Warren's big healthcare plan relies on big assumptions

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, ricklev said:

What no anti-universal care conservative is willing to say out loud is that they believe if you don't have  money or insurance and you turn up at the hospital or the emergency room of the hospital you don't get care and you stay sick or you die.   

 

That is the only way the current semi-free market health care system will work.  By letting people die or stay sick.  Insurance companies and people with enough money for care are subsidizing the poor with no money and no insurance through high prices.  

 

If we admit we are not going to let people die or turn them away at the hospital door because of no money than we can start working on rational alternatives. 

 

 

There is only one alternative, Medicare for all with private companies providing supplemental insurance for those who want it. Like every other developed country in the world.

 everything else is just  BS noise to prevent  or delay anything happening. 

[RideJocky]

49 minutes ago, GarryP said:

But is that bad? If your taxes are raised to cover the additional cost of medicare is that bad? You no longer need to pay insurance cover, so you are no worse off. In fact the increase is likely to be much less than the premiums you would be paying. Is that bad?

 

if I am currently paying for my family, and l’ll need to continue paying for my family and in addition pay for a portion of another family, how will I be paying less? Because you say so?

 

 

49 minutes ago, GarryP said:

 

If large conglomerates/companies etc. are paying taxes as they should be 

 

People that work for “...large conglomerates/companies...” typically have good insurance. Socialized medicine is wind-fall for them.

 

49 minutes ago, GarryP said:

Also, when you mention social democracy to many Americans, they immediately equate that with socialist states or communism, which is crazy.     

So what’s the difference? When the government takes over industries and you have a mainstream Presidential candidates coming out against capitalism, what do you call it? 

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

if I am currently paying for my family, and l’ll need to continue paying for my family and in addition pay for a portion of another family, how will I be paying less? Because you say so?

You would not be paying for your family, or for anyone else, you would simply be paying higher taxes to cover the cost of health care that would be lower than the insurance premium   you pay now. And get better coverage because you will not be dropped after you got sick and could not work. 

  An average premium (Blue cross Blue shield) for a family in their 30s with three young kids is (if I remember correctly from another post)  about $14,000 a year now . Your taxes will not go up by $14,000 a year so your costs will decrease and your coverage conditions will improve.

[GarryP]

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

if I am currently paying for my family, and l’ll need to continue paying for my family and in addition pay for a portion of another family, how will I be paying less? Because you say so?

 

 

 

People that work for “...large conglomerates/companies...” typically have good insurance. Socialized medicine is wind-fall for them.

 

So what’s the difference? When the government takes over industries and you have a mainstream Presidential candidates coming out against capitalism, what do you call it? 

1. See Sirineou's response above.

 

2. It is not a windfall for either. While the employers would not have to provide insurance for the employees, they would still need to pay appropriate tax, which many are avoiding at the moment. 

 

3. Who said government is taking over industries? You are just proving the point I made about how Americans often equate social democracy with communism/socialism. Is Denmark communist? Is Germany, is UK, is Australia, etc??????? No, they most certainly are not. Private enterprise is supported, capitalism is supported. However, they do require that businesses pay their way through corporate income tax, VAT, etc. Bottom line is everybody should pay their dues, including Amazon, Google, GM, etc. etc. Not the way it is now with many large companies and very rich people paying next to nothing, some even filing for bankruptcy repeatedly, and writing off future taxes against those manufactured losses, etc.

 

On the other hand, if you have people running for presidency who are against private enterprise, and capitalism, then I agree with you that they are whack jobs who would do far more harm to any country than good.

[Crazy Alex]

On 11/2/2019 at 11:43 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

And who going into this election has proposals to tackle that?

No one.

[RideJocky]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

You would not be paying for your family, or for anyone else, you would simply be paying higher taxes to cover the cost of health care that would be lower than the insurance premium   you pay now. And get better coverage because you will not be dropped after you got sick and could not work. 

