What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Trumpcare- Passed the House and onto the Senate; will it pass there? And what will it finally look like? (2 Viewers)

Just Win Baby said:
Also, for those who advocate a national single payer system, how many examples do you have of such a system being effective in other countries? I think many people have a misconception about how many countries truly have a national single payer system.
Click to expand...
I think there are several countries that have better outcomes at lower cost than we do here in the USA.

 
Just Win Baby said:
For those who advocate single payer:

Do you agree that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a Govt run single payer system? If not, why not? If so, why would you expect a national single payer system to avoid the terrible VHA healthcare outcomes?

Do you agree that the Indian Health Service (IHS) is a Govt run single payer system? If not, why not? If so, why would you expect a national single payer system to avoid the terrible IHS healthcare outcomes?
Click to expand...
When you have a single payer system, you have a single payer across the whole country.  Therefore the VA and IHS aren't single payer systems.  They're similar to what Medicaid and Medicare are.  They're government options within a broader and larger healthcare/insurance industry.  They're one of many payers.

When you are literally the sole payer for the entire country, the entire dynamic changes.

And the outcomes being better than what we have now are not a foregone conclusion. It will require constant work, constant refinement and re-evaluation to ensure we're doing a good job.

 
matttyl said:
On the other hand, one has to view this as a sign of just how unstable, and expensive, the market really is without the government actively propping it up.  That the only reason the rates are so much higher is because the government is pumping so much money into it via CSRs, and actively forcing people to comply.  Kinda goes to my above point that people won't buy this stuff unless and until they see an immediate need for it. 
Click to expand...
Not sure why this is "on the other hand."  The government props up, or at least influences, basically every market in one way or another.  If we're talking about a market for keeping people alive and healthy I'd consider socializing the cost for the needy to be a feature, not a bug.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Not sure why this is "on the other hand."  The government props up, or at least influences, basically every market in one way or another.  If we're talking about a market for keeping people alive and healthy I'd consider socializing the cost for the needy to be a feature, not a bug.
Click to expand...
Well of course it's a feature.  The uncertainly of that feature remaining, though - and the apparent cost that would come along with it, just shows how much that "feature" costs, which would be felt by everyone.  No matter if the CSRs are paid by the government (via taxpayers) or by the insured (who are also taxpayers) - they are still getting paid by the public in one form or another [yes, I understand the former would be more so funded by those who are richer, while the later would be paid for....wait for it....still those who are richer as those who are poorer would just get those increases subsidized for them]. 

 
adonis said:
I think there are several countries that have better outcomes at lower cost than we do here in the USA.
Click to expand...
But they are also doing so with a different (and typically much healthier) average population.  Take the average French person out of their system and put them in ours, and take an average American our of our system and put them in their system.....our overall costs would drop (every so slightly as could happen from one person), and theirs would rise. 

 
matttyl said:
adonis said:
I think there are several countries that have better outcomes at lower cost than we do here in the USA.
Click to expand...
But they are also doing so with a different (and typically much healthier) average population.  Take the average French person out of their system and put them in ours, and take an average American our of our system and put them in their system.....our overall costs would drop (every so slightly as could happen from one person), and theirs would rise. 
Click to expand...
Do you think their population might have better health because they have universal coverage?

 
adonis said:
Do you think their population might have better health because they have universal coverage?
Click to expand...
It's likely a very small factor, but yes. 

A much, much, much large one is the societal and cultural norms they have there vs what we have here.  It's not because of Universal healthcare that they consume, on average, about 250 fewer calories per person, each day.  It's not because of Universal healthcare that the average Swiss person takes 2x as many steps as an American.  It's not because of Universal healthcare that their obesity rate is less than 1/3 of ours.  It's not because of Universal health care that their traffic related fatality rate is less than half of ours (one would have to think if they have fewer traffic fatalities, they have fewer serious auto accidents which would require medical care - but also that they walk from place to place far more often than we do).  It's not because of Universal health care that their gun related death rate (and thus I would have to assume overall shooting rate) is 1/4 that of our own.  While maybe partially debatable, it's not because of Universal healthcare that Finland's (closest country I found on this list) overdose and drug related death rate is less than half of ours.

