|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Republican Healthcare Plan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
One of the enduring myths so many Americans believe about socialist healthcare is that it costs too much. We have seen Cat Sci repeat that myth in this very thread. Where did I say that? For the record, I don't think that healthcare being socialist would make it cost too much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you don't want to spend less than 50% of what we are currently spending on healthcare if it means that the government is involved? If so, why? I've seen the government fuck up enough shit that the last thing that I want them in charge of is my healthcare. But I don't care if they are in charge of your healthcare. I also don't want to pay more in taxes. And I'd like to keep my healthcare costs reasonable. So now what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Cat Sci writes:
"Having the government in charge of something makes it cost more money and take longer. "--Cat Sci, message 39 Where did I say that? Is that not a true statement? And isn't that a different statement than: "Socialist healthcare costs too much."?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
This may deserve a thread of its own.
See all those countries paying much less than the US? Those are socialist healthcare systems. Unless someone can show how these numbers are incorrect, lets just accept the fact that the the US for-profit system costs too much, not socialist healthcare. If someone can't accept these plain facts, then their opinions on this topic are simply not legitimate. The problem I have with these comparisons is that there is an assumption of "all else being equal" if the US system was socialist it would as cheap as those other countries. The US healthcare system is systematically different from other countries'. We use hospitals for routine stuff, we take way more drugs, we do more medical research, we're higher tech, etc. Those things are going to drive up per capita costs despite how the system is paid for.
Here's a reference:
quote: I'm reminded of a scene from the Simpsons where Homer is visiting Dr. Hibbert and he says something along the lines of: "You're probably going to be okay, but lets run a bunch of expensive tests to make sure." That, and we're all about treating symptoms with drugs (we take over twice as many) rather than addressing the root cause of the problem. Another thing is all the research we do. Just a quick google search:
quote: So we're loosing ground, but "undisputed center" and "primary global source" are pretty strong words. The point is, side-by-side cost comparisons under the guise of socialist vs. non-socialist does not paint the whole picture. The US literally does pay for more stuff in healthcare and all other things are not equal. So, these side-by-sides aren't all that compelling for me. I get it, socializing healthcare could help. It's just not as cut and dry as you're making it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The implicit assumption is that I'm talking about the U.S. government.
Where have they done something cheaper and faster than the private sector?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wait a minute, right now I assume you have a tax rate AND an insurance premium paid for by or your employer. If we go to a government single payer system your tax rate goes up about the equivalent of 50% of your insurance premium, but you do not pay an insurance premium any longer. Or a little less is paid for from taxes and the individual pays a relatively small monthly amount. My employer pays me a salary and on top of that they pay for my health insurance as a benefit. If I opt out of the benefit, then that money does *not* go on top of my salary. Going to the single payer system above would take money out of my pocket and save my employer the cost of insurance premiums. No thanks.
That is how Medicare is right now, the individual pays about $100 a month (out of their Social Security check). Medicare also requires supplemental insurance.
Me too, I've seen the republicans in the United States Congress intentionally try to fuck up everything the government does, plus they cut all the funding for regulators that catch the fuck ups and fraud so it cannot be fixed. So why would you want them in charge of your healthcare?
I don't know about you, but I have been dealing with private sector billing and insurance fuck ups constantly for the past decade. I'd expect it to be worse with the government... How flawless is the Medicare billing?
A large part of the costs for this should be paid for by large corporations and the wealthiest individuals in return for their larger than normal access and influence over government, at all levels. I work for a large corporation and they are paying for this.
More and more of our government is being sabotaged and privatized and as the saying goes, "You ain't seen nothing yet!" And yet, you still want them in charge of your healthcare?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Now, Tanypteryx has already explained that the amount of money you would pay in increased taxes would be less than the amount you pay in insurance premiums so you would actually be *saving* money, My employer would be saving money and I would be losing money.
Someone doesn't understand how tax rates work. Yes, we have a top tax rate of 39.6% here in the US, but note the important word: "Top." We have tax brackets. When you find yourself moving into a higher tax bracket, that higher tax rate does not apply to all of your income. It only applies to the money you have earned in excess of the threshold to trigger it. The lowest tax rate is 10%, but it only applies to the first $9,275 (single filer). If you earned $9,275, you'd owe $928 in taxes. The next tax bracket is 15%, but it only applies to the money earned above $9,275 (up to $37,650). Thus, a person who earned $10,000 isn't paying 15% on the entire $10K, which would be $1500. They're paying 10% on the first $9,275, or $928, and 15% on the next $725, or $109, for a total of $1037. The top tax rate of 39.6% only kicks in for money earned in excess of $415,050. I understand how the tax rates work. In the UK, the 40% tax bracket starts at roughly a tenth of that amount (43,001). This doesn't have anything to do with the top rate in the U.S. The UK top rate, the 45% bracket, starts at only 150,000.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In your own posts you are describing how the current corporate run system is fucked up, yet you want to stick with it. 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.
Now you work on realizing how those two wishes are in complete contradiction to each other. Well, sticking with the current system is one way to keep my costs reasonable and not raise my taxes. So there's that. I'm open to other options...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They aren't reasonable. We are paying twice what other countries are spending. 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. See Message 80 for some examples. We use higher tech more often, we take twice as many drugs, we're leading the world in research, etc. That is not to say that how it is payed for couldn't help, but it is not the be-all-end-all, and side-by-side comparisons with other countries is not apples-to-apples.
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? 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.
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. 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".
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. 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.
From everything I have read, Medicare patients are charged less for the same procedures compared to people on 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.
Medicare is less expensive. Not necessarily.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The way we use healthcare has everything to do with how we pay for it. Those two things are completely tied to one another. 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.
Why does it matter if it is tax money? I am still not understand this. Because that money comes directly out of my pocket.
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. Yes, that would make sense. But it is not applicable to me because I'm not spending thousands of dollars on healthcare. So any increases in my taxes is a direct cost to me. It doesn't have to be that way, I get it, but that is the way it is.
You haven't shown that the US federal government makes things more expensive. You have simply asserted it. 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. Additionally:
quote: quote: Guess who pays the least for medications in the US? The VA, a government run hospital. The VAs are the absolutely worst hospitals in this country and the way vets have been treated by them should be a crime. If the VAs are any indication of what government run healthcare would be like then I should be scared for my life of it.
The world has already done the experiment. Universal, single payer systems work. 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.
And what is that total cost? How does it compare to the cost of going 100% private insurance? You tell me.
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. 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Who goes to the emergency room for a belly ache? Stupid Americans...
quote: quote: Bare link: Misuse of emergency rooms: A costly but avoidable error 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. No, we negotiated a salary and then benefits are on top. The benefits do not come out of my pocket. With or without the benefits, my paycheck is the same. Raise taxes and my paycheck goes down.
The difference is made up for by the fact that no one is taking profit off the top. 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?
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. 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. 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.
You tell me. You are the one claiming that Medicare is more expensive. That's fine. I'll drop the claim. This thread is about the Republican Healthcare Plan.
That would be another example of private providers driving up prices, not the government. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'd argue there is a suggestion here that the spending isn't benefiting the health of the people, but the pockets of the corporations. No shit. We also like to treat symptoms instead of fixing the underlying cause. Like, instead of changing your diet and exercising and loosing some weight, why don't you just take this medication everyday for the rest of your life
Well, no. Otherwise Medicare would decide 0 and the doctors would decide infinite. Only if they wanted to run themselves out of business... No doctor would take Medicare and no patient would visit that doctor.
In both cases the hospital administration charges as much as it can and Medicare and the private insurance companies try to pay as little as they can. Medicare dictates to the providers what they will be paid for services. The providers then decide if they want in or not.
With the NHS, young healthy people that feel immortal still contribute, and if they have high income they are contributing a lot (On 120,000 a year they'd be a healthy person paying about 15,000 a year for national health insurance, their employer would pay about 5700). For a total of 20,700!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh, I didn't realize. The rest of us should just continue being fucked over so we don't rock the boat for you. 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.
I don't want Congress in charge I want Medicare in charge. Medicare is still run by the feds. I'm fine with you trusting them, but I don't have to.
Medicare has a 3% overhead, insurance companies have a 50-60% overhead. Overhead? Or administration costs? There's a lot of different numbers on this stuff floating around out there, and the 50-60% seems high. Does that 3% incude the cost of the 6000 CMS employees? Or is it just for whatever counts as "administration"? Consider, though, that Medicare patients tend to require a lot more procedures and thus the amount of spending per person is higher, so you're dividing the administraion costs by a larger denominator. Its not really a fair side-by-side comparison. 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:
That's some old-ass data, but I'm not really relying on it for an argument. Just sayin' there's a lot of mixed messages out there.
I guess I should have been clearer. I want the assholes in Congress to stop sabotaging the government and start actually doing their job to make it better. Don't we all. Again, you can continue to trust that this may happen, but I don't have to. And I don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
why do you want your employer to pick your insurance? There was a list of different insurance companies I could choose from, which were various big name insurance companies that I've seen before. I don't really care what the name of the insurance company is, as long as my doctor accepts it (which I verified before selecting) then its fine with me.
why do you want to use a for-profit insurance company when ~40% (or more) goes into some pocket other than paying your health bills? I haven't really thought about it. I have mixed feelings about health insurance being for-profit.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024