jlew....seriously....how about ALL the $$$ we all pay into our insured plans now, along with all our employers pay into our insured plans now? cut out the midddle man, absolutely reduce wasteful spending, and yea...i think it can be done. use these funds, ya know...go to healthcare taxes instead of private insurance companies...and i'd bet we'd be there or well on our way. besides which, it is proven time and again that it is FAR *cheaper* to provide preventative service rather than deal with disease. if more had ACCESS to preventative service and thus were able to utilize such, i am sure that too would make a nice dent in overall costs. again, other countries do manage it. doesn't matter that they are smaller populations. it's been shown that we spend MORE on healthcare insurance than other governments spend, per individual.....and yet ALL individuals elsewhere have health coverage whereas a great # of our citizens do not. something is wrong with that picture.....
the money we pay to insurance goes to pay our medical bills. maybe I'm confused but lets say I go to the emergency room and my bill is $8000 and I have a $400 deductible. I pay 400, the insurance company pays the rest. yes of course, they take some for themselves in terms of profit, but whats that, a few billion? we are talking trillions.
actually if the bill to the hospital is $8000, the insurance company will pay the hospital $2000 (if the hospial is lucky) based on negotiated prices already set...
two words. supply and demand. the government doesnt have enough resources to be able to provide high quality care. its simply not possible. dont come back with some stupid like "well how do you know". there are 300 million people in this country. you'd like to provide "free" care to almost all of them and expect the government to afford it? how? they can't afford it for seniors only. like I've said a million times, its 30 Trillion UNDER funded. you know the only way to balance that out? cut costs. the government would then have to start paying for inferior products and services to try and make ends meet.... not to mention raise taxes for everyone.
Did you happen to read any of the information I posted about how, under a different system, we would be able to pay for healthcare for everyone for about the same amount we're paying now?
are you asking me or telling me? tell me then, why is Medicare 30 Trillion underfunded?
It's the SYSTEM that's flawed, that doesn't allow us to afford healthcare for everyone - not a lack of resources.
I agree the "system" can be improved, but I disagree that their are enough resources for the government to provide healthcare to everyone. at the very least, taxes would have to be raised significantly across the board.
Huh? They were questions (which haven't been answered). You have been asking how we could possibly afford universal healthcare, so I posted the info I had readily available explaining how we could afford it. That way, if you are actually interested in a possible solution, you are more easily able to get an answer to your question.
But you just keep asking the same question... or making the same statements without anything to back them up except an observation that Medicare is underfunded. (At this rate, no wonder we can't move forward to find a solution for healthcare. We can't even move forward in a conversation about it.)
Regarding your statement that we don't have the resources to provide healthcare for everyone without raising taxes, if that were in fact true....
a) I believe you mean that the "quality" of some people's healthcare would decrease to provide basic healthcare for those who currently have none. Do you not think this would be worth it?
b) Or we would have to raise taxes to provide basic coverage for everyone if we don't want to decrease the quality of care for others. Once again, do you not think this would be worth it?
Those two questions don't really matter, of course, because your original statement isn't accurate.
also, the main reason medicare is not working properly is simply b/c we are not fully using the porper model for funding such. obviously if ALL the money we as individuals pay into our own health insurance and ALL the money employers paid into health insurance ALL went into a healthcare tax....and those funds were utilized only for healthcare.....and we had major reform of costs......no more insurance companies calling the shots....and yes, the government would not be looking for PROFITS as a private company does and is currently, just need to break even, makes a BIG difference. seriously, there are models ALL over the world of universal healthcare in action, working. none of those systems may be perfect, but our system is far more imperfect simply given the fact that all our citizens do not have ACESS to care, or when they do...it's after the fact, after they are ill. PREVENTATIVE care costs LESS overall and would do far MORE to reduce overall healthcare costs. we have to revamp our system to accommodate this and it can work.
no need to be a dick about it...I'm going to ask how do you know because you present things as fact when they haven't happened yet....
you like to predict the future...you're looking at the current system gov't health care system and applying to some future system that you've conjured up in your head...
It's very possible to provide a high quality of care...people who work in the medical and helping fields aren't going to stop doing there jobs because they have a different employer...it's obvious you have never worked in such a job...
if that new employer pays them less or if conditions change they will most certainly stop doing their job. and someone less qualified will step in.
you keep saying it's under funded....we can't afford it...blah blah blah...I guess for me, life and health care is more important than money...you're sooo damn worried about something that not fact because it hasn't happened...
but it has happened. Medicare is grossly UNDERFUNDED...unaffordable.
I mentioned earlier about the high cost of a single shot....and you droned on about this that and the other, but never addressed the fact a fn shot costs 900 bucks...your arguments are based on some system you created in your head...
um, yes I did. I told you that shot took longer then 30 seconds to develop and produce. you seem to think it came off the anesthetic shot tree growing out back and should probably only cost 5 bucks since it took 30 seconds to shoot into your arm.
what system did I create in my head? drugs, ie anesthetic, are expensive to develop and produce. how am I making that up?
the money we pay to insurance goes to pay our medical bills. maybe I'm confused but lets say I go to the emergency room and my bill is $8000 and I have a $400 deductible. I pay 400, the insurance company pays the rest. yes of course, they take some for themselves in terms of profit, but whats that, a few billion? we are talking trillions.