When people are getting shot here 4x as much as they are there (which is for a different thread if you want to discuss that), people are overdosing over twice as much, serious traffic accidents are over twice as common, are 3x as likely to be obese, and consume nearly 100k more calories a year here......of course our healthcare system is going to be more expensive as well as have worse outcomes (like life expectancy and infant mortality).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl said:
It's likely a very small factor, but yes. 

A much, much, much large one is the societal and cultural norms they have there vs what we have here.  It's not because of Universal healthcare that they consume, on average, about 250 fewer calories per person, each day.  It's not because of Universal healthcare that the average Swiss person takes 2x as many steps as an American.  It's not because of Universal healthcare that their obesity rate is less than 1/3 of ours.  It's not because of Universal health care that their traffic related fatality rate is less than half of ours (one would have to think if they have fewer traffic fatalities, they have fewer serious auto accidents which would require medical care - but also that they walk from place to place far more often than we do).  It's not because of Universal health care that their gun related death rate (and thus I would have to assume overall shooting rate) is 1/4 that of our own.  While maybe partially debatable, it's not because of Universal healthcare that Finland's (closest country I found on this list) overdose and drug related death rate is less than half of ours.

When people are getting shot here 4x as much as they are there (which is for a different thread if you want to discuss that), people are overdosing over twice as much, serious traffic accidents are over twice as common, are 3x as likely to be obese, and consume nearly 100k more calories a year here......of course our healthcare system is going to be more expensive as well as have worse outcomes (like life expectancy and infant mortality).
Click to expand...
There are also factors such as population size and population homogeneity that may work in other nations' favor as well.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
There are also factors such as population size and population homogeneity that may work in other nations' favor as well.
Click to expand...
Exactly.  My point is that there are many, many factors which can make an "US vs them" (pun intended) comparison rather useless.  Of course they live longer when they aren't shooting each other, getting in auto accidents, shooting up drugs, eating as much crap, and exercising more.

 
adonis said:
I think there are several countries that have better outcomes at lower cost than we do here in the USA.
Click to expand...
Can you cite examples of countries with national single payer systems that have better healthcare outcomes for lower cost?

 
adonis said:
I think there are several countries that have better outcomes at lower cost than we do here in the USA.
Click to expand...
Which ones?  Define lower costs.  How much money goes into the system?  How many people benefit from the system?   How healthy are those people (Smoking, drinking, drugs, exercise, fast food, etc...)?

 
Local radio was carrying a story about a woman who got a bionic arm that's connected to the nerves that are working in her upper arm.  A shark had bite it off.  First thought was...that's cool.  Second thought was...how much did that cost (the doc has done 10 of these now), which led me to this question.  If you were king of the US and could give everyone coverage if you outlawed turning stumps in functioning arms and maybe another 100 surgeries that fixed things like hearing, sight, paralysis, etc....would you?

 
adonis said:
When you have a single payer system, you have a single payer across the whole country.  Therefore the VA and IHS aren't single payer systems.  They're similar to what Medicaid and Medicare are.  They're government options within a broader and larger healthcare/insurance industry.  They're one of many payers.

When you are literally the sole payer for the entire country, the entire dynamic changes.

And the outcomes being better than what we have now are not a foregone conclusion. It will require constant work, constant refinement and re-evaluation to ensure we're doing a good job.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that our Govt runs IHS, VHA, Medicaid, and Medicare, and healthcare outcomes are poor for all of them except Medicare, and more than 25% (and growing) of those on Medicare have supplemental insurance. 

