Healthcare going forward

[Benvolio]

Much better to continue to give the multi-national corporations taxpayer subsidies.

It is still abundantly clear that you have no clue how single payer coverage works. It isn't based on taxpayer subsidies, it is based on tax allocation that can include revenue from sales tax through to corporate income tax, as well as through personal income tax. At the end of the day, in countries with federal sales or other provincial or state sales taxes...every time someone purchases anything, they are effectively paying the premium for their health insurance. It is administratively much less costly than having multiple layers of administration handling health care billings and payments. It leads to much lower case costs, which mean that more people effectively have access to care.

And it works on the same principle as any other insurance, except that everyone is actually paying into the pool.

It is all about choices. People like you seem to have no issue with the idea that an overbloated military industrial complex will be 100% subsidized by taxes....but feel that the medical care industry is a communist plot.

The Federal government has no general sales tax, only excise taxes on a few items. The democrats would never agree to fund with a sales tax as it is "regressive". It will have to be funded by higher taxes on the few who actually pay income taxes.
I was responding to Nasty Pelosi's list of democrat demands. Coverage for everyone has to be single payer. And, lower premiums can only result from subsidies.

 

[Benvolio]

Oh boo hoo hoo hoo somebody in need might actually get help it is so unfair.

I hate to inform you but a little socialism is part and parcel of modern societies, particularly those that claim to be Christian ones. It is why it is called a society.

Why should the rest of us suffer with the higher premiums and health costs that results from the uninsured just so you can feel good that nobody is getting a handout?

No, it is not just someone one need getting help. It is another freebie for the entire welfare class-=people who live on welfare generation after generation. And, the entire hidden economy--people who work for cash but report and pay no income taxes; and the criminal class who report and pay no income tax. So any plan for coverage for everyone, necessarily means decent people who work and pay taxes have to pay for the vast numbers who are not and do not.

 

[Stardreamer]

No, it is not just someone one need getting help. It is another freebie for the entire welfare class-=people who live on welfare generation after generation. And, the entire hidden economy--people who work for cash but report and pay no income taxes; and the criminal class who report and pay no income tax. So any plan for coverage for everyone, necessarily means decent people who work and pay taxes have to pay for the vast numbers who are not and do not.

Again Boo Hoo Hoo

Everyone needs healthcare, it is not an optional luxury. Do you know why almost every professional medical group came out against Trumpcare? It was because of those millions who would have lost coverage. One of the biggest success stories of Obamacare is that in decreasing the number of the uninsured hospitals and other facilities that had to treat people regardless where finally getting financial relief and a means to pay the bills other than shifting the costs to everyone else.

We wind up paying for the health costs of the uninsured and poor, whether it be in higher taxes or a $500 dollar aspirin in the hospital, one way or another we pay for it. It is more efficient and cost effective to do that through subsidized health care. As someone who pays taxes and hospital bills, I'd rather do that by the most cost-effective means through my tax bill.

 

[rareboy]

^ The right wingers never seem to understand that treating the uninsured in emergency departments not only raises costs for everyone else...but that episodic crisis care inevitably costs the entire system much more.

What Benvolio and apparently a lot of other reactionaries are saying is let everyone, including children, die if there is no insurance.

And these are the same people who yell loudest about being pro-life.

 

[Benvolio]

^ The right wingers never seem to understand that treating the uninsured in emergency departments not only raises costs for everyone else...but that episodic crisis care inevitably costs the entire system much more.

What Benvolio and apparently a lot of other reactionaries are saying is let everyone, including children, die if there is no insurance.

And these are the same people who yell loudest about being pro-life.

So, which is it? The people die or they go to the emergency room? At least this way the people who buy insurance do not have pay for others and get in line behind them. There are 7.5 billion people in the world, I can't pay for them all, and "Americans " have very little in common any more.

 

[gsdx]

There are 7.5 billion people in the world, I can't pay for them all, and "Americans " have very little in common any more.

You don't have to pay for ME.

The sad part is, you don't even realise how ridiculous that statement is.

 

[KaraBulut]

...What Benvolio and apparently a lot of other reactionaries are saying is let everyone, including children, die if there is no insurance.