Why don't you find some actual data on how much of our money is taken for profit and overhead, and how much money is payed into insurance companies versus how much is paid out, and get back to us?
who the fuck are you? you have google too use it
Damn, dude... did someone forget to take his happy pill this morning? :?
I'm just questing the statements you're making in an attempt to either learn something from you and this conversation or point out the inaccuracies. We can't make any progress if the conversation is based on inaccuracies.
Besides, I did use Google to provide plenty of information, remember?
Huh? They were questions (which haven't been answered). You have been asking how we could possibly afford universal healthcare, so I posted the info I had readily available explaining how we could afford it. That way, if you are actually interested in a possible solution, you are more easily able to get an answer to your question.
But you just keep asking the same question... or making the same statements without anything to back them up except an observation that Medicare is underfunded. (At this rate, no wonder we can't move forward to find a solution for healthcare. We can't even move forward in a conversation about it.)
a) I believe you mean that the "quality" of some people's healthcare would decrease to provide basic healthcare for those who currently have none. Do you not think this would be worth it?
b) Or we would have to raise taxes to provide basic coverage for everyone if we don't want to decrease the quality of care for others. Once again, do you not think this would be worth it?
Those two questions don't really matter, of course, because your original statement isn't accurate.
where do you draw the line? should we be taxed 70% of our income to provide EVERYONE with basic care. is that worth it to you?
Huh? They were questions (which haven't been answered). You have been asking how we could possibly afford universal healthcare, so I posted the info I had readily available explaining how we could afford it. That way, if you are actually interested in a possible solution, you are more easily able to get an answer to your question.
But you just keep asking the same question... or making the same statements without anything to back them up except an observation that Medicare is underfunded. (At this rate, no wonder we can't move forward to find a solution for healthcare. We can't even move forward in a conversation about it.)
the shit you posted proves nothing.
And yet you haven't refuted it. :roll: That's okay, I get it now, it was my mistake to actually think you were interested in a solution. :(
a) I believe you mean that the "quality" of some people's healthcare would decrease to provide basic healthcare for those who currently have none. Do you not think this would be worth it?
b) Or we would have to raise taxes to provide basic coverage for everyone if we don't want to decrease the quality of care for others. Once again, do you not think this would be worth it?
Those two questions don't really matter, of course, because your original statement isn't accurate.
where do you draw the line? should we be taxed 70% of our income to provide EVERYONE with basic care. is that worth it to you?
Huh? They were questions (which haven't been answered). You have been asking how we could possibly afford universal healthcare, so I posted the info I had readily available explaining how we could afford it. That way, if you are actually interested in a possible solution, you are more easily able to get an answer to your question.
But you just keep asking the same question... or making the same statements without anything to back them up except an observation that Medicare is underfunded. (At this rate, no wonder we can't move forward to find a solution for healthcare. We can't even move forward in a conversation about it.)
the shit you posted proves nothing.
And yet you haven't refuted it. :roll: That's okay, I get it now, it was my mistake to actually think you were interested in a solution. :(
again, it doesnt prove shit. it says we might be able to trim some administrative costs by adopting a candian like system. thats all. big fucking deal?
Maybe some... but not by some catastrophic amount that you seem to anticipate.
define some. why would it not be a catastrophic amount? healthcare is, by far, the largest expense we have as a country. and now you somehow don't think we'd need to raise taxes to pay for it? makes a ton of sense.
healthcare spending was 2.4 Trillion in 2007. how can the government afford that?
Thanks for posting some actual data.
Here's the point: If we are ALREADY spending $2.4 trillion for healthcare as a nation, then we ALREADY have $2.4 trillion to spend. The government would not have to raise taxes or have a bake sale to afford this. As a matter of fact, they just need to redirect this money to be used more for direct care and they will get MORE/BETTER healthcare for their/our buck. They might redirect this money in part through taxes, but it would be the SAME MONEY - just being paid to the government (which could spend it more effectively because it has less admistrative costs and no concern for profit) instead of being paid to the insurance companies.
this still all comes down to money. no matter how much bureaucracy you cut down, its still going to go into the Trillions. if we can't afford Meidcare for the elderly, how are we going to afford it for EVERYONE else? I know one helpful method...cut costs. is that the strategy you want when it comes to your healthcare?
Yes. If you're so independently wealthy that the current costs of health care don't even make you blink, you'll still be able to afford whatever extra services and quality you want. To the people that can't afford ANY health care, cheap cost-cut health care is still better than nothing. Your argument is like saying "it's bullshit that we give food to starving people... if we can't afford to ship filet mignon to Africa, we shouldn't ship anything at all." It's ridiculous.
And you know how inflated costs are right now due to dealing with the insurance industry? How many man-hours are poured into paperwork? How many administrative staff have to be hired and paid just to handle the red tape and forms of insurance claims? I know people that have worked in doctor's offices... the secretaries and receptionists outnumber all the medical staff in a given office. Some places even have to hire one person for EVERY insurance agency, because the various forms are so complicated and arbitrary that people can't handle doing more than one companies paperwork. Then there's the storage of all these documents. Time spent faxing files to the insurance agent to have their doctor review it and decide if they'll pay for it.