I have no idea why anyone would expect our Govt to implement a national single payer system and expect anything other than poor healthcare outcomes. Without even I getting into the cost issue. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
The bottom line is that our Govt runs IHS, VHA, Medicaid, and Medicare, and healthcare outcomes are poor for all of them except Medicare, and more than 25% (and growing) of those on Medicare have supplemental insurance. 

I have no idea why anyone would expect our Govt to implement a national single payer system and expect anything other than poor healthcare outcomes. Without even I getting into the cost issue. 
Click to expand...
American exceptionalism at work!

 
Just Win Baby said:
adonis said:
When you have a single payer system, you have a single payer across the whole country.  Therefore the VA and IHS aren't single payer systems.  They're similar to what Medicaid and Medicare are.  They're government options within a broader and larger healthcare/insurance industry.  They're one of many payers.

When you are literally the sole payer for the entire country, the entire dynamic changes.

And the outcomes being better than what we have now are not a foregone conclusion. It will require constant work, constant refinement and re-evaluation to ensure we're doing a good job.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that our Govt runs IHS, VHA, Medicaid, and Medicare, and healthcare outcomes are poor for all of them except Medicare, and more than 25% (and growing) of those on Medicare have supplemental insurance. 

I have no idea why anyone would expect our Govt to implement a national single payer system and expect anything other than poor healthcare outcomes. Without even I getting into the cost issue. 
Click to expand...
Wait, you just said our government does a good job with Medicare...perhaps all of them should be rolled up into the program we have currently for Medicare.

I don't understand what is so great about the private system.  It works for folks with money and doesn't for those without money.  Again, if the end-all-be-all question here is efficient use of money, perhaps the private system works best...but it does so by excluding folks who can't afford it and by charging folks differing amounts based on how much of a risk they are, in some cases not offering coverage at all for people because they're too big of a risk.

The government is the appropriate body to handle issues that are in the public good, but that likely won't be covered by profit motives.  Examples of this include national defense, public infrastructure, basic scientific research, education, etc.  In all of those situations, if you leave the problems up to the "free market", you'll have tons of problems.

Now, I will say that the government will have trouble administering health care for the entire population, but that problem exists today...there are already problems, and the private industry doesn't even take on that challenge.  I'd rather have our government take on the challenge and continually strive to do better, than to forego any attempts and just let folks continue to live in the cracks of society.  This is where it gets ideological.  

Our country is unique...we've done democracy in most cases better than any country, ever, in history.  We like to think of ourselves as exceptional, yet we continue to say our government isn't capable of exceptional things.  If 50% of our folks think government is the problem, then can we realistically expect to get the support and cooperation necessary to implement an effective governmental system?  I'm not looking to get into pure politics here, but when folks trash the government as a possible single payer, it seems a bit silly to me because less exceptional governments than us seem to do a pretty good job at this.

 
matttyl said:
Grace Under Pressure said:
There are also factors such as population size and population homogeneity that may work in other nations' favor as well.
Click to expand...
Exactly.  My point is that there are many, many factors which can make an "US vs them" (pun intended) comparison rather useless.  Of course they live longer when they aren't shooting each other, getting in auto accidents, shooting up drugs, eating as much crap, and exercising more.
Click to expand...
How about this question:

Which person lives a more healthy lifestyle:

- A person who has a relationship with a primary care physician

or

- A person who can't afford to see a doctor?

 
adonis said:
Just Win Baby said:
Can you cite examples of countries with national single payer systems that have better healthcare outcomes for lower cost?
Click to expand...
Canada.
Click to expand...
From Healthcare in Canada:

1. The Canada Health Act does not cover prescription drugs, home care or long-term care, prescription glasses or dental care, which means most Canadians pay out-of-pocket for these services or rely on private insurance.

2. Limited coverage is provided for mental health care, physio/occupational/massage therapy, foot care (podiatry and chiropody), infertility treatments, assistive devices (e.g., wheelchairs), and ambulance services. There is considerable variation across the provinces/territories as to the extent to which such costs are covered.