  An average premium (Blue cross Blue shield) for a family in their 30s with three young kids is (if I remember correctly from another post)  about $14,000 a year now . Your taxes will not go up by $14,000 a year so your costs will decrease and your coverage conditions will improve.

How do you know how much my taxes would go up?

 

How do you know that my coverage will improve? 
 

The only people that will benefit are tax recipients, large corporations, government administrators and (as always) the wealthy.  

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, GarryP said:

1. See Sirineou's response above.

see my response above

 

1 hour ago, GarryP said:

 

2. It is not a windfall for either. While the employers would not have to provide insurance for the employees, they would still need to pay appropriate tax, which many are avoiding at the moment.

 

What taxes are being avoided now? If corporations are guilty of tax evasion they should be prosecuted. 

 

 

1 hour ago, GarryP said:

 

 

3. Who said government is taking over industries? You are just proving the point I made about how Americans often equate social democracy with communism/socialism. Is Denmark communist? Is Germany, is UK, is Australia, etc??????? No, they most certainly are not. Private enterprise is supported, capitalism is supported. However, they do require that businesses pay their way through corporate income tax, VAT, etc. Bottom line is everybody should pay their dues, including Amazon, Google, GM, etc. etc. Not the way it is now with many large companies and very rich people paying next to nothing, some even filing for bankruptcy repeatedly, and writing off future taxes against those manufactured losses, etc.

 

Healthcare is an industry. Now you might argue the government would not be taking over the healthcare industry (which would be a lie) but you could not argue they were not taking over the health insurance industry. Pharmaceutical would be next, then oil, then agricultural.
 

You seem to know nothing about corporate taxes and bankruptcy. and even less about how much the “wealthy”  pay. 

 

 

1 hour ago, GarryP said:

 

 

On the other hand, if you have people running for presidency who are against private enterprise, and capitalism, then I agree with you that they are whack jobs who would do far more harm to any country than good.

Bernie Sanders is a proud socialist and has come out against capitalism, and I agree he is a whack job that would do the country more harm than good. 

[samran]

On 11/4/2019 at 12:47 PM, kwonitoy said:

 

Canada: $5,782 per person; 10.4% of GDP; 70% public/30% private

United States: $11,916 per person; 16.9% of GDP; 49% public/51% private

France: $5,677 per person; 11.1% of GDP; 79% public/21% private

Germany: $6,709 per person; 11.2% of GDP; 84% public/16% private

Sweden: $6,601 per person; 11.0% of GDP; 84% public/16% private

Netherlands: $6,639 per person; 10.7% of GDP; 81% public/19% private

Australia: $5,631 per person; 9.4% of GDP; 67% public/33% private

New Zealand: $4,443 per person; 9.3% of GDP; 80% public/20% private

United Kingdom: $5,170 per person; 9.9% of GDP; 80% public/20% private

 

Most money spent on health care, "Merica"

Only country above without universal coverage "Merica"

There is no extra money required, just in its allocation

Makes you wonder where it all goes 

 

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

if I am currently paying for my family, and l’ll need to continue paying for my family and in addition pay for a portion of another family, how will I be paying less? Because you say so?

 

No, because of a simple thing called ‘economies of scale’.

 

A large single payer insurer has much better negotiating leverage over the suppliers of medical services and medicines which are currently ripping you off. 
 

The international numbers don’t lie. 

 

As for you paying for someone else’s care...well you do know know that is how insurance works don’t you? 
 

All the premiums of the people who never get sick go towards paying for those who are unlucky enough to need care. 
 

Or do you think that it’s only your premiums that pay for the $600,000 certain cancer treatments may cost you?

[sirineou]

17 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

How do you know how much my taxes would go up?

 

How do you know that my coverage will improve? 
 

The only people that will benefit are tax recipients, large corporations, government administrators and (as always) the wealthy.  

My seeing what has occured in other countries where this system was implemented.

Under the current system we may more than any other developed country and are getting worst outcomes than most.  

 

[RideJocky]

7 hours ago, sirineou said:

My seeing what has occured in other countries where this system was implemented.