We're not talking about an utterly unmanageable, unworkable system. It's doable. Not easy, but doable And I think our health care system would be far better for it. The one we have now is disgustingly unresponsive and ineffective for the "richest nation on earth."
Here's the point: If we are ALREADY spending $2.4 trillion for healthcare as a nation, then we ALREADY have $2.4 trillion to spend. The government would not have to raise taxes or have a bake sale to afford this. As a matter of fact, they just need to redirect this money to be used more for direct care and they will get MORE/BETTER healthcare for their/our buck. They might redirect this money in part through taxes, but it would be the SAME MONEY - just being paid to the government (which could spend it more effectively because it has less admistrative costs and no concern for profit) instead of being paid to the insurance companies.
LOL is that easy huh?
first of all, we spend that as a nation, not the government. the government would have to raise that amount of money through taxes and borrowing. ok, lets cut insurance companies. currently, I pay $80 a month for insurance and my employer pays the rest, about $300. no, I would have to pay the $80, but I'll be taxes an extra $380 to cover the cost. and this is just assuming I'm covering my own costs through taxes. chances are I'd pay much more because of the progressive tax system. I'd probably end up paying $500 a month more in taxes.
this still all comes down to money. no matter how much bureaucracy you cut down, its still going to go into the Trillions. if we can't afford Meidcare for the elderly, how are we going to afford it for EVERYONE else? I know one helpful method...cut costs. is that the strategy you want when it comes to your healthcare?
Yes. If you're so independently wealthy that the current costs of health care don't even make you blink, you'll still be able to afford whatever extra services and quality you want. To the people that can't afford ANY health care, cheap cost-cut health care is still better than nothing. Your argument is like saying "it's bullshit that we give food to starving people... if we can't afford to ship filet mignon to Africa, we shouldn't ship anything at all." It's ridiculous.
thats not my argument at all. even the most basic of services are going to cost Tillions.
And you know how inflated costs are right now due to dealing with the insurance industry? How many man-hours are poured into paperwork? How many administrative staff have to be hired and paid just to handle the red tape and forms of insurance claims? I know people that have worked in doctor's offices... the secretaries and receptionists outnumber all the medical staff in a given office. Some places even have to hire one person for EVERY insurance agency, because the various forms are so complicated and arbitrary that people can't handle doing more than one companies paperwork. Then there's the storage of all these documents. Time spent faxing files to the insurance agent to have their doctor review it and decide if they'll pay for it.
you honestly believe government involvement is going to lessen paperwork and administration?
We're not talking about an utterly unmanageable, unworkable system. It's doable. Not easy, but doable And I think our health care system would be far better for it. The one we have now is disgustingly unresponsive and ineffective for the "richest nation on earth."
I disagree. government involvement never solved anything. and I'm shocked so many of you have such confidence in them. my experience, along with my family's, have been far from "disgustingly unresponsive and ineffective". those are nice big strong words though. nice touch.
again, it doesnt prove shit. it says we might be able to trim some administrative costs by adopting a candian like system. thats all. big fucking deal?
If you don't consider 31% of U.S. health spending or a savings of $350 billion a year consequential, I don't know what to tell ya...
Maybe some... but not by some catastrophic amount that you seem to anticipate.
define some. why would it not be a catastrophic amount? healthcare is, by far, the largest expense we have as a country. and now you somehow don't think we'd need to raise taxes to pay for it? makes a ton of sense.
thats not my argument at all. even the most basic of services are going to cost Tillions.
you honestly believe government involvement is going to lessen paperwork and administration?
I disagree. government involvement never solved anything. and I'm shocked so many of you have such confidence in them. my experience, along with my family's, have been far from "disgustingly unresponsive and ineffective". those are nice big strong words though. nice touch.
I'm not convinced it would be as expensive as you claim. scb has provided some pretty sound links pointing out that it wouldn't be as bad as you say. Sure, if you assume everyone would be getting good drug scrips and having one major surgery a year, it could add up to that. But most people aren't going to be doing much more than a yearly check up.
Yes, it will. The insurance industry would be reduced and much of their paperwork consolidated under the federal system. But the big saver would be private and small community doctor's offices and hospitals... who would not have to fill out 15 different kinds and sets of forms for 15 different companies (hiring 15 different staff to learn the different company standards). It would mostly be standard, centralized federal forms.
Government involvement did ok on desegregation. It has been alright for environmental protection. I don't know who else could handle policing and military efforts. What is the point of a government if not to respond to and protect its citizens? Sure, there have been colossal failures. But government inaction is not always the best path. Personally, I'm all for abolishing the Dept of Education and many, many other such administrative agencies, and I do believe our government is involved too much with too many things. But health care is one area that I believe is a legit area for federal involvement.
thats not my argument at all. even the most basic of services are going to cost Tillions.
you honestly believe government involvement is going to lessen paperwork and administration?
I disagree. government involvement never solved anything. and I'm shocked so many of you have such confidence in them. my experience, along with my family's, have been far from "disgustingly unresponsive and ineffective". those are nice big strong words though. nice touch.
