FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#1532477 --- 07/25/19 07:31 AM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
Thank your for starting my health care thread.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/republicans-refusal-to-expand-medicaid-had-a-cost-15000-deaths/

Republicans’ refusal to expand Medicaid had a cost: 15,000 deaths
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1532496 --- 07/25/19 03:01 PM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12651
Loc: NY
Want to Fix Health Insurance? Start With the Tax Code

Underneath the tribalistic bullheadedness and partisan signaling lies a common enemy: employer-sponsored health insurance.
Thursday, July 25, 2019


Economics Health Care Health Insurance Free Market Tax Code
In March, President Trump tweeted, “The Republican Party will become ‘the party of healthcare!’”


Donald J. Trump
&#10004;
@realDonaldTrump
The Republican Party will become “The Party of Healthcare!”

136K
12:58 PM - Mar 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
62.4K people are talking about this
Given the GOP’s inability to deliver on that promise over the better part of the past decade, many have remained despondent. After all, health care policy may be the one area where such disparate visions would make any attempt at compromise futile and, perhaps, even counterproductive. But underneath the tribalistic bullheadedness and partisan signaling lies a common enemy: employer-sponsored health insurance.

Employer-Based Coverage
Since the beginning of this year, 175 million Americans have received their health insurance through employer plans. Employer-based coverage (distinct from the individual insurance market) arose during World War II through wage controls in the form of preferential tax treatment. Because of that, employers enjoyed the benefits of offering tax-exempt health coverage, but this has come at the expense of consumers in the health care market.

Rather than negotiating with insurance companies directly, employees have outsourced their negotiating capacity to their employers.

One study conducted by health care policy expert Avik Roy measured the benefits of a variety of health insurance programs through a comprehensive grading scale that, among other metrics, included underlying cost, freedom of choice, and annual premiums. In the end, they concluded that employer health insurance ranked far below individually-purchased insurance and Medicare Advantage.

Rather than negotiating with insurance companies directly, employees have outsourced their negotiating capacity to their employers, and the ideal insurance plan might not be the same for everyone involved. After all, not only does this put employees in job-lock, as lamented by Democrat and Republican politicians alike, but it also undermines consumers’ sensitivity to price—a necessary component in a functioning free market.

Let me explain.

Out of Pocket Payments Are Ideal
Ideally, health procedures and expenses would be paid out-of-pocket instead of being covered through a bloated insurance plan. While this may seem like a more costly method for individual people, allowing routine expenses to be paid out-of-pocket would end up lowering the cost of premiums and the cost of such expenses. It’s similar to the way car insurance doesn’t cover routine oil changes. It’s how they keep their car insurance plans from being completely unaffordable. But our current health care system doesn’t operate like that. In fact, it continues to cover some of the most rudimentary services—and continues to be outrageously pricey.

Since insurance companies, not consumers, are negotiating prices and payment, consumers are left in the dark about the true cost of health care services. Economist John Cochrane explains that “with little price discovery left in health care, health insurers have to do all the price negotiation in a vacuum.” All that does is protect health care providers from competing with one another and ultimately cutting their prices.

Employers are incentivized to direct a big chunk of employee compensation to their bloated insurance plans.

Further, since employer-sponsored insurance enjoys preferential treatment in the tax code, employers are incentivized to direct a big chunk of employee compensation to their bloated insurance plans. This helps them circumvent taxation, and price insensitivity becomes worse and worse.

The prevalence of employer-based health insurance is largely responsible for the pre-existing conditions crisis that has dominated our national discourse for the last decade. Because of the overuse of employer-sponsored insurance, the individual health insurance market has been under-utilized despite offering greater protections for patients with costly illnesses.

As health care policy expert Michael Cannon notes,

high-cost patients with guaranteed-renewable coverage are roughly half as likely to end up uninsured as high-cost patients with small-group coverage, and unlike employer-sponsored coverage, the risk of losing guaranteed-renewable coverage does not rise with health risk.

