General Discussion

cui bono

(19,926 posts)

65. I've not seen anyone say health care should be completely free.

Thu Sep 26, 2013, 01:34 PM

Sep 2013

Of course single payer would be funded through taxes of some sort. The point is you take out the profit motive and things become much cheaper. So less deductibles, less scrutiny over whether you should get a life saving procedure, etc...

I can definitely determine that when you take out high CEO salaries and profits that there is less money needed for the health care system.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TPM: "Premiums do not reflect the full cost of coverage." [View all] antigop Sep 2013 OP

Health "insurance" is not health "care" - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #1

+100. nt antigop Sep 2013 #3

Single payer plans are not health care either Shivering Jemmy Sep 2013 #6

So, enlightenment Sep 2013 #31

No, the UK specifically is *not* single payer Recursion Sep 2013 #48

Really? enlightenment Sep 2013 #117

There are not a variety of single payer methodologies. The UK is not single payer. Recursion Sep 2013 #118

Right. enlightenment Sep 2013 #119

Single payer is not for profit. Insurance's goals are profit. cui bono Sep 2013 #62

Wait. That's two separate issues. Most US insurers are not-for-profit Recursion Sep 2013 #63

In the case of single payer health care we're talking about getting insurance companies out cui bono Sep 2013 #75

A majority nationwide are not-for-profit, or were a couple of years ago Recursion Sep 2013 #83

Well as you can see there are plenty of for profit. Also, not-for-profit doesn't mean CEOs aren't cui bono Sep 2013 #86

Well, they could run it like most utilities are run Recursion Sep 2013 #87

Okay, so then the rates will be set by law, keeping them low. cui bono Sep 2013 #90

no Shivering Jemmy Sep 2013 #70

Single payer as discussed in the health care debate is not for profit as it would be govt run, cui bono Sep 2013 #81

So Canada doesn't have health care? Recursion Sep 2013 #28

The point is that having access to health insurance Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #51

Yes, people who are finally getting *some* insurance are getting worse plans than you have Recursion Sep 2013 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author Shivering Jemmy Sep 2013 #71

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #39

Also the doctor networks in the ACA plans are apparently smaller than those available in the same PoliticAverse Sep 2013 #2

Yes. Same as Medicaid. Some doctors have little interest in taking care of the little guy. Mass Sep 2013 #4

My wife's office quit taking medicaid joeglow3 Sep 2013 #72

76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck antigop Sep 2013 #5

This is very important. Puzzledtraveller Sep 2013 #22

it's overlooked (or ignored) in the discussion. People are stretched now. nt antigop Sep 2013 #24

It's ignored, because that section of the population is "unimportant" Hydra Sep 2013 #57

I do think there is some truth to your post. However, 76% is a quite large population. antigop Sep 2013 #73

I was part of that gap with no insurance and no money for it Hydra Sep 2013 #100

Precisely n/t OhioChick Sep 2013 #30

What I don't understand is OhioChick Sep 2013 #7

BINGO! nt antigop Sep 2013 #8

they won't n/t PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #11

$2250 versus - unlimited liability bhikkhu Sep 2013 #12

Exactly right. n/t lumberjack_jeff Sep 2013 #111

Cost sharing reductions -- only if you buy a silver plan (per Kaiser) antigop Sep 2013 #15

For many of them there will be an expanded Medicaid program, pnwmom Sep 2013 #17

And if there isn't an "expanded Medicaid program" in their State? n/t OhioChick Sep 2013 #19

That is a problem that must be fixed -- but it's not the fault of the ACA. pnwmom Sep 2013 #21

No? Could the ACA not have been written to take care of this craven loop-hole? WinkyDink Sep 2013 #25

It's the fault of an Activist Court, not the ACA riqster Sep 2013 #26

There wasn't a loophole. It was more of a carve-out created by the Supreme Court. pnwmom Sep 2013 #27

Then the Obama Admin should have abandoned the ACA leftstreet Sep 2013 #47

Leaving 25M people without access to health care. jeff47 Sep 2013 #55

Why, so red states can hold the other 25 million people hostage too? Recursion Sep 2013 #67

Where are you guys getting the '25 million' talking point? leftstreet Sep 2013 #77

I love how people assume ACA supporters are incapable of reading each other's posts Recursion Sep 2013 #88

Oh yeah, right. Abandon the whole ACA till that part could get fixed. What a brilliant idea. pnwmom Sep 2013 #69

No, abandon the mandate leftstreet Sep 2013 #76

The experience of NY State has already proved that that won't work. pnwmom Sep 2013 #82

they can't Skittles Sep 2013 #80

If they don't get sick, they don't have to. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2013 #110

All preventive care is free under Obamacare, whether or not you have met your deductible. Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #9

In other words ... frazzled Sep 2013 #10

Yes, that's really the truth Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #42

