Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)

9. Medicare is a big payer, and costs per beneficiary go up every year.

Reply to NoOneMan (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 08:56 PM

Oct 2013

The lobbying of the government to protect interests would just explode.

I am for single payer, but I don't think most folks will accept it any time soon.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What percent of GDP is spent on healthcare? [View all] kentuck Oct 2013 OP

That would make too much sense, plus it would make our labor force competitive again Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #1

Healthcare is mostly labor cost, so cutting half off costs would cut employment by about 8% FarCenter Oct 2013 #11

cool theory, bro Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #14

About 8.9% of employees are directly involved in care. FarCenter Oct 2013 #15

So according to your theory 8 of that 8.9% of the workforce got fired Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #17

The insurance, pharma, medical device, clerical and admin staff, etc. are above the 8.9% FarCenter Oct 2013 #19

The healthcare needs are still there? kentuck Oct 2013 #20

Healthcare needs are not directly related to cost FarCenter Oct 2013 #24

And what does that have to do with more people unemployed? kentuck Oct 2013 #26

It's not cutting them by half. Half would be from employee, other half from employer CreekDog Oct 2013 #27

Commie! leftstreet Oct 2013 #2

That part is not a bad idea. But, wringing the profit out of drugs, providers, device Hoyt Oct 2013 #3

Would it be different than it is today?? kentuck Oct 2013 #4

If you want to save costs, it has to be done. Sure it's no different than Hoyt Oct 2013 #5

A badass single payer with infinite leverage might just have an edge there NoOneMan Oct 2013 #6

You'd think. But Medicare has only been marginally effective in doing that. Hoyt Oct 2013 #7

Providers in America are not dealing with just a single payer NoOneMan Oct 2013 #8

Medicare is a big payer, and costs per beneficiary go up every year. Hoyt Oct 2013 #9

America pays about double what every other country pays for healthcare. kentuck Oct 2013 #10

8.5% of paychecks won't support the 50 million with no paychecks maced666 Oct 2013 #12

Simply not correct davekriss Oct 2013 #13

A good idea, but for the math. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #16

Oddly enough the math works just fine in every other advanced industrialized democracy. Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #18

"The math" does, but *this* math doesn't. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #21

What difference would it make?? kentuck Oct 2013 #22

How much should Bill Gates pay toward single payer healthcare? lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #23

I think your plan is flawed. kentuck Oct 2013 #25

Healthcare currently costs 18% *of GDP*. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #28

One thousand millions in a billion dollars. kentuck Oct 2013 #29