matttyl
Footballguy
Exactly, which is about twice what health insurance companies on average have as a profit margin. That's my point.
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.
New York Single Payer. $91 Billion. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dr Oadi
- Start date
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
What are you talking about? Direct from you "collectively corporate profits average about 6.5% historically." As the health insurance industry averages about 3.5%, that's not "still close to average" by any means......you know, unless you want to double it.
matttyl
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Not according to Trump
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
Follow
More
Of course the Australians have better healthcare than we do --everybody does. ObamaCare is dead! But our healthcare will soon be great.
Also, everyone I spoke with from Canada while on a recent Spring Break trip laughed when my dad asked if they wanted to trade health care with us.
Literally laughed. And then we drank more beer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
There is absolutely no reason to believe this would or could ever be true in a Govt run healthcare system. It makes no sense to just assume these things away, they are crucial issues.
Thorpe
Footballguy
I doubt this passes the NY Senate so this probably a moot discussion, but
1. If Obamacare is repealed and not replaced with something equivalent, would a ton of sick people move to NY?
2. I assume NY would still use the existing insurance companies to pay the claims. Anyone know if this is true or not?
3. The big problem with government insurance is fraud. Medicare fraud is 10 percent. There are no figures for private insurance companies but it is assumed the percentage is much less.
1. If Obamacare is repealed and not replaced with something equivalent, would a ton of sick people move to NY?
2. I assume NY would still use the existing insurance companies to pay the claims. Anyone know if this is true or not?
3. The big problem with government insurance is fraud. Medicare fraud is 10 percent. There are no figures for private insurance companies but it is assumed the percentage is much less.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
Trump is an idiot. What does that have to do with anything?
Canadian healthcare works for some, not for others... same as everywhere else. If any country believes they've actually solved healthcare, they either don't fully understand it and are just on the lucky side of things, or they're just circle jerking. I've worked in healthcare for years, there is no panacea.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
So unless we go off your assumptions, you don't want to talk. Got it.
#### Pharma, #### Insurance, and #### Pill Pushing Docs.
Single payer all the way for me.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Do you know of any country that went single payer and then went back to private "for profit" healthcare? I don't know of one?
bigmarc27
Footballguy
Again, if they're saying single payer solves everything, they're just on the "winning" side. If they're on the winning side, why change? It's the same problem here.
Also one policy that might work for one country, might not fit another. All I said is that there is no solution where everyone wins, period.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
As mentioned above, Trump is a moron. And an ###. And a lot of other things. He has no idea what he's talking about.
As for Canada, as mentioned already - it works for some and not for others. Example - as of 2015 there were about 9.5 MRI machines per million Canadians - while here in the US we had about 39 MRI machines per million people (4x as many). Same idea holds true for CT scanners and such. If you're one that generally needs those type of things, they are much easier to come by, and without much wait here than there. Just one simple example.
Tau837
Footballguy
No idea what you are talking about. Tim stated a grossly unrealistic assumption, and I commented on that.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
Man, you're reading right from the talking points list, huh?
#### Pharma and "pill-pushing" docs? Yeah, I hate that ever increasing life expectancy - (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy). Living longer is such a bummer. Do you think that happens without Docs and medicine?
Also #### insurance? Do you even know how it works for most people? Most insurance is ASO nowadays. In other words, your company sets the rules, the insurance companies just enforce the guidelines that your company sets forth and act as the bad guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I agree with that. But right now it's pretty obvious that our medical industry is slanted to make sure those with money win more consistently than those without. And that's bull####.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Nah. I don't really do the talking points thing.
My experience is more personal than that. I watched how my mom was used by the medical industry for profit. Cancer! Yay! Let's do all kinds of tests and drugs! Then more tests...and don't forget the false hope. What was that? Feeling better? Here let's do a PET scan even though you are stage 4 just about everywhere in your body. Do you need pain killers? Sure we have all you need. Can we do some more tests?
Living longer is great. But then you have people saying .... well entitlements like you know healthcare and enough money for food are a problem. So what do you want everyony to be 90 and starving or in pain?
