2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow do I save money under single payer? Won't I be paying for other people's share?
If so, at least tell me what the bill is going to be before the primary!!! Shouldn't I be able to make a choice based on the full facts and figures?
Why didn't Vermont want to pay for single payer? How can we convince the rest of the country to do so?
I'm very concerned about these questions
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)I'm sure you are.
Lol
TheBlackAdder
(28,160 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)But you know, first they laugh then it's apparent they have no answer
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This would equal to $1800 a year, not cheap.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)12 percent?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)So, it would be VERY cheap.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)and education and other things but at least you won't have to pay your premium to the health insurance company
hill2016
(1,772 posts)I will save money. Which is it?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)If either your employer or the exchange pays for all or most of your insurance right now, you'll end up paying more.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm gonna guess you do. In which case, if you're paying into the private insurance industry, there are overheads of something like 20%.
A SPHC system would likely reduce that substantially, to something like 3%.
If you use medicare, you're ALREADY part of a single-payer system, just for older folks.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)co-pays and deductibles as well.
rurallib
(62,373 posts)I was on Obamacare one year and my doctors were in a city 50 miles away.
zazen
(2,978 posts)Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)You get to help pay for those with greater costs and you get the joy of paying huge executive salaries.
awake
(3,226 posts)We pay to cover others in need so that when and if we become in need others will cover us.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)If so, you are already "paying for other people's share". That's, you know, how insurance works. Most of the time you don't need it, but you keep paying into the pool, so that those who do need it have it when the time comes. When your time to use it comes, well, then your share also comes out of the common pool.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Excuse me? Did you think that what you put in would be enough to cover even one operation for yourself?
This is not a savings account, this is a form of insurance. I guarantee you that if you become very ill or have an accident, other people will be paying YOUR share.
Also - are you a single issue voter? Do you think everybody else is?
Squinch
(50,901 posts)need at least a few operations over the years, how will that work? I understand that we all need to pool money to pay for everyone and I support that, but what you are saying can't be how it works.
And why would you assume the asker is a single issue voter? Asking for clarification about an issue does not mean someone is a single issue voter.
djean111
(14,255 posts)system, and there are massive profits being made.
I always had insurance and now Medicare - and have had little need for doctors and hospitals for my entire life. But I am glad to share in the cost for others.
Squinch
(50,901 posts)Though I agree that the insurance companies do not add value, they account for only a small percentage of costs, and the savings of that will not be enough to cover those currently uninsured who will become insured, and those who will use medical services who now do not because they can't afford to.
It doesn't make sense that there will be a savings under such a system. I don't mind paying more to see such a system put in place, but anyone who tells me that it will cost me less is blowing smoke up my ass.
If we are going to see savings, we will have to change how care is delivered. That is different from changing how care is paid for.
djean111
(14,255 posts)up your ass? I do believe some smoke is being blown around, however.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32945-calculating-the-cost-of-bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-program
bowens43
(16,064 posts)listen, hillary will NEVER be president. BTW YOU are going to pay my share!!!!
last1standing
(11,709 posts)You got yours, right?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)If so, I don't think you need to worry about it.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)it's reported every year on fatca and fbar forms
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)financial wagon cart. Flame Bait.
mattvermont
(646 posts)oh, I see that you are serious. god help us all if you are the voice of reason in the Clinton Party.
WTF
cali
(114,904 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)What do you feel would be a reasonable annual expense for healthcare for YOU personally? I am curious.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)Have you been concerned about paying for other people health insurance premiums that they are purchasing from private companies and being given no choice about that? I get very concerned when I see democrats reduced to pushing right wing talking points to support their candidate in the democratic primary, that's where my concern lies. If you have to take a RW point of view to build up your candidates position that is truly frightening and we have a real problem.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Some have single payer, and some have a regulated insurance industry, but so many countries pay a smaller portion of GDP for health care than we do. We do not absolutely have to implement single payer, but we cannot let the health insurance companies continue charging whatever they want.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And it's come back to haunt us. Other countries have a wide array of financing systems, some very close to the ACA, and the most expensive ones pay a little more than half of what we do. And the difference isn't profit for evil insurance companies (that's 4% of our spending), it's that other countries have the political will to pay drug companies, hospitals, device manufacturers, and doctors much less than we do for the same thing.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Unless people don't have insurance and show up at the hospital anyway. And, when that happens, everyone else, including you, pays for it.
mythology
(9,527 posts)and you'd do away with insurance companies (particularly the for-profit ones) and be better able to bargain for cost reductions from providers, practioners and drug companies.