Something that one has to be careful of is tacitly buying into the argument that basic healthcare services are "welfare". The basic argument is a red herring to disguise the fact that- at some point- the US decided that it was acceptable to make a profit off the business of disease and suffering. And that public health- improving the health of society as a whole is "welfare".

This fundamental distortion in public policy is part of why outcomes are so poor in the US- because we treat disease instead of preventing it. We have shareholders in public companies whose incomes are derived from treating illness, so this is a disincentive toward keeping people well.

And now we have a fundamental problem- about 18-19% of the US GDP is directed toward the healthcare industry. Changing the fundamentals of that is going to be painful and is going to cause some pain as the market changes.

 

[Benvolio]

Something that one has to be careful of is tacitly buying into the argument that basic healthcare services are "welfare". The basic argument is a red herring to disguise the fact that- at some point- the US decided that it was acceptable to make a profit off the business of disease and suffering. And that public health- improving the health of society as a whole is "welfare".

This fundamental distortion in public policy is part of why outcomes are so poor in the US- because we treat disease instead of preventing it. We have shareholders in public companies whose incomes are derived from treating illness, so this is a disincentive toward keeping people well.

And now we have a fundamental problem- about 18-19% of the US GDP is directed toward the healthcare industry. Changing the fundamentals of that is going to be painful and is going to cause some pain as the market changes.

Of course it is welfare. How is it not welfare for those who do not pay their share? And yes, we early decided that ours should be a free enterprise economy and have never decided to the contrary. We finance research and development of drugs and medical devices the world over. Mankind will suffer when we surrender our freedom to the socialists.

 

[rareboy]

So, which is it? The people die or they go to the emergency room? At least this way the people who buy insurance do not have pay for others and get in line behind them. There are 7.5 billion people in the world, I can't pay for them all, and "Americans " have very little in common any more.

If the uninsured are going to the emergency room, everyone else is already paying the bill. And it is a bill that has ruined the financial health of a number of hospitals across the US.

But yeah. You make it pretty clear.

You would actually prefer people die than get care, including children.

So own it. And don't mind if people think you are garbage.

 

[Benvolio]

If the uninsured are going to the emergency room, everyone else is already paying the bill. And it is a bill that has ruined the financial health of a number of hospitals across the US.

But yeah. You make it pretty clear.

You would actually prefer people die than get care, including children.

So own it. And don't mind if people think you are garbage.

No we do have medicaid and emergency rooms, and I help pay for them. So how are you providing health care for the people of, say, Guatemala, or do you just not care if the children there die? If you are not pay for their health care you are garbage.

 

[KaraBulut]

Guatemala? There's a derail.

 

[Benvolio]

Guatemala? There's a derail.

No, it is not a thread about Guatemala, but is intended to illustrate a point. If compassion for the sick demands socialist medicine, how does it end at the borders? Why do people this side of the line obligate us to support them, but not those outside the line?

 

[gsdx]

^ it's no secret that the American government doesn't even take care of its own. There is no way in hell they would even think of taking care of anyone beyond its borders.

How can you possibly think we could take you seriously when you talk about being responsible for the entire world? Seriously, do you think we're that stupid?

 

[Kulindahr]

The Federal government has no general sales tax, only excise taxes on a few items. The democrats would never agree to fund with a sales tax as it is "regressive". It will have to be funded by higher taxes on the few who actually pay income taxes.

Either you've never gotten a paycheck in your life or you're unaware of how one works -- or you wouldn't make the final claim above.

I was responding to Nasty Pelosi's list of democrat demands. Coverage for everyone has to be single payer. And, lower premiums can only result from subsidies.

No, coverage for everyone doesn't have to be single payer. It may have to include single payer, but not necessarily. Single-payer just happens to be the most efficient and cost-effective. It's odd how an alleged conservative would prefer a system that is far less efficient and cost-effective.

As for subsidies, no -- first, that has little to do with single-payer, and posts here already have shown why lower premiums don't require subsidies (for example, see above -- efficiency saves a lot, as is illustrated by the fact that many not-for-profit insurance systems have administrative costs in the single digits [which proves, BTW, that the ACA could have capped administrative expenses at 10% of revenues]).