Under the current system we may more than any other developed country and are getting worst outcomes than most.  

 

Where are you from in the US where you received such poor healthcare? I’s always been great for me. 
 

 

[samran]

5 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Where are you from in the US where you received such poor healthcare? I’s always been great for me. 
 

 

Until you lose your job or are born with a pre-existing condition. 

[sirineou]

15 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Where are you from in the US where you received such poor healthcare? I’s always been great for me. 
 

 

I have top of the line Blue Cross Blue Shield through my trade Union, I get great care, but there are many others that don't. This does not sit right with me, I am sure you being a compassionate person would not like it if it was true , so ..... Most expensive health care in the world, with the worst outcomes. Simply put. we pay more and we get less.

Per capita health insurance costs by country.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Health care outcomes by country:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-amenable-mortality-measured-by-healthcare-access-and-quality-index-2016

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by sirineou

[Cryingdick]

8 hours ago, samran said:

 

No, because of a simple thing called ‘economies of scale’.

 

A large single payer insurer has much better negotiating leverage over the suppliers of medical services and medicines which are currently ripping you off. 
 

The international numbers don’t lie. 

 

As for you paying for someone else’s care...well you do know know that is how insurance works don’t you? 
 

All the premiums of the people who never get sick go towards paying for those who are unlucky enough to need care. 
 

Or do you think that it’s only your premiums that pay for the $600,000 certain cancer treatments may cost you?

 

The DOD is like that yet the Pentagon has in the past paid $600 for a hammer. Sorry if some of us are skeptical. Also what happens when the taxes kick in and the corporations pass it on to the government?

 

Not related but somewhat amusing... now Warren wants to put kids into school an additional two hours a day. Where is that money going to come from?

Edited November 6, 2019 by Cryingdick

[samran]

14 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The DOD is like that yet the Pentagon has in the past paid $600 for a hammer. Sorry if some of us are skeptical. Also what happens when the taxes kick in and the corporations pass it on to the government?

 

Not related but somewhat amusing... now Warren wants to put kids into school an additional two hours a day. Where is that money going to come from?

The fact is that there is massive wastage and excessive pricing under the system you’ve gotten now. 
 

On top of that people miss out on getting insurance via pre existing conditions or under insurance or insurers simply refusing to cover things. 
 

Medical services are essentially monopolies. Doctors don’t grow on trees, take years to train. Specialist surgeons etc are even rarer. Hospitals know this and take advantage with insurance companies complicit 
 

For every one 600 hammer you get privately run hospitals charging $10 for a bandaid every day and charging well over the odds for medicines and associated medical services.

 

You don’t get sick voluntarily most of the time, have no ‘choice’ in what you get. They know this and can charge what they want. 
 

oh, and don’t lose your job, otherwise you are screwed! 
 

Skeptical, I get it. Americans have been preconditioned for decades that universal health care is somehow evil.

 

Thats fine.

 

But explain to me as a capitalist why paying more than double than the rest of the world for the same product, and getting less for it, tell me how that makes sense. 

[Cryingdick]

11 minutes ago, samran said:

The fact is that there is massive wastage and excessive pricing under the system you’ve gotten now. 
 

On top of that people miss out on getting insurance via pre existing conditions or under insurance or insurers simply refusing to cover things. 
 

Medical services are essentially monopolies. Doctors don’t grow on trees, take years to train. Specialist surgeons etc are even rarer. Hospitals know this and take advantage with insurance companies complicit 
 

For every one 600 hammer you get privately run hospitals charging $10 for a bandaid every day and charging well over the odds for medicines and associated medical services.

 

You don’t get sick voluntarily most of the time, have no ‘choice’ in what you get. They know this and can charge what they want. 
 

oh, and don’t lose your job, otherwise you are screwed! 
 

Skeptical, I get it. Americans have been preconditioned for decades that universal health care is somehow evil.

 

Thats fine.

 

But explain to me as a capitalist why paying more than double than the rest of the world for the same product, and getting less for it, tell me how that makes sense. 