3. 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers. Private health expenditure accounts for 30% of health care financing.

4. Wait times are a well known significant problem. In part, this is due to Canada having much less available medical technology (e.g., number of CT scanner, MRI machines, etc.). There have been many occasions when the Canadian government has arranged care for some patients in the US due to lack of neo natal beds, intensive care beds, etc.

Are these characteristics of the kind of national single payer system you want for the US?

Now consider that in Canada, total tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of GDP, compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%. Do you want to pay 10% more in taxes?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
adonis said:
Just Win Baby said:
Can you cite examples of countries with national single payer systems that have better healthcare outcomes for lower cost?
Click to expand...
Canada.
Click to expand...
From Healthcare in Canada:

1. The Canada Health Act does not cover prescription drugs, home care or long-term care, prescription glasses or dental care, which means most Canadians pay out-of-pocket for these services or rely on private insurance.

2. Limited coverage is provided for mental health care, physio/occupational/massage therapy, foot care (podiatry and chiropody), infertility treatments, assistive devices (e.g., wheelchairs), and ambulance services. There is considerable variation across the provinces/territories as to the extent to which such costs are covered.

3. 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers. Private health expenditure accounts for 30% of health care financing.

4. Wait times are a well known significant problem. In part, this is due to Canada having much less available medical technology (e.g., number of CT scanner, MRI machines, etc.). There have been many occasions when the Canadian government has arranged care for some patients in the US due to lack of neo natal beds, intensive care beds, etc.

Are these characteristics of the kind of national single payer system you want for the US?

Now consider that in Canada, total tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of GDP, compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%. Do you want to pay 10% more in taxes?
Click to expand...
I answered your question.  I didn't say I wanted Canada's system.

 
BassNBrew said:
adonis said:
How about this question:

Which person lives a more healthy lifestyle:

- A person who can afford fresh food and organic products

or

- A person who can only afford box and fast food products
Click to expand...
While access to a doctor is nice, you're way off base if you think access to a free doc = healthy in most cases.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to mean "healthy", it just has to mean "more healthy", in the aggregate.

 
adonis said:
I answered your question.  I didn't say I wanted Canada's system.
Click to expand...
Fine. Is there an example of an actual national single payer healthcare system that provides better outcomes for lower cost that you would like to see the US implement?

Or do you want a magic unicorn?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
This characteristic didn't seem to make your list...
Click to expand...
OK, since you stepped into this exchange, do you want the US to adopt the same national single payer system that Canada has?

Do you want higher taxes, longer wait times, less medical technology, no coverage for prescriptions, etc.? In exchange for the Govt paying ~70% of healthcare costs rather than the 45-50% it currently pays?

 
Just Win Baby said:
OK, since you stepped into this exchange, do you want the US to adopt the same national single payer system that Canada has?

Do you want higher taxes, longer wait times, less medical technology, no coverage for prescriptions, etc.? In exchange for the Govt paying ~70% of healthcare costs rather than the 45-50% it currently pays?
Click to expand...
Canada doesn't have a national system, it has a provincial system.  So no.

But I'm more than willing to shift the 9% or so I pay in premiums (my share plus my employers) plus the roughly 3% for Medicare.  TurboTax says my effective federal tax rate was approximately 16%, but that is after a bunch of stuff was adjusted out (including the employer share of ESI) so lets say the real rate is more like 14%.  Out of that approximately 28% of  federal expenditures is health care related.  We need to knock that down some since only pieces of Medicare comes from the general fund. How about we go with a bit more than 20% to make it another 3%.  So 9 + 3 + 3 =15% so far.  At the state level I only paid about 1/3 of federal, so say 5%.   Medicaid, on average is 17% of state budgets,  Lets bump it to 20% for other things such as state workers so we get another 1%.  So right now I'm paying about 16% - not counting charity.  Those that sit near me, but make much less at my office are paying much more than that.  Those that sit in the front of the building and make much more than me are paying less than that.   How, the cost of the premiums are the same so if someone is making half as much they may be in lower tax brackets for that 4% in income taxes, but they are paying a greater percentage for insurance (not twice as much as the employer share is static.)