I'm not convinced it would be as expensive as you claim. scb has provided some pretty sound links pointing out that it wouldn't be as bad as you say. Sure, if you assume everyone would be getting good drug scrips and having one major surgery a year, it could add up to that. But most people aren't going to be doing much more than a yearly check up.
no chance. baby boomers are all set to retire, get old, and need care in the coming years. costs are only going to continue to rise. the government is going to cut costs where ever it can. sorry, not interested.
Yes, it will. The insurance industry would be reduced and much of their paperwork consolidated under the federal system. But the big saver would be private and small community doctor's offices and hospitals... who would not have to fill out 15 different kinds and sets of forms for 15 different companies (hiring 15 different staff to learn the different company standards). It would mostly be standard, centralized federal forms.
I doubt it. the government is nothing but mounds of red tape. this 15 different sets of forms is a bullshit exaggeration. the federal government would require the same amount of forms.
Government involvement did ok on desegregation. It has been alright for environmental protection. I don't know who else could handle policing and military efforts. What is the point of a government if not to respond to and protect its citizens? Sure, there have been colossal failures. But government inaction is not always the best path. Personally, I'm all for abolishing the Dept of Education and many, many other such administrative agencies, and I do believe our government is involved too much with too many things. But health care is one area that I believe is a legit area for federal involvement.
healthcare is probably the most important aspect of our lives. and having the government control it, is the absolutely last thing I want. sure I expect them to help via tax credits or subsidizing where it can, but not control it. I want to be able to control my own care.
again, it doesnt prove shit. it says we might be able to trim some administrative costs by adopting a candian like system. thats all. big fucking deal?
If you don't consider 31% of U.S. health spending or a savings of $350 billion a year consequential, I don't know what to tell ya...
no, its still not enough. the government can not afford 2.4 trillion or 2.1 trillion. doesnt matter.
What if you were technically taxed more but didn't have to pay insurance costs, so didn't actually spend any more money?
it wouldn't work out that way. I pay $80 a month for health insurance. my employer pays the rest. I would need to be taxed all of the amount to cover the costs...which is much more then $80 a month
the idea that we can't afford health care is a myth.
the US defense budget is $1 trillion, annually. that's average. When you add wars and things like that into it, its much higher. You think we needed to drop 50 apaches gunships off at Columbia's door? Or give Turkey that $2 billion in military aid? They are so intent on keeping others down they are forgetting to take care of us at home. If they can spend 1 trillion on defense, when as it stands no country on earth can stand up to us a militarily force, then they can afford health care. its that simple.
Here's the point: If we are ALREADY spending $2.4 trillion for healthcare as a nation, then we ALREADY have $2.4 trillion to spend. The government would not have to raise taxes or have a bake sale to afford this. As a matter of fact, they just need to redirect this money to be used more for direct care and they will get MORE/BETTER healthcare for their/our buck. They might redirect this money in part through taxes, but it would be the SAME MONEY - just being paid to the government (which could spend it more effectively because it has less admistrative costs and no concern for profit) instead of being paid to the insurance companies.
LOL is that easy huh?
first of all, we spend that as a nation, not the government. the government would have to raise that amount of money through taxes and borrowing. ok, lets cut insurance companies. currently, I pay $80 a month for insurance and my employer pays the rest, about $300. no, I would have to pay the $80, but I'll be taxes an extra $380 to cover the cost. and this is just assuming I'm covering my own costs through taxes. chances are I'd pay much more because of the progressive tax system. I'd probably end up paying $500 a month more in taxes.
Hmmm... I didn't remember seeing any actual data from you before... my bad I guess. I hope you saw more of the information I posted than just one thing. I was going to post more, but didn't want to overwhelm anyone.
Yes, I get that we spend that money as a nation. What you don't seem to get is that the SAME MONEY could just be paid to government to fund healthcare through a more streamlined system instead of being paid to the insurance companies. In your scenario, why couldn't you pay your $80 to into universal healthcare while your employer paid its $300 into the universal healthcare system? Then no one pays extra. As far as paying more to compensate for those with less income, you already do that too.
the idea that we can't afford health care is a myth.
the US defense budget is $1 trillion, annually. that's average. When you add wars and things like that into it, its much higher. You think we needed to drop 50 apaches gunships off at Columbia's door? Or give Turkey that $2 billion in military aid? They are so intent on keeping others down they are forgetting to take care of us at home. If they can spend 1 trillion on defense, when as it stands no country on earth can stand up to us a militarily force, then they can afford health care. its that simple.
thats not average. thats with 2 wars being fought. while I certainly agree we need to end wars and cut defense spending drastically, it pales in comparison to cost of heathcare. even though we need to cut spending, we aren't going to eliminate the military to pay for healthcare. and even if we did, it would be anywhere near enough.
Here's the point: If we are ALREADY spending $2.4 trillion for healthcare as a nation, then we ALREADY have $2.4 trillion to spend. The government would not have to raise taxes or have a bake sale to afford this. As a matter of fact, they just need to redirect this money to be used more for direct care and they will get MORE/BETTER healthcare for their/our buck. They might redirect this money in part through taxes, but it would be the SAME MONEY - just being paid to the government (which could spend it more effectively because it has less admistrative costs and no concern for profit) instead of being paid to the insurance companies.