 

The government would get eaten alive by the people who on average are much smarter and work in the private sector. Does Liz have any experience doing this? 

 

Why would you think that some suburban Grandma is going to outsmart the greatest entrepreneurs in the USA? 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Cryingdick

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, samran said:

Until you lose your job or are born with a pre-existing condition. 

I didn’t have health insurance until I was forty but always got great healthcare in the US.

 

i know plenty of people without health insurance in the US and they seem to have no trouble getting care. 
 

 

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

I have top of the line Blue Cross Blue Shield through my trade Union, I get great care, but there are many others that don't. This does not sit right with me, I am sure you being a compassionate person would not like it if it was true , so ..... Most expensive health care in the world, with the worst outcomes. Simply put. we pay more and we get less.

Per capita health insurance costs by country.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Health care outcomes by country:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-amenable-mortality-measured-by-healthcare-access-and-quality-index-2016

 

 

Yeah, I had great insurance with Cigna, then got stuck with BCBS after the ACA. Didn’t get to keep my plan.  
 

Incidentally, how much has your and your company’s premium come down since the government increased their involvement? 

I understand how pointless trying to discuss this is, and while I don’t doubt we spend more than other countries, I generally don’t put a lot of stock in “studies” involving political issues. In any event, I looking at the fist graph it looks like we already spend more public money than most other countries. Why are we not getting more bang for our public buck? So as the government has gotten more involved, have spending increases slowed? 

 

The second chart is ridiculous for any number of reasons, but in short, using longevity to measure the quality of healthcare silly. 
 

in any event, we have the VA to judge what the cost of healthcare under our “socialized medicine” will be. 
 

Before I jumped the fence I was sheet metal (SMEIA), you?

[samran]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The government would get eaten alive by the people who on average are much smarter and work in the private sector. Does Liz have any experience doing this? 

 

Why would you think that some suburban Grandma is going to outsmart the greatest entrepreneurs in the USA? 

This is what I don’t get.

 

You’re the country that beat the nazis and sent men to the moon.

 

But you can’t figure out how to emulate every other developed country in the world in beating the pharma companies and the doctors unions at their own game? 

[samran]

58 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I didn’t have health insurance until I was forty but always got great healthcare in the US.

 

i know plenty of people without health insurance in the US and they seem to have no trouble getting care. 
 

 

No one is saying you can’t get great care on the US. It’s just that you are paying over the odds for it. Like twice the global average. 
 

I’m genuinely interested, what would you have done if you had some sort of serious medical condition before you turned 40 and got insurance. How would you have paid for it? 

[sirineou]

5 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Yeah, I had great insurance with Cigna, then got stuck with BCBS after the ACA. Didn’t get to keep my plan.  
 

Incidentally, how much has your and your company’s premium come down since the government increased their involvement? 

I understand how pointless trying to discuss this is, and while I don’t doubt we spend more than other countries, I generally don’t put a lot of stock in “studies” involving political issues. In any event, I looking at the fist graph it looks like we already spend more public money than most other countries. Why are we not getting more bang for our public buck? So as the government has gotten more involved, have spending increases slowed? 

 

The second chart is ridiculous for any number of reasons, but in short, using longevity to measure the quality of healthcare silly. 
 

in any event, we have the VA to judge what the cost of healthcare under our “socialized medicine” will be. 
 

Before I jumped the fence I was sheet metal (SMEIA), you?

International brotherhood of carpenters,  local 212, . 

Look at the average , we pay twise as much as the average country , while getting worse outcomes.

As far as the public /private mix in out country, you need to keep in mind that in other countries the private part is supplemental insurance spread among all ages, Where in the US, Private insurance gets all the younger people ap to age 65 , and then the government plan  gets them in the last few years of their life when they have the greatest medical expenses. 

So private insurance gets them when they are young and healthy, and Medicare gets them when they are old and sick.

 

[samran]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

International brotherhood of carpenters,  local 212, . 

Look at the average , we pay twise as much as the average country , while getting worse outcomes.