In other words, tying health care to an employer greatly puts one at risk if a serious illness is developed. And if that illness precludes one from working, that individual loses the employer-sponsored insurance.

Individual Health Insurance Market
This, of course, ultimately led to the popular yet misguided pre-existing provision of “Obamacare,” which barred insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. While noble in its intentions, this regulation created a negative spiral in which the increased premiums prompted healthy individuals to forgo picking up health insurance, which further increased the cost of premiums, and so on.

A positive and permanent solution would be cultivating an individual health insurance market where plans would have guaranteed renewability and a total satisfaction guarantee. Under these stipulations—and unlike employer-sponsored coverage—individuals would be able to retain their insurance moving between jobs, premiums would not increase if you got sick, and you could change insurance plans without the risk of higher premiums.

Republicans routinely insist that a free insurance market is the solution to rising premiums and bureaucratic inefficiencies.

If the preferential tax treatment ends, employees would see their cash compensation rise. With the increase in wages, people could shop for insurance that best fits their needs. Or, alternatively, employers could fund health reimbursement accounts, effectively allowing employers to divert pre-tax cash that would otherwise go toward buying employee insurance into employee accounts that would be used by employees to purchase insurance in the individual market.

Republicans routinely insist that a free insurance market is the solution to rising premiums and bureaucratic inefficiencies. This, realistically speaking, can’t happen unless Congress dispenses with the preferential tax treatment for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Top
#1532498 --- 07/25/19 03:12 PM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: cwjga]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Republicans routinely insist that a free insurance market is the solution to rising premiums and bureaucratic inefficiencies. This, realistically speaking, can’t happen unless Congress dispenses with the preferential tax treatment for employer-sponsored health insurance.
And if the Republicans stop giving million dollar tax cuts to billionaires.
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532513 --- 07/26/19 05:36 AM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why the moderators let you hi-jack every thread, I do not Know.
What? Every thread? LOL I had only posted on this single Great Debate thread for weeks until you came back and got Headline News going again! You tell the truth about as much as that guy in the White House.
How about a comment on this lie of yours?
Still hi-jacking the Headline News thread I see. Tsk. Tsk.
Nothing new to report here but I will keep trying to get a comment.
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532565 --- 07/27/19 05:28 AM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why the moderators let you hi-jack every thread, I do not Know.
What? Every thread? LOL I had only posted on this single Great Debate thread for weeks until you came back and got Headline News going again! You tell the truth about as much as that guy in the White House.
How about a comment on this lie of yours?
This must be so humiliating for cwjga grin grin grin
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532607 --- 07/30/19 10:00 AM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
A thread named about me! How nice!

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/women-t...be-an-american/

Women Trump voters repulsed by president’s increasingly ugly rhetoric: ‘I’m ashamed to be an American
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532665 --- 07/31/19 12:49 PM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532667 --- 07/31/19 01:21 PM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: Ben444]
Formermac Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 18033
Loc: Above ground
Sleepwalking is exactly the proper usage describing Trump. The fool started a trade war with Russia and China in our trade of grain but what does he do? cause both countries to buy from someone else thus drying up the ability of farmers to sell their product. Now he self righteously and ceremonially announce a 15 Billion dollar bailout....by all standards, we call this passing out welfare to people that you harmed in the first place.What's the opposite of the term MIDAS TOUCH?
_________________________
I know how to bring out the buffoonery of A Trump supporter.State Fact

Top
#1532668 --- 07/31/19 01:57 PM health care thread [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12651
Loc: NY
What is Medicare for All?
By Jon Greenberg

Bernie Sanders’ idea of Medicare for All would be a single, national health insurance program that would cover everyone who lives in the United States. In the bill he introduced in 2017, it would pay for every medically necessary service, from routine doctor visits to surgery to mental health to prescription drugs. Dental and vision care are part of the package, too. The details on long-term care might vary between the Senate and House versions, but broadly speaking, nursing home and related care grow under both proposals.

