General Discussion

TexasBushwhacker

(21,204 posts)

187. Well, perception is everything

Sun Nov 1, 2015, 11:13 PM

Nov 2015

You say we can't afford to provide universal healthcare.

I say we can't afford not to.

When someone dies prematurely or becomes disabled, that is a cost. Survivor's benefits to widows and widowers and their children is real money. Disability payments to those who can't work is real money. Lost tax revenue from workers who died or became disabled is real money too.

Every business has to account for bad debt. Hospitals, doctors and other healthcare providers handle this s by charging patients (and their insurance companies) enough to cover their costs, including the costs of the uninsured. Those who have insurance pay for those who don't.

When everyone gets healthcare, chronic diseases like diabetes can be managed better, preventing complications like heart disease, blindness and amputations. Routine cancer screenings can catch cancers earlier, when they are more treatable.

It makes no sense for us to be paying so much for the people who are insured, while millions continue to be uninsured. We aren't inventing the wheel. Plenty of other countries have universal health care. Why aren't we learning from their successes and failures. What is the point of spending almost 18% of our GDP, when it doesn't cover everyone? We spend $8.5K per capita NOT covering everyone, while Norway, the closest in per capita cost at $5.7K, covers EVERYONE. How does that make financial sense?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

268 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Medicare for all would cost more than what we are paying now. We need to stop avoiding this fact. [View all] Recursion Nov 2015 OP

Dgaf. Take it from the military budget. elehhhhna Nov 2015 #1

That's $300 billion per year. That's 80% of the defense budget (nt) Recursion Nov 2015 #8

That's the facile solution. Igel Nov 2015 #18

Oh, brother. WinkyDink Nov 2015 #27

And you have lots of new job openings for nurse, medical technicians, etc. Seems you ... Scuba Nov 2015 #32

foreign bases in Buttfuckistan? librechik Nov 2015 #40

Actually.. when you add all the bells and whistles... Bigmack Nov 2015 #45

How about jobs building rather than destroying? Generic Other Nov 2015 #46

Not quite Doubledee Nov 2015 #64

Really? Because I'm pretty sure we're conversing on the Internet, funded originally by DARPA Recursion Nov 2015 #98

And what? pangaia Nov 2015 #214

The internet is one of the backbones of the modern economy mythology Nov 2015 #220

Well, I guess that is one way to look at the military. pangaia Nov 2015 #222

And the Internet is a very good example of money spent on defense returning to the economy Recursion Nov 2015 #232

So we need a militray to... create technological innovation? pangaia Nov 2015 #249

Well historically the military and religion have been the two biggest drivers of it Recursion Nov 2015 #250

Your opinion is duly noted Doubledee Nov 2015 #247

Sanctimony always wins hearts and minds... Recursion Nov 2015 #248

Do I feel better? Doubledee Nov 2015 #261

That was pretty good. :>)))))))))))))))))) pangaia Nov 2015 #265

Really? SammyWinstonJack Nov 2015 #67

As someone that lives in a community where it's largest private ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2015 #106

O M G !! pangaia Nov 2015 #213

What value do health insurers add? Zero. What do they do? Make profit. CurtEastPoint Nov 2015 #2

I did. Like I showed, it gives us a 6.5% savings off of $916 billion Recursion Nov 2015 #4

I'm glad to see JackInGreen Nov 2015 #3

Was it the multiplication or the division you disagree with? Recursion Nov 2015 #5

Actually it's your framing JackInGreen Nov 2015 #7

You're right: there are no solutions without drastically lowering costs Recursion Nov 2015 #9

This is something that most overlook. Igel Nov 2015 #21

And, in fact, the compulsion in Canada isn't just economic but legally explicit Recursion Nov 2015 #22

You seem to know very little about how costs are managed in American health care settings. Scuba Nov 2015 #36

Does this view take the cost of the uninsured into account? DirkGently Nov 2015 #132

Gah! No, we don't pay for everyone's medical care. You're sticking your head in the sand here Recursion Nov 2015 #148

Misleading. The uninsured use the Emergency Room DirkGently Nov 2015 #150

No, no, they don't. Read the Kaiser link Recursion Nov 2015 #153

It's both. And the conservative solution is magic "free" E-room care. DirkGently Nov 2015 #157

Where the hell do you get the idea that I think this is "Fine"? (nt) Recursion Nov 2015 #159

Please cite your source for the claim that "Medicare pays 80% of what private insurance pays." Scuba Nov 2015 #34

CNN link SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #44

Doctors represent only a small part of healthcare reimbursement. Scuba Nov 2015 #60

No, it's a very large part Recursion Nov 2015 #65

Yep, just over a quarter of services, which is about 3/4 of everything. Scuba Nov 2015 #79

Much bigger than, say, "profits", which is the usual boogeyman here (nt) Recursion Nov 2015 #80

Still disproves the claim that Medicare only pays 80% of healthcare costs. Scuba Nov 2015 #87

Medicare pays 80% of a given person's treatment. That's the limit Recursion Nov 2015 #90

As I said, the thread hasn't ventured into costs vs. charges, nor into DRG's. Nor into ... Scuba Nov 2015 #107

Which is why we should just move to FQHCs. Hell, Sanders supports them Recursion Nov 2015 #174

Shouldn't math with real world dollars be done within the box? mythology Nov 2015 #221

And that is a bad goal? I thought the goal was to insure all jwirr Nov 2015 #91

No one on this thread has said it's a bad goal SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #93

Well I guess it never crossed my mind that it would not cost jwirr Nov 2015 #96

Per capita we are ALREADY SPENDING twice what other countries pay to cover everyone eridani Nov 2015 #244

That is the goal, but that's not going to *save* us money. It's going to *cost* us money. Recursion Nov 2015 #94

I did not think it would be any different. But one thing we jwirr Nov 2015 #101

If we can spend a trillion dollars on a war of choice, I don't really care what we spend Vinca Nov 2015 #6

+1 mountain grammy Nov 2015 #11

Sadly Medicare for everyone wouldn't do that Recursion Nov 2015 #15

It doesn't have to be Medicare as it exists now. It can be anything that we want it to be. Vinca Nov 2015 #16

Their bankruptcy rate is identical to ours Recursion Nov 2015 #17

Higher taxes on the wealthy would very much help. And I agree with your suggestions, BTW. CTyankee Nov 2015 #20

Yes. They have bankruptcies, but not "medical" bankruptcies. Vinca Nov 2015 #28

You keep saying $1 Trillion... Bigmack Nov 2015 #47

After you get to a trillion, it doesn't really matter. Vinca Nov 2015 #102

With apologies to Everett Dirksen... Bigmack Nov 2015 #143

The status quo of US imperialism is clearly not negotiable to the establishmentarians. ronnie624 Nov 2015 #52

Then it's clear the government doesn't work "for" the people. But we already knew that. Vinca Nov 2015 #105

Please cite your source for the claim that "about 8% of debt discharged in US bankruptcies is for .. Scuba Nov 2015 #37

I advocate for Medicare for All, including dental, optical, hearing aids and mental health care. Scuba Nov 2015 #10

Clearly the richest country in the world can afford it Recursion Nov 2015 #12

I don't believe your numbers will stand up to scrutiny, but I haven't the time (or inclination) ... Scuba Nov 2015 #38

Don't forget to factor in that those already insured should no longer be paying premiums + Medicare yellowdogintexas Nov 2015 #39

What? No, the current Medicare levies would have to stay Recursion Nov 2015 #48

What sbout all the money going to the medical part of other insurance? ReasonableToo Nov 2015 #13

That's an interesting idea Recursion Nov 2015 #14

There are other, not so easily quantifiable numbers. Turbineguy Nov 2015 #19

People who must be treated for severe illnesses because it was not caught early loyalsister Nov 2015 #226

You're assuming that people without insurance don't already geek tragedy Nov 2015 #23

I'm assuming that because unreimbursed emergency care is about $500 million per year Recursion Nov 2015 #24

Preventive care does pay for itself--over the long term. geek tragedy Nov 2015 #26

Fair enough Recursion Nov 2015 #30

No it does not. It saves lives, and dramatically improves the quality of life. It COSTS money. eridani Nov 2015 #239

Very good point; it's the old "smoking saves the government money" thing Recursion Nov 2015 #242

dead people also don't pay taxes geek tragedy Nov 2015 #255

A lot of preventive care doesn't pay for itself. I look at Canada's numbers, for example. Yo_Mama Nov 2015 #127

"It is to avoid dying in an ugly fashion" Yes. And way too young eridani Nov 2015 #243

Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance Downwinder Nov 2015 #25

Notice they don't address the current rate of underutilization Recursion Nov 2015 #29

How much does early diagnosis save? Downwinder Nov 2015 #35

We don't actually know. More than zero. Probably. Recursion Nov 2015 #50

If we are looking at cost effective, Downwinder Nov 2015 #104

And the cost of treating everyone in the Emergency Room? DirkGently Nov 2015 #136

Odd that you mention magical thinking Recursion Nov 2015 #147

The studies don't agree with your Internet Logic. DirkGently Nov 2015 #151

What? Yes, I did subtract it Recursion Nov 2015 #160

And the savings from cost controls and a healthier pool? DirkGently Nov 2015 #161

What are you talking about? It's the exact same pool as private insurance has now Recursion Nov 2015 #172

So it's the $5 trillion in cost savings you're throwing out? DirkGently Nov 2015 #184

Because they're ignoring the currently under-insured Recursion Nov 2015 #185

So you've helped them by making up a theoretical increased cost? DirkGently Nov 2015 #186

Well, no, that's widely believed but studies keep disproving it Recursion Nov 2015 #189

Government control of healthcare is the ONLY way to lower costs. We have to do it soon librechik Nov 2015 #31

It does hinge on the pushback from the insurer cprise Nov 2015 #55

+1 ronnie624 Nov 2015 #85

Why were my not-for-profit insurers never noticeably cheaper than my for-profit ones? Recursion Nov 2015 #116

Because what's driving costs is the mix of uninsured/underinsured plus low-paying government, Yo_Mama Nov 2015 #118

Does this take into account the advantages of combining risk pools and premium differences? Humanist_Activist Nov 2015 #33

This is just aggregate *treatment* costs Recursion Nov 2015 #77

But it seems incomplete to not account for the added income created by adding healthy... Humanist_Activist Nov 2015 #88

What does the risk pool have to do with this? We're talking about outputs, not inputs Recursion Nov 2015 #92

Healthcare is inflexible, you cannot shop around except for some elective procedures... Humanist_Activist Nov 2015 #129

You absolutely can shop around for non emergency care Recursion Nov 2015 #145

You do realize that most poor people don't get proper dental treatment because its too expensive? Humanist_Activist Nov 2015 #154

There were three dentists on my street in DC Recursion Nov 2015 #155

How many of them went in there to get crowns, implants, bridges, etc.? Humanist_Activist Nov 2015 #164

I have no idea, but those procedures were listed so I assume it was non-zero Recursion Nov 2015 #233

Adding healthy people to the risk pool is only applicable SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #95

Yes there would, either in the form of increased taxes, most likely under FICA, or as a separate... Humanist_Activist Nov 2015 #124

Doesn't pass the smell test. We already spend the money for those services now, plus CEO bonuses GoneFishin Nov 2015 #41

No. We don't. 90 million people are going without medical treatment that they need. Recursion Nov 2015 #69

The ship has already sailed on pretending it can't be done. Unfortunately for those who profit from GoneFishin Nov 2015 #140

No, we don't. We haven't been. At least third of the population just gets basic care. Yo_Mama Nov 2015 #128

Thank you SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #131

Some individuals will pay more and get less. On the whole, there will be more security. Less risk. Yo_Mama Nov 2015 #133

No need for spurious extrapolations. Follow the examples out there. whatthehey Nov 2015 #42

The NHS isn't single-payer SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #71

The NHS isn't single payer Recursion Nov 2015 #72

True, but it's interesting to note that countries that have adopted universal health care-- eridani Nov 2015 #179

I'm no expert, but when employers provide private health plans, Tanuki Nov 2015 #43

Yes, that was a WWII-era way to get around wage limits Recursion Nov 2015 #53

Yep SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #49

There's some prevention that would make it cost less treestar Nov 2015 #51

It's possible. But look at the recent mammogram study Recursion Nov 2015 #54

that's another one treestar Nov 2015 #56

I just mean that preventive care *can* save money, or it can waste money Recursion Nov 2015 #61

Me, too. All insurance companies enrolled in the ACA exchanges BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #63

Nope portlander23 Nov 2015 #57

Nope. PNHP does not address current underutilization Recursion Nov 2015 #70

I'm good with them posting it portlander23 Nov 2015 #73

In a medicare for all program would doctors still need malpractice insurance? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #58

Sure. Don't they need it now? (nt) Recursion Nov 2015 #62

Just have the government deal with malpractice suits discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #74

The government isn't paying doctors' wages under single payer Recursion Nov 2015 #76

Do UK docs pay malpractice insurance? discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #97

No, because it's government-operated healthcare. Which is not the same thing as single payer. Recursion Nov 2015 #100

I'm okay with either gov-operated or single discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #103

Doctors won't be government employees under single-payer SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #81

That is what I was thinking discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #99

Other countries provide malpractice insurance at 1/10 of what our providers pay. eridani Nov 2015 #245

Yup. Also government healthcare funding means only punitive damages need to be covered Recursion Nov 2015 #246

Also, and maybe I missed it SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #59

So what you are basically saying Doubledee Nov 2015 #66

Healthcare that is free at point of delivery is very rare worldwide Recursion Nov 2015 #68

Doing your homework Doubledee Nov 2015 #251

Yep. Do your homework Recursion Nov 2015 #252

Aside from showing your massive ego Doubledee Nov 2015 #257

And Switzerland and Singapore both have costs to the patient at delivery Recursion Nov 2015 #258

Gee. Almost polite this time Doubledee Nov 2015 #260

No, he's not saying that at all SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #75

If we can pay for war Politicalboi Nov 2015 #78

I think you are right about cost and need to change Medicare a bunch. Doesn't mean we shouldn't go Hoyt Nov 2015 #82

Agree 100% on all counts n/t SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #84

actually it wouldnt, if you are talking about actual Medicare the way it is today. first of still_one Nov 2015 #83

Part A is $440. Part B is $107 Recursion Nov 2015 #86

Thanks for the correction, my comment still hold though. A younger age demographic should reduce still_one Nov 2015 #108

There aren't premiums under a single-payer system n/t SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #110

The cost is through taxes still_one Nov 2015 #120

Yes, I know that SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #123

agreed. Anyway, good points are being discussed in this thread still_one Nov 2015 #126

I wholeheartedly agree! SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #130

"fairy dust", I love it... Also, not every doctor will accept Medicare. The reimbursement still_one Nov 2015 #134

No, the risk pool has nothing to do with this. Recursion Nov 2015 #111

interesting. Then the short fall would need to be made up with increased taxes. This is really still_one Nov 2015 #122

It wouldn't be like Medicare is today SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #89

I was specifically addressing the title of the OP, not single payer or universal healthcare which still_one Nov 2015 #109

Medicare for all is the current term for single-payer n/t SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #112

Though just to be clear, the calculations in my OP were not based on HR 676, just on literally Recursion Nov 2015 #113

Oh got it, my bad and I apologize!! SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #115

You points are good, and there is no doubt it would require an increase in taxes. There was a lot still_one Nov 2015 #119

Thanks for the accepted vernacular. It would have to be paid for with increased tax dollars, and still_one Nov 2015 #114

Yes, I figured the payroll tax would be about 15-17%. That doesn't include SS taxes, which must rise Yo_Mama Nov 2015 #117

Lol, I can search any right winger site to get articles like this. PowerToThePeople Nov 2015 #121

Irrelevant and untrue. nt Live and Learn Nov 2015 #125

Here's a few studies showing that's not a fact at all. DirkGently Nov 2015 #135

Maybe the CEOs could escalate the coming economic dystopia. HughBeaumont Nov 2015 #137

Please explain why we have the highest PER CAPITA health care costs in the world. GeorgeGist Nov 2015 #138

Same faulty assumptions as last time. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #139

All excellent catches. I knew there was a mound of horseshit burried amongst the weeds but chose GoneFishin Nov 2015 #142

Wrong on all three counts Recursion Nov 2015 #163

Yep. Rex Nov 2015 #208

Yep. marmar Nov 2015 #259

Bernie Sanders has a plan to pay for it. A .1% tax on financial transactions riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #141

$130 billion a year gets us about half of the way there Recursion Nov 2015 #165

Shrug, then raise the percentages by a fraction riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #171

We pay twice per capita for health care compared to other developed countries eridani Nov 2015 #144

Ironically we have a plan that would work nationally, that Sanders has strongly supported: FQHCs Recursion Nov 2015 #173

That's true, but why stop there? We could eliminate deductibles entirely eridani Nov 2015 #177

Please explain why you keep posting fiscal attacks on progressive ideas. daredtowork Nov 2015 #146

Getting people to face what this will cost isn't "undermining" it Recursion Nov 2015 #169

And defending NAFTA. And Job offshoring. And free trade in general. HughBeaumont Nov 2015 #181

But this one is funny! Rex Nov 2015 #211

+100,000. LOL. Awesome. GoneFishin Nov 2015 #253

I saw an OECD graph the other day daleo Nov 2015 #149

Canada's poverty rate is 9% and ours is 14%. Their Gini is 32 and ours is 41. Recursion Nov 2015 #158

Did you ever think that having the health-care system we do is one of the largest polly7 Nov 2015 #162

I think the opposite: they can do it because they have less poverty (nt) Recursion Nov 2015 #166

No. polly7 Nov 2015 #167

Yeah, that's really not why very many people are poor in the US Recursion Nov 2015 #170

Yeah, our wages haven't been so shit-hot for the middle and lower class lately polly7 Nov 2015 #176