 

[Kulindahr]

No, it is not just someone one need getting help. It is another freebie for the entire welfare class-=people who live on welfare generation after generation. And, the entire hidden economy--people who work for cash but report and pay no income taxes; and the criminal class who report and pay no income tax. So any plan for coverage for everyone, necessarily means decent people who work and pay taxes have to pay for the vast numbers who are not and do not.

"Welfare class"?

I didn't know that family farmers, small business owners, and many others who tend to be Republicans constitute a "welfare class" -- and those are the people who did a great deal to get the ACHA bill killed, because they've realized that the ACA is highly beneficial.

You claim to favor a free market. Well, a free market requires easy creation of new businesses. Having universal health care would be a great boon to the creation of new businesses, because it would remove the concern over employee health, which is major for a small business.

And again, your final statement has been shown more than once to be false. I won't list the logical possibilities as to why you might keep repeating it, as they're rather depressing.

 

[Kulindahr]

We wind up paying for the health costs of the uninsured and poor, whether it be in higher taxes or a $500 dollar aspirin in the hospital, one way or another we pay for it. It is more efficient and cost effective to do that through subsidized health care. As someone who pays taxes and hospital bills, I'd rather do that by the most cost-effective means through my tax bill.

Or in lost work hours, or reduced work efficiency, as well. The burden on the economy of people working even though they need medical care is immense due to just those factors alone.

 

[Kulindahr]

... "Americans " have very little in common any more.

Thanks a great deal to people like you who degrade, slur, and insult everyone who does not fit your limited definition of what it is to be an American.

 

[Kulindahr]

Something that one has to be careful of is tacitly buying into the argument that basic healthcare services are "welfare". The basic argument is a red herring to disguise the fact that- at some point- the US decided that it was acceptable to make a profit off the business of disease and suffering. And that public health- improving the health of society as a whole is "welfare".

Besides totally ignoring the fact that a great deal of "welfare" rests on need generated by large employers because there is no penalty for them paying people not even enough to keep them healthy enough to do their jobs.

Truly, it's a total abandonment of the country's Judeo-Christian heritage. Not paying people enough to live healthily enough to do the work required of them is so contrary to both the Old and New Testaments it would not be venturing far from the spirit of those scriptures to say it is a system sprung from the pits of hell.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, it is not a thread about Guatemala, but is intended to illustrate a point. If compassion for the sick demands socialist medicine, how does it end at the borders? Why do people this side of the line obligate us to support them, but not those outside the line?

You've claimed that the country should adhere to its Judeo-Christian heritage. If you had a clue about that heritage, the answer to your question above would be obvious.

I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the atheists on this board know enough about the Judeo-Christian heritage to answer it on that basis -- but first we should give you a chance to reflect on that heritage and answer your own question.

 

[KaraBulut]

...I didn't know that family farmers, small business owners, and many others who tend to be Republicans constitute a "welfare class" -- and those are the people who did a great deal to get the ACHA bill killed, because they've realized that the ACA is highly beneficial.

One fact that came out of the ACHA (Trumpcare) bill that I had not seen discussed in some of the previous analysis was that some of the agrarian counties in the midwest who were opposed to "Obamacare" had in fact signed up a disproportionate number of farmers for ACA (which is... Obamacare, of course) plans through the exchange.

For all of the backlash that the ACA was going to be bad for "small business", the ACA actually exempted small businesses with less than 50 employees from the requirement for employer-provided health insurance. This meant that small farms went to the exchange (or to Medicaid) if they had fewer than 50 employees and they were not over 65 years old (to qualify for Medicare).

Besides totally ignoring the fact that a great deal of "welfare" rests on need generated by large employers because there is no penalty for them paying people not even enough to keep them healthy enough to do their jobs.

In the 2010 CBO analysis, they estimated a higher number of individual Exchange enrollees under the assumption that some employers would opt to send their employees into the individual market instead of providing group insurance plans.

Oddly, that did not happen. Employers started offering group health insurance because ultimately it was a benefit that made them a more desirable place to work.

There is still a problem with the minimum wage, though since this does push more part-time workers into the expanded Medicaid program. The Medicaid program was intended to provide coverage for those who worked but did not work 32 hours or whose overall earnings were below the ACA's FPL guidelines. I don't think anyone expected that so many of the "working poor" would go onto Medicaid instead of into the individual market, though.