Those poor insurance companies. Poor guys. Barely squeaking by? It must be nice to have a law enacted that makes the populace pay you. That's lobby power.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
You said you won't go off Tim's assumptions, and yet you are making your own assumptions that it won't work. That's all I meant.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
I have no idea how you got that from what I typed? I also have no idea what you're referring to? Obamacare? The insurance companies didn't win with Obamacare, that's why you saw them dropping out of the exchanges. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance companies work.
jonessed
Footballguy
I don't think it would be limited. They are lobbying for favorable conditions/regulations from the government. That's not going to change with single payer.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
...and UnitedHealthcare announced they were dropping out over a year ago.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/19/investing/unitedhealthcare-obamacare-exchanges-aca/
NCCommish
Footballguy
BCBS in Michigan has investigated 51000 cases of fraud and recovered almost half a billion in the last year. That's just one state. I am going to guess private insurance has roughly the same level.of issue Medicare does.
matttyl
Footballguy
Well yeah, tons of carriers have. The one I posted was literally made public an hour before I posted it - which I had just read prior to reading his post. Reading the two back to back made me laugh.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigmarc27
Footballguy
I wasn't meaning to undercut your article, just adding to it since a previous contention a few posts up was that insurance companies were having a windfall of profits from Obamacare.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
New York and CA probably have the size and demographics to pull it off, but it's not an ideal approach.
I voted for the single payer plan in CO but mostly as a generic vote in favor universal coverage. I don't think the plan itself as designed was a particularly good one.
jonrolly
Footballguy
I have tremendous sympathy for you over your Mother's treatment. However, I think your frustration is misdirected. What you are describing is why many people advocate for tort reform. Many providers have become conditioned to implement X treatment plan because to deviate is to potentially expose oneself to tremendous liability. It's unfortunate but I think it's more of a legal problem than it is a healthcare problem. I certainly don't think it's an issue that would be changed by single payer.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
One of the concerns of a government run/single payer system is the prioritization of who gets care and who doesn't. In your mother's case she probably wouldn't have had all those tests.
jwb
Footballguy
You missed the word "great", which changes the entire context.
Yes, lots of people have coverage through work. And I would wager most of them would be better off with some kind of single payer system. There are a few, like an earlier poster, who pay $500 a month for excellent coverage for a family of four. Yea, he loses. That's what I was referring to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
gangster
Statorama
gangster
It might work in low population states with unemployment rates on the lower side. Take South Dakota. Less than a million people, with an unemployment rate of 2.8%. In a situation where there is less potential for "free loaders" or abusers of the system, a managed state-run single payer with clearly defined guidelines might work.
Not to mention there is less potential for a bunch of drama queen protesters to ruin it (read: make coverage more expansive/expensive).
Managing a pool of 800,000 people HAS to be easier than managing a pool of 5 million (and several million more undocumented)
Thorpe
Footballguy
Why? There are health insurance companies that operate in just a few counties of western NY that do all right. Bigger is always better for insurance. And who says it has to be affordable?
If it is enacted and fails in NY, it will be because of corruption IMO. The way things work in this state is companies bribe politicians for contracts and then charge whatever they want to do the work. See the Buffalo Billion and Ciminelli....
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Right. She'd have died at around the same time. Would not have been fed a steady drip of morphine and hope.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
If business is so tough for insurance companies how can they afford to pay politicians all that money? You'd think they'd tighten down the marketing budget.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
This isn't going to stop whether its a Democrat or Republican plan.Sabertooth said:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I pretty much think all insurance is a scam. They basically have a legal mandate that you have to pay them. That's bull####.
I can buy a car with my own money.
I cannot legally drive that car, on the road my taxes pay for unless, I pay some private company for a piece of paper. And then this company gets to use the money I paid them to fight me if I try to make a claim.
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
There are only two reasons you need car insurance.
1. You hurt someone or their property with your car
2. You don't fully own your car.
You can control 2, but not 1.
Youre so wrong here, it's painful.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
However, you are not required to have a service maintenance plan for your car. That is probably a better comparison to a medical plan.Sabertooth said:
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Maybe you just need a different insurance company. I have never had a problem getting my claims covered. In fact most of the hassle is probably between the insurance company and the body shop on the supplementals.
NutterButter
Footballguy
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
I think you are just agreeing to pay the insurance company now and if you do #1 then "they will" pay then.
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
yeah, i was being a bit snarky there...sorry.
Obviously, a promise to not have an "accident" is counter-intuitive and not something I want to give people a chance to do.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Well, no, you're actually not required by law to have car insurance. For example, I suspect that very few residents of Manhattan have car insurance.Sabertooth said:
