I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

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.

yup, its just so simple.

jlew24asu

scb wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

scb wrote:

Thanks for posting some actual data.

you've posted one link, two my 3 at least. you haven't really brought shit to the table.

scb wrote:

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.

_

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

jlew24asu

scb wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

_

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

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.

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

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.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

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.

inmytree wrote:

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.

inmytree wrote:

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...

jlew24asu

scb wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

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.

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

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.

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

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.

inmytree wrote:

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.

inmytree wrote:

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.

inmytree wrote:

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.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

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...

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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...

fund it how? healthcare cost 2.4 Trillion in 2007

inmytree wrote:

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.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

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.

yup, its just so simple.

actually its standard, its about a trillion a year, wars or no. and it doesn't include about $30 billion in nuke upkeep


(increase from '08)
Operations and maintenance $179.8 Bil. +9.5%
Military Personnel $125.2 Bil. +7.5%
Procurement $104.2 Bil. +5.3%
Research $79.6 Bil. +4.1%
Military Construction $21.2 Bil. +19.1%
Family Housing $3.2 Bil. +10.3%
Resolving and Mngment Funds $2.2 Bil. -18.5%
Total Base Spending * $515.4 Bil. +5.7%

*700+ military bases around the world, empires cost money.

Iraq AND Afghanistan wars were supplemented, not included in the numbers above.

(that was all from wiki)





and there are other ways to get money.


Reagan shifted $1 trillion during his presidency from social spending to the private sector, called neo-liberalism. end those policies.


and why do meds cost 50% less in Canada? Or 90% less in Cuba?

lets do what they do.


The system, as it is, is designed to take money from our bank accounts and deposit it into theirs. They make billions, when, ideally , NO PROFIT should be made on making people well, on saving lives.


jlew your numbers include paying the insurance companies, paying the pharmaceutical companies, co-paying, and of that. which are just ways to get to our bank accounts. we need to scrap the entire system.


you can't be saying we can't improve on this system.

VINNY GOOMBA

This issue is like abortion. Your best solution is to not get pregnant.

You're better off spending your time researching and finding ways to stay healthy, rather than repair or over-throw this fucked up system. Keep some nuts squirreled away if you ever need 'em, or get a job that pays insurance. Like anything else, you won't be able to depend on anyone but yourself-- universal health care or not.

Either that or: criminalize medical insurance, lawyers, legalize pot and hemp, and let the market do the rest

No, I will not explain that last statement at all. Use your imagination

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

you can't be saying we can't improve on this system.

I absolutely believe the system can be improved. I just dont think government run Universal healthcare system is the answer.

as for the rest of your post. I suppose some MAJOR shifting around of our budget and heathcare system could make UHC affordable. but even in the best of days, that would be too difficult. and now, given a massive economic crisis and 2 wars still being fought. its just makes it more difficult to even being to make your suggestion a reality.

jlew24asu

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

This issue is like abortion. Your best solution is to not get pregnant.

You're better off spending your time researching and finding ways to stay healthy, rather than repair or over-throw this fucked up system. Keep some nuts squirreled away if you ever need 'em, or get a job that pays insurance. Like anything else, you won't be able to depend on anyone but yourself-- universal health care or not.

Either that or: criminalize medical insurance, lawyers, legalize pot and hemp, and let the market do the rest

No, I will not explain that last statement at all. Use your imagination

I agree (with some). I would support huge increases in government spending in promoting healthy lifestyle or preventing bad ones....however you want to slice it. such as health food subsidies, good eating education in schools, etc, etc. America has grown too lazy and too fat. we need to change that from within.

decides2dream

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

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.

yup, its just so simple.

actually its standard, its about a trillion a year, wars or no. and it doesn't include about $30 billion in nuke upkeep


(increase from '08)
Operations and maintenance $179.8 Bil. +9.5%
Military Personnel $125.2 Bil. +7.5%
Procurement $104.2 Bil. +5.3%
Research $79.6 Bil. +4.1%
Military Construction $21.2 Bil. +19.1%
Family Housing $3.2 Bil. +10.3%
Resolving and Mngment Funds $2.2 Bil. -18.5%
Total Base Spending * $515.4 Bil. +5.7%

*700+ military bases around the world, empires cost money.

Iraq AND Afghanistan wars were supplemented, not included in the numbers above.

(that was all from wiki)





and there are other ways to get money.


Reagan shifted $1 trillion during his presidency from social spending to the private sector, called neo-liberalism. end those policies.


and why do meds cost 50% less in Canada? Or 90% less in Cuba?

lets do what they do.


The system, as it is, is designed to take money from our bank accounts and deposit it into theirs. They make billions, when, ideally , NO PROFIT should be made on making people well, on saving lives.

jlew your numbers include paying the insurance companies, paying the pharmaceutical companies, co-paying, and of that. which are just ways to get to our bank accounts. we need to scrap the entire system.


you can't be saying we can't improve on this system.

EXACTLY.




and vinny, you make an excellent point....one i've made myself a few times in this thread. preventative measures are simply one of the best ways to preserve your health AND keep healthcare costs down. where we disagree is that you think one simply 'needs to get themselves a job with health coverage'...which simply is not possible for EVERYone to do b/c yea, not EVERY employer offers health coverage...so simply do the math there. point is, overhauling/remaking our current system, getting rid of all the private for PROFIT part of the equation....we CAN afford it, we NEED to afford it, for the overall good of all citizens. no one is saying you are not in charge of your own health, but you bet.....everyone needs access to service, most especially preventative measures....it's win-win for everyone.




btw - another big part of the equation outside of REMOVING the FOR PROFIT portion of healthcare, which would save probably billions in not more....is this:

my current contribition towards my healthplan = new healthcare tax
my employer's current contribution towards my healthcare = new helathcare tax
current employer's who do not offer any healthcare coverage = new healthcare tax
those without any coverage but employed = new healthcare tax

see?
many, many more contribute towards healthcare costs for ALL.....so not "free"...but sure, free for some. but the VASt majority will pay into the system, perhaps even LESs than what we pay in now b/c more streamlined, no private insurance BS, no profit.....that we could afford to offer healthcare to those who truly need it but can't afford it on their own. it is NOT a definite that we actually will pay more, at all...just WHO we pay will change. no more insurance company, and all towards healthcare services.

VINNY GOOMBA

jlew24asu wrote:

I agree (with some). I would support huge increases in government spending in promoting healthy lifestyle or preventing bad ones....however you want to slice it. such as health food subsidies, good eating education in schools, etc, etc. America has grown too lazy and too fat. we need to change that from within.

Yes, except I was thinking more along the lines of the "wake the fuck up and pull your head out of your fat ass program" instead of spending more money on education

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

btw - another big part of the equation outside of REMOVING the FOR PROFIT portion of healthcare, which would save probably billions in not more....is this:

profit drives innovation. I do not want that taken out of the healthcare system

decides2dream wrote:

my current contribition towards my healthplan = new healthcare tax
my employer's current contribution towards my healthcare = new helathcare tax
current employer's who do not offer any healthcare coverage = new healthcare tax
those without any coverage but employed = new healthcare tax

this is the EXACT opposite of what I'd like to see in America. higher taxes for all to support a system controlled by one incompetent entity.

decides2dream wrote:

see?
many, many more contribute towards healthcare costs for ALL.....so not "free"...but sure, free for some. but the VASt majority will pay into the system, perhaps even LESs than what we pay in now b/c more streamlined, no private insurance BS, no profit.....that we could afford to offer healthcare to those who truly need it but can't afford it on their own. it is NOT a definite that we actually will pay more, at all...just WHO we pay will change. no more insurance company, and all towards healthcare services.

ah if it were only this easy. FORCING companies to pay health coverage via tax would drive many of them out of business.

VINNY GOOMBA

The saddest part of all of this: There has probably been better discussion about this on the Moving Train in the past few days than there has been in Washington in 10 years.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

btw - another big part of the equation outside of REMOVING the FOR PROFIT portion of healthcare, which would save probably billions in not more....is this:

profit drives innovation. I do not want that taken out of the healthcare system

decides2dream wrote:

my current contribition towards my healthplan = new healthcare tax
my employer's current contribution towards my healthcare = new helathcare tax
current employer's who do not offer any healthcare coverage = new healthcare tax
those without any coverage but employed = new healthcare tax

this is the EXACT opposite of what I'd like to see in America. higher taxes for all to support a system controlled by one incompetent entity.

decides2dream wrote:

see?
many, many more contribute towards healthcare costs for ALL.....so not "free"...but sure, free for some. but the VASt majority will pay into the system, perhaps even LESs than what we pay in now b/c more streamlined, no private insurance BS, no profit.....that we could afford to offer healthcare to those who truly need it but can't afford it on their own. it is NOT a definite that we actually will pay more, at all...just WHO we pay will change. no more insurance company, and all towards healthcare services.

ah if it were only this easy. FORCING companies to pay health coverage via tax would drive many of them out of business.

if that were 100% true, why does the government fund so much medical research? it's NOT all about profits to be innovative.


again, it may be higher taxes...but it is NOT more out of pocket expense, it may well could be less. but the idea needs to be researched. as to the 'incompetent entity'........government sure as shit runs a LOT of things, and while i am not saying they deserve gold stars for all they do :P.....it's not all inept, and nor does it HAVE to be, either. change is possible.

again - not saying it is 'that easy'....b/c obviously i am oversimplifying simply to show it is doable. as to forcing companies to pay taxes towards healthcare....again, if they are trading their current contributions instead to taxes, same difference no? as to some smaller companies.....perhaps it would be too big of a burden, but of course...i am making a broad outline here. obviously, like anything else...there would have to be limits and exceptions, etc....but yes.......overall, they are making their $$$ off of americans, so sure, they should contribute to the health of americans. again, while i am not 100% sure, i do imagine foreign companies contribute tax towards UHC, and again, they manage to stay profitable.

we need to follow a new model...CREATE a new model. it IS possible. that's all i am saying.......




vinny, vinny, vinny....cmon now......as ed would say: hope. hope is the underdog!
work with me here, try and imagine things differently....and positive. again, it is possible.......

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

my current contribition towards my healthplan = new healthcare tax
my employer's current contribution towards my healthcare = new helathcare tax
current employer's who do not offer any healthcare coverage = new healthcare tax
those without any coverage but employed = new healthcare tax

this is the EXACT opposite of what I'd like to see in America. higher taxes for all to support a system controlled by one incompetent entity.

I don't think you're reading the suggestion right. The point is, we ALREADY pay money for our health insurance, as do our employers. So most people won't see any loss. The difference is that the money employers and employees currently pay into insurance programs goes into the national health care program. Also, medicare and medicaid would be gone. No need to fund them separately. They both would be rolled into the new plan, so the taxes we pay now into those programs (as seen on your tax statement) would go to the national health care plan instead. No new taxes. Just redirecting money we already pay into this new program while phasing out old ones.