani: $14.5 milion
Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.1 million
UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Helmsley: $14.9 million

Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

In fact, UnitedHealth announced record-breaking profits in 2015, followed by an even better year this year. In July 2016, UnitedHealth celebrated revenues that quarter totalling $46.5 billion, an increase of $10 billion since the same time last year. And company filings show that UnitedHealth’s CEO Stephen J. Hemsley made over $20 million in 2015. To be fair, that is a pay cut. The previous year, in 2014, Hemsley took home $66 million in compensation.

Thanks to the insurance industry’s combination of record profits in recent years and increasing premiums, people on both sides of the political aisle have criticized the Affordable Care Act as being more beneficial to the insurance industry than consumers, though politicians remain deeply divided on what a good, viable alternative would entail.

but back to the topic of the thread is it ok for Trump let the ACA blow up rather than fix it seeing he cant replace it .. I thought he was on the little guys side ?

"i must be missing where they are not making any money ??"

Again, you have a very, very hard time (like most liberals) responding to what I said. I never, ever said they don't make "any" money. I said that there profit margins, are below average for all businesses in the country, and that they are very highly regulated by every state. The state insurance departments make sure that profit margins are not excessive, or they require the companies to decrease premiums.

Some companies make a ton of money, but that's because they have a lot of insureds. On average, for every dollar in premium they collect, they spend about 93-95 cents on healthcare costs and expenses of running the company. But some of them have millions of customers, so it adds up to a lot of total profit. But that doesn't mean you can cut premiums in half, or even by 10%, and still break even.

Thin profit margins per customer (on average), but a huge number of customers. All you see is the big total profit, not the fact that the margins per customer are thin.

Insurance is highly regulated, and there's also a fair amount of competition. Therefore, health insurance companies cannot charge excessive rates, or no one will choose to buy their product.

Ahh, CEO compensation, the whiny lullaby of the left. Yes, CEO compensation is grotesque and unfair. It's also nothing but a rounding error on the balance sheet of a company like Aetna. If the CEO worked for free, how much do you think they could decrease the annual cost of their customer's insurance plan? Aetna has millions and millions of customers. So CEO pay might cost each customer $15 a year. Big whoop.

[PaulS]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/m...e=sectionfront

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/m...e=sectionfront

No one denies it needs fixing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Trump's probably only bluffing (a sort of tactic in making a difficult deal) about stripping Congress of the health care subsidies that were provided to them in the deal that was made by Obama in order to pass Obamacare.

Styx 666 likes Trump's threat to erase Obama's subsidies to Congress if it doesn't repeal the ACA as the Republicans ((including the weasel McCain) promised they would do.

Here's Styx's well put opinion (which will probably offend the thin skinned):

[Raider Ronnie]

Like Trump keeps saying "let it implode". (And it's going to)
Wonder then in the Democraps let him get away with saying
" I inherited this mess ". 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Trump's probably only bluffing (a sort of tactic in making a difficult deal) about stripping Congress of the health care subsidies that were provided to them in the deal that was made by Obama in order to pass Obamacare.

Styx 666 likes Trump's threat to erase Obama's subsidies to Congress if it doesn't repeal the ACA as the Republicans ((including the weasel McCain) promised they would do.

Here's Styx's well put opinion (which will probably offend the thin skinned):

I imagine most are wealthy enough to not be bothered if their job only provided an Obamacare type plan.

[DZ]

Health Care is so very complicated. Giving people free stuff is never a good idea because its so hard to get them to give it up or ask them to pay a little more for it. Many good MDs are moving to Wellness plans. http://www.mdvip.com/
They'll only take a limited number of patients - most who have private insurance or premium plans. That is one of the problems with a single payer system. Those who have the means will just pay for their own doctor.
In the end I don't see how this resolves itself.