As far as the public /private mix in out country, you need to keep in mind that in other countries the private part is supplemental insurance spread among all ages, Where in the US, Private insurance gets all the younger people ap to age 65 , and then the government plan  gets them in the last few years of their life when they have the greatest medical expenses. 

So private insurance gets them when they are young and healthy, and Medicare gets them when they are old and sick.

 

And incidentally, Medicare delivers health care much more efficiently than the private sector, and does so at a stage on life where the medical costs are highest. 

[samran]

Even The Donald thinks that Medicare for all is a great thing. In Australia it is called Medicare. And everyone gets it.

 

 

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, samran said:

No one is saying you can’t get great care on the US. It’s just that you are paying over the odds for it. Like twice the global average. 
 

I’m genuinely interested, what would you have done if you had some sort of serious medical condition before you turned 40 and got insurance. How would you have paid for it? 

To be clear, I was on my father’s plan until I was seventeen. 
 

Between 17 and 42 I was uninsured and had any number of serious medical conditions in the time and did like everyone else without insurance does, went or was taken to the hospital, got my care and left. 
 

Some of the most serious off the top of my head: Scull fracture, broken ribs, broken collarbone broken nose, severed (and reattached) right foot, broken left leg, several staph infections & hundreds of stitches. 
 

Still have the foot they put back on, but one of the pin-sites has flared up and is giving me trouble.

 

 

 

 

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

International brotherhood of carpenters,  local 212, . 

Look at the average , we pay twise as much as the average country , while getting worse outcomes.

As far as the public /private mix in out country, you need to keep in mind that in other countries the private part is supplemental insurance spread among all ages, Where in the US, Private insurance gets all the younger people ap to age 65 , and then the government plan  gets them in the last few years of their life when they have the greatest medical expenses. 

So private insurance gets them when they are young and healthy, and Medicare gets them when they are old and sick.

 

I’m not saying it’s not a mess, plenty of things that can be done, I just don’t see it getting better with a governor takeover. I see it getting worse for everyone but the rich, and see it getting much better and cheaper for them. 
 

Again, I keep hearing how much better the outcome is in all the other countries, but I have never seen any evidence of it, do you have any?

 

I think it makes sense for the government (us) to pick up the tab for the uninsurable, I just don’t think it makes sense to ruin it for everyone else to help the few. Let’s just go ahead and help the few. 

 

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, samran said:

And incidentally, Medicare delivers health care much more efficiently than the private sector, and does so at a stage on life where the medical costs are highest. 

How is it more efficient?

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, samran said:

Even The Donald thinks that Medicare for all is a great thing. In Australia it is called Medicare. And everyone gets it.

 

 

I thought Trump was a liar and a fool, why would you think his opinion on healthcare was of any value? 
 

in any event, Trump is far too left for me. 

[samran]

10 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

How is it more efficient?

https://khn.org/news/market-muscle-study-uncovers-differences-between-medicare-and-private-insurers/

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, samran said:

https://khn.org/news/market-muscle-study-uncovers-differences-between-medicare-and-private-insurers/

If you don’t know, just say you don’t know, don’t post a link to a meaningless “news” article. 
 

 

[samran]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

If you don’t know, just say you don’t know, don’t post a link to a meaningless “news” article. 
 

 

I do know, but I’m not here to be your personal scribe.  
 

Its a well referenced article produced by Kaiser.  Read the link, don’t read the link. I really don’t care. I suspect you aren’t really inclined. 

Edited November 7, 2019 by samran

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, samran said:

I do know, but I’m not here to be your personal scribe.  
 

Its a well referenced article produced by Kaiser.  Read the link, don’t read the link. I really don’t care. I suspect you aren’t really inclined. 

If you know it should be pretty easy to tell me. I read it, and it included nothing that would lead me to believe that Medicare is more efficient than private sector insurance. 
 

Paying the hospital less does not necessarily mean they are more efficient. Keep in mind, you can’t use Medicare at any hospital, you can only use it at hospitals that take the lower fees.