Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Republican Healthcare Plan
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 95 of 187 (794573)
11-17-2016 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 9:59 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:
I said that having the government in charge of something makes is more expensive. You responded saying how great Medicare is. Medicare is not that great because you still have to buy additional insurance. Yes, that is the governments fault, but that is more reason why they suck at being in charge of something.
I don't see how having to buy supplemental insurance makes Medicare more expensive. One does not relate to the other. What you need to do is add together the cost of Medicare to the supplemental insurance, and then compare that combined cost to what it would cost for private insurance for the same combined coverage.
From everything I have read, Medicare patients are charged less for the same procedures compared to people on private insurance. Medicare is less expensive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 97 of 187 (794575)
11-17-2016 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 10:54 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:
I don't want to stick with it, I'm just not convinced that putting the government in charge of it will make it better.
The point we are making is that in every other developed country in the world, involving the government has made it better. Apparently, you think the US is so unexceptional that it can't do what every other developed nation has done. The Brits and the French can do it, but the Americans can't?
Well, sticking with the current system is one way to keep my costs reasonable and not raise my taxes. So there's that.
They aren't reasonable. We are paying twice what other countries are spending.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 98 of 187 (794576)
11-17-2016 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2016 7:34 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:
Is that not a true statement?
Do I need to post the data for per capita healthcare costs for a third time? In ever other developed country where government is involved in healthcare, it is cheaper. So no, it is not a true statement.
And isn't that a different statement than: "Socialist healthcare costs too much."?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 7:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 11:33 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 101 of 187 (794584)
11-17-2016 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 11:33 AM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:
The reasons for our costs being higher includes things that don't have anything to do with how it is payed for. The way America uses its healthcare system, in and of itself, causes it to be more expensive.
The way we use healthcare has everything to do with how we pay for it. Those two things are completely tied to one another.
The Brits and the French don't have the U.S. government. And they pay more taxes.
I don't want to pay more taxes. And I don't trust the U.S. government to make it better.
Why does it matter if it is tax money? I am still not understand this.
If you pay $10k in taxes and $9k on healthcare, wouldn't it make more sense to pay $15k in taxes and nothing else on healthcare? That would be a savings of $4k.
Also, just assuming that something will fail when it has worked everywhere else is a really bad argument.
I thought you understood that I'm talking about involving the U.S. government. When I say "the government", I mean the U.S. federal government.
In general, involving the U.S. federal government makes things more expensive. That is not saying that "social healthcare costs too much".
You haven't shown that the US federal government makes things more expensive. You have simply asserted it. Guess who pays the least for medications in the US? The VA, a government run hospital.
The world has already done the experiment. Universal, single payer systems work. Just asserting that it won't work with nothing to back it up is not a valid argument.
That is what I'm talking about: there is the cost of Medicare, and there is the cost of supplemental insurance on top of that.
And what is that total cost? How does it compare to the cost of going 100% private insurance?
That's because Medicare decides how much they will pay a doctor for a procedure, rather than the doctor deciding how much to charge the private insurance for a procedure.
The doctors effectively take a hit on what they make from a procedure by deciding to accept Medicare. The reason they are willing to do this is because people on Medicare tend to get more procedures in total, so even if they're make less money per procedure, there's more of them to be had to make up for the lower costs per each.
So really, the cost per patient can go up even though the cost per procedure goes down.
The cost per patient is always going to go up with age whether we have private or public systems. Its not as if private insurance will keep people from aging.
The simple fact is that Medicare decreases costs compared to private insurance, the very opposite of what you are claiming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 11:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 3:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 104 of 187 (794591)
11-17-2016 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 3:27 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:
For instance, even with a single payer system, if you use the emergency room to treat routine belly aches then you are going to drive up costs despite the payment system.
Who goes to the emergency room for a belly ache?
Because that money comes directly out of my pocket.
So do insurance premiums, even if your employer is paying for it. That is money they could be paying you. It is still money out of your pocket.
It costs the public sector about a third more to pay a person than it does the private sector.
According to the tables here and here, on average, an hour of work costs the private sector $34 and it costs the public sector $45.
The difference is made up for by the fact that no one is taking profit off the top.
The VAs are the absolutely worst hospitals in this country and the way vets have been treated by them should be a crime.
More propaganda. Patients at VA hospitals give them the same scores as patients in private hospitals.
"The 2013 ACSI index for inpatients recently discharged from a VA acute medical center holds at a strong 84 on a 0-100 scale. This is four points higher than the industry average. The VA outpatient score of 82 is within one point of the industry average."
VA Rates High on Patient Satisfaction in National Survey - VAntage Point
I don't doubt that they can work, I just don't think that one can work well for the U.S. if it is run by our federal government.
Why?
You tell me.
You tell me. You are the one claiming that Medicare is more expensive.
The simple fact is that Medicare is capable of dictating to providers what they will be paid for their services.
Don't be surprised if the cost per patient for all patients goes up because providers are hedging their loses by increasing the number of procedures and drugs that are "needed".
That would be another example of private providers driving up prices, not the government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 4:37 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 109 of 187 (794598)
11-17-2016 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 4:37 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:
Stupid Americans...
Those Americans go to the emergency room because they can't be denied service due to lack of insurance like they can at a family doc. The way we pay for healthcare has everything to do with why these people are going to the emergency room. This is exactly what I am talking about.
No, we negotiated a salary and then benefits are on top. The benefits do not come out of my pocket.
Yes, they do come out of your pocket whether you want to admit it or not. If they weren't paying for insurance they could be paying that money to you directly.
Not propaganda, direct experience. I've worked in VA and non-VA hospitals and they are shit compared to others. One VA was so attrocious that we walked out on them without even starting the service we where there to do for them. It was so filthy that my cowokers and I were not willing to risk our health to do the job.
You can find private hospitals with the same problems.
And your score comes from a terribly low sample size. Of the 5,803,890 veterans using VA Health Care in 2013, that survey attempted to contact 1188 of them. 26.5% completed the survey so your sample size ended at 250. 250 people out of 5.8 million...
What that tells you is how vets who are willing to complete a survey feel about the VA... The vets I know who hate the VA would hang-up on a survey like that.
Then show me evidence that the VA is worse. I have evidence showing that it is the same as private hospitals.
Huh? And what about the other two examples?
Are you really trying to stand by the claim that it doesn't cost the government more to do things than it does the private sector?
Are you going to demonstrate that the US government running healthcare would cost more money than it does now? Or are you going to just keep asserting it without any evidence?
Driving up the price in response to the government meddling... Just like people going to the ER for preventable conditions is a response to government meddling.
Seriously?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2016 6:19 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 11:42 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 118 of 187 (794621)
11-18-2016 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
11-18-2016 10:08 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:
Oh man, I'm so sorry that my opinion is different from yours
I love how if someone doesn't tow the party line, then they're evil and they want you to die. Such tolerance.
Why should we tolerate bad ideas?
And it really depends on who you ask... Not that I trust heritage.org, but they're (of course) saying the opposite:
From Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance:
Apples and oranges. Private insurance also includes millions and millions of healthy and young people who don't send in any claims. Medicare has tons and tons of old people where nearly 100% are going to have claims during the year.
Don't we all. Again, you can continue to trust that this may happen, but I don't have to. And I don't.
You do have the freedom to be wrong. That is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 11:47 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 121 of 187 (794624)
11-18-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by New Cat's Eye
11-18-2016 11:47 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:
I'm sure if a True ChristianTM came here saying they were against gay marriage because they thought it was a bad idea, y'all would accept that as a good excuse and not berate them for their intolerance.
This isn't about what people "think". This is about facts. The facts are that government run single payer systems cost their citizens half of what the US corporate run, for profit system costs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 12:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 123 of 187 (794626)
11-18-2016 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by New Cat's Eye
11-18-2016 11:42 AM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:
"Could", but not. You're arguing semantics. My benefits do not affect my paycheck like my taxes do. It could be different, yes, but that is what is it.
Your benefits DO affect your paycheck. This isn't an if. This is a fact. Healthcare costs take up more than 17.1% of our GDP. In the UK, healthcare takes up 9.1% of GDP. This is the same thing we see when we compare the US to any other country with universal single payer healthcare. Every time.
Do you think this is just a coincidence?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 12:39 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 124 of 187 (794627)
11-18-2016 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by New Cat's Eye
11-18-2016 12:32 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:
I dunno, sounds like Mod is saying an insurance plan in the UK costs over 20k.
Here is the same information for a third time:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 126 of 187 (794629)
11-18-2016 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by New Cat's Eye
11-18-2016 12:39 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:
Not like my taxes do.
Yes, just like your taxes do. Those benefits could be going straight into your pocket just like taxes.
More high tech, more drug use, leading medical research, etc.
Assertions without evidence.
Added in edit: It looks like the US spent $120 billion in 2012 on medical research. That would be about $400 per capita. We spend $5,000 more per year per capita on healthcare compared to the UK. The math isn't adding up.
No, it's just not the be-all-end-all.
Paying more than twice what other countries pay is worth it?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 12:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 1:18 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 128 of 187 (794639)
11-18-2016 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
11-18-2016 1:18 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:
No, 'could be' is not 'is'. But I'm done arguing semantics.
I'm not done. That is how much they pay to employ you. That includes your health benefits. If there was a universal healthcare system paid for through taxes they could be paying that money directly to you. Period.
See Message 80.
I' not seeing any dollar values. Also, you need to show increases in health benefits from additional drugs or technology.
Maybe, depends on what you're paying for. I'm certainly willing to pay more money for better healthcare.
You haven't shown that it is better, only more expensive.
So that's data on what countries spend on goods and services, including capital investments in infrastructure, and is not what people spend on healthcare insurance. So that's really not a reply to what I was saying about the cost of insurance.
The NHS in the UK doesn't take a profit. All of the money that goes into the NHS goes to goods and services. That is what they spend on healthcare.
Anyways, since the U.S. does pay for more healthcare stuff than other countries, you cannot use that chart to put the sole blame on our system being for-profit rather than being socialized.
Yes, I can. The NHS actually studies health outcomes so they know which tests and medications don't improve outcome. They have standards of care which cut costs. Our for profit system does not because there is no incentive to reduce costs. Hospitals don't care if they are overspending for new technology because they pass the additional costs to the consumer. Hospitals don't care if they are prescribing medications that don't improve outcome because they make more money. It has everything to do with the for profit nature of the US system.
As far as pharmaceuticals, we pay twice what other countries are paying FOR THE SAME DRUGS. Why? Because there is no incentive for reducing the price for consumers. Hospitals don't care because the cost is passed on to the consumer. Drug companies love it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 1:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 3:10 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 130 of 187 (794644)
11-18-2016 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by New Cat's Eye
11-18-2016 3:10 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:
I hear you, I'm not thrilled by the for-profit nature of our healthcare system. But going socialized is not the only way to stop being for-profit.
True. What you do need is a universal single payer system where prices are set by groups of people who are held accountable by the consumers and not stockholders. There probably are countries that have privately owned hospitals whose prices are set by government agencies. That's how we run utilities here in the US, which is how we keep utility companies from gouging consumers.
So the two big keys are 100% participation and built in incentives for price reduction (i.e. single payer and government regulation of prices).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 134 of 187 (794719)
11-21-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by caffeine
11-20-2016 3:59 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
caffeine writes:
When I do a pricing analysis at work and need to include the cost of any employee, I do not seperate the wages and the benefits. An employee with $10,000 in wages and $3,000 in benefits cost $13,000. An employee with $8.000 in wages and $5,000 in benefits costs $13,000. Every company in the world counts exactly the same way, because not doing so would be unfathomably stupid.
You negotiated a compensation package - if you negotiated a salary without any mention of benefits you're an odd individual indeed. Your company is counting the cost of the compensation package. They're not counting the wages and ignoring the rest.
Anecdotally, I have had co-workers cancel their employer paid health coverage because a spouse had better coverage through their work. Those co-workers have received their benefits package in direct cash. I have personally had the same thing happen when switching funding sources, where I received my benefits package in cash until a new benefits package could be put in place.
There has been this strange erosion of expectations on the parts of workers. I don't know if it is because unions are weaker than they have been, or just propaganda. Who knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by caffeine, posted 11-20-2016 3:59 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 149 of 187 (798912)
02-06-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by NoNukes
02-05-2017 4:25 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
NoNukes writes:
Your suggestion that the Democrats could have gotten single payer healthcare in 2013 is a ridiculous. At that point in time, Democrats were forced to rely on Senate fillibusters and presidential vetos just to keep Obamacare from being repealed.
Democrats couldn't get support for a public health insurance option WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. At this time in history there is simply not enough support among the American public for a single payer system. Americans are simply unaware of how much cheaper and better single payer systems are. Hopefully someone will come along and start an education movement on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2017 4:25 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2017 4:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024