So what is the point of that long winded exercise?  Just that if we flatten out  on all income to pay for everyone that most people will probably be paying about the same and flat taxes are regressive but it would still be fairer than today.  Or we can cap it like Social Security and most people pay a little more if we don't want the 1%ers picking up too much of the tab.  The point being we are already "taxed".

So yes I want higher taxes!  High enough that prescription coverage isn't issue.  High enough that the government is picking up somewhere around 80 to 90% of NHE.  (A silver plan with cost sharing.)

As for wait time, I'd prefer that our limited health resources be allocated (i.e. rationed) to the young adult with CF before the 50 year old weekend warriors filling up the booming Sports Medicine offices.  So if that elective orthopedic surgery needs to wait, oh well.   Granted picking between these two is easy while finding the correct balance, and getting reasonable people to agree on that balance is the challenge. But I don't agree that financial class status  is the best way to find that balance.  So yes, I'd prefer longer wait lines than taking 10 years off the life of a young adult who is sick because they were born.

Less medical technology is not a serious concern.  Buying all of that new fangled equipment in order to drive demand is part of the problem.  Besides hospital mergers (i.e. less competition) is having the same effect.  (i.e. each hospital doesn't need to spend on the latest and greatest as long as those patient's  revenue stays within the system.) 

I'd be fine with a system where the government taxes at whatever it takes to provide for every American a voucher worth 100% of comprehensive coverage which would then be used to purchase qualified plans offered by for profit private carrier.  These carrier and/or providers could also offer additional services for additional fees.  At least while we are transitioning to a better mindset those service could include unsavory things as cutting to the front of the line or even "premium networks" with the name hospitals.  Long term "we the people" would phase out much of the for profit overhead and would come to think of "cutting to the front of the line" based on financial class rather than need as evil, but lets not allow these flaws get in the way of adding those 10 years to a young adult's life.

 
Just Win Baby said:
OK, since you stepped into this exchange, do you want the US to adopt the same national single payer system that Canada has?
Click to expand...
As I think about it, I'd also add that I'd be OK going the opposite way also.  Taxes would be collected to pay for coverage for everyone over $20K or $50K or $100K - whatever and also dump say $3, 4, or even 5K into a health savings account (plus whatever we might need for senior routine costs).  Individuals would be required to prove coverage for anything less than the federal  annual coverage.  That proof would be some combination of the dedicated health savings accounts and insurance (which could be used for premiums).  The savings accounts will negatively impact the insurance market somewhat by sucking out high earners and/or those have been healthy enough to save to whatever the deductible before the fed benefits kick in so while  we should allow no limits to contributions and/or balances we should tax the earnings on these above certain levels to help offset this impact.  Then again since the federal government is effectively offering reinsurance for catastrophic claims already, the insurance market should be relatively affordable, larger versions of the mini meds that the ACA eliminated.  This also allows for the continuation of ESI.  I'd expect $3K (assuming that is the amount the fed deposits) deductibles with little other cost sharing would become the norm for ESI to compete for workers.

While I doubt the details are even close to being the same as what I just wrote, I believe it is Singapore that does a catastrophic version of national health care.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
As I think about it, I'd also add that I'd be OK going the opposite way also.  Taxes would be collected to pay for coverage for everyone over $20K or $50K or $100K - whatever and also dump say $3, 4, or even 5K into a health savings account (plus whatever we might need for senior routine costs).  Individuals would be required to prove coverage for anything less than the federal  annual coverage.  That proof would be some combination of the dedicated health savings accounts and insurance (which could be used for premiums).  The savings accounts will negatively impact the insurance market somewhat by sucking out high earners and/or those have been healthy enough to save to whatever the deductible before the fed benefits kick in so while  we should allow no limits to contributions and/or balances we should tax the earnings on these above certain levels to help offset this impact.  Then again since the federal government is effectively offering reinsurance for catastrophic claims already, the insurance market should be relatively affordable, larger versions of the mini meds that the ACA eliminated.  This also allows for the continuation of ESI.  I'd expect $3K (assuming that is the amount the fed deposits) deductibles with little other cost sharing would become the norm for ESI to compete for workers.