Lower income people are going to get extremely low premiums frazzled Sep 2013 #43

Preventive medicine is just diagnosis Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #44

Not true frazzled Sep 2013 #46

you could end up paying that deductible each year nt antigop Sep 2013 #13

Cost sharing reductions -- only if you buy a silver plan (per Kaiser) antigop Sep 2013 #14

"only if they buy a silver-level plan?" OhioChick Sep 2013 #16

In the piece linked to, ProSense Sep 2013 #18

Me shocked? No. Puzzledtraveller Sep 2013 #20

I'm TIRED of being told what I "must understand;" that is, what I must ACCEPT. We knew this would be WinkyDink Sep 2013 #23

Wouldn't a 65- year old woman be on Medicare? However, older people can be charged more antigop Sep 2013 #29

How about the median age? enlightenment Sep 2013 #36

yes, enlightenment, I do think the news coverage could be better. Older people can be charged up antigop Sep 2013 #38

Take the numbers in the coverage and multiply by 3. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2013 #60

The point is...premiums are not listed in the news coverage for older people. antigop Sep 2013 #68

The premiums for younger people are driven by the premiums for older people jeff47 Sep 2013 #93

you are missing the point. The premiums that are being released in the press antigop Sep 2013 #94

So you're arguing multiplying by 3 is beyond the ability of readers? jeff47 Sep 2013 #95

no, the press coverage doesn't state that older people can be charged up to three times antigop Sep 2013 #96

Because the ACA poofed into existence yesterday. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2013 #98

That's all you got? Then I'm done. Have a great afternoon. nt antigop Sep 2013 #99

I'm surprised. I expected you to call the general public idiots jeff47 Sep 2013 #103

Because that would be even less helpful jeff47 Sep 2013 #59

Well of course. enlightenment Sep 2013 #114

Because multiplying by 3 is beyond most people's ability? jeff47 Sep 2013 #115

Because enlightenment Sep 2013 #116

OOPS! I should have just used my age of 63! WinkyDink Sep 2013 #106

The ACA makes man vs. woman irrelevant. jeff47 Sep 2013 #56

Last August the Obama administration decided to delay the cap AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #32

Whaat? n/t OhioChick Sep 2013 #35

That delay is not for the plans on the exchanges. subterranean Sep 2013 #66

It is for out of pocket expenses AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #105

Yes, but only for certain types of group plans. subterranean Sep 2013 #108

People above 200% of poverty but not of the well healed cul de sac liberal variety Dragonfli Sep 2013 #33

as I have stated repeatedly....it doesn't do you much good if you have insurance but can't afford to antigop Sep 2013 #34

Anybody that has had to use insurance to fight serious illness knows that truth Dragonfli Sep 2013 #40

so sorry, Dragonfli. So very sorry...it doesn't have to be this way. nt antigop Sep 2013 #41

That deserves a standing ovation! Puzzledtraveller Sep 2013 #74

+1 leftstreet Sep 2013 #79

I would suspect many of them are invested in health care & pharmaceuticals. raouldukelives Sep 2013 #107

Any increase in costs the ACA incurs on existing policy holders seveneyes Sep 2013 #37

The low premium-high deductible scheme has pervaded employer based Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #45

yes, you are correct...there has been a shift toward HSAs and high-deductible plans. antigop Sep 2013 #49

I need to clear this up about the single payer system, too, because I tire of the Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #50

oh, good grief. Who is saying people get free health care under single-payer? antigop Sep 2013 #52

It just seems that people think Obamacare is horrible because people Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #54

I've not seen anyone say health care should be completely free. cui bono Sep 2013 #65

O.K., fair enough. However, a start: 80-85% has to be directed to health care Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #84

The issue is - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #58

But I think Obamacare tries to correct at least some of the co-pay nonsense for some Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #61

Preventative care - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #89

Yes! Yes! Yes! We agree on that. This culture needs to change. We agree! Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #97

This is a ridiculous misdirection; a textbook strawman argument. nt Romulox Sep 2013 #91

Another concern is if you can't get an appointment you may be forced to go out of network... dkf Sep 2013 #53

people forget these are the "introductory" prices Skittles Sep 2013 #78

that is a very good point. nt antigop Sep 2013 #85

Mandatory, for-profit health insurance: what could go wrong? nt Romulox Sep 2013 #92

Maybe we should defund it. Call Ted Cruz now. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #101

I think that support for the law actually suffers from overselling despite terrible promotion. TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #102

Put that on the list... kentuck Sep 2013 #104

We never passed or even tried to pas a health care law, we passed a law to mandate insurance Dragonfli Sep 2013 #112

word for the day: disintermediation antigop Sep 2013 #113

Gold, Silver and Bronze refer to actuarial benefit rate. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2013 #109