[wdmso]

health care isn't about giving free anything ... when a Vast i mean Vast number of jobs Wages will not cover the current cost of a Plan ... many who complain about the high cost had just Catastrophic Health Plan .. so lets see people put up what there paying I have good health plan been on the same job for 29 year originally only paid 25 cents a week in 1988 no co pay no deductible now i pay 250 by weekly 850 out of pocket and 250 deductible for meds the 20 co pay after in 29 years 2 kids is my real extent of using my insurance and thats a plan offered to a state who has buying power of over how many employees and its cheaper because of volume

How do you expect the landscaper or business owner with 10 workers to provide health care .. ?? people over 65 dont care they are covered and insurances companies are glad to see them gone rich people dont care they can afforded it

every one else will bitch util the get a real bill then they'll feel the pain and wish they had single payer or roll the dice till they reach 65

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

health care isn't about giving free anything ... when a Vast i mean Vast number of jobs Wages will not cover the current cost of a Plan ... many who complain about the high cost had just Catastrophic Health Plan .. so lets see people put up what there paying I have good health plan been on the same job for 29 year originally only paid 25 cents a week in 1988 no co pay no deductible now i pay 250 by weekly 850 out of pocket and 250 deductible for meds the 20 co pay after in 29 years 2 kids is my real extent of using my insurance and thats a plan offered to a state who has buying power of over how many employees and its cheaper because of volume

How do you expect the landscaper or business owner with 10 workers to provide health care .. ?? people over 65 dont care they are covered and insurances companies are glad to see them gone rich people dont care they can afforded it

every one else will bitch util the get a real bill then they'll feel the pain and wish they had single payer or roll the dice till they reach 65

WDMSO, you need to understand that health insurance is expensive because the thing being insured, healthcare, is expensive. Healthcare insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive.

Health insurance is also very highly regulated. Insurers cannot charge whatever they want, rates must get approved by state government. The governments employ actuaries to make sure the insurers aren't inflating prices. And profit margins for health insurers, are below average for businesses in this country.

I have a typical family plan for a typical white collar job. For me and my wife & kids, I pay about 400 a month for my insurance, I think my company pays about double that (most people don't know that what you pay, is usually about 25% of the total cost, your employer pays the rest) so the true cost of my plan is a little over $1,000 a month. I have a $1,000 family deductible, and once that's met, I have $20 co-pays for office visits, $150 for emergency room visits. I have no complaints. I wish it was cheaper, but I know my carrier spends 95 cents of every dollar collected, paying benefits and expenses. They aren't price gouging.

How do we make it cheaper? beats me. I know there's some fraud and waste that can be rooted out, we can pass tort reform law which makes it less necessary for docs to practice defensive medicine. But I don't know that amounts to much.

And I don't want single payer, I don't want the government anywhere near my health.

[wdmso]

you dont want them anywhere near your healthcare until you 65 or cant afford it then you'll want them.. like those who hate the government until a tornado or hurricane wipes them out and all you hear is where is the government

every one should get the same heath care its not a product its not a car so if you can afford a Ferrari and I can afford and used Yugo then try to make the argument well there both cars ....

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

America is number 50 out of 55 countries that were assessed.

The U.S. rated especially poor in equality of coverage. The report found that 44 percent of low-income Americans have trouble gaining access to coverage compared with 26 percent of high-income Americans. The numbers for the U.K. are 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Not unrelated, the U.K.’s National Health Service was deemed the best health care system, just as it was in 2014. “In contrast to the U.S., over the last decade the U.K. saw a larger decline in mortality amenable to health care than the other countries studied,” the report reads.


but again facts matter to some and to other not so much ... how can Single-payer be worse

Why do Americans love Medicare but hate the idea of a single-payer healthcare system? It doesn't make sense.

[wdmso]

1. Medicare provides comprehensive health care coverage for seniors. Since its creation in
1965, Medicare has provided universal health care to millions of seniors.
2.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare provides health security for seniors. Today only 2% of the elderly lack health
insurance compared to 48% in 1962, before we had Medicare.
3.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare provides free preventive health screenings. Seniors do not pay for Mammograms,
Diabetes or Cancer screenings thanks to provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
4.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare provides 41.8 million seniors prescription drug coverage through Part D.
The program will be even better when, thanks to the ACA, the Part D coverage gap known as the “donut
hole” will be phased out by 2020.
5. 9 million disabled Americans receiving Social Security benefits also receive health coverage through
Medicare.
6.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare’s costs rise slower than private insurance. Medicare spending per enrollee grew at
an average annual rate of 7.5% between 1969 and 2013, slower than the 9.1% growth rate in private
health insurance.
7.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare is efficient. Only 1% of traditional Medicare is overhead compared to 6% for privatized
Medicare.
8. #^&#^& Medicare promotes greater health equity in America. Medicare provides older people of
color, who are more likely to have lower incomes and therefore less able to save for health care costs, with a
critical economic lifeline.
9. #^&#^&#^&We earn our Medicare coverage. Medicare isn’t welfare. American workers’ payroll taxes fund
hospital, skilled nursing, home health and hospice care and premiums cover a portion of the costs for
physician visits, outpatient visits and preventive services.
10. Medicare is a social insurance program that works. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why
Medicare is universally cherished is that in return for the contributions we make during our
working years we receive guaranteed health benefits.

[buckman]

Medicare is awful. Most seniors have to subsidize it with some other healthcare policy to even come close to affording basic care. So many people who should not be on it are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g money out of it. It is another poorly run government program .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you dont want them anywhere near your healthcare until you 65 or cant afford it then you'll want them.. like those who hate the government until a tornado or hurricane wipes them out and all you hear is where is the government

every one should get the same heath care its not a product its not a car so if you can afford a Ferrari and I can afford and used Yugo then try to make the argument well there both cars ....

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

America is number 50 out of 55 countries that were assessed.

The U.S. rated especially poor in equality of coverage. The report found that 44 percent of low-income Americans have trouble gaining access to coverage compared with 26 percent of high-income Americans. The numbers for the U.K. are 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Not unrelated, the U.K.’s National Health Service was deemed the best health care system, just as it was in 2014. “In contrast to the U.S., over the last decade the U.K. saw a larger decline in mortality amenable to health care than the other countries studied,” the report reads.


but again facts matter to some and to other not so much ... how can Single-payer be worse

Why do Americans love Medicare but hate the idea of a single-payer healthcare system? It doesn't make sense.

The U.K. Has 4 different National Healthcare services, one for England, one for Scotland, one for Ireland, and one for Wales.

Pesky facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you dont want them anywhere near your healthcare until you 65 or cant afford it then you'll want them.. like those who hate the government until a tornado or hurricane wipes them out and all you hear is where is the government

Health CARE was available to everyone (even non citizens and illegals) before Obamacare. It was far more inconvenient for those without insurance because they had to get it through the emergency room. Supposedly, the rest of us, the insured, had to pay for the uninsured visitors to emergency. So, Obamacare was supposed to relieve the rest of us of that cost which would help to lower premiums. Obamacare did just the opposite. It raised the cost to the rest of us, raising our premiums in order to pay for the previously uninsured who now were insured at our cost by subsidies instead of covering only their emergency visits. Government, as usual, raised the cost of health care by creating a larger source of payment as well as forcing insurance companies to cover far more than they had for everyone, even far more than was necessary.

People survived being "wiped out" by tornados and hurricanes before government stepped in to save them. Communities were more tightly nit and helped each other out. And it was cheaper because big government money was not available to tap into. Government "help," of course, is more expensive. It has, and is more than willing to spend, more money. So prices go up.

The more government "helps," the more not only is the help more expensive, people depend less on one another and communities become fragmented. Folks need and depend on each other less. The government is there to "help" them. Most Americans don't really know or associate with others a few houses, or a street or two, away. We have our own individual bubbles. The causes for that are various, but government "help" and regulations and policies and mandates has its fingers in that pie chart of reasons.

And the notion that there are those who "hate the government" is a red herring. There are very few who totally hate the government. Most of us like it when it does a good job of doing what it's supposed to do. But when it takes on the responsibility of doing more than it should, and places the burden of paying for that on productive taxpayers, that golden goose will lay some verbal turds at the doorstep of Big G.



every one should get the same heath care its not a product its not a car so if you can afford a Ferrari and I can afford and used Yugo then try to make the argument well there both cars ....

Why should everyone get the same health care? How is that even possible? Some doctors are better than others. Even in single government payer systems there is discrimination and rationing and choices of who gets care instead of others. And some get it sooner than others. And some die waiting.

And why does a thing not being a product mean that everyone should "get" exactly that thing without variation. There are many different services (rather than products) which are sold in different quantities and qualities depending on how much one is willing or able to pay for them. And, anyway, how is health care not a product? Is it not a product of individual and team efforts. Isn't its quality dependent on the ability and attention and the tools that those individuals and teams have and use? Doesn't good health care produce a healed, cured, healthy person in the place of a sick or disabled one, being the product of those individual and team efforts?

And why should someone who has the money to pay for the best health care right away rather than waiting for others who don't have enough money to pay someone who is willing to provide that care NOW for those who can afford it rather than waiting in line for those who can't afford it, or be denied altogether because the health service thinks the costs are too exorbitant to provide for everyone? Aren't some such exceptions already allowed in some single payer systems?

And if the government can mandate that everyone must have the same health care, why can't it mandate that everyone must buy the same car? And why can't the government be the single payer for all those same cars?


U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

It is much easier to be "efficient" if all services and costs are the same for everyone and all payments are made by the same payer. That sort of uniform efficiency produces a more uniform quality (not completely since different doctors, hospitals, are better than others, etc.). So there is no important variation from best to worst as there is in a market based individual payer system with discernable variations in quality, and so forth.

The more efficient uniform system is better for many and worse for many. But there is no inherent "fairness" in it. There is no "everyone pulling their weight" in it. Some pull the weight for others. And it discourages the striving for excellence that getting something better as a reward for harder and better effort encourages.

America is number 50 out of 55 countries that were assessed.

It

The U.S. rated especially poor in equality of coverage. The report found that 44 percent of low-income Americans have trouble gaining access to coverage compared with 26 percent of high-income Americans. The numbers for the U.K. are 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Not unrelated, the U.K.’s National Health Service was deemed the best health care system, just as it was in 2014. “In contrast to the U.S., over the last decade the U.K. saw a larger decline in mortality amenable to health care than the other countries studied,” the report reads.

As in "efficiency," "equality" is not a mark of being better for all. It is better for many than it could be and worse for many than it could be. Generally speaking, "equality" spreads mediocrity.

I'm guessing that the decline in mortality due to better health care is promoted at the poor end. Probably the wealthier and middle portions are not expanding life span because of "equality" in health care (they most likely would have had the "equal" care or better in a variable market system). As well, in general, life spans have expanded in more advanced countries over time due to improvements in food distribution and production as well as more and more medicines for various ailments. And most of that has been due to capitalistic market forces. "Spreading the wealth" (and the health care) requires the wealth and care to be "produced" in the first place. And the most "efficient" and productive way has been done by market capitalism.

but again facts matter to some and to other not so much ... how can Single-payer be worse

Why do Americans love Medicare but hate the idea of a single-payer healthcare system? It doesn't make sense.

Facts absolutely matter. But cherry-picked facts and stats, without context and completeness, distort the truth and lead us astray. Beware of the constant praise and quest for social "equality." Remember, the Pilgrims tried the social equality bit, and they not only sunk into mediocrity, but worse, the "equal" society totally collapsed due to the true "inequality" of everyone not pulling their own weight. The producers tired of being the golden goose but getting only the same as the non-producers for their efforts. They quit hustling, produced only enough for themselves, and the society imploded. The experiment was Ayn Rand-like before Ayn Rand.

And single payer is the current Progressive attempt to revive all the failed Marxian, communistic, social equality experiments that have been tried and failed for the past 175 years and which, amazingly, disregarded the Pilgrims' experiment two hundred years before all that.

Oh, and as for Medicare, (and Social Security, and Obamacare, and unlimited government help) is any of that fiscally sustainable?

[wdmso]

Why should everyone get the same health care? because money should not influence your care or status or skin color( has a lot to do with your income) but seem you have no issue with that

How is that even possible? your confusing availability with out come 2 different issues Some doctors are better than others. its about getting care but again the logic more money paid equals better doctors rather than overall availably to care

Even in single government payer systems there is discrimination and rationing and choices of who gets care instead of others. And some get it sooner than others. And some die waiting.

this is a completely made up ^^^^^^ so this happens on Medicaid NO!

It happens now in the current system.. die cuz you cant afford the Best doctors and care or lose your house or go on welfare or MA Health not because your a slug you have no choice

this OMG single payer result in Government run hospitals like in Venezuela is a honed fear tactic of the right that the boogie mans coming blaming Liberals ideas for everything even as we hear daily how many seats they own in states and in DC and Governorships

its amazing how that works

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why should everyone get the same health care? because money should not influence your care or status or skin color( has a lot to do with your income) but seem you have no issue with that

Get over it. Money does influence. That's why people strive to get it. The notion that money should not influence something overlooks the intrinsic meaning of money. Money is a medium of EXCHANGE. And it represents the labor or product of those who own money (or inherit it). In a free society, exchange is voluntary. Healthcare involves an exchange between buyer and seller. If a buyer can demand the same product from a seller for less money than others are willing or able to pay, the exchange is not voluntary. It is coerced. And if government can force sellers in a given exchange to trade their product for less return than they can get from other buyers, than it can do so in all exchanges. And if government can take ownership of all exchanges, determining which can exist, in what manner they exist, and "pay" for all exchanges equally for all buyers regardless what those buyers have to offer for the product, then there is really no exchange. The government, in effect, owns the product and the labor to produce it, and likewise owns the health of those needing the product. It all becomes a process of people filling the slots in the scheme that government masterminds devise, "benevolently" seeing to it that those filling the slots stay healthy enough to continue doing so.

I see that you didn't answer (among other things) my question "And if the government can mandate that everyone must have the same health care, why can't it mandate that everyone must buy the same car? And why can't the government be the single payer for all those same cars?"

So, yeah, there is a reason for money, or some facsimile. It makes it more efficient to make trades. It expands the size and efficiency of a market. It, or what it represents, is an intrinsic part of a marketplace. Removing it or what it represents from the market, eliminates the market.

A bureaucratically planned and enforced society has no need of a market. A market is the enemy of planned, controlled, societies. And vice versa.

How is that even possible? your confusing availability with out come 2 different issues Some doctors are better than others. its about getting care but again the logic more money paid equals better doctors rather than overall availably to care

In the case of better doctors, the outcome is what is available. There is no confusion between outcome and availability there. What you're confusing is that availability to health care gives all the availability to the same healthcare. That is not possible. Some will get better, some not as good, doctors, so it is not possible under single payer system for all to choose the best. So everybody will not get the same healthcare. Nor will the same healthcare even be available to everybody. Even having the chance at the best healthcare, other than luck, is to have more to offer for it.

Even in single government payer systems there is discrimination and rationing and choices of who gets care instead of others. And some get it sooner than others. And some die waiting.

this is a completely made up ^^^^^^ so this happens on Medicaid NO!

It happens in totally single payer systems . . . such as the UK which you mentioned. We have not yet achieved such a system in our country. We're on the cusp of that happening. If and when it does, it will be happening here.

It happens now in the current system.. die cuz you cant afford the Best doctors and care or lose your house or go on welfare or MA Health not because your a slug you have no choice

That's the reason for sustaining a free market. It creates the possibility for getting better results for yourself if you strive for the means to do so. And that striving, by the way, is what creates bigger markets which create more technology and means to provide better results. Take away the striving and the market shrinks. Availability for better stuff diminishes. The trajectory toward controlled societies increases. Freedom is lost. But the poor will be taken care of by government edict, and there will be more levelling of society into an overall poorness living under the deception of a minimized state of hog heaven.

this OMG single payer result in Government run hospitals like in Venezuela is a honed fear tactic of the right that the boogie mans coming blaming Liberals ideas for everything even as we hear daily how many seats they own in states and in DC and Governorships

its amazing how that works

By all means, let us keep chipping away at the benefits of a free marketplace. Let us keep squeezing the life out of it.

Venezuela! Pfft! Nothing there to see. Cuba is the paradise which we keep missing to notice as such. China and Russia trying to move toward capitalism in order to sustain their economies--just a little tick, a little glitch on the road to the final equal, fair, and politically righteous societies controlled by government edict.