While I doubt the details are even close to being the same as what I just wrote, I believe it is Singapore that does a catastrophic version of national health care.
Click to expand...
Can you please restate this?  I've read it a dozen times and keep getting different meanings.

 
Does anyone have a POV on where this stands legislatively?

Because unless the GOP starts agreeing to some Dem compromises (doubtful imo) it looks dead to me and the ACA stays fixed until 2019... when the Dems may tweak it.

 
BassNBrew said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
As I think about it, I'd also add that I'd be OK going the opposite way also.  Taxes would be collected to pay for coverage for everyone over $20K or $50K or $100K - whatever ....
Click to expand...
Can you please restate this?  I've read it a dozen times and keep getting different meanings.
Click to expand...
The government would provide everyone with a policy with a $X0,000 deductible.  For most people they would (gladly) never reach the deductible.  The purpose is much the same as the high risk pools and/or reinsurance programs - to take out the 10% who are responsible for 50% of spending from the risk pools (or whatever those numbers really are).   Instead of placing people with pre-existing conditions into their own pools this puts everyone on equal footing in having to provide their first $X0,000 in care and then this kicks in after that.   The advantage for me is that is simpler, fairer, and more portable.  The downside is that would cost more as it is easier to cut funding when you carve out a tiny percentage of the population.

The entire challenge is how to provide appropriate coverage for the 10% who are already really expensive while making coverage affordable to the other 90% so hopefully enough are being treated early enough that far fewer develop as many chronic issues that currently plague the system.  The main problem with the ACA as far as individual affordability is that coverage is too expensive for those making in the 250% to 500% or so of poverty level as subsidies phase out.  The risk pools in the AHCA say just take the sick people out of the pools and things will be more affordable for the masses.  That would be fine if these pools were properly funded - but they seldom are.  But the AHCA is counting on  the number being screwed over in the individual market by being forced into these dirty pools is small enough and offset by the cheaper policies for the masses. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The government would provide everyone with a policy with a $X0,000 deductible.  For most people they would (gladly) never reach the deductible.  The purpose is much the same as the high risk pools and/or reinsurance programs - to take out the 10% who are responsible for 50% of spending from the risk pools (or whatever those numbers really are).   Instead of placing people with pre-existing conditions into their own pools this puts everyone on equal footing in having to provide their first $X0,000 in care and then this kicks in after that.   The advantage for me is that is simpler, fairer, and more portable.  The downside is that would cost more as it is easier to cut funding when you carve out a tiny percentage of the population.

The entire challenge is how to provide appropriate coverage for the 10% who are already really expensive while making coverage affordable to the other 90% so hopefully enough are being treated early enough that far fewer develop as many chronic issues that currently plague the system.  The main problem with the ACA as far as individual affordability is that coverage is too expensive for those making in the 250% to 500% or so of poverty level as subsidies phase out.  The risk pools in the AHCA say just take the sick people out of the pools and things will be more affordable for the masses.  That would be fine if these pools were properly funded - but they seldom are.  But the AHCA is counting on  the number being screwed over in the individual market by being forced into these dirty pools is small enough and offset by the cheaper policies for the masses. 
Click to expand...
Solid idea.  Those never fly.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Does anyone have a POV on where this stands legislatively?