However Sanders' plan isn't particularly well-defined as to how it differs from his previous bills, which it does in some significant fashion. He's estimate is to shave better than 40% off of the existing health care dollars which seems wildly optimistic to me.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)The uninsured eventually wind up either as unreimbursed hospital care, or Medicaid expense. Only, since their health condition were not treated properly, the costs wind up being far greater than they would have been otherwise. Or else an uninsured person with a long history of untreated chronic illness eventually winds up on Medicare, where his costs are, again, far greater than if his condition was treated earlier. In any case, you're already paying for it.
Insurance is a risk pool, the bigger the pool the lower the cost per person.
The economics of single payer is, I believe, unassailable. Valid objections must be based on something other than economics.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)well, I can come up with more, but don't see any need. If you cant see that hill, who it is you sound like, then I almost feel sorry for you.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Their ravenous dislike for the former SoS is stronger and supersedes your need for clarity and answers. But it's okay...Bernie is NOT going to be the nominee no matter how panicky and angry his supporters declare otherwise. The numbers don't favor him - and when I speak of numbers, I don't mean meaningless polls. I mean voters, and NO Democratic candidate can win the nomination without the minority vote. And minorities aren't "feeling the bern" - thank god.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)You think nearly half of the Dem party and a majority of independents are supporting Bernie solely because they hate Hillary?
You're delusional.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)If you don't want to afford it, don't vote for Sanders.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)If a house one mile away from you catches fire, the department will
be there to stop the fire. Thus you pay for other people's protection.
Perhaps you are a libertarian, who thinks that -if you personally
are not profiting - you should not pay taxes? Go for it!
Lastly: Why allow a middle man to profit from people's
health problems, when it is totally unnecessary?
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)who do not want to pay property taxes because their kids go to private school. My advice, suck it up, you will be fine.
ejbr
(5,856 posts)who will never need the Fire Department. Should they complain because they never used this service they paid into?
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Sharing an unknown risk - that's what Insurance is supposed to be for.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)brewens
(13,536 posts)The choice is between a bureaucracy designed to provide health care or one designed to maximize profit. Let's cut out all the profit the middlemen are looting.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)On a personal level, it's absolutely impossible to say whether you'll save or lose money under any single payer plan. Many people's taxes will go up, most people's health care expenses will go down (there will probably be a corner case of somebody whose health care expenses will go up; even Canada pays about 15% of its healthcare out of pocket). Whether that comes out over or under for you depends on your financial and medical situations as well as the specific kinds of taxes adopted to pay for the expansion (a payroll levy vs a VAT vs a financial tax, etc.).
On a national level, there are two effects that work in opposite directions:
1. Medicare (or whatever we call it) will pay providers less (though not as much less as people here seem to think, barring a change that isn't part of our financing system), which will save money overall. If the difference we currently have is maintained, the 40% of health care that is provided by private insurance will be provided about 20% more cheaply, for an 8% reduction in costs.
2. Medicare will open care to the 30 million Americans who are uninsured and so they will probably use more health care. This is a great thing (and in fact the point), but it also has to be paid for. If the currently uninsured start using health care at the same rate as the currently insured (and this is probably optimistic) that's a 9% increase in costs. The uninsured use emergency rooms at the same rate as the insured, and it's not very high, but it's probably enough to knock that 9% down to 8%. Which means there's a pretty plausible argument that on a national level it would be a wash.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,576 posts)Your car insurance premiums are based in part on the probability you will have an accident (driving record, etc.). Those premiums are also used to pay for other people's car accidents even if you never have one. In some 40 years of driving I've never had an accident but I hate to think how much I've paid in premiums. That money went to other people to pay for their accidents. Same for my homeowners' policy. I've never made a claim in 20 years but I've paid thousands in premiums in order to pay other people whose houses have caught on fire or whose roofs leaked or whatever.
THAT'S HOW INSURANCE WORKS. IT'S A MEANS OF SPREADING RISK. The only difference with single payer is that the government is the insurer and instead of paying premiums to a private, for-profit insurance company you pay taxes. Because the government will not use those taxes to pay millions of dollars to corporate executives, your "premiums" you pay by way of the tax system will almost certainly be less. I get Medicare now. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than the private insurance I was paying for before I became eligible.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)And low minimum wages and lots other goodies such as NAFTA, TPP, GATT candidates like yours like to vote for. You sound like a Republican with your "I'll be paying for someone else!". That "someone else" is mostly children, elderly and disabled. Now I want to hear you call them free loaders.