The government would set payment rates for services, drugs and medical equipment. Each year, the secretary of Health and Human Services would determine a national budget for all covered services and spending would be limited by that cap. For individuals, there would be no costs — no deductibles, no copays or coinsurance. The two exceptions would be for some prescription drugs — though that would be limited to $200 a year — and possibly for long-term care.

It would replace all other insurance, with limited exceptions, such as cosmetic surgery. Employer-provided insurance, Medicaid and ultimately Medicare would all disappear.

Would this proposal simply extend Medicare to everyone? Is it literally Medicare for all?
No. Medicare for All is much more generous than the current Medicare program. Right now, the Medicare program is for Americans 65 and over; they receive care, but they’re also responsible for part of the costs. Unlike traditional Medicare, Sanders’ Medicare for All would cover medical bills completely, with no burden on the patient. There would be no Medigap insurance or Medicare Advantage.


If Medicare for All sounds a lot like a single-payer health care system — where the government foots the bill for people’s health care — that’s because the two are largely the same. The new name seems intended to make the concept more popular. When the Kaiser Family Foundation asked people in 2017 how they felt about the term single-payer health, 48 percent gave it a thumbs up. When Kaiser asked them how they felt about Medicare for All, support rose to 62 percent.

So keep your private insurance because all things will not be covered

Top
#1532688 --- 07/31/19 03:56 PM Re: health care thread [Re: cwjga]
Teonan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/30/12
Posts: 5389
Loc: Malmö
Originally Posted By: cwjga
What is Medicare for All?
By Jon Greenberg

Bernie Sanders’ idea of Medicare for All would be a single, national health insurance program that would cover everyone who lives in the United States. In the bill he introduced in 2017, it would pay for every medically necessary service, from routine doctor visits to surgery to mental health to prescription drugs. Dental and vision care are part of the package, too. The details on long-term care might vary between the Senate and House versions, but broadly speaking, nursing home and related care grow under both proposals.

The government would set payment rates for services, drugs and medical equipment. Each year, the secretary of Health and Human Services would determine a national budget for all covered services and spending would be limited by that cap. For individuals, there would be no costs — no deductibles, no copays or coinsurance. The two exceptions would be for some prescription drugs — though that would be limited to $200 a year — and possibly for long-term care.

It would replace all other insurance, with limited exceptions, such as cosmetic surgery. Employer-provided insurance, Medicaid and ultimately Medicare would all disappear.

Would this proposal simply extend Medicare to everyone? Is it literally Medicare for all?
No. Medicare for All is much more generous than the current Medicare program. Right now, the Medicare program is for Americans 65 and over; they receive care, but they’re also responsible for part of the costs. Unlike traditional Medicare, Sanders’ Medicare for All would cover medical bills completely, with no burden on the patient. There would be no Medigap insurance or Medicare Advantage.


If Medicare for All sounds a lot like a single-payer health care system — where the government foots the bill for people’s health care — that’s because the two are largely the same. The new name seems intended to make the concept more popular. When the Kaiser Family Foundation asked people in 2017 how they felt about the term single-payer health, 48 percent gave it a thumbs up. When Kaiser asked them how they felt about Medicare for All, support rose to 62 percent.

So keep your private insurance because all things will not be covered


"It would pay for every medically necessary service."

Yup. If you choke on THAT cwiggy, your medical bill will be covered.
_________________________
"Everything that has ever happened to us is there to make us stronger."
-John Trudell


Top
#1532689 --- 07/31/19 03:58 PM Re: health care thread [Re: Teonan]
Formermac Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 18033
Loc: Above ground
laugh
_________________________
I know how to bring out the buffoonery of A Trump supporter.State Fact

Top
#1532692 --- 07/31/19 07:41 PM Re: health care thread [Re: Formermac]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/trump-a...ut-the-economy/

Trump-appointed Fed chair just completely undercut the GOP’s claims about the economy


While announcing the first interest rate cut since the 2008 financial crisis — which President Donald Trump has been furiously calling for — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell systematically undercut the Republican Party’s claims about its policies’ effects on the economy.

The most central justification for the cut, as CNBC’s John Harwood noted, is actually antithetical to the claims the GOP made in support of its 2017 tax cut. The benefits of that legislation largely went to corporations and wealthy people, and it was supposed to drive up business investment in the United States.

But it doesn’t seem to be working, as I’ve reported previously and Powell’s remarks revealed. This confirmed what many skeptics of the Republican plan feared.

“The manufacturing and business investment part of the economy is not growing very much,” Powell said Wednesday.


Rather than seeing the economy as undergoing a Trumpian renaissance, as the White House likes to sell it, Powell said that we’re in a state of “uncertainty” that needs more accommodative policy.

And it’s not just the GOP tax cut that seems to be failing to deliver. Powell indicated that Trump’s trade wars are also a significant drag on the economy.

“In light of the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate,” the FOMC said in a statement.

More explicitly, Powell said the rate cut is meant to protect against the “downside risks from weak global growth and trade tensions.”

So, in other words, despite Republican boasting about a booming economy, a massive $1.5 trillion tax cut, a wild deregulatory push, and Trump’s imagined dealmaking talents being applied to the global trade arena, the Fed chair thinks the economy is at risk enough that he should take a step the reserve bank hasn’t taken in over a decade.

Trump has been lambasting Powell and the Fed, calling for this kind of rate cut (though he would likely prefer it to be even more drastic), in recent weeks and months. These attacks have undermined the Fed’s independence and raised questions about the motivation behind the new cuts.

But they also reveal that Trump is not actually confident that the tax cut and his agenda of deregulation will help the economy enough to ensure his re-election. And the fact that the GOP, as well as much of conservative media, has gone along with this charade even though they called for interest rate increases from the Fed under President Barack Obama when the economy was struggling to recover from a recession, shows the craven and malleable nature of right-wing ideology.


Edited by Ben444 (07/31/19 07:48 PM)
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532716 --- 08/01/19 09:36 AM Re: health care thread [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12651
Loc: NY
What is Medicare for All?
By Jon Greenberg

Bernie Sanders’ idea of Medicare for All would be a single, national health insurance program that would cover everyone who lives in the United States. In the bill he introduced in 2017, it would pay for every medically necessary service, from routine doctor visits to surgery to mental health to prescription drugs. Dental and vision care are part of the package, too. The details on long-term care might vary between the Senate and House versions, but broadly speaking, nursing home and related care grow under both proposals.

The government would set payment rates for services, drugs and medical equipment. Each year, the secretary of Health and Human Services would determine a national budget for all covered services and spending would be limited by that cap. For individuals, there would be no costs — no deductibles, no copays or coinsurance. The two exceptions would be for some prescription drugs — though that would be limited to $200 a year — and possibly for long-term care.

It would replace all other insurance, with limited exceptions, such as cosmetic surgery. Employer-provided insurance, Medicaid and ultimately Medicare would all disappear.

Would this proposal simply extend Medicare to everyone? Is it literally Medicare for all?
No. Medicare for All is much more generous than the current Medicare program. Right now, the Medicare program is for Americans 65 and over; they receive care, but they’re also responsible for part of the costs. Unlike traditional Medicare, Sanders’ Medicare for All would cover medical bills completely, with no burden on the patient. There would be no Medigap insurance or Medicare Advantage.


If Medicare for All sounds a lot like a single-payer health care system — where the government foots the bill for people’s health care — that’s because the two are largely the same. The new name seems intended to make the concept more popular. When the Kaiser Family Foundation asked people in 2017 how they felt about the term single-payer health, 48 percent gave it a thumbs up. When Kaiser asked them how they felt about Medicare for All, support rose to 62 percent.

So keep your private insurance because all things will not be covered

Top
#1532717 --- 08/01/19 10:25 AM Re: health care thread [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 18033
Loc: Above ground
Remember 10 years ago, you Conservatives fought the ACA? Funny here we are 10 years later and the Republicans have no replacement...so guess what health insurance millions are using...yep...Obamacare. Ignorance on your part makes you look very hypocritical at best because offering ideals are better than the million you guys spent of repeal and replace. also remember son inaction isn't why your party has on 40 percent support from the nation of voters......of course you know about electoral and popular vote right? So lets talk once again about the Republican's influence in regard to health insurance and their lack of popularity when the issue is mentioned.
_________________________
I know how to bring out the buffoonery of A Trump supporter.State Fact

Top
#1532763 --- 08/02/19 10:02 AM Re: health care thread [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12651
Loc: NY
So, You Want Canadian Health Care?
Mona Charen



These "debates" are to serious policy discussions as a kazoo is to an orchestra. You can say a kazoo is an instrument, and you can say that these truncated thoughts are proposals, but you'll invite smirks.

This is not a slam on Democrats. The Republican "debates" in 2016 were no better. When a stage is sardined with candidates, there is no alternative to keeping answers short. If the voters had longer attention spans, we could arrange four or five nights of less manic encounters, which would give candidates the chance to explain themselves. But since we don't, we have unedifying and demeaning soundbite pingpong matches.

It isn't clear that they merit the intense media interest they generate. Must Joe Biden prove he's not too old? Must Cory Booker "have a moment" after a lackluster first debate? Maybe. Then again, Donald Trump performed abysmally in the 2016 debates. He didn't know the issues and made excruciating errors. His great skill, if you can call it that, was in lobbing juvenile taunts at his rivals. Yet he was acclaimed the winner by the viewers.

Several candidates this week stressed that the Democratic Party is veering too far to the left, which was refreshing, if probably futile. The undertow pulling the party left is very strong. As recently as 2009, the public option in health care was considered too extreme, which is why President Barack Obama omitted it. Now, it's the moderate position compared with "Medicare for All," which is endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, Bill de Blasio, Julian Castro and, with some reservations, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg.


As usual, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were in full outrage mode about the corporate villains who are sucking us dry. It isn't a sign of our political maturity that the most successful politicians now are demagogues who find some target to blame -- foreign competition, immigrants, greedy corporations, millionaires and billionaires. Warren claims that "giant corporations" and billionaires will foot the bill for her MFA, which rivals Trump's claim that Mexico would pay for his wall. Sanders pointed to the nation across the river from Detroit to shame Americans about health care not being treated as a "yooman right" in this country.


This seems like a good time to review what Canada's single-payer health care system does and doesn't do.

It's true that all Canadian citizens and legal residents (though not immigrants there illegal) get "free" health care, but only in the sense that you don't get a bill after seeing a doctor or visiting a hospital. Medical care is subsidized by taxes, but the price comes in another form as well -- rationing. A 2018 report from the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, found that wait times between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist average 19.8 weeks. That's the average. There are variations among specialties. Those hoping to see an orthopedist wait an average of 39 weeks in Nova Scotia, while those seeking an oncologist wait about 3.8 weeks.


Canada has the same modern medical technology that the U.S. offers, but Canadians must wait more than a month for a CT scan, more than 10 weeks for an MRI, and almost a month for an ultrasound.

Imagine the anxiety of learning that you need an MRI to find out whether the mass in your breast is anything to worry about and then being told that the next available appointment is in 10 weeks. In addition to the psychic price, Canadians who had to wait for treatment expended an average of $1,822 out of pocket last year, due to lost wages and other costs. The Fraser Institute also calculated the value of the lost productivity of those waiting for treatment -- nearly $5,600 per patient, totaling $5.8 billion nationally. Wait times to see physicians in the U.S. have been creeping up in recent years -- perhaps in response to increased demand following Obamacare -- but remain much shorter than Canada's or other OECD countries with nationalized health services.