Because unless the GOP starts agreeing to some Dem compromises (doubtful imo) it looks dead to me and the ACA stays fixed until 2019... when the Dems may tweak it.
Click to expand...
There are so many mixed signals that it goes back and forth just about every day.

My best guess is that it is so important to the rest of the agenda, as well as going home in peace for week of the 4th and all of August that there is something passed.  Trying to guess what I think Medicaid expansion phaseout will be extended out much longer.  They have to get rid of some taxes (especially individual mandate), but I would not be shocked if a good chunk of the ACA taxes remain being "deferred as part of  the larger tax reform package"   This pays for the somewhat richer subsidies for the individual market, at least for the AARP voters.  Everything else about the same as the AHCA.

If this fails I'd like to think that you'd see in the short term something like funding of CSR formalized and guaranteed in exchange for making waivers (both ACA and Medicaid), like the one Iowa is requesting much easier to achieve. But this idea is only from one off quotes here and there by GOP congress people,and not from any "in the know" actual discussions.  

 
matttyl said:
Grace Under Pressure said:
Costs are ridiculous. The insurance piece in and of itself is more a symptom of the problem, so it would be great to see a bill that actually addresses costs, not just insurance coverage.
Click to expand...
Been saying exactly that for years, with many examples.  Not only are costs ridiculous, people have no way of knowing what those actual costs are.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Sadly, this actual problem will go unaddressed.  It requires politicians to bite the hand feeding them and we know that's not going to happen.

ETA:  It really is time to stop pointing fingers on this thing.  There are ample amounts of blame to go around.  It's unproductive and exactly what the politicians want us to be focused on rather than them and their actions.  It's broken.  I don't give a #### who you think is "more" responsible or who started it or who pushed who first.  It's time to move on and focus on our legislators and what they need to be doing to get this thing corrected.  I've never understood why it's important to people to "repeal" this thing.  I've never understood why it's important to people to avoid it being repealed and "tweak" it instead.  It's stupid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Washington state requested premium increases for next year - 22.33%  What I found interesting is that in 2016 (just last year), the carriers in that state had a 96.3% loss ratio (meaning that 96.3% of all the premiums they collected went directly to claims).  That's far too high, and to be sustainable needs to be around 85% or so (with the other 15% going to overhead/administration and a few percent for carrier profit).  All in, the carriers in Washington state lost about $141m (well, that's what the carriers who are still in it lost, there are some who've left the market since then who obviously lost money or they wouldn't have left). 

 
Just Win Baby said:
From Healthcare in Canada:

1. The Canada Health Act does not cover prescription drugs, home care or long-term care, prescription glasses or dental care, which means most Canadians pay out-of-pocket for these services or rely on private insurance.

2. Limited coverage is provided for mental health care, physio/occupational/massage therapy, foot care (podiatry and chiropody), infertility treatments, assistive devices (e.g., wheelchairs), and ambulance services. There is considerable variation across the provinces/territories as to the extent to which such costs are covered.

3. 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers. Private health expenditure accounts for 30% of health care financing.

4. Wait times are a well known significant problem. In part, this is due to Canada having much less available medical technology (e.g., number of CT scanner, MRI machines, etc.). There have been many occasions when the Canadian government has arranged care for some patients in the US due to lack of neo natal beds, intensive care beds, etc.

Are these characteristics of the kind of national single payer system you want for the US?

Now consider that in Canada, total tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of GDP, compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%. Do you want to pay 10% more in taxes?
Click to expand...
Canada's health care is cheaper per capita and has better outcomes.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

 
Cowboysfan8 said:
I made a flatiron steak last night and baked potatoes with butter, sour cream and cheddar cheese for less $ than a family pack at KFC or a Mcds , etc for my wife , my granddaughter and myself
Click to expand...
I agree.  It is really nice to have ready access to fresh ingredients.  I feel awful for people who don't.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
237
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish
timschochet
What should we do about illegal immigration?
5 6 7
Replies
304
Views
7K
Sand
Sand

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top