The error in your math quaker bill Nov 2015 #152

OK, so add that in Recursion Nov 2015 #156

Reality Check ....our Hospital Bills Healthcare can't continue lovuian Nov 2015 #168

Except it wouldn't magically reign in costs -- Medicare pays way too much as it is. Recursion Nov 2015 #175

I don't even know where to start there is so much wrong here. Hiraeth Nov 2015 #178

I don't think that's right MannyGoldstein Nov 2015 #180

Nice post, full of good stats. PatrickforO Nov 2015 #182

Moving off of scarcity-based pricing is a huge interest of mine Recursion Nov 2015 #183

Yeah it is. I don't know if it will happen in our lives or not, but PatrickforO Nov 2015 #198

Well, perception is everything TexasBushwhacker Nov 2015 #187

Plenty of other countries have universal health care. Very few have single payer. Recursion Nov 2015 #190

I'm not wedded to single payer TexasBushwhacker Nov 2015 #194

Would a public option be affordable to people who need it? Recursion Nov 2015 #201

I think $800 sounds a little high TexasBushwhacker Nov 2015 #219

That's the full premium for Medicare Part A and B Recursion Nov 2015 #223

Because ours works? polly7 Nov 2015 #206

France's does too. Better, in fact Recursion Nov 2015 #207

We're very happy with ours. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #209

And I'm glad you have it, and it seems to work very well for you Recursion Nov 2015 #210

Why not? polly7 Nov 2015 #212

Because Medicare already does that and pays twice as much for the same procedure as you do Recursion Nov 2015 #215

Overhaul it all, then. polly7 Nov 2015 #216

But Mississippi would really rather let people die Recursion Nov 2015 #225

You fix that only by some degree of control of the purse, either single payer and forcing providers TheKentuckian Nov 2015 #267

There is only one thing you need to know about our health care costs eridani Nov 2015 #188

It's completely erroneous that 'very few countries' have Single Payer Matariki Nov 2015 #191

"Single Payer" and "universal health care" do not mean the same thing Recursion Nov 2015 #193

No kidding. Read the link, it has a long list of countries that have SINGLE PAYER Matariki Nov 2015 #196

It's simply false. Recursion Nov 2015 #197

Disingenuous Matariki Nov 2015 #199

Name one other than Canada Recursion Nov 2015 #200

"UK .....funding coming from national and local sources" TubbersUK Nov 2015 #227

The towns and counties. But government-operated healthcare is not "single payer" to begin with Recursion Nov 2015 #229

"Towns and Counties" TubbersUK Nov 2015 #230

Yes, I did some work for Leeds a few years ago Recursion Nov 2015 #231

Do you have a link? n/t TubbersUK Nov 2015 #234

bookmark to read later hill2016 Nov 2015 #192

Medicaid, the VA, public health Recursion Nov 2015 #195

complete bullshit Doctor_J Nov 2015 #202

You can't seriously think that. Recursion Nov 2015 #204

This message was self-deleted by its author TubbersUK Nov 2015 #228

Right, health care is expensive. elleng Nov 2015 #203

And I'd vote for that in a second. Bring on a 20% VAT Recursion Nov 2015 #205

It may surprise lots of people but Medicare Part B cost $104 a month, the average SS is $1200 a Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #217

The single payer bill already submitted to congress was calculate to cost 15 trillion over 10 years. RichVRichV Nov 2015 #218

Sorry, thank you: I read the wrong line there. It's about 50% Recursion Nov 2015 #224

Now I think you're overestimating. RichVRichV Nov 2015 #254

Veterans would demand continuation of their VA health care pinboy3niner Nov 2015 #235

Though VA centers could pretty easily be brought into the FQHC fold Recursion Nov 2015 #236

Being 'brought into the fold' is what they fear pinboy3niner Nov 2015 #237

I know the Legion is against the idea Recursion Nov 2015 #238

It's not just the Legion, it's all of them pinboy3niner Nov 2015 #240

And I don't think we should change the VA, particularly (I was just throwing that out as a response) Recursion Nov 2015 #241

Yep. The eye-popping tax increases needed is why Vermont abandoned single payer. SunSeeker Nov 2015 #256

private insurance inflation *is* an eye popping tax increase. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2015 #264

I agree. But Sanders didn't defend the proposed tax increases in Vermont. SunSeeker Nov 2015 #266

"most achieve universal health care some other way" KamaAina Nov 2015 #262

Tons of other ways. Look at France, Switzerland, Japan... Recursion Nov 2015 #268

Your entire argument rests on a shaky foundation: the belief that 50 million don't get any care. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2015 #263