LOL is that easy huh?
first of all, we spend that as a nation, not the government. the government would have to raise that amount of money through taxes and borrowing. ok, lets cut insurance companies. currently, I pay $80 a month for insurance and my employer pays the rest, about $300. no, I would have to pay the $80, but I'll be taxes an extra $380 to cover the cost. and this is just assuming I'm covering my own costs through taxes. chances are I'd pay much more because of the progressive tax system. I'd probably end up paying $500 a month more in taxes.
Hmmm... I didn't remember seeing any actual data from you before... my bad I guess. I hope you saw more of the information I posted than just one thing. I was going to post more, but didn't want to overwhelm anyone.
Yes, I get that we spend that money as a nation. What you don't seem to get is that the SAME MONEY could just be paid to government to fund healthcare through a more streamlined system instead of being paid to the insurance companies. In your scenario, why couldn't you pay your $80 to into universal healthcare while your employer paid its $300 into the universal healthcare system? Then no one pays extra. As far as paying more to compensate for those with less income, you already do that too.
its not the SAME MONEY. my employer pays 80% of my insurance costs. you think they will cover the 80% of new taxes I'd get? but it sounds like you want to raise taxes on businesses forcing them to pay 80% of my heathcare coverage. right now, they do it voluntarily.
you honestly believe government involvement is going to lessen paperwork and administration?
Studies show that it does and it will. Currently, private insurance overhead is 16-30% while Medicare overhead is 2-3%. Plus, as Soulsinging said, it just makes sense if you know about everything that goes into dealing with insurance companies.
you honestly believe government involvement is going to lessen paperwork and administration?
Studies show that it does and it will. Currently, private insurance overhead is 16-30% while Medicare overhead is 2-3%. Plus, as Soulsinging said, it just makes sense if you know about everything that goes into dealing with insurance companies.
okie dokie. we will cut admin costs. thats great. we should be doing that anyway, forcing private companies to streamline shit. I'm all for that.
Yes, it will. The insurance industry would be reduced and much of their paperwork consolidated under the federal system. But the big saver would be private and small community doctor's offices and hospitals... who would not have to fill out 15 different kinds and sets of forms for 15 different companies (hiring 15 different staff to learn the different company standards). It would mostly be standard, centralized federal forms.
I doubt it. the government is nothing but mounds of red tape. this 15 different sets of forms is a bullshit exaggeration. the federal government would require the same amount of forms.
Speaking as someone whose job involves dealing with insurance companies and filling out said forms, I can tell you that this is not an exaggeration.
Government involvement did ok on desegregation. It has been alright for environmental protection. I don't know who else could handle policing and military efforts. What is the point of a government if not to respond to and protect its citizens? Sure, there have been colossal failures. But government inaction is not always the best path. Personally, I'm all for abolishing the Dept of Education and many, many other such administrative agencies, and I do believe our government is involved too much with too many things. But health care is one area that I believe is a legit area for federal involvement.
healthcare is probably the most important aspect of our lives. and having the government control it, is the absolutely last thing I want. sure I expect them to help via tax credits or subsidizing where it can, but not control it. I want to be able to control my own care.
You would be better able to control your care under a universal system, because you would be free to choose whichever doctor you want, unlike now where your choices are limited by your private insurance plan.
no need to be a dick about it...I'm going to ask how do you know because you present things as fact when they haven't happened yet....
you like to predict the future...you're looking at the current system gov't health care system and applying to some future system that you've conjured up in your head...
It's very possible to provide a high quality of care...people who work in the medical and helping fields aren't going to stop doing there jobs because they have a different employer...it's obvious you have never worked in such a job...
if that new employer pays them less or if conditions change they will most certainly stop doing their job. and someone less qualified will step in.
you keep saying it's under funded....we can't afford it...blah blah blah...I guess for me, life and health care is more important than money...you're sooo damn worried about something that not fact because it hasn't happened...
but it has happened. Medicare is grossly UNDERFUNDED...unaffordable.
I mentioned earlier about the high cost of a single shot....and you droned on about this that and the other, but never addressed the fact a fn shot costs 900 bucks...your arguments are based on some system you created in your head...
um, yes I did. I told you that shot took longer then 30 seconds to develop and produce. you seem to think it came off the anesthetic shot tree growing out back and should probably only cost 5 bucks since it took 30 seconds to shoot into your arm.
what system did I create in my head? drugs, ie anesthetic, are expensive to develop and produce. how am I making that up?
the system you've created and are unwilling to look beyond is the "it can't happen because it will cost too much system"...which is interesting, because universal healthcare is not here...thus we don't know...you can only assume...
and since you're quick to justify a 900 dollar shot...answer me this, o' great knower of health care....I've been taking a medication since 2003..it's a shot I give myself 3 times per week...in 2003 the cost of a 3 month supply (it's listed on the paperwork when I pick it up) was $3000. Today, the cost for the same medication is nearly $8000. The research and development has been done for years...and the cost has more than doubled...
tell me, o' great knower...why...? remember...same medication, same dose, same everything...
Yes, it will. The insurance industry would be reduced and much of their paperwork consolidated under the federal system. But the big saver would be private and small community doctor's offices and hospitals... who would not have to fill out 15 different kinds and sets of forms for 15 different companies (hiring 15 different staff to learn the different company standards). It would mostly be standard, centralized federal forms.
I doubt it. the government is nothing but mounds of red tape. this 15 different sets of forms is a bullshit exaggeration. the federal government would require the same amount of forms.
Speaking as someone whose job involves dealing with insurance companies and filling out said forms, I can tell you that this is not an exaggeration.
Government involvement did ok on desegregation. It has been alright for environmental protection. I don't know who else could handle policing and military efforts. What is the point of a government if not to respond to and protect its citizens? Sure, there have been colossal failures. But government inaction is not always the best path. Personally, I'm all for abolishing the Dept of Education and many, many other such administrative agencies, and I do believe our government is involved too much with too many things. But health care is one area that I believe is a legit area for federal involvement.
healthcare is probably the most important aspect of our lives. and having the government control it, is the absolutely last thing I want. sure I expect them to help via tax credits or subsidizing where it can, but not control it. I want to be able to control my own care.
You would be better able to control your care under a universal system, because you would be free to choose whichever doctor you want, unlike now where your choices are limited by your private insurance plan.
since when when would I be able to choose any doctor I wanted? I would only have access to the doctors the government pays.
my private insurance company gives me more then enough choices.
no need to be a dick about it...I'm going to ask how do you know because you present things as fact when they haven't happened yet....
you like to predict the future...you're looking at the current system gov't health care system and applying to some future system that you've conjured up in your head...
It's very possible to provide a high quality of care...people who work in the medical and helping fields aren't going to stop doing there jobs because they have a different employer...it's obvious you have never worked in such a job...
if that new employer pays them less or if conditions change they will most certainly stop doing their job. and someone less qualified will step in.
you keep saying it's under funded....we can't afford it...blah blah blah...I guess for me, life and health care is more important than money...you're sooo damn worried about something that not fact because it hasn't happened...
but it has happened. Medicare is grossly UNDERFUNDED...unaffordable.
I mentioned earlier about the high cost of a single shot....and you droned on about this that and the other, but never addressed the fact a fn shot costs 900 bucks...your arguments are based on some system you created in your head...
um, yes I did. I told you that shot took longer then 30 seconds to develop and produce. you seem to think it came off the anesthetic shot tree growing out back and should probably only cost 5 bucks since it took 30 seconds to shoot into your arm.
what system did I create in my head? drugs, ie anesthetic, are expensive to develop and produce. how am I making that up?
the system you've created and are unwilling to look beyond is the "it can't happen because it will cost too much system"...which is interesting, because universal healthcare is not here...thus we don't know...you can only assume...
but it is here. its called Medicare and its "free" healthcare for the elderly.. and its underfunded, by an unattainable amount. yet you want to take that system and expand it to EVERYONE.
and since you're quick to justify a 900 dollar shot...answer me this, o' great knower of health care....I've been taking a medication since 2003..it's a shot I give myself 3 times per week...in 2003 the cost of a 3 month supply (it's listed on the paperwork when I pick it up) was $3000. Today, the cost for the same medication is nearly $8000. The research and development has been done for years...and the cost has more than doubled...
tell me, o' great knower...why...? remember...same medication, same dose, same everything...
I wasnt "quick to justify" a $900 dollar shot. I was just telling you that anesthetic shots aren't free like you'd expect them to be. do your own research and find out what costs went into developing and producing the drug.
but it is here. its called Medicare and its "free" healthcare for the elderly.. and its underfunded, by an unattainable amount. yet you want to take that system and expand it to EVERYONE.
{snip}
I wasnt "quick to justify" a $900 dollar shot. I was just telling you that anesthetic shots aren't free like you'd expect them to be. do your own research and find out what costs went into developing and producing the drug.
A) ok, then lets fund it...by the way, it's not free, it's funded by tax dollars, I don't know were you got the free thing...
you were quick to justify...and I was asking you, since you're the great knower of healthcare...personally I find it odd that a same drug doubled in cost for no reason, you know since it was already developed and brought to market...I guess you're ok with that...
but it is here. its called Medicare and its "free" healthcare for the elderly.. and its underfunded, by an unattainable amount. yet you want to take that system and expand it to EVERYONE.
{snip}
I wasnt "quick to justify" a $900 dollar shot. I was just telling you that anesthetic shots aren't free like you'd expect them to be. do your own research and find out what costs went into developing and producing the drug.
A) ok, then lets fund it...by the way, it's not free, it's funded by tax dollars, I don't know were you got the free thing...
you were quick to justify...and I was asking you, since you're the great knower of healthcare...personally I find it odd that a same drug doubled in cost for no reason, you know since it was already developed and brought to market...I guess you're ok with that...
again, I wasn't quick to justify. just quick to tell you that the drug took longer then 30 seconds to inject into your arm. you left out the time it took to develop and produce the drug.
I didn't say I was ok with that. like I said, its your money, do your own research.
Comments
actually if the bill to the hospital is $8000, the insurance company will pay the hospital $2000 (if the hospial is lucky) based on negotiated prices already set...
Huh? They were questions (which haven't been answered). You have been asking how we could possibly afford universal healthcare, so I posted the info I had readily available explaining how we could afford it. That way, if you are actually interested in a possible solution, you are more easily able to get an answer to your question.
But you just keep asking the same question... or making the same statements without anything to back them up except an observation that Medicare is underfunded. (At this rate, no wonder we can't move forward to find a solution for healthcare. We can't even move forward in a conversation about it.)
Regarding your statement that we don't have the resources to provide healthcare for everyone without raising taxes, if that were in fact true....
a) I believe you mean that the "quality" of some people's healthcare would decrease to provide basic healthcare for those who currently have none. Do you not think this would be worth it?
b) Or we would have to raise taxes to provide basic coverage for everyone if we don't want to decrease the quality of care for others. Once again, do you not think this would be worth it?
Those two questions don't really matter, of course, because your original statement isn't accurate.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
if that new employer pays them less or if conditions change they will most certainly stop doing their job. and someone less qualified will step in.
but it has happened. Medicare is grossly UNDERFUNDED...unaffordable.
um, yes I did. I told you that shot took longer then 30 seconds to develop and produce. you seem to think it came off the anesthetic shot tree growing out back and should probably only cost 5 bucks since it took 30 seconds to shoot into your arm.
what system did I create in my head? drugs, ie anesthetic, are expensive to develop and produce. how am I making that up?
Damn, dude... did someone forget to take his happy pill this morning? :?
I'm just questing the statements you're making in an attempt to either learn something from you and this conversation or point out the inaccuracies. We can't make any progress if the conversation is based on inaccuracies.
Besides, I did use Google to provide plenty of information, remember?
the shit you posted proves nothing.
if we adopt universal health care, you do NOT think taxes would need to be raised?
where do you draw the line? should we be taxed 70% of our income to provide EVERYONE with basic care. is that worth it to you?
What numbers??? Don't we need to see the actual numbers to make this determination? ALL of them.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
healthcare spending was 2.4 Trillion in 2007. how can the government afford that?
And yet you haven't refuted it. :roll: That's okay, I get it now, it was my mistake to actually think you were interested in a solution. :( Maybe some... but not by some catastrophic amount that you seem to anticipate.
Where do YOU draw the line? I asked you first.
this gem you keep talking up as the savior? http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf
again, it doesnt prove shit. it says we might be able to trim some administrative costs by adopting a candian like system. thats all. big fucking deal?
define some. why would it not be a catastrophic amount? healthcare is, by far, the largest expense we have as a country. and now you somehow don't think we'd need to raise taxes to pay for it? makes a ton of sense.
I'll draw a line right now. I dont want taxes raised at all. we are taxed enough as it is.
Thanks for posting some actual data.
Here's the point: If we are ALREADY spending $2.4 trillion for healthcare as a nation, then we ALREADY have $2.4 trillion to spend. The government would not have to raise taxes or have a bake sale to afford this. As a matter of fact, they just need to redirect this money to be used more for direct care and they will get MORE/BETTER healthcare for their/our buck. They might redirect this money in part through taxes, but it would be the SAME MONEY - just being paid to the government (which could spend it more effectively because it has less admistrative costs and no concern for profit) instead of being paid to the insurance companies.
Yes. If you're so independently wealthy that the current costs of health care don't even make you blink, you'll still be able to afford whatever extra services and quality you want. To the people that can't afford ANY health care, cheap cost-cut health care is still better than nothing. Your argument is like saying "it's bullshit that we give food to starving people... if we can't afford to ship filet mignon to Africa, we shouldn't ship anything at all." It's ridiculous.
And you know how inflated costs are right now due to dealing with the insurance industry? How many man-hours are poured into paperwork? How many administrative staff have to be hired and paid just to handle the red tape and forms of insurance claims? I know people that have worked in doctor's offices... the secretaries and receptionists outnumber all the medical staff in a given office. Some places even have to hire one person for EVERY insurance agency, because the various forms are so complicated and arbitrary that people can't handle doing more than one companies paperwork. Then there's the storage of all these documents. Time spent faxing files to the insurance agent to have their doctor review it and decide if they'll pay for it.
We're not talking about an utterly unmanageable, unworkable system. It's doable. Not easy, but doable And I think our health care system would be far better for it. The one we have now is disgustingly unresponsive and ineffective for the "richest nation on earth."
you've posted one link, two my 3 at least. you haven't really brought shit to the table.
LOL is that easy huh?
first of all, we spend that as a nation, not the government. the government would have to raise that amount of money through taxes and borrowing. ok, lets cut insurance companies. currently, I pay $80 a month for insurance and my employer pays the rest, about $300. no, I would have to pay the $80, but I'll be taxes an extra $380 to cover the cost. and this is just assuming I'm covering my own costs through taxes. chances are I'd pay much more because of the progressive tax system. I'd probably end up paying $500 a month more in taxes.
thats not my argument at all. even the most basic of services are going to cost Tillions.
you honestly believe government involvement is going to lessen paperwork and administration?
I disagree. government involvement never solved anything. and I'm shocked so many of you have such confidence in them. my experience, along with my family's, have been far from "disgustingly unresponsive and ineffective". those are nice big strong words though. nice touch.
If you don't consider 31% of U.S. health spending or a savings of $350 billion a year consequential, I don't know what to tell ya...
See my previous post.
What if you were technically taxed more but didn't have to pay insurance costs, so didn't actually spend any more money?
I'm not convinced it would be as expensive as you claim. scb has provided some pretty sound links pointing out that it wouldn't be as bad as you say. Sure, if you assume everyone would be getting good drug scrips and having one major surgery a year, it could add up to that. But most people aren't going to be doing much more than a yearly check up.
Yes, it will. The insurance industry would be reduced and much of their paperwork consolidated under the federal system. But the big saver would be private and small community doctor's offices and hospitals... who would not have to fill out 15 different kinds and sets of forms for 15 different companies (hiring 15 different staff to learn the different company standards). It would mostly be standard, centralized federal forms.
Government involvement did ok on desegregation. It has been alright for environmental protection. I don't know who else could handle policing and military efforts. What is the point of a government if not to respond to and protect its citizens? Sure, there have been colossal failures. But government inaction is not always the best path. Personally, I'm all for abolishing the Dept of Education and many, many other such administrative agencies, and I do believe our government is involved too much with too many things. But health care is one area that I believe is a legit area for federal involvement.
no chance. baby boomers are all set to retire, get old, and need care in the coming years. costs are only going to continue to rise. the government is going to cut costs where ever it can. sorry, not interested.
I doubt it. the government is nothing but mounds of red tape. this 15 different sets of forms is a bullshit exaggeration. the federal government would require the same amount of forms.
healthcare is probably the most important aspect of our lives. and having the government control it, is the absolutely last thing I want. sure I expect them to help via tax credits or subsidizing where it can, but not control it. I want to be able to control my own care.
no, its still not enough. the government can not afford 2.4 trillion or 2.1 trillion. doesnt matter.
ok? what about it? your previous post doesnt define "some". how much do you think taxes would be raised to pay for health insurance?
it wouldn't work out that way. I pay $80 a month for health insurance. my employer pays the rest. I would need to be taxed all of the amount to cover the costs...which is much more then $80 a month
the US defense budget is $1 trillion, annually. that's average. When you add wars and things like that into it, its much higher. You think we needed to drop 50 apaches gunships off at Columbia's door? Or give Turkey that $2 billion in military aid? They are so intent on keeping others down they are forgetting to take care of us at home. If they can spend 1 trillion on defense, when as it stands no country on earth can stand up to us a militarily force, then they can afford health care. its that simple.
Hmmm... I didn't remember seeing any actual data from you before... my bad I guess. I hope you saw more of the information I posted than just one thing. I was going to post more, but didn't want to overwhelm anyone.
Yes, I get that we spend that money as a nation. What you don't seem to get is that the SAME MONEY could just be paid to government to fund healthcare through a more streamlined system instead of being paid to the insurance companies. In your scenario, why couldn't you pay your $80 to into universal healthcare while your employer paid its $300 into the universal healthcare system? Then no one pays extra. As far as paying more to compensate for those with less income, you already do that too.
thats not average. thats with 2 wars being fought. while I certainly agree we need to end wars and cut defense spending drastically, it pales in comparison to cost of heathcare. even though we need to cut spending, we aren't going to eliminate the military to pay for healthcare. and even if we did, it would be anywhere near enough.
yup, its just so simple.
its not the SAME MONEY. my employer pays 80% of my insurance costs. you think they will cover the 80% of new taxes I'd get? but it sounds like you want to raise taxes on businesses forcing them to pay 80% of my heathcare coverage. right now, they do it voluntarily.
Studies show that it does and it will. Currently, private insurance overhead is 16-30% while Medicare overhead is 2-3%. Plus, as Soulsinging said, it just makes sense if you know about everything that goes into dealing with insurance companies.
okie dokie. we will cut admin costs. thats great. we should be doing that anyway, forcing private companies to streamline shit. I'm all for that.
Speaking as someone whose job involves dealing with insurance companies and filling out said forms, I can tell you that this is not an exaggeration.
You would be better able to control your care under a universal system, because you would be free to choose whichever doctor you want, unlike now where your choices are limited by your private insurance plan.
the system you've created and are unwilling to look beyond is the "it can't happen because it will cost too much system"...which is interesting, because universal healthcare is not here...thus we don't know...you can only assume...
and since you're quick to justify a 900 dollar shot...answer me this, o' great knower of health care....I've been taking a medication since 2003..it's a shot I give myself 3 times per week...in 2003 the cost of a 3 month supply (it's listed on the paperwork when I pick it up) was $3000. Today, the cost for the same medication is nearly $8000. The research and development has been done for years...and the cost has more than doubled...
tell me, o' great knower...why...? remember...same medication, same dose, same everything...
since when when would I be able to choose any doctor I wanted? I would only have access to the doctors the government pays.
my private insurance company gives me more then enough choices.
but it is here. its called Medicare and its "free" healthcare for the elderly.. and its underfunded, by an unattainable amount. yet you want to take that system and expand it to EVERYONE.
I wasnt "quick to justify" a $900 dollar shot. I was just telling you that anesthetic shots aren't free like you'd expect them to be. do your own research and find out what costs went into developing and producing the drug.
A) ok, then lets fund it...by the way, it's not free, it's funded by tax dollars, I don't know were you got the free thing...
fund it how? healthcare cost 2.4 Trillion in 2007
again, I wasn't quick to justify. just quick to tell you that the drug took longer then 30 seconds to inject into your arm. you left out the time it took to develop and produce the drug.
I didn't say I was ok with that. like I said, its your money, do your own research.