highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I covered both.

The *TOTAL COST* of helathcare in Germany, per person, is $5,182 , not all of which is paid by the German government.
The *CURRENT GOVERNMENT SPENDING* per person in the US is $5,213

If we could magically become Germany, and if the government paid 100% of costs for every American, taxes would go down by $31/year


That's not what I said we should do.

But your assertion is still silly. If that's the criteria, implement on the state level. There is no state with a higher population than Germany.

The systems only improve with higher populations. There are other differences that would matter (population density for example); but your argument is specious.

But, as mentioned, I'm not saying we could or should magically switch to exactly Germany's system... I'm using their system to show that a universal healthcare system can be, not only <50% the cost of our current system, but literally less than our government is already spending to offer less coverage to less than half the population.
Unless the US cost for drugs and the fees paid to insurance companies decrease, we don't have a chance of getting this thing in line.

I have also said, for a long time, that we should have emergency care, intermediate care and clinics for people to choose when they need health care, based on severity- too many people went to the ER for too long and hospitals closed because they weren't being paid (including the one closest to my house). With a tiered system, the facility could deal with the (in)ability of the patient to pay, how it would be paid and it would prevent non-payment. However, if people would stop shooting, stabbing, burning and driving over each other, a lot of emergency care wouldn't be needed. Drug overdoses are another big problem that have a very high cost.

The ACA has many problems but for the lowest income people, it's a big benefit. It did, however, count on a certain segment of the population to fund it and it imposed a tax on those who didn't join, which didn't work. Billionaires and millionaires don't need it, but that doesn't stop them from telling the Middle Class what we need.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Unless the US cost for drugs and the fees paid to insurance companies decrease, we don't have a chance of getting this thing in line.
Both the German model and Sander's model would do both. I'll use Sander's in this case.

1) Insurance companies (for most intents and purposes) go away. As long as you don't outsource the single-payer, profits are $0.
2) A single payer has an immense ability to negotiate best prices for everything but monopolies (such as patented drugs).
3) The plan offers options for the government should a patented drug owner be overly onerous.

So it addresses your issue. It also addresses abuse of the uninsured (ever look at billing rates compared to negotiated rates) and removes most administrative overhead.

There's also generally an improvement in safety (a for-profit company has motivation to contract for the cheapest, say, replacement hip; while a non-profit can prioritize other things)

I have also said, for a long time, that we should have emergency care, intermediate care and clinics for people to choose when they need health care, based on severity- too many people went to the ER for too long and hospitals closed because they weren't being paid (including the one closest to my house). With a tiered system, the facility could deal with the (in)ability of the patient to pay, how it would be paid and it would prevent non-payment.
Yea.

I still don't understand how staffing a second building with a second set of staff (an urgent care clinic) is cheaper than broadening an ER to deal with urgent-care issues as well (though obviously in less monitored and less machine-dependent rooms).

How do these clinics get paid? Does this do anything to stop the inability to afford needed medical care (say heart surgery or diabetes medications)?

However, if people would stop shooting, stabbing, burning and driving over each other, a lot of emergency care wouldn't be needed. Drug overdoses are another big problem that have a very high cost.
Lack of comprehensive healthcare means lack of treatment for the depression that can lead to drug overdoses.
Lack of comprehensive healthcare means lack of treatment chemical dependencies that can lead to drug overdoses.
For-profit medicine has encouraged drug use (to increase profits).
Lack of single-payer makes tracking over-prescription more difficult, leading to more drug overdoses.

The ACA has many problems but for the lowest income people, it's a big benefit. It did, however, count on a certain segment of the population to fund it and it imposed a tax on those who didn't join, which didn't work. Billionaires and millionaires don't need it, but that doesn't stop them from telling the Middle Class what we need.
Before it was gutted; it was a big benefit for all.

The rate of increase in healthcare costs slowed after the ACA.
By getting the uninsured into the insurance pool, the per-person costs of insurance go down.
For those previously uninsured who got sick, big boon.

Literally the only people hurt were the people lucky enough to not need medical care.

Contrary to your statement, it didn't impose a tax. The ACA was a republican program (came out of the Heritage foundation) and so didn't create a tax... just a requirement.

That said: I have taxes imposed on me to subsidize ethanol. I don't have a gas-powered car and didn't want to put ethanol in the gas powered car I did have. Why are socialist republicans forcing me to pay that?!?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Both the German model and Sander's model would do both. I'll use Sander's in this case.

1) Insurance companies (for most intents and purposes) go away. As long as you don't outsource the single-payer, profits are $0.
2) A single payer has an immense ability to negotiate best prices for everything but monopolies (such as patented drugs).
3) The plan offers options for the government should a patented drug owner be overly onerous.

So it addresses your issue. It also addresses abuse of the uninsured (ever look at billing rates compared to negotiated rates) and removes most administrative overhead.

There's also generally an improvement in safety (a for-profit company has motivation to contract for the cheapest, say, replacement hip; while a non-profit can prioritize other things)

Yea.

I still don't understand how staffing a second building with a second set of staff (an urgent care clinic) is cheaper than broadening an ER to deal with urgent-care issues as well (though obviously in less monitored and less machine-dependent rooms).

How do these clinics get paid? Does this do anything to stop the inability to afford needed medical care (say heart surgery or diabetes medications)?


Lack of comprehensive healthcare means lack of treatment for the depression that can lead to drug overdoses.
Lack of comprehensive healthcare means lack of treatment chemical dependencies that can lead to drug overdoses.
For-profit medicine has encouraged drug use (to increase profits).
Lack of single-payer makes tracking over-prescription more difficult, leading to more drug overdoses.


Before it was gutted; it was a big benefit for all.

The rate of increase in healthcare costs slowed after the ACA.
By getting the uninsured into the insurance pool, the per-person costs of insurance go down.
For those previously uninsured who got sick, big boon.

Literally the only people hurt were the people lucky enough to not need medical care.

Contrary to your statement, it didn't impose a tax. The ACA was a republican program (came out of the Heritage foundation) and so didn't create a tax... just a requirement.

That said: I have taxes imposed on me to subsidize ethanol. I don't have a gas-powered car and didn't want to put ethanol in the gas powered car I did have. Why are socialist republicans forcing me to pay that?!?
I won't address all of your points because I don't have the time.

The people who didn't buy insurance were fined by the IRS- they called it a penalty, but....

Lots of problems with the German/Sanders plan and it would have to take time to implement it. Where will all of those people work? Granted, the need for admin will skyrocket for the health care providers, but they won't be able to absorb the cost overnight. What will become of the real estate that insurance companies hoard? Will the government take it from them? That's a foot in the door that should never happen- where does it end?

You seem to be seeing all addicts as victims but the fact is, some people will do anything to be wasted, even those who came from wealthy homes.

WRT Ethanol- that should never have happened and it should end ASAP.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
I won't address all of your points because I don't have the time.
Doesn't that create a scenario where you get to make assertions without the need to support them?

Where will all of those people work?
I suppose you could take all of the money we are spending on heathcare administrative costs and spend it on biomedical research or infrastructure or increased actual care or cyber-security or increased social services.

I mean, if you are just really eager to keep spending your money supporting jobs; I'm sure I can come up with better ones than what's being done now.

Granted, the need for admin will skyrocket for the health care providers, but they won't be able to absorb the cost overnight.
Other way around. The admin costs will drop 80%

What will become of the real estate that insurance companies hoard? Will the government take it from them? That's a foot in the door that should never happen- where does it end?
It can be sold to the carriage and buggie-whip industry.

You seem to be seeing all addicts as victims but the fact is, some people will do anything to be wasted, even those who came from wealthy homes.
I'm acknowledging the reality that the programs I described are effective at reducing the drug overdoses you said you were worried about. I can provide statistical data proving my case.

So... what's your argument?

WRT Ethanol- that should never have happened and it should end ASAP.
Where will all of those people work?
What will become of the real estate that Ethanol companies hoard?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that you are arguing against getting rid of one area of huge financial waste because people will loose jobs; but all for getting rid of another area despite people losing jobs?
 
Out-Of-Phase

Out-Of-Phase

Audioholic General

America wants change and we will get there in November.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Doesn't that create a scenario where you get to make assertions without the need to support them?


I suppose you could take all of the money we are spending on heathcare administrative costs and spend it on biomedical research or infrastructure or increased actual care or cyber-security or increased social services.

I mean, if you are just really eager to keep spending your money supporting jobs; I'm sure I can come up with better ones than what's being done now.


Other way around. The admin costs will drop 80%


It can be sold to the carriage and buggie-whip industry.


I'm acknowledging the reality that the programs I described are effective at reducing the drug overdoses you said you were worried about. I can provide statistical data proving my case.

So... what's your argument?


Where will all of those people work?
What will become of the real estate that Ethanol companies hoard?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that you are arguing against getting rid of one area of huge financial waste because people will loose jobs; but all for getting rid of another area despite people losing jobs?
You like to argue for the sake of arguing. That's the reason people don't like to engage with you.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
You like to argue for the sake of arguing. That's the reason people don't like to engage with you.
I'm not sure whether to point out that your statement is conceded, rude, or an easy out for you to avoid defending your position.

Why are you concerned about job losses in healthcare administration but not concerned about job losses in Ethanol production?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I'm not sure whether to point out that your statement is conceded, rude, or an easy out for you to avoid defending your position.

Why are you concerned about job losses in healthcare administration but not concerned about job losses in Ethanol production?
For one, there are more jobs in insurance than in making ethanol. The thing I'm most concerned with is people who seem to think things can be flipped 180 degrees in a short time.

One area where Ethanol has been a boon is in fuel sales, engine/fuel system repair, which includes cars/trucks, boats and small engines.
 
MR.MAGOO

MR.MAGOO

Audioholic Field Marshall
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have" - Barry Goldwater
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
For one, there are more jobs in insurance than in making ethanol. The thing I'm most concerned with is people who seem to think things can be flipped 180 degrees in a short time.
Is there a threshold? How many jobs is "my god man: you can't stop taking my money and giving it to others, they will lose jobs" and how many jobs is "that's wasteful spending, kill those jobs"?

Agree that the idea is good and valid and the course to pursue and we can debate *how*. :)
One area where Ethanol has been a boon is in fuel sales, engine/fuel system repair, which includes cars/trucks, boats and small engines.
It's also made the price of food higher, to the benefit of farmers and detriment of people who eat food. It's raised taxes (tax subsidizes Ethanol production) and hurt the environment (any dubious benefit of E85 when burned in cars is more than offset in the emissions related to Ethanol production).

But this was the sort of Big Government that fed the GOP base; so the republicans, including the libertarians and tea party (remember back when a Dem was in charge and those guys were *really* concerned about deficits?) were on board.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have" - Barry Goldwater
The police have been able to do that for more than a century. I'm not sure how insuring healthcare will make things more hazardous.
 
Out-Of-Phase

Out-Of-Phase

Audioholic General
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have" - Barry Goldwater
"He notably opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

"Goldwater lost to President Lyndon Johnson by a landslide, pulling down the Republican Party which lost many seats in both houses of Congress."
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Is there a threshold? How many jobs is "my god man: you can't stop taking my money and giving it to others, they will lose jobs" and how many jobs is "that's wasteful spending, kill those jobs"?

Agree that the idea is good and valid and the course to pursue and we can debate *how*. :)

It's also made the price of food higher, to the benefit of farmers and detriment of people who eat food. It's raised taxes (tax subsidizes Ethanol production) and hurt the environment (any dubious benefit of E85 when burned in cars is more than offset in the emissions related to Ethanol production).

But this was the sort of Big Government that fed the GOP base; so the republicans, including the libertarians and tea party (remember back when a Dem was in charge and those guys were *really* concerned about deficits?) were on board.
Yeah, and no Democrats have ever been paid off to allow someone to do something that should never have occurred. Keep telling yourself this.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Yeah, and no Democrats have ever been paid off to allow someone to do something that should never have occurred. Keep telling yourself this.
This seems a bit out of left field. What is the "yeah" referring to?
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
It will snow change my audiophile friend. Get ready for democracy.
I won't be holding my breath, so far Bernie seems to be leading. Did you see him bumble and stumble his way through '60 Minutes' last nite ?
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top