When there's an artificial shortage of a good or service, a black market usually follows. I have heard from several Canadians that paying doctors bribes to jump the line is not uncommon. But Canada has another pressure reliever: Ninety percent of Canadians live within 90 miles of the U.S. border, and medical centers in Buffalo, Chicago, Rochester and elsewhere receive tens of thousands of Canadian patients every year.

Advocates respond that Canadians are happy with their system, and that's fine. It's their choice. But Americans tend not to be so docile about delays. And in any case, the Democrats' pretense that we can provide "Medicare for All" and receive the same level of care we've become accustomed to is applesauce. You want the Canadian system? Fine. Just know what you're giving up.

Top
#1532766 --- 08/02/19 10:09 AM Re: health care thread [Re: cwjga]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: cwjga
So, You Want Canadian Health Care?
We want health care that covers everyone as is done in every other industrialized modern nation.
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532767 --- 08/02/19 10:11 AM Re: Bens health care thread [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why the moderators let you hi-jack every thread, I do not Know.
What? Every thread? LOL I had only posted on this single Great Debate thread for weeks until you came back and got Headline News going again! You tell the truth about as much as that guy in the White House.
How about a comment on this lie of yours?
Just like Trump you lie and move on and think everyone else will too.
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532788 --- 08/02/19 01:29 PM Re: health care thread [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12651
Loc: NY
Why "Medicare for All" Would Mean Quality Care for None
You can’t significantly cut costs without cutting quality.

Sunday, February 17, 2019

Adam Barsouk

Economics Medicare for All Socialized Medicine Single Payer Kamala Harris Bernie Sanders Central Planning Health Care
In a CNN interview on January 28, Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris came out in brazen support for Medicare-for-All, i.e. single-payer healthcare in the US.

Confronted with pushback from all those to the right of Bernie Sanders, she has since backpedaled, with an adviser saying “she would be open to more moderate reform plans.”

Nevertheless, the fact that a Democratic frontrunner unequivocally supported a government takeover of health insurance should be worrying to all Americans.

Like Your Insurance? Too Bad
Move on to what? To a government takeover that has proven ineffective and deadly all over the world?

After her jaw-dropping declaration, Harris was asked what she’d say to those Americans who like the insurance they have, which according to a recent poll, is 71 percent of employed Americans. Harris’s answer was, effectively, too bad.

“Let’s eliminate all that,” Harris said, speaking about private insurance and the hassle of getting approval for certain costly procedures. “Let’s move on.”

Move on to what? To a government takeover that has proven ineffective and deadly all over the world?

You Can’t Cut Costs without Cutting Quality
Democrats frequently point to the Nordic “success stories” as examples of how government-managed healthcare can save money. Little do they realize that these nations spend less on health care because they spend far more on social safety net services that help keep the poorest among them healthy.

You’d likely end up paying almost double as much as you currently do in taxes.

At the end of the day, the governments in Nordic countries spend far more per person, and in turn, their income taxes reach as high as 60 percent. In the US, even that level of taxation would not be enough. Bernie Sanders’s single-payer proposal would cost a whopping $33 trillion over its first 10 years, or about three-fourths of everything we already spend.

In other words, you’d likely end up paying almost double as much as you currently do in taxes (or we’ll just further run up the debt for our great-great-grandchildren).

Medicare-for-All proponents argue that this same estimate is actually $2 trillion less than what would be privately spent in those ten years. In other words, the doubled taxation would, for some, be offset by not having to buy health insurance.

But even these potential savings (of about 6 percent) open up a Pandora’s box of issues. For one thing, such a proposal would constitute taxation and redistribution the likes of which we haven’t seen since WWII, and such taxation is guaranteed to slow down and reverse the growth we’ve seen under President Trump.

You can’t significantly cut costs without cutting quality.

But moreover, as someone who’s worked in health care for years, I can assure you that, just like in any other field, you can’t significantly cut costs without cutting quality.

Sure, a certain proportion of resources goes toward regulations, which can be and should be made more efficient (though Obamacare—or ACA—has only made things worse, and anyone who’s been to the DMV knows our government isn’t a paragon of efficiency).

But the majority of our spending goes towards funding life-saving research and offering the best specialist services and procedures in the world. Cutting spending on drugs and procedures could reduce research spending by as much as to 40 percent.

Cutting salaries for doctors and hospitals could exacerbate the 100k physician shortage we already have, leading to wait-times like those in Canada or the UK. In Canada, Bernie Sanders’s “city upon a hill,” about 3 percent of the population is currently in line for some sort of medical procedure. The costs of single-payer are much higher than $33 trillion.

Insurance Isn’t the Same as Coverage
But Harris wasn’t done. Her main argument against private insurance was that some patients get denied coverage for certain procedures—an incredibly laughable justification considering how patients, under single-payer systems, are more likely to be denied coverage without any form of recourse.

In the UK, for instance, NICE decides whether a certain procedure is “worth the money.”

In the UK, for instance, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decides whether a certain procedure is “worth the money.” The official policy is that if something that can prolong your life by six months costs more than 30,000 pounds, you’re out of luck.

Despite our similar lifestyles, people are more likely to die of cancer and heart disease in the UK. The likely culprit? Government rationing. When a certain life-saving heart stent tripled in price (from 300 to 900 pounds), NICE banned it altogether.

At least in the US, when your insurer denies you something expensive, you have the option to switch to a different insurer. In the UK, you’re stuck with whatever the government is willing to pay for, even if it costs you your life.

Trying to fix our current mess, wrought by too much government, with single-payer is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Obama learned the hard way that giving all Americans health insurance is not the same as providing them with valuable health care. Under the ACA, as more sick people got insurance without a premium, rates skyrocketed and life expectancies fell. Trying to fix our current mess, wrought by too much government, with single-payer is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Today, Kamala Harris no longer unequivocally supports single-payer, and with good reason. But when the election comes around next year, we mustn’t forget that Medicare-for-All was her original, knee-jerk answer.

Senator Harris will have to look deep into her heart to decide what she supports—if the government can afford her cardioscopy, that is.

Top
#1532803 --- 08/02/19 05:31 PM Re: health care thread [Re: cwjga]
Ben444 Online   content
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 13888
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Democrats frequently point to the Nordic “success stories” as examples of how government-managed healthcare can save money. Little do they realize that these nations spend less on health care because they spend far more on social safety net services that help keep the poorest among them healthy.
LOL. Is there something wrong with that? That sounds like a good idea to me too.
_________________________
Trump asked if he could pardon himself!

Top
#1532823 --- 08/03/19 01:40 PM Re: health care thread [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12651
Loc: NY
Why "Medicare for All" Would Mean Quality Care for None
You can’t significantly cut costs without cutting quality.

Sunday, February 17, 2019

Adam Barsouk

Economics Medicare for All Socialized Medicine Single Payer Kamala Harris Bernie Sanders Central Planning Health Care
In a CNN interview on January 28, Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris came out in brazen support for Medicare-for-All, i.e. single-payer healthcare in the US.

Confronted with pushback from all those to the right of Bernie Sanders, she has since backpedaled, with an adviser saying “she would be open to more moderate reform plans.”

Nevertheless, the fact that a Democratic frontrunner unequivocally supported a government takeover of health insurance should be worrying to all Americans.

Like Your Insurance? Too Bad
Move on to what? To a government takeover that has proven ineffective and deadly all over the world?

After her jaw-dropping declaration, Harris was asked what she’d say to those Americans who like the insurance they have, which according to a recent poll, is 71 percent of employed Americans. Harris’s answer was, effectively, too bad.

“Let’s eliminate all that,” Harris said, speaking about private insurance and the hassle of getting approval for certain costly procedures. “Let’s move on.”

Move on to what? To a government takeover that has proven ineffective and deadly all over the world?

You Can’t Cut Costs without Cutting Quality
Democrats frequently point to the Nordic “success stories” as examples of how government-managed healthcare can save money. Little do they realize that these nations spend less on health care because they spend far more on social safety net services that help keep the poorest among them healthy.

You’d likely end up paying almost double as much as you currently do in taxes.

At the end of the day, the governments in Nordic countries spend far more per person, and in turn, their income taxes reach as high as 60 percent. In the US, even that level of taxation would not be enough. Bernie Sanders’s single-payer proposal would cost a whopping $33 trillion over its first 10 years, or about three-fourths of everything we already spend.


In other words, you’d likely end up paying almost double as much as you currently do in taxes (or we’ll just further run up the debt for our great-great-grandchildren).

Medicare-for-All proponents argue that this same estimate is actually $2 trillion less than what would be privately spent in those ten years. In other words, the doubled taxation would, for some, be offset by not having to buy health insurance.

But even these potential savings (of about 6 percent) open up a Pandora’s box of issues. For one thing, such a proposal would constitute taxation and redistribution the likes of which we haven’t seen since WWII, and such taxation is guaranteed to slow down and reverse the growth we’ve seen under President Trump.

You can’t significantly cut costs without cutting quality.

But moreover, as someone who’s worked in health care for years, I can assure you that, just like in any other field, you can’t significantly cut costs without cutting quality.

Sure, a certain proportion of resources goes toward regulations, which can be and should be made more efficient (though Obamacare—or ACA—has only made things worse, and anyone who’s been to the DMV knows our government isn’t a paragon of efficiency).

But the majority of our spending goes towards funding life-saving research and offering the best specialist services and procedures in the world. Cutting spending on drugs and procedures could reduce research spending by as much as to 40 percent.

Cutting salaries for doctors and hospitals could exacerbate the 100k physician shortage we already have, leading to wait-times like those in Canada or the UK. In Canada, Bernie Sanders’s “city upon a hill,” about 3 percent of the population is currently in line for some sort of medical procedure. The costs of single-payer are much higher than $33 trillion.

Insurance Isn’t the Same as Coverage
But Harris wasn’t done. Her main argument against private insurance was that some patients get denied coverage for certain procedures—an incredibly laughable justification considering how patients, under single-payer systems, are more likely to be denied coverage without any form of recourse.

In the UK, for instance, NICE decides whether a certain procedure is “worth the money.”

In the UK, for instance, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decides whether a certain procedure is “worth the money.” The official policy is that if something that can prolong your life by six months costs more than 30,000 pounds, you’re out of luck.

Despite our similar lifestyles, people are more likely to die of cancer and heart disease in the UK. The likely culprit? Government rationing. When a certain life-saving heart stent tripled in price (from 300 to 900 pounds), NICE banned it altogether.

At least in the US, when your insurer denies you something expensive, you have the option to switch to a different insurer. In the UK, you’re stuck with whatever the government is willing to pay for, even if it costs you your life.

Trying to fix our current mess, wrought by too much government, with single-payer is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Obama learned the hard way that giving all Americans health insurance is not the same as providing them with valuable health care. Under the ACA, as more sick people got insurance without a premium, rates skyrocketed and life expectancies fell. Trying to fix our current mess, wrought by too much government, with single-payer is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Today, Kamala Harris no longer unequivocally supports single-payer, and with good reason. But when the election comes around next year, we mustn’t forget that Medicare-for-All was her original, knee-jerk answer.

Senator Harris will have to look deep into her heart to decide what she supports—if the government can afford her cardioscopy, that is